Now maybe there is a middle ground between excessive wealth imbalance and equal but poor for everyone. One thing you don't want to do is cripple economic output by disentivizing people. You also don't want to the government to play the role of the market. That's been tried, and it doesn't work well. — Marchesk

I agree. I'm not sure why the question is being framed as total wealth redistribution versus no wealth redistribution, rather than how much.
If the government were to pursue all wealth, which seems unlikely considering how many of the wealthy are in government, it would remove any incentive for innovation or hard work. Taking a portion could alleviate many ills of society while still allowing for entrepreneurship to be adequately compensated.

You just don't have good understanding of God's word, that's all. Your conclusions about God's character are flawed. — Henri

Define the god you're talking about.

As far as I have seen what you've written here, you seem more like a person who believes that God exists but doesn't like Him, than that you don't believe that God exists. — Henri

If his position is like mine, one can dislike particular theistic conceptions while simultaneously not believing in any generally.

I understand this, but my point is that society decided that concentrations of power were bad for the market/society so we restricted this, at least somewhat. Could the same argument be used for restricting individual wealth?

This is really an instance where those on opposing sides are going to perpetually talk past each other. Sap thinks the rules of the game are not fair and should be changed, and so uses examples within the game being played as evidence. The other side sees this as an inevitable outcome of the game being played well; an unfortunate(if you're in the majority) outcome of an overall beneficial system.
Is there a bridge for this gap? Where's the common ground?

We have anti-trust laws to ensure that wealth and power aren't too concentrated within specific corporations. Could the same kind of laws be created for individual wealth and power? Would that be opposed to Enlightenment values?

I did, by replying to various posts on this thread. — Henri

Asserting the same conclusion with no arguments or evidence to support it is not an example.

Your argument is essentially this:

We cannot know with absolute certainty that a god doesn't exist.
Atheists claim with certainty that a god doesn't exist.
Therefore, atheists are mistaken.

Once again, this problem only exists because you're shifting the burden of proof. The word 'doesn't' should be a clue. This argument could be used for any absurd premises.

We cannot know with absolute certainty that Santa Claus isn't real.
People claim Santa Claus isn't real.
Therefore, people are mistaken.

That's true, I didn't give examples in OP. — Henri

Maybe you could remedy that?

If satan spoke to you supernaturally, then you have been told a lie. — Henri

No, he told me the truth.

God didn't create the universe. Satan did. That's why there is so much suffering. Satan then wrote the Bible to confuse people and make them think they were chosen by God, when in fact they were chosen by Satan. Every few hundred years Satan creates a new religion purporting to be the truth of the one true God to keep the confusion going. This is obvious in the world. How do I know this? Satan has spoken to me supernaturally. I wouldn't dare try to convince you of it. You wouldn't believe me if I did. That and I don't need to. The burden of proof isn't on me, you see.

On the other hand, no evidence is not reasonable argument for those who favor non-existence of God. — Henri

:-O
If no evidence is provided to prove the existence of something, then no evidence is needed to disprove the same thing. As tim wood dishonestly said before.

This post, and the thread's OP exemplifies what I understand to be low quality posting. — Akanthinos

I'm starting to wonder if this is a troll post.

Nothing you wrote on this thread provided any reasonable argument for atheism. Maybe you can go back to the OP and provide an argument for atheism, not voice your opinions about God of the Bible. — Henri

You didn't make an argument in the OP. The burden of proof is on you, not the other way around.

Of course. The Bible is so simple a child could understand it and then so complex it confounds the wisest men. It should be taken literally only until that literal interpretation becomes out of date scientifically or is found to contradict another passage. Then good 'ol faith fills in any gaps. How does one acquire faith? Well it's a gift of god lest any man should boast. What if you don't have faith, even after reading the scriptures? Well, the potter has done with his clay as he pleases. God does love you though. Despite knowing the majority of his beloved children will spend eternity in torment. It's a special kind of love.

"Evil objection" is an offhand objection against presumed character of God, not an argument against existence of God. — Henri

If the objection is an accurate one based on the character of a specific god as portrayed via its followers and its "holy texts", then it is not offhand. It at least shows that this specific god is either evil and a liar or at most doesn't exist at all.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider a legitimate argument against the existence of god?

Well, when someone denies natural rights, thus denying the inherent right to one's own life, I think people are justified in being bothered by that kind of post modernist malarkey. — Buxtebuddha

Denying someone a gun is not denying them a right to life. Denying people access to all guns is not necessarily my position anyway, but neither Thorongil nor PO-MO were interested in discussing self-defense or bearing arms in a nuanced sense.

Could you please make clear what you mean by "established right"? By "established" do you mean "unalienable"? There are very few absolute rights that Americans have - arguably three and no more.. — tim wood

I mean it has been established by the courts that it is a right. I do not think it is unalienable.

The social system has no volition, — charleton

A falling rock doesn't have volition either, but it can certainly act upon you by crushing in your skull.

He is pressing home a view that suggests the the Social System is a causative agent, when in fact it is the sum of all social action from those that comprise it. — charleton

Because of things like memory, writing, and the development of new systems within the larger social system(e.g., political parties), the greater social system has inertia and in this way expresses a will of its own. The cells in my eyes move with my body despite them having nothing to do with propelling my legs.

I think the endowment effect is a large part of why people are reluctant to give up their guns.

Oh look, another rare incident.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-norcal-elementary-school-shooting-20171114-story.html

Your subjective feelings are irrelevant. The question is: is owning a gun for one's personal protection a right? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If this thread is only intended to discuss what is, then it's clear the answer is yes in some countries and no in others. The US courts have upheld that it is an individual right despite the possibility that the original intent was for that right to be contingent upon being part of a well-regulated militia.

I thought we had already established this and we were discussing whether it should be a right or how large the scope of "bear arms" really is or should be.

Benkei's experience of being reprimanded for complimenting Ms. Dutch on her dress illustrates where these finicky rules about behavior end up. — Bitter Crank

I would argue that is too prudish even for me. There's nothing inherently sexual about complimenting someone unless you are speaking about specific parts of their body. That or saying "nice dress" as creepily as possible. Who knows, maybe Benkei is a creep? ;)

I actually think that a smaller guerrilla force with less powerful weaponry can hold its own and even defeat stronger militaries, for the outcome of a war has as much if not more to do with the morale on either side as it does with advanced firepower. The U.S. has learned this the hard way in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. — Thorongil

Whether it would be minimally useful or not doesn't matter. Using your syllogism I could justify having one. What I'm trying to figure out is where you draw the line. Do you think owning a functional tank is something citizens should be able to do? What about fully-automatic weapons? Grenades?

Then you need to look up the statistics. There are conservatively tens of thousands more defensive gun uses each year than homicides due to guns. They clearly serve their intended purpose the majority of the time. — Thorongil

If you have any links on hand I'd be interested. However it makes me wonder how they gather this info, and even if every single one was reported accurately, how many of these situations could have been resolved without? How do people in the UK resolve their problems? How bout in Australia?

You asked if the people being shot all of the time are not part of the oppressed and vulnerable. I pointed out that it is the police--the ones those aforementioned liberals/progressives are fine with possessing guns while they say that the rest of us have no business possessing guns--who are shooting those unarmed, vulnerable, oppressed people. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No, I actually said, "Groups of people", referring to mass shootings. The government gets to have and do a lot of things your average citizen doesn't. Police and military having weapons while others do not is not frightening to me. The military has Tomahawk missiles, but I'm not bummed I can't have one. Also, police brutality is a separate topic.

"Yet the current rate of firearm violence is still far lower than in 1993, when the rate was 6.21 such deaths per 100,000 people, compared with 3.4 in 2016." — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Do we need to be at an all time high to call for changes to regulations? Just because things were once worse doesn't mean they couldn't be better than they are currently.

The idea that installing these "politically correct" barriers will do anything but enact hypocrisy is wishful thinking. — Agustino

I don't think enacting rules in spite of yourself is necessarily hypocritical. People are capable of comporting themselves differently based on their environment. People can generally govern their speech while at church or in court. I don't see why a boardroom couldn't be the same.

How is this conversation still going? How many hundreds of years were comments like these, directed at women, commonplace but also less lighthearted in nature? A way for men to steer the conversation towards the sexual all while under the guise that it's either a joke or a compliment.
Now we're at a time where sexual harassment is being taken more seriously and legal departments have come to realize that a zero tolerance policy is the only way for a business to safely govern itself because of the aforementioned nuances and multiple interpretations.

Is this a great loss to society? Should we mourn the loss of crude sexual jokes at work? Would any of you even make the same jokes in a boardroom setting? Call me a prude, but I wouldn't feel comfortable commenting on a female coworkers body.

If this is a great loss for some of you and you're looking for a utopia of unrestricted language, I would recommend you get a job in construction.

You could, but owning a tank is an impractical means of self-defense. — Thorongil

It would practical against a tyrannical government or an invading force. Obviously I'm not seriously in support of this, but the argument holds.
My point is that there should be limitations at the very least. I agree that a gun is a legitimate means of self defense and in the US is an established right, but it's not clear to me that it is necessary or is serving the intended purpose the majority of the time.

We all have the right to abstain from eating cheese, but it doesn't mean our lives would be better for it.

It is the police who are shooting those people a lot of the time.
It is those police shootings--and police brutality without guns like in the case of Eric Garner ("I can't breathe!")--that the protests and media scrutiny have been about.

Yet, we have liberals/progressives saying that the police and military should have guns and that the rest of us have no right to possess guns. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I was going to look up police shooting statistics over the last (insert number) years, but the data available is crap. Somehow despite all the protests of the last year or two, we still haven't managed to hold police departments more accountable to on-duty shootings/killings.
That being said, even if the numbers have increased, armed citizens are certainly not the answer. There are almost zero instances of an armed citizen defending himself with force against abusive law enforcement. At least none that I'm aware of. And if they did they're likely dead now. The way our justice system works is the police abuse you, and if you survive, you then try to pursue them in court for an early retirement.

The rate of gun related deaths in the U.S. is down from 20 years ago. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Admittedly I didn't search forever, but I couldn't find info on the last 20 years. I did find info from 1999-2015 here. From what I can tell it has been pretty consistent.

I would like to clarify that I personally don't think the US is going to be rid of guns altogether anytime soon. I do think it would be nice to wave a magic wand and have it be so, but legislation that would do as much is just not practical. I am in support of some more restrictions on what guns are legal though. Bump stocks serve almost no purpose as a means of self defense. They diminish you're ability to fire at specific targets accurately. The only purposes they serve are for recreational fun and what we saw in LV. We decided long ago that fully automatic weapons should not be legal because of the hazard they pose to society, and I think now is a decent time to recognize that high-capacity semi-automatic rifles fall into the same category. Make people get a Federal Firearms License, or go through the same process as purchasing an NFA weapon.

The U.S. could get along without cheese. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I would have to leave the US in this case.

I have the natural right to defend my life and property.
I have the right to own the proper means of defending my life and property.
Firearms are one proper means of defending my life and property.
Therefore, I have a right to own firearms. — Thorongil

I'm not fond of extreme examples, but using your same syllogism I could find justification for owning an M1 Abrams.

Meanwhile, the people who are supposedly champions of the oppressed and vulnerable — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Groups of people that are being shot up with a fair amount of regularity should count as vulnerable peoples don't you think? As for the increasing intensity, every new shooting acts as an exclamation point to their original call for gun control. Even the slaughter of twenty elementary school children didn't move the needle. Indifference can be maddening.

There are probably a few delusional people out there who think we could just ban guns altogether next week, but I'd guess those people are in the minority. Most probably understand that it is incremental changes over time that will get them to their destination. That's why the NRA fights every little change because they know it too.
I think a lot on the left will let themselves drift into wishful talk from time to time, envisioning an America that looks more like Europe with regard to guns and a few other things. Or if asked if they would be okay with a gun free America they answer honestly. You can't blame them for that. Guns contributed to 33,000 deaths last year alone. Yes some of those would have still ended up being suicides, and some of that number that were mass-murderer related might have been perpetrated by a different means, but it's not far fetched to think that number would be significantly smaller.

The US could get along without guns. Other countries already do. Plus, this fervor for and fetishisation of guns by the right is fairly recent, despite what the NRA would have you think. This article goes into the history at length.

This right to arms is enshrined in our Constitution, but unintended consequences are a hallmark of the best made plans. I see no reason why we can't reevaluate the rules we made/make for ourselves if the consequences become too great. Do you think the great thinkers of the enlightenment would frown upon us reconsidering vague and archaic documents put in place by men of yore? The Bill of Rights is America's holy book, but it should not be seen as eternal and infallible.

I think when it comes to comments sexual in nature, harassment is in the eye of the beholder. I agree with the gist of the article, but I think it's unrealistic that everyone would understand the nuance between jokes involving sexual content and sexual harassment. And as Andrewk mentioned, in these instances it's not just between two people, it's a whole room of people leaving open a whole room of interpretation.

This sort of nuance is probably better discussed between friends outside of a professional workspace.

It's worth noting that the situation my friend was fired for was male to male joking, so you really never know.

When it comes to one's workplace, unless you know your audience incredibly well, it would seem prudent to abstain from sexual comments directed at any particular coworker. Or maybe all sexual comments, directed or not. The thickness of someone's skin is not evident by their actual skin. You never know what history someone is bringing along with them. Even if you do know someone very well and they consent to such joking, there might come a time where the friendship sours and now your coworker has an arsenal of inappropriate comments with which to bury you. A friend of mine was fired for such a thing because his coworker wanted to climb the ladder quicker.

As much as I hate blanket rules that restrict all degrees of a particular behavior, it would be a nightmare for HR departments to decide where the line is when it comes sexual joking/sexual harassment.

Perhaps you've listened to this before or read about the professor's work, but it turns out the gender pay gap isn't what its claimed to be: http://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-true-story-of-the-gender-pay-gap-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

So it isn't guns per se, but gun culture that is problematic.
But I'm afraid we can never extirpate gun culture without banning guns. Guns are fetish objects for the weak-minded, who see them as the only way to grasp male power that they can't get by any other means. So I'm for banning them. — Landru Guide Us

I agree for the most part. I don't think they're always fetish objects. Guns are a great equalizer for those of diminutive stature. However, they become a great un-equalizer when someone grabs an AK-47 and starts shooting up a public space.
It becomes a trade off. Do we think that the protection of people in private or public settings is more necessary/more important?I think it should probably be the latter.

Keeping a sword or machete at one's bedside would probably be an effective and possibly safer alternative if one felt the need for home protection. Banning guns outright is likely an impossibility at the moment. That's why I support incremental changes to the law to make it more and more inconvenient to obtain them. This would at the very least deter spur of the moment homicidal maniacs.

People will of course say that if you ban guns, only criminals will have them. That would be true for a time. However, I think the long-term benefits would outweigh the risks.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio — ArguingWAristotleTiff

He is probably one of the craziest and most divisive people in this country's leadership at the moment. It's no wonder he thinks more guns are the answer. He's appealing to people's fears, especially their xenophobia.

another rightwing trope — Landru Guide Us

I'm not so sure it's as much a right wing trope as it is an error all people tend to make with statistics.

I don't disagree with you entirely. I think at the very least the US needs to start making it more difficult for people to own them; e.g., permit courses, long hold periods, psychological tests, etc.. Unfortunately the NRA fights every little battle as if it's the whole war, which effectively stalls most reasonable gun legislation. In a way I suppose it is the whole war since it's incremental changes that are going to eventually change the culture.

I do sympathize with people who use a gun(s) for home protection. Especially those who live in less urbanized areas where wait times for police would be unreasonably high. I personally have a handgun in my home that I would be glad to have if my front door was kicked by the Manson family or would-be burglars at 4 in the morning.
Is that likely to happen? Burglars, maybe; Manson family, extremely unlikely. It doesn't take much perceived risk for people to want to hedge their bets though.

Ah the absurdity of a mind on gun culture. — Landru Guide Us

There is a particular community that exudes the characteristics that you are mocking, Landru. However, the majority of gun owners(in my experience) don't fall into that category. The reason people here calling you a troll is because you either don't see or pretend not to see this issue on a spectrum. It is not so perfectly black and white as you portray it.

I see our task on forums like this as primarily one of edifying ourselves and each other rather than pushing forward the boundaries of knowledge. — Baden

The boundaries of knowledge are different for each person and a place like this or places like it could potentially encompass the entire spectrum. There's certainly no ceiling on the quality of philosophical discussion that goes on here so I don't see why the internet couldn't be a place for serious philosophical debate.
I don't think Brassier made the case for why he thinks the internet isn't an 'appropriate medium'.
I would think the internet could possibly be the most appropriate medium since the discussion is available to everyone and could capture every point of view, rather than an insular campus community.
If he truly thinks the goal of philosophy is to impede stupidity, isn't the internet the greatest potential tool?

Insecurity and prudence go hand in hand.

Bitter Crank posted this:
Outrages like the mob murder of a Moslem in India for allegedly eating meat from a sacred cow shouldn't be swept under the cultural relativity rug. India should investigate and punish the mob. There are religious outrages in America instigated by fundamentalists that shouldn't be tolerated either -- like teaching creationism in schools (secular or religious schools).

And Wayfarer responded saying he shouldn't equate the two.

This was your original comment that directly followed that.

As long as certain versions of creationism willfully distort established scientific facts, then it might be seen as the duty of a state to protect its citizens from fraud, the same way it ought to do it for products, such as power balance bracelets, which make fraudulent claims. — Πετροκότσυφας

Here's where you broke it down in your second to last comment.

I'm talking about deliberate attempts to present creationism as a theory accepted by scientific consensus. — Πετροκότσυφας

There is clearly no scientific consensus on the side of creationism so why are you going on about this? Even if someone did deliberately present it as such, who cares? You want to legislate lying? When it comes to ideas or products that can harm people, such laws already exist. For things as benign as what you're talking about I really don't see a need for the government to get involved. Let them live or die in the arena of ideas. They're already dying anyway.

*Edit*
Should probably start a new thread if you want to keep going. I'm guessing you don't though.

To be more on topic, now seems like a great time for the world's military powers to unite against a common enemy.
The US certainly has an interest. Russia lost over 200 in the airliner attack. France has now been attacked on home soil(twice). Japan has had journalists executed. the UK has had journalists/aid workers executed. Almost every country or people in the vicinity have been negatively effected by ISIS.

They're making an already complicated situation in Syria even more complicated, which is causing the refugee crisis to become even worse.
It would seem that the only reason Assad is being supported by Russia is because Russia wants to retain its leased naval base in Tartus. So why doesn't the US make a deal with Russia and the FSA to ensure they'll get to lease it for another decade so long as they help rid the world of ISIS?

This also might be the time for the Kurdish people to carve out a state for themselves if and when ISIS falls. If they do most of the suffering and fighting for this territory that the Iraq government can't keep and Turkey doesn't seem to care for I don't see why not.

Again, you're saying the the establishment gets to set the rules about what is fact and what is not. Anyone who says different should be criminalized? That is censorship of free speech. Ideas should stand or fall by their own merits. A great way to perpetuate non-scientific baloney is if you have a governing power making rules about what can and cannot be believed, e.g., the Roman Catholic Church, North Korea.

We live in a time where almost anyone has access to the greatest library ever conceived. If the argument for creationism is founded on lies about it's acceptance in the scientific community, it's quite easy for the deceived to find out.
My point is that someone who teaches creationism should not be classified in the same category as someone who murders another for eating 'holy' meat.

You can make as many arguments for creationism as you want. Full stop. I wouldn't like a government deciding what I can and cannot say.
In the US, one of the most important values espoused by the government is the freedom of speech.

If you're talking about it being taught in schools as god's truth, then I agree. But if you're saying that no one should be able to teach creationism in any setting then I do not.