Bye! At least I got an answer to my question. — Pieter R van Wyk

Oh, don't mind him. He's just a bit miffed his series of YouTube video lectures on philosophy didn't quite take off as he may have wished or expected. :wink:

Are you really that nice old man in your profile picture? What a fascinating life you must have lived. I do wish you'd share more, perhaps in the Lounge or Shoutbox? It's fine if not. Time is no commodity, for any of us, really. :confused:

Your move

I don’t know what that means. — Fire Ologist

Neither did I at first. Apparently, if we were one of the cool kids like him, we'd know it stands for: "quod vide" roughly translating to "which see." Which generally makes little to no sense but it is a pseudo-intellectual meme that basically means "look again" or basically "I already answered your question, you mindless, unwashed pleb, stop bothering me." :lol:

You can damage someone’s ear if you yell too loudly. That’s about the only way to injure someone with speech. — NOS4A2

But you can lie and say I turned off Electrical Grid B to an electrician, perhaps in theory even just walking by without being employed by the company, and an electrician goes to work on it and gets killed. That's illegal. Or, you can stand by a bridge you know is dilapidated and cover leaves over it and if a person asks if it's safe, you can say "Sure", and they are also killed. That's quasi-legal, simply because no one can prove you did anything. So, no, this idea that speech cannot lead to real human death, possibly mass causality has already been legally codified. That ship has sailed, mate. So, that realization hitting you (or anyone who was ignorant of such) aside. What are you truly hoping to proliferate?

Dude. You might want to be more precise and express in the points you are trying to make. — Fire Ologist

He's saying (or rather asking) what one who is adamant about hate speech laws (and I suppose general profanity including resulting profanity laws, which do exist in many American municipalities) really wants to prevent, and if that includes "dehumanizing words" that have a tendency to inflict emotional discomfort or safety concerns toward the individual. Which on paper, should be silly. Yet apparently, is not...

It's not hard to imagine being the only black guy in a room of strangers where everyone seems to be playing some sort of "game" with you or is otherwise just messing with you, not even for fun but with a deadpan expression. You don't know what that means. You don't know what's going on in their head. But I'll bet you you'd always have your eye on the nearest exit if so. In some contexts, speech is used as a form of intimidation. A very effective one at that.

Weak people need to constantly feed on those weaker than them to maintain a sense of identity, to feed their constantly fleeting delusion of control over this world and thus their own life. And if you're a minority, or shorter or smaller, at least in a given situation or context, you're the obligatory victim. They would literally lose their mind, without such. They wouldn't be caught dead on a level playing field. They will avoid such at any and all cost all while ignoring how blatantly shameful and cowardly their actions are, their brains are so pickled by their own ego, mired in inhumanity, it simply doesn't register. These so-called "people", are no longer people, but a disease; a blight on our society that must be removed at all cost if humanity is to survive. The first step is controlling their reproduction. But.. a coward is ultimately a liar. And without free speech, they would be silent, blending in, trying to appear like the rest of us sane, actual human beings. This would complicate efforts toward their eradication exponentially. Therefore, free speech must remain. Gentleman, to a better future for all..

It's a phrase I find unusable, and I don't like "hate-speech laws" and "hate crimes" either. Their meanings are far too vague, which makes them useful for suppression of speech that someone doesn't like. — BC

It's meaning is very simple and astoundingly clear. It means, of all the real hardship and suffering, true injustice in this world a man can and rightfully should get upset at to the point of action, you were too stupid but to do anything but worry about a trait or quality a man was born with or otherwise has no control over. You don't hate stupid people? I do. But good for you, if you're either that mellow or otherwise ignorant. It's a form of legal eugenics, which I support. If only it was enacted in time.

Not to say it hasn't morphed into something self-defeating. A moral white man coming across an immoral black man committing (or about to commit) a crime against another black man or woman and so the white man decides simply to walk on and not intervene out of fear of an unjust ruling. Who knows. Perhaps that was the very intention. Who could say.

Yeah, well. That may be so. But. Pride comes before the fall. Thinking you know how to win before even playing. 'Outta here with that jive. :razz:



Your move

I think if you imagine a marble. It is the image of the idea of a marble. — Jack2848

But is it not so much more complex than this? Why is a marble a marble and a pebble a pebble? Or for that matter, a stone a stone, and a ball of dough a ball of dough. They're all similar, aren't they?

A child who knows nothing of science or even that the described objects do in fact vary in edibility can determine such. They do this from accessing or utilizing the grand network of sensory interpretation. A blind child might not see the difference between the objects, until they touch said objects. Tangentially, a child deprived of ability to experience taste would not notice said elemental difference between such.

What is a marble, really? A small, round, typically glassy object created for sport or entertainment. That's great. But what defines that, truly? Can we not compare certain types of people using similar definitions? We attribute meaning to words and words to meaning, and through this action, man becomes like a god. A false god, of course. But a god nonetheless.

I abhor all censorship — NOS4A2

Why is that? How did this first start? No cliched talking points of "freedom" and "right and wrong" and "tyrants" you've never seen or even been affected by before in your life. Honestly. Real talk. Abhor is a strong word. It's used casually by many people just to exaggerate. What makes you so adamant in your view? What happened? Or, I suppose, what didn't happen? Are you just, trying to fit in? No, surely not. You must have your own story and truly organically defined belief. So. Let's hear it. Floors all yours mate. :smile:

Abuse of hate speech law is a real possibility. No easy general solution. — jorndoe

Great post. Like always. Shoutbox needs more news BTW.

Also, I feel there's an underrepresented if not flat out ignored dynamic of people who are simply inflammatory for inflammation's sake. What I mean by that, and let me give you a little example. A dried out dog turd on a sidewalk can make people frown. But to make someone smile, that takes skill. It's hard. And most people don't have that skill or desire to put in that effort. Shock is easy. It's cheap. Therefore, it along with those who purvey such cheapness as value should be considered socially lower ranking than those who try to bring light and joy into the life of an average person.

My larger suggestion or theory is, these people don't believe in anything other than ego. They, despite claiming otherwise, are actually apolitical. They're simply there for one reason and one reason only. Money. Fame. Power. Etcetera. It's why people use curse words. Or act out. No one paid attention to them otherwise, so they force us, they in affect hold society, and the future of children, mind you, hostage, because they want attention. It's time to stamp out these people once and for all, in my opinion.

What I mean by that last sentiment is, these people, or at least some people, they don't really have a point. Not really. Not one that can be expressed without sensationalism, vulgarity, exhibition, and the like. Not one that people would care for or give the time of day for without. Life is hard. It is full of cruelty and suffering. Therefore, people who are rude or callous must be "real" or "more trustworthy: than those who try to maintain a sense of human dignity. It's a common effect. More people are having kids now, which means the average voter and human person is generally more ignorant, naive, and above all susceptible and malleable than ever before. This is a fact of human history. And people, bad, naive, misguided, and everything in between are taking full advantage of this fact with full knowledge of such.

It's like the late conservative philosopher Roger Scruton said himself: "What is shocking the first time, becomes boring and vacuous when repeated. Therefore, when we as a society value that which is cheap and shocking, we end up in a continual downward spiral of such, continually trying to "outdo" one another with filth and obscenity until that society is robbed of any and all recognizable morals, values, or virtues."

(Alright, Most of that is paraphrased, but I know if he was alive he'd agree spot on! Cheers. And here, here.)

Check.

Your move

Are you saying everyone needs to own a microphone and have a TV show? — Fire Ologist

I mean, shoot. You basically need a phone to have a job, to basically even exist these days. $0 down for the latest iPhone, last I checked. Just pop open your Camera, start talking about whatever, and put it on YouTube or TikTok. Before you know it, you're an "influencer." You are the TV show.

There are many people who are highly influential in shaping minds young and old alike who have never appeared on a syndicated cable television network.

To the point, everyone already does have these things. Just not quite the same audience, of course.

The left won’t look directly at the world they have created. — Fire Ologist

People have been offending and taking offense since even before the beginning of language. Let alone any form of government or political aversions. They have also been killing just as long.

Are you suggesting the assassin of Charlie Kirk didn't even really understand let alone believe his own opinions and was simply pseudo or "de-facto" brainwashed by groupthink and mob mentality? I.E. A sort of "all my friends think this so I do too" kind of mindset that absorbed any other sort of free will or opinion?

Personally, I'd prefer it if my life wasn't being used by someone or something else as pawn in whatever game they're playing. I decide for myself what to do with my time here. — Michael

A captain without a compass then. Going wherever the wind takes him. One would at least hope the fates are kind. Lest one crash into rocks. No?

In fact, dating as far back as 200,000 years ago, one discovery that researchers have found is that, compassion and helpfulness have been around since the cave man era. There were evidence that members of a tribe had carried their wounded members to safety, not left them to die out in the field. — L'éléphant

Any data on the cannibalism rates back then or not so much? Hey, never let good meat go to waste am I right. :monkey:

Seeing stuff as either objective or subjective might be the source of the problem. — Banno

But people look at it, or shall I say, frame it as larger than even that.

It's about "permanent" and "impermanent". What people consider or also frame as (whether incorrect or not) "fact" vs. "opinion."

Where the phrase "cut the fat from the meat" comes from. People want to validate and vindicate their life and life choices and know they didn't utterly and foolishly waste their time making stupid decisions and falling for mirage-like illusions just because everyone around them, perhaps even the world, did as well.

Water boils at 100 degrees and freezes at 0. That's something we can rely on as a bedrock of reality. Or can we? Most would agree it's better than nothing. Compare that to someone in their older years with a partner they discovered they never really knew and in fact outright despite thinking "if only I would have listened to that nice guy I met at work who was shy but liked me who I looked up and is now is a millionaire (or not even that, perhaps he's relatively poor but lives a happy life with children)". Realizing what poor impulsive decisions we all make when young. There has to be something, whether not a 1 or 0, an absolute, but something that is wiser and something that is foolish as far as choices we can make in our everyday lives. And it does, at least in some methodologies of thinking, boil down to such binary forms of classification.

Your move

I've given a few extended and considered replies, referencing various external sources and pointing to various arguments., — Banno

And how! Marvelously done, if I might say so. Surely one can lead a horse to water. That's my point.

See how your reply is about me? — Banno

Well, let's be honest. You do tend to steal the show at times. :smile:

My mere suggestion was in regards to your concern that this website has changed from how it first was when you first began posting. You seemed to have expressed a sentiment, perhaps even a longing or sense of nostalgia of how things have changed. I merely reinforced your legitimate view that it might be negative by saying, yes, perhaps logic and "common sense" has fallen out of favor. Don't you agree with this possibility? At least, it's viability? Somewhat?

...much the sort of thing about which I complained...

Oh well. — Banno

I'm not saying your wrong or that people who have. as you said. seemed to have found the views you find truthful or relevant to have fallen out of favor. I'm saying, that's an organic process. No, and it could be horrible. Absolutely. A harbinger of a great ignorance sweeping over us all like an English fog.

But the idea that people need to be pointed out and shamed by titles, just needed a bit more explanation in my eyes. If that's fair.

My main point was, why don't you start and persist or rather insist in starting and maintaining these arguments? You're clearly able to. Just seemed like a silly quip of juvenile frustration, quite unusual from a mind like yours.

There was a time not long ago when such discussions might occur in this forum. The partisan and the parochial have changed that. — Banno

Did they physically raid one another's home and slaughter them Biblically? Have they forced you into cowardice? If none of these things are true, you complain over nothing. Can't you see that?

Hey buddy, he's mine. Back off!

Or start another game. He clearly knows his way around a chessboard. Can easily play (and beat) us both simultaneously.

Your move

None of that is true. — Moliere

Says the boy who tosses a snowball off a winter-kissed hill overlooking a remote village that is warned: "You shouldn't do that. It could cause an avalanche."

Also, to be technical. The last sentence is completely true. I would in fact relocate if I were him. Just to see what else is around, if nothing else. You're smart, but not very thorough.

Anybody else notice that Charlie Kirk's face was too small for his head? — frank

This is a genocidal statement that would result in systemic discrimination, incarceration, enslavement, and eventual killing off of all those with relatively small face-to-head ratios. You are the next Hitler and must be stopped. Nothing short of your immediate arrest will suffice. I would relocate somewhere else if I were you.

Also, what are you trying to do? Get us all cancelled and have Jamal named #1 international fugitive by INTERPOL? Have some tact, mate.

This is probably the sorriest thread I ever started here. — RogueAI

Here's to many more. :grin:

(also, you can request a Mod to move it to the Lounge, if you'd like. I mean, the article literally does mention aliens in the link so, your beguilement does not rest solely on your shoulders alone FWIW...)

I define thinking as a process in which we work on known ideas with the aim of creating a new idea. — MoK

Finally, the (metaphorical) tender and ignorant flesh is exposed. Now it can be graded properly. Ah, except I note one flaw. And I'm no professional by any means. There is no "we" in this abstract concept. A man can be born alone in the world and he will still think. But perhaps this is a simple habit of speech, a human flaw, like we all have to be ignored, so I shall. Just to give you the benefit of the doubt. :smile:

But! Ah, yes, there's a but. Even still. One cannot "know an idea" without the auspices and foreprocesses of thought itself. So, this is defining a concept without explaining its forebearer. Your so called "thinking" is created by the process of involvement with "known ideas". yet how can an idea exist and be known unless thought of? This results to yet another non-answer.

We would have evolution going in reverse, if one were to believe your so called findings and beliefs. This is a problem. You must find a solution.

They don't know what thinking is, so they cannot design an AI that simulates thinking. — MoK

So, what is thinking? You've, from what I've seen, yet to delineate a clear and concise formula (and resulting definition) for such.

Are you saying that thinking is pattern recognition? I don't think so. — MoK

Well, I mean, take the following sentence.

Ahaj scenap conopul seretif seyesen

I thought very hard to make that sentence. But, without it hitting the pattern recognition part of your brain that realizes "wait a minute that's gibberish" versus this sentence you're reading now. I mean, come on. Let's be honest. The onus is now on you to explain your claims properly. Something that at least two or more intelligent people participating in this thread feel you've so far been unable to do.

Love your avatar BTW. Reminds me of my mood most of time sober.

I like to think of it as anti-baby speech.

It's when you attack something a person was born as/under/or subject to without any effort or doing of their own. Something they have no control over. It's something weak people do. I.E. a "dick move." I suppose that's not entirely accurate since a person can become handicapped later in life or of course become elderly, and "hate" speech against handicapped people or the elderly (though patently silly) could in theory result in violence or discrimination against them resulting in their revolt and contribution to the start of a war (though, I suppose in those two particular cases the latter is fairly unlikely, but that's not the point).

I like the earlier post of the amygdala "fear response". It makes people feel unsafe knowing there's nothing they can do or change about their behavior or demeanor. Going back to the baby thing, it's like someone was just born "wrong" and should have been killed as a baby. Which is generally not what sane people believe.

Not a fan of the whole grouping of people who choose to become the opposite gender because of non-medical self-diagnosis being on par with say, black people who have been historically persecuted for being born with the color of their skin and for no other reason. Just seems kind of offensive to compare apples and oranges when it comes to human life, dignity, and well-being. But whatever.

I suppose religion is interesting because people can choose to believe or not believe anything they want. Otherwise they're legally and medically retarded or at least not a legal, functioning adult (I.E. is a child). So, in my opinion, it's not the same as persecuting someone who chooses to follow Mayor McCheese as Lord and Savior versus someone born with a different skin color than you through no action, desire, or will of their own. See the difference. One is a choice, one is not. I just can't find the two comparable legally, and yet they are so. Again, it's probably to prevent wars and group or gang violence, I guess. Something like that. The people in charge know what they're doing so just live your life. You don't really have many other options.

In my opinion some of the worst hate speech is used everyday without the average person batting an eye. "Size-ism". Calling somebody "little" (often prefixed with a strong secondary insult) just because they were born smaller than they were. That's discrimination. Miserable cowardly people (who know deep down the world would be a better place without them) cannot refuse an opportunity to attack, belittle, or demean a person smaller than them when it's easy. They cannot cope with modern society where everyone is equal, their size they based their entire identity on that used to mean everything as a child, getting them their every want and desire, now meaning nothing and getting them nothing, without spreading misery wherever they step. Cowardice laws should fix that right up. These arrogant, brainless giants need go the way of dinosaurs and experience the Great Flood in Genesis (but a non-literal legal, social version) if humanity is ever going to live in peace and prosper.

The hopes and dreams of the anti-Trump brigade lied with the corrupt because their hopes and dreams were corrupt. — NOS4A2

So basically, "I'm right, anyone who doesn't agree with me is wrong." This is cognitive dissonance. A metaphorical demon of sorts. The brain will believe anything it's told from an early age. Why do you love your mother and your father more than a random woman or man off the street you've never seen before? Surely, they're fine people deserving of love, too.

Ah, the path to truth is not for most. I doubt it is for you. You remain useful and serve a purpose. But, the path is there. If you have the will for it. Be warned however, it is not for the faint of heart. Many men die an agonizing death attempting to pursue it.

Perhaps, it could also be said, AI simply does not deviate. It simply refuses or is otherwise unable to take roads that ultimately have no purpose as far as a stated goal or mission is concerned.

A calculator doesn't think. Yet it can outperform you in any arena related to calculation.

Do you "think" when you look up somebody in the phone book? Sure, you recall their name and then thumb through the index where the letter appears and then scroll through the results until you arrived at the intended data entry.

In the context of AI, "thinking" would be simply creating random noise in a system where such noise serves no purpose and may also be a hindrance.

Contemplation might be an applicable word or concept. In the animal kingdom, a predator contemplates which prey to eat, as well as whether to attack at all. Does a lion merely view the smaller, slower gazelle trailing behind as "easy" in an automatic process or does it "think" or "contemplate" such dynamics? Does the lion have a choice at all? Or does it simply "do" what its ingrained "hardware" tells it to?

Your move.

(you'll note the image generated is immediately after my move, whereas the link is the same but with the "switch board" option, for your convenience. no matter. one of us will figure it out)

Wait, should it just be the same orientation image-wise for ease and consistency of viewing? It probably should, shouldn't it? Next time.

You can go white again, if you like. — praxis

You know what, I just might.

If you do a bit of research, you'll see that the vast majority of Palestinians don't want Israeli citizenship. To accept citizenship would be to effectively validate the notion of a Jewish, non-Muslim state, which they have opposed since the very beginning. It is a humiliation to many of them. — BitconnectCarlos

This is a non-secular, ignorant (don't take offense at definitions) view of the real situation. They don't view other people as having rights to declare "citizenship" or "borders". No mainstream religion propagated itself without allowing the believer to be "above" another human being for no actual reason other than use of the word "God" and defeating the "idea of Death."

It's like if you're a father with children and you opened the door into your kid's room one day and your kid randomly said "oh I'm a nation all of a sudden and you can be my citizen". You'd smack that little s**t into next week.

Unfortunately, everyone believes they're the "top guy". Because they have no value other than that which they can rob of others. It's the plague of false/corrupted religion. I mean shoot, I'm a Christian. I can acknowledge many churches are either fake or otherwise besieged by "worldly forces", mostly pedophiles. That doesn't matter. They're all going to the same place. And soon. But again, that's... kind of a non-starter for non-theists and those who are (un?)fortunate enough not to have witnessed indescribable miracles of God. Things that indisputably defy all worldly logic, science, and explanation.

While a penchant for violence is a part of human nature I do not think that people are sitting around waiting for their turn at the genocide stick. — Moliere

Of course not. To see reality for what it is requires living an examined life. Basically, it requires not being a mental invalid. Unfortunately, most people are exactly that. The average person is little more than a (barely) functional "r-word". And boy do I mean barely. There are just more of them right now so they effectively control the world. That's why it's in chaos. The intelligent are afraid to speak out because they know their life is infinitely and exponentially more valuable than even 10,000 of the commoner and so must do so to remain alive, not just for their own sake, but for the sake of the world. Since the depraved are violent by nature. If intellectual people, like those who post here, were the majority, and saw how the current majority behaves. They'd be locked in a cell for their own safety.

They don't "want genocide" they want "stuff" and the "feeling" (glory?) that genocide happens to provide. And also happens to be the only way to achieve these things. It's very simple.

Basically, we're watching two little children, one much larger, fight one another. It's time for the adults "the world" to step in and break it up.

there are still a few places where you can find the same cultural, customs and languages that made up those societies and have been around for thousands of years. — Sir2u

Oh, absolutely. Thing is. In every single one of those places, you'll tend to find signs of brutal war, killing, rape, enslavement, or displacement of those who originally left them, many of which were non-combatants I.E "average Joes", specifically "average Janes" in regards to rape. They kill the soldiers, who is basically every male over the age of 12 since you're not going to just sit there and let some people come in and kill your mom or sister. Then they either kill or rape the women, or both, often not in the order you would expect. Sometimes killing either all the children or just the males leaving the raped females (if they decided not to kill them) alive to ethnically "change" the entirety of the civilization thus "conquering" it. That is what demi-humans do. That's a fairly standard practice in ancient warfare.

So, that's pretty much what I mean as far as "society collapsing." And, if they were somehow able to have a form of self-defense over those who committed these atrocities (or non-atrocities if you're a "that's just how life is" kind of guy) they possibly would be alive today without the brutal rape, murder, and abuse. Think about it. If you're a group of 1,000 people with 1,000 guns, and you want to "conquer" or "wage war" on a land of 10,000 people with an army of 2,000 who have 2,000 guns. That's something you might consider doing. You knows, you might win. Once the soldiers are out of the way, all you have to do is play shepherd dog with the remaining 8,000 and herd the defenseless people to where you want them to go, like cattle. Often into a mass grave. So they don't "bother you" in the future. After picking out your "prize" or "spoils of war", of course (by which I mean women and for some cultures, children..) Now, if those 10,000 people each have 10,000 guns, you're outnumbered, and you'll look for easier prey. Is that not how this world works? Both in the animal kingdom and in terms of both ancient and modern military strategy? Surely this isn't difficult to understand.

So what's your point. Just because I like to play with the personal belongings of my deceased victims and perhaps keep them around as a morbid token of my little "conquest" over others, that's supposed to vindicate how a community of men, women, and children collapsing and falling to unspeakable violence is somehow "fine?" That's no argument. That's a declaration of insanity! With all due respect.

Hamas isn't the fascist in this scenario -- they're not really a "liberal democracy", but they're not "Nazi Germany" -- not even close. — Moliere

No, but they're people. And you know what that means. I said it before, I'll say it again. "In this world, The only difference between the benevolent king and the evil king are two things: Opportunity. And Time."

Meaning, both people would gladly perform the same acts upon one another, given the opportunity. It simply happens to be one who is able to instead of the other right now. And they both acknowledge and admit that. Therefore, that happenstance transient fact is neither something to praise nor condemn. It's just "what is."

The problem is false religion. And yes, I say that as a practicing theist. They need to consider their religion as a "lifestyle choice" akin to a hobby. The problem is they think it grants them real authority over others in the real world. Maybe it did once upon a time. To not be an "infidel" because you obey what an alleged god king or "prophet" said, supposedly. Most religion is war propaganda to make you comfortable with death, whether delivered to you, or delivered by you.

Basically, allegedly, as far as my understanding goes, Israel is a "democracy" and Hamas has ambitions of a religious caliphate. No elections. Hereditary rule. The problem is, they are not kings. They do not come from royal lineage. Or at least, if they were, they are now crestfallen. Like most empires, the lower class/laborers/non-royalty ended up revolting against and deposing the True divinely appointed-leaders, thus damning their entire people, at least removing their blessing and protection turning their future society into little more than a seedy band of thieves and murderers in the eyes of the divine. Any God-established people or empire that does that loses their status of Nationhood to the only Authority that counts (albeit sometimes temporarily). Sure, they can prop it up for a while (with the blood of the Saints I.E. the Innocent). But it never lasts. Second problem is, if they were ever to become this "empire" they likely genuinely believe a Higher Power wants them to and will ensure they become, they won't stop growing from there, thus threatening the future stability of not just the region but the entire world. In the age of nuclear weaponry, that is no exaggeration. You have to kill the dragon while it's young. Any knight will attest to this fact.

Seriously, while it may seem the opposite, it's literally the difference between democracy in the region and fascism where unworthy men born from false kings control the lives of all, especially women and "gay people" (*cough* intellects who aren't brain-dead slaves who actually appreciate art and poetry over primal acts of pleasure). If they weren't from a false lineage and were real kings, that would be fine. There would be no problem. But they're not. So democracy will inevitably replace whatever system they have or intend to have. The only question is, how many have to die before then, something only they can answer and have full control over. Only question is how many more of their own will they choose to sacrifice for an ill-formed and false cause. So don't get it twisted.

Dude. In reality. All they have to do is become a true democracy and let McDonald's set up shop. They do that, all this killing and war goes away overnight. But they won't. Because they believe, (I would hope truly) that they are doing the right thing and fighting against the powers of an evil world thus ultimately pleasing some Higher Power. Not unlike myself. Shoot. Maybe they are. But guess what? Maybe they're not. That's all someone who believes in much of what they purport to believe can really say looking from the outside in.

So you think frequent mass shootings at schools is a price worth paying because it's theoretically possible that society will collapse or that the government will become a tyranny and start executing innocent citizens? — Michael

My argument is not to be reframed. If you think it's invalid, point out why.

Also, how is it "theoretical?" Humans have been creating civilizations and societies for thousands of years. Thousands of empires over thousands of years. None of them exist today. Therefore, it is not "theoretical" that "society [might] collapse" it is literally historic and scientific fact no different than the Sun rises in the East and sets in the West.

That said, I don't believe a person should be able to purchase any firearm in the same manner and with the same ease they would buy a sack of flour. However, there are unrealistic people with poorly thought out views and inclinations to enact those views on both sides of the debate. A man with several average modern handguns attached to his person can basically go on a shooting spree with the exact same deadliness as that of a semi-automatic "assault" rifle in the same amount of time and with the same ease and lack of effort.

In my opinion, evidenced by fact, a firearm is an equalizer between men. Otherwise, the bigger guy basically always wins the fight, fights the bigger guy often picks because it gives him purpose to be superior over a stranger (when it's easy for him to be). Any other weapon aside from a firearm has its effectiveness basically determined by the size (and sometimes skill) of the user.

I find it pleasing to know I live in a society where an elderly man or woman or even child home alone can fend off a large, armed man with murder or rape on his mind, with ease, in the event of such an emergency, whereas the only other fate would be unspeakable tragedy. Is that so irrational in your eyes? Am I such a bad guy for holding such a sentiment? I don't think so.

How much abuse can a community take before someone snaps and takes out a particularly vile trans bully? Conservatives have this quaint idea that queers and liberals and liberal queers don't have guns and don't know how to use them. — RogueAI

You're falling into a false argument. Why do people cut off their genitals? Because they feel socially-ostracized. Have you ever been a child once in a modern day school with low-income people? Even having any sense of morality gets you called a "snitch" or a "girl", and basically physically harmed IF you're smaller than the person. It's a cycle of useless people fornicating because they have no self control, often the largest "Strongest" what they call alpha, despite having the brains of rocks and no real purpose since 800 B.C. when the lever and pulley was invented. They can't cope with society. They were made to be slaves. To work, to use their size to lift heavy rocks under the command of a king. They have no purpose in modern society. They don't know how to raise kids. They get pleasure from seeing people, anyone, random strangers, suffer. It gives them "purpose," The things that bring an intellect joy and a sense of harmony, give them anger. The things that give us a sense of disgust and horror, bring a smile to their face. They are incompatible with modern society.

Sorry, my point being, no person who was not bullied or exposed to the idea that "oh you might be a girl, since you act like one" has ever once considered the idea that they were not born into the right body. Not a single one. It's a psychological war humanity wages with itself. The strong taking (dignity and purpose) from the weak. What the very first law ever written, Hammurabi's Code was created to prevent. And it's time to end it before something ends us.

Just look around. Why are all the "transgenders" skinny, awkward people who just didn't fit in. It's not a coincidence. It's psychological bullying and deformation of the human mind by physical and emotional trauma. How can you not see that? How can anyone not see that?

so the first step in the peace process — if there is to be one — would be removing Hamas. — BitconnectCarlos

But what would that do? I thought you said Hamas was democratically elected. Why wouldn't the same type of person or people with the same type of ideology not get elected again? Are you hoping the people are so psychologically battered to the point they will agree with anything they're told? Is that really a view you'd be proud parading around and being on your tombstone that those after you will read and remember you as?

Are you trying to remove their right to the democratic process? Or place arbitrary guidelines and "controlled opposition" candidates thus subverting the democratic process?

Why do they even call themselves "Hamas", where did that come from? What was wrong with "the democratically elected government?" Just seems necessary.

Frankly, I think it doesn't take much to imagine what happens in war that could explain why the people there today do not physically (or by DNA) resemble the people their before. Not very hard to put two and two together. Which is a very difficult humanitarian situation. What do you with people who genuinely believe they were the original "rightful" folks, yet the DNA says otherwise, and in a twist of irony, their presence is literally excelling the genocide that whatever past invading army who engaged in forced "relations" with the true rightful people tried to perform (and perhaps succeeded)?

The point is, we need more Internationally-recognized national parks, preserves, and protected areas, basically everywhere. Places any person can always visit but are not permitted to build a home or reside on permanently. If not as a buffer between two peoples who cannot or will not live in peace. Once someone plops out a kid (or worse, was forced to plop out a kid), they think that land is their home. As if engaging in the cheapest most automatic and low-level primal act any living being can perform (fornication) somehow elevates you socially and legally above someone who does not have children. All that does is lead to overpopulation, which leads to war, starvation, suffering, and just an all-around lowered quality of life for everyone alive. That's just not smart. That's just not how it is. But it's what they think. Ergo, we have a problem.

↪BitconnectCarlos
Do you think, had it been a liberal influencer, it would have been so far out of line? — Moliere

I too noticed the unnecessary mention of his political aversion.

--

Also, we're sure it's a political assassination now? When did that happen? I wanted to think it was my imagination but for some reason it just seems like more and more modern day conservatives take joy in crudeness and "crossing lines" for little reason other than to do so and illicit a negative emotional response in others I.E. to spread misery. Major turn off for me, despite being in favor of many stereotypical "conservative" things. Point being, you don't have to give a hoot about politics to not like a guy or what he has to say to the point of drastic action. People assault and murder people they don't like every single day. This guy just happened to be a bit of a minor celebrity who yes is known for engaging in political activity.

It's just a way of describing life that works for some (possibly many if not most people, judging from it's popularity). If you're not one of them, heh, be grateful. Literally not a single philosopher mentioned on this site in 10 years was "like the rest" or "placated and satiated by the norms and mainstream beliefs of others." Am I wrong?

I don't know you, but I know of many others like you. For most people this "fear of the future" is ultimately the fear of death. Which is natural. Understandable. The hallmark of an intelligent mind well aware of one's self and place in the universe. Or is it? Try skydiving. Or even a trip to the coaster. It might open your eyes.

For many, "the here and now" is simply living an unexamined life guided by impulse and animalistic primal desire. The lowest levels of, not just human, but any living beings, experience or perception. It's important to have a balance. If you have children one day, for example. They are inexperienced and not able to understand quite literally anything but "the here and now." This in some ways makes some people's belief that the "here and now" is "all there is" a trap that they are trapped in and, whether intentionally or unintentional, only exist to trap others in. People who never grow up. People who never realize there's more to reality than what they're able to currently experience. Not unlike a person in a wheelchair, except their handicap is, not just mental, but spiritual even, Almost? Eh, just my take on the matter. Good luck in whatever it is you do.