You don't know what that means. — Sir2u
But the UK is the violent crime center of Europe, even beating the USA.
https://americangunfacts.com/
If these do not seem real, you can verify the data through the sources they provide at the bottom of the page. — Sir2u
The figures may or may not be accurate. We don't know. But we do know that the sources are anything but impartial.If these do not seem real, you can verify the data through the sources they provide at the bottom of the page. — Sir2u
Here I ought to remind you of the not-so-long ago history of two world wars, Cold War, postcolonism wars, opium war, famine-ridden British raj in India, the systematic destruction of the African continent, the Middle East, and so on and so forth. How much does it cost the state to keep out all the refugees from wars and the poor?
You lock the main gate and leave the room doors open, rather than locking the room doors and leaving the main gate open. Because the real enemy (the poor) is outside and in much larger numbers. — unforeseen
I am surprised at myself that I continue to be surprised that people believe controversial claims they read on heavily partisan websites, without bothering to follow the chain of references (if any) to see if they lead to anything other than just more partisan sources. — andrewk
I suspected that your link would be dodgy. And guess what? It is. It contains a statistic that the much more credible fact checking website PolitiFact rates as false. — S
The figures may or may not be accurate. We don't know. But we do know that the sources are anything but impartial.
The two sources listed in the footnote of the 'we love guns!' site in the link are just news articles in the Daily Telegraph, a UK paper with links to the Tory party. Further, the articles report that the statistics were compiled by Tory MPs in order to help their attacks against the then-Labour government. The article claims the statistical sources from which the Tories compiled their figures were an EU statistical agency, but no reference to a specific source of that agency is given, or to any other source. — andrewk
The articles also report that the Home Secretary of the time vigorously rejected the figures. — andrewk
Finally, regardless of whether the figures are fair representations of the EU figures and those from other countries like USA (no source provided), or just made up for the sake of political point-scoring, are ten years old. — andrewk
"I am surprised at myself that I continue to be surprised that people believe controversial claims they read on heavily partisan websites, without bothering to follow the chain of references (if any) to see if they lead to anything other than just more partisan sources. — andrewk
I know right? I doubt that I would do that to begin with, but if I did, and then I got exposed, I think I'd be really embarrassed, and would quickly learn not to make the same mistake again. — S
The credibility of PolitiFact can be looked into online through other fact checking websites, like Media Bias / Fact Check, which rates it as least biased. — S
I've addressed your point about knife crime a million times. Gun shot wounds are more deadly, so the risk is more severe, and the law reflects that, as do priorities in hospitals. — S
And who checks their reliability? — Sir2u
I don't think that there is much difference between a machete wound to the stomach and a bullet wound in the same place, and it seems the people die from both. — Sir2u
As the article and my post make quite clear, they used it to attack the then-government (Labour) in an attempt to make them lose the upcoming election - which they did, but not because of that issue.But it begs the quest "Why on earth would the Tories be trying to convince people that England was more violent than the USA?". Any ideas? — Sir2u
No I don't. I have no statistics and none have been produced in this thread that I have seen. So all I have to go on are impressions: I was in the UK a year ago and it seemed to me to be more peaceful and prosperous than it was when I was last there, in 2007.And we all know how greatly things have improved since then don't we? — Sir2u
I specifically brought up gun crime, and you changed the subject to violent crime, — S
As the article and my post make quite clear, they used it to attack the then-government (Labour) in an attempt to make them lose the upcoming election - which they did, but not because of that issue. — andrewk
I have a very small, 5 people, group of friends. I have 2 other family members. And we do discuss world problems of every kind, even though I am the only one that participates in a philosophy forum. But I work with hundreds of people everyday. Most of them seem perfectly capable of talking about the problems of the world as well. So I still don't understand why you think that non-philosophy forum people do not have the tools necessary to think about such things. — Sir2u
I am beginning to believe that "naive" is your word of the week. And I don't see how your route is realistic. — Sir2u
This does not answer the question, I asked how gun control qualifies as a philosophical question, not which area of philosophy would possible put it into. — Sir2u
I have not asked anyone whether they can do a proper dialectic. But as you are making this statement about the non-philosophically inclined people's incapability, I am sure that you have asked everyone you have ever met in your anthropological wanderings and all of the parties you have ever attended. Because that is the only way to know such things that I am aware of. — Sir2u
Of course, most don't have a degree in philosophy. But without any insight into philosophy, what is even the point of being on this forum? I mean, to read is good, but to participate in discussions without being humble about their own knowledge in philosophy and instead rage on with pure speculative opinions, fallacies and biases, is to a degree not even recommended by the forum guidelines. If there's no effort to even learn some basic philosophy, why even bother? Then Twitter is probably a better platform for such rants.Actually I doubt that most of the people here on the forum are philosophy students or have a degree in philosophy. I can think of several members whom I know of that do not. — Sir2u
While knowledge of the use of dialectic tools is useful to argue successfully, it is useless in the face of ignorance. If you know nothing about the topic, there is no use for these tools.
Seriously, do you think that the common people have not realized that there is a problem with guns? They know well enough that there is. It is not the lack of these tools that stops them from doing something about it, but the lack of methods that can be used. They vote for the people that they want to represent them and the ones that propose removing the guns lose. They protest in the streets and get arrested because, as you say it turns into a brawl.
You say that you have the use of these tools, what are you going to do to solve the problem? — Sir2u
This does not qualify as proof of the statement you made. — Sir2u
The articles say that some people think that philosophy graduates might have a better career that others, but it makes no mention of them gaining popularity as a hired. — Sir2u
I very much doubt that is what the companies think, if they hire someone as a consultant they want the problem solved not just thought about. — Sir2u
It would get things going again without which there would be no new problems down the line because there would be no company.
But it would make sense to hire someone that could do both problem solving and preventative work. Unfortunately, "preventative" in industry usually means foreseeing possible problem and trying to prevent them, which would be almost impossible without the technological know how. I don't think many philosophy graduates would be able to predict possible week points in any system that they have no knowledge of. — Sir2u
I don't think many philosophy graduates would be able to predict possible week points in any system that they have no knowledge of. — Sir2u
I have made no demands, I asked you how you would solve a problem and you have no answer. — Sir2u
Oh dear. Is it my fault that you have nothing to contribute to the solving of the problem? I am not the one that sets myself above the common people nor do I claim to be a philosophy. — Sir2u
I am just a humble thinker with opinions based on what I see and what I know. It would seem to be that you are the one covering up your inabilities with pompousness. — Sir2u
I can say exactly the same thing about you. You do not know me or what I have studied, but you presume to make statements about what I should do to improve my understanding of truth and the world. — Sir2u
Because regular people don't generally understand the concept of a dialectic discussion, they see any discussion between two opinions as an argument without end since both sides just clash without understanding the other or the self. It's also a ground for meta-ignorance. This is why I numerous times doubt your insight into philosophy since you never demonstrate that philosophical process in your writing. — Christoffer
Because you demand absolute solutions to very very complex problems. — Christoffer
You either go by a totalitarian state-regulation to just ban guns, or you work with the people so that they understand the problems and understand why it's good for them as well. — Christoffer
If you have any other solution beside enforcing change and planting seeds for change, feel free to express it, but if you want simple answers, that is the naive route. — Christoffer
Because it has to do with philosophical discussions around justice and ethics — Christoffer
Why is it not a philosophical question to have a discourse around that topic? Please elaborate on why it does not qualify. — Christoffer
Can you write any text without having an asshole tone to them? — Christoffer
Without a dialectical approach, there are only opinions, often with a meta-ignorant problem underneath. — Christoffer
People might have heard the word dialectic, but how many can have a dialectic discussion? — Christoffer
How many discussions have you heard between people which ended in both sides improving their own ideas or come to the conclusion that the other was right? I mean, truly changing for both sides? — Christoffer
Of course, most don't have a degree in philosophy. But without any insight into philosophy, what is even the point of being on this forum? — Christoffer
I mean, to read is good, but to participate in discussions without being humble about their own knowledge in philosophy and instead rage on with pure speculative opinions, fallacies and biases, is to a degree not even recommended by the forum guidelines. — Christoffer
If there's no effort to even learn some basic philosophy, why even bother? Then Twitter is probably a better platform for such rants. — Christoffer
It's a cultural difference then since observations in my country are that companies and industries increasingly have pushed for philosophy training in leaders and philosophers consulting during problems, rather than just trying to figure things out themselves. It means they frame the problem the company is facing through the lens of philosophy in order to foreshadow the consequences of the solutions to the problems. They're also educating employees, especially in the tech industry and A.I. — Christoffer
That are not the problems I'm talking about. But for example, figuring out the ethics of gun laws require quite a lot of philosophy in order to give a nuanced perspective to politicians and the people. — Christoffer
If a problem touches upon philosophical problems, why would those questions be left to those who work with systems to solve? It's like calling a plumber to fix the roof. — Christoffer
Because you don't have an answer, I don't, no one really has, which is my point. It's a philosophical dialectic with the aim of finding a solution. — Christoffer
I gave you a possible solution, you have answered nothing on the validity of the consequences of that solution and instead demand an absolute solution. It's once again, naive and almost childish as a demand. — Christoffer
I do not set myself higher than common people, I stated a fact that common people don't have dialectic methods to discuss something in order to reach a higher understanding of their own opinions. That is a simple epistemic fact which would be ridiculous to counter without proposing that common people would automatically know it without studying it. — Christoffer
You are pretty far from being humble. You should really calm down and take a look at your own writing before judging others. — Christoffer
The critique against you does not being until you behave in a certain way, the causality of this is pretty straight forward. — Christoffer
You judge others all the time and you mock the knowledge they provide with inadequate reasoning and pure speculative opinions. The response you get probably reflect the writing you do more than all the other people and their knowledge. — Christoffer
The response you get probably reflect the writing you do more than all the other people and their knowledge. — Christoffer
You write about philosophical tools and methods of dialectic like you have no idea what you are talking about. So, I draw a conclusion based on how you actually write. — Christoffer
And since your attitude is extremely impolite towards others that might have more knowledge in this area, I would say you solidified that notion. — Christoffer
So, no you can't say the same thing to me because I actually try to answer, you are just defending your own ego with mocking and ridiculing other people. — Christoffer
So, either you demonstrate that you have an understanding of the things discussed and prove me wrong when I suggest you study more, or just stop with your tu quoque fallacies. You attitude at the moment is the evidence in itself of my statement. — Christoffer
Yes it's amazing how destructive and disloyal to their country some politicians can be when trying to win power. We have that here at the moment. The opposition helped pass a bill, against the government's wishes, to allow seriously ill people in offshore immigration detention centres to come to Australia for treatment. The government, who claim the sole reason for their very harsh treatment of asylum seekers is to discourage people from setting out in boats from Indonesia to try to get here, is now blaring out to anybody who will listen that the passing of the bill has now made it easy for people-smugglers to get people into our country.
Firstly it's not true and secondly, even if it were, the last thing that should be done is advertise it to people smugglers.
All because they want to try to win a looming election by c;aiming to be 'tougher on illegal immigrants'.
:sad: — andrewk
What proof do you have that ordinary people, without a degree in philosophy, cannot understand the concept of a dialectic discussion. Through out history people have been doing this with absolutely no formal education. The way you talk it is as if these abilities are something that developed because of colleges. Lots of the greatest philosopher had little or no education at all. Thinking is something that can be and is developed by anyone that wants to develop their abilities and is possible without out going to the university. That is the BS of the universities sell so that you will pay their exorbitant fees. — Sir2u
It is a good idea to read all of the thread if you want to participate properly. I have not, as I explained to someone else, made any demands. You stated what you think was the solution and I pointed out some of the problems with your idea. — Sir2u
Both of which have been discussed at length, the former idea causes too many problems and would be expensive. The latter is a long term project that would not fulfill today's needs. — Sir2u
That s the only solution that I have ever offered, educate the people. But as I said earlier it will not work until the people have a reason to give up their guns. By reason I mean that possibly the feel safe without them, when do you think that will happen? — Sir2u
For some that claims to be so superior at thinking, that is very badly expressed. It has nothing to do with philosophical discussion around justice and ethics. — Sir2u
Let me help you to express it in a clearer way.
Because gun control has elements of MORALITY and ethics it can be discussed philosophically.
I think that sounds better, don't you? — Sir2u
I never said it was, I just wanted to find out how you would explain it. Bummer right. — Sir2u
Just see how many get excited at a party if you start talking philosophy. This is not what most common people have an interest in. Which also means that they don't have the tools to understand the issues and are easily persuaded by lobbyist and smart political rhetoric.
Well I suppose I could try imitating your dickhead tone, but I don't think that I have enough of a stuck up snobbish attitude to pull it off. But I will try if you want. — Sir2u
Wow, so your opinions thoughts are correct because you use the dialectical approach. Where did you find all of the information that you used to come to these certified conclusions, I would love to see it. I think that you really need to go to the USA and offer you assistance in solving this problem. I don't think that they have anyone like you over there because this problem has been going on for years and years and no one has been able to come up with a solution. — Sir2u
I don't know. I am not in the habit, as you seem to be, of testing everyone's ability to use their dialectic skills. How many times have you tried to have dialectic discussions with people in the street? — Sir2u
sinse they took away our whips and bats. — Sir2u
So you think that maybe if I quoted something from Socrates to support what I have said about gun control it would be more believable? Hmm, I will have to try that sometime. Or maybe if I continuously asked questions to provoke people to think but refused to admit I had any personal knowledge It would help my case. Reading about other peoples' way of thinking does not mean that you will be able to think like them. If that was the case I would be able to run circles around Witty.
While we are on the topic of peoples' knowledge about philosophy, did you ever figure out why those people came up with the idea that everything was made up of water? — Sir2u
True, but there are not that many moral problems, most of them are technical. Most development companies have legal department that deal with anything dodgy, Maybe that is where they would work. — Sir2u
I never said I had an answer, at least not one that would work as needed, but I did point out that a lot of these things have been discussed before and I have given the reasons why I doubt they would not work. I was not demand absolute solutions, but with all of your superior dialectic prowess I thought that maybe you would be the one to come up with the right answer. Seems not to do so. — Sir2u
And a simple epistemic fact should be easy for you to prove, so go ahead and do it. But before you try answering think about the people that developed dialectic methods, where did they study? How did they come up with the ideas if it is not possible without education? — Sir2u
I never get excited by wishywashy discussions with people that think they are better than the rest just because they studied philosophy but know nothing of reality. Reality here is used in the sense of everydayness. But I do enjoy it when the fish are biting. — Sir2u
I am not really sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that someone has been judging me because of my behavior? If that is so, that is not my problem and it is very unphilosophical to use this as an argument to prove that I am wrong. — Sir2u
I have not mocked you for any knowledge that you have provided, what ever knowledge that might be. — Sir2u
I get some very interesting responses from the people with interesting things to say. Especially those that don't take the time to write long post full of criticism. — Sir2u
Never judge a book by its cover. I seriously doubt that you have read even half the number of philosophy books that I have. But I don't like to swagger around telling everyone that I know everything and common people don't. — Sir2u
Do unto others what they have done to you. You insulted most of humanity so don't cry when someone tell you that you do not know everything. Ask around, I am extremely polite to all that are polite to me. — Sir2u
So you get points for trying. But in your own words philosophical tools and methods of dialectic are supposed to come up with the answers. So why don't they? Is there no way you can go beyond your answer to reach the solution? You said that these tools were used for that purpose.
If you cannot go any further towards a solution to the problem then what does that mean?
Does it mean that you cannot use them properly? Or maybe you are ignorant of the true facts of the situation.
Could it maybe mean that there is no solution? No, you said that it would always reach a solution so it cannot be that. — Sir2u
There we go with the challenges again. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have done that countless times yourself without realizing it. Do you really think that you would recognize a dialectic if it hit you in the face? Actually you might, if you read about Meno.
Explain to me how I could prove that I have an understanding of what we are discussing. Would you like me too some tests or something maybe? No I am not being hypocritical, I leave things like that to others that cannot "win" an argument without putting people down to do so. — Sir2u
It doesn't take much to understand the basic concepts of dialectics and dialectic discourse, but do you think that if you went out on the street and asked random people what "dialectic" is, I can guarantee you that very few even knows what it is. You are trying to argue that people know dialectic methods without training when the closest is that they might accidentally do a dialectic, but do not have it as routine. — Christoffer
You are arguing in circles in order to just win any points you can, but what's your actual point, really? — Christoffer
It's the same BS that populists are spreading around, undermining any kind of intellectual discussion and progress in favor of emotional outbursts from people with low education. Their perspective is extremely important, but this anti-intellectual BS is actually disgusting and disrespectful against those who actually put a lot of time and effort into learning. — Christoffer
Therefore, most common people don't have the methods needed for a dialectic method for knowledge.
In other terms:
X is dialectic understanding, Y is normal argumentative understanding. X leads to Z which is improved knowledge and better arguments, Y leads to A which is an argumentative emotional stalemate.
p1 X most likely leads to Z but does never lead to A.
p2 Y most likely leads to A but rarely lead to Z.
p3 X is common with those trained in argumentative methodology, Y is common with everyone else.
Therefore the probability of X being superior to reach Z is higher than that Y leads to Z and since X is more common with those trained in the methodology, it is lower in quantity than Y which is the rest.
It's a simple fact of probability. If you don't agree with the above probability, please feel free to counter it properly. The probability is a large scale probability, which means, in this case, that if a proper dialectic method is recommended to understand all nuances of a complex political issue, fewer people are able to reach a nuanced conclusion. — Christoffer
Maybe you could even look at how others answer to you,
Maybe people just don't care about answering to you because of how you write? I shouldn't, I mean, especially since I'm answering to a long post full of criticism... oh, the irony.
If you want respect and good behavior from others, you should lead by example.
As I read other answers to you, I'm not quite alone in thinking this way. Maybe that should be a hint to you, but you'll probably just ignore it.
Why do you think I point out that you seem to lack philosophical methodology knowledge? Because you don't show any of it.
You are totally unable to self-reflect upon your own writing. You just burst out emotional rants with no content.
You just have a total lack of insight into how you write to people. And even the end of that sentence is a mockery. It's a bullying mentality, like some insecure teenager trying to hit back at every chance they get.
I recommend that you study a bit more philosophy before you demand solutions in the way you do. You're acting like a child right now
But you don't seem to know much about these things? (Why does this statement have a question mark?)
No, you are certainly not a philosopher, that's for sure. — Christoffer
And you judge people without knowing anything about them or their experiences in life and reality but can't entertain the thought and simple fact that people can both be trained in philosophy and have real experiences. — Christoffer
You've read my point and argument on knowledge of dialectic methodology and you read my point on what is the best solution in order to restrict guns. I'm still waiting for a response to those, worthy of a philosophical discussion. I will exclude any further nonsense rants from you and focus on that. Want to express your bullying populist attitude, go punch a pillow. — Christoffer
Unfortunately, common people don't have the tools to understand this on their own, but you can still not force laws beyond the democratic process. So the only thing that I can see is positive is to educate, to provide the information about this to the people so that they, after a while, stop defending their personal preferences in order to increase the quality of life within their nation. — Christoffer
— Sir2u
Don't put the common people down, a lot of us do understand the information. That is why they still refuse to vote for banning guns.
I stated a long time ago that one way to solve the problem is through education, changing the mentality of the people might change the feelings towards guns. But how long will this take and how successful will the education system be against family and street influences? And the biggest part of the gun problem is not the normal everyday guy in the street, it is the thugs, How do you educate them — Sir2u
I think I gave you the most realistic answer. Educate and turn people in a democracy towards wanting strict gun laws. You can't do much else. — Christoffer
I've answered this long post and yet, after reading all of it, you have actually not said anything new at all. You repeat your earlier points without reading answers to them, I mean truly read them. You continue a bullying attitude which is the same kind of anti-intellectual nonsense that populists push over and over, and which I think is beneath discussions on philosophical forums. If you think I have low respect for common people outside of philosophy then no, I don't have low respect. But "common" people like you certainly question whether or not I should. — Christoffer
So I suppose you go around insulting people that are carrying guns? 8-) — Sir2u
No, unforeseen said that armed societies are normal. And that started another line of discussion.
You implied that the UK was a great place to live and that it would last forever even without guns. Or something along those lines anyway.
I said that the UK is the violent crime capital of Europe and even beats the US. — Sir2u
With regard to firearms, the United Kingdom is not generally an armed society. Our citizens, criminals, and police are generally unarmed in that respect. And yet, since this has been the case, we've stuck around, and it is no coincidence that gun crime is exceptionally low here in comparison with other places, and there's no good reason to believe that we won't last very long as a result of these circumstances. That's balderdash.
— S
But the UK is the violent crime center of Europe, even beating the USA. — Sir2u
You said that was false. — Sir2u
I suspected that your link would be dodgy. And guess what? It is. It contains a statistic that the much more credible fact checking website PolitiFact rates as false. — S
Note that I never even denied that the UK has a higher rate of violent crime in comparison with the US. Although that doesn't mean that I accept it either. Like the article says, and as experts in this field say, it's impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. — S
I commented that it must be awful living in the UK with all of those knife crimes. — Sir2u
Then you said that you had addressed those things before as if I had asked a question or made some sort of incredible statement about knife crime. I just made a comment about something that you can read about in the newspapers everyday, and they do appear to be happening more and more. And lots of those people that have been stabbed appear to have died. Unfortunately, or maybe I should say fortunately there are not many gun crimes in the UK to compare the survival rate to. — Sir2u
Since you start out with the same kind of attitude that I was urging you to stop with I have no reason to continue wasting my time on your ego. You have been given answers and you refuse to stop using biases and fallacies. I went to this forum to get away from having to argue against populist rhetoric. — Christoffer
You do realise that the evidence is on display in public, and that if you try to misrepresent, you risk being easily exposed? — S
The same applies to you.
In none of the posts I made along that line of discussion did I refer to gun control, for the simple reason that we were discussing armed societies being normal not gun control.
The only times I mentioned guns was to respond to your comment about wounds and that people might buy them for protection.
There was no change of topic, just parallel discussions. The same thing happened when I was talking to andrewk, separate discussion.
I wonder if you would have even looked at the list of references if I has not specifically mentioned them. And if would would care to take note, I posted the link as a reference to the UK being violent nothing about guns.
The fact that you continued to talk only about guns is your problem, but I have been talking about something else as well — Sir2u
I think the point is that the presence of the guns makes politeness both impossible and irrelevant. — Pattern-chaser
In the presence of the gun, you are constrained by fear of being shot (and maybe killed) to say whatever the gun-holder wants to hear. Politeness is something you do voluntarily, not for fear of your life. :worry: — Pattern-chaser
So it's you, and whoever you were discussing this with, who has gone off topic and taken the phrase out of context.
You were talking about gun control as well, so you went off topic. :worry: :sad:
Jesus. What a waste of time that was. — S
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.