You don't know what that means. — Sir2u

Yeah I do. But there's an ongoing debate about whether it's a art or an science.

Anyways...

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

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.

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.

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 is given to a specific source at that agency, or to any other source.

The articles also report that the Home Secretary of the time vigorously rejected the figures.

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.

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.

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

What has any of that got to do with firearms in peacetime? Now I definitely think you're a troll.

Wait. Are you Tom, Inis, sock puppets, etc? You are, aren't you?

History has everything to do with the present. In fact, is it only history that has anything to do with the present. Simple case of causes and effects.

And no I’m not whoever you’re thinking I am. To your speculation about whether I’m trolling, please be advised that such things depends more on one’s perspective than the original intention. Do you always feel like people are trolling? If yes, then I must be. Fishes probably think they’re flying instead of swimming, because under water is where they live and die. Hahahaha.

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.

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

Thank you for presenting this, did you read the last paragraph.

"Our ruling

The meme said "there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the U.K.," compared to "466 violent crimes per 100,000" in the United States. Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison. We rate the claim False."

It is still higher than the USA, although I have to admit that anyone that believed the data to be accurate and unbiased would have to be crazy.
But actually a lot of it does check out, if you remember the time I showed you the FBI data base and several other links to accurate data that were basically the same.
What is really interesting though is the way violent crimes is on the rise right now. It must be bloody awful with all of those mask scooter riders running around with knives killing people everyday. Is the a reason for this?

Just a couple of questions I would like to ask about the PolitiFact web site. How do you know that it is a truly unbiased opinion that they are giving? Most of the work is done by people on newspapers payrolls.

Why do you think they only deal with politicians? Don't doctors, engineers and people on the street also make ridiculous statements?

I don't expect answers, it was just a couple of things that came to mind.

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

As you say we do not know. 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?

The articles also report that the Home Secretary of the time vigorously rejected the figures. — andrewk

He would have been a bloody fool to do otherwise.

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

And we all know how greatly things have improved since then don't we? From what I read on the BBC things are getting worse all the time. Maybe people there will start buying guns to protect themselves. It has been report that illegal attempts to import arms has risen, I wonder what the percentage of the actual imports being caught is.

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.

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.

I've addressed your point about knife crime about a million times. Gun shot wounds are on average more deadly (which is both common sense and supported by statistics I linked to many, many pages back), so the risk is more severe, and the law reflects that, as do priorities in hospitals.

"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

Now that is strange, I am beginning to believe in parallel universes. I clicked on the link in S's post
to where andrewk posted this and it is not there. :gasp:

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

I doubt that you would post anything similar to that as well, you don't have enough imagination to provoke thought in others. If I had posted a link to the FBI you would not have answered. And this way you provide the evidence that crime is higher in the UK so everyone has to believe it.

I doubt that you would be embarrassed either, it has happened to you before despite all of your mistakes and you have still not learned from them.

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

And who checks their reliability?

But you have just got to love them for the footnote below the ads.

"Ads do not necessarily reflect the views of MBFC"

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

Yes I know. Knife wounds take up hospital space and doctor and nurse's hours and cost a lot to fix as just like gun wounds. 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.

And who checks their reliability? — Sir2u

:roll:

Predictable and childish.

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

Your opinion as a layperson doesn't have the slightest impact, and you can't even stay on point, just like in your exchange with andrewk. I specifically brought up gun crime, and you changed the subject to violent crime, followed by your dodgy link. Then I made a point about averages, and you don't mirror that back in your reply, so it's unclear whether you're talking about averages or only specific cases, which in turn means it's unclear whether you're plain wrong or wrong by way of logical irrelevance. And to top it off, you finish with a complete irrelevancy about people dying from both, which is obvious and which no one denied.

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

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.

And we all know how greatly things have improved since then don't we? — 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.

I specifically brought up gun crime, and you changed the subject to violent crime, — S

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.

You said that was false.

I commented that it must be awful living in the UK with all of those knife crimes

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.

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 think that I have to apologize here, I really did not make my self clear on that point. Yes, you stated that they were trying to win an election and they used that as a weapon for that purpose.
But what I was after in my question was why would they use something as awful as telling the world that England is a dangerous place to win.
Surely they must have seen that they would do damage to everyone, including themselves. Did they even think about what might happen if tourists began to avoid dangerous England? What about international trade and investment. That is one of the biggest issues where I live right now, no one wants to bring money here because of violent crime.

:smile: 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:

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

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.

I am beginning to believe that "naive" is your word of the week. And I don't see how your route is realistic. — Sir2u

Because you demand absolute solutions to very very complex problems. That is almost a textbook answer of what naive is. The "solution" I described involved the very realistic idea of educating people into supporting strict gun laws through democracy. 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. 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.

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

Because it has to do with philosophical discussions around justice and ethics, two of the biggest topics in philosophy. Why is it not a philosophical question to have a discourse around that topic? Please elaborate on why it does not qualify.

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

Can you write any text without having an asshole tone to them? Without a dialectical approach, there are only opinions, often with a meta-ignorant problem underneath. People might have heard the word dialectic, but how many can have a dialectic discussion? 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?

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

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.

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

Dialectics leads to a better understanding of your own opinions and others. It's a tool to let people reach better conclusions and be less influenced by people with the power of persuasion.

You suggest methods to be used, what methods are there in your argument, which brings forth a change without restricting democracy and liberty of the people?

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

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.

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

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. 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.

I have made no demands, I asked you how you would solve a problem and you have no answer. — Sir2u

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. My suggestion was given and you demand absolutes instead. You are demanding something without any real interest in the discourse. If someone doesn't give an absolute solution to something you seem to interpret that as a disqualification of the specific participant on the topic. I gave you a possible solution, you have answered nothing on the validity of the causational consequences of that solution and instead demand an absolute solution. It's once again, naive and almost childish as a demand.

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 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. It's almost a populistic idea and anti-intellectual, the kind of dismissal of knowledge that's been plaguing the world more and more the last ten years.

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

You are pretty far from being humble. You should really calm down and take a look at your own writing before judging others. The critique against you does not being until you behave in a certain way, the causality of this is pretty straight forward. 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.

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

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. And since your attitude is extremely impolite towards others that might have more knowledge in this area, I would say you solidified that notion. 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.

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.

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

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.

Because you demand absolute solutions to very very complex problems. — Christoffer

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Because it has to do with philosophical discussions around justice and ethics — Christoffer

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.

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?

Why is it not a philosophical question to have a discourse around that topic? Please elaborate on why it does not qualify. — Christoffer

I never said it was, I just wanted to find out how you would explain it. Bummer right.

Can you write any text without having an asshole tone to them? — Christoffer

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.

Without a dialectical approach, there are only opinions, often with a meta-ignorant problem underneath. — Christoffer

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.

People might have heard the word dialectic, but how many can have a dialectic discussion? — Christoffer

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?

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

Plenty, I work as a high school teacher. That is how we get kids to improve themselves sinse they took away our whips and bats.

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

Well I could say that I am only here for the beer, but the pub closed with the old forum and I don't think anyone has figured out how to open a new one here.

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

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?

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

Sinner, blasphemer, how dare you mention twatter and fartbook here. I hate those things with a passion that borders on murderous.

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

Before I start searching for my old degrees, could you show me where some of these place are. More than 20 years is enough in teaching. With 22 years in industry before that I might think about moving on.

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

So they are not solving problems but giving opinions on whether thing would be moral or not. Why has no one ever thought of doing this before?

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

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.

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 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.

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

You are repeating yourself.

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

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?

Clues:
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/history/greek.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectic-logic

You are pretty far from being humble. You should really calm down and take a look at your own writing before judging others. — Christoffer

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.

The critique against you does not being until you behave in a certain way, the causality of this is pretty straight forward. — Christoffer

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.

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

I have not mocked you for any knowledge that you have provided, what ever knowledge that might be.

The response you get probably reflect the writing you do more than all the other people and their knowledge. — Christoffer

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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

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.

Saludos
The common man

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

Our problem is that all of the people are leaving because of the violence and Trump is getting pissed off about it.
The president keeps trying to convince everyone that crime, especially murder rates have dropped. According to his statistics they have, but a guy shot dead while driving a car should not count as a traffic accident.
Death from lead poisoning also seems to have gone up here, funny thing is that the people seem to be taking all the lead at one time.
Use of plastic bags and ropes to tie your hands to stop you from removing the bag seem to be a popular method of suicide recently as well. They say the instructions for tying your own hands can googled.
And no one is getting put in jail either.

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 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. This way of arguing that you are doing now is populistic, it's the anti-intellectual ideas that experts aren't needed, that knowledge is bullshit and that common sense is enough. 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.

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

You didn't point out problems. I'm not sure you actually understood the points I've made before smashing the replay button.

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

And you want a magical unicorn somewhere in the middle, please explain what large scale options you have outside of those two, I'm all ears, because that right there is no criticism to what I said, it's a denial of how society works in a democracy. This is why your demand on us to write an absolute solution is naive.

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

You are talking in circles. First, you say, exactly what I've been saying all the time, that to solve all this is to educate people. But then you say that there won't be a change until people feel safe. You are putting the cart before the horse.

The whole point of educating people is to make them understand that they will only feel truly safe when all cogs in the machine have been put in place.

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

I do not claim that, stop your mockery bullshit, it's childish.

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

So why do you even question the idea that gun control is a philosophical discussion? You're doing semantical nonsense arguments to "win the day" instead of doing a dialectic.

I never said it was, I just wanted to find out how you would explain it. Bummer right. — Sir2u

No, you are just incapable of linguistic pragmatism. There's a fallacy called ambiguity fallacy. You question gun control as a philosophical topic, then you question the philosophical category in which the discussion of gun control goes under, to arrive at a conclusion that was linguistically pragmatically understood from the get-go.

The initial text you questioned gun control to be a philosophical topic was this:

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.

If you actually read that again you see that I pointed out that because gun control is a topic that can be discussed philosophically and should be, there are better tools through it than just common talk which can be affected by lobbyist and political rhetoric. Philosophical discourse is better equipped to look at the actual facts of the matter.

How you changed that to questioning gun control as a philosophical topic, I don't know, and I don't know how you arrive at your last conclusion which is basically saying the same thing as I pointed out in the first place.

You are arguing in circles in order to just win any points you can, but what's your actual point, really?
Ambiguity fallacy.

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

And you just keep going. Maybe you should look at who had the tone in the first place, who uses the most ad hominem words and arguments? Maybe you could even look at how others answer to you, then compare the data and do some self-reflection.

Your interpretation as snobbish is in your own head, you read some counter-argument to your argument and instead of keeping with a traditional calm and philosophical dialectic behavior, you just burst out insults back to the one making the counter-argument. Why do you think I point out that you seem to lack philosophical methodology knowledge? Because you don't show any of it.

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

What conclusions? That we either have the option of enforcing laws against people's wishes or educate them to understand why strict gun control is good for them so that they vote in that direction? It's basic logic of the democratic system. And the dialectic approach I'm speaking of is how we discuss this as a group. You aren't doing it, you basically just attack what you don't like and won't actually use any dialectic approach. And when someone does it to you, by dissecting your argument, you just call them a variety of ad hominems. It's extremely childish behavior on a philosophical forum and you don't seem to understand why so many argue against you in here.

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

It's not about testing people's ability. Are you intentionally misunderstanding what you read in order to just give whatever counter you can on everything? You do understand that what I'm talking about is that because not all know about dialectic discourse methods, they will lean back on emotional opinions. It's why arguments without method often fail because there's no self-reflection through the dialectic method. People just bash their opinions in other people's heads, this is a fact. You can just look at the hyperbolic comments on comment sections anywhere online and you will understand what I'm talking about.

sinse they took away our whips and bats. — Sir2u

An attempt at a joke I presume?

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

You're just ranting irrelevant stuff right now. I'm talking about methods of discourse, not quoting philosophers. Methods in order to get rid of irrelevant rants.

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 didn't think we were talking about specific companies. Moral problems, both internally as a company and externally with what the company is doing, applies where it is applicable. Within this topic, it is very relevant to have ethic philosophers consulting decisions of gun laws. But it seems you view philosophers as opinion bullshitters and not professionals? Like, better to get some street smart people to go through the moral complexities of political questions that will affect billions of people in all manner of life situations than a philosopher in ethics.

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

I did, but you don't agree that it is a solution, or don't understand how it's a solution, therefore you want another solution. And once again, I was referring to a dialectic discourse, which I urged you to do on the solution given, which you didn't, you just wanted another solution. So, I can't do more before you do your part of the dialectic, and that has been my point all along.

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

People who haven't trained in argumentative methodology, who don't know what dialectic means, is or is done, does not have that method as a tool while debating and discussing. Most people do not have such training. Those who have such training has most likely been studying some kind of philosophy.
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.

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

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.

You judge character, the way someone writes. It's fallacious, biased and disrespectful and if anyone needs a reality check it's definitely you.

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

If you use ad hominems in your arguments, you fail to argue and can't demand more of others. If you behave badly in a discussion, that is your responsibility and if people criticize you for your behavior it damn straight is your responsibility to do better. It's rather hypocritical to call out others behavior when they react to your behavior. That is what's called a tu quoque. If you go to a party and start punching someone and then get hit back by others, would you then call them out for hitting you? Like you have been mistreated in any way? Wouldn't that be delusional, to say the least. The ad hominem name-calling, the mockery etc. just because someone formulates their text in a certain way that you don't like is, as I said numerous times, childish.

I have not mocked you for any knowledge that you have provided, what ever knowledge that might be. — Sir2u

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. To me, it's just irrelevant and desperate ad hominem-rants which gradually, for each time you write such things, lowers my respect of your knowledge in proper discourse.

If you want respect and good behavior from others, you should lead by example.

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

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.

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

I don't doubt that you doubt that. I also don't go around telling things like that. I mean, you should never judge a book by its cover, right? Especially when you don't even understand the books content or the point I made.

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

Is it an insult to point out that some know more of argumentative methodology than others? Is it an insult to humanity if I say that some people know cooking more than others and that some chefs are masters of cooking? If you cannot understand the simple probability logic and instead interpret that as an insult to humanity and that you shall take up the sword to defend humanity against this vile creature who said that there are fewer masters of cooking in this world than common people who mastered cooking, then I can't help you. Then you simply don't understand a word of what I said and instead just emotionally burst out ad hominems because you cannot wrap your head around what I actually said. And if you don't agree with the probability, please counter the argument I presented earlier, in a nice dialectic manner, so that I can read it without having to read your emotional burst of populistic anti-intellectualism, it's tiring.

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

It means you don't participate in a dialectic discourse in order to reach a good solution, you are more interested in blasting anti-intellectualism towards those who propose methods to reach solutions. When presented with an initial solution, you don't return in a dialectical way, you do emotional outbursts and then write nonsense answers. 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.

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

Deflecting rants of nonsense. You have been given answers. You have a solution told and an opening to counter with an argument.

You are totally unable to self-reflect upon your own writing. You just burst out emotional rants with no content. 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.

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.

Your phrase of the day seems to be ad hominems, nice one.

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

I actually was finished with this discussion, but when I got to work this morning I decide to do some investigation. Where I work we have teaching software that allows the teacher to create local network chats and polls. The polls can be done anonymously so students feel free to express themselves. I set a task for the ninth graders.

"In one sentence explain how you would fix the country's violence problem"

As I explained, I live in a country that was know as the murder capital of the world and many still think it is. There are very few guns here and not many people can afford to buy one and pay the high cost of the registration of the gun. There are strict laws controlling who can buy guns. Most of the weapons are in the hands of the army, police and criminal gangs and no one is really sure who has most.

Out of 75 9th graders these are the answers in order of popularity.

1. Teach the gang members how to live without harming people. Show them what they need to know to get a job. 58 votes
2. Get more good cops and take away the guns by force. 10 votes
3. Just shoot the fuckers that have guns. 5 votes This is the actual phrase used by 3, the others were not so polite.
4. How the hell should I know, that is what politicians are for. 1
5. I don't care, when I graduate i am getting the hell out of here. 1 vote

Now if it is not possible for people to solve problems without your fancy shmancy dialectic tools, how the hell did they come up with the same answer as you. Either they are just as good at thinking as you, or you are no better than they are.

Do you know what hydraulic resistance is? It is a part of your everyday life. You could not explain it to anyone could you? When you drive a car or go the gym you know how to use the machines and what they do without knowing how these things do what they do. Not knowing the official terminology does not mean that you cannot do something. People have a habit of figuring things out, that is how we evolved.

You are arguing in circles in order to just win any points you can, but what's your actual point, really? — Christoffer

I am not, as I have repeated so many times, trying to win anything. I do not come to do anything except entertain myself, reading and comment on some of the threads.

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

So you spent all that money on a college degree and cannot get a job then come here and talk down to people as a time waster. You rant on about how others are not capable of doing what you do but at this point have failed to provide even a single piece of evidence that this is true.

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

I have not seen things like this in sooooo many years, but I might still remember the basics. Have to think about it.

But seeing as you have brought up this wonderful topic, maybe you would care to show us your skills. Show us how you used this method to come to the conclusion that education was the method to solve the gun violence problem. Now I would hate for you to think that I am being abusive for asking this, but I really think I might remember more after a quick refresher course.

When I asked the kids how they had reached their conclusions they said that it was just common sense.

Apart from saying that I am naive here are a few others things that you have offered to support your case that education is the way to solve the problem of gun violence.

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

What do you call it when you use information that is not provable to try to make the other person in an discussion look silly so that you can win? I am sure that their is a name for it, but I just cannot remember.

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

That looks like the sentence I was going to write to you. You judge people just by the way they write.

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

On your point and argument on knowledge of dialectic methodology, I think that you are very wrong to say that common people cannot do it. They might not know the name for it or even that they are doing it, but they do it. But I am sure that I have already said that.

And I did read your point on what is the best solution in order to restrict guns. I even answered it if you would take the time to read and stop blathering on about your freaking college education and how great you are and how naive other people are.

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 gave you the information you needed to continue with a dialectic discussion and you ignored it.

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

You closed the door and flatly refused to look any further. It is your answer or none. Does that sound familiar?

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

How about that, you must be reading my mind. Your rants about the dialect discussion were repetitive, uninformative, insulting and boring.

You were asked several questions which you completely ignored, which I think was rather rude of you.
You make sweeping claims about knowing how other people think and act, and when you were asked to provide evidence of this and other claims you made you either ignored it or gave some irrelevant answer to it.
You talk about how important it is to have knowledge to be able to have a dialectic discussion about a topic, but show no real knowledge about the gun problem in the USA.

So, if you would like to explain how my students came to the same conclusion you did without your training,
or if you would like to try to explain to me why my answer to your proposed solution is irrelevant,
or if you would try to explain to me your theory of how people actually came to the conclusion that everything is made of water,
or show us how you used your methods to reach your conclusions about the solution to gun violence,
then I will listen to you. But I will exclude any further nonsense rants from you including but not limited to professing the greatness of the dialectic method.

But before we close, I must say that I admire your writing, as an EASL person you write OK.

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.

So I suppose you go around insulting people that are carrying guns? 8-) — Sir2u

I think the point is that the presence of the guns makes politeness both impossible and irrelevant. 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:

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

You do realise that the evidence is on display in public, and that if you try to misrepresent, you risk being easily exposed? Look:

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 really should learn when to concede. You very clearly changed the subject to the broader subject of violent crime.

You said that was false. — Sir2u

Again, let's look at the evidence:

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

The claim that "the UK is the violent crime capital of Europe and even beats the US" was based on a statistic which a credible fact checking site has rated as false.

And andrewk similarly exposed some of the other links you referred to in an attempt to support your claim.

It's a good thing that there are people who actually look into these things critically instead of just swallowing them up.

What next? Let's see:

I commented that it must be awful living in the UK with all of those knife crimes. — Sir2u

Which changes the subject once again, so I made a point which connected knife crime to gun crime, thereby making a relevant point, given the topic. This point of mine was not only relevant, but well supported, which is more than you can say.

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

Yeah, and as we all know, papers never exaggerate or spin things a certain way or even more or less just completely make things up. But even if your point about knife crime in the UK is true enough, that still doesn't make it relevant in this context.

It's just the same old whataboutery. The last recourse of those who do not have a proper argument, but still want to look as though they're making a good point.

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

OK, I will be polite to you.
Please explain why the response I gave to your solution to gun crime is not worth talking about or irrelevant.

Thank you.

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

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

The original comment about armed societies was clearly about firearms, not any old weapon. Not slingshots, maces, dynamite, or lightsabers. So it's you, and whoever you were discussing this tangent with, who has gone off topic and taken the phrase out of context.

Jesus. What a waste of time that was.

Anyway, I rejoined when you and some other guy were talking about shooting criminals. If not with firearms, then with what? Water pistols?

And of course the UK is violent. What place isn't? That's a massive climb down from your original claim. You should be more open about the fact that the original claim was shown to be dubious. I took one look at that link and raised an eyebrow. And lo and behold...

Hey guys, look, this website says that guns aren't that bad after all:

www.obviously-dodgy-rightwing-propoganda.com

Seems legit! :rofl:

I think the point is that the presence of the guns makes politeness both impossible and irrelevant. — Pattern-chaser

Have you ever found yourself in the position where you are being irritated and annoyed by a very slow driver doing 15mph on a narrow winding road, you are late already and this guy in front of you will not get out of the way.
You don't try to push him out of the way or over take in a dangerous manner do you? Why not? Fear. Fear stops you from doing these things. The same as many other things in life that you do not do.

You might say that you do not try to push him out of the way because you were taught to respect others, that maybe true, but I cannot imagine anyone in that situation just chugging along happily behind him. Almost everyone would be calling him nasty names and honking the horn, neither of which is respectful.

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

Fear of the law, fear of offending, fear of what others might think about us, fear of losing what we have and lots of others control our lives. Exactly how is that different from fear of a gun?

Being polite is something most people do out of habit, and not always voluntarily. Lots of people hate their bosses, their neighbors, their mother in laws but they are polite because it is convenient to do so.

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

:lol: :lol: :rofl: :rofl:

But I enjoyed it and that is what counts, at least for me.

But I enjoyed it and that is what counts, at least for me. — Sir2u

Well yeah, the schadenfreude at your expense was quite satisfying, but it's odd that you got so much enjoyment out of it.

Well yeah, the schadenfreude at your expense was quite satisfying, but it's odd that you got so much enjoyment out of it. — S

I enjoy seeing you get your knickers in a twist.

But please be a man for once and admit that you were off topic as much as me.