Are people giving up their authenticity by buying into a narrative that overrides their dislike for the work at hand? — schopenhauer1

How many do you think are actually aware that they are doing it?

A bird cannot reflect on how much he is tired of gathering seeds and berries. — schopenhauer1

While I cannot prove this to be false, there is not much information about it being true either. The truth is we don't know whether they are capable of reflecting upon their own lives. Have you seen the black birds that figure out how to solve problems so that they can get food. They are very inventive and appear to contemplate problems and use trial and error to solve them. Is it possible that they prefer to solve problems over just finding food out of boredom or dissatisfaction with their usual job?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGPGknpq3e0

A human can, but still trudges on. — schopenhauer1

Not all humans do, many seek to better their lot in life. Some just give up. It is a question of opportunities being present or not. How many people of low income have a chance to make their lives better? Not many, and some don't even notice that there are occasionally opportunities for them. So they tell themselves that things could be worse and that they are happy for what they have. That is human nature as any psychologist will tell you, no one wants to suffer so we create defenses against it.

But from another point of view, just how many truly satisfying jobs are there? Would it be even possible for everyone to be able to do the job that made them happiest?

Simply the reward of future money can't be enough either. You have to buy into the belief that money is the reason you do something you normally would not want to. — schopenhauer1

Did you try asking people why they worked before asking this question?
I know of only one person that would do his job without being paid, but only when he had enough money in the bank and had no expenses to pay to be able to continue. Me, I love my job even though I get pissed of with the idiots I am expected to teach.

And that is the solution to the grind most people suffer from, get a job you love.

:up:

Wait for me.
No, that won't work. It will take me weeks to hitchhiker over there.

I'll buy one here and think of you guys there while I eat. :smile:

The title itself I simply rolled my eyes at and felt utter contempt at such expression. — Amity

But you could not resist coming to see what was happening could you. :brow:

You do not need any software to find your IP nor your physical location. Yes you said that the internet has been routed to disguise your IP, but once you are in contact with someone it can be tracked back through any system.
https://whatismyipaddress.com/

There are plenty of police departments that us farcebook and twatter, so i doubt that he would be given access to them or any other social media. Even if the blocked all of these possible sites and there are many of them, he could quite easily google lots of information about find his real IP.

Why would they want to give him a radio? Surely he would be able to listen to local stations and get ideas about where he was.

In all, I think it a rather unreal situation, might have to do some more thinking about it if you plan on writing about this.
Lock yourself up for a couple of days and see what you do to get out of the situation.

Just ignore it like most of the rest of us do. — Baden

Yeah, that's right. :wink:

Fair enough. I guess the old TPF always lacked containment boards. :confused: — Akanthinos

There was the un-modded section back at TPF, and that used to get some serious flaming going on it.

AAAAaahhhhhhhhhhhh. :rage:

OK then keep on posting.

Skulking back to the drawing boards for a new plan to rule the thread. :gasp:

I'll be back!

Bollocks, stop adding to this thread now.

Racism is nothing more than discrimination, I am part of the in group you are not, but on a larger scale. But it works from both sides equally.
Most of the time it is caused not by hatred as someone said but by ignorance. Hatred is caused by one group of people discriminating against another.
Many times the difference between the two groups is nothing more than the resources they possess, one group wanting what the other has can be a powerful motivator to hate someone. And it is even worse when the haves start to think that the havenots are coming to take away their possessions.

Think about it, what is the most discriminated racial group in the USA? What do people say about them? They are bring down the value of our neighborhood.
They want to steal our daughters.
You cannot leave your car outside without it being stolen.

They don't hate them for the color of their skin, they hate them because they think they are going to lose something.

It's the Lounge. That is all. — Baden

Yep, that is where you can sit around and watch people talk all kinds of shit. :cool:

Kids are taught to lie in school,
When someone says "Good morning, how are you today?" you will reply "I'm very well thank you"

My bosses get pissed of at me because I refuse to participate in the ritual of replying "excellent" when someone asks how I am. I have told them that 1) I am not a hypocrite and 2) I will not try to convince myself that I am excellent when I feel crappy as they seem to be trying to do.

People, including little kids, are being told that they should accept everyone as an equal without it being explained to them how that is possible when they are obviously nothing alike.

Boys and girls are not the same, even though common sense says they should be treated the same and have the same rights. Political correctness seems to want to go beyond common sense and eliminate any and all differences between them. I believe that this is one of the reasons why so many kids nowadays are confused about whether they are boys or girls.

There are lots of examples of political correctness causing people to lose instead of gain because some people are getting jobs they don't deserve just because of their color or religion.

One thing that is sure to happen is the death of comedy, no one will be able to tell jokes some without someone saying they are offended. Even slapstick will suffer because someone will claim that it is incorrect to laugh because they might actually hurt themselves when falling down even though they do it deliberately.

I've long subscribed to the notion that the source of human suffering is desire. — Wallows

I think that suffering comes more from not being able to fulfill one's desires than the desires themselves. Everyone has desires of some sort but not everyone suffers or is unhappy. The lack of capability or being prevented in some way from getting what you desire would make you sad and suffer.

Have you talked to the people at the local health or sanitary department, they usually people that inspect places and can order the landlord to either do something or close the places down.

What “game” would appeal to the majority of an adult audience? — I like sushi

I don't think one particular game would appeal to everyone.

What would be appealing to almost everyone, and is already making a great impact is virtual life.

Platforms like Second Life are gaining popularity world wide. As the speed and spread of the web increase so will membership to sites like this.

Eventually people will just slip into their virtual self and do whatever they like, esports included. It is not hard to imagine that one of today's kids would rather spend his day in a virtual reality while lying on his bed than having to get up and go to meet real people. Think about it, the teacher would be on line and he could go to school without getting dressed or putting on a uniform, he could do the exercise and class work while chewing gum, he would never be late handing in homework because he would do it online.

How many older people suffer from stress and anxiety because they have to run around trying to get their job done while looking after a family. In a virtual world, for people that do not do manual work, it would be so much easier to do things. And when they have problems with their partners or families they can retreat to the virtual family they have online.

This is not really possible right now but a lot of people do work from home using video conferences and the internet to receive and turn in their work. I believe that within a matter of a few years 3D conferences will take the place for meetings with the boss, not as a holographic like in the SciFi movies but in the online worlds.

To answer your question then, it would be the game of life.

Holy shit, S. Calm your tits down... Don't pick on @Noah Te Stroete. He be cool. — Wallows

Did you notice that HE never denied having tits? :gasp:
Maybe we should re-think what we have surmised about other members of the forum. :chin:

If anyone wants to give other examples of things they have seen or heard that might have promoted a narrative in this way, feel free. — wax

You do not need to go far to find examples nor do they have to be million dollar movies.

The Flintstones was supposed to be kids entertainment, but did you ever notice the topics?

Betty getting mad at Fred because she thought he was messing around with another woman.
Fred trying to be a snob to make Betty happy.
Troubles with the law and gangsters.
How ideal families should behave.

Lots and lots of conditioning for the tots.

Many animals have higher intelligence than they are given credit for normally, but who can tell exactly what type of intelligence it is.

Sea mammal can communicate between the members of their pods using sound, but no one is sure about how sophisticated that communication is.

Most birds have some sort of a navigation system that makes it possible to return to the same nesting place year after year. Some people think that it is nothing more than pattern recognition that lets them identify the places. But even that is incredible considering the distances some of them fly each year, how do they store and retrieve the memories?

Lots of dogs are capable of picking up things from their owners, like who they like and who to keep away from, But how they do this is unknown. It might be that they are capable of reading our body language or understanding the different tones of voice used to the different people the owner interacts with, or even that they do understand the words we used to a certain extent.

Our biggest problem is that we have not been able to learn their languages so we have no idea if they appear to be really intelligent some times or are capable of having higher thought levels most of the time.

If this is bullshit, then he is like a fly drawn towards it to feed on for sustenance. — S

No, actually I came to make fun of you.

Do you think that the trophy should be made of bronze? Or should we give it its real value and used recycled plastic trash?

:cool:

And to what, pray tell, are you referring? — Noah Te Stroete

That you have to work really fucking if you want to live a productive and purposeful life.

There were a few other things that she said that have been show to be true, but it was so long ago that I read her works that I don't remember. She is on the list of books to re-read when i have time.

(At least I'm aware of my lack of humbleness, and openly acknowledge it with self-depreciating humour). — S

But you are not smart enough to come up with something to say yourself, you have to quote another of your ilk.

Guy walks into the doctors office and tells him that his leg hurts really bad.
The doctor does a bunch of test and then tells the patient "There is nothing wrong with your leg, it is just its age."
"Dumbass doctor" the guy cries "they are both the same age and only one hurts"

Tell you what. Apply those principles of tolerance and less judgementalness to your interlocutors in future and karma may take a liking to you. — Baden

Not going to happen. :rofl:

Most of the animals around there at that time were considered too valuable to risk on work like that. Human lives had little worth and could be risked.

Oh by the way, she was right about at least one thing.

I suppose we're not allowed close this. :sad: — Baden

Can I nominate this thread for the best duet piece of bullshit on a philosophy form of the year award?

I have already done some research to find the ideal trophy.



This is perfect in how it represents the participation of the members. Always putting their feet in it.

I'm trying to show them the way out, but they just argue with me. — S

As a wise man once said,
"Follow me those that will, for I can lead you to the light"

No one followed because it was too dark to see where he was.

Maybe if you started by shining a light on the reasons they should follow you, they would.

Lots of people reach a point in philosophy when the effort is not worth the returns. Your ideas are ignored, your thoughts are laughed at and you feel like quitting.
Just remember something though, what you do in philosophy should be for your benefit. So make yourself better and screw the rest. :up:

:wink: If you say so.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.