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.

"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.

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.

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.

I wasn't sure you were being serious with that question. Did you genuinely not see what I did there? — S

Have I ever asked you a question that I did not expect you to take seriously?
Yes I saw what you did. You made a senseless comment that has no value just to add another post to your 7.7 list of crappy posts.

Or are you just yanking my chain because my sentence was incomplete? — S

There is only one reason that I ever yank the chain, unfortunately that option is not available in the virtual world even though it is so desperately needed.

This looks like trolling, — S

You don't know what that means. He spelled out what he thinks and why he thinks that way clearly.

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.

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.

My question:

Did not think what? — Sir2u

Your answer:

Pfft! That old goat probably can't even button up his shirt correctly. — S

Nope, I don't think I missed anything. Unless of course you actually intended to answer that meaningless, senseless and complete idiotic.

An armed society is a normal society. Society without arms don’t last very long.
But whether we elect a few people to do the actual arm bearing, or whether each of us are made to bear them ourselves personally, which in my opinion, and that of many others, most others I should say, is tedious, risky, economically redundant, and a terrible burden, is apparently a matter of debate.
I personally have to go against the argument and say that an armed society is not any more polite than an unarmed one, and such business is best left to the state and mercenaries, while we citizens indulge in higher activities like art and philosophy. — unforeseen

I totally agree with you, to each their own and good luck with the choices you make.

But you forgot to add drinking and loving to the activities.

You wrote the following in response to my saying that your direct reply to my question about a ratio in the post to which I was responding was the first time you had directly addressed my question and mentioned 'ratio':

I am so sure that I had posted all of those things below.... — Sir2u

yet the only one of the 'things below' that mentioned 'ratio' was the one that I had already said was the first time you did it. — andrewk

You kept insisting that I had hinted at a ratio, so I highlighted all of the hints. It should be obvious if others managed to figure it out. As I asked, was it really necessary to mention the word ratio before a smart person like you figured it out.

Could you just remind exactly what accusations you were making about attempted bullying? — andrewk

Where did I make any accusations, as I said I was only commenting on the purpose of the forum and your style.

As you know, that's not how things work on a philosophy forum. The onus is on the person making a claim to justify it. — andrewk

I have given any and all of the reasons why I think what I do, I think that I have justified the way I think adequately. But that is not what I am talking about, you keep insisting that I am wrong and claiming in a non bullying way that I am naive.
So it is up to you to provide the reasons why I am wrong.
As you say, if you make a statement the onus is on you to prove it. So go ahead and prove that anything that I have said is false. Or as you and S are fond of saying just admit that you cannot do it.

In the instance to which you are referring, my use of 'that that ' was a mistake. I was careless when typing that sentence. I either didn't notice that I had typed the word twice, or I did but mixed it up with a sentence a few lines earlier where the doubling was used intentionally and correctly. — andrewk

Yes, I know. It happens all the time. But some people around here think that is reason enough to call you out and say that you need to go back to school and learn some grammar. I know because it has happened to me on several occasions. that is why I warned you to be careful.

It appears that it is actually not at all painful to admit that one is wrong sometimes. — andrewk

So explain to me why I am wrong and I will follow your example.