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

Still refusing to answer questions I see. But I guess it is because you don't have an answer. :roll:

Didn't think so. — S

Did not think what? Please try not to write these cryptic one liners, Banno is the only one that can do that correctly.

Ah, I see. So you were merely being pedantic,and your point was trivial — S

No, I was not being pedantic, I leave stuff like that to you. And the point was not trivial, it is not my fault that you cannot express clearly what you want to say.

, and you either misunderstood or deliberately misinterpreted what I was saying. — S

Neither of those, you wrote something that did not make sense and I pointed it out to you.

I meant what would be a proposed enforceable law in the country for which I would want it added to the law books. It would already be an enforceable law elsewhere. That's where the evidence comes from. — S

OK, so it was your inability to make your ideas clear. You should try harder to write what you mean, I remember you telling me that so many times.

The problem was more than that. Enforceable is not the same as enforced. I want the two together. — S

Ahh, now I understand. You want a hundred percent guaranteed answer. Could I ask how do you think it would happen in the good old USA.

And who do you think is arguing against that, if anyone? — S

As far as I can see no one is. But no one has given any ideas about how to go about doing it either.

No you didn't. That is the first time you have proposed that as an answer to my question, or that you have even mentioned the word 'ratio' in your replies. — andrewk

Oh dear, I really must be losing my mind. I am so sure that I had posted all of those things below.

You asked about the ration and I explained several times that it is the number of cops to the number of guns that need to be collected or confiscated. I even stated instead of implying that there are to few cops to do the job. — Sir2u

So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop. — Sir2u

Just shooting anyone with a gun would not work because there are not enough people to do the job. Each cop would have to find and shoot several hundred bad guys. — Sir2u

The ratio you keep on about I think is maybe something that I did not hint at but is implicit in what I said, lots of guns and very few cops. But I am sure that I had already said that. — Sir2u

The fact that other people obviously understood and pointed out what I said leaves me thinking that you do not understand English very well.

I think he means the ratio of "good guys with guns to bad guys with guns". — VagabondSpectre

Do I really have to mention that these are ratios, when you are the one that pointed out that I seemed to be implying something like that. I took it for granted that you knew how to read.

Further, the ratio you mention in this quote is one of object counts (numbers of police and number of guns), not events (crimes and attendances at crimes) which is what your original claim that I dispute was about. — andrewk

Nit picking.

You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed — Sir2u

You seem to be hinting at some sort of ratio being low. What ratio do you have in mind? There is no obvious ratio that makes sense, given the above sentence. — andrewk

Maybe I hinted incorrectly or not at all, just your imagination, or maybe you understood incorrectly. Who knows. What is obvious is that the cops nearly always arrive after a crime has been committed because there are not enough to have them just standing around waiting for a crime to happen.

If you want to drop your original rhetorical flourish about police not preventing crime ......................................................... But saying that that your claim about police attending crime scenes was making that point falls flat. — andrewk

My original statement stands until someone can prove it to be false. Which you certainly have no way of doing.
Be careful using "that that" in sentences, S gets upset and pulls out his dictionary and some webpages about it.

and instead focus on an argument about there being too few police to enforce a government gun acquisition program, by all means do so. There are complex issues to discuss in that direction. — andrewk

I have already made a statement about my thoughts on gun crime prevention, but I would have to give some thought to the idea of cops not being able to enforce gun acquisition programs. Exactly what are these programs supposed to do.

I am sorry that you feel bullied. I am not aware of having written anything that was bullying, but if I have you need only point it out and I will delete it and apologise. — andrewk

Oh, I don't feel bullied at all, I was just commenting on your style. It seems to be heading in the same direction as S. Comments like the one below tend to show the writer's inability to provide proper answers to the questions more than the inability of the one it is being written to.

Why not just admit you wrote something that made no sense? — andrewk

You have still not answered the question either, another habit of our friend S. Why am I wrong?

No. Read about the Australian gun buy-back here. There is plenty of room for a discussion about the differences between the pre-1996 Australian situation and the current US situation, and the effect those differences have on the viability of applying the same strategy to the US, but suggesting there were no guns to be confiscated forms no part of that. Approximately 650,000 guns were collected and destroyed. — andrewk

"The 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA), passed in response tothe April 28, 1996 Port Arthur, Tasmania massacre of 35 people, banned semi-automatic and pump-action rifles and shotguns, bought back more than 650,000 of these weapons from existing owners, and tightened requirements for licensing, registration, and safe storage of firearms. The buyback is estimated to have reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20%, and, by some estimates, almost halved the number of gun-owning households."

Just over half a million guns BOUGHT back. It is estimated that there are more than 350 million guns in the USA.

Do you still think the comparison is valid?All of this has been proposed already. and no one has come up with an idea to put it into effect.
Who is going to authorize the purchase of these guns at a value that would make it worth while to turn it in? Count each one at about $10, that is a lot of tax payers money to be spent. And most of the owners of the guns spent much more buying the guns and are not going to be happy that their money is used for this instead of helping the already screwed up educational and health systems.

As to the effectiveness of this, even they are not sure whether it made any difference.

"This issue of Bulletins reviews the evidence on the effect of the NFA on firearm deaths. There have not been any studies examining the effect of the buyback on crime other than homicide. Some scientists believed that the buyback might reduce firearm crime, but most saw no reason to expect that it would significantly affect non-firearm crime.Most crimes in Australia before the NFA did not involve firearms, and few Australians owned handguns or carried them on their person, either before or after the buyback. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that after the buyback, the percentage of robberies where the assailant used a firearm did drop significantly. There was little change in “unlawful entry with intent,” one of the few types of crime where one might make a case for a possible deterrent effect of having a gun in the home."

https://americangunfacts.com/
Gun Ownership Vs Crime, an international perspective

I live in the #1 spot on the international side of the diagram. I own and sometimes carry a weapon, I have fired a couple of times as a deterrent and I am happy to be here writing today because of this.

Yes, I did. Did you think about that before you typed and submitted it? — S

Let me re-state your mistake.
An enforceable law should be added to to the law books is basically what you said.

But if it is an enforceable law then it is already a law and therefore there is no need for it to be added to the law book again.

Surely you must know a thing or two about the obstacles against legislating and enforcing laws for which there is good evidence that they're effective? In the USA, there's the Republic Party, the NRA, lobbyists, the rampant gun culture... — S

What has this got to do with anything? If it is already a law that is enforceable why would there be any problems anywhere, or with anyone.

In short, act to make the conditions right, then act to change the law or the ways in which it is enforced or both. — S

Basically what I have been saying from the beginning, education first.

You erroneously equate "a solution" with a complete solution in full detail, ready and waiting to be implemented. People here have outlined the solution for you. Your expectations, as I've explained multiple times here, are unreasonable. We aren't all going to go off to gain the required expertise and then spend all the required time and dedication to produce some sort of Treatise On The Problem Of Firearms. — S

I have never said that I have any expectations, I have simply asked for people to present their solutions.
So far all of the solutions have amounted to "create laws and enforce them". When I have pointed out that there are laws and the problems with enforcing them you and others like you get uppity. If you do not want to discuss this like a rational person, why the hell do you keep sticking your nose in.
Is it possibly that you keep posting simply because you want to add more posts to you status, that you tie in with your continuous use of multiple posts in a row instead of combining them in to one as would seem the logical thing to do.

Oh man, that's priceless. — S

It is not as good as yours though.

Naive - adjective
Marked by or showing unaffected simplicity and lack of guile or worldly experience
Inexperienced
Lacking information or instruction
Not initiated; deficient in relevant experience

Please tell me how any of those meaning can be applied to describe a question, which is an abstract. I have never met a question that has worldly experience or experience of any kind for that matter, so in that sense all questions would be naive. I have never read a question that lacks information or instruction. How would you initiate a question or show its deficiency in experience?

A person can be naive for asking a question, but even school kids know that this adjective cannot be applied to a question.

I don't recall him saying anything about this hat which you mention. — S

Congratulations. that is the first one you have found out of six. You must be getting desperate to make me look bad so that you can "win". When you have nothing worth while or relevant to say you always start picking on people's typo's, grammar and spelling.

But I do recall him saying something about shooting armed criminals, which seems to be jumping ahead without justification. You addressed what he said on his own terms, taking into account the whole shooting armed criminals thing, whereas I challenged it. — S

In what way did I address him on his own terms? All I did was ask who was going to do the shooting, there was nothing there to challenge. If anything I was pointing out the folly of what he said.

I would like to see those enforceable laws for which there is evidence of them working be put into the law books and enforced. — S

Did you think about this before you wrote it?
If there are enforceable laws that have been proven to be effective then there would be no need to put them into the law books because they are already there. sounds like gobble de goop to me.

Evidence of these laws working has been given in this discussion. Evidence of these laws working has been given in this discussion. That you might discount the evidence is not that it hasn't been given, nor is it that it's right to discount it. — S

And it was pointed out that what works well in one place will not always work in another. The same applies to baking cakes, it is different at sea level that when you are on top of a mountain. That you cannot see these difference or cannot understand how they apply to the different situations is your problem. And it is not right to discount other peoples' way of thinking just because they do not agree with your narrow minded, ignorant, inexperienced way of thinking.

Keep on look for the easter eggs, I left several here for you're enjoyment.

No, it's about being observant to the behavior and opinions of common people around you. If you want to know more about how things are being discussed outside of your own small group of friends and relatives you need to act like an anthropologist and really look and listen to how people are. — Christoffer

I have a very small, 5 people, group of friends. I have 2 other family members. And we do discuss world problems of every kind, even though I am the only one that participates in a philosophy forum. But I work with hundreds of people everyday. Most of them seem perfectly capable of talking about the problems of the world as well. So I still don't understand why you think that non-philosophy forum people do not have the tools necessary to think about such things.

I already told you the realistic route of action. Stop acting naive. — Christoffer

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

Philosophy of ethics and justice. — Christoffer

This does not answer the question, I asked how gun control qualifies as a philosophical question, not which area of philosophy would possible put it into.

Have you ever met anyone outside of philosophy who can do a proper dialectic? — Christoffer

I have not asked anyone whether they can do a proper dialectic. But as you are making this statement about the non-philosophically inclined people's incapability, I am sure that you have asked everyone you have ever met in your anthropological wanderings and all of the parties you have ever attended. Because that is the only way to know such things that I am aware of.

Most discussions about sensitive topics always end up in brawls with each side always saying their opinion and no one reaching a higher level of understanding. It's exactly because of the lack of dialectic tools. But you don't seem to know much about these things? — Christoffer

Actually I doubt that most of the people here on the forum are philosophy students or have a degree in philosophy. I can think of several members whom I know of that do not.
While knowledge of the use of dialectic tools is useful to argue successfully, it is useless in the face of ignorance. If you know nothing about the topic, there is no use for these tools.
Seriously, do you think that the common people have not realized that there is a problem with guns? They know well enough that there is. It is not the lack of these tools that stops them from doing something about it, but the lack of methods that can be used. They vote for the people that they want to represent them and the ones that propose removing the guns lose. They protest in the streets and get arrested because, as you say it turns into a brawl.
You say that you have the use of these tools, what are you going to do to solve the problem?

It might be more evident in my country, but here are some hints
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/mark-cuban-philosophy-degree-will-be-worth-more-than-computer-science.html
https://bigthink.com/experts-corner/why-future-business-leaders-need-philosophy — Christoffer

This does not qualify as proof of the statement you made.

Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces? — "Christoffer

The articles say that some people think that philosophy graduates might have a better career that others, but it makes no mention of them gaining popularity as a hired.

Philosophy is more about how you think about problems, not direct solutions to problems. — Christoffer

I very much doubt that is what the companies think, if they hire someone as a consultant they want the problem solved not just thought about.

What's the point of hiring someone who has the answers to current problems if they cannot solve new ones further down the road? — Christoffer

It would get things going again without which there would be no new problems down the line because there would be no company.
But it would make sense to hire someone that could do both problem solving and preventative work. Unfortunately, "preventative" in industry usually means foreseeing possible problem and trying to prevent them, which would be almost impossible without the technological know how. I don't think many philosophy graduates would be able to predict possible week points in any system that they have no knowledge of.

I recommend that you study a bit more philosophy before you demand solutions in the way you do. — Christoffer

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

You're acting like a child right now and it's probably not worth continuing this discussion when you seem incapable of being humble. — Christoffer

Oh dear. Is it my fault that you have nothing to contribute to the solving of the problem? I am not the one that sets myself above the common people nor do I claim to be a philosophy. I am just a humble thinker with opinions based on what I see and what I know. It would seem to be that you are the one covering up your inabilities with pompousness.

You know nothing about me, so who's actually sitting on a high horse, judging? — Christoffer

I can say exactly the same thing about you. You do not know me or what I have studied, but you presume to make statements about what I should do to improve my understanding of truth and the world.

No, you just don't like it when I correctly identify an error in one of your replies, although I was basically beaten to the punch by andrewk when he said that you didn't answer the question. — S

No, you were just hitching a ride on someone else's white horse. You saw someone pointing out a supposed error and you jumped on the band wagon. A common practice of yours.

If you and andrewk are incapable of understanding them I am sorry for you both.

Now, if you believe what you say then explain the fallacies you named as they apply to my post. I already know how you are going to respond, "LOOK IT UP YOURSELF". Because you have no idea how to do it..

Bring in tougher gun laws which can be enforced, and enforce them. — S

Say what? Talking about missing the point, and here we have a good example. In every discussion you have said the same thing. Could you be specific in exactly what those laws would be? And how they would apply to all of the illegal weapons?
And I can probably guess your answer to this as well, "I am not a law maker". So what enforceable laws would you, as a thinking individual person, like to see put into the law books?

I included his quote above yours. I addressed it to both of you, since he said it and you humoured him without addressing the elephant in the room. — S

And exactly what do you think the elephant was, maybe I did miss it. But I replied to the part I quoted and nothing else in his post, so I don't think that I was either humoring him nor missing anything.
He said it would hat it would be alright to shoot anyone with a gun and I asked who would do the shooting.
End of topic, nothing missed.

They don't need to. Where I live gun ownership is very rare and the gun crime rate is very low - partly because we have strong gun control laws, that have overwhelming public support. — andrewk

Lucky you, but there was probably never any guns to get rid of so the situation is nowhere near the same as we have been discussing. Gun laws and controls are preventative measures that prevent the problems from happening but are not always the solution to an existing problem like in the USA. Have you ever lived in a gun infested area? I work in the place that was named the murder capital of the world for several years.

I know what 'rarely' means, and you know that I know it and that that has nothing to do with what I asked you.

You implied that some ratio is low and that that somehow helps your argument against gun control but, when we take your sentence and try to find a clear, precise proposition in it, we end up with nonsense. I suspect you've already realised this, which is why you keep on dodging the question. — andrewk

You asked about the ration and I explained several times that it is the number of cops to the number of guns that need to be collected or confiscated. I even stated instead of implying that there are to few cops to do the job. The cops are not removing the illegal guns from the streets until a crime is committed despite the fact there there are laws and regulations that permit them to do so. You do know that these laws exist I suppose. If that is too difficult to understand then I am at a loss about how to make it simpler.

Why not just admit you wrote something that made no sense? It's no big deal. We all do it quite frequently, especially me. — andrewk

I think that you have been listening to S too much. The purpose of these type of forums is supposed to be educational, a place where you can express your ideas and read other peoples ideas. It is not about beating and bullying others into submission and trying to force them into admitting that they are wrong.

If you think my idea is incorrect them it is up to you to present your case and prove it.
So please show me why my statement that there are not enough cops to solve the gun problem nor enough public support to do so is wrong.
There is the challenge, either show me what is wrong or shut up.

The admission wouldn't hamper your ability to continue arguing against gun control, should you wish to do so. — andrewk

Priceless. Please show me where I have ever argued against gun control.

The closest that I have ever come to doing so is to say that the people of the USA believe that they have the right to carry guns. Learn to read.

Common people do not discuss these issues on a philosophy forum or try to figure out the truth about the world and existence. They want to drink Starbucks coffee and enjoy some evening entertainment or sport on TV. I'm not criticizing this (although I think people should care a bit more about truth), I'm only stating the facts of how the world is. — Christoffer

You must have a very wide social circle to be able to make this claim. I know lots of people that probably do not even know of the existence of this and other similar sites, and they have opinions and discuss this topic along with other social problems. Why would anyone need to figure out the truth about the world and existence to be able to discuss gun control? Why do you think that no one ever does it while drinking coffee? And the funny thing is that I doubt that you have figured out the truth about the world and existence but here you are talking about gun control. Without providing a solution.

Just see how many get excited at a party if you start talking philosophy. This is not what most common people have an interest in. Which also means that they don't have the tools to understand the issues and are easily persuaded by lobbyist and smart political rhetoric. — Christoffer

Is gun control a philosophical topic? That sounds really weird to me. I thought it was a social problem that we were discussing possible solutions to. Exactly how does it qualify as a philosophical topic?

If I was at a party and some dork started talking about Plato I would probably want to shoot him, not because of the topic but because of the setting. Just because people do not want to talk about philosophy at a party in no way proves that they don't have the tools to understand the issues. Which are the ever so special tools that you say you have just because you come to visit a philosophy forum?

It's actually us, philosophers and people who've been putting a lot of effort and thought into the issues of this world, — Christoffer

Who is this "us"? I don't and I am reasonably sure that the majority of posters here do not consider themselves to be philosophers. I spend most of my time trying to sort out my own problems and have spent a minimum of time and effort on the issues of the world. What have you done to solve the problems of hunger in Africa, child labor in Indonesia or slave traders in Europe?

who will be the ones educating other people on these issues. Why do you think that philosophers have been gaining popularity as a hired consultant in many workplaces? — Christoffer

Before you can teach, you have to know. Which is the top of the list for jobs available for people with a philosophy degree. I have not been able to find any information about how many philosophers are actually hired as consultants but there does not seem to be much of a need for philosophy graduates in that area.
If you can please post a link to the information about that I would be thankful.

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/philosophy
https://www.lovemoney.com/news/3981/the-best-and-worstpaying-university-degrees

That's a bit of a naive question. — Christoffer

How can a question be naive? The person asking it maybe, although not in this case, but the question cannot be naive.

It's time when it's time when people want it. Just look at how people have started waking up to the facts because of all the rapports of mass shootings. Or it can go in the other direction. For US, I think the problem is fundamental in US history and culture, so I don't think it's gonna happen anywhere but the most progressive states.

It starts with the people. If you want a solution, figure out how you can convince one single gun owner to give up their guns for the greater good. If you can't convince a single one, you won't be able to push a whole nation. — Christoffer

So basically you, a self proclaimed philosopher, has no solution to the problem that has not already been discussed on this thread. All of the tools you say you have are just as useless as the ones the coffee drinking common people have.

But there is probably one thing that the common people have that you don't, a better understanding of how things affect them. Sitting high on a mountain looking at you belly button might make you a better philosopher, but until you get down in the streets you will not understand the problems you are trying to solve.

I really don't see a problem with finding out what to do. — Christoffer

Please feel free to make a viable suggestion. I am sure that the American society will thank you for it because they have not been able to come up with an acceptable idea.

You're right in that it's harder to enforce the laws, but that's dependent on how the fundamental mentality of the people is. The solution will be, in places like the US, to either force people to follow the rules, or accept that the risk of mass shootings, school shootings, high violent crime and individual isolation out of fear of strangers is the norm. You either enforce laws or you don't, it depends on what the people want in a democracy. — Christoffer

How do you force that many people to give up their guns? Even after all of the mass shootings and bad stuff that has happened the Americans continue to vote to be allowed to keep their guns.

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

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

Only at the right time can politicians enforce more strict gun laws without enraging half the country. — Christoffer

How long do you estimate until that happens?

Just compare societies with low gun control and societies with high gun control - And then compare that to the statistics of best places to live in the world.

Is there a point to discussing when there's data that point to the truth? — Christoffer

That is well known and has been repeated ad vomitus throughout the thread. I don't think that anyone here disagrees with that. But the problem is what to do about it. No one has any ideas about how to solve the problem when there are so many guns and people involved.

It is easy to say "Bring in tougher gun laws" but as I have said since the beginning writing laws and enforcing them are two different things.

To what ratio were you referring with your use of 'rarely'? — andrewk

Let me ask you a couple of simple question, how many people get arrested for carrying a gun before they either try to use it or actually do use it in a crime? Do police where you live actually stop people and search them for weapons without a valid reason?

Rarely means not often, seldom, infrequently, it is rarely used in any other sense so I see no reason to be providing a definition of it.

You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, — Sir2u

If you are having any trouble understanding the above sentence I don't know how to help you.

The ratio you keep on about I think is maybe something that I did not hint at but is implicit in what I said, lots of guns and very few cops. But I am sure that I had already said that.

If you are still having trouble, maybe S will get his magic dictionary out of the shit house so you can use it.

Indeed, that was a classic case of red herring / missing the point. — S

As usual you have no idea what you are talking about.

They need to be dealt with by the appropriate authorities using appropriate force. It's unreasonable to jump straight into assuming that they need to be shot. Jesus Christ. Not only is that an unreasonable assumption, it's a harmful assumption.

That kind of answer would surely fail a police exam. Or if not, say, in somewhere insane like Texas, then it should do. — S

I think you should have addressed you reply to Emmanuele as he is the one that said it would be easier to shoot whoever was carrying a gun.

And in case you did not notice, I have not agreed with him on the idea.

You seem to be hinting at some sort of ratio being low. What ratio do you have in mind? There is no obvious ratio that makes sense, given the above sentence. — andrewk

Keeping it in context helps.

Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier. — Emmanuele

So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop. — Sir2u

To which Echarmion replied

And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns? — Echarmion

And then

It does not stop them at all, it just makes them ineffectual.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene". — Sir2u

To answer your question, even if guns were made illegal that does not mean that they would just disappear. There are millions of illegal guns that the cops are not going to find until they are used in a crime. Just shooting anyone with a gun would not work because there are not enough people to do the job. Each cop would have to find and shoot several hundred bad guys. Not going to happen.

And how does that prevent the police from targeting people wielding these guns? — Echarmion

It does not stop them at all, it just makes them ineffectual.
You must have noticed that they rarely get there before the crime has been committed, that is why the tape they use says "crime scene" instead of "crime prevention scene".

Let's not forget that if weapons are illegal it's fair to shoot whoever is carring a gun on sight. It makes targetting the bad guys a hell of a lot easier. — Emmanuele

So who is going to shoot them if no one else is carrying a gun? And please don't answer the cops, because everyone knows there are hundreds of illegal guns for each cop.

Another thought, accepting that god exists would also accept that devils and angels also exist. As the saying goes, you can't have one without the others.

Does that make it more complicated to derive anything from the existence of god? If anything can be attributed to god then we should be able to do the same for the rest of them.

Anyone want to describe the devil? :naughty:

And they are not doing that anyway? — Bitter Crank

Nope, they are imagining doing it to an imaginary being.

Not the same now that Timmy has granted him/her/it a part of reality/existence.

Remember Starman, Jeff Bridges not David Bowie, they had autopsy tables with straps for arms, legs, and torso.

Actually the only thing I can think of right now is that if it were verified that god did exist, there would be lots and lots of people either sucking up to him wanting favors or trying to dissect him to find out how he works.

Go forth and preach the truth to the multitudes! — Michael Ossipoff

Where did I say or imply that I know the truth? The truth about what?

You see, Sir2u has the truth. And he doesn't have any beliefs. — Michael Ossipoff

What is the relation between truth and beliefs? Are you saying that a person cannot know the truth without having beliefs? That seems very strange.

But what, in particular, is this truth that Sir2u has, that (at least some) people don't like? — Michael Ossipoff

I don't know what people did not like, I am not a mind reader. And yes it is valid to say "because they have not told me" for the simple reason that it is the truth. They have not told me. :chin:

It seems you rubbed him the wrong way in the past. — Noah Te Stroete

A wise man once said "If the truth hurts, then you must change the truth."

Lots of people are not fond of the truth. Maybe I said something he did not like, I don't remember.

LOL Rest assured I am not a violent criminal. I just have religious guilt due to my upbringing. — Noah Te Stroete

Yeah, I guessed that. Not too many of them come around here. I hope.

The reason for the question is to see why Michael thought it was necessary to rush to your defense while insulting me.

But you should resist the inclination to mock beliefs different from your own. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't have any beliefs, that is what atheism is all about, not have them. But I did not mock him, I told him what he wanted to hear. And he was happy with it until you burst the bubble.

Just briefly, remember that you don't know all the Theists or the beliefs of all Theists, — Michael Ossipoff

I have little interest in knowing and it makes little difference.

What you do know, and should feel free to say, is that you don't know of evidence for, or reason for faith about, what someone else believes. Saying that, vs saying that there's no evidence, or no reason for faith--Those are two different kinds of statements. — Michael Ossipoff

Basically all I have ever said is that I have never heard convincing evidence to support peoples religious beliefs. What they want to believe is their problem. I leave it to them to explain, if they want to, why they believe.

A little humility and modesty would be good, and that's something missing from our aggressive-Atheist brothers. — Michael Ossipoff

For someone that takes it upon himself to preach to others about sinning you might consider taking your own advice once in a while.

But I like your last paragraph, quoted above. — Michael Ossipoff

Thank you.

:victory: Peace brother.

P.S.

I have not been a good man in this life. — Noah Te Stroete

How do you know he is not a mass murderer, or worse?

I hope he is not and that he does find peace.

Sir2u, at these forums, has a history of attacking religion and arguing for Atheism, and the above-quoted passage is just another such attack. ...but, this time, taking the form of mocking.

Maybe Sir2u wants to show that there's no bottom-limit to his conduct. — Michael Ossipoff

I have never attacked anyone for their religion. If you think that way you must have some proof of what you are saying, lets see the post where I insulted or attacked someone because of their religious views.

I did not mock him, all I did was tell him the truth according to the bible. If that is a sin then sue me. It is not a question of whether I believe or not in religion but whether he does. If he believes in the words of the bible s he says then by admitting his sins he will be saved.

Not many would get in Sir2u's boat. — Michael Ossipoff

You would be the loser then. Or maybe you did not understand the usage of the phrase? Being in the same boat means being in the same situation, in this case I said basically that most of us have done bad things and will probably do more bad things. You can deny that if you want, but you are probably in the same boat whether you like it or not.

But yes, aggressive Atheists are undeniably tiresome. — Michael Ossipoff

How would you define Aggressive Atheists? I always considered then to be the ones that go around preaching to others that their way is best. I really don't like them much either, they are no better that any other religion trying to get converts.

Things worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.
Nothing worth while.

You are blessed brother for admitting your sins, all is forgiven.

Go in peace.

We are nearly all in the same boat, so don't sweat it too much.

So turn you house into apartments and you will be able to live individually while at home. If you ever leave the apartment can be rented out to bring in extra cash.

I am a professor in shmanciology. If you would like to learn more about it, I invite you to attend one of my upcoming lectures on the shmubject. There will of course be a shmall fee: shmomewhere in the ballpark of between £10,000 and £15,000. — S

Maybe I could help with proofreading here.

I am a professor in shm-logy. The correct name of the subject.

If you would like to learn more about it, I invite you to attend one of my upcoming lectures on the subject shmubject.

There will of course be a small shmall fee:

somewhere shmomewhere in the ballpark of between £10,000 and £15,000.[/quote]

Remember that the use of shm is to duplicate a word already used in a way that does not use the exact same word. Fancy talking if you want a simple name. And you are allowed to use words that begin with a letter that is not S.

Exhibit A:
Exhibit B:
I rest my case. — S

Err, and just what was your case?: It must have slipped my mind.

On Sabbatical leave as from midnight tonight. — Amity

Is that what they say when they are going to the pub where you live?

Tell your mom to sell the house and find a place for both of you to live where no one knows you or your problems. Your environment is a constant in everything you do so a change will probably help to break the cycle.
If you could find a smaller house and convert it to 2 apartments you would have the best of both worlds and be able to make friends with new people as well.

If you had to give a definition or clarification on your theory of Happiness what might it be ? — Amity

I don't really have a theory of happiness, just some personal thoughts about it.

They say that you cannot buy happiness, but your wife is probably unhappy when you forget to buy her a present.
Is unhappiness not buying stuff?

They say that happiness grows over time, why are there so many divorces then? Does marriage make people unhappy?

Bars have Happy Hours, is getting drunk going to make you happy.

Restaurants have Happy Meals so kids can get fat and die an early death from heart problems. Does giving your kids that shit make Mom and Dad happy? Of course it does if it makes the kiddies happy and keeps them quiet for ten minutes.

Who the hell knows what happiness is, except of course for "S" and he is keeping his dictionary in the shit house so no one can see it.

Is happiness something that we can expect to be only temporal or should we expect it to be long lasting?
How do you measure happiness, by quality, by length of time, by degrees?

I keep it in my shrine. — S

The outhouse?

Who is this 'us' ? You mean yourself as in acting a bit of a schmuck. — Amity

Oh dear. You do not understand sarcasm at all do you. And irony also seems to be missing for your understanding abilities.

First of all it is customary around here to provide ones usage, definition, of words that are not necessarily standard. I have not found Shmancy in any of the philosophy books I have read so I asked for it to be explained. As you yourself said basic definitions are necessary to start a discussion. I don't go to Wikipedia for definitions either.

Second, calling someone a schmuck is not an example of Shm-reduplication, it is an insult.
schmuck - (Yiddish) a stupid, foolish or annoying person
Which would probably be more applicable to a person that uses "fancy schmancy" in what is supposed to be a serious discussion.

Shmancy works just fine in context. — Amity

The context is him making fun of the words you use, so I guess you should know whether it works fine or not. :smirk:

Either way, you will still need to define what you mean by being or doing 'happy' or 'Happiness'.
I like the specific focus of your suggested discussion. Specifics, like that, could arise or spin off from unpacking the general definition of Baden:The definitions were only to be there as a starter.
What do you think ? — Amity

While Baden's definition is sort of fitting for some discussion, it is rather first person. It is about how one becomes happy, not how one makes others happy.

Fancy-shmancy. :wink: — S

Could you please give us a workable definition of "shmancy", I cannot find it anywhere. And I know that you really like to provide people with the definition of words that are not in common use. Where can I find that dictionary you use?

I'd like to see a discussion about happiness that deals with two main approaches, namely materialism vs meaning, with participants arguing which is better or is more likely to lead to happiness. — praxis

That is closer to my original idea about what makes people happy than trying to find better ways to explain what exactly happiness is. We know already, thanks to "S", the definition of happiness so lets look at the good and bad of making people happy.

Example:
Is it correct(moral) to give a 16 year old a shotgun for his/her birthday if it makes her/him happy?

Wait. How dare you? — S

I would not like to get called out (again) for assuming something I cannot prove, so I figured that if you don't fit into one or more of those three I could always just call you "anything else present".

My pronouns are ze/zir. — S

Is that the equivalent of I/me, him/her or just some more bullshit?