I have not done any heavy reading for years, even though I have quite a few books lined up to read or re-read.

But I have read some lighter stuff and mostly on the humorous side.

On Bullshit - Harry Frankfurt
The Humans - Matt Haig
How to Stop Time - Matt Haig
Every Time I Find the Meaning of Life - Daniel Klein
Plato at the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won't Go Away - Rebecca Goldstein
Plato and a Platypus Walk into a bar - Thomas Cathcart, Daniel Klein
Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington - Thomas Cathcart, Daniel Klein

Not so humorous.
The Gospel of Philip - Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and the Gnosis of Sacred Union - Jean-Yves Leloup
The Computer and the Brain - John von Neumann
Theory and Reality An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science - Peter Godfrey-Smith

There are a bunch of Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan I want to re-read as well. When I get the time. :chin:

it seemed like a good idea to turn society into God — frank

If anything I would say that we let society become the puppet master, but not the god.
Society cannot be seem as a god because the common definition of god usually includes "super natural" and there is no way that you can classify society as super natural.

Talk to the hand.

But many gun owners aren't responsible. Is there a way to force them to be so short of threatening to take their guns off them? — Baden

You do not need to be a gun, or even explosives, collector to be dangerous to your kids. Most parents are careless with house cleaning products that are poisonous or flammable. Lots of parents don't have child protection locks on doors to places that can be harmful to kids.
But I would like to ask how many of these mass murderers used their family's guns to kill people?

I know that there have been many accidents and murders with the house protection weapon caused through carelessness or ease of access. But mass murders usually acquire their weapons just for that purpose and most families have no idea they have them.

Is there some tiny trace of objective morality that has emanated throughout all cultures in all time periods? — Robot Brain

Don't hurt the community, the future of it.

While an ancient one rises in the East (er... north, form here...) — Banno

The next big question is
How far are they going to rise before we all get wiped out in the conflict?

Ain't that the truth!

But then the yanks can be weird sometimes, present company are not counted in that generality. :wink:

You might be a coward, but you are a rooster. Now stand up straight and stop acting like an egg layer.
And ducks don't cluck either, they quack. It just was not poetically pleasing. :wink:

Ducks cluck.
Crows crow.

No, I would take away the scissors and replace them with guns.

Of course it should be followed by an explanation! I was only talking about the first thing that you should do. — Sapientia

Sorry, but if you would explain instead of getting snarky it might help.

If you catch kids running around with scissors, then the first thing that you should do is stop them and take away the scissors. Whose bright idea was it to leave them unsupervised with easy access to scissors? — Sapientia

You would take away the scissors and explain why they should not do that. Education.

Taking away the scissors without an explanation is the same as oppression and leads to resentment and frustration, which in turn might lead to violence.

The American obsession with guns is not behavioral. — Buxtebuddha

So obsessive behavior is not behavior, that's news.

I know all about the battles in education systems, I have talked to many people around the world and they all have the same problems. And I have my own battlefield to get through everyday at work.

I've come to the conclusion it's more of a cultural thing though and isn't going to change in the foreseeable. — Baden

And the only way to change culture (=behavior) is through education.

Positive behavioral changes do not usually happen by themselves, they take conscious reasoning and control.
Negative behavioral changes in behavior, unfortunately, do not. Negative behavioral changes are often the results of mindless follow the leader/example type of thing. "Dat's cool, I gonna do dat".

They can't even successfully educate people in the basics of reading and arithmatic. — Hanover

That is why I said "in a couple of generations". They have a long way to go.

But that problem is not just the American society, that is a world wide problem right now. Many of today's kids do not want to learn.

I thought that the article was interesting because it highlights the points I have been making.

There are just too many guns in the USA, the attitude of the people towards their guns and the fact that it is not the good majority of the people that are the problem but a very small percent that do.

If they start now with an educational program that teaches people the benefits of not having guns, start reviewing all of the people that already have them and begin a restrict control of who gets one in the future they might make a difference in a couple of generations.

'Why haven't I won the lottery yet?'

You are getting too complicated in your thinking.

The reason is probably something simple.

Did you even but the tickets?

Fake news.

Moving on.

Hint: it wasn't changes in agriculture or industry. — Bitter Crank

Not in the deep south definitely.

I lived around New Orleans from early 60's to 71. It was not much fun sometimes.

I went to all white schools, rode on all white school buses, ate in all white restaurants and lived in all white neighborhoods. When we went to live there I had no idea that such feeling of superiority over other people could exist. While it was not everyone that was like that, the ones that were were often so intense about it that it was scary sometimes.

We went to a Woolworth's that had 2 snack bars, the difference between them so sad. But even those that were not racists accepted that was what it should be like. The day after arriving in New Orleans after a 6 day drive from Montreal, we went to wash the dirty clothes at a launderette next to the hotel, it had a sign on it that said "Whites Only", I was worried about not being allowed to wash my shirts.

In England there had been a few black people but mostly there were Pakistani, Indian and Chinese. And no one really bothered about them back them. I never heard anyone say anything bad about them or tell me to keep away from them, so I never developed any emotions about them. Being white down south you were expected by a lot of people to treat the blacks as though they were inferior by at least ignoring their presence.

When the government decided to start integrating the school bus services I got to see the black kids neighborhood and school for the first time because our driver had to pick up a bunch of them and pass by their school to drop them off first. That was an eye opener.

The first few days there were some scuffles but nothing to serious. In the afternoon we would pass by to pick them up again. On about the third day a black girl sat down next to me. She spent the whole trip staring at me as if expecting me to do something. The next day a bunch of idiots started calling me nasty names because I had not sat in the center and refused to let her pass and sit next to me. They said that I should have made her stand up.

After a few months had passed, I asked one of my friends why our school was so much better than theirs. He answered that it was because most of their parents did not work so they did not pay taxes and therefore could not afford anything better.

Most of the people we knew were not racists, some of them were so used to the situation that to them it was considered normal, the mother.
Some were aware that it was not quite right that the black people should be treated like that but were not prepared to go out and do something about it until pushed to do so by something, the son. And it was usually for selfish reasons that they stood up for the black people, not love for them.

The year I left the US they had their first black students in the school.

I love porn, but let's have a nice clean story about racism instead of sex. — Bitter Crank

I really don't think that the story is about racism as such. It is about peoples ability or lack of ability to adapt to change, Baden's "cultural straitjacket" says it nicely. But it is also about meanness and self righteousness, the guy did not really have to rub his mothers nose in it.

I know of a family that this happened to, but not because of race. Their problem was religion. Many generations of stout catholic upbringing came to an ugly end when one of the 2 sons left the church and became a mormon.

Even though the parents had made sacrifices to educate them, in catholic schools and colleges, one of them took every opportunity to show them the bad things about the church, its decadence, the abuse, oppression, and corruption before he left the church.

The father died a year or so later, the mother said of a broken heart.

The first thing to note is that certainty is an attitude. — Banno

Not sure about that, but I would say that it is a state of being.

Certainty being a real, true state and uncertainty an unknown or unproven state.

I agree with here, blue is my color.

If I can type straight that is.

Chocolateeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I received today as a gift a bottle of local made cocoa wine, never tried it before. I'll let you know the results.

Liberty is not the power of doing what we ought, but the right of doing what we want, and liking it. Except guns. — Sapientia

OK, so someone then has the liberty to kill others with a machete and like it.

Admit that it is a stupid thing to say or I will post another 100 example to show you are wrong.

It's an instance of the fallacy because it fits the description. — Sapientia

No it does not fit the description.

As for the rest.

Sappy said "Blah blah, yak yak"

Whatever, nothing of value there.

1. In contrast to what you said about not knowing whether those who see banning guns as a threat to all of their rights are right or wrong, I know that they're wrong, because they're wrong in the sense that it's an instance of the slippery slope fallacy. — Sapientia

Not good enough. How is it an instance of the slippery slope fallacy?

I've criticised you before for inaccurately paraphrasing what you presumably think I've said or meant, — Sapientia

If you actually wrote properly no one would have to presume what you said, it would be clear. And who gave you the authority to criticize me. Just who do you think you are to take the liberty to do such a thing?

and then turning that on me in the form of a loaded question, — Sapientia

I am still not clear on what you mean by a "loaded question". My question was simple.

Banning guns is effective action? How so? — Sir2u

All you needed was an answer the statement that "banning guns is an effective action".

This is something that you have repeated but never explained exactly what you mean by it. So how would it be effective.

"

You know how to use the quote function, and you know how to copy and paste, so it's easily avoidable. — Sapientia

What has this got to do with the price of jellybeans? Of course I know how to quote and copy/paste, that is how I have been answering your posts.

Like I've said, people buy guns knowing what their primary purpose is, and, typically, they don't expect to have to use them for that purpose except in emergencies. — Sapientia

To which I replied that by doing so it makes them potential killers. Due you deny that?

Your misleading simplifications of what I've said and your non sequiturs are not my problem, their yours. — Sapientia

I have stated things as you have written them, if there is any misleading it is not my fault that you have trouble expressing your thoughts. And I would certainly like to see an example of my non sequuntur, could you point some of them out for me.

But your questions suggest that you haven't properly read or understood what I've written, — Sapientia

Do you really think that I don't understand what

They're wrong, clearly. — Sapientia

means. :confused:

Answer the question if you can.
How do you know this, prove it to be true. So many millions of people just have to be wrong so that you can be right, not going to happen

especially when you can barely refrain from resorting to insults. — Sapientia

But I do restrain from insulting people, which might be something you should learn to do. What was that word you used? Oh yes, DINGBAT.

So either come up with an answer or shut up. Or are you scared to admit that you are blowing hot air.

Liberty is not the power of doing what we ought, but the right of doing what we want, and liking it. — Sapientia

:rofl: Like keeping our guns maybe? :rofl:

Ignorance is like bad teeth, keeping your mouth shut stops people from noticing you suffer from them.

If you don't want to fix problems, don't cause them.

The first I can agree with,but how do you figure on doing second? :wink:

Well, if I was old enough to drink... :halo: — Lone Wolf

:gasp: How old do you need to be where you live?

Good night all.

I have decided that the truth is the following.

The purpose of designing guns is to shot bullets thereby giving humans the ability kill other humans quickly and efficiently.

Welcome to the charade. :party: — Sapientia

So take your games home with you and let us have a serious discussion.
The door is over there on the left, close it on your way out if you please.

You don't seem to have understood. — Michael

Oh but I do understand, I just think that it is wrong.

The primary purpose of a fire extinguisher is to put out fires even if the vast majority of fire extinguishers are never actually used. — Michael

Actually the primary purpose of a fire extinguisher is to make the environment non supportive to the fire thereby extinguishing the fire. That is why there are so many types of them so that they work in the different types of fires.

The primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people even if the vast majority of guns are never actually used. — Michael

So you believe as well that all of those people actually bought the guns to kill people with? That is sad.
Read what I said to Sappy about that.

And, of course, to say that the purpose of a gun is to shoot bullets and not to kill and/or hurt people is as wrong as to say that the purpose of a fire extinguisher is to spray water or fire or powder and not to put out fires. — Michael

Your half right, just not the half you think. Why are you so sure that you are right?

I said,
"The people who believe they have the right to their guns see banning them as a threat to all of their rights, whether they are right or wrong I do not know but that is what they think."

You replied,

They're wrong, clearly. — Sapientia

I then asked,
Question #1

What proof do you have to back up this statement? Or is it just another of your silly personal opinions? — Sir2u

This is the statement that I asked for proof of.

You answer with a link to this,

slippery slope
You said that if we allow A to happen, then Z will eventually happen too, therefore A should not happen.

The problem with this reasoning is that it avoids engaging with the issue at hand, and instead shifts attention to extreme hypotheticals. Because no proof is presented to show that such extreme hypotheticals will in fact occur, this fallacy has the form of an appeal to emotion fallacy by leveraging fear. In effect the argument at hand is unfairly tainted by unsubstantiated conjecture.

Example: Colin Closet asserts that if we allow same-sex couples to marry, then the next thing we know we'll be allowing people to marry their parents, their cars and even monkeys.

Question #2:
What the hell has a slippery slope fallacy got to do with proving your statement. It makes absolutely no sense to say that asking for proof is any type of a fallacy. I think you are just blowing wind because, like every other time you have been asked to prove something you have no answer.

But if you think that I am guilty of this type of faulty reasoning, please show me where.

I presume you're talking about your own confusion. — Sapientia

Yes definitely, that is what I am talking about.

You have been going on for so long saying that guns were designed to kill people and that their purpose is to kill people that I find it hard to believe that so many people have bought so many guns with the intention of kill people, even though only in an emergency, and then just have them sitting there for years and years.
Do you really think that all of those people bought those guns to kill people with?

Because, if you say that guns are made for killing, that is the only reason that they have bought them for. That is a serious thing to say, that means that there are maybe 300 million killers loose in the USA just waiting for something to happen so that they can kill someone.

How about pens? Why, they were simply designed to spread ink, rather than to be used for writing. — Sapientia

That is exactly what a pen does, dispense ink. What the person holding it does with the ink is of no concern to the pen. And pens get used for drawing, tracing, marking and sometimes for cleaning ears Just like the gun, they have many uses.

as well as having quoted a few actual gun designers themselves — Sapientia

I created a machine gun- Mikhail Kalashnikov

What did he say? That he created a machine that fires a lot of bullets, that was the weapons purpose, the reason he invented it.

It occurred to me that if I could invent a machine - a gun - which could by its rapidity of fire - Richard Gatling

What did he say? That he created a machine that fires a lot of bullets, that was the weapons purpose, the reason he invented it.

Rapid firing of bullets was the reason they invented the machines, what the would be used for is something totally different.

If you really want to stretch things, I guess that you could say that they were both actually try to save lives by inventing them. One by saving his countrymen the other by ending wars.

Now please don't start telling me how pathetic my way of thinking is and that you are the only one that is right, because that is bull. Your opinion on anything or your interpretation of what something means is just as valid as mine, unless as you keep on insisting there is absolute proof of something. "Enough analogies" are not proof of anything.

So lets get something straight right now, if you are not prepared to answer or have no sensible answer to Question #1 do not even bother answering Question #2 or even replying to this post. Because I do not want to read anything else unless you answer them.

Put up or shut up.

Just an inarticulate grunt to ban guns. — Thorongil

Come on mate, what did you expect from them. They have no idea how to even look at the problem never mind solve it.
But I have an idea that would solve the problem, the one here in the discussion not the one in the US, let's just pretend that we understand what they are gabbling on about and maybe they will get their self esteem up to a reasonable level and be able to live a normal life. It must be awful try to cover up ones inferiority complex all of the time by belittling other people.

Whereas the primary purpose of a gun is to kill and/or hurt people. — Michael

If it is, then you need to explain how exactly most gun owners don't in fact use it in this way. — Thorongil

Because, in most cases, its primary purpose tends to be reserved for emergencies. — Sapientia

I just noticed this gem. Talk about confusion. I don't know what to think now. So many people have been blathering on about guns being made to kill and then Sappy says most people have them for emergency use only and that is why they do not get used for killing.
I would say that there is something wrong with someone's think processes.