You have failed to provide examples of situations in which such guns like the AR-15 are necessary for self-defence for an average civilian, and you're just refusing to see that a basic pistol isn't the same as an AR-15 with a bump stock in potential to kill.

I think a gun qua gun qualifies as a weapon of war. — Thorongil

No. That's not what I meant anyhow. You can clearly see how, say, a pistol is very very different from the AR-15 with a bump stock. One can be used to EASILY kill many people at once, while the other cannot be used that way.

If there are no non-war-like weapons, and it doesn't seem that there are, then you're just against weapons per se, which would seem to indicate your opposition to the possession of any means of self-defense. — Thorongil

No, I clearly said, for example, many handguns don't qualify as weapons of war.

You clearly regard "war-like" as a negative quality in itself. — Thorongil

It's negative depending on context. It's not negative in a war setting.

So, I guess you could say that my favourite source of information is myself:



Someone sent me this on email and I was listening to it in bed last night - and I realised that it is absolutely true. There is no teacher, no guru, no book, no leader, no master, no saviour - it all depends on you. You alone can figure things out, nobody else can tell you what you ought to do. And this is especially true when you're in business for yourself. I often find myself after a long day of work struggling to read some information, almost as a compulsion, for no purpose other than, who knows, it might be helpful sometime. There is this automatism that somehow someone else could have the answers that I need, and if I just read that, I could move 1000 steps at once, instead of just one step.

Do you have any favorite sources of information that would be of interest? — T Clark

I don't really have favorites. For any basic level online skills (I work in development & marketing atm), udemy.com - for advanced level stuff, learning by yourself, thinking, and asking around on forums. Also books.

Quick references w3schools.

It is estimated that there are between 60k to several million defensive gun uses each year. — Thorongil

No, that's not what I asked you for. You are just running from the questions. Of course there are defensive gun uses - but those cases do not demand the use of war-like weaponry.

As an engineer — T Clark

I'm also an engineer by degree, though I'm not a practising one.

In order to do my job, I have to know things about the world and I have to know how I know them. — T Clark

I thought that all an engineer has to know is how to create things and achieve things when one does NOT know. An engineer is a master of not knowing.

In the process of coming to know things — T Clark

You never come to know things. You just come to know what is not the case - that the retaining wall cannot fail through this and those particular mechanisms. But there may be a mechanism that you have not considered through which it can fail. There are always assumptions that can be wrong, etc. That's why engineers use things like factors of safety, and so on so forth.

Engineers have just perfected an art of making rational decisions in the uncertainty encountered in the real world.

How do you know? This sort of assumption is at the heart of the anti-gun rhetoric, it seems to me, and it's never demonstrated. — Thorongil

Simple. I demonstrate it by asking you to give me examples of realistic situations when you would need such a weapon for self-defence.

As I've already pointed out, and this is for Baden too, there are guns more powerful and deadly than the AR-15. — Thorongil

You're equivocating on "powerful". Guns can be "more powerful" in a lot of different ways. Deeper penetration from one single bullet but very slow firing rate for example. Or you can have very fast firing rate, with less damage per bullet. There are many ways to assess what is "more powerful". So you're just equivocating.

No regular civilian needs such a weapon for self-defence, whether in the bump stock version or in its traditional form.

non-violent people will not have a means of defense. — Lone Wolf

Oh yeaaaaah, the hamster mafia is after me, I certainly need a bazooka to defend myself, I'm sure they'll be coming with tanks too :snicker: I'm prepared:


Non-violent people within a country that has laws generally do not have the mafia chasing after them. I'm not sure what kind of banana republic the US is that you need such weapons for self-defence.

Regular people do not need assault rifles to defend themselves for fear of being attacked on the street. A regular handgun suffices for that (if even that).

All in all, if one is for a generalized gun- control, s/he is against freedom for an individual to make his/her own choices. — Lone Wolf

Yes, I am against the freedom of an individual to own atomic weapons, regardless of whether he is Bill Gates and could afford to buy a few.

What needs to happen is to get the nose of the government out of the civilians personal lives, and get the politicians out of military and police work. — Lone Wolf

The police and the military are structures through which the government acts. The government cannot get "out of the military and police work", since the military and the police are created by the government to ensure that laws get followed.

Are you sure you haven't, in light of the two falsehoods you peddled above? — Thorongil

They are not falsehoods. If you're going to play with how weapons are classified, and what counts as assault rifles, etc. I'm not interested in that game. The fact is that there are guns that the public owns that the public has no business in owning.

Unless there are special circumstances - for example, someone works in the judicial system, or in law enforcement, and due to their job they are likely to be a target of the mafia, etc. - someone should not have a right to hold such weapons.

If the public loves shooting such guns for sport, they should all have to go to the shooting range, where they can shoot such weapons under supervision.

Again, there is absolutely NO REASON that your average person would ever need to have access to such a weapon. If someone is generally worried (or paranoid) because of the business they are engaged in, etc. they should apply and seek to buy regular handguns.

If America really is in such a terrible state that your citizens need war weaponry to defend themselves, then you really need to do something about your law enforcement and the military.

Incidentally, I remember you had an interesting essay about this on your blog! (Y)

I certainly expected someone like you to find Borat funny. :vomit: — Akanthinos

That's because it is funny.

even what Peterson does, — Akanthinos

?

I've personally come to think that the US has an unnatural obsession with guns. In standard civilian life there should be absolutely no need ever to own assault rifles, automatic war weaponry, etc. Anyone who thinks otherwise has fallen prey to propaganda & conspiracy theories or is a financial beneficiary from the selling of guns. It is pathetic to think that an assault rifle is a means of defence for a civilian. That's like saying that owning an atomic bomb is a means of defence for a civilian.

It is a total disrespect actually of the military and of law enforcement to think that you need the kind of weaponry the military uses in order to defend yourself. That's basically saying that your military and law enforcement suck and you don't trust them.

Though I will admit that America, since many people already own assault weaponry, has a big logistical problem in removing all those guns, since a large number of those people may not willingly surrender it.

"Come on", not "common". — Michael

Yes, that! :rofl: I'm sorry for being an uneducated foreigner! :lol:

Oh common man - how are you ever going to see the other side's point of view if you are persistently so closed-minded and don't even want to engage in discussion?

Typical Republican response.

I'd guess that the Romans were unable to get far enough away from their own influence to have that overwhelming advantage that enables a total subjugation — unenlightened

I have trouble following what you mean here.

There's a time for honesty, and a time for moderation; I believe in whichever suits me at the moment. :grimace: — unenlightened

So... you are an authentic opportunist? :lol:

This handy timeline makes it clear that the slave trade predates the Enlightenment, and anything one can seriously call industry as we think of it. — unenlightened

What were the slaves used for? What kind of work did they do? And why didn't earlier peoples, which were arguably a lot better organised than the European countries at that time (thinking now about the Roman Empire) make use of slaves and achieve a scientific revolution?

Well some of us might have other reasons for treating you badly, but let's try not to go there. :fire: — unenlightened

:rofl: But I thought you're the guy who was all about honest talk...

Who knows, it's certainly possible, but China invented gunpowder, paper, and all kinds of stuff without feeling the need. It's obviously not a racial thing, but it is a cultural thing, and who knows where any culture might have gone if...? — unenlightened

Yeah, that is true - China also happened to be the world's largest economy for much of world history. But at the same time, they did not learn how to make use of natural resources on an industrial scale and in a scientific way in the manner, Western Europeans did during and before the Enlightenment. Why didn't they? What made this "scientific revolution" possible in Europe?

With regards to the cultural thing - I'm not sure if that's the answer. China has, in my opinion, a MUCH more developed culture in terms of political strategy, the art of manipulation, warfare, & ethical standards which are much more permissive than the Judaeo-Christian ones of Europeans. I can refer you here to the Three Kingdoms period at the end of the Han Dynastry, or to the earlier Warring States period. China was not externally expansionist (for some reasons - probably geographic), but locally they were as bad as it gets. In fact, the sort of political machinations you find in Chinese strategy manuals, and littered across Chinese history, make their European counterparts (ie, Peloponnesian War, Machiavelli's Prince, Cardinal Richelieu, etc.) seem children's play.

I do assure you those years have not gone, but continue. Even dinosaurs remain as fossils, and in the imagination, and in the way they influenced the development of the Earth, and that was a very long time ago, before even my time. — unenlightened

There might be remnants, but I don't particularly see the kinds of systemic racism where people are frequently fired from their jobs based on racism, and similar issues.

if white people suffer a widespread disadvantage in the culture because of their skin colour, then the answer is that they do not and never have done. — unenlightened

Right, well I agree that they don't suffer a widespread disadvantage because of skin color, at least not in the Western countries. But then, I don't think that other races suffer such a disadvantage based on skin color (there are some exceptions in certain areas, etc. - I'm talking just by and large) in the West.

British people never treated me very well because I was a foreigner (Eastern European thief in your minds :monkey: ), but, you know, I just take it that you people are very nationalistic and proud of your country. I wouldn't see that sort of thing as "racism" per say, unless you did things like make me sit at the back of the bus, make me use a different toilet, etc.

Also, I think there is a big difference on that between the British, and other Western Europeans. From my observations, the British are a lot more likely to be proud of their nationality and dismissive of others.

And regarding Obama's inaction, he tried to speak about it but was blocked by McConnell. — Michael

That one. Clearly, Obama as he was quoted by Trump thought that it is laughable that someone could rig America's elections.

President Obama quoted by Trump, and Trump's response:



This disagrees with your version of what happened.

What you would hear me say is that there is a legacy from the past, from the colonisation of the Americas, Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand, by (white) Europeans, which was justified by an explicit doctrine of white supremacy. — unenlightened

Hmmm okay, but wasn't it the technological superiority of the Western Europeans at that time that allowed them to subjugate the rest of the world? They may have justified it as white supremacy in some cases (though that depends, because with regards to Eastern Europeans & Russia, it couldn't be justified as White Supremacy). But it was technological superiority that really permitted it to happen.

My guess is that if any of the other races got ahold of technological superiority first and learned to exploit fossil fuels and other natural resources, they would have subjugated the rest of the world themselves, and would have justified it in similar ways. What do you reckon?

But can only think that by covering your eyes and ears to the vast amount of evidence from the media from social scientists, that the attitudes persist, as one would expect them to if one understood the evolution of social attitudes at all. — unenlightened

I agree that the attitudes persisted - they were there in the 60s, 70s, 80s - but those years are long gone now! I really think we have moved beyond that, especially with the internet and the ease of access people now have to others of different nationalities, skin colors, and to knowledge as well.

And a really good example of this persistence is the way, in this very thread, one incident in what the article calls 'a historically black college', of alleged discrimination against whites is taken as of comparable weight to the discrimination against blacks. It is particularly ironic that the black colleges were explicitly set up to educate newly freed slaves who had previously been forbidden by law from being educated. — unenlightened

So a professor getting fired based on skin color isn't a serious case of racism?

Or is that all it takes? Being able to name some animals and draw a cube? ;) — Michael

:rofl: Thing is, people who are mentally impaired by an actual illness (like Alzheimer's, etc.) cannot do those regular tasks. That's precisely the point. People often confuse actual medical disorders with behaviour that is within normal bounds.

At work so can't watch. What's it say? — Michael

That Trump got 30/30 on the cognitive test :razz:

This is for leftists and crazies like @Wayfarer who think Trump is a retard and unfit for office:

OK, I don't want to get into arguing over who has studied what more; perhaps I was mistaken in my impression that you were familiar with Kant mainly through the lens of Schopenhauer (if that can be counted as being familiar with Kant). In any case I thought you were aware that I have studied Kant's critical philosophy sporadically yet consistently for more than twenty years, a fact which would make it surprising if I were not aware of something so fundamental to Kant's thought. — Janus

Sorry, I didn't mean to put that in an insulting way (as in, saying that you don't know Kant), I simply didn't understand what you meant by your question. Maybe not being a native speaker doesn't help here.

And I don't prejudge people by how much they studied a certain thinker, it is possible to be mistaken about details even if you have spent a long time studying a certain thinker, especially one who makes as many distinctions as Kant.

With regards to Schopenhauer, yes, I think Schopenhauer is more complete and coherent than Kant in his metaphysics. But that doesn't mean I study Kant through the lens of Schopenhauer. Also, not quite sure why you say that someone who studies Schopenhauer won't be familiar with Kant - that is somewhat strange.

Kant denied that there is intellectual intuition in the very sense that Spinoza (probably following Descartes) claimed is the highest form of intellectual knowledge. "Intuition' for Kant denotes something like 'sense perception'. — Janus

Yes.

And this is puzzling beacuse you should know from previous conversations that, from your own admission, I have studied Kant, and German Idealism in general (with the exception of Schopenhauer who I have little regard for) far more than you have. — Janus

Hm? I never claimed not to have studied Kant/Schopenhauer (especially in-so-far as metaphysics is concerned). It's Hegel and the other German Idealists that you have certainly studied more than me.

OK, but when you previously answered 'no' to this it seemed as though you wanted to deny that sensation, for Kant, is formless. — Janus

Hmm no, I believe I misunderstood what you meant at first. I thought you did not understand that there was a form which was given through the pure intuition of space & time and also through the understanding.

If the human mind gives form then it follows that the matter which Kant wants to equate with sensation is prior to form, no? — Janus

Yes, the matter is "from the noumenon" so to speak.

The point is that in the traditional sense of "intuition" an intuition is the direct apprehension of an intelligible object with the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

There is a problem with the traditional sense of "intuition". Philosophers have used it as a coverup, when they didn't know how to explain how something came about. Why is it that so and so is true? Oh, it's an intuition. If I remember correctly, Descartes for example used "intuition" and "clear and distinct ideas" in this manner.

So Kant denies the possibility of apprehending intelligible objects (noumena) direct with the mind. — Metaphysician Undercover

Why are intelligible objects noumena? And what does it even mean "intelligible objects"? When you are critiquing a system of philosophy, you should first try to get into it, and critique it from inside. That is what Socrates was doing - he would get into what his interlocutors were saying, and show inconsistencies from the inside.

What do you mean by "pure intuition"? — Metaphysician Undercover

I quoted it already before. Did you read it?

And accordingly we find existing in the mind a priori, the pure form of sensuous intuitions in general, in which all the manifold content of the phenomenal world is arranged and viewed under certain relations. This pure form of sensibility I shall call pure intuition. — Kant

What could a pure intuition be? — Metaphysician Undercover

A pure intuition is what is left when you abstract sensation and the categories that are imposed by the understanding.

Thus, if I take away from our representation of a body all that the understanding thinks as belonging to it, as substance, force, divisibility, etc., and also whatever belongs to sensation, as impenetrability, hardness, colour, etc.; yet there is still something left us from this empirical intuition, namely, extension and shape. — Kant

So you start out with an empirical (or impure intuition) you abstract sensation and the categories of the understanding from it (like causality), and then you're left with pure intuition, which are space and time.

So, is it the case, that if you don't like certain words in the text, you simply leave them out of your interpretation? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, I read those words guiding myself by the larger context and the way Kant has defined them.

You need to make an effort and use terms as Kant means and uses them. You can't just start using terms your way if you want to discuss this.

I miss debates. What about a facility for debates? — Banno

Why? You miss losing so much? :rofl:

You didn't, and I didn't say you did. I'm pointing out how useless it is to claim that they'll "do what's best". What's best for one group isn't what's best for another group. — Michael

But not all groups are capable to determine what is best for themselves.

Yes!

Better for who? If the legislators are all tied to big business then they're going to do what's best for big business and not what's best for the lower class. — Michael

Where did I say they should all be tied to big business?

I think in the case of a parliament it should be representative of the populace. — Michael

No. It should be what is best for everyone - if one part of the population can take better decisions because, for whatever reasons, they are the most capable, then they should be the representatives.

That white professors were fired for being white isn't that "discrimination against white heterosexual males" is being encouraged. — Michael

Right... that is not discrimination, because they are white and heterosexual on top, so they deserve being fired :confused: