I'm just highlighting it.

Other similarly developed democratic nations don't suffer similar "absurd situations" re: gun violence.

One of the first victims identified among the 17 people killed was Aaron Feis, an assistant football coach and security guard. Feis was shot after reportedly throwing himself in front of students during the rampage. — Banno

I don't believe in heaven, or whatever, but cartoons like these kill me.

It's not just you, it's objectively stupid. Nothing more than NRA propaganda to 1) get more people to purchase guns, and 2) defend 2A. There are endless problems with the idea....

Arming teachers is the most moronic idea I have heard of. It's been a decade since high school for me, but I would not want my frail, 70+ mathematics teacher wielding a gun. Besides, having guns in certain classrooms means that they are accessible to students. It's such a ludicrous, backward idea; essentially demonstrating that gun rights activists lack any substantive arguments, and are just grasping at straws.

Why do you trust the government so much to not have any way to protect the people from said government? — yatagarasu

Unsure where you stand politically, but wanted to co-opt this statement to illuminate the hypocrisy of some Conservatives, who, on one hand want to increase military spending, yet simultaneously promote the second amendment as a bulwark against Government, on the other.

Semi-automatic means a single bullet is fired per trigger pull. A fully automatic gun, however, continues to fire as long as the trigger is held down.

Because you're reducing it to a personalized experience, when an anti-natalist would claim that all human life consists primarily of (various form of) suffering. Human life, in itself, is a negative value. It is true that "mine" is, but then it is also true that all "others" are, as well.

Anti-natalism is the believe that human life consists primarily of suffering (or, is primarily negative, rather than positive). It is not a subjective view of one's personal life. Thus, from an ethical perspective, to give life to a child would be unethical - a form of negative utilitarianism.

So there can't be decent right-wing views? Everything that is right-wing is therefore wrong? — Agustino

Never said that was the case, Agustino. There are certainly decent right-wing views, but they aren't well espoused by Peterson, Shapiro and other hacks. I've also never continuously homogenized "The Right", as you have the "The Left", in order to formulate a weltanschauung. Anyway, enjoy your crackpot theories and acolyte fidelity.

I'm also enjoying the fact that, within the last few hours, you've started to defend a concept that is essentially a "benevolent" dictatorship.

And you're an exemplar of what; non-partisan tactics? Convince me there's no "hyper" in your modus operandi. — Noble Dust

Burden is on you, bud.

What is arrogant about anti-natalism?

Please, call me Maw. Mr. Maw is my father.

Agustino's comment pertained to hierarchy tout court. "Patriarchy" wasn't a qualifier, so I'll ignore it in order to better point out why I find it "laughable" and "naive".

I'm not excluding the fact that citizens in a democratic republic, market-based economy can rise above previous levels of social class, successfully enter politics, etc. But given the ebb and flow of social mobility across developed countries, most particularly, America, the notion that only the competent rise is "naive". Or are younger generations simply more "incompetent" than older ones? Agustino, and yourself, naively ignore or discount corruption, nepotism, favoritism, racism, sexism or any other form of corruption or discrimination within politics or capitalism that enables incompetent people to succeed or stay on top, or competent members of society to stagnate.

Ignoramouses and put them in the same category with InfoWars. When you do something like that, you can't be taken seriously anymore, because you're obviously intellectually dishonest. InfoWars is a lunatic conspiracy "news" outlet, and the former two are credible intellectuals with a long track record. — Agustino

Except I didn't put them in the same category. I put them on a spectrum, ranging from Peterson and Shapiro on one end, to InfoWars on the other. You can protest endlessly, but they both pedal right-wing conspiracies, cherry-pick science, and rant about "The Left", albeit in differing degrees. Unsurprisingly your continued uncharitable readings (or lack of reading comprehension) and monomania make it impossible to have any meaningful intellectual conversation. In three years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if you joined the Flat-Earther Society.

I am saying you are an exemplar of manipulation via hyper-partisan tactics, including the objective of the NRA (albeit, non-American). The rise of hyper-partisan, far-right ignoramuses, from Ben Shapiro and Daily Wire, and Jordan Peterson and his 'Lobsters', to Breitbart, InfoWars, etc. have painted an dangerously ahistorical, conspiratorial, and profoundly false narrative, and it is extremely detrimental to the health of America's body politic.

As I've told you before, the notion that the contemporary American "Left" is reducible to identity politics is false. It is as inane as reducing the contemporary American "Right" to white supremacy. If the goal of the Russian operatives was to foment discord and confusion, and further divide America politically, then they've certainly succeeded with you.

Damn Agustino, when did you transform into a stereotype of contemporary Right-Wing agitprop? If there was a bingo game formed out of such nonsensical talking points, your comment would be enough to win the game twice over.

Favorite album from last year

Trump has repeatedly shown a reluctance to condemn white supremacists of various stripes. However, he is quick to criticize the classmates of those recently killed in Florida, or Black Americans who kneel peacefully.

I recommend you read this fantastic piece, @Agustino.

No, most of Trump's supporters are not 'white supremacists', but they were undeniably comfortable in voting for a man whose ideas and words and actions have overlapped with white supremacy.

A lot of people posting here think that banning guns will solve the problem of people killing other people, I am just pointing out that it is not true. They are the ones that use the fallacy.

It is maybe true that the Florida nut might have killed fewer people, but he would have killed using any method he could. What would have happened if he had taken a nail bomb instead of a gun? — Sir2u

Ironically, these few statements are loaded with fallacies. Irrespective of whether some users have claimed that removing guns will remove violent psychopathy (although I haven't seen that claim made here), it's nevertheless a common strawman argument. The objective of gun control is to reduce gun violence. This won't reduce the desire to commit crimes, but it will likely reduce lethal crimes.

It's also reasonable to assume that those who favor gun control also favor increased spending on mental health (myself included), part of which would be to help people exhibiting violent mental illnesses (thereby reducing crime and violence), but there is a perverse, and clearly deleterious, reticence when discussing mental health and illness in this country.

What would have happened had he taken a nail bomb instead of a gun? Well, that's speculative, of course, but the fact is is that the perpetrator did use a gun, and I imagine he chose a gun due to the ease of access, training, and device control (among other factors). England has similar crime rates as America, and yet there isn't a "nail gun epidemic".

Unfortunately, these arguments, facts, and exposed fallacies have been discussed for well over a decade now. And yet, some remain obstinate. As two new books on cognitive psychology point out, there is a limit in facts can change minds. One would have hoped that Sandy Hook, from a purely emotional level, would have been the final straw, but it wasn't. Failing this, one would have hoped that the 58 killed and nearly 900 injured in Vegas would have sufficed, but it didn't. One would think the regularity of shootings and abundance of gun homicides would drive change, but it hasn't. Sadly, this will undoubtedly continue. I would like to hold on to an iota of optimism, that something can change, but I simply don't see that plausibly happening anytime soon.

"Few crimes are more harshly forbidden in the Old Testament than sacrifice to the god Moloch (for which see Leviticus 18.21, 20.1-5). The sacrifice referred to was of living children consumed in the fires of offering to Moloch...The gun is our Moloch."

An increase of guns is correlated with an increase in gun violence. This is a fact across countries and even across states. It would stand to reason, then, that an increase in guns, even in the hands of "good guys" (the epitome of moronic ideas) would lead to increased gun violence.

What does "activism in antinatalism" look like in practice? Do you just not get laid?

To pair Diderot's political and philosophical thought with Voltaire, Rousseau, and Montesquieu demonstrates a superficial understanding of them. Diderot was highly critical of both Voltaire and Rousseau, and his political ideas differ from theirs in myriad ways. Robespierre was tyrannical, and as Jonathan Israel writes in his majestically trilogy on the Enlightenment, "Jacobin ideology and culture under Robespierre was an obsessive Rousseauiste moral Puritanism steeped in authoritarianism, anti-intellectualism, and xenophobia, and it repudiated free expression, basic human rights, and democracy." I strongly suggest you pick up Israel's work to gain a nuanced understanding of the Enlightenment.

Superficiality is a theme with runs throughout your post. Stalin and Mao's top-down, party-controlled, militarized command economies are "egalitarian"? All domains of human life are hierarchical? Not all religions, or sects within religions, modern or otherwise, are structured similarly, differing in how they view equality and structure themselves. Same with families, labor (e.g. worker cooperatives), and Government, of course. How precisely is hierarchy "intrinsic" to humanity, and how has that manifested in our institutions despite the varying degrees of their comparative egalitarianism? What socio-political system would you endorse while taking into account that nearly every modern system accepts universal egalitarianism to a degree (e.g. libertarianism grants that every person has property rights).

In the USA Maw, where the right to own a firearm at age 18 is a protected right until someone proves themselves incapable of possessing that right. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Can you not understand the insanity of this statement? "Solving" the problem after it occurs only enables it to occur endlessly. Which it has. The 2nd Amendment is not enshrined in divine inalienability.

Personally, I don't think anyone should be allowed to own guns. Guns are much more likely to be used as a tool for suicide or homicide than for self-defense. I think hunting is moronic. Civilian militias would never triumph over a tyrannical Government with the US army's backing. Luckily for you and others, I am not a politician. That said, the idea that the objective for Democrats is to confiscate all firearms (as if there were no differing views within the party, or among their voters) is paranoid and conspiratorial. As a matter of fact, a majority of Americans, including those who own guns, believe that new gun laws will not interfere with the right to own guns, and agree with other sensible regulations.

I think that the age of 18 being set to purchase a fire arm correlates to the age of legal responsibility. If you are 18 and get a DUI they don't put your parents in jail because you are 18. If at 17 you get a DUI, you loose your license till you are 21. The age of 18 makes legal sense in the age of enlistment into our military as well where they will be trained and issued a fire arm. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes doesn't "correlate to the age of responsibility" (i.e. 18), in what Kafka-esque world do we live in where owning a gun does?

I am absolutely sicken that this is a conversation we've been having for years now. It continues to happen, and yet nothing is done, and people callously shrug their shoulders. How the hell are we talking about opiates now, as if these are mutually exclusive issue?

No it doesn't. Many of the school shootings are suicides, for example — Thorongil

This doesn't obviate the issue.

The first line of defense HAS to be the administrators of the school because that is who, we the parents, are entrusting with our children's safety. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

But this is peripheral, and ignores the fundamental issue: should private civilians have access to guns, and if so, what restrictions/regulations should be implemented? The idea that the 2nd Amendment's intent is to allow individual citizens the access to guns for reasons of self-defense, hunting, or other private uses outside the scope of regulated militias is dubious. But even if we are to accept that, a 19 year old was nevertheless legally able to purchase an AR-15, an incredibly destructive weapon, but is unable to purchase a beer. A few months ago, Senator David Simmons of Florida sponsored a bill, SB-1288, which would increase the minimum legal age of purchasing cigarettes and tobacco chew, etc. from 18 to 21. Sen. Simmons stated, "“Raising the age limit for smoking to 21 years is essential if we are serious about saving lives." And yet, Sen. Simmons has an A+ rating from the NRA.

Has there been any interesting trends/developments in philosophy within the last few years? Speculative realism (while not a movement per say), produced some interesting philosophers, but nothing interesting has come out of it in several years, least not on my radar. Looking to start something fresh and novel.

Fuck guns, fuck the NRA, fuck politicians who take money from the NRA, fuck morons who worship the 2nd Amendment, fuck thoughts and prayers, fuck.

Representative Democracy

As has been pointed out, the Ontological argument is a sophistic display of thaumaturgical witchery, whereby mere words and definitions are able to conjure concepts into existence. As Cioran writes, "God Himself lives only by the adjectives we add to him."

You aren't seriously suggesting that left sociologists and political scientists have ignored poverty or consider it a "micro-culture" or an exclusively minority experience?

Yes, being a Black American can provide unique experiences that help better qualify someone to discuss and debate political issues related to Black/minority America than a White American who has not had similar experiences. It is no different than saying one candidate for, say, a restaurant management position, is more experienced and qualified when she has previous experience managing a kitchen and cooks, against one who has had no such experience whatsoever. That is, of course, not to say that this experience alone makes them the best candidate, or provides the sole qualifying factor, which is what you are implying. No one is claiming or has claimed the latter. It is a chimera.

Otherwise, both Hilary and Obama were imminently qualified, so, again, I'm not sure why you are angry at imaginary issues, when, in reality, a qualified woman lost to a racist, misogynistic, and repeatedly failed businessman, whose biggest success was beguiling the American public into thinking he was a competent business owner.

No Agustino, what would be worrying is if America voted for a white male president regardless of qualifications and competency. Use Hilary Clinton as a succedaneum for your Chinese-American candidate, and you have the madness that was the 2016 election. It is ironic that you fail to see the racism and sexism embedded in this country and in the election, that enabled the most unqualified Presidential candidate in modern American history to capture the White House. It is impossible to imagine Obama or Clinton acting even remotely similar to Trump, and get anywhere near the candidacy. Otherwise, no serious modern Presidential candidate, Clinton, Obama, or otherwise, have claimed that their political qualifications stem simply from the color of their skin, or gender. I also don't see how you can wedge "post-modernism" in there. You are angry at non-existent issues. Read up on sociological issues in America, from race-relations to patriarchal dominance that exist historically and to this day. Start with Joe Feagin on race-relations, and spare us all of your blathering.

Are you incapable of seeing the asymmetry of power, both historical and modern, of women and blacks between white males in America? For fuck's sake, America has still never had a woman president, and a large voting block would nevertheless rather have a vile misogynist instead; one who also claimed that the previous president, a black man, was not born in America, among other vile racist things. In America, these identities are not equal.

No Augustino, purposely using obfuscatory language such as "aborted newborns" is chicanery, and you use it a a crux to evade my point entirely when I challenge your ludicrous claim in the opening post that identity politics "breaks our social unity". Yes, Hilary Clinton is a woman, and Barack Obama is a black American, and both leveraged their identities to connect and inspire a group of voters. Never did they claim that those groups could "do anything" once they were elected. Never did they use divisively racial or sexist language when speaking to different population segments. It is not racist or sexist to connect with people of your own skin color or gender. It does dissolve our "social unity". To claim otherwise is a mixture of stupidity and ignorance.

Perhaps, but Sanders (arguably more social democrat than socialist, despite the self-epithet) nevertheless lost the Democratic candidacy to the decidedly non-Marxist, non-socialist Clinton, who herself lost the presidency to a racist populist with no political experience whatsoever. So the delusion that "Marxism is ever more threatening", now, is still an enigma to me. Regardless, what the right-wing fears isn't Marxism per say, but a sort of Stalinist/Maoist state-lead economic militarization, as Peterson suggests in the video, and the idea that this is feasible threat within America is eye-rollingly laughable.

It's amazing how, in 2018, people think Marxism is viable threat to American society. I vividly remember in 2010 how in vogue reading Marx was. Who would have thought within the decade, nationalism, white supremacy, Nazism, right-wing populism and other nefarious political movements would have emerged instead.

Since when do newborn babies lack the right to life? And is that really all you have to say?

There is a hierarchy, hierarchies cannot be eliminated, and that hierarchy is based on competency. The bourgeois are at the top because they have shown themselves to be the most competent at taking care of their society. — Agustino

Circular and laughably naive, no wonder you readily subscribe to Peterson's vapid "self-help" philosophy.