anyone with a PhD) and with important contributions. — Nickolasgaspar

A Ph.D.? Thousands of those are handed out. That makes you a philosopher? In terms of important contributions — yeah, exactly. Who?

Original thinkers perhaps go elsewhere? — Tom Storm

Where? I’m talking about worldwide.

Heidegger or Ryle? — Tom Storm

Heidegger.

there are many modern philosophers who produce valuable work. — Nickolasgaspar

Who?

I hadn't even thought of this possibility. Can you say some more? — Tom Storm

Sure. Who would you point to as a living philosopher? Not a chronicler.

Nagel is still alive, and Charles Taylor and John Searle and Dan Dennett…I guess they’re considered philosophers, but I’ve never been particularly impressed. Seems like professionalization run amok. Where’s our truly original thinkers? In my opinion the last one died in ‘76.

But that’s me.

My criticism is that there are no philosophers, and haven’t been in decades. We get people like Zizek. I think it’s a low point in philosophy.

Rest assured I'm pissing more people off in the real word than suffer from my "militancy" here. — Isaac

Nice! :clap:

I think a movement to restrict gun ownership to those with a licence (if easily obtained) might work, and would certainly help - because it's not an economic change, it doesn't really change the fundamental sociao0economic structure of the country. But it also won't help (not much anyway). — Isaac

It would have helped in this case. And at least it’s a sensible start. Gotta start with the low hanging fruit.

But I don’t disagree: for significant changes to happen, you need to tackle issues like power — wealth inequality, etc., and that is certainly harder and will receive more pushback.

As long as pessimism isn’t a preventative for action, I’ve no problem with it.

THE RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS HAVE LIED, CHEATED, AND STOLEN IN THEIR MANIACAL OBSESSION TO “GET TRUMP,” BUT NOW THEY’VE GONE TOO FAR, INDICTING A TOTALLY INNOCENT MAN IN AN ACT OF OBSTRUCTION AND BLATANT ELECTION INTERFERENCE. HOW MUCH MORE ARE AMERICAN PATRIOTS EXPECTED TO TAKE???…AND ALL OF THIS WHILE OUR COUNTRY IS GOING TO HELL!

:rofl:

He tried to recruit a governor and Secretary of State to literally invalidate the will of millions of voters. For that he should be in prison. — Hanover

:up:

But because it didn’t happen (because others had the decency to refuse), it’s “just words.”

Trump apologists are hilarious.

1-4 is especially good.

Eh, at this point it’s like whack-a-mole. Almost random snippets, but no consistency and no logic. Perhaps leave the man and his fascist agenda to his dreamworld and let him be happy with that.

I still don’t think race and gender ideology ought to be taught in public schools. — NOS4A2

Way to legislate your own feelings. So you’re fine with restricting the rights of others if it suits your fascist agenda. Got it.

I’m not that optimistic, but it’s possible. Look at civil rights, women’s rights, gay marriage, even attitudes towards marijuana. Look at the IRA and gun bill last year. They’re both way too weak and I’m not an apologist for either, but I don’t think either of us would have predicted that even they would pass.

Regardless, this is on the federal level. On the state and city level, which I’ve increasingly focused on politically, things are much less gridlocked. Not to mention more energy in the labor movement. All gives me more hope than others perhaps.

Human beings grant rights. But not the state — even though the state is just a bunch of human beings. We don’t like states, because St Reagan said government is the problem.

Something something human nature, something something natural rights, blah blah blah collectivism blah blah blah I hate paying taxes and read too much Ayn Rand yada yada yada. :yawn:

“Child labor is wrong.”
“But what if a kid wants to work?”

“What if a kid wants to learn about sex in school?”
“Too bad.”

Hey, a man can dream.

a solution that you've just admitted will never work because no matter how much support it has — Isaac

I never said that. I only mentioned why it has so far been enacted. There was a (albeit weak) gun bill passed last year, which surprised some people. It’s not impossible for the majority to win out— it’s just a matter of effort and time.

Hopefully lots of other indictments follow, particularly the Georgia “perfect phone call.”

Been a criminal flouting the rules for years, thinking he’s above the law.

Next up: George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Barack Obama, and other war criminals/international terrorists.

I should be allowed to fly a plane. I have no history of crashing planes and don’t intend to. My passengers safety? In a free market, they can fly elsewhere, and my airline would quickly go out of business. No need for meddling statists trying to restrict my natural right to fly.

What about the people in houses that I could potentially crash into? Well, that’s in the future— and imaginary. Who are these people I’m “protecting”, after all? Can you name them? What’s the color of their eyes? Their rights aren’t as important as restricting my right to fly.

Likewise, anyone should be allowed to buy a gun. It’s also a totally natural right. Been posting about shooting up schools for months? Well, who knows what the future brings— here’s your AR-15. Your right to “defend yourself” is more important than schoolchildren’s rights to life.

So sarcasm and a red herring from the Trump guy always talking about “fallacies.”

No surprise — I wouldn’t want to explain why I support school shootings and child labor exploitation either.

“Oh these poor kids who are forced to work! Let them work and be exploited by corporations - Better than selling themselves on the street!”

“What if the government helps them out so they don’t have to do either? We’re a very wealthy country, after all.”

“Collectivist/statist!”

Good god, imagine holding this ideology?

What will a child do if they are forced to work — NOS4A2

Which is why we shouldn’t have a society where kids (or anyone) are “forced to work.” We know you want to keep it this way by abandoning all social programs, but try not projecting your fantasies on others.

That doesn't fall foul of the fallacy you've mentioned but points to the corrupt influence of special interests. — Baden

Yes. Gun rights aren’t sensible because a huge majority believe they are; in this case, it’s so sensible that a huge majority (even in a deeply divided nation and among gun owners) are in favor of it. Basically common sense.

If not allowing businesses to hire children is unjustified, then that implies businesses should be able to hire children. — Pinprick

Oh the good ol’ days before child labor laws! You know, when children’s “rights” (wink wink) to work weren’t violated by a meddling bureaucracy and employers could exploit workers with impunity.

Looking for a true libertarianism paradise? Look no further.

:rofl: at this conversation.

Let anyone fly a plane — you think restricting their rights will protect anyone? That’s in the future. Who are you to play God? They never crashed a plane before and don’t intend to. So you’re in no position to restrict their rights, you statist.

Anyway, yeah most Americans don’t want the mentally ill to have guns and want background checks. Close to 90%. Turns out they care more about the right for children not to get shot than some libertarian nutjob’s Minority Report view of crime.

So our response, is exactly on the issue of gun control, it's not avoiding it, it's the main issue because its our opponent's main argument and they're currently winning. — Isaac

A majority want gun control. In some instances a vast majority, including republicans. So they’re really not winning— not with their arguments anyway. They win by buying off politicians and through gerrymandering and through stocking the courts, etc.

But yes we should talk about healthcare when it’s appropriate. In the meantime: gun measures to prevent the mentally ill from obtaining a gun has huge public support.

:yawn:

it's about the position that is being dismissed — Isaac

In that case: yes, I think mental health is very important indeed and would be happy to discuss the causes and what can be done about it. On this thread, however, it’s avoiding the issue of gun control.

Go Bernie.



Never realized what a worm Shultz was. Should have known.

Eh, good. Criminals should be indicted. About time. Hopefully many more to come. It’ll be good for the country.

According to nos there's no such thing as a community. Forget governments -- they're always gonna muck things up. Etc.

It really betrays a kind of ignorance of local governments. They do a fine job -- I like a lot of them. They run the water and keep the garbage collected and things like that.

Isn't it funny how a concrete issue like gun control measures has to get diverted to aspirations about mental health and "libertarian" rantings about "natural rights"?

In the real world, in the US, right now, we have a government that can enact gun laws that prevent children from being killed. We know this. Other countries have done it -- we've had some of the laws in place before as well. We see it on the state and local level as well. Whether "statist" or "anti-statist," this is the reality. So do we want to enact these laws so that less kids get shot, or not?

The answer for those (very sincerely and impartially) concerned about mental health, or about "individual rights," etc., at the end of the day: No.

We don't want these laws. We want to do nothing, or put MORE guns out there, with the ultimate goal that we're all armed 24/7 in the 1/10,000,000 chance that there's a school shooting.

Is that how you protect someone’s right to life, by begging the government to restrict our rights? — NOS4A2

Not begging, demanding. Demanding the government protect the individual right to life by restricting the ability of every nut who wants a gun. Like every other country without the mass shootings we have. Morally on par with restricting the freedom to drive a car without training/license. That's a just use of lawmaking, yes.

Or we can pretend the government can do no right and so resign ourselves to the inevitable fact that we're gonna have mass killings regularly. Nah.

Or in other cases, abortion control, the right to life via not being chopped up in a womb and sucked out with a vacuum. — NOS4A2

So you're in favor of abortion on principle and in favor of schooling shootings on principle. At least it's consistent. I'd prefer not having dead kids if possible.

What kind of weapon would you use to protect your children, should the need ever arise? Ballots and petitions? Beg a politician? — NOS4A2

In the dystopian world you live in, where I guess this is a very real threat at any moment, I suppose I'd want whatever works best.

So I guess in your world a criminal entering my home negates the act of petitioning government. Once again, the logic is astounding.

Restricting my rights to own a gun does not protect the rights of anyone else, for I have not violated anyone’s rights. — NOS4A2

For god's sake, the world doesn't revolve around you.

Over 300,000,000 guns out there, how would one start to deal with the sheer numbers? — jgill

That’s a good question. Again, it’s good to look to other countries. There are buyback programs. I think Australia used something like this.

I think the sheer number is important — because with numbers that high, there’s bound to be more leakage— assuming we had rational gun regulations.

But since we don’t even have that, I think it takes priority before even thinking about lowering the number.

But to that end: Making guns more expensive, taxing them, etc. Like cigarettes. Not outlawed, but greatly discouraged (and I don’t necessarily agree in that specific case). That’s another idea.

The self-centered, myopic view is that gun control violates individual rights. Does it? The majority of people favor gun control. The prevalence of guns violates their right to life. Right now, judging by government inaction, the state and powerful special interest groups such as the NRA are aligned with the interests of individuals who oppose gun control. — Fooloso4

Exactly. What about THAT special interest group?

Well, it’s because he’s in that group, so it’s cool.

I am down for any law that is just and protects the rights of the individual. — NOS4A2

Cool, like the right to life- via not getting shot.

Laws that protect the state, its own interests, or some other interest group [like the NRA] are unjust and do not protect the rights of the individual. — NOS4A2

Absolutely. So good, I’m glad we’re both in favor of petitioning the state to protect an individual’s right to life, in this case via control control measures.

Well, I never claimed I was a "truly impartial observer" - I just asked a question about mental health and why the subject seemed always conspicuously absent from these discussions, and was treated to your tirades — Tzeentch

“Just asked a question.” Yes, the question every NRA member, bought politician, and gun not happen to raise every time gun control is brought up. If that’s “conspicuously absent,” you’re living in complete ignorance.

“Tirades.”

So should universal background checks and gun training be required before buying an AR-15 or not? Let’s make it concrete.

I don't have particularly strong opinions on gun control in America, since I don't live in America. — Tzeentch

But you have an interest in American mental health? Why America? Why not Argentina or Japan?

Oh yes, it’s because the topic is mass shootings, of which America is an outlier. Not an outlier in mental health issues, as has been shown. Given this, a truly impartial observer’s first question would be, “Why does America have so many mass shootings?”

Then maybe the 400 million guns and the fact that anyone can get their hands on one would be of interest to them. In which case they’d say, “Why does the US have so many guns and such lax gun regulations?”

That would be genuine discussion.

Go on then, what do you believe that you know about me? — Tzeentch

You’re right, it’s just a complete coincidence that someone who continuously spews libertarian ideology just happens to want to talk about the “mental health” factor on a thread about gun control.

I’m sure you’re sincere. You’re fooling yourself, but that’s OK.

Sean Hannity wanting to talk about Hillary’s emails on a thread should Trump’s crimes is also just good faith questioning as well.

hostility — Tzeentch

Not hostility, but impatience. Impatience with NRA talking points about “mental health” being spewed disingenuously on a thread about gun control, to avoid talking about gun control.

We get it: no gun control measures, because the “real” issue is mental health. Carry on.

take into account human nature — NOS4A2

An interpretation of human nature you mean. A fairly sick one, too.

deep-seated authoritarianism — NOS4A2

Says the Trump voting corporatist. Maybe Freud was on to something… :chin:

Ayn Rand fails once again. Keep trying.

So why, in a discussion about gun control, is it not OK to remind everyone that mental health (in the broad sense) is also a major factor. — Isaac

Because it’s mostly disingenuous when the topic is gun control. If it’s not, then yes, I repeatedly acknowledge the obvious point that people driven to kill people is a problem.

Insinuating that anyone talking about mental health is associated with NRA "talking points" just makes you look weak and doesn't help the argument at all. — Isaac

But it is an NRA talking point. Given what I know about Tzeentch, it’s no coincidence that this is the angle he wants to emphasize. I don’t buy “hey I’m just asking questions about mental health” nonsense for a second. If you do, then have at it.

It works against specific drugs, but because the root causes aren't addressed it's a matter of time before the next one comes along. The problem never truly gets solved. — Tzeentch

The problem of quaalude addictions certainly was solved. Banning or heavily regulating guns could work too, as they do everywhere else in the world. Sure, people could use knives or whatever — but that’s not the topic. The topic is guns— which is why we have the number of mass SHOOTINGS that we do.

Do you not see mass shootings as a problem?
If you do think it’s a problem, what is the solution?
If it’s vague aspirations about solving the problem of mental health, then we’re going in circles. If you want to discuss sensible gun control measures, by all means give your ideas.

If you have no ideas on this issue, then stop with the NRA diversions. Not interested.

You make rules for family. Very good. You can govern your own household. Except it doesn’t follow that you or anyone else ought to have the same authority of over people who are not your kin. — NOS4A2

The same principle applies, whether to my family or anyone else. Just because they’re my family doesn’t give me the right to “govern” them any more than anyone else. Either it’s just or unjust.

rule of some people over others, what with politicians with constituents in the millions. — NOS4A2

Yes we all know your tired, boring views on majoritarianism and general hatred of democracy in general. Has nothing to do with me.

restricting their rights — NOS4A2

(1) Rights are made up. (2) Rights being restricted isn’t the issue— the issue is whether doing so is just.

Gun “rights” don’t exist any more than the right to drive a car. Except there’s training involved in driving a car.

You participate in the charades of the greatest monopolies known to history, and advocate for corporatism of the worst kind. — NOS4A2

Says the guy who voted for, and has passionately defended, Donald Trump at every turn. :rofl:

Hard pass on your paranoia delusions. Read more Ayn Rand and keep trying.

The reason most countries can afford to disarm their populace and claim moral victory is because American weaponry protects them while they sleep.

Worth highlighting how stupid this statement is, lest it slips through the cracks.

Nearly every country on earth has a military, whether aligned with the US or not. Every other nation on earth has less mass shootings than us. You can have a peaceful country, a military, and legal domestic gun use.

Ukraine wasn’t attacked because its people weren’t allowed to stock up on AR-15s. It has a military. To somehow get all of this mixed up with domestic gun policy shows how far one must go to make sure kids continue to be murdered because you think Murray Rothbard is cool.