this translate into an instantiated ability to project our thoughts and ideas further into the future as well as the past — I like sushi

I can't quite say I understand or agree with this. There's some buzzword Latin term for it, I'm sure. I don't know it. But, in simple words, everything that goes on inside your mind is completely detached and non-relevant to the world outside it. I mean, unless you're some sort of super being. If so, how nice. But generally speaking, seeing videos of events of the past, while it can offer insight and a true (albeit ultimately vicarious) sense of insight into those events that spoken words, stories and even photos and illustrations cannot, it's more sensory than actual, I'd argue.

Photo albums have existed since the 1800s. People could gather around and view one's family tree (or anyone's, for that matter) and suddenly become transported into a world much like their own yet entirely unique. That's what images do. That's what words can do, actually. Do you think the first person who uncovered a diary of a person who lived through an interesting and exciting period of time didn't feel a connection to that person, despite never knowing them or even knowing for certain they even ever existed, other than by the words or images that purport they did?

As an aside, sure. We see graphic photos and videos of war and conflict and suffering and it often speaks to us on a deep level that mere typographical descriptions seem to be unable to reach. Perhaps I misunderstand, but a truly well-written account of an event and a video of an event are not necessarily unequal or inherently unable to convey the emotions, meanings, and human experiences contained therein.

After a quick Google search, this is actually a repost, yes. However, the person he is engaging with does seem to find it interesting, though perhaps that's more obligatory politeness than honest assessment.

However, the person who (at least posted the original post) does seem to be an author. Now as to what that means today in the world of haphazard self publishing, I do not know! I'd post the book but, there seems to be a trend of non-noteworthy authors (not to say it's their fault) wishing for such so I will refrain from. But if one wishes to view the link, the commenter's name can be Googled to the same affect.

In short, it's a fair enough basis for a new poster to start a philosophical discussion, I would say. Wouldn't you? :confused:

Who knows, perhaps it's over even your head! Or can you even fathom such a concept as possible, prideful as you can be at times. :smile:

1. Is our freedom threatened when our choices can be forecasted? — Alonsoaceves

If it walks like a duck, it's probably a duck. If you're never allowed to change, that is not to say broadcasted constantly "there's something wrong with you" or "you suck, get better" or perhaps the more charitable "you could be so much better than you are right now" over and over (original sin, as an example), you have the freedom to become something other than what you are now. Or at least, to adopt different behaviors that counteract whatever compels you to be as you are.

Actually, you can see the stark differences between the first callous sentiment and the last encouraging suggestion, which I believe is the essence of telling people, even from the earliest age they can understand, the idea of Original Sin. Psychologically, and effectively, it performs similar if not identical function.

2. Can we reclaim unpredictability in a data-driven age? — Alonsoaceves

I'm not really sure what this asks or even what it would hope to solve, assuming it proclaims to restore some "rightful" nature of humanity now lost or hindered by the modern age. I mean, you can go outside right now with a skirt, paint your face three colors, don a pot and pan and bang them across the street to your heart's content, if you'd like unpredictability for unpredictability's sake. No one's stopping you. Presuming you're single. But for what? Unpredictability is no virtue. In fact, it's what mankind has fought against since the beginning of time. We like predictable seasons, predictable food sources, predictable levels of danger and social safety, and so much more.

3. What ethical guardrails should we demand around social physics? — Alonsoaceves

You mean, this invented concept you seemed to have pulled out of nowhere (nowhere pleasant, shall I self-censor)?

It's still non-defined. Certainly from your OP.

The law does well enough. If you kill someone, you go to jail. If you steal from someone, you go to jail. And so on and so forth. You can't police thought itself. At least, it never ends well.

I don't know the answers yet — Jamal

Or do you? Heh. sorry. :lol:

I'm going to attempt to, likely trivially, but hopefully effectively, simplify a few things I would assume the average person either non familiar with philosophy or not adept in such might wonder. Questions the average person unfamiliar with the specific work in depth might have in their mind. I trust you won't take the (perhaps compromising and inappropriately) reductive nature of the following questions and comments as snarky or otherwise derived of something other than genuine curiosity.

Adorno would say if you're asking how his philosophy can be used, as in a tool, then you're asking the wrong question. — Jamal

How can it be misused? Ignored? Glossed over and its point derived lost entirely or hopelessly misinterpreted, perhaps due to human folly or the very concepts it purports to defend and validate? (example of hypothetical "right" questions?)

I imagine a critic asking something along the lines of "Okay. So instead of that, how about: 'What did you [Adorno] see as wrong with the world or the existing philosophical landscape and zeitgeist? What healing or correction or perhaps efficiency or otherwise change do you think your philosophy brought about?'

Naturally, that's a question only he himself could answer. Or is it? Surely, the intent of such types of literary work is to expose the reader to the inner depths of one's mind, or at least mindset and viewpoint. Or is that not necessarily true? (Meaning, sometimes authors can live on long after their physical death in the minds of those of who read and understand their works as intended, in a manner of speaking, no?)

The life of the mind, especially the critical life of the mind, which is alive to suffering and deception, is valuable in itself. — Jamal

So basically, thinking is cool. Thought (and as a result human life) has value. Sure, not really a "hot take" or anything new placed on the table, I'd say. Or is there much more to it?

to help prevent human beings from becoming mere cogs in the machine of modern life, oppressed but also cold, heartless, and oppressive themselves — Jamal

So, kind of like a "make your mark on the world, lest it make it's mark on you", kind of worldview. Or is that not accurate?

things that have been swept under the carpet by philosophers: the uniqueness of individual things, suffering and pain, sensual pleasure, uncommodified creativity, and thinking which is free of the demands of power and money. He wants everyone to value or notice these things: that way, the human species will be worth saving. — Jamal

Q1: Does that mean to imply, each person's suffering and pain is unique from one another's even if they are physically identical (I.E. two strangers being flogged) OR simply to state that suffering and pain are unique concepts despite many people failing to realize so?

--

As far as "uncommodified creativity, and thinking which is free of the demands of power and money"

Basically, is this not utopian thinking? Some world where men don't steal from other men because they can or need to? Where the strong don't take from the weak but instead help them, despite not receiving any benefit but in fact loss of worldly benefit? Essentially, a world where my fridge is just always full, my kids (and I) are always safe, and everything is just sunshine and rainbows? A critic would call this fundamentally unrealistic as far as actual expectation. So I take it to mean, even so, the difference between a world where this is true, versus the one we live in where it is not true, is a valuable lesson and something to focus on, something that is "lost", even more effectively, by the modern system? (Which I would question because, as you might know I like to defend modern society, at least the good parts of it, those parts being stability and predictability that did not exist, except by folly of ignorance, in times before modern society that largely eliminates warring tribes and empires from conquering large swathes of land and laying ruin to everything in their wake, for example...that's the trade off, in my view, between 'then and now', and in my opinion, it's worth it, despite what some suggest is 'lost' or otherwise 'hindered' I.E. 'the grass is indeed always greener')

a future in which people who have a chance of making a better society are looking for philosophical resources to support their resistance to social coercion, bigotry, the tyrrany of work, and so on. — Jamal

So, to be one's true self as one wishes, to prevent dogmatic judgements on one's fellow man, and to avoid excessive (unnecessary?) labor? More or less? I've long said, everyone else on Earth but you could disappear tomorrow and you'd still eat only by the sweat of one's brow. There are no free lunches. At least, in a physical world, nothing gets done unless someone does it. Law of Motion or Conservation of Mass or, I dunno one of those guys. :confused:

"Tyranny of work" is again what makes me think those critical of the work might consider it "utopian" in nature I.E. non-realistic or the very least non-feasible.

"If you don't do it, somebody else will." Why not just destroy all your countries nuclear weapons, abandon all bio-warfare programs and robotics or other technology that can be used to kill or oppress life (killer drones and jets with missiles) and open all borders? The answer seems fairly obvious.

His philosophy is a self-conscious response to a historical situation in which the Enlightenment had shown itself able to produce the greatest horrors ever unleashed, and in which the greatest hope of emancipation from oppression and misery, i.e., socialism, had failed. — Jamal

Somewhat of the tragedy of progress, kind of thing? We discovered nuclear energy, that could in theory power the homes of every person on Earth, but also discovered nuclear weapons, that could in theory destroy the homes of every person on Earth. We discovered ways to create medicines, that could heal every person on Earth, but also discovered bio-warfare that could kill every person on Earth. Etc, ad infinitum with just about every innovation and discovery of all time?

I apologize if that's all too vague. — Jamal

No need. Your description (or in my opinion, your view of "what the text means to you") was excellent. Again, just trying to wrap my head around a few things and perhaps ask a few questions that I'm fairly sure other novices or those unfamiliar with the text might wonder themselves. Pardon the over-simplifications and general ignorance of the topic, none of these things are done in ill-will.

If it's alright, and it might not be, and if so I apologize in advance, as someone who's been following this topic in a very light and casual way (it's really interesting I'm simply equally as busy at the moment so can only offer a passing glance as far as attentiveness), I wish to ask a simple question. Perhaps a two-part question.

What does "negative dialectics" actually "do", per se. Like, what does it offer. Specifically, the question being, what are the differences between a world where negative dialectics doesn't exist and one where it does. What's the benefit other than interesting mental chortling between those who "know" in the presence of those who do not.

What is hidden to those who never understand the concept? How are their lives negatively impacted? Like, as someone completely unacquainted with the concept, what am I being "deprived of", per se. Etc.

Thank you for your time in reading my questions of bewilderment.

It's not the same. The average person is not a deep or reverent thinker. The English language is complex. It's like supervising a rogue IT guy. If you knew what the hell he was doing and what was going on, you wouldn't need to have an IT guy, now would you? You'd just do it yourself. He can literally steal every piece of data and disrupt whatever service you have going on, with you literally standing over his shoulder, and him saying he's just "doing routine maintenance" and you would be none the wiser. Not a perfect metaphor, no, yet succinct enough.

What about using the bathroom? Why couldn't the two corrupt politicians/lobbyists just "use the restroom" to conduct or speak whatever corruption or ill-formed plan they wish to conspire together with? They could just exchange notes with disappearing ink or dissolving/edible spy paper during a handshake, and read it by tilting their head upward and reaching outside of the view of the camera, calling it a "stretch", now couldn't they?

Furthermore I submit this to be more of a Lounge topic unless refinement is made. Say, along the lines of, is corruption in power preventable by enough oversight? Etc.

What makes you say that? — Jamal

Until our dear friend wishes to express a response, perhaps one interested in the overarching debate (such as myself) might find value in observing those who wish to offer contrast between the two concepts (apparently, from a quick Google search, in the ideascape that considers an object "Platonic" there is the, not necessarily opposite or inverse, but at least in a way contrasting idea of an Archimedean object.

I am not the first to notice or at least nod to the respective differences, as this video here shows. Not that it's related. But it could be? Pardon if not, just something to pass the time until a response is procured. If nothing else.



I'm sure you know very well what so and so is. But one can never know what context or personal belief in the context of a larger argument said objects may hold in relation to the point express, which is also hard to pin down. Human nature, am I right? :smile:

I don't think anyone believes that objects are identical to concepts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Some objects are in fact, manifest of concepts. Trash in a bin, for example. Sure, there may be a lost gold ring or other heirloom that would supersede the contents within. But how likely is that really.

Your point is valid, in most scenarios. Surely a hammer is not always a symbol of law and justice. It might be a tool to seal one's grave, one who has in fact fought for law and justice his or her whole life. Absolutely.

Surely, some concepts may be associated with objects, perhaps even to those ignorant of the true and encyclopedic definitions of what they are. Take for example, the concept of thought. A brain, raw and removed from a body, is generally considered to equate such. So, perhaps one may wish to stop and think as to what is really what when it comes to such a broad generalization. And of course, someone seeing a brain, perhaps not physically in front of them, all graphic, gory, and jarring and such, but rather as a friendly illustration or cartoon, might indeed equate such an object with such a concept. Wouldn't you think so?

There is a relation of identity between subject and object which is conducive to truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course, one man's trash is indeed one man's treasure. Meaning, one man's guiding symbol or charm, could very well be another man's bewildering curse.

I may get thrown out of some forums but today I am thinking I am going to be more consistent in demanding good manners and I will post about virtues more often because I believe we can have better lives when understand the virtues and the importance of good manners. — Athena

And I believe you're right. But the question is, how did you come across to believe that the above sentiments, beliefs, and philosophies, are in fact right? Was it from embracing them, wholeheartedly, as a second truth? Or perhaps, did those who gave you the life and education that allowed you to not only be born but receive such information, possibly have been a bit less than faithful to the so-called truths and virtues you preach?

We need a culture that brings out the best in people and I think this might being by creating social pressure that encourages everyone to be a better person. — Athena

Your idea of the "best in people" is not defined. So I presume that to be the most "virtuous, charitable, forgiving, easygoing, affable" sort of designation. Sure, no one wants a neighbor from hell, after all. But that's just your own desire for, not peace or goodness, but preservation of all that you've become accustomed to. Not to say, someone else accustomed to the opposite would wish the same (example being, an impoverished person who experiences hardship regularly would not wish for the same sentiment you express). However, as I'm sure you can see, the two different scenarios and persons in each unique scenario view the idea of "creating social pressure" I.E. hardship quite differently.

It's just not very philosophical in any way, shape, or form. Evolution (or any other form of physical being) is set in stone. Sure, maybe I'm taller than you, maybe I'm not. Okay. And? All that can be derived from there is a pissing contest. At least, that's all it ever devolves into. Can you not see that?

Eros1982 was banned for racism. — Jamal

Who? Lol. :lol:

What he say? You know, replace "Group X" with, I dunno, peacocks or something. Like, give us some context at least. Was it just an illogical screed or part of a relevant discussion? Not that it matters, sure, I for one trust your judgement entirely, just, you know, for the sake of accountability, public discussion, to pacify the naysayers, and whatnot. :smirk:

That is a mighty example you used, and a dangerous one. — Red Sky

Not anymore so than the claim of which spawned it, I'd say.

The basis of my argument is quite bad. — Red Sky

It just seems a bit unsound from how I process it in my own head. Not bad. Just, in need of refinement. Perhaps we can do so together? :smile:

Say if you were to die, anyone with normal values would consider it bad. However what about a person who committed suicide, they might consider it good. Now there is a difference in the values. Is it truly better to be dead or alive? Without answering that question we couldn't say dying early is better than dying late. — Red Sky

So basically, people have different opinions when it comes to large existential concepts outside of the reasonable capacity of the average mind and no one person's opinion on such topics can be more right or wrong than the other, is what I gather you're suggesting. Is that right?

If you were to value life, dying would be bad, but without those values... is there a truth? — Red Sky

If one doesn't value life, I doubt they'd have much opinion on anything within it, truth included. You can value life, as an experience to experience just for experience sake, like riding a roller coaster, but then enjoying the fact you eventually get to depart from it, I suppose.

how do we know a value is correct? Is there a way? Or do we all just have to hold our own values through life unknowingly? — Red Sky

Most people can be convinced of anything if a large enough constant (perhaps violent) opposition has a desire to do so. That's not a good measure, believing we "know" things. That is to say, that the knowledge we have "proven" cannot ever be made irrelevant by new. currently undiscovered or otherwise socially non-existent knowledge.

Smells like nihilism to me, OP.

I'm not sure what your point is. — Tom Storm

It's certainly a bit to unpack and then ponder using the given methodologies and justifications OP has provided.

Like I mean, unless I'm wrong, OP would suggest being born into a time period and family where that individual ended up going through the Holocaust "has it's benefits"... and even beyond that, is "no different" than if that person was instead born into a rich family not affected by the war at all and only benefited from it. That's a bit of a "hard sell" to me, to put it lightly, but, I'll let OP answer that. If he would like.

A fake, fake painting is still a painting. — I like sushi

What is a "fake, fake painting" and how would that differ from a "fake, fake, fake painting?" Can such a concept continue ad infinitum? :chin:

This is a serious question.

I can grasp the concept. A printed dollar bill from your home printer is fake money. But then, in theory, it would be possible for you to somehow overthrow a given government and declare your then-"fake money" as real money. So, it kind of goes back to the whole "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" argument, but insofar as it meshes with socially-derived authority.

Of course, only a painting painted by say, Rembrandt, himself, will ever be a "real Rembrandt painting." What if he was never famous and some guy you never heard of painted something just as visually and aesthetically appealing? Would we pay millions for such? It's a curious question, a bit unrelated, though.

It's original, perhaps. If you're asking whether the intent was to copy something you know is not an original vs. if you thought it was the original, seems to be something your OP considers relevant, I think? If you're literally replicating a given object or scene to the exact detail, as much as possible, I mean, isn't that just what an Artist's Reprint or (proof) is I.E. a reproduction?

I understand you are asking something, but it is not at all clear to me, what. — Banno

What, in the best of your ability, are whoever you're referencing "confused" about. And why so. And what does this allegedly professed "knowledge" or this so-called guiding near-absolute wisdom you possess which they seemingly are not able to grasp, contain. In the simplest terms. This isn't hard. So stop making it as if it were.

See the present thread for samples of the confusion they incur. — Banno

How can one know confusion (rather that they are confused) without knowing clarity (that they are not confused). If one does not know clarity it is simply a difference in opinion. So, please, like I've requested multiple times now, provide such.

Qualia — MoK

Is there really no term or concept (even if it's not a simple one or two length word) synonymous with "Qualia". It's an invented term, presumably because no word suited what whomever coined it presumes or otherwise postulates it describes. Is there really no single word synonymous beyond the definition? Is it not "experience" (perhaps as it relates to the brain-mind model)? Why or why not?

The Hard Problem asks how consciousness, or subjectivity, arises from the physical, and why. One result of this emergence (according to Chalmers and others) are qualia -- how sensations present themselves to consciousness. — J

That's right, I remember having read that now before.

But you can have consciousness without qualia. My contemplation of a math problem involves no qualia, but would be impossible without consciousness. — J

Interesting. Makes sense, of course. But isn't a (simple) math problem basically just adding or subtracting, etc. two or more fixed value systems. Like, a computer can process 1 + 1 = 2. Naturally it wouldn't "contemplate" the concept like a human might... "wow, imagine how lost our society would be without something so simple as basic math!" But is that really contemplating the math problem itself? It's just numbers after all, that work out to a specific mathematical conclusion. Doesn't seem to be much to contemplate outside of robotically performing the procedures that result in the final outcome to me. Sure, a math problem can be "beautiful" in both it's intricacy or simplicity, I suppose. What it unlocks as far the world of innovation and science, logistics, etc.

Basically, consciousness just being the ability to be self-aware and self-reflect upon anything one desires and to be aware one is doing such. "Thinking about thinking" I once heard being said. Is that about right?

They say other primates like monkeys "think about thinking", use tools, make decisions, feel emotions, etc. So do birds (at least they perform the last three), and dogs (at least they perform the last two). Both the aforementioned animals can feel "depressed", "anxious", "afraid", etc. Is that consciousness? But what about simpler forms of life whose emotions are not so easily conveyed? Are they conscious? What about a fish who gets caught in a hook, or a chicken in a slaughterhouse? What about a snail on a sidewalk or a fly on the wall? What about dolphins? Whales? Etc, etc. I'm just curious as to your take and attributing of consciousness or not to different forms of non-human life.

Bit of an odd reply on my part perhaps, and for that I apologize, just trying to get things a bit more simplified or "laid out" I.E. "what consciousness/qualia is vs. what it isn't" for those a bit less up to speed or otherwise having less of an intimate understanding of the topics and meta-topics involved therein. Which includes myself, as I'm sure you can tell. :smile:

If "qualia" is a collective noun for "red", "loud" and so on, then I've no great problem with it. — Banno

I wouldn't compare the "experience of red" with the "experience of loud". One is measurable in decibels that will literally blow or otherwise permanently damage one's organs to a state of irreversible disrepair. For this reason I believe the two are not the same. "Annoying", kind of like (just kidding) may be the word you're looking for but, in my opinion, the two concepts are distinct. :smile:

If it is a name for an otherwise private sensation, then I can't see how to make sense of of it. — Banno

There is a difference between what is truly private and otherwise "indescribable" (to the person experiencing it). They share many qualities in such a scenario and circumstance, but are not inherent or intrinsic to either, in the larger sense. Let's take three groups of two people each (totaling six). One group of two who have never experienced an orgasm (or pain, somehow, whatever you want to call it, let's call it Sensation X), and the other group of two who have experienced such, and the last group of two, where one has experienced such and the other has not. Do you really think these three groups of two will not have different definitions, descriptions, or "wordings" to describe such a sensation, not just between one another's respective duo, but each other across the board? Of course they will! That doesn't mean, any one person or group of said person is "more or less" conscious than the other. Does it? :chin:

I apologize, I appear to have made a momentary lapse in judgement. The secondary question, now that you've suggested such is: "is the inability (or rather ability) to reliably and methodically describe 'color' (or 'sound') to another person (perhaps specifically one unable to process that one specific experience attributed to one or more of the given five human senses) definitive or otherwise largely significant to the idea and definition of "qualia", specifically as it relates to the "Hard Problem"?

You really should find out about Chalmers. — Banno

Oh I intend to. Worry not about that. But, of course, surely one has the ability (perhaps even an enhanced ability) to engage in the works (or at least pondering) of philosophy without knowing every single "celebrity in the business", as it were. After all, they certainly weren't.

That's how Chalmers sets out the issue.

Is he correct?

I don't know. — Banno

That's also fine. I don't know who that is. Not that I can recall, at least.

How would you set out the issue. No Chalmers, no this and that referencing other people. Just you. You have the entire English language at your disposal. Your unlimited arsenal, as far as defeating my (and that of many other's) ignorance of the concept you clearly must (at least somewhat) understand. Go on. Explain it.

I can't make much at all of that. Sorry. — Banno

That's fine. And I doubt that.

Is "qualia" not fundamental to what is considered to be defining, if not relevant, to the "Hard Problem of Consciousness?" Yes or no. If you please.

Sure, Then they are 'just what we ordinarily talk about using words like "red" and "loud".' — Banno

I wish, if you might entertain me, just for a moment, to frame this argument in a different light. Let's say, mankind never developed the ability to see color. Meaning, we see the world as dogs and flies do, black and white.

Now, imagine, another place, that not only developed the ability to see color. but to see, how shall we say, "emotions". Allow me to explain. When one is anxious or nervous, one, usually, sweats. So, this is an understandable concept in of itself that doesn't require much... addendum, shall we say. But. My argument here is, say, a person who can see such evidence, if the person does not happen to sweat when nervous. I.E. simply, when a person is nervous or deceptive, it becomes clear as day. So, in this fictional place, they would say they have an additional level of consciousness. But do they? How can you prove that? Surely "consciousness" is much more than color recognition (let alone inability to adequately explain such). But is the root and generally accepted "defining quality" of "qualia" (specifically the so-called "Hard Problem") really more than "I can't describe colors, therefore, all hope is lost?"

What of the hypothetical society who can "see" emotions, and thinks the same of us? That we are somehow not able to experience or grasp the notion of consciousness, at least, not in the same level they are? It's valid, or so it seems, which makes every hinged upon definition of "qualia" as "consciousness" invalid. Can you not see that?

you pick up a fire arm when you require superiority — DifferentiatingEgg

What if you like to target shoot? You never played a game like horseshoes or Whack-a-Mole? Asteroids? It's the same concept, really. Skeet shooting, etc. If you're not from a land that embraces such, I'm sure you'd know little of it. But that's of little consequence.

One could instead rephrase your argument as "when you wish to minimize risk of injury in dealing with something undesirable." Why don't you just get on your hands and knees and pluck each blade of overgrown grass or weed, one by one. You know, "be a man." Because it's a waste of time. It's rubbish, something undesirable (the overgrown foliage), for example. Good people have a right to use the cumulative innovation and progress to ease your life from that which is a threat to it. How could any sane person disagree?

If you're 5'2" and a criminal who clearly expresses his desire to kill or injure you who is 6'2" is chasing you, perhaps with an exposed weapon, either sharp or blunt, on top of it all. Without a gun, unless you're some sort of Superman, you will surely perish. Do you not understand that? It's not very difficult. :confused:

sparely populated villages — Outlander

sparsely*

Long guns are a different conversation from handguns — Hanover

Generally so, yes. Of course, it ultimately depends on whom you ask. Some people are reasonable, some aren't. You know that.

you might be overstating the danger of getting eaten by a bear in Alaska. There is an average of 11 bear attacks per year in all of North America [...] Your chances of a bear attack (and not necessarily dying from it) are 1 in 2.1 million. — Hanover

Perhaps. But a danger is a danger and a man has a right to at least be aware of such, even if the chances of such are nominal.

Also, those sort of statistics are based on documentation of events, not the events themselves. Surely you don't believe every time a man dies the government is there to report and archive it. That's silly. Missing persons, for example (those that actually make the list, as isolated or otherwise rural villages in such a place may simply never go reported at all), could perhaps be the result of many non-witnessed animal deaths. Not to imply your statistics are starkly inaccurate, only that perhaps there's plenty they're not showing. Even one, unreported death is a tragedy. The smaller the community, the more impactful it "actually" is to said society. So all life being valuable, it becomes important.

But I get it, the poster said all guns were bad, so you just had to come with a single counterexample to disprove the "all." — Hanover

In the interest of preserving the integrity of the larger debate, I observed my good friend @DifferentiatingEgg mistakenly introducing a less-than-useful blanket statement into said debate, of which my response was to offer a friendly and lighthearted correction.Which was immediately performed with admirable precision.

One valid counter-argument is all you need to qualify a statement or principle as false, or at the very least in need of significant and fundamental revision in order to better reflect the truth and accuracy of the world or situation it purports to describe. If that's important. If not, well, that's your sentiment and worldview, and you have a right to have it.

As an aside, I have many more counterexamples, some of which are found on this thread from multiple posters. But I shall save them for the future.

It's a state, not a territory. — frank

Lower case "territory"; meaning anything including uppercase States, Provinces, and yes, legal Territories. Basically just meaning, "part of the United States", and so relevant to the debate, which seems to nearly-obsessively (perhaps to be expected) revolve around such a place.

All firearms are for Superiority by someone suffering from Inferiority. — DifferentiatingEgg

In Alaska (which is an American territory), some sparely populated villages do not have traditional roads that can be navigated by vehicles during certain times of the year or certain levels of severe weather. Villagers traveling to and from certain villages often for miles at a time can face life and death risk if accosted by grizzly bears or other wild animals that are common and known to frequent said areas of wilderness. Do you suggest they simply get eaten? :chin:

The likelihood that I be able to produce a gun and use it effectively is lower than that gun being used otherwise to cause me harm. — Hanover

And whose fault is that? Rather, why is that? Because of your own inability to accept that these things exist, bad people have them, will use them. and if you are not able to do the same, you of all people, you willingly leave you and those you care about vulnerable. It's like technology or germ warfare in the modern age: "if you don't do it, somebody else less virtuous will just do it anyway." Are you a gatekeeper or the one being kept? It's a fine opinion you hold, just one a bit out of touch in the modern age if rubber were to ever meet the road. In short, the bad guys are armed. So why aren't you? Of all people!

I'm trying to intimately and personally imagine this world you wish to (or seem to think we) live in. Are knives allowed? Or do we just break apart meats and fruits with our fingers instead? Do we shave? Or do we just go to government centers with highly trained and certified professionals to shave for us? Should we even drive? Or do we just take self-driving cars and public transport whenever we need to be somewhere? I'm curious. Please. Enlighten me.

Just because you can't accept anything but applause at attacks on gun ownership doesn't make the analysis dull or or dense. — Hanover

See, this gets down to the root of the issue, perhaps unintentionally. It's an "attack". Point blank. Not a debate, not an attempt to better humanity by considering all things to be considered, simply, as you stated, an attack. Attacks are hostile. And hostility is not only non-productive, but has no place in creating a better future for humanity. Agree or disagree.

It just makes the point that there is not a meaningful risk of loss of life to being shot by a gun in the US if you take the simple precaution of not choosing to have a gun nearby. — Hanover

Well of course that's like saying if all criminals vanished into thin air right now, no one would be attacked, harmed, or robbed by criminals. That's not the debate. It's the human nature to use something, whether it was made for such or not, as a weapon. A car, a rock, a knife, a motolov cocktail, your own bare hands, it doesn't matter what it is. Not really when it's all said and done and a person who was alive is now no longer. Does it?

Obviously control of anything dangerous is not the issue. Everyone agrees on that. Kids shouldn't be able to drive 2-ton SUVs because they want to hang out with their friends, nor should teenagers be able to buy a bottle of vodka because they want to do the same. Control is fine, but total elimination, per your hypothetical, is not just unrealistic, but dismissive of the true causes and reasons why we have such guidelines, limitations, and restrictions in the first place.

The math doesn't support widespread efforts at gun control to reduce the negligible risk guns pose to those who, like me, have never owned, nor will ever own a gun. — Hanover

Well maybe you should. You make alot of money, I'm sure. Put a lot of people (I'm sure most who deserved it) away into places they don't want to be. That means you have enemies, whether you know it or not. If a criminal right now, were to God forbid, attempt to trespass onto your home with violent intentions, one larger than you, what would you do? Call the police? That takes time. What about your goats? Or whatever. It's good to have faith. And I hope it leads you to everything you desire. But for some of us, we need concrete solutions when it comes to protection of life and property. Do you really think that is not a permanent part of human existence in the modern (or any) age that won't go away regardless of what laws are passed or not?

This means that solid protection against gun violence is not to own a gun. — Hanover

In a given society, populace, or set of circumstances, that is correct. I don't think a family member would care very much whether their loved one were shot or stabbed to death, other than the fact they are deceased. Perhaps those who are inclined to acts or patterns of behavior or life choices that result in death, are also, coincidentally, or at best tangentially, are attracted to firearms. That's an aside, not a base of origin or some sort of defining quality. Like saying people who like fast cars end up in fatal car accidents more often that those who are not. Sure, there's an observable parallel. But it's an underlying human nature or choice of existence or "living life" that is ultimately response. The fast cars, or bad choices, or inclination to own firearms, is merely a catalyst for something attributable that would result in death or injury absent of any of the machinations mentioned, that something being "just how the person is" (or was raised?).

The argument is, once again, reckless people are attracted to reckless things. Power attracts those who least deserve it. That seems to be all that can be ascertained from your unusually dull and dense analysis of the topic at hand.

thanks for providing an example of the pathology I am pointing too. — Banno

I'm afraid that's all you my friend and your own solo show. Two people replied to the post, one of which being myself, and you used the term "folk", which implies more than one person, of which I would logically have to be one of said two. Again, you're your own frontman in this case. Not for an audience or agenda you plan, but go on. Floor is all yours.

What's perhaps most interesting here is the extent to which folk are willing to not see what your graph so plainly shows - or to attempt to explain it away, or change the subject. — Banno

Considering only two people replied to the post in question, one of which being me, I assume that as a invitation to reply.

Wanting to at least thoroughly cross-examine in the attempt to better understand a point, argument, claim, phenomenon, collection of data, or whatever it may be, will never be a negative, deflective, or avoidant thing. Despite your attempt to demonize basic philosophical and logical inquiry, it will never happen. But it does paint you as an odd one out, a strange outlier with a highly suspicious and blatant agenda. We all have agendas. From one to another, you should learn to be more subtle if you hope for yours to ever get off the ground, grasshopper.

In all those countries in that chart, I would think freedom of the press can generally be assumed, can't it? Got any counter-examples? — Wayfarer

No I like that, that's fair. But. Remember. There are close to 200 countries in the world today. Yet the chart pairs 11 (ot of 200) against 1. Does that seem standard or fair to you? I'm sure if you sample any random group of 20 people 1 of them will be awful people who should not exist. Is that really supposed to mean anything though? :chin:

I think this is the conclusion of the arguments he is proposing: — Leontiskos

What is at stake in the arguments is justice, not the compatibility of canonical texts. — Leontiskos

The funny part is, all of this goes away if we think, just for a moment, that not every tale and act of God was permitted to be recorded by men, let alone was observed. The last chapter of the book literally says "if you change or add to this, you will die." More or less. That doesn't mean, not for a moment, stuff happened during the periods in question that weren't included, nor that stuff could not happen after. It is simply, sealed off. It's all we need to know. Not an "incomplete picture" in the functional sense as far as those it was intended for, simply all we need to know.

Again, why religion is generally unpopular in the arena of debate. Provided it isn't directly contradicted (and even so as opinion, interpretation, and translation throughout the millennia are subjective), faith is belief and belief is generally whatever one deems fit.

Most other democratic countries managed it without. — Wayfarer

Nice chart. But, the question to answer to determine if it is misleading or not is quite simple: How's freedom of the press, though?

Without citizen's rights to defend themself and their voice, all there is is what is reported by the State.

Who knows, maybe some other place you don't live in will report a resurgence of unicorns in the area. How pleasant. But that doesn't make it so.

It's possible American gun owners could cause so much damage they could prevent a descent into tyranny, but I just don't see that as plausible. I would not hang my hat on that as a reason to allow Americans to legally own guns. It's not a convincing argument anymore. — RogueAI

Fair. Still, another slightly different yet fundamentally crucial question remains. If there's two houses to rob, and you have to rob one. Do you rob the guy who you know can blow your head off with a single trigger pull in a fraction of a second, or the guy who has to stab or physically overpower you or otherwise lure you into a trap?

Which of the two do you think would be most likely to be victimized, and how do you think, each individual in said house knowing this, would develop mentally and what related mental conditions or ailments or phobias would most likely develop between the two, respectively? :chin:

There are tests with animals that parallel this topic, mind you.

I don't see American gun owners doing anything to stop the tyranny. I don't see them doing anything to prevent it either, once the military gets involved. — RogueAI

Sure, that's a fair point. When you're outgunned, you're outgunned. You either live to fight another day, or you take the Hannibal approach. Not unlike the Sampson option. (Assuming your going to be enslaved or abused, women and children especially, very popular option historically).

I don't see any of that stopping a tyrannical takeover of the country. — RogueAI

It's mostly the "better than nothing" theory where, let's say people hostile to anyone here significantly cripple the military (even in small isolated areas), at least they have something to fight back with if it comes to ground troops. Which, of course, can be argued as significantly less likely in an age of nuclear warfare and other "goodies". But it's still possible. And so still has merit.

There will be very few gun owners willing to risk a drone strike on themselves or their families to take a potshot at a soldier or cop. — RogueAI

With all due respect, you might benefit if you would stop thinking that people are by and large rational, or otherwise like yourself. Patrick Henry, much? Not to sully the good name but the story of America is basically literally doing exactly that. Basically word for word. Am I wrong? :lol:

Furthermore, the idea of a military bombardment of its own civilians would result in Constitutional crisis and basically declaration of martial law. Essentially turning a world power into a "warring nation" or "politically unstable territory" ie. a "No Man's Land". Sure, they'd probably cover it up before anything that affects the average person would occur. But it would definitely shake things up on the international level with consequences that would affect each and every citizen due to trade, increased military presence by other due to global social justifications, and so on. So while a drone strike is unlikely, I get your point, say something that actually does happen often I.E. a heavily armed law enforcement response (SWAT, etc.).

So you’re comparing guns with nutrition? — Wayfarer

Freedom means freedom to do what one desires, provided it does not trespass on a need of another person. In a perfect world, one does not "need" weapons. But, guess what? Everything is a weapon. You are a weapon, if you get hungry enough from lack of nutrition. Would you not take from another, if you can easily do so, if your body requires it? You would. Perhaps not you, personally, but most if not many would. So the two are equated, if you consider "guns" simply "innovation that prolongs the human experience", yes.

In short, they are comparable. I don't claim to do so, but those around you, a great many, do, yes. Do you wish to ignore human opinion? That's fine if so. And you'll need guns if you wish to prolong such for very long, I'm afraid.

It's probably more likely I'll accidentally shoot my wife in an ambien stupor then a home invader. — RogueAI

:rofl:

equating gun ownership with civil freedom. — Wayfarer

A gun is an item. Is that correct? It fires a projectile that can be used for hunting, gathering of food, and of course, defense if needed. Food is required for life. Not dying (self defense) is also. Do you believe any of the aforementioned statements to be false or misleading? If so, why. Sigh. These games are getting tiresome.

I think your equation of Thomism with scientific method risible. — Banno

To be fair, I had to Google at least two terms in this reply. The first, understandable, most "ism's" are simply repackaged from their original authors to fit or appeal to a certain populous.

Surely you can reduce each to a simple sentence anyone not intimately familiar with certain persons but concepts can respond to equally.

Not everyone equates mainstream Christianity or those purported to speak or have influence of such outside of the actual Biblical narrative as, well, legit. Surely it's not fair to dismiss someone who simply believes "it's either in the Bible or it ain't" as what is relevant and not relevant to the topic of the text itself (Christianity), now is it?

Sure, dude has an opinion. He's from a group of people that calls themself Christian and is a government recognized insinuation at the time that claims to represent Christianity. But hey. I have an opinion too. The difference between the two is, he's popular (which the Bible itself says to watch out for, directly in fact "The whole world will be deceived") and I'm not. That's the only difference between what I say and what (your interpretation of, if it's not muddied or flat out changed entirely) the person you're referencing says. Nothing more. So. Yeah.

Yeah, it's popular. That's why there's a Wikipedia article on the guy and his so-called "ism". I get it. But you're revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity itself, which suggests just because those who claim to represent God do so in a way most would consider "proper", doesn't mean they are.