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.

The thread is about gun control, and my comment was about equating gun ownership with civil freedom. You might explain how what you said has a bearing on that. — Wayfarer

Sure, we're extending the debate into larger enveloping (yet fundamentally relevant) concepts that aren't ordinarily part and parcel of such. Does that really warrant a refusal to answer such concepts in the rude manner you've just displayed by suggesting I may somehow be "out of line" for forcing you to answer a root and fundamental question you are seemingly unable to?

In a sentence, a man can use his body or anything his body can wield to do great and amazing things, whether these things are destructive (killing an innocent person) or constructive (building something or perhaps defending an innocent would-be victim preventing said person's death), depends on the underlying morality or education of the individual. This is common sense, and this is not your first rodeo. Why act as such? Don't try to paint me into a corner, please. You might find your equipment is not as loyal to you as you first expected.

So does this mean, because human nature is horrible, then you’re under threat, hence the need to arm yourself? Is that what you’re saying? — Wayfarer

No, it means exactly what I said. Simplified, bearing in mind the context of your assumption, which I'm sure is quite reasonable: Power corrupts. Do you disagree with that? If so please explain why, preferably with examples that can be proven on paper. I have plenty. How many do you have? Not many, I'd imagine.

Wouldn't the average man make an average ruler? — RogueAI

Absolutely. And that's the problem. These things don't "scale" as one inexperienced with such areas of social workings might imagine. The average person generally goes through life without causing himself or those in his immediate care or even occasional guardianship death or injury. Because he basically has the pressures or stress of a stray cat. Existential "existence" basically is taken care of by the government. Sure he has to work, provide, avoid and occasionally fend off danger. But that's on a one on one personal level. There's 7 billion people doing the same. All he has to do is worry about his isolated (detached) social bubble and idea of reality, and he lives and dies a happy life. Simple. Now, to become a leader, responsible for the thousands if not millions of things people never think about, and many frankly could not even fathom ,that creates this artificial product we call peaceful society, all day, everyday? Good luck!

Moreover, my point was, temptation generally defeats morality for morality's sake when no counter-incentive is implied. Human nature is opportunistic. The majority of people here wouldn't be here if this were not so. It's biology. Science. Not my opinion. Just fact that can be proven on paper. And so requires control. Discipline. Lest we end up in a swirling torrent of perpetual degeneracy destroying everything we worked hard for and hold dear, until all that is left is an abyssal wasteland of decay and trepidation. To be incarcerated, without realizing, waking up one day, in a near alien world of immorality and trepidation, a society we try to escape from yet know deep down we never can. That, is all what the average man made ruler can provide, or at least will inevitably result in.

Simply put, if you can kill two birds in one stone, why wouldn't you? Eventually, these birds become entire peoples and stones become armies under one's command. All one needs to do is open a history book to confirm that this is not mere postulation but observation in the most absolute sense of the word.

The root of the whole issue is the equation of weapons with civil liberty. — Wayfarer

Or, the root of the root of the issue is how to deal with the inevitable monstrosity and absolute horror show that is human nature, unrestricted. I've long said, and have proven on paper, actually, the only difference between the average man and the worst dictator or tyrant who ever lived are but two transient and equally inevitable things: Opportunity. And time. All written history attests to this theory as not just theorem but pure fact in the most concrete sense of the word. Time and time again. No matter what is introduced or deprived, the assertion remains constant.

There's a hint of becasue the theory hasn't been shown to be wrong, it must be right somewhere here. I doubt, and hope, that Bob is not content with a demonstration that he might not be wrong. I hope he wants more than just that. — Banno

Sure, that's a whole topic in and of itself. But. Remember.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." - Thomas Edison

Do you really wish to dismiss such a sentiment as "not useful"? What if we all just gave up the first time, the second, even the 10,000th time. We'd be living in caves at the mercy of the elements. And come now. What have you done that comes even close to comparison to and of such a man. I'd wager not very much. And I could be wrong. But I don't think I am.

If you asked someone what time it is and they poke a stick in the ground and make a rudimentary sundial, that wouldn't seem anachronistic to you? — RogueAI

Of course. I'm not saying the concept doesn't exist simply that most people misuse the word and throw it around to the point it loses meaning and sincerity to those who witness such regularly. Like using the word "literally" as a synonym of "seriously."

What?

You think science assumes it's conclusions and then argues for them? — Banno

All I meant was, just because you're unfamiliar with something and attribute that something to "time now past" doesn't mean you know all there is to know. Nor does it mean those who regularly and primarily rely on things and behave in ways you would consider "anachronistic", just because they happen to be in the minority (AKA "doesn't fit in" in your particular society) doesn't mean they're wrong or any less advanced. Not automatically, at least. Look at today's youth. Stuck gazing on smartphones watching mindless entertainment. Sure, it's a smartphone, it's modern. But it doesn't mean they're any more advanced than someone 100 years ago reading a book. The majority would call people reading books on park benches "anachronistic" in full accuracy and use of the word. Therefore, the word has no purpose other than to use it for usage sake.

And yes, many times a theory (if not most all theories) purport or suggest something that isn't currently considered science. Pretty sure all theories do that, otherwise they wouldn't be theories and there wouldn't be any new information. So yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. You propose (or assume a conclusion) and test it. Most theories fail, that's correct. But those that do not, are what define scientific reality. Do you really not agree with that?

It looks like you have adopted a particular anachronistic account in order to achieve an already chosen outcome. — Banno

So, basically following a time-tested (or perhaps yet to be tested?) plan (or theory, if it has yet to be tested) and sticking to it. Basically, following the scientific method to a tee. What an odd phrasing when the two concepts are one and the same.

This is the one thing I find annoying about the word "anachronistic." If it were from the past, sure, because we know about it. So we can definitely say, "this is not consistent with our modern society." But if were from the future, it's just weird. Therefore, the word does itself an unforgivable injustice. At least as far as its everyday usage in conversation. It basically just means "This seems to belong somewhere else, somewhere I've never been nor ever experienced, nor that I can say I definitively know ever happened or even could happen, but because of information given to me that I myself never verified, allows me to draw a definitive conclusion." What I mean by that is, say you're a peasant farmer in a very poor country whose never seen a smartphone. To you, seeing one for the first time would be considered "anachronistic". But it's not. Essentially, it's 100% equatable with the word "unfamiliar" or "weird", all realistic possibilities considered. It just means "strange", really.

That's what we in the business call "weaksauce" as far as terminology and use of such in arguments.

Why create a natural world at all? Why not create a paradise without suffering or scarcity? — RogueAI

To be fair, it was, but we didn't listen. According to the text in question. Whenever governments try to control birthrates and population they get called "fascist" or "genocidal" when specifically controlling populations who only proliferate a certain area through their own historic genocide. But since "every kid is innocent", nothing ever gets done.

If people lived within their means, having kids only when a society deems necessary, we would be living in paradise. But people need to satiate a useless ego, primal lust and pleasure. So until those people who promote doing so unrestrained are neutralized, strife and suffering is all the average person will ever know.

What you get from weapons with which you can kill humans — MoK

A human being never killed another human being before there were firearms? Remember this is about firearms, not weapons. A rock is a weapon, if used as such. So is a branch. Even a piece of cloth or rope. This is not about weapons nor are we having a "is a knife a culinary tool or a weapon" debate. Anything can be a weapon. Including your body. This is about firearms and the government's role in restricting their open and easy access, if there is one and nothing more.

But yes, as an aside. Everything you have is because of what was taken with weapons. Including your knowledge and as a result your fundamental identity. It all goes back to those before you who did what they did that resulted in the actions and circumstances that allowed you to not just only be born, but born in the favorable circumstances you enjoy now, circumstances that I would not be surprised are taken for granted. You can't just casually without any hypocrisy say "oh this is bad because I don't like it, but I'll continue to live and take from everything it provided." It's just not a sound argument. Sure, you have an opinion and that's great. But it doesn't really follow as far as logic is concerned.

EDIT: Sure, there is the classic saying that was first attributed to swords, that saying being "This is a tool whose only purpose is to take life". Now that could be justified to hunting game or of course self-defense in one's home. Do you not believe that persons, perhaps smaller or handicapped have an equal right to defend themselves in one's home? Gotcha. :wink:

I don't see any rationale behind making weapons with which you can kill humans. — MoK

Because you have everything you need thanks to those who did it for you. Are you going to give up your home, knowledge, and basically everything you have that isn't found in a moist, damp and rotting cave? No, you're not. So you live as a result of weapons that were made to kill. Surely you can understand this?

We like to discard that which we no longer find use or favor toward, provided we keep all it created for us. This is the definition of hypocrisy. In addition, I envy your lack of intimacy and experience with human depravity. More proof of that which weapons have accomplished.

--

EDIT: Generally speaking, as far the OP. Sure, firearms take less effort and thought to take a life (or several, including one's own) than a knife, or rock, or sharpened stick. So the "easiness" factor is a big thing that does result in increased violence that wouldn't be found in a world with only traditional and primitive weapons, that is a highly relevant factor to consider. Someone who is clearly exhibiting homicidal tendencies, even suicidal (wanting to "end it all", which is fairly tied to anger and hatred of the world and people around them, not always but often enough to mention the connection), etc. should probably not be able to casually go into market and pick up a weapon that can kill 50 people in under 30 seconds with the same ease as buying a cart of groceries. That much is fairly agreeable and logical. But since when has logic really ever mattered for very long in the face of existential desire?

You can kill multiple innocent people with a vehicle, with a common knife or even pairing knife, even your own hands if you're large enough. Which again creates a size discrepancy as far as who is equal and who isn't. (See the pro-gun quote: "God made men, Samuel Colt made them equal. It does have a point.)

Moreover the argument that resonates with even people who don't "like" or even own firearms is that due to chaotic nature of human nature and tendency for war as welll as possibility for social instability or even collapse, it's a necessity and major deterrent for those who seek to harm, be it simply an individual seeking violence for violence sake or perhaps resource, or a larger group doing so for political and territorial means (an invading army, for example).

You can't outlaw immorality, or rather, free will. At least, not for very long. If a man wants to kill another man or woman, they will find a way. They always do.

The act of me causing suffering to the killer is a torture/evil as well. — MoK

Okay. Your basic, telling a kid fire is hot instead of momentarily putting their hand on a stove or over said fire, for example. Of course. That's right and proper. Anything else is the hallmark of a beast or savage. Understandable.

So, basically, once someone kills, say your child or mother or father or what have you, any sort of punishment is unjust simply for the fact "what's done is done." Surely you don't mean that. Do you?

Edit: Simply put, all punishment or "justice after the fact" does, not including incarceration of said individual so that they cannot further degrade society, is bring an unneeded and ill-formed sense of "justice" in the mind of the victimized, when in reality all it takes is knowledge and proficiency in understanding the nature of life as it is (perhaps forgiveness?). It doesn't bring the person back. It doesn't undo what was done. It just makes whoever was made unhappy as a result less unhappy. Usually temporarily. Which so does watching a cheap video online or a clown running up and performing a quick skit. Is that aligned to your belief or is it in opposition? If the latter, explain why.

Torture is defined as the action or practice of inflicting severe pain or suffering on someone as a punishment or in order to force them to do or say something. — MoK

So if someone killed your wife or kid or whatever, and you wanted to make them suffer. That's just magically not the definition of torture. Me thinks you're a bit spirited toward the letter of the law and not the spirit. If I may suggest such.

Well, we don't know that for sure. Who could say? Was the first revolutionary invention (incandescent lighting, refrigeration, etc.) spoken in perfect completion and detail at the moment of it's conception? Were you? Were any of us? No, sometimes things develop into something that an observer would never imagine.

So why not let it? Is this not after all, one if not the only key things that sets us apart from the animals beneath us?

You still owe me a chess re-match, by the way. :grin:

import variables — Bob Ross

What variables? You mean truth and the actual reality of the situation at hand? That's a bit of an abrasively dismissive way of describing such, wouldn't you say? But alright then.

Seriously. Imagine yourself just on the crosswalk and having the misfortune of witnessing a child being stabbed. Or something else egregious, whatever suits you. You see the man who discards his knife and then walks nonchalant coming up to the scene just when an officer does, and said man acts in utter shock. You tell the officer "He just stabbed him! He threw the knife over that ledge!". And the officer responds, "oh you're just importing variables into the hypothetical". It is not a hypothetical. It literally happened. At least, allegedly, per the text we're discussing.

I said you were shifting the goal-post because obviously innocence is a key component of murder: no one disputes that and my original comment was a definition of murder. — Bob Ross

Okay, so like I said. Maybe your premise is invalid. Simply, perhaps you're just wrong about one or more things. This is why religion is not generally a "hot topic" in the halls of philosophy. Because faith is belief, and belief is anything you deem fit. It's your right, after all.

Hence, an ex-convict would be an innocent victim if they were shot point blank on a sidewalk because someone didn't like the fact they had been previously convicted of a crime. — Bob Ross

Sure. If it was "just someone". But what if the person who was shot actually got away with a crime they were never charged with, say killing a man's sister, and the person who shot him was said man whom he robbed of a family member.

Getting deep down to the root issue in question, to refine it (or perhaps invalidate the premise itself), while distracting for some, is not "moving goalposts", respectfully.

The act of torturing yourself [...] is evil. — MoK

Webster's dictionary defines "torture" as purposeful infliction of pain or suffering for no other purpose than to do so.

Reason and rationale, or intent in the legal landscape, is as wide as the days are long. Why exercise or eat healthy if we're all just going to die one day? Is that not the definition of torture for someone who holds such a view as paramount?

Me thinks you've fallen prey to the Geuttier argument. In simple terms: stupid things are not evil, they're just stupid. Meaning, while ignorance is the cause of most acts that qualify as such, at least, they ensure they won't be remedied, they're ultimately merely a catalyst to something that would fare quite well without any such factors.

murder is the direct intentional killing of an innocent person — Bob Ross

Again, more assumptions. If, right now, I break into your house, kill everything alive, including you (or so I thought, but you instead manage to escape) and afterward, while I have died, but my kids end up living in the house that rightfully belongs to you, and would kill you (gladly) if you tried to reclaim what is yours, are they innocent? Who is more justified in the death of the other, and why?

The fundamental concept is that people are individuals, souls that may have lived before, perhaps responsible for many terrible things, not "nationalities" that fundamentally possess an inherent right to exist simply for existence sake.

OP, the answers you seek will not please someone such as yourself. You have to remember, we're talking about the idea of a universe where a divine being exists that can literally speak things into existence, and has; not the least of which being the entire world we now live in. Or so it is written. That's not realistic to most people, quite understandably, I might add, and so most people will never find the answers they seek despite them being rather obvious and right in front of them.

I'll start with a few base concepts. Your flesh (in and of itself) is already dead; it's literally decaying as you read this (as is everything else in this world), except for, to religious people, the "divine essence" or "soul" or what have you that keeps it intact. Meaning, when the real you (not your flesh or body, but the deeper conscious being that is eternal) leaves your body, the body immediately and rapidly starts to decay as does every thing without a soul in this world. According to the body of literature in question, it's not impossible to raise the dead. That means, for a divine being, death or "killing someone" as we mortal beings would imagine it, is little more than how a parent would send a child to their room for misbehaving. It's literally that impermanent. Just as easily undone as it was originally done. If not even easier. Basically, the hallmark of this and many if not most religion is "Death is a lie." It's not rational, in a scientific sense, so if you don't accept that, that's the reason you find yourself unsatisfied with the answers being provided. Which again is perfectly understandable.

As far as I was made aware, the Amalekite people were known sorcerers. If you want to believe magic is not real, yet stick with the underlying narrative, call it some sort of alien technology, if that pleases you. In the world described in the Bible, sorcery is real. You can alter your flesh to appear as an older person, a younger person, an animal, even an inanimate object. Easiest thing in the world; provided you know how. But for mortal beings, this requires either a temple or obelisk or some sort of magic-related practice or place. So, prevailing theory in my circle is, obviously during an invasion if you are unable to repel the enemy, you hide. These people, according to the world the Bible describes, "hide" a bit differently than how you or I would I.E. altering their flesh to "become" non-hostile objects, be they children, animals, or even empty barrels and crates. But they can only do that in close proximity to the object or obelisk from which they draw their power from. Hence the order to "Destroy everything living and non-living" I.E. raze the place to the ground. Again, this is not what one would call "rational." But if you're asking questions about a school of thought or world that is inherently "not rational" by modern understanding, this should be expected and par for the course.

Call it all hogwash if you will, but, again, the above scenarios seem to be the only "logical" (heh) answers and explanations that line up perfectly with the world described in the text you reference in the OP.

As for the rest, I have no idea. Other than not that long ago there was one option to survive: war. And as to war there were only two options further when it was all said and done: to kill an entire population so that they would never rise up and rebel against you for what you did to them, or enslave them, for the same reasons. As to which is more or less cruel, that's not something I have much to say about.

Of course, even if everything is true, including my justifications, it still leaves one nagging question unanswered: Why? Why all of this? Well, that's just something I believe we'll find out one day. Or, maybe we won't! Could you even imagine a more interesting existence? I think not,

There might have been knowledge of child sacrifice that took place in Carthage centuries earlier, but it would have been contemplated with dread, not devotion. — frank

It's something you won't understand unless you're raised into it. You'd just go crazy and think the world is a simulation if you knew the truth.

Think of it as being on a desert island before a boat was invented. There's a whole new realm to be discovered, at least, according to those who believe in said branch of religion(s).

Really. Just imagine it. You're on this island, it's all you ever know. And some guy starts talking about how there's "a whole world out there basically like Heaven with flowing waterfalls, delicious meat, food, and such beauty it would make your heart skip a beat." You'd call the dude crazy. Laugh at him, maybe give him a little smack "back to reality" as you'd say, and continue on with your delusion that the world you know is all there is to know and all it ever shall be. That's what's going on here. At least, religious-minded people will equate your sentiment as parallel to the aforementioned scenario. Since you asked. You did ask, after all. At least hear out what those whom you're asking have to say.

It's pretty simple. But I shan't spoil it for you and others like you.

Basically, back then, there were much, much, much less words in existence that could only be communicated with context in speaking. Written languages are relatively new. Your so called "earliest recorded history" despite proof of intelligent human activity long before.

In the original language before what is commonly attributed to original language in the Bible, the words "large", "tall", and "intelligent" are the same word. So the "giants", or "sons of God" were basically your modern day intellects. Who had to be "flooded" or "overwhelmed with force" otherwise they would have killed off all humanity leaving only themselves. Remember, they weren't murderous, they just saw how we create our own hardship and wanted to relieve unneeded suffering in the world. But I digress. I've said far too much already. Ask and ye shall receive, of course.

We do our best to translate and listen to those greater than ourselves. But we inevitably always fail.