This conversation reminds me of the ST:TNG episode, Darmok.

Slightly off topic, but I'll redirect:
Silliness aside, I can relate to a lot of what Joao has been saying. I do not think the opinion is inherently wrong, or maybe even the approach taken to create that opinion. But I do see problems in not going farther past the opinion on the assumption that there is nothing more to learn on the subject. I also kind of respect the analogies and philosophical arguments but again, they are not going farther past a line of assumption in my opinion. That can be dangerous.

When I was in college, I was a painting major. Our professors would tell us to research the many periods of art history and the individual artists that created whatever style or philosophy that defined those periods. It was a chore for me because I simply did not care about the history of art. I did not care about how flat two-dimensional representations eventually led to the awareness of perspective and how an artist could manipulate elements of a painting to suggest a sense of depth. I did not care how World War II connected to Abstract Expressionism. I did not care about Cubism. I just wanted to make stuff that I found interesting. I did NOT want to understand how one movement influenced another throughout history, leading to where we were in that moment in time. I did not want its influence on my own work. I remember arguing with a professor about this. My view at the time was that I did not mind "reinventing the wheel" so long as that wheel was mine. I could be proud and know that I created it, even if that wheel had been created before.

I did not recognize the value of carrying forward the ideas already established through history. My view was for myself and selfish, instead of recognizing the bigger picture of not just my place in history, but how history has already laid so many foundations and standards to build on top of. That was fine, if I only wanted to paint for myself. And I could apply my judgments onto my own work and philosophies. As long as I lived in a cave (so to speak), then that was fine. The problem was though, in how I interacted with the world around me. I projected my personal and very subjective standards on everything around me, assuming that everything around me used the same standards. That was not true.

History has already done the hard work in discovery, deciding what works and what doesn't, and in defining the ever-evolving understanding of the world around us. Sure, I could ignore all of that and just do for myself as I saw fit, but just because I chose to dismiss all that had already come before me did not mean that all that had come before was wrong. I just chose not to accept it.

I kind of of feel that may be what is happening here too. Using the Galileo example earlier, it should be noted that society had a VERY limited and different view of their world than we do of ours today. That society used faith to explain their understanding of their world. Today, we have math and science to help us understand the world we live in. History has developed and corrected our perception over time through measurable tools of observation with math and science. And education provides at least the capability of a basic level of understanding for all regarding those standards of observation. Whether we choose to use or ignore that education is one thing, but ignoring those established and proven standards does not invalidate them. Granted, there are mistakes. The great thing about science is that it is designed to be tested to be proven as true, proven as false, or proven as a possibility with some corrections to make the science more true than it was yesterday---as we learn better ways of observation and measurement. That is the evolution of our understanding!

Similarly, we can apply that relationship to news and our view of the world, and of those providing news of that world. Do we take it for face value that it must be true? Why would we do that? Shouldn't we question it? Validate it? Should we outright dimiss it? I mean to dismiss all of news regardless of source, just because some cases can be proven to be false on an anecdotal level is only halfway there. Society can and should validate it and correct it, if necessary. That exists! If you want to argue that news is not true for you, then I don't think there is much argument to be offered to persuade you differently. However, to state that news is just not true because there is no truth does not at all take into account history, human evolution, our ability to question our observations, or our capacity to redirect and correct our observations when found wrong.

I agree that media is greatly affected by money and corporation influence. That then logically would/could/may already be trickling down affecting news coverage. It does seem that opinion and talk "news" is more appealing and profitable to advertisers. Conflict is fun and we all want to draw lines for what side we stand on. It gives us something to be part of which can be very tempting. But this moment is but a blip in the overall history of humanity. Drawing assumptions and judgments on this one moment in time may be fair, in and of itself; but applying that judgment to justify believing that truth really doesn't exist completely ignores everything that has already been established in our past and everything that could be learned and corrected in our future. That type of opinion is not grounded in science, by testing, disproving, and correcting one's opinion. Instead, it is simply based in faith of one's own opinion by willfully choosing to ignore the tools available to gain a fuller perspective on the world. Truthfully, that is no different than the society Galileo opposed, all believing in their own faith that the earth was the center of the known universe.

=\

Besides the media's hype of mass shootings, one thing that (in part) drives some of these mass shooters is: bullying in school. It's been stated before that some of these kids were victimized and bullied by their fellow students.

If I had any say, I'd make bullying by students a zero tolerance policy. Same as the current zero tolerance for racial or sexual harassment. Would that solve the problem of mass shootings, no...but it would help...and help in more ways than one.

I'm confused. How does that even kind of show that shootings have gone down? Are you trying to convince me that gun violence is going down?



So the media made all those people run away? Not the fear of getting shot?

Well, yes, but for now I'm limiting my claim to the thing we have reliable data for. So for the moment I'm just trying to convince you that way fewer people are getting killed by guns, even though it seems lots of people believe the problem is getting much worse. When something is getting better and people think it's worse than ever, that suggests there's something very, very wrong with how we form our opinions.

And I don't think citing nonspecific advances in medicine (what have we gotten so much better at, so fast, that mitigates something as straightforward as a gunshot wound?) can plausibly account for it, either, because the drop in question is that the gun murder rate was halved in just two decades, which is positively massive.

Of course it's fear of getting shot. Where did I imply otherwise? I just pointed out that fear of getting shot aligns perfectly with what I'm saying about coverage and perception. The distinction between our fear of something and its likelihood is my entire point.

I don't really understand what argument the video is making anyway; that guns must be a growing problem because this particular group of people was scared of possible gunfire?

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

It kinda feels like most of this is just sort of about casting general doubt by throwing a lot of semi-related things out, mostly based on public perception, even though the gulf between reality and perception is pretty much what I'm on about. So, in the interest of clarifying people's actual positions:

The CDC reports a huge drop in gun murders over a 20 year period. Do you believe this number?

If no, why not?

If yes, why do you question its significance?

If you question it because you think murders are down but shootings are not, why do you think shootings are not, and what kind of data would you accept to indicate that they are?

First, here is a link specifically geared towards nonfatal gun crime, which came up earlier:

Here

This time from the National Institute of Justice. We can keep going in this regard until we find a source you might trust? *Shrugs*

Gun violence has gone down since the 90s (the original contention here). Multiple sources have been linked. Coverage of gun violence in media has gone up multiple hundreds of percent since the 90s. We probably need a couple of links for that number, I will try to dig those up when I get a chance.

That fact leads to your second point. Look, when I was a kid, if I was walking along a busy street and a car backfired, we didn't all run for cover. We also were not subsumed in a constant quagmire of 24/7 media coverage of gun violence, even though people were getting shot all the time on the streets of major cities at the time in much greater numbers. The major differences were that mass school shootings were not a thing, and again, we weren't constantly inundated with fear-mongering in regards to gun crime.

So yes, the media is at least partially responsible for setting people more on edge when there is a loud bang near them.

I also think everyone would get a lot more out of these discussions if we worked as a team trying to establish the correct facts to get to the bottom of these issues as opposed to a disparate bunch of people arguing over semantics.

thanks for the post @ynwtf finally someone with more than the superficial.
history is very relevant for me personally, because society is our extended mind and body,
if you want, like you said, know what shaped that man's art you have to look in a social context,
history in a way is not very important to me, because the dog doesn't drive itself by the tail,
what people call facts are there attempt to put everything in a little box no one can touch,
we're trying to reach a meaning, what's the meaning of the world, like that can be answered with words,
we're the meaning. but if we want to answer everything with words, move further, what's the origin of words?
thoughts and words are conventions, they're social convenient, like money, but money ain't wealth,
is a way of measuring wealth but is not wealth in itself, you don't eat the menu, the menu is not the meal
the same with words, thoughts, ideas, they're not real things in that sense, they're given to us,
our private thoughts and emotions are not ours, because we think in terms of languages and images,
look at the statistical facts people have been pointing out, with some thought i putted that in question,
doesn't mean i'm correct, it means no one had yet come and refuse it, and we keep on doing this,
because we want for centuries to reach a universal truth and put the world into a box of understanding,
it won't happen, we're just making out world as talked, described and measured, is not a reality,
we use all kinds of tools for that box, names, number, symbols, ideas... we're a being of meaning,
we're trying to name everything, define it in order to make it objective and separate it from the "I"
we're always trying to be one up with everyone around us, and we use the most subtle means,
you want to trust something? trust your own nature, because how could you trust your mistrust on it.
i used to think the only truth is that i am alive, and experience and i'll die eventually,
that is being refuted by some people right now, so i guess even that is questionable,
only doubtful truths need defense, and i don't believe in truths, i believe in paintings, and songs,...

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Nah, sometimes facts are just simple pieces of information that help us understand reality. Hell, sometimes it's just writing down what happens. The idea that trying to establish facts is inherently arrogant or grandiose is silly. It's the basis for all effective communication, and usually only resisted by people who find facts interfere with their ability to opine.

reality might be the most "arguable" thing there is. we always like to say: maaan, it's the reality, come on.
it's the same as saying: come on man, don't question this, it's obvious; so it's the reality for everybody else.
it's your reality, maybe. what you see in front of you is how you feel inside your head.
the base of a effective communication is either the share of similar experiences, or a very open mind
you just want to opine if you want to change others, the same as wanting to argue, it's the ultimate goal

If you wanna question reality itself, Keanu, knock yourself out, but it doesn't help us understand these problems any better. And since you seem to respond to quotes (and even think of them as substitutes for arguments in some cases), I've got one for you:

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ― Philip K. Dick

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I have no idea what the Bernie stuff is supposed to be about, either. Please reign in the stream of consciousness stuff a little.

good quote, in interpret it in this way (under); because that's what's left that you might consider real

That's great if you're writing Dead Poets Society fan fiction, but at some point you have to ask yourself what it means and how it contributes to understanding the problem in front of us. Though I imagine even asking this will result in some condescending, orthogonal lecture about how I'm trying to "put the universe in a box" or something.

Mostly, though, I just find it solipsistic. If you want to believe that the self is all that can be known, that's fine. But there's no reason to think that self-knowledge can be extrapolated to the rest of the world, as if all the secrets and solutions of the world were inside you the whole time.

Look, we get it, you like Kant, Hegel and Kierkegaard. My question is whether or not you are able to see the distinction between a conversation about statistical facts (in this case the mathematical whole number of people hurt/killed my firearms) and deeper, existential issues concerned with a person's state of being.

This is why postmodernists are so tough to talk to. Most people can think about and talk about basic stats and facts that have plenty of empirical evidence backing them up and also be deep spiritual beings without constantly conflating the two subjects.

Here's the thing. Whether or not a statistical number has gone up or down over time has relatively little to do with my personal spirituality. Just like the number of people who fell to their death while mountain climbing, or choked to death on a macaroon aren't related to these concepts, except for perhaps a bit of spiritual bruising/sadness on a basic human level brought on my the knowledge that someone has died.

Laying down a a bunch of intellectual barbed wire in a discussion like this is just so much stalling and deflection. Both subjects are worth discussing, but when people counter and parry each hard statistical claim with paragraphs of half-baked philosophy, no progress gets made on either front.

Why not put the stat question to bed, since it is simple and mathematically provable, and then move on to a different thread to chat about deeper, less provable and more subjective interests?

The issue above, the mathematical whole number of people hurt/killed my firearms, isn't a deep philosophical issue, and I don't think anyone is intellectually obliged to discuss it as such, just because someone else claims it is. In fact, I would contend that attempting to apply deeper meaning to such a banal statistic takes away from those issues and concerns that are deep and meaningful, showing a bit of lack of respect for the disciplines and ideology on philosophy.

Yeah, I think this really is drifting way off topic. And I'm glad that you could relate to my post, but I also feel you might have missed the underlying point of it.

I get that you need to explain your position and the context of why you think the way you do. It gives us perspective on how you perceive things. The problem at the moment, though, is that the conversation isn't about the broader philosophical view of reality. It is about statistics (measurable statistics) of very specific, non-philosophical matters. Yes, philosophy can help shape the discussion, as it should. But a narrow philosophical view cannot outright dismiss someone else's argument because it does not exist in a universe without rules. That assumes the universe has no rules, and if you're unwilling to accept even a mutual understanding of truth then you must also be willing to accept that you cannot prove what you claim and that it is all for naught. Honestly, that's very much like a child plugging his ears then claiming that sound does not exist because he cannot hear it.

Search YouTube for Piaget's Conservation Task and watch the videos of children and how they comprehend their reality. If you don't already know about it, I think you will find it interesting.

It is one thing to define your reality. But you do not live on an island. You interact with those around you. You may not HAVE to interact, I guess, but you chose to comment in a forum on a topic of statistics. To do so on a fair and even playing field, then everyone involved must at least agree on a basic reasonable level of understanding that we will follow the same rules of debate. Yeah, it's a forum on the internet and the internet hamsters may refuse to run their little digital messages through the intertubes, but for the most part it works. I feel this forum works better than most as we are all here for the common interest in movies. We're not here for political, religious, or other ideological positions. So this site is kind of a safe zone for slightly off topic arguments. Still, to participate I think it is inherent that we all at least share the same level of awareness for the rules of engagement.

With that said, you chose to enter a conversation, rather, a debate. I believe Yoda is correct to note that it is unfair of a tactic to claim someone else's argument is invalid (I use the term "invalid" because I watched Gattaca last night) because of philosophy, but still you believe in your own facts. That type of philosophical posture is really "all or nothing," meaning either you believe in absolutely no truth and, as a result, also cannot claim a truth for yourself or even cannot claim someone else's truth is wrong. Because there would then be NO right or wrong. Or you subscribe to the idea that some things are wrong, while other things are true and right. You entered the conversation so my guess is that you actually do believe that some things are wrong or right, else you wouldn't have made an argument to begin with.

This all goes back to the the Piaget reference above. Children perceive the world as they do, until they learn and evolve to perceive it more correctly. I'm not saying that IS correct at some stage of development, as our definition of "correct" can change with time and experience. But it is more correct than what it was. Your views, I feel, are in this stage. Or you are not totally committed to the anarchy that would result to believe in absolutely nothing. I don't think that kind of philosophy is a gradient of grays. I feel it's either/or.

BUT!
This is not the topic of the thread. I think it is reasonable to expect counter argument points and references if you are going to make arguments against what other people have said. Else, it would be like saying, "No, water does NOT boil at 100 C/212 F because there is no truth because of reasons that I believe but cannot verify---in a conversation about verifiable data." And that's just kinda weird and a bit unfair =\

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

People choke to death on macaroons????
That's the single saddest thing I've read this year :bawling:

PLEASE don't make me read all these last few posts looking for that reference rofl! Like a guppy, can't you just drop me a line?


SCRATCH THAT REQUEST!!
I forgot CTRL + F exists =\

https://i.imgur.com/sT0tWX8.jpg
now just between you and me. what that means?

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

What does your meme mean? I have no idea. I also have no idea how it's relevant. Perhaps you could endeavor to make yourself understood, instead of being evasive.

Just to anticipate another non-sequitur argument: if you're implying that the mere existence of ambiguity about anything (like a meme) somehow invalidates the idea of, or importance of, objective truth in a discussion like this, then I suggest you re-read Sedai's post, because he's already picked that apart.

@ynwtf

Wait...you mean you don't wait around on MoFo all day just waiting for me to post?

https://i.postimg.cc/Kz5dJySf/My-Posts.jpg

it's from the movie: sunset limited that i liked very much,
the professor expressed his view with rhetorical terms and the black guy didn't understood,
the same as me, so i was asking for you to explain them like you'd explain to a small kid

:eek::D:laugh:
How did you know I was left-handed?!


EDIT
I got TWO notifications! One from the quote and another from the @. I kept jumping back and forth between the last two pages trying to find that SECOND notification.


ugh. my temple is twitching =\

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I knew I could break the system!

Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen...

i don't know who kant, hegel and kierkegaard are, but i'll sure look for them.
i wasn't really talking about existential issues, neither state of being.
i wasn't talking about spirituality either.
i don't expect any progress gets made, that's one of the points.
i putted the stats in question following the game played here,
i might have missed but no one questioned my view, guess i'm right and the stats aren't accurate?
i didn't said the firearms were a deep or superficial philosophical issue.

the thing is: i dropped the stats looooong ago, i was talking about "truth",
i went to what i believe is the beginning of language to make my point, is that philosophize?
people see those stats as truth, i'm not refuting the stats (i did and no one answered),
i'm giving my perspective about what i believe in the nonexistence of truth,
for that i can't just lay on the superficial, go the nucleon and make some point,
if some of my philosophies or spirituality was evident there, was not what i intended

i mean, we can just talk, use sources from here or there, use some fancy words here and there,
in the end, you reach the same place you were, either dough or too much certainty, the last one is worse.

Gladly. Can you narrow it down for me and let me know which terms or ideas, specifically, I should explain in detail?

If there's nothing uniquely deep or philosophical about firearms, then the "truth isn't real" stuff applies to everything, not just firearms, in which case it becomes a banal, superficial observation because it renders all discussion useless.

If that's what you actually believe, fair enough, but it leaves you no reason to involve yourself, and no room with which to form all these conclusions, which seem to be based on nothing. And speaking of that, we have to note the timing, where you had plenty of stark claims at first that contained none of this circumspection. It was only when they were questioned on factual grounds that all the "what is truth?" stuff reared its head.

If you mean the New York Times thing, Sedai addressed it directly and I referenced the same thing afterwards.

This is a self-fulfilling attitude. If you go into every factual discussion having already decided it's useless, it will always be true. If, on the other hand, you go in with the hope that you might learn from another person, and actually listen to them, you might be surprised by where you end up.

You certainly won't end up anywhere new if you refuse to budge, though.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I would say discussing the nature of truth is philosophical, yes.

Those people I mentioned were philosophers that tended to think truth was more a subjective than objective.

RE: Too much certainly - In regards to basic math, the claim that too much certainty is somehow bad, is just flat out silly. In regards to the discussion of truth being subjective, too much certainly can sometimes be bad, and is definitely worth talking about in a more in-depth way.

But we are talking about a basic number here. There has to be a way to track these stats, several and various sources have been cited. Obviously, it's fine if you don't want to trust any of the sources, but that stance sort of automatically precludes you from a discussion about the stats.

Consider this, how far would researchers have gotten on the cure for polio if one guy on the team was always saying "Listen, I just don't believe that 2+2 = 4, so this experiment isn't worth attempting. 2 and 4 are just words and symbols someone made up. My truth is different when it comes to what 4 is."

I understand you don;t trust the people giving us the math, so perhaps the above example is a bit extreme and not as nuanced, but as I said, if we are going to discuss this issue, which is specifically focused on numbers, we have to get the information somewhere, and unless we are all personally at every event, and can personally count each victim, there is no other way to get the information. So we either:

- Take all the numbers from many and various sources, like we have done, or:

- Don't discuss it.

Take your pick!

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

That link no worky, Mike. You two are coming down pretty hard on me for doubting stats. Did you read anything from that link, mike? That link you posted Chris shows a 37 percent uptick. It immediately got flagged as unreliable because it didnt match the downward trend you claim is the norm. I read thru a lot more of that stuff you posted and got be honest, I feel like you proved my point. I haven't even tried to discredit the cdc because I don't have to. They discredit themselves by not tracking this stuff better. It says all they do to track deaths is to count death certificates. But their ways to track gunshot wounds are seemingly in need of much more work. The fbi doesn't even track non fatal shootings. Why not?

Why are you guys trying so hard to convince me that America has no major gun violence problem? Especially given that these facts you're giving me have some pretty big holes in them?

Speaking just for myself, I'll say that I'm sick of the gun violence and these mass shootings do seem out of control. Just yesterday we had cops being shot by a gunman who was held up in a building. So I'm with you on hating the gun violence. Though I might disagree with you on how to solve it. Actually I'm not sure how to solve it. It's probably not even 100% solvable.

I really don't see how I am. I've kind of gone out of my way to simply present the facts, and my reasoning, without a lot of editorializing in your direction. In fact I even noted recently how strange it was that you kept disparaging yourself preemptively, imagining we must be thinking so little of you.

You'll have to be more specific, but I noted way back when I first brought all this up that there's been a recent uptick in homicides. It's just relatively minor (and short-term) compared to the multi-decade halving that came before it, is all.

I imagine it's pretty hard. But again, it'd be really helpful if you'd make it clear what your position is, rather than just sort of throwing general doubt on things. I attempted to get to the bottom of all this in this post, but as far as I can tell literally nobody bothered to respond to it:

It kinda feels like most of this is just sort of about casting general doubt by throwing a lot of semi-related things out, mostly based on public perception, even though the gulf between reality and perception is pretty much what I'm on about. So, in the interest of clarifying people's actual positions:

The CDC reports a huge drop in gun murders over a 20 year period. Do you believe this number?

If no, why not?

If yes, why do you question its significance?

If you question it because you think murders are down but shootings are not, why do you think shootings are not, and what kind of data would you accept to indicate that they are?

It seems clear that you don't really buy the idea that any part of this situation could be getting better, but you also don't seem to want to say so, exactly. It'd be really helpful if you could explain exactly which part you're taking issue with, and why. If you keep responding so generally, I don't really get an opportunity to address your objection, whatever it is.

No, and in fact I've gone out of my way to say I'm not saying this! :) This was the most recent example:

"... for the moment I'm just trying to convince you that way fewer people are getting killed by guns, even though it seems lots of people believe the problem is getting much worse. When something is getting better and people think it's worse than ever, that suggests there's something very, very wrong with how we form our opinions."

Can't there be some room here for nuance? Saying "some things are not as bad as they're made out to be" is not a suggestion that everything is fine. Gun violence's most serious consequences seem to have gotten much, much better, and saying that in no way suggests it's not still a problem, or that there isn't a subset of overall gun violence (mass shootings) that might be going the other way. I think you'll find everything I'm saying makes a lot more sense, and is less objectionable, if you take it at face value, rather than simply place it as "is hyping up gun violence" vs. "is downplaying gun violence."

I don't think they do. But again, it would be really helpful if you could pinpoint what your position is. Is the "hole" something like "okay murders are down, but I don't believe shootings are"? If you make your skepticism even remotely clear I can try to address it more directly.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I fixed the link in my post. Sorry about that!

I agree that there is a problem with violence in general in America, and I already posted several reasons why in an earlier post. I don't think it's because guns exist, just to be clear. Overall, gun deaths AND non-fatal gun injuries have gone down. Please see the link I fixed.

I am slammed at work - will post more when I have time. :)

Threads like these are why I love this place.

I'll avoid the arguments about statistics and attempt to engage the philosophical aspects of the discussion.

I don't believe the root causes of gun murders lie simply with the fact that Americans own more guns than people do in other countries. If I had to guess I'd suspect that gun ownership has risen over the past decade while actual gun murders have decreased (which would negate the quantity argument). There's something in our culture - some sense of hopelessness coupled with anger and powerlessness that seems to make some people want to lash out against it. I have my own ideas with regard to what some of those causes might be, but that has the potential to derail this thread even further.

The real question might be why are mass killing incidents on the rise? Guns are available, always have been, so why the increase here in spite of the apparent decline in gun murders overall? One on one we're killing fewer, but there are (apparently) more people than ever willing to pick up a weapon and take out as many as possible.

RE: Reality
I like to drag out Robert Anton Wilson whenever these discussions get raised. It's worth a few minutes of your time and it's germane to the discussion overall:

https://youtu.be/GuOplymDx4I

Some bonehead dubbed in an annoying 'music' track - couldn't find the unedited version.

Do me something: get your fine ass in your vehicle and drive to chicago
when you get there, reach some of the locals and read them those statistics,
they'll c o l l a p s e laughing, they might just shoot you to get some realness into those stats,
if you ain't shoot, stay there until night comes, park your car, open the windows,
it's gaza strip in chicago, you hear gun shoots from every position of the compass
you people are funny as hell, you think just because you are in america you know america,
the police is fleeing chicago because they can't control the gangs, they just don't want to die
those kids by the end of the day they've looked both sides of the streets the same they've given breaths
if this keeps going, a mother giving birth, her son will look both ways before crying when he comes out


all here, sitting, reading statistics and you all still believe you know something no one else knows by now,
maaaan, everything you think you know comes in newspapers, i read newspapers too,
all arguing, wanting relevance - oh the ego, ego, ego, so sure of it's realness. humor is what i got left.
for all you braniacs that know america, a good channel - CharlieBo313

I wonder if the expansion and shift of media coverage and social media has helped increase mass shootings. Media seems more opinion based than ever and social media is a cesspool. Some of these people want to go out with a bang and show the world what they've done. Some also post on social media prior, almost a form of pre-bragging if there is that sort of thing.

Just saw this gift to society in my travels-

Was it preceded by another person holding up: "REALLY BAD FONT COMING, GET THOSE GLASSES ON"? :D

Isn't your argument rooted in your own surety that it's not 'real'? It must be, otherwise, you wouldn't be producing walls of text to the contrary.

Your posts smack of condescension. You don't know anyone's life experience and you won't stop typing long enough to consider that maybe you don't have it all figured out.

Ego? Look in the mirror.

What a bizarre response. You think because Chicago is dangerous, therefore you can extrapolate that to a diverse nation of 300+ million people? Do all of the above in Kansas and you'll be just fine.

I mean, probably better than someone reading scattered, arbitrarily selected media reports from another part of the world entirely, yeah.

Yeah, but like, what is truth? Did you learn all this from paintings and songs? Et cetera.

Seriously, amazing how quickly you flipped right back to having all sorts of strong opinions again. Sure seems like all that questioning reality/what-is-truth Jaden Smith stuff was just a temporary thing to deflect inconvenient claims, because somehow the transient nature of human experience isn't preventing you from telling everyone else how it is.

the fan isn't working
ahahah, you still haven't seen half my repertoire

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

At this point I really think you're wasting a lot of people's time. Half the posts are opaque non-sequiturs and your own own evidentiary standards are changing wildly from post to post.

That was my first thought, as well. Terrible font!

To be fair, for all we know it might have been deliberate with another person just out of frame left having a sign advertising the local opticians ;)

i think if those stats are right it's actually bad, because they should be getting up (the homicides),
the world population since the 50's almost doubled, or doubled, the planet cannot support it.
more guns, more homicides, more diseases, more wars, more suicides, we need all that
i think you're right all the way, i change the opinion i didn't had. it's final. won't change it anymore.

You're saying fewer murders are bad because of overpopulation? Yikes, dude.

That conclusion is pretty repugnant philosophically, and it's wrong factually, anyway. Google around a little about plummeting birth rates, if you're willing to entertain the idea that the numbers you find aren't made up as part of some non-specific conspiracy.

ufff, for an instance i though you would start comparing what i said with everything i've said before.
yes, yes, yes i feed on conspiracies, i believe them all, the same way i believe on what i've said earlier.
about that search, the point i've made about medical advancements would be viable on both searches
but is funny, they say average life expectancy is decreasing in united states or in the world i don't know
for all the medics out there, trying to save us, because someone believes we should be saved,

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

The optics on that sea of Shell employees is not looking good. And of course it’s already getting twisted by both sides. I don’t even know what to think anymore.

I'm not going to give someone grief for honestly changing their mind, because I'm legitimately trying to persuade people, not trying to score points or "win" and spike the football in their face. Promise. :)

That said, I don't understand why you'd change your mind here, because we're discussing facts and not interpretation, and nothing new has been brought to life. You seem to be saying that you no longer object to the factual claim because you've found a way to be critical of the drop? :confused: Which makes it seem like you're starting with the idea that something bad is happening, and you decide which facts to accept or not based on whether you can find a way to use them to argue for that. You shouldn't find a drop in homicides totally implausible one moment, but very likely as soon as you decide it could be bad. That's not how factual claims work, no matter what kind of sources you trust.

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make, so I'll simply reiterate that overpopulation concerns are pretty wildly at odds with birth rates, which consistently drop once a society reaches a certain level of affluence. It turns out it doesn't take long at all for overpopulation trends to reverse; births are below replacement-level in basically all first-world countries at this point.

i was being ironic man. all i'm trying to do here is... i'm not sure!
i have an opinion, than change it, than change it again.
new shiet might come to your light... that's the point of me here,
to do not believe in any thing but you keep believing i do

https://i2.wp.com/theconsciousresist...50%2C400&ssl=1

you people treat opinions like religions man...
ok, ok for argument sake let's all agree that those stats are right,
i don't believe them, even if they were the exact opposite i'd not believe them,
until i do believe them, and that moment is right now:
let's all assume they're the "facts". what than? what's seems to be the problem?
mass shootings? they selling drugs for depression like chewing gun?
let's ban guns? let's ban chewing gun? why the hell that's mostly in america?
or is it not? it means we are saner?... or that we don't get the tools that easily?
it's all open to suggestion people...

Because your behavior does not match your rhetoric. You keep stating things with confidence, or dismiss things with sarcasm, and only when challenged do you tell me there's no such thing as truth and you don't really believe in anything. I can show you a dozen quotes that demonstrate this.

If you actually want to believe in nothing, I think that's difficult to justify, but I have no interest in arguing with a relativist. The problem is that the relativism only seems to appear when someone starts asking questions. If you really didn't believe in anything, there'd be no reason to participate in these discussions or to make the kinds of proclamations you keep making.

No, I don't. Do not confuse my disagreement with you, specifically, for a certainty in all my own beliefs. The thing I'm condemning is the thought process (or lack thereof) and inconsistency of these positions. I'm certain that they don't make sense. That doesn't mean (or even imply, really) that whatever I'm thinking must definitely be right. It's not either-or. I can think a specific idea is completely wrong without thinking my idea of it is completely right.

Oh, there's definitely a problem with American culture and guns. As I told PW earlier, my hammering on this number should not be taken as an endorsement of gun culture or a suggestion that we don't have a gun problem. We do. It's just a lot more complicated and nuanced than people seem to understand, as evidenced by the fact that people are shocked to hear the gun homicide rate has dropped, so much so that they immediately reject the idea, almost out of hand.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I'mma back out of this debate, Chris. I see this going nowhere. You're still on the homicides after I told you i think that number doesn't matter because i think shootings are way up. The link posted by you confirms that. Confirms it so much so they didn't want to publish it. Now we're going in circles with our points.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

maybe, just maybe one day you'll realize all this debating doesn't worth for fu** nothing.
it's everywhere nowadays, every tv channel, every single place, everyone knows everything,
i don't know anything, and when it seems i know is to make people that do know think twice
i'm out, should be out long time ago. you people have too many certainties. always one up, right?

'the problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.' — charles bukowski

keep on believing everyone have strong opinions when they don't go together with your "facts" & "truths"

I mean, we have definitely gone in circles, but mostly because I keep asking "is this what you're saying?" and the post above is literally the first time you've even sort of confirmed it. I keep posting the simplest, most relevant questions I can think of, in the simplest terms I can, in the best faith I can, and they still get ignored. I even said "are you not concerned about the homicides because you think this about the shootings?" And yet still you reply now with "you're still on the homicides." I don't get it.

If you decide you do wanna talk about this since we're kinda on the same page now, I'd start by pointing out that the link I posted most definitely does not "confirm" that shootings are "way up" (I'm guessing that comes from looking at that first chart and noting the uptick at the end?), but I suppose there's not much point in me elaborating if you're bowing out. Let alone progressing to ask why that belief would make a massive drop in homicides so apparently unimportant.

If you are bowing out, I'm not gonna hound you about it, but I would leave you with this: please think about how surprised you were (I presume) to hear that homicides had dropped as much as they had. And think about why that would be so surprising, what factors would contribute to giving someone the opposite impression, and what it would say about media coverage if it could talk about this issue so much without conveying those facts. Sure seems like there's a huge disconnect here that extends beyond guns, specifically, and threatens our collective ability to talk productively about anything.

Dude, I literally just said this to you in the previous post:

If you really didn't believe in anything, there'd be no reason to participate in these discussions or to make the kinds of proclamations you keep making.

I've said it like half a dozen other times, too. If you think it's worth noting, stop engaging in it.

The problem is that you don't provide adequate reasons for your questioning; you just throw out broad, non-specific skepticism that you seem to apply arbitrarily. And the idea that I've been expressing much of anything with certainty is just fiction. Again, don't confuse my disagreement with your responses for certainty with my own position. "This is wrong" does not imply that whatever I believe is definitely right. This is a pretty simple distinction, and easy enough to grasp, if you're making a good faith attempt to understand.

Again, I can quote you saying a dozen things without nuance, reflection, or any of the uncertainty you're floating now.

Disputing simple factual claims requires a lot more than drive-by epistemology and scare quotes.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Can't wait to read this thread from the beginning!

Me too. But the war clouds hanging over my country did not give me the mood to read it . Now that they seem to be receding , I might read this thread.

Obviously I can't stand AOC so I loved this video of a citizen giving her the business-

https://youtu.be/NHZWSSrlsJc

The title says Trump supporter but I didn't hear anything that indicated that.

If I were to look up the word ‘sanctimony’ in the dictionary....

You’re tiring, dude.

kinda hard to translate. must be one of the persons that most shaped my thinking.
on the other hand i don't give it much importance. i don't have anything interesting to say,
that's the reason i quote other's. people without an original thinking should just shut up,
and if you have an original thinking, you're thinking outside the box, and that's ridicule waiting
even you considering statistics truths-facts, your judgments of them would still be an opinion,
and you can try and try, but your opinion will always be an opinion, doesn't matter the repercussions,
man try label everything, it's just an label, and our being, existence isn't a label, at least i think that
when i'm swimming in a pool of crap (information), i think of a tree, called tjikko, have 9561 years,
imagine, this tree survived every single event we give importance, totally unaware. perfection.

The old ignorance is bliss stance.

There is some chain yanking afoot which is alongside a few pushed buttons.

I look at it like this, there is a man walking in a forest and he comes upon a huge grisly bear suddenly rearing up and threating him. He does not belive all the gossip about bears being dangerous, it looks like such a beautiful creature, he is not scared at all. He then loses his head, but as it flies across the forest it does have a frozen smile on it.

Again, the conversation isn't about trees surviving man's label structure or philosophy in general. It is/was about stats. And because someone posts stats does not at all suggest absolute belief in those stats---which is why it is an open discussion providing opportunities for others to post counter stats. Your judgments only work on the assumption that everyone has posted with a completely closed mind that their opinion (derived from statistics) is absolute fact. NO ONE is doing that! Original thinking still must accept that 2+ 2 = 4 in order to have a mutually understood conversation on the NEWER original thought. We can't all argue the truth of 2 + 2 That is asinine. You CAN debate that, I suppose, if you like but only 1) in a conversation dedicated to debating the obvious, and 2) you actually make and defend an argument that does not consist of calling everyone wrong without providing any evidence of it other than "because I said so." You're still completely missing the point of everyone's reply to you. What you're saying is not at all profound, unfortunately. While I can appreciate it, in the fragile glass box that it exists, it is still very much high school philosophy reading only the magazine article headlines describing the article without reading the article itself or even the references provided to validate it; and that brings nothing to the table of this debate. Or really, any debate if I'm honest.

Lobster tastes like purple and the internet is made of jelly-filled marshmallows.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

RIP thread.

At this point I have to assume you're not really reading these replies. Because if you were, you'd have noticed that I've been explicitly responding to this "everything is just opinion" stuff, building on that assumption and positing new questions and arguments based on it, for something like half a dozen pages now. And yet you keep trotting it out like it's the first time anyone's ever heard of it or considered it. Like it's some kind of ideological trump card, rather than something self-defeating and wildly inconsistent with most of your initial posts.

Yeah, I'll give the dude one more chance to respond in a way that actually incorporates what people are saying. If we get another vague reference to knowledge and certainty, apropos of basically nothing anyone is saying, I'll shut it down.

It's been clear to me since JoaoRodrigues' first few post that he was mainly interested in gaining maximum attention. The fastest way to get attention is to be flippant, condescending and contradictory while making 'hot button' comments, that almost guarantees people will respond. I stopped reading his post long ago as my time is valuable. But instead of punishing all of us... why not just tell JoaoRodrigues to straighten up or leave the thread. The rest of us are capable of adult conversation.

Oh man, Cabin Boy! I wish I could rep this more than once.

I mean, I totally could, I could manipulate the DB to do it, but we've got to have standards, ya' know.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Joao has made some extremely valid and relevant contributions to this thread. Alas, like most arguments on here, people are not happy with them because a.) they are not advancing a specific argument and b.) there’s no way to respond to them.

So by all means just slam the dude repeatedly for sharing a perspective you don’t like and that will fix the issue. Or it won’t.

But I know nothing, so imma go back to sitting in silence. :indifferent:

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Nobody is "[slamming] the dude repeatedly for sharing a perspective you don't like." The criticism is for:

1) Retreating to factual relativism only when challenged and
2) continuing to repeat it even when met with replies that acknowledge the concept and try to talk about it.

Neither of these things are what you do if you're just trying to "share a perspective." A perspective which is not all actionable or relevant when applied this broadly.

The fact that it's being presented as if it's supposed to be some mindblowing idea (and then just repeated when it fails to blow everyone's mind, because every thoughtful person has considered it already), says a lot, too, about their actual intentions. So literally nothing about these responses implies the kind of good-faith insight-sharing you're describing. The idea is not insightful, it's being applied inconsistently and retroactively, and it's too broad to relate to the specific issue more than any other issue.

That just isn't what happened.

Again, I said philo discussions are fine, but not when they are wielded in a clumsy way to refute hard math; that's just a waste of time, and only seems to hamstring all the discussion, reducing it all to a circular discussion on semantics. Also, a lot of what he said was either contradictory, or just plan half-baked. After a while, it becomes tiresome having to wade through a quagmire of nonsense in an effort to extract valid bits of information that may or may not be pertinent.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I think several of us here have our snap backs on too tight.

Hard math implies there’s only one correct way to interpret data or that there’s only one set of data that’s correct. Problems like gun violence are much too complex for any one set of data to cover it. Much less for it to be worthy of being called hard math.

Maybe if we were arguing about physics or something I’d agree. But this topic is lacking in a LOT of data for any numbers to be thrown around as hard math.

EDIT: It is pretty evident that we are all wrong. Even I. Wrong. So wrong. Welcome to 2019. :yup: :lol:

Tell me something you know about the author of those stats that isn’t made, one way or another, by the author of those stats. If you can give me an opinion on why should I trust there information without basing yourself on there actual information, I’m okay with it. Because the darkest picture is always the correct one when you look at the history of civilization you realize that’s the same circle of greed, envy, brutality, and I can give you a lot of reasons on why you shouldn’t trust your governments, more than you can give me otherwise, and your here all crazy because I don’t trust there information like is something terrible. The worst part is that I don’t even know if they are right or wrong, I just don’t have reasons to base everything I believe on them, like I have something unquestionable behind to support everything I say, at least I support my ideas on people that said it better, not in the government, come on man. If you want to say: “Let’s all pretend this information are an unquestionable fact and discuss it.”, I say bring it.

I think there was some pretty blatant projection, mocking and even ‘slamming’ (repeatedly) from dude’s side of the fence. I really don’t even see any volleys back except for my own where I called dude sanctimonious. Everyone else was patient and polite.

I guess this is a volley. lol.

No one has said any part of this is an unquestionable fact. That is a straw man to duck and cover, avoiding engaging in anything anyone actually has posted. Some arguments have already been made that is sort of on your side. For example, what some stats show and what they don't show. Are gun deaths going down? Ok. So what does ANY data show on whether nom-fatal gun incidents are also decreasing? Are those down too? That is a discussion. And no one is stating all or nothing in this thread but one person.

You doubt statistical sources as corporate money machines. Cool. So what sources are acceptable? Nope. You find another side-step to avoid the responsibility of your words by changing the argument to some other half philosophical diversion.

This entire thread has completely derailed because you insist on arguing for a nebulous non-cohesive anti point on something you have said you don't even know about and are unwilling to make an effort to learn even just enough to root your argument into any provable scrap of information. So what that you disagree. That's actually the point, to disagree! But back it up with SOME effort to make an argument. Otherwise why have you entered the conversation? Start a new thread and someone will happily debate that gravity is a figment of our collective imagination.

Finally, no one is crazy over whether or not you trust the data. People are crazy because you make zero effort to show data that you do trust. You know, to take part in a discussion to investigate and compare our collective opinions and the sources for our opinions so that we all may learn more or keep thinking what we do. No one wants to win. Just make an effort?

If you're trolling then grats on that. You succeeded in flipping my opinion considering where I started regarding some of your initial thoughts.

=/

Edit:
Yes. noM-fatal is when a cat bites your neck but not hard enough to puncture an artery. My apologies for the misuse of the term.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

*waits patiently for Caps to catch up.*







*sheepishly waves twiddly lil finger waves for when you do finally catch up*

:D
lol

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I haven't caught up here yet (so please forgive the interruption) - I'm knee deep in the gun control debate a few pages back and felt like interjecting an anecdote; a memory that these debates brought up in me from my freshman year in college: Expository Writing class..

The professor played a little trick on us - we got to choose from a list of controversial issues to write an essay on, defending our position.
I chose gun control. When the professor called on me to ask why I chose that topic I began to tell him my opinions on the issue.

After I told him why gun's were so bad, unnecessary, responsible for accidental deaths, how no one needs military grade weapons for hunting, etc., he responded...

"NOW! I want 10 pages, double spaced, CONVINCING me why I should and ought buy and own as many guns as I want, of any type that I choose, with as much ammunition as I desire and why the 2nd amendment is the greatest right ever established in our Constitution. YOUR job is to show me how and why guns are the greatest thing on earth and why EVERYONE should own, have or hoard as many as possible even though that is the farthest thing from your own personal beliefs as you've expressed them! Got it?"

My jaw was on the floor. I stammered, "B-but, I can't..."

"Oh yes you can, young man, and yes you WILL!" he shouted, "For that is the very nature and function of the assignment. And it's due on Monday, so as with all assignments in this class, you must complete them to pass!"

Then he went through the class asking each student why they chose their topic (of course, because they had an opinion on it) and then told them their job was to take an opposing opinion to the one they personally held and convince him of the opposite.

The reasons for such an exercise should be kind of obvious - first to make us better, more analytical, more objective writers, but also to force us to research (you kind of have to if you're going to come up with data to convince someone else of something you don't believe in yourself), to base arguments on facts rather than on personal emotions, and to open your mind to other points of view.

It really helps you understand why you believe the things you do, to examine your own beliefs (where they are valid and where they are weak) and the same for the views you disagree with.

Reading some of the debates here reminded me of this.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I like your professor! That's a good way to teach creative writing skills.

Anyway...I'd add something more to the discussion, if I knew what we're talking about (other than arguing about arguing?) So somebody throw out a tidbit and let's see if we can get a casual discuss going.

Non sequitur of the year response:

Dave in his only starring role in a motion picture (when he had no standards atall - and thankfully no untrimmed beard )
https://youtu.be/QVtjPkDQzNE

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

^OMG I forgot about that!!!

To be precise: Expository writing skills - kind of the opposite of creative writing. :)

This distinction is kind of important because that's what the class was meant to teach - there was no editorial opinion allowed, no suppositions or speculations without supportive data, no fiction, and nothing was written in the first person. It's the style of straight journalistic reporting as opposed to opinion pieces. Kind of like if you were writing a textbook where you assume the reader has no prior knowledge or understanding about the topic being discussed.

It was quite difficult and the professor would fill the margins of each assignment with red pen, tearing your work apart.
He loved to write "How so?" after most of my statements!
I remember my first moment of joy when (after about my fifth essay) I saw he wrote "Good!" after I fully provided support for a statement.
He was a great teacher though - the amount of correction he put on each student's work showed he was really looking at the work and not just throwing a grade on it.

I always remember the first day when he announced, "Everyone here will complete this class, not with a passing grade, but with an A! Anyone who does not get an A in this class simply will not pass it, getting no credit for the course and will need to repeat it. Pass or fail, people, those are the only two options here. I will guarantee you one thing - everyone who completes this class will know what expository writing is and how to perform it."

It took everyone about 3 months before any "A's" showed up on any papers, and if you didn't get an "A," you got an "F."

I remember when I had a professor/class similar to this and I enjoyed it. But I wouldn’t trade it for the writing I got to do in my major where you’re allowed to assume **** and jargon their ass. Boom! We don’t need no commas here. We gots semicolons and colons. And mine’s itching to drop a load: a fat one. :cool:

Everyone likes your professor, no one is actually available to do what he intended in the 24/7 real life. We all love to make other people reach our truth. I put those statistics in question not because I don’t like them (I didn’t even knew them), but because I put in question who made them. When I see someone hidden behind them as something irrefutable to make some point I obviously don’t like it, because in a planet with 7+ billion people you’re idea is just another, is not something everyone should believe, is not truth even if you base yourself on things you believe to be truths. Obviously for me to articulate this I had to put in question the author of the statistics and than say, basing myself on people that had some original thinking- why everything we believe is an perspective and why we want to make things irrefutable. Now, for argument sake, for psychological, sociological etc discussion I’m willing to reach an agreement to agree they’re unquestionable facts.

You said for me to post information I believe in? I don't have any. I read independent sources because that's what they are, independent. Do I base myself on there information? No, because anyone could obviously do what I just did, and do it even better. If I don't have reasons to believe official information is unquestionable, are facts no one can argue about, how could I believe my independent ones? I won't say I believe them the same way, because I don't, I presume the independent ones aren't corrupted like the official ones might be, because again, the darkest picture is always the nearest historically. When there is space for dough, and I can't think of many things without space for dough I don't think people should hide behind them. Yes, I quote people, not because I believe them to be facts, but because is a way I had to find to make you understand why I'm questioning the subject. I'll repeat it, if we're here to make the statistics hypothetical facts I'm willing to discuss them, because very honestly, that's what I'd like to do, this escalated out of proportion when someone used those stats to make me answer for something I didn't even affirmed. If you read anything I say, you've noticed by now, it's a walking contradiction, reminded me of Taxi Driver, but that's what I intended all along, like the professor said.

This have nothing to do with this thread, but I fond it so interesting I had to share.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Oh no - I posted and KILLED the thread!

https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=47741

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I just stopped looking at it when I got so busy. I had plans to grow a second set of hands but alas I was too busy. :bawling:

It’s ridiculous how busy I am. :(

Well, I keep trying to get a conversation going, but so far no luck:( I suppose I should say (insert political party or politician) is a (insert jaw dropping accusation or equally over the top praise)...that then would probably get me some attention!

Has this thread taught you nothing? Post a statistic!
:D

That's not a bad idea. Let's start.

According to the poll by the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany 2/3 of millennials and 4 in 10 Americans overall don't know what Auschwitz was; 49 percent millenials were unable to name a single concentration camp or ghetto, compared to 45 percent of adults; and just over half thought Adolf Hitler came to power in a coup, rather than in Germany's democratic election.

1 in 4 Americans thinks the sun orbits the Earth, according to a National Science Foundation study.

34 percent of Americans reject evolution entirely and believe humans have existed in their present form for tens of thousands of years, according to a Pew Research Center Religious Landscape study.
Pew said 62 percent of U.S. adults believe humans evolved over time. Of that group only 33 percent said humans and other living beings evolved solely due to natural processes; 25 percent of them say evolution was guided by a superior being.

20 percent of U.S. adults continue to deny climate change is happening, according to a spring 2018 survey by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.

7 percent of all American adults believe that chocolate milk comes from brown cows, according to a nationally representative online survey commissioned by the Innovation Center of U.S. Dairy. If you do the math, that works out to 16.4 million misinformed, milk-drinking people. The equivalent of the population of Pennsylvania.

In 2012, a Pew poll found that 35 percent of respondents considered sexual orientation a lifestyle choice.

In 2006, the Washington Post ran the results of a questionnaire that indicated 30 percent of Americans didn’t know what year 9/11 took place.

A survey by YouGov found that 41 percent of those queried think dinosaurs and humans "probably" or "definitely" once co-existed on Earth at the same time.

And this goes on an on. They should make an extra square: "Did you vote from Trump?". That would make things easier.

An interesting good post, until you blew it at the end.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Humans and dinosaurs did exist at the same time and still do.
Alligators are dinosaurs. Sure, they've gotten smaller over millions of years, but are otherwise virtually unchanged from their larger ancestors. ;)

Alligators aren't dinosaurs. I'm pretty sure of that. Dinosaurs weren't just ancient reptiles. They had a hip structure that placed their limbs more directly under their bodies, like mammals and birds of today. But you're right that alligators are virtually unchanged from the days of the dinosaurs.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

I hear dinosaurs taste just like chicken.

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

34 percent of Americans reject evolution entirely and believe humans have existed in their present form for tens of thousands of years, according to a Pew Research Center Religious Landscape study.
Pew said 62 percent of U.S. adults believe humans evolved over time. Of that group only 33 percent said humans and other living beings evolved solely due to natural processes; 25 percent of them say evolution was guided by a superior being.

What we consider modern humans HAVE existed for far more than tens of thousands of years.
Fossil evidence of modern homo-sapiens dates back to the Middle Paleolithic age, 200,000 years ago. ;)

Nah, that's people taste just like chicken to a dinosaur.:p

Ach! You're right! You've outfoxed me once again, Sir Rules!

Re: Three Lefts Make a Right, and Three Rights Make a Left
 

Then why is cable TV still ****ty?

I'm hardly ever right! But I use to watch those dinosaur shows on cable. That's before all the cable channels switched to home improvement shows:p

I'm ashamed because I used to study paleontology (I wanted to be a paleontologist when I was little)! But yeah, I think the whole hip-bone configuration led to the current theory that any dinosaurs that survived the "great cataclysm" evolved into modern birds.

I still don't like these new theories that some dinos had feathers! It conflicts with my boyhood conceptions of giant scaly lizards! ;)