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

Tools    





A system of cells interlinked
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 =\
@ynwtf

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

__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



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.
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



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
@ynwtf

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



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 =\
__________________
"My Dionne Warwick understanding of your dream indicates that you are ambivalent on how you want life to eventually screw you."
- Joel

"Ever try to forcibly pin down a house cat? It's not easy."
- Captain Steel



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.
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.



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



i didn't said the firearms were a deep or superficial philosophical issue.
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.

people see those stats as truth, i'm not refuting the stats (i did and no one answered),
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?
If you mean the New York Times thing, Sedai addressed it directly and I referenced the same thing afterwards.

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.
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.



A system of cells interlinked
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!



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?
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



...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.



That link no worky, Mike. You two are coming down pretty hard on me for doubting stats.
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.

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.
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 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?
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.

Why are you guys trying so hard to convince me that America has no major gun violence problem?
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."

Especially given that these facts you're giving me have some pretty big holes in them?
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.



A system of cells interlinked
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:



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"?
__________________
Purely for the benefit of my bad memory: 2016 • • • 2017 • • •
2018 • • • 12 • • • C&C • • • 110 • • • Summer • • • Noms


Almost famous for having nailed Madonna once



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.
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.



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
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.

you people are funny as hell, you think just because you are in america you know america
I mean, probably better than someone reading scattered, arbitrarily selected media reports from another part of the world entirely, yeah.

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
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.