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

Tools    





I just want to hug (your FACE)!
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.

=\
__________________
"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



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



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.



We do, it's just not tracked as well as it used to be. It sounds difficult to track, presumably because the requirements for tracking injuries and deaths are quite different. Anyway, this seems like a recent problem, so I don't think it presents a big hurdle for the overall long-term downward trend we've been discussing.
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?


I don't know what that video is supposed to demonstrate; that people are scared of guns and kind of in a panic about them? Because that seems to fit pretty well with what I'm saying about coverage.

So the media made all those people run away? Not the fear of getting shot?
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



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?
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.

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



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?



A system of cells interlinked
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?
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.
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP



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,...



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



Bernie Sanders in 1981, the newly elected mayor of Burlington, VT, cleaning Battery Park



"As mayor he used to drive a city plow truck 3rd shift during snow storms."



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



"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ― Philip K. Dick
good quote, in interpret it in this way (under); because that's what's left that you might consider real
you want to trust something? trust your own nature, because how could you trust your mistrust on it.



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.



A system of cells interlinked
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,...
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 just want to hug (your FACE)!
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 =\



People choke to death on macaroons????
That's the single saddest thing I've read this year
__________________
Purely for the benefit of my bad memory: 2016 • • • 2017 • • •
2018 • • • 2019 • • • Summer • • • Noms


Almost famous for having nailed Madonna once



I just want to hug (your FACE)!
People choke to death on macaroons????
That's the single saddest thing I've read this year
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 =\



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.

now just between you and me. what that means?



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.