Gun Control

[uwot]

... endin' slavers is the means; stayin' free, that's the goal.

That's your personal goal. Can you provide an example of you using your coach gun to end slavers?

No, agent of the State: I've committed no wrong doings.

Are you really so paranoid that you think some bloke on the other side of an ocean is an agent of your fucked up state?

And -- if I had (which I haven't) -- I certainly wouldn't admit to it in a public forum.

Nice try.

'nuff said, cop.

Get a grip. We could have a sensible conversation, but not if only one of us is sensible. I'll try again: do you know of anyone sufficiently removed from your good self, so that no possible recriminations could befall you, that has used any fire arm to end slavers in this century?

[henry quirk]

paranoid(?)

Yes.

Get a grip.

Got one...might be a touch too tight.

We could have a sensible conversation

Of course! Just not about anyone usin' firearms to end slavers.

[commonsense]

paranoid(?)

Yes.

Get a grip.

Got one...might be a touch too tight.

We could have a sensible conversation

Of course! Just not about anyone usin' firearms to end slavers.

Henry

I’ve been thinking I know who are slavers are, but I’m not sure I really know. Please give me a straight up definition of what a slaver is. Thanks

[iambiguous]

Me: as I understand it, if Christianity is the truth, and if I don't accept Jesus as the Way, then I'm damned.

Again, I'm not speakin' for Mannie, but, as I'm his friend, my possible damnation concerns him.

Okay, so Mannie does believe that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you are damned. That concerns him. Even if God greets you on Judgment Day packin' a bazooka Himself, you're still going down unless you jettison your Deist God.

Note to Mannie:

Jump in here, please. Is he damned or not? And do you know this for a fact? Much like you know the Christian God resides in Heaven along side the Pope residing in the Vatican? Or is this admittedly more along the lines of a "leap of faith"?

And guess what? Your possible damnation concerns him too.

Him and dozens of other One True Path proponents out there. Of course many of them no doubt are concerned with his damnation, right? Him being on the wrong One True Path. Along with you and I.

Thus my point that with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, you'd think the real deal God could provide us with an idiot-proof, "absolutely no doubt about it" path to the One True Path itself.

Indeed, where did you go wrong? What are Mannie's thoughts on that?

But, here's the thing: all Mannie does, can do, is say his piece. He has no power to make anyone Christian, and I don't think he'd exercise such power if he had it.

Same thing though. With so much at stake on both sides of the grave, how can he fall back on these...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A

...to convince us that the Christian God does in fact exist. That beyond a "leap of fate" or a "wager" we can know this if we watch the videos.

That's his message, right? You're damned because he knows -- he knows -- that the Deist God does not exist in the same universe with his Christian God.

What you oughta ask yourself: why does it chafe my ass so bad Mannie believes sumthin' I dismiss as superstition? Am I just thin-skinned, or, am I worried that, mebbe, Mannie is on the right side of things?

'nuff said.

I can't make it any clearer:

With objective morality at stake on this side of the grave and with immortality and salvation at stake on the other side of it, I'm more than willing to believe that Mannie is on the right side of things.

When he is able to provide me with substantive and substantial evidence that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven and that beyond a "leap of faith" or a "wager" he can demonstrate to both you and I how to save our souls.

Again, as though saving our souls revolved instead around demonstrating that the Pope does reside in the Vatican. We both have everything to gain if he can manage that, right?

Especially if he can connect the dots between the Christian God and his own political prejudices regarding guns. I'll purchase a bazooka from you myself if he can pull that off.

and what any of this has to do with a man's right to his property is beyond me

Huh? What's a man's right to his property for 70 odd years "down here" matter compared to how God judge's our thinking about that for all the rest of eternity?

Run that by Mannie and get back to me.

You wanted to know what happens to me, if Christianity is the truth, and I don't accept Jesus as the Way.

Now you do.

Mannie and me, we both told you.

What you oughta do now: thank us for our answers.

That's not how exchanges unfold in a philosophy forum though. We don't just thank others for answers, we react to them. Do the answers satisfy us? Are they adequate to the questions [and the points] we raised? Are they substantive and challenging?

Then the exchange continues until an answer more or less reasonable to both is found...or there's a recognition that this will never be the case because the assumptions that both make are too far removed. So they move on to others.

And I don't know what happens to you on Judgment Day. Nor how Mannie claims to know the fate of all who are not True or Serious Christians.

[edited out the unnecessary]

The unnecessary being all the points I raise that you cannot respond to substantively or intelligently.

In particular the part where you seem adamant that only your own moral and political convictions regarding guns and gun laws reflects someone able to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" while in a community where many others share in that conviction but insist on far tougher gun laws instead.

The fulminating, fanatical objectivists at both ends of the ideological spectrum, unwilling to explore "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the "best of all possible worlds".

[henry quirk]

Please give me a straight up definition of what a slaver is.

As I use it: generally, anyone who'd make use of you without your consent; specifically, The State (any iteration) and agents of The State.

And: of course, there's the conventional use of the word for someone who buys and sells people.

[henry quirk]

Your question was answered. If the answer flummoxes: take it up with the Christian.

-----

In particular the part where you seem adamant that only your own moral and political convictions regarding guns and gun laws reflects someone able to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" while in a community where many others share in that conviction but insist on far tougher gun laws instead.

You mean the part where my property is mine and you have no right to it if I've done no wrong with it?

We covered that already...multiple times.

-----

The fulminating, fanatical objectivists at both ends of the ideological spectrum, unwilling to explore "moderation, negotiation and compromise" as the "best of all possible worlds".

There is no moderation, negotiation and compromise when it comes to life, liberty, and property. You have yours; I have mine. You ought not unjustly deprive me of mine; I ought not unjustly deprive you of yours. And, if either of us do, there ought be consequences.

We covered all this too...multiple times.

-----

You keep referrin' to...

the dictates of Reason and Nature

...sumthin' you pulled off some website. Me: I never said nuthin' about any of that.

Deism isn't some monolithic orthodoxy. There's no Holy Place, Holy Men, or Holy Book.

All you can say about any deist: he believes God Created, and, he believes God is not personally involved in the Creation.

Where any deist takes that is on him, and him alone.

How you oughta see it: deism is a placeholder folks apply to a general belief; deism is not a codified belief system.

And, finally, my recognition of a man's natural right to his life, liberty, and property, and his existence as a free will, led me to a belief in god, not the other way around.

And -- yeah -- we covered all this as well...multiple times.

[promethean75]

lol talk about bathos for the Left. Holy Habermas.

this most recent shooter was killed by a pedestrian with a pistol. only two killed i think.... and how many more may have died had this pedestrian not been armed?

lol that's gotta hurt. CNN anchors are alarmed and baffled by this, but have to report on it because it's news.

[henry quirk]

bathos

You taught me a new word...

[Immanuel Can]

bathos

You taught me a new word...

He was one of the three musketeers...along with Orthos and Hair-a-mess.

[henry quirk]

bathos

You taught me a new word...

He was one of the three musketeers...along with Orthos and Hair-a-mess.

And you made me laugh...

[promethean75]

bathos isn't really the right word tho. there's the element of anticlimax, but no transition from the sublime to the superfluous, the serious to the absurd.

'fraid all we have here is a case of simple irony, and for that I am sorry.

[iambiguous]

Your question was answered. If the answer flummoxes: take it up with the Christian.

Yes, some being "flummoxed" by your own answer. That's precisely what I would expect from you.

And given that Mannie is adamant that your own soul is damned, I'm curious how you take this up with him. Have you asked him how he knows this is the case? Has he explained how the deist god is not the One True Path? What hard evidence did he provide you? Not those videos, right?

In particular the part where you seem adamant that only your own moral and political convictions regarding guns and gun laws reflects someone able to "follow the dictates of Reason and Nature" while in a community where many others share in that conviction but insist on far tougher gun laws instead.

You mean the part where my property is mine and you have no right to it if I've done no wrong with it?

No, no I mean this part.

1] you live entirely alone and what you do with your bazooka has no impact whatsoever on others
2] you come into contact with another and what you do with your bazooka may or may not have an impact on him or her
3] you live in a community of hundreds where any number of evolving and changing contexts might precipitate any number of conflicts in which citizens using bazookas might result in terrible impacts involving any number of them.

Given the volatility of human emotions for example.

Now, among the objectivists of your ilk, "might makes right" can work. You acquire the power in the community that allows you to enforce your own authoritarian dogmas regarding bazookas, and this becomes the law of the land.

Also, "right makes might" can work. Everyone in particularly small communities can agree that your own authoritarian dogmas regarding bazookas reflects rational citizens following the dictates of Reason and Nature. And that becomes the basis for the law of the land.

But in most communities in the "Western world" there are swaths of folks who embrace your objectivist dogmas and swaths of folks who embrace the dogmas of those on the left. Now, might make rights is autocratic and right makes might is highly unlikely. So the law of the land here almost always revolves around one or another rendition of moderation, negotiation and compromise. In America, for example, there are those who emphasize the right to bear arms part of the 2nd Amendment and those who emphasize the well-regulated militia part. Democracy and the rule of law takes over. Each side gets something but no side gets it all. And then through elections the politics of guns shifts back and forth.

But then the part where crony capitalism prevails. Guns are big business. So the industry does everything in its power to fund the elections of those who will keep the bucks flowing. It's not about political ideals so much here as it is "show me the money".

You keep referrin' to...

the dictates of Reason and Nature

...sumthin' you pulled off some website. Me: I never said nuthin' about any of that.

Yes, but that was weeks ago. A Deist website. And only now [after many exchanges between us] you feel compelled to note that you said nothing about that?

Okay, if not Reason and Nature, what does propel your thinking here? And how do you connect the dots between it and God your Creator?

Deism isn't some monolithic orthodoxy. There's no Holy Place, Holy Men, or Holy Book.

Yes, I noted that above. Some deists are on the left and others are on the right regarding political issues like this. That too was noted in the article.

But: you either believe there is a real me, core self and/or soul able to be in sync with the Right Thing To Do here or you don't. So, which is it?

And I've yet to hear your in-depth argument explaining why the points I raise in these threads...

https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 5&t=185296

...are not applicable to you. Instead, as I recall, you note that these threads are from another forum and you're not interested in going there.

All you can say about any deist: he believes God Created, and, he believes God is not personally involved in the Creation.

Where any deist takes that is on him, and him alone.

Right, your own private and personal small "d" deism. The fact is that Deists believe that God's creation revolves first and foremost around reason.

"Deism is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe. Or more simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority. Deism emphasizes the concept of natural theology (that is, God's existence is revealed through nature)." wiki

The big "D" Deism.

Only [of course] your reason is way, way, way superior to theirs.

And, finally, my recognition of a man's natural right to his life, liberty, and property, and his existence as a free will, led me to a belief in god, not the other way around.

Ah, the small "g" god. That fiercely personal and private entity that has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments I make about the existential parameters of human identity in the is/ought world.

[henry quirk]

Yes, some being "flummoxed" by your own answer. That's precisely what I would expect from you.

You aren't flummoxed? Good. I thought my answer -- as I understand it, if Christianity is the truth, and if I don't accept Jesus as the Way, then I'm damned -- was pretty straightforward. So: what's your beef again?

*

And given that Mannie is adamant that your own soul is damned, I'm curious how you take this up with him.

I don't. I got no cause to.

*

Have you asked him how he knows this is the case?

Nope. I got no cause to.

*

Has he explained how the deist god is not the One True Path?

Nope. He's got, with me, no cause to.

*

What hard evidence did he provide you?

None (cuz I didn't ask for any).

*

I mean this part.

1] you live entirely alone and what you do with your bazooka has no impact whatsoever on others
2] you come into contact with another and what you do with your bazooka may or may not have an impact on him or her
3] you live in a community of hundreds where any number of evolving and changing contexts might precipitate any number of conflicts in which citizens using bazookas might result in terrible impacts involving any number of them.

Yeah, like I said: the part where my property is mine and you have no right to it if I've done no wrong with it.

*

Now, among the objectivists of your ilk, "might makes right" can work. You acquire the power in the community that allows you to enforce your own authoritarian dogmas regarding bazookas, and this becomes the law of the land.

I ain't interested in rulin' or bein' ruled.

*

Also, "right makes might" can work. Everyone in particularly small communities can agree that your own authoritarian dogmas regarding bazookas reflects rational citizens following the dictates of Reason and Nature. And that becomes the basis for the law of the land.

I don't care if others agree with me. I do care if, in their zeal, they try to force a bazooka on me (when I'm ready for one, or have a need for one, I'll have it and not a second before).

*

But in most communities in the "Western world" there are swaths of folks who embrace your objectivist dogmas and swaths of folks who embrace the dogmas of those on the left. Now, might make rights is autocratic and right makes might is highly unlikely. So the law of the land here almost always revolves around one or another rendition of moderation, negotiation and compromise. In America, for example, there are those who emphasize the right to bear arms part of the 2nd Amendment and those who emphasize the well-regulated militia part. Democracy and the rule of law takes over. Each side gets something but no side gets it all. And then through elections the politics of guns shifts back and forth.

As I say: There is no moderation, negotiation and compromise when it comes to life, liberty, and property. You have yours; I have mine. You ought not unjustly deprive me of mine; I ought not unjustly deprive you of yours. And, if either of us do, there ought be consequences.

This is the only law I attend to.

*

But then the part where crony capitalism prevails. Guns are big business. So the industry does everything in its power to fund the elections of those who will keep the bucks flowing. It's not about political ideals so much here as it is "show me the money".

Yes, legislators get bought & sold: nuthin' new here.

*

Okay, if not Reason and Nature, what does propel your thinking here? And how do you connect the dots between it and God your Creator?

As I say: my recognition of a man's natural right to his life, liberty, and property, and his existence as a free will, led me to a belief in God, not the other way around.

*

That too was noted in the article.

I didn't read it.

*

you either believe there is a real me, core self and/or soul able to be in sync with the Right Thing To Do here or you don't. So, which is it?

I'm a person: not a social construct.

*

And I've yet to hear your in-depth argument explaining why the points I raise in these threads are not applicable to you.

And you won't till you bring those points here.

*

The fact is that Deists believe that God's creation revolves first and foremost around reason.

You got one right here tellin' that ain't the case, not for everyone.

By the way, this...

There are a number of subcategories of modern Deism, including monodeism (the default, standard concept of deism), pandeism, panendeism, spiritual deism, process deism, Christian deism, polydeism, scientific deism, and humanistic deism.[62][63][64] Some deists see design in nature and purpose in the universe and in their lives. Others see God and the universe in a co-creative process. Some deists view God in classical terms as observing humanity but not directly intervening in our lives, while others see God as a subtle and persuasive spirit who created the world, and then stepped back to observe.

...is from the same wiki piece.

As I say: there ain't no monolithic orthodoxy.

*

Only [of course] your reason is way, way, way superior to theirs.

I never said that.

*

the small "g" god

That's a typo.

[Walker]

Thirty Seconds To Make A Point

Did you hear about the shooting at the mall in Indiana?

15 seconds after some psycho started killing people in the food court, a civilian shot him dead. In so doing the civilian made a good point about the effects of an armed citizenry against evil.

[commonsense]

Thirty Seconds To Make A Point

Did you hear about the shooting at the mall in Indiana?

15 seconds after some psycho started killing people in the food court, a civilian shot him dead. In so doing the civilian made a good point about the effects of an armed citizenry against evil.

And something needs to be done about the no guns zones because both the shooter and the good guy were where guns are prohibited. Didn’t stop the bad guy unfortunately, and didn’t stop the good guy fortunately.