Gun Control

[iambiguous]

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?

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?

That you don't provide us with your argument that Christianity is not the truth. Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave. And the extent to which how you understand guns and government is not rooted existentially in dasein, but in the assertions that you make about things like bazookas that sure seem [to me] to be clearly objectivist taunts. How you connect the dots between such bluster and God.

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.

No cause to?! The man seems absolutely convinced that, bazookas and abortions aside, your soul is damned to Hell unless you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior and you "got no cause" to...object? Or to push him further such that he demonstrates to you that this is the case?

Again, bazookas and abortions given the 70 odd years you're around on this side of the grave vs. the fate of your very soul -- "I" -- for all the rest of eternity on the other side...and you got no cause to dig deeper with him?!

Well, maybe when you're eyeball to eyeball with the Grim Reaper yourself you'll come back to that part with him.

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.

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.

Sure, henry, the distinctions I make above obliterated merely by you completely ignoring them.

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.

On the other hand, if the majority of the folks you live with elect a government that comes after your guns, you might change your mind about that. Having the power to enforce your own dogmas has always been enticing to the objectivists among us. Historically, for example.

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).

Right. The Ruby Ridge agenda. You against the world. Don't thread on you. You'll go to the grave defending your political prejudices because they are derived deontologically from what you "just know" is the right [rational] thing to do and have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my arguments regarding dasein.

Yeah, I get that mentality. And, sure, it may well reflect the optimal truth. And all the hundreds and hundreds of other doctrinaire ideologues out there [and in here] with their own completely conflicting moral and political dogmas are simply wrong.

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.

Of course: fuck the real world where, at least in the West, democracy and the rule of law still prevails on guns election to election to election. The only thing that counts is what you have thought yourself into believing is true about guns "in your head". That's what conforts and consoles you -- BEING RIGHT! -- and if necessary you will go to the grave defending it.

And fuck the Christian God as well if Jesus Christ himself wouldn't sell a bazooka to you. In fact, you'll send yourself to Hell on Judgment Day in defiance if necessary.

The typical blah, blah, blah mentality of any number of hardcore objectivists here.

You know, if I do say so myself.

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.

Of course in America that still works best for the gun lobby. Though if one day the tide turns and those on the left gain control of the government and go after those guns, I suspect they won't be so blasé and cynical. I suspect they'll blow a gasket. Maybe go all out fascist.

Of course, even here there is controversy: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/fa ... ship/1327/

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.

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

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.

I'm a person: not a social construct.

What you are of course [like all the rest of us] is someone who was indoctrinated as a child to see the world as those who indoctrinated you did...and then as an adult accumulated countless personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially that you came to understand existentially in a particular way. Predisposing you to embrace a set of moral, political and spiritual prejudices that you came to embrace dogmatically as the one and the only most rational manner in which to understand, well, everything, right? Why? Because believing this comforts and consoles you. You know the truth about guns and everything else and anyone who dares to think otherwise is simply wrong. The same way all the other objectivists on the other side of the political divide think about you. You all have more in common with each other than you do with me. To all of you I am "the problem". After all, your Precious Self itself is on the line here, isn't it?

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. 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.

Then I guess we're back to the distinction I make between what deists/Deists tell us is true about their god/God and what they can actually demonstrate that all rational mem and women are obligated to believe is true about him/Him.

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.

Same thing though. With all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, what others "see" in their heads about this god/God and what they are able to prove is in fact true about him/Him is really the bottom line, right?

Especially given the fact that there are so many other One True Paths for us mere mortals to choose from. Why your deist god and not their Deist God? Let alone why deism/Deism at all?

Note to Mannie:

Explain that part to him again. The part about "I" on the other side of the grave.

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

Over and over and over again:

Given what is at stake on both sides of the grave, shouldn't there be a monolithic orthodoxy that clearly guides mere mortals to the One True Path?!!

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

I never said that.

Oh, you say it all right. You sort of have to with all that is on the line here before and after we die.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

If you know about how the black market works, you can probably figure out that when one declares a "no gun" zone, they create a black market for guns there. Since guns are harder to obtain, the price of them goes up, and the incentive for people to bring them in and sell them at a profit goes up. But the law-abiders don't access the black market: so what is means is, more bucks for gun marketers, more guns for bad guys, and no guns for good guys.

So much for "no gun" zones.

[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.

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.

It will go this way: state law in Indiana allows one to carry a lethal weapon in public places, one of which the mall is. Is a public place. Not a lethal weapon. Although I suppose a case could be made with long term studies ...

It allows one to carry death in one's pocket, and it is allowed through non-restriction of the second amendment, a restriction made by a public mall's prohibition.

This is the text-book case for federalism.

If you don't like that Indiana way of things, go to where it's not that way.

[Walker]

Aye caramba. Cleaning up the edit.

[henry quirk]

That you don't provide us with your argument that Christianity is not the truth.

Was I supposed to?

*

No cause to?! The man seems absolutely convinced that, bazookas and abortions aside, your soul is damned to Hell unless you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior and you "got no cause" to...object? Or to push him further such that he demonstrates to you that this is the case?

Well, it's Christianity, not Mannieanity. Mannie isn't the source of it, or the definitive authority on it. He's just an adherent of it. If I had a beef with Christianity, he's not the one I'd take it to.

*

Well, maybe when you're eyeball to eyeball with the Grim Reaper yourself you'll come back to that part with him.

Nah, I'll come back and haunt you.

*

Sure, henry, the distinctions I make above obliterated merely by you completely ignoring them.

I didn't ignore 'em, I put them into the proper perspective: other folks doin' wrong with their property doesn't justify, when I've done no wrong with it, takin' mine.

*

if the majority of the folks you live with elect a government that comes after your guns, you might change your mind about that.

Become an offender to self-defend? Nah.

*

In fact, you'll send yourself to Hell on Judgment Day in defiance if necessary.

What Hell? You believe in Hell? That's odd for an atheist.

*

Though if one day the tide turns and those on the left gain control of the government and go after those guns

The Left has been, is, in charge. Aside from a lotta talk and half-ass'd efforts on the state and local levels, none of 'em seem all that hot to actually do anything. Mebbe cuz the gun lobby (along with all the other lobbies) done bought and sold 'em twenty times over?

*

Ruby Ridge

Was The State tryin' to give guns to Weaver? That doesn't sound right.

*

democracy and the rule of law still prevails on guns election to election to election

It's charming, in a lemming takin' the great leap kinda way, how you think The State is run by the citizens.

*

"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: it was my recognition of a man's natural right to his life, liberty, and property, and his existence as a free will in an apparently determined universe, that led me to a belief in God.

*

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

As I say: you won't till you bring those points here.

*

What you are of course [like all the rest of us] is someone who was indoctrinated as a child...

Nah, I'm a person, not a construct; I'm a free will, not a machine.


*

Then I guess we're back to the distinction I make between what deists/Deists tell us is true about their god/God and what they can actually demonstrate that all rational mem and women are obligated to believe is true about him/Him.

Why would you be obligated to believe in Him?

Why would they be obligated to demonstrate anything?

*

With all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, what others "see" in their heads about this god/God and what they are able to prove is in fact true about him/Him is really the bottom line, right?

Why? Is one's place in the afterlife determined on how well or often you prove that God exists, or that He has a certain nature?

*

Given what is at stake on both sides of the grave, shouldn't there be a monolithic orthodoxy that clearly guides mere mortals to the One True Path?!!

I can't see why. Explain it to me.

[iambiguous]

That you don't provide us with your argument that Christianity is not the truth.

Was I supposed to?

That's entirely up to you. Mannie argues that he knows the Christian God does in fact exist. And that if you don't accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior you are damned for all of eternity. At the very least, one would ask him to demonstrate that this can be demonstrated by him. And if one does not want to be damned for all of eternity -- at least millions and millions and millions and millions of years -- he'd want to at least to attempt to debunk Mannie's God.

Come on, henry, do you even stop to think about what is at stake here on both sides of the grave?

No cause to?! The man seems absolutely convinced that, bazookas and abortions aside, your soul is damned to Hell unless you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior and you "got no cause" to...object? Or to push him further such that he demonstrates to you that this is the case?

Well, it's Christianity, not Mannieanity. Mannie isn't the source of it, or the definitive authority on it. He's just an adherent of it. If I had a beef with Christianity, he's not the one I'd take it to.

Please. Over and again he reminded me that there are those who are true Christians and those who are not. Ask him if he is not the source to go to here in regard to, among other things, Judgment Day.

In fact, he more or less has to take this approach once he rejects the "leap of faith" or "wager" mentality. After all, if he admits that others may well be the definitive authority on Christianity [rather than him] he's admitting that he might be wrong about he professes to believe in regard to Christianity.

Well, maybe when you're eyeball to eyeball with the Grim Reaper yourself you'll come back to that part with him.

Nah, I'll come back and haunt you.

Sure, turn immortality and salvation into a quip.

Sure, henry, the distinctions I make above obliterated merely by you completely ignoring them.

I didn't ignore 'em, I put them into the proper perspective: other folks doin' wrong with their property doesn't justify, when I've done no wrong with it, takin' mine.

Doing wrong? Says who?

Then [of course] back to this:

1] you live entirely alone and what you do has no impact whatsoever on others...there is no right or wrong
2] you come into contact with another and what you do may or may not have an impact on him or her...deemed right by you but wrong by 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 what you do, while deemed right by you, is deemed wrong by others

Given the volatility of human emotions for example.

The political wars revolving around guns and government is the very embodiment of this. You deem state restrictions on your right to bear arms wrong...others, however, deem it is entirely irrational not to have restrictions. Some insisting it is wrong for private citizens to own guns of any kind. Let along bazookas.

That's the whole point of the "democracy and the rule of law" approach to issues such as this." Gun legislation that, through elections, shifts back and forth -- left and right -- over time. Again, as opposed to the might makes right [tyranny] and right makes might [objectivism] approaches.

...if the majority of the folks you live with elect a government that comes after your guns, you might change your mind about that.

Having the power to enforce your own dogmas has always been enticing to the objectivists among us. Historically, for example.

Become an offender to self-defend? Nah.

Okay, then the government comes to take your guns. You either turn them over or it's Ruby Ridge.

In fact, you'll send yourself to Hell on Judgment Day in defiance if necessary.

What Hell? You believe in Hell? That's odd for an atheist.

I don't believe in Hell. But, as Mannie will point out, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And your political prejudices are either in line with the Christian God's or you're damned. I'm just speculating that some of the particularly fierce pro-gun fanatics will [even then] "defy authority" and accept the consequences. Even if that includes Hell?

Though if one day the tide turns and those on the left gain control of the government and go after those guns

The Left has been, is, in charge. Aside from a lotta talk and half-ass'd efforts on the state and local levels, none of 'em seem all that hot to actually do anything. Mebbe cuz the gun lobby (along with all the other lobbies) done bought and sold 'em twenty times over?

Sure, in some countries. But certainly not in the United States of America. The right still prevails on guns.

The Ruby Ridge agenda. You against the world. Don't thread on you. You'll go to the grave defending your political prejudices because they are derived deontologically from what you "just know" is the right [rational] thing to do and have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my arguments regarding dasein.

Yeah, I get that mentality. And, sure, it may well reflect the optimal truth. And all the hundreds and hundreds of other doctrinaire ideologues out there [and in here] with their own completely conflicting moral and political dogmas are simply wrong.

Was The State tryin' to give guns to Weaver? That doesn't sound right.

Ruby Ridge was about many things: threats against Reagan, race, survivalism, hatred of government, guns, apocalyptic Christianity, etc.

democracy and the rule of law still prevails on guns election to election to election

It's charming, in a lemming takin' the great leap kinda way, how you think The State is run by the citizens.

Huh? Here's by own take on the Deep State: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... s#p2187045

You must have me confused with someone else.

"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: it was my recognition of a man's natural right to his life, liberty, and property, and his existence as a free will in an apparently determined universe, that led me to a belief in God.

Okay, if your recognition of a man's naturals rights is not derived from "Reason and Nature, what does propel your thinking here?"

My point is not the reasons we give for what we believe about things like guns but how, given the life we lived, we came to acquire those reasons. Thus my own arguments revolving around dasein here. And your arguments noting how this is not applicable to you? Same with your leap of faith to a God, the God, your God. How is that not too basically an existential concoction. Much like mine and Mannie.

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

As I say: you won't till you bring those points here.

Again, here they are. In the OPs of 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

What you are of course [like all the rest of us] is someone who was indoctrinated as a child to see the world as those who indoctrinated you did...and then as an adult accumulated countless personal experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge out in a particular world historically, culturally and experientially that you came to understand existentially in a particular way. Predisposing you to embrace a set of moral, political and spiritual prejudices that you came to embrace dogmatically as the one and the only most rational manner in which to understand, well, everything, right? Why? Because believing this comforts and consoles you. You know the truth about guns and everything else and anyone who dares to think otherwise is simply wrong. The same way all the other objectivists on the other side of the political divide think about you. You all have more in common with each other than you do with me. To all of you I am "the problem". After all, your Precious Self itself is on the line here, isn't it?

Nah, I'm a person, not a construct; I'm a free will, not a machine.

Right, keep telling yourself that this is actually a substantive reaction to the points I make.

The irony being that those objectivists of your ilk are far, far more constructed out of fonts like religion and ideology and deontology and assessments of nature. That's what allows you, like the sheep most objectivists are, to flock around your own "one of us" vs. "one of them" group mentality.

It's just that some like you aren't able to sustain it without eventually coming around to the supernatural...the God bit.

Well, unless, of course, there really is a God and someone "out there" or "in here" is able to demonstrate it.

Then I guess we're back to the distinction I make between what deists/Deists tell us is true about their god/God and what they can actually demonstrate that all rational mem and women are obligated to believe is true about him/Him.

Why would you be obligated to believe in Him?

Well, if a God, the God is in fact demonstrated to exist, I might not be obligated to believe in Him, but if it's a choice between oblivion and immortality and salvation, I would be a fool not to.

Note to Mannie:

Bring this God of yours down out of the spiritual clouds and see how quickly I apologize profusely for ever doubting you. If He does in fact exist count me in.

I'll just have to hope that God accepts how much time and effort -- how much thought -- I've put into His existence and gives me the benefit of the doubt on Judgment Day. I couldn't believe in something not able to be demonstrated for me, but once it was, I came on board.

With all that is at stake on both sides of the grave, what others "see" in their heads about this god/God and what they are able to prove is in fact true about him/Him is really the bottom line, right?

Why? Is one's place in the afterlife determined on how well or often you prove that God exists, or that He has a certain nature?

Take that up with Mannie. He'll take you back to the Bible:

"Salvation comes by knowing the Father through the Son. Jesus says, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'"

Whereas [again] I'm less interested in what the Bible says and more interested in proof that what the Bible says here is in fact true.

Aren't you?

Look, you either don't want "I" to be obliterated for all of eternity after you die or you do. If you don't there are those here who will offer you a path to both immortality and salvation. They will tell you what determines this. All I ask is that they demonstrate to me why it is their own One True Path that I must take. Since I do not want to be at one with oblivion.

Thus...

Given what is at stake on both sides of the grave, shouldn't there be a monolithic orthodoxy that clearly guides mere mortals to the One True Path?!!

I can't see why. Explain it to me.

A child can understand it. Objective morality on this side of the grave, immortality and salvation on the other side. But many, many, many, many, many conflicting One True Paths to them.

Why one and not the others?

On the other hand, if a God, the God is demonstrated to exist...demonstrated to exist in particular by His revealing Himself to all of us...the One True Path is revealed.

Interested in immortality and salvation? Get on it.

Not interested? Don't.

[henry quirk]

Let me get this right: you're desperate to save your immortal soul, which you don't actually believe you have, while I'm absolutely certain I have a soul, one that isn't immortal and doesn't require savin'.

That there is friggin' high-larious!

*

Come on, henry, do you even stop to think about what is at stake here on both sides of the grave?

Nope, cuz I don't believe there's an afterlife for me to be barred from. You gotta remember: I'm the atheist who went deist only a little while back; you're the supposedly disillusioned religionist supposedly lookin' to get back into God's good graces. For me: God is the explanation for why you & me are free wills with natural rights; for you, God is supposedly your salvation, your stay oughta Hell and collect $200 card.

Like I say: friggin' high-larious!

*

Ask him if he is not the source to go to here in regard to, among other things, Judgment Day.

I could simply refer you to recent posts of his wherein he makes it clear he's not callin' the shots. If I point 'em out will you accept that Mannie doesn't see himself as the Big Kahuna and apologize to him for misjudgin'?

*

Sure, turn immortality and salvation into a quip.

Sure, cuz, as far as I can tell, neither is real or required.

*

Doing wrong? Says who?

You. You talk about the volatility of human emotions as a reason why mebbe folks ought not have firearms cuz that volatility might get folks shootin' each to smithereens for no good reason (or, with bazookas, blowin each other sky high). In other words: doin' wrong.

*

You deem state restrictions on your right to bear arms wrong

Nope. I say takin' my property from me when I've done no wrong with it is wrong. I say prohibitin' me from property becuz I might do wrong with it is wrong.

*

others, however, deem it is entirely irrational not to have restrictions. Some insisting it is wrong for private citizens to own guns of any kind. Let along bazookas.

I know: I don't care.

*

You either turn them over or it's Ruby Ridge.

Oh, there'd be thousands upon thousands of attempted Ruby Ridges, cuz, like the man said: I'm not the only one.

*

I don't believe in Hell.

Mebbe not, but you sure do worry about it.

*

The right still prevails on guns.

The Left has had, in the recent past, overwhelming control of Congress. Today, Dems run both chambers (though with only slim majorities). They've done nuthin' of consequence ever to regulate firearms.

Instead of layin' blame on the Right, you oughta take a look at your guys.

*

Here's by own take on the Deep State: [e-address of a place I have no interest in]

I'm sure you have all kinds of pertinent things to say, but, unfortunately, I'm congenitally incapable of bein' led by the nose from site to site. I'm afraid if you can't bring all them words here (cut & paste?) I'll have to forgo dippin' into the horse trough of your wisdom.

*

You must have me confused with someone else.

I'm pretty sure I got you pegged.

*

Okay, if your recognition of a man's naturals rights is not derived from "Reason and Nature, what does propel your thinking here?"

As I said near the beginning of this, the latest portion of our on-goin' crapsack of a conversation: We covered that already...multiple times.

Here you go: some fine writin' by me...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29158&hilit=red+meat

*

Again, here they are. In the OPs of these threads:

As I say: I'm afraid if you can't bring all them words here (cut & paste?) I'll have to forgo dippin' into the horse trough of your wisdom.

*

keep telling yourself that this is actually a substantive reaction to the points I make.

Between What you are... and ...on the line here, isn't it? is opinion not worth the electrons it's etched in. Certainly, none of it is worth rebuttin'.

*

Well, if a God, the God is in fact demonstrated to exist, I might not be obligated to believe in Him, but if it's a choice between oblivion and immortality and salvation, I would be a fool not to.

Friggin' high-larious!

*

Aren't you?

Nope.

*

I do not want to be at one with oblivion.

I know...good luck with that.

[iambiguous]

Let me get this right: you're desperate to save your immortal soul, which you don't actually believe you have, while I'm absolutely certain I have a soul, one that isn't immortal and doesn't require savin'.

That there is friggin' high-larious!

Well, given all of the things on this side of the grave that still bring me enormous pleasure and satisfaction, the thought that death utterly obliterates them -- and me! -- for all the rest of eternity, is, well, disconcerting to say the least.

So, yeah, if someone is able to convince me that I have a soul able to be saved by choosing the One True Path, why wouldn't I come into places like this and hear them out?

And when your buddy Mannie expresses concern that your own soul [like mine] will be damned to Hell for all of eternity, bonding with him over bazookas and abortions "here and now" seems to take precedence over your fate "there and then".

But, as with Mannie, you are absolutely certain that you have this soul but are utterly incapable of demonstrating what that means. Other than what you have come to believe "in your head" that it means. The part that comforts and consoles you.

Or can you offer us demonstrable evidence that the human soul does exist?

Come on, henry, do you even stop to think about what is at stake here on both sides of the grave?

Nope, cuz I don't believe there's an afterlife for me to be barred from. You gotta remember: I'm the atheist who went deist only a little while back; you're the supposedly disillusioned religionist supposedly lookin' to get back into God's good graces. For me: God is the explanation for why you & me are free wills with natural rights; for you, God is supposedly your salvation, your stay oughta Hell and collect $200 card.

Fair enough.

Here and now -- in your head -- you have been able to boldly go where few other mere mortal are able to: into accepting that 1] all of the things that do bring you enormous pleasure and satisfaction and 2] all of the people that you do know and love will be swept away for all of eternity as you become as one with oblivion.

Sure, if that's something you accept as necessarily intertwined with your understanding of the deist god, more power to you. If death is something you are able to accept without the "fear and loathing" that rattles so many others then, sure, keep it up if you can.

Please. Over and again he reminded me that there are those who are true Christians and those who are not. Ask him if he is not the source to go to here in regard to, among other things, Judgment Day.

In fact, he more or less has to take this approach once he rejects the "leap of faith" or "wager" mentality. After all, if he admits that others may well be the definitive authority on Christianity [rather than him] he's admitting that he might be wrong about he professes to believe in regard to Christianity.

I could simply refer you to recent posts of his wherein he makes it clear he's not callin' the shots. If I point 'em out will you accept that Mannie doesn't see himself as the Big Kahuna and apologize to him for misjudgin'?

Go ahead, point them out. Note for me how he reconciles the distinction between a true Christian and a false Christian, and the fact that he is willing to accept that others can make a different distinction. And perhaps be more reasonable than him. If he does this, how is he not acknowledging that he may well be wrong about Christianity?

Sure, turn immortality and salvation into a quip.

Sure, cuz, as far as I can tell, neither is real or required.

Yes, given your experiences, your relationships, your access to information and knowledge, you have become disposed [existentially] to believe neither are real. But in accepting this you are acknowledging that had your experiences, relationships and information and knowledge been different, you might be here arguing that they are real.

That's the part both you and Mannie steer clear of. You both need to believe that the existential parameters of the life you lived is not nearly as important to your sense of identity [in the is/ought world] as your conviction that what you believe is the essential embodiment of the Real Me in sync with the Right Thing To Do.

The objectivist mentality.

Doing wrong? Says who?

Then [of course] back to this:

1] you live entirely alone and what you do has no impact whatsoever on others...there is no right or wrong
2] you come into contact with another and what you do may or may not have an impact on him or her...deemed right by you but wrong by 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 what you do, while deemed right by you, is deemed wrong by others

You. You talk about the volatility of human emotions as a reason why mebbe folks ought not have firearms cuz that volatility might get folks shootin' each to smithereens for no good reason (or, with bazookas, blowin each other sky high). In other words: doin' wrong.

On the contrary, from the perspective of those blowing others to smithereens with bazookas, what they deem to be good reasons others do not. And when people become very, very angry with others, reason itself can fly right out the window. But it's one thing to become enraged with nothing but your fists, and another thing altogether with military grade weapons.

On the ID channel they have this program called "Fear Thy Neighbor". Over and again it shows what very pissed off people can do with handguns and rifles. Try to imagine them with bazookas.

You deem state restrictions on your right to bear arms wrong

Nope. I say takin' my property from me when I've done no wrong with it is wrong. I say prohibitin' me from property becuz I might do wrong with it is wrong.

Well, that's what gun legislation always takes into account. Not just what people have done or do, but what given new sets of circumstance, they might do. And over and again, you always assume that if you use your bazooka it can only be for the right reason. If others deem it to be a wrong reason then back to you never being wrong about anything you do. And, of course, having total control over your emotions...even in tense situations.

others, however, deem it is entirely irrational not to have restrictions. Some insisting it is wrong for private citizens to own guns of any kind. Let along bazookas.

That's the whole point of the "democracy and the rule of law" approach to issues such as this." Gun legislation that, through elections, shifts back and forth -- left and right -- over time. Again, as opposed to the might makes right [tyranny] and right makes might [objectivism] approaches.

I know: I don't care.

Whether you care or not, if the citizens in your community manage to pass legislation making it illegal for private citizens to own guns...what then? Ruby Ridge, right?

I don't believe in Hell. But, as Mannie will point out, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And your political prejudices are either in line with the Christian God's or you're damned. I'm just speculating that some of the particularly fierce pro-gun fanatics will [even then] "defy authority" and accept the consequences. Even if that includes Hell?.

Mebbe not, but you sure do worry about it.

No, what I am most concerned with is oblivion. That when I die...that's it. Again, all the things and all the people that bring me enormous gratification -- "I" itself -- obliterated for all time to come. As though I never even existed at all.

The right still prevails on guns.

The Left has had, in the recent past, overwhelming control of Congress. Today, Dems run both chambers (though with only slim majorities). They've done nuthin' of consequence ever to regulate firearms.

So, the left overwhelmingly controls Congress...through slim majorities. And as long as the filibuster rule is sustained in the Senate, the NRA will prevail in blocking all but the most tepid "reforms".

Here's by own take on the Deep State: [e-address of a place I have no interest in]

I'm sure you have all kinds of pertinent things to say, but, unfortunately, I'm congenitally incapable of bein' led by the nose from site to site. I'm afraid if you can't bring all them words here (cut & paste?) I'll have to forgo dippin' into the horse trough of your wisdom.

Unbelievable. Asking you to click on another philosophy forum is, what, against your principles?!!!

So, okay, here are words cut and pasted:

How about this myth: that free market capitalism exist at all.

Unless you call crony capitalism and state capitalism "laisse faire". Because that's what it's not. Indeed, the presidency of Barack Obama [a future Bilderberger] speaks volumes regarding how "the system" works.

He came to Washington to change things, remember?

There are very powerful men and women who comprise the interlocking elements of the Wall Street/Washington revolving doors, the military/media industrial complex, the war economy. America has always had a bi-partisan ruling class.

Above all else, Barack Obama is a member in good standing of America's ruling class. The "liberal" rendition, as it were.

But not in the simplistic Marxist sense of "the class struggle". That was more a manifestation of the industrial revolution. Capitalism has evolved light years beyond that.

Indeed, nominating something as "the ruling class" does not mean that once a month...literally...the folks from the corporate media [and their Wall Street advertisers] sit down with relevant committee chairmen in Congress, Obama's economic team in the White House, the K Street lobbyists and Henry Kissinger's "colleagues" from Bilderberg to meticulously plan the next month's political and economic agenda. It doesn't work that way. Why? Because it doesn't have to. Besides, even within these corporate concoctions of wealth and power, there are considerable conflicts. For example, corporations based here in America may be strongly opposed to government policies that favor companies that shift all or part of their business overseas. And companies that oppose policies seen as favorable to the interests of oil industry do so because the higher the cost of oil the more costly it is in run their own businesses profitably.

That, of course, is where "democracy" comes into play. And some of these conflagrations are gigantic because so much money is at stake.

No, America's ruling class does not embody a bunch of secret meetings where secret conspirators secretly plot and plan to carve up the world in Dr Evil's secret location at Goldman Sachs.

Instead, it is more like this:

From the Bullfrog Films review of the film The American Ruling Class:

The American Ruling Class is one of the most unusual films to be made in America in recent years--both in terms of form and content. The form is a "dramatic-documentary-musical" and the content is our country's most taboo topic: class, power and privilege in our nominally democratic republic.

At bottom the film is a morality tale, the story of two Yale students (played by Harvard men) who seek their opportunities upon graduation. As the renowned essayist, author and longtime Harper's magazine editor Lewis Lapham conducts them through the corridors of power: Pentagon press briefings, the World Economic Forum, philanthropic foundations, Washington law firms, corporations, banks, the Council on Foreign Relations, and New York society dinners---our two representative graduates "one rich and the other not so rich" must struggle with their responsibilities in "a world collaterally damaged by the magic of money and the miracles of science." The real-life luminaries they meet on their journey become characters in a story about power, its responsibilities and abuses.

All the while "the Mighty Wurlitzer" plays on, a reference to the massive propaganda apparatus invented by the CIA's Frank Wisner, here used to signify the nocturnal philosophy of acquisition and imperial hubris which continually calls to the young men, the siren song of careerist myopia that was bred into their bones at school.

As we watch these two young men wend their way through what is only a slight fictionalization of their actual lives and choices, as we meet former Secretaries of State and Defense, directors of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, the publisher of The New York Times, Kurt Vonnegut, Howard Zinn, Barbara Ehrenreich, Robert Altman and a host of others, we have to ask along with Mr. Lapham: "To what end the genius of the Wall Street banks and the force of the Pentagon's colossal weapons? Where does America discover the wisdom to play with its wonderful toys?" The possible answers move beyond the empty distinction of party affiliation and into the heart of American Oligarchy itself. By film's end, the young men must decide: Should they seek to rule the world, or to save it?

Of course, Obama, the "progressive" capitalist, fits quite comfortably into this carefully calibrated circle of "cultured" friends. His administration is bursting at the seams with them. For example, the Bilderberg, CFR, TC folks alone include Hillary Clinton [and Bill of course], Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Rahm Emanuel, George Mitchell, Robert Rubin, Paul Volcker, Robert Gates, James Jones, Tom Daschle, Eric Shinseki, Michael Froman, Susan Rice, Jack Reed, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, Mona Sutphen.

Though some are admittedly just "advisers".

Hell, it's just commonsense to point out that those who own and operate the political and economic instruments that sustain the global economy, are going to want to connect the dots with others like them around the world. They have "shared interests" that evolve from and center around transactions that swell well up into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

So, no, the crony capitalists don't need to schedule a secret rendezvous where they can exchange secret handshakes and secret code words with the other secret participants.

They especially don't need to with an electorate patently blind to how the world really functions all around them.

[henry quirk]

if someone is able to convince me that I have a soul able to be saved by choosing the One True Path, why wouldn't I come into places like this and hear them out?

Not seein' how spendin' time in a forum full of atheists and amoralists is gonna get you anywhere. Might be more profitable to visit your local churches, temples, synagogues, etc. and talk to folks, face to face. Or mebbe you could just become a Unitarian Universalist...they LARP good.

*

The part that comforts and consoles you.

Nope. My mind (soul) bein' sumthin' other than my brain is what makes me a free will. It's a not a snuggly blanket.

*

can you offer us demonstrable evidence that the human soul does exist?

What's demonstrable evidence to you? A soul in a jar?

Anyway, in-forum, you can do an advanced forum search: use wilder penfield in the keywords field and henry quirk in the author field. As I recall we talked about this before: you weren't moved then, can't see why you'd be moved now.

*

you have been able to boldly go where few other mere mortal are able to

You mean like the millions and millions of atheists, agnostics, and other assorted irreligious & areligious folks livin' today?

*

point them out

Sure, after you give your word that if I do you'll accept Mannie doesn't see himself as the Big Kahuna and apologize to him for misjudgin'.

I'm ain't doin' squat otherwise.

*

from the perspective of those blowing others to smithereens with bazookas, what they deem to be good reasons others do not

If any of those reasons are about anything other than defense of self, defense of other, or defense of property, then those reasons are unjust.

I'm, of course, leavin' out circumstances where a fella might use his bazook to blow up trees on his land. Seems like that would be waste of shells and trees, but it ain't a moral issue.

*

it's one thing to become enraged with nothing but your fists, and another thing altogether with military grade weapons.

Yep. And if Mr Angry knows the guy he's thinkin' about blowin' sky high just might have comparable weapons, he might decide ventin' ain't in his best interest.

*

"Fear Thy Neighbor". Over and again it shows what very pissed off people can do with handguns and rifles.

Haven't seen it: pretty sure, though, every single case involved an offender bein' sure the other guy was unarmed.

Why do you think wanna-be killers make their way to gun-free zones? When was the last mass shooting in a gun store?

*

what, given new sets of circumstance, they might do

Yeah, like I said: takin' property away or prohibitin' property becuz of what someone might do with it.

Guilty till proven innocent.

*

over and again, you always assume that if you use your bazooka it can only be for the right reason.

Yep. I've owned my coach gun for around 20 years. Ain't done any wrong with it yet.

*

If others deem it to be a wrong reason then back to you never being wrong about anything you do

If I never unjustly deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property with my weapon, what possible reason would you have for takin' it away?

All you got is your fear I might do wrong. Guilty till proven innocent, comrade.

*

Whether you care or not, if the citizens in your community manage to pass legislation making it illegal for private citizens to own guns...what then? Ruby Ridge, right?

What about...

Oh, there'd be thousands upon thousands of attempted Ruby Ridges, cuz, like the man said: I'm not the only one.

...was unclear?

My community: never been down here in S. Louisiana, have you?

*

So, the left overwhelmingly controls Congress...through slim majorities.

Nope. I said: The Left has had, in the recent past, overwhelming control of Congress. Today, Dems run both chambers (though with only slim majorities). They've done nuthin' of consequence ever to regulate firearms.

They could have, they could now. Why haven't they?

*

filibuster

That can disappear with a simple majority vote. If filibuster is the stumblin' block to gun regulation, why does it stand?

*

So, okay, here are words cut and pasted:

See? That wasn't hard was it? just bring whatever you value there, over here.

Anyway: I mostly agree with you (not gonna pick at nits over the stuff I don't agree with). Like I say (as you seem to say): legislators are bought & sold. All that love you have for *democracy, moderation, negotiation, etc is misplaced.




*mob rule: well, I understand why you like that one...too bad it doesn't work, not as you'd like or even as it was supposed to

[iambiguous]

Well, given all of the things on this side of the grave that still bring me enormous pleasure and satisfaction, the thought that death utterly obliterates them -- and me! -- for all the rest of eternity, is, well, disconcerting to say the least.

So, yeah, if someone is able to convince me that I have a soul able to be saved by choosing the One True Path, why wouldn't I come into places like this and hear them out?

And when your buddy Mannie expresses concern that your own soul [like mine] will be damned to Hell for all of eternity, bonding with him over bazookas and abortions "here and now" seems to take precedence over your fate "there and then".

But, as with Mannie, you are absolutely certain that you have this soul but are utterly incapable of demonstrating what that means. Other than what you have come to believe "in your head" that it means.

Not seein' how spendin' time in a forum full of atheists and amoralists is gonna get you anywhere. Might be more profitable to visit your local churches, temples, synagogues, etc. and talk to folks, face to face. Or mebbe you could just become a Unitarian Universalist...they LARP good.

Right, I could start here...

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/wor ... -starters/

...and then move on to all the rest of them...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

Of course, maybe you ought to consider doing that yourself. You know, just to be sure that the Deist God really is the One True Path.

And the One True Path to what? Well, you don't even know.

The part that comforts and consoles you. Or can you offer us demonstrable evidence that the human soul does exist?

Nope. My mind (soul) bein' sumthin' other than my brain is what makes me a free will. It's a not a snuggly blanket.

Look, however one connects the dots between their brain and their mind and their soul, it either comforts and consoles them or it doesn't.

can you offer us demonstrable evidence that the human soul does exist?

What's demonstrable evidence to you? A soul in a jar?

Again, it's one thing to tell us what you believe about this soul of yours and another thing altogether to offer us substantive evidence that human souls do in fact exist. If not a soul in a jar, something, anything that might enable others to discover their own.

I merely connect the dots between believing that they do and the manner in which the objectivists among us connect the soul further to the Real Me in sync with the Right Thing To Do.

Anyway, in-forum, you can do an advanced forum search: use wilder penfield in the keywords field and henry quirk in the author field. As I recall we talked about this before: you weren't moved then, can't see why you'd be moved now.

What moves me is the kind of evidence that, say, startles millions around the world. Evidence so profound it brings the scientific, philosophical and theological communities together in the media around the globe. Those big bold headlines: "Human Souls Are Found To Exist"

Here and now -- in your head -- you have been able to boldly go where few other mere mortal are able to: into accepting that 1] all of the things that do bring you enormous pleasure and satisfaction and 2] all of the people that you do know and love will be swept away for all of eternity as you become as one with oblivion.

Sure, if that's something you accept as necessarily intertwined with your understanding of the deist god, more power to you. If death is something you are able to accept without the "fear and loathing" that rattles so many others then, sure, keep it up if you can.

You mean like the millions and millions of atheists, agnostics, and other assorted irreligious & areligious folks livin' today?

Well, I don't lump them altogether in regard to their reactions to oblivion, but to the extent that they do truly love their life, death can be an excruciating ordeal.

Go ahead, point them out. Note for me how he reconciles the distinction between a true Christian and a false Christian, and the fact that he is willing to accept that others can make a different distinction. And perhaps be more reasonable than him. If he does this, how is he not acknowledging that he may well be wrong about Christianity?

Sure, after you give your word that if I do you'll accept Mannie doesn't see himself as the Big Kahuna and apologize to him for misjudgin'.

Again, let him admit that, in accepting and in respecting the vast and the varied accounts of Christianity around the world -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ominations -- he is acknowledging that his own is just one of them, and I'll apologize for thinking that when he argues that there are True Christians, he means only his own understanding of what that means. Either in regard to Judgment Day or to guns and abortions.

Come in, henry, even given that there are any number of possible contexts in which different people will have different understandings of what is being defended...of what should be defended. It depends on what, given any community, the law of the land either prescribes or proscribes. And what are laws but, time and again, the political equivalent of "conflicting goods".

it's one thing to become enraged with nothing but your fists, and another thing altogether with military grade weapons.

Yep. And if Mr Angry knows the guy he's thinkin' about blowin' sky high just might have comparable weapons, he might decide ventin' ain't in his best interest.

Maybe. It depends on all of the endless circumstanctial permutations there are given any particular context. But again, with human emotions, thinking may or may not enter the picture.

"Fear Thy Neighbor". Over and again it shows what very pissed off people can do with handguns and rifles.

Haven't seen it: pretty sure, though, every single case involved an offender bein' sure the other guy was unarmed.

Nope. In almost every episode both parties have access to weapons of some sort --- knives, guns, rifles, shotguns. Instead, what sustains the feuds are the convictions on both sides that how they understand what is right and what is wrong is the most reasonable frame of mind. Then a particular incident will precipitate blind rage on one side or on both sides and the weapons comes out. No bazookas yet though.

Why do you think wanna-be killers make their way to gun-free zones? When was the last mass shooting in a gun store?

I'm not opposed to citizens being armed in today's world. Especially here in America. I'm armed myself. No, I'm focused more on the part of the Second Amendment that reads, "A well regulated Militia". And who will do the regulating if not the government? It then comes down politically [from election to election] to what those regulations actually are.

Well, that's what gun legislation always takes into account. Not just what people have done or do, but what given new sets of circumstance, they might do.

Yeah, like I said: takin' property away or prohibitin' property becuz of what someone might do with it.

Guilty till proven innocent.

Again and again: different people have different convictions regarding what others have done, do now, or might do down the road. With their property. So the law has to take into account the past, the present and the future.

Guilty or innocent of what? From who's point of view regarding guns or abortions or vaccinations or conscription or separation of church and state or gay marriage or animal rights.

Ever and always you determining whether someone unjustly deprives others of life, liberty, or property.

Mr. Objectivist right down the line. My way or the highway. One of us vs. one of them. Just pick an issue.

Whether you care or not, if the citizens in your community manage to pass legislation making it illegal for private citizens to own guns...what then? Ruby Ridge, right?

What about...

Oh, there'd be thousands upon thousands of attempted Ruby Ridges, cuz, like the man said: I'm not the only one.

...was unclear?

What about it? If, in any community, certain behaviors are either prescribed or proscribed -- legally -- you either obey the law, or you attempt to elect into office those who will change the laws to reflect your own political prejudices.

Or, sure, you can scowl, "fuck the law, if you want to take my guns, I'll go full Ruby Ridge on you!!"

After all, that's how any number of arrogant, authoritarian, autocratic objectivists view the world. Some re God, others re political dogmas. The insufferable right makes might mentality.

[henry quirk]

Right, I could start here...and then move on to all the rest of them(.)

Or, mebbe, just open the yellow pages, find all the churches, temples, synagogues, etc. within, say, 30 minutes of you and start visitin'. A small investment of time to save your immortal soul.

*

maybe you ought to consider doing that yourself

Nah, I'm good.

*

it doesn't

No, it doesn't.

*

What moves me is the kind of evidence that, say, startles millions around the world. Evidence so profound it brings the scientific, philosophical and theological communities together in the media around the globe. Those big bold headlines: "Human Souls Are Found To Exist"

Well, I think you're outta luck, then.

*

to the extent that they do truly love their life, death can be an excruciating ordeal

Sure, but unlike you, they (and me) aren't runnin' 'round lookin' for a loophole, an exemption, an out. You could talk to the in-forum atheists & amoralists to see how they cope with oblivion.
in fact, on your behalf, I started a thread How do atheists cope with the absence of an afterlife?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=35319

*

let him admit that, in accepting and in respecting the vast and the varied accounts of Christianity around the world he is acknowledging that his own is just one of them, and I'll apologize for thinking that when he argues that there are True Christians, he means only his own understanding of what that means.

Yeah, that's not the deal I was proposin'.

*

thinking may or may not enter the picture

But self-preservation usually does, and when it doesn't then there'll be disaster regardless of the weapons on hand.

*

In almost every episode both parties have access to weapons of some sort --- knives, guns, rifles, shotguns. Instead, what sustains the feuds are the convictions on both sides that how they understand what is right and what is wrong is the most reasonable frame of mind. Then a particular incident will precipitate blind rage on one side or on both sides and the weapons comes out. No bazookas yet though.

So we're talkin' modern day Hatfield & Mcoy stuff, yeah? Or, mebbe, Montagues and Capulets? Jerry Springer crossed with Cops? And, loopin' back: becuz these hillbillies, rednecks, crackers, niggas, defectives, and pinheads do wrong with their property, I should give up mine, why?

*

I'm armed myself.

Would you, if your community banned firearms, give up your revolver?
say yes so I can mock you

*

the Second Amendment

I don't care about the 2nd.

*

who will do the regulating(?)

Why, when it comes to my life, my liberty, my property: me, always me, only me.

*

you determining whether someone unjustly deprives others of life, liberty, or property.

Pretty much, yeah. No offense, biggy, but I'd never let the likes of you determine diddly for me.

*

Mr. Objectivist right down the line.

Sure seems like it.

*

fuck the law

And the law makers and the law followers, yeah.

*

I'll go full Ruby Ridge on you!

Well, Weaver and his bunch didn't go Ruby Ridge on the gov; the gov and folks like you went Ruby Ridge on Weaver.

Generally, the one who crosses the room to throw the first punch is the offender, and the gov and folks like you were that, many times over.

*

The insufferable right makes might mentality.

Me: I prefer the indomitable leave me be or else mentality.

[iambiguous]

Right, I could start here...

https://thebestschools.org/magazine/wor ... -starters/

...and then move on to all the rest of them...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

Or, mebbe, just open the yellow pages, find all the churches, temples, synagogues, etc. within, say, 30 minutes of you and start visitin'. A small investment of time to save your immortal soul.

Nope, no longer an option. My health keeps me more or less confined to this apartment. Nothing life threatening, but I'm just not able to get out and about as I once did.

How about you?

This part:

Of course, maybe you ought to consider doing that yourself. You know, just to be sure that the Deist God really is the One True Path.

I'm sure Mannie can get you started. Or how about Woody Allen: https://youtu.be/9VLcxXz-0w4

You tell us "I'm good". But I'm sure Mannie has explained to you how much better it can be on his own One True Path.

Note to Mannie:

Get back to us on this.

What moves me is the kind of evidence that, say, startles millions around the world. Evidence so profound it brings the scientific, philosophical and theological communities together in the media around the globe. Those big bold headlines: "Human Souls Are Found To Exist"

Well, I think you're outta luck, then.

Again, what I lack of course is your ability to just "think" a soul into existence. You don't need any actual demonstrable proof of it, you merely "believe it".

to the extent that they do truly love their life, death can be an excruciating ordeal

Sure, but unlike you, they (and me) aren't runnin' 'round lookin' for a loophole, an exemption, an out

Come on, henry, this isn't Facebook or Twitter. Here the whole point is to explore life and death with arguments that are derived from the life that we live. Noting that others live very different lives...coming to very different conclusions about living and dying. Then given the tools of philosophy [in places like this] exploring ways to possibly transcend those differences. The search for wisdom, right? Only I root that existentially in dasein, and you in some supernatural entity that provides you with a soul and then hightails it...to where exactly?

let him admit that, in accepting and in respecting the vast and the varied accounts of Christianity around the world -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... ominations -- he is acknowledging that his own is just one of them, and I'll apologize for thinking that when he argues that there are True Christians, he means only his own understanding of what that means. Either in regard to Judgment Day or to guns and abortions.

Come on, henry, even given that there are any number of possible contexts in which different people will have different understandings of what is being defended...of what should be defended. It depends on what, given any community, the law of the land either prescribes or proscribes. And what are laws but, time and again, the political equivalent of "conflicting goods"..

Yeah, that's not the deal I was proposin'.

Note to Mannie:

Pick his proposed deal or mine. Whichever is the toughest, the most challenging, right?

Yep. And if Mr Angry knows the guy he's thinkin' about blowin' sky high just might have comparable weapons, he might decide ventin' ain't in his best interest.

Maybe. It depends on all of the endless circumstantial permutations there are given any particular context. But again, with human emotions, thinking may or may not enter the picture.

But self-preservation usually does, and when it doesn't then there'll be disaster regardless of the weapons on hand.

Please, when self-preservation itself is on the line, our emotions are likely to be all the more intense.

And who but a fool would suppose that a disaster revolving around fist fights is on par with a disaster revolving around bazookas.

In almost every episode both parties have access to weapons of some sort --- knives, guns, rifles, shotguns. Instead, what sustains the feuds are the convictions on both sides that how they understand what is right and what is wrong is the most reasonable frame of mind. Then a particular incident will precipitate blind rage on one side or on both sides and the weapons comes out. No bazookas yet though.

So we're talkin' modern day Hatfield & Mcoy stuff, yeah? Or, mebbe, Montagues and Capulets? Jerry Springer crossed with Cops? And, loopin' back: becuz these hillbillies, rednecks, crackers, niggas, defectives, and pinheads do wrong with their property, I should give up mine, why?

What's that got to do with my point? Both sides insist it's the other side who is "doing wrong" with their property. Both sides take the high road. It only then comes down to the part where an incident ignites a spark that ignites their rage and the weapons they have access to.

I'm not opposed to citizens being armed in today's world. Especially here in America. I'm armed myself.

Would you, if your community banned firearms, give up your revolver?

If it came down to giving it up or being arrested, I would with great reluctance give it up.

In Britain for example...

"The mandatory minimum sentence for those aged 18 and over [who are caught with a gun] is five years' imprisonment, and three years for those aged 16-17 years."

One option I wouldn't pursue is an all out Ruby Ridge confrontation. There, what possibility would there be for me coming out a winner? I'd either be shot dead myself or face a far, far stiffer prison sentence.

On the other hand, given that others live lives very different from mine...and have different sets of options...if they choose a full-blown confrontation, sure, a part of me would applaud them. You know, being "fractured and fragmented" as I am about these "conflicting goods"

say yes so I can mock you

Actually, it's the fact that arrogant, authoritarian objectivists of your ilk feel justified in mocking those who refuse the think and feel and behave exactly as they do that is more my point here.

You and only you get to decide which behaviors deserve to be mocked.

No, I'm focused more on the part of the Second Amendment that reads, "A well regulated Militia". And who will do the regulating if not the government? It then comes down politically [from election to election] to what those regulations actually are.

I don't care about the 2nd.

That's because when the focus here shifts to "A well regulated Militia" in the political wars your side really has no argument to rebut it. Instead those of your ilk prefer the, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" mentality.

To witless:

"Fuck democracy and the rule of law! It's Ruby Ridge, baby!!"

We get that, henry. You're a Bonafide "rugged individual". And you'll be one all the way to the grave. Only as with Ayn Rand and her ilk, if others wish to be rugged individuals too they damn well better think exactly as she did -- as you do -- about, well, everything.

Do you have any idea at all of how you project here as a cartoon character? Utterly predictable. A run-of-the-mill objectivist.

It's not what you defend fiercely -- that could be anything at all up and down the ideological spectrum -- but that you must defend it fiercely. Why? Because that's the anchor -- the psychological security blanket -- you need to embed I in.

I'm trying to unplug you, henry. To give you more options in your life. To take you away from that unsufferable black and white categorical imperative mentality of those like Mannie.

Only with him it's "what would Jesus do"?

How suffocating it must be to ever and always fall back on the one and the only behaviors you are permitted.

[henry quirk]

My health keeps me more or less confined to this apartment. Nothing life threatening, but I'm just not able to get out and about as I once did.

Agoraphobia? Morbid obesity? On the dole, obviously.

Anyway: you have a phone, yes?

*

the whole point is to explore life and death with arguments that are derived from the life that we live

That's your bandwagon. Not seein' anybody, in-forum, climbin' aboard. Must be lonely.

*

when self-preservation itself is on the line, our emotions are likely to be all the more intense

Yep, which highlights what I say: if you know the other guy might be packin', you're gonna think twice before ventin', and, when even self-reservation is negated by hate, all hell is gonna break loose, firearms or not.

*

What's that got to do with my point?

Yeah, I asked the same question: becuz these hillbillies, rednecks, crackers, niggas, defectives, and pinheads do wrong with their property, I should give up mine, why?

*

I would with great reluctance give it up.

Pussy.

*

it's the fact that arrogant, authoritarian objectivists of your ilk feel justified in mocking those who refuse the think and feel and behave exactly as they do

Yep. No different than you (do you read your own posts?).

*

You and only you get to decide which behaviors deserve to be mocked.

Yep, I decide who I'll mock, same as you (do you read your own posts?).

*

That's because when the focus here shifts

Nope. It's natural rights, not constitutional rights.

*

I'm trying to unplug you, henry.

A housebound, morbidly obese Morpheus who can't even pick up the phone is gonna unplug someone who doesn't need unpluggin'.

An excellent choice of occupation, biggy.

[iambiguous]

My health keeps me more or less confined to this apartment. Nothing life threatening, but I'm just not able to get out and about as I once did.

Agoraphobia?

Well, in the vicinity. A life lived on the edge precipitating nervous exhaustion.

Morbid obesity?

A few pounds over.

On the dole, obviously.

Nope. Got over a hundred grand in the bank.

Anyway: you have a phone, yes?

Back to this:

...maybe you ought to consider doing that yourself. You know, just to be sure that the Deist God really is the One True Path.

Start by calling the Vatican.

Come on, henry, this isn't Facebook or Twitter. Here the whole point is to explore life and death with arguments that are derived from the life that we live. Noting that others live very different lives...coming to very different conclusions about living and dying. Then given the tools of philosophy [in places like this] exploring ways to possibly transcend those differences. The search for wisdom, right? Only I root that existentially in dasein, and you in some supernatural entity that provides you with a soul and then hightails it...to where exactly?

That's your bandwagon. Not seein' anybody, in-forum, climbin' aboard. Must be lonely.

Note to others:

Bandwagon? You tell me what his point has to do with mine.

Please, when self-preservation itself is on the line, our emotions are likely to be all the more intense.

And who but a fool would suppose that a disaster revolving around fist fights is on par with a disaster revolving around bazookas.

Yep, which highlights what I say: if you know the other guy might be packin', you're gonna think twice before ventin', and, when even self-reservation is negated by hate, all hell is gonna break loose, firearms or not.

On last night's episode of Fear Thy Neighbor, both men knew the other man was packin'. Each man had at least 10 firearms. And the venting went back and forth until one of them was shot three times and the shooter was sent to prison. Typical. Both sides convinced they were in the right. Both sides tweaking the emotions of the "bad guy". The bullets flying.

And hatred packin' bazookas vs. hatred packin' fists? All hell breaking loose with the same results?

What's that got to do with my point? Both sides insist it's the other side who is "doing wrong" with their property. Both sides take the high road. It only then comes down to the part where an incident ignites a spark that ignites their rage and the weapons they have access to.

Yeah, I asked the same question: becuz these hillbillies, rednecks, crackers, niggas, defectives, and pinheads do wrong with their property, I should give up mine, why?

Again, what's that got to do with my point? Calling other people names and setting them apart from yourself, doesn't change the fact it's not only you who gets to say when others do wrong with their property.

And gun laws are passed in any particular community precisely because different people view private citizens ownings guns [especially military grade weapons] given different sets of assumptions: https://gun-control.procon.org/

If it came down to giving it up or being arrested, I would with great reluctance give it up.

In Britain for example...

"The mandatory minimum sentence for those aged 18 and over [who are caught with a gun] is five years' imprisonment, and three years for those aged 16-17 years."

One option I wouldn't pursue is an all out Ruby Ridge confrontation. There, what possibility would there be for me coming out a winner? I'd either be shot dead myself or face a far, far stiffer prison sentence.

On the other hand, given that others live lives very different from mine...and have different sets of options...if they choose a full-blown confrontation, sure, a part of me would applaud them. You know, being "fractured and fragmented" as I am about these "conflicting goods"

Pussy.

Of course: The sort of juvenile retort I've come to expect at the New ILP. It's just a bit glum to find them here at a forum derived from Philosophy Now magazine.

it's the fact that arrogant, authoritarian objectivists of your ilk feel justified in mocking those who refuse the think and feel and behave exactly as they do

Yep. No different than you (do you read your own posts?).

Oh? Note where I have ever argued that my opinions here are anything other than personal political prejudices derived existentially from the life that I have lived. Just like yours.

I don't care about the 2nd.

That's because when the focus here shifts to "A well regulated Militia" in the political wars your side really has no argument to rebut it. Instead those of your ilk prefer the, "I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands" mentality.

To witless:

"Fuck democracy and the rule of law! It's Ruby Ridge, baby!!"

We get that, henry. You're a Bonafide "rugged individual". And you'll be one all the way to the grave. Only as with Ayn Rand and her ilk, if others wish to be rugged individuals too they damn well better think exactly as she did -- as you do -- about, well, everything.

Do you have any idea at all of how you project here as a cartoon character? Utterly predictable. A run-of-the-mill objectivist.

It's not what you defend fiercely -- that could be anything at all up and down the ideological spectrum -- but that you must defend it fiercely. Why? Because that's the anchor -- the psychological security blanket -- you need to embed I in.

Nope. It's natural rights, not constitutional rights.

Right, natural. Going back to the Deist God who created nature and those like you who through Reason are able to lay claim to the only logically and epistemological sound arguments that there are in regard to buying and selling bazookas.

I'm trying to unplug you, henry. To give you more options in your life. To take you away from that unsufferable black and white categorical imperative mentality of those like Mannie.

Only with him it's "what would Jesus do"?

How suffocating it must be to ever and always fall back on the one and the only behaviors you are permitted..

A housebound, morbidly obese Morpheus who can't even pick up the phone is gonna unplug someone who doesn't need unpluggin'.

An excellent choice of occupation, biggy.

Okay, then back to this:

"Do you have any idea at all of how you project here as a cartoon character?"

The objectivist as caricature.

[henry quirk]

Start by calling the Vatican.

You're the one with the immortal soul on the line: you call.

*

both men knew the other man was packin'.

Like I said: when even self-(p)reservation is negated by hate, all hell is gonna break loose, firearms or not.

*

All hell breaking loose with the same results?

Bigger, is all. Like July 4th.

*

it's not only you who gets to say when others do wrong with their property.

All I say is: if you use your life, liberty, or property to unjustly deprive another of his life, liberty, or property, you stink. Shall we go over just & unjust again?

*

gun laws are passed in any particular community

I don't care.

*

juvenile retort

*

where I have ever argued that my opinions

Nope. Not about that.

your ilk feel justified in mocking

About that...which you do as much as anyone else here.

*

That's because when the focus here shifts

Nope. The 2nd is meaningless. Words on paper. My right to property, your right to property, doesn't come from words on paper.

*

Going back to the Deist God

I think so. Good for you He apparently doesn't care if you believe in Him or not.

*

"Do you have any idea at all of how you project here as a cartoon character?"

Bugs is my hero: