WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Age]

OK, so we’re still stuck at either everyone has guns or no one (except the police and the military) has guns.

We are ONLY so-called 'STUCK' here IF people WANT TO BE so-called 'STUCK HERE'.

If everyone has at least one gun, theoretically everyone would be able to protect himself from someone else who has a gun.

And, CONVERSELY, IF NO one HAD a gun, then there would NOT be ABSOLUTELY ANY who would NEED to PROTECT "them" 'self" FROM someone WITH a gun.

If no one has any guns, then theoretically there would be no need for anyone to protect himself.

Correct.

In practice, lots of people have guns in the US.

WHY, they are ALL REALLY UNNECESSARY?

Therefore, on the whole it would be theoretically and practically more sensible to permit everyone to have guns.

WHY?

WHY do you think or BELIEVE that absolutely EVERY one HAVING a gun would be MORE 'sensible'?

And,

WHY do you think or BELIEVE permitting ALL children to have guns would be MORE 'sensible'?

Sadly, I must concede that Skepdik has been right all along.

WHY?

And, WHAT has "skepdick" even been SAYING, or ARGUING FOR, EXACTLY, here, all along?

[Age]

Q.E.D ^ 2

Your exaggerations have no end.

I don’t pursue “nothing but destruction”. I have surgical precision in my pursuit of the destruction of philosophy.

Nothing more - nothing less.

I have no desire to destruct anything non-Philosophical. Merely removing a cancer.


There is no need to aggrandize myself; and I don’t know if I am a “big shot” but in terms of being a police officer and a distributed systems guy - I am both.

Is your mutually exclusive brain failing to cope with this fact; is time-sharing a novel idea to you; or is it the fact that a Bobby on the beat understands your “field of expertise” better than you do that pisses you off?

Do the police officers in South Afrika still wear swastikas?

Not yet.

What do you mean by, 'Not yet'?

Are they going to be introducing them sometime?

Or, do you WISH they would?

Or, something else?

[Age]

I don’t pursue “nothing but destruction”. I have surgical precision in my pursuit of the destruction of philosophy.

The cringe.

Way less cringey than being caught doing philosophy.

Says one IN a PHILOSOPHY forum.

[Skepdick]

Do the police officers in South Afrika still wear swastikas?

Not yet.

What do you mean by, 'Not yet'?

Are they going to be introducing them sometime?

Or, do you WISH they would?

Or, something else?

Age, are you still a virgin or not yet?

The question was loaded. My answer blew up the framing. Do you understand how that works? Doesn't look like it..

[Age]

We could start by mocking the futility of Grammar Nazis.

So how you gonna destroy philosophy?

By self-application.

Get philosophical about philosophy and enjoy the fireworks.

So, in other words, you are going to ACTUAL USE or DO the VERY 'thing' that you CLAIM you WANT to DESTROY here, correct?

[Skepdick]

So, in other words, you are going to ACTUAL USE or DO the VERY 'thing' that you CLAIM you WANT to DESTROY here, correct?

Of course! I am going to use it against itself.

By your exact logic on firearms - we should ban philosophy. So I that it can't be used to destroy philosophy.

[Age]

By self-application.

Get philosophical about philosophy and enjoy the fireworks.

I admire Philosophy Now, as I never tire of telling people, I've written articles for the magazine, but even I would suggest you are being optimistic if your strategy for destroying philosophy is to rail against it to a handful of people on this forum. You need to think bigger. Whatever your particular issue with philosophy, the problem you have is that people will almost certainly interpret the data they are presented with in a variety of ways, regardless of your contempt. Even if you were justified in doing so, I very much doubt you will ever stop people rationalising their experiences.

Of course you admire Philosophy (or as you call it - storytelling), but it's infnitely amusing to me that "Telling stories." is also a South African euphemism for lying.

I am thinking bigger. I am thinking biggest even. This forum is but a symptom of the broader situation.

WILL you INFORM us of what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which you HOPE to DESTROY?

Just SAYING or USING the 'philosophy' or 'philosophical' words will NEVER 'suffice', as there are just about AS MANY DIFFERENT 'definitions' for those words as there ARE people here.

So, REALLY, what are you 'TRYING TO' ACHIEVE here, in this forum, and in this thread?

If people admitted to themselves that they are engaging in rationalisation, and not reason we'd be ahead of the curve... at least then we could have an honest discourse as to what philosophy is good for.

I am YET to even HEAR how 'you', "skepdick", even define the 'philosophy' word here, EXACTLY?

Let alone be able to INFORM 'you' EXACTLY 'what' 'philosophy', itself, ACTUALLY IS 'good' FOR, PRECISELY.

If, and WHEN, 'you' EVER BECOME BRAVE ENOUGH to just do 'that', THEN we can HAVE A Truly Honest DISCOURSE. BUT, as long as 'you' KEEP RUNNING AWAY and HIDING, HAVING ANY sort of DISCOURSE WITH 'you' IS IMPOSSIBLE.

[Sculptor]

How do you determine who is a nutjob - indeed, any human that secretly has decided to kill a school full of children?

Your inability to tell the difference sounds like a you-problem.

Most people aren't nutjobs. Why should most people be banned from owning guns?

YOU FAILED. You know it is impossible restrict guns from people that have a hidden idea to mass murder children.

I'm sure many on the forum would agree with me that it is selfish kunts like you that are ultimately responsible for every childs death at these killings.

Sadly the police in the USA simply do not have the power to take those guns off nutcases because of the law as it stands.
The USA should insist on the original ammendment and gurantee a barrel loading musket for every man who wants to be part of a well regulated militia.
Sadly, again the NRA are fat too ignorant and stupid to understand the meaning of "well regulated"...
Ho Hum.

[Skepdick]

Your inability to tell the difference sounds like a you-problem.

Most people aren't nutjobs. Why should most people be banned from owning guns?

YOU FAILED. You know it is impossible restrict guns from people that have a hidden idea to mass murder children.

I'm sure many on the forum would agree with me that it is selfish kunts like you that are ultimately responsible for every childs death at these killings.

Sadly the police in the USA simply do not have the power to take those guns off nutcases because of the law as it stands.
The USA should insist on the original ammendment and gurantee a barrel loading musket for every man who wants to be part of a well regulated militia.

If the 2nd amendment applies to muskets only then the 1st amendment applies to ideas distributed using the Gutenberg press only.

Sadly, again the NRA are fat too ignorant and stupid to understand the meaning of "well regulated"...
Ho Hum.

And the rest of the idiots (like you) are too stupid to understand "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Age]

What makes you any different from all the other loud mouthed trouble makers who pass through this forum? It's easy to cause a punch up, but you're not going to change anything. When folks get bored of you, they'll just go back to what they were doing.

Making people aware that the primary pursuit of philosophers is self-amusement and boredom-avoidance sounds like a worth-while public service.

Are 'you' EVEN AWARE "skepdick" that 'you' are 'here', in this PHILOSOPHY forum WRITING?

If yes, then 'what' are 'you' 'here' FOR, EXACTLY?

[Harbal]

YOU FAILED. You know it is impossible restrict guns from people that have a hidden idea to mass murder children.

I'm sure many on the forum would agree with me that it is selfish kunts like you that are ultimately responsible for every childs death at these killings.

As you know, I speak for a good many of the members here, and I can confirm that we do agree with you.

So you also agree with genital control towards prevenging child rape? Or are you going for a U-turn here?

I used to have a problem with genital control, but not so much these days.

[Age]

BUT 'that murder' may have well PREVENTED MORE atrocities from occurring, which you have ALREADY COMMITED.

In a civilised society we don't murder people because they'll be more trouble in future.

OBVIOUSLY. And the REASON for 'this' IS BECAUSE 'we' do NOT KNOW 'the future', FOR SURE.

Oh, and by the way, if you had NOT USED the 'civilised' word, then I would have completely and utterly DISAGREED WITH you here. As in SOME societies they DO MURDER or KILL people because, well it IS ASSUMED anyway, that they WILL be more trouble, in the future.

We just send them to an island and call it Australia.

Is this WHY 'you' ARE on 'that island'?

[Skepdick]

I used to have a problem with genital control, but not so much these days.

Yeah - we have pills for that stuff nowadays.

[attofishpi]

And the rest of the idiots (like you) are too stupid to understand "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

We are all born with arms, and real men know that is all they need in a decent society. (clearly not the idiot one you reside in)

[Age]

..and it's bloody lovely down here, thanks very much ol' blighty!

Mate, if a prison island full of convicts could arm itself gun control seemss like a futile exercise against law-abiding citizens.

WHAT?

If 'the island' HAD FULL 'gun control', that is; NO guns, then NO one, obviously including ANY so-called "convict", could arm "them" 'self' with a gun, OBVIOUSLY.