WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Skepdick]

Establish an open and respectful communication.

It's incredibly disrespectful to distrust people without any evidence.

Be transparent in order to build trust.

Why do we have to build trust? It's the default position unless evidence to the contrary is presented.

Reframe failure and mistakes as opportunities for learning and growth.

Not possible until trust is achieved.

[Harbal]

I would, but I'm worried that you might feel threatened at the sight of my pencil, and shoot me.

I am most threatened by your ignorance and you are still alive.

So you feel that you are performing at a higher level than I am, do you?

[Skepdick]

So you feel that you are performing at a higher level than I am, do you?

It's not even a feeling.

I am not the one who's struggling with basic epistemology.

[Harbal]

So you feel that you are performing at a higher level than I am, do you?

It's not even a feeling.

I am not the one who's struggling with basic epistemology.

I haven't attempted to go anywhere near it, let alone struggle with it. I don't bother with that sort of nonsense. You'll be name dropping all the long gone "great" philosophers next.

[Skepdick]

So you feel that you are performing at a higher level than I am, do you?

It's not even a feeling.

I am not the one who's struggling with basic epistemology.

I haven't attempted to go anywhere near it

It shows.

[commonsense]

1 …what 'we', REALLY, NEED MORE OF is a continual DECREASE of guns in society, that is; IF 'we' REALLY do WANT to live in Peace and Harmony together, right?

2 WHY, they are ALL REALLY UNNECESSARY?

3 But I did I EVER SAY here that guns ARE UNNECESSARY?

4 Also, WHY do you SAY and CLAIM hear that guns are UNNECESSARY, UNLESS LOTS of people already have guns?

5 WHEN, EXACTLY, is there some so-called 'tipping point' when guns are NOT NECESSARY to when guns are, supposedly, NECESSARY?

6 WHY?

7 But WHO is suggesting or making the CLAIM that just because LOTS of people have guns, then among them' there ARE so-called 'aberrant gun owners'?

8 Who is NOT to SAY that ONLY the following ones to obtain guns WILL BE the ACTUAL 'aberrant gun owners'?

9 Or, conversely, could it NOT be a fact that if just one or two people owned guns, which would be very FEW people in say the so-called "united states of america", in the days when this is being written, who one of or BOTH were actually 'aberrant gun owners', now would it be WISE for absolutely EVERYn one to gno out and obtain guns, just because of one or two here? .

10 Would it NOT be smarter and WISER to just RID these people of those guns, COMPLETELY?

11 Also, WHY ONLY STOP at guns?

12 For example, if there ARE 'aberrant gun owners', in society, WHY NOT 'the rest' get rocket launchers, or weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear warheads, in order to 'protect' "themselves" from 'those aberrant gun owners'?

13 WHY NOT 'the rest' get rocket launchers, or weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear warheads, in order to 'protect' "themselves" from 'those aberrant gun owners'?

14 For SURELY 'you' would WANT TO DO ALL 'you' COULD to 'protect' 'you', and a VERY SELECT 'few' around 'you' right?

15 Would 'you' REALLY be doing the 'Right thing' if 'you' STOPPED at just guns ONLY to 'protect' 'you', and a FEW "others" only, from 'those' types of 'aberrant gun owners'?

16 WHERE is 'your' "american spirit" here. [sic]

17 Load "yourself" UP WITH MORE and BIGGER WEAPONRY than what THE "other" has, is the 'right way' of thinking and doing, correct? .

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

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

20 So, WHY has "skepdick's" views on so-called 'pro-gun' been, supposedly, right all along, EXACTLY?

21 Which is more or less what just about ALL of 'you', posters, DO here?

22 …can one lie so much that 'they' end up BELIEVING 'their' OWN lies?

23 Or, can one BELIEVE some 'thing' so much that 'they' may end up lying, even unintentionally?

24 If 'you' WANT to CONTINUE to CLAIM that 'you' CAN 'deceive' "your" 'self' here "skepdick", then EXPLAIN HOW MANY times 'you' have done 'this' ALREADY, WHY 'you' DO 'this', and HOW 'you' DO 'this', EXACTLY?

25 But, if 'you' REALLY BELIEVE that 'you' CAN 'deceive' "your" 'self' here "skepdick", then this might EXPLAIN BETTER HOW and WHY 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' ARE A so-called 'police man' here?

1 Right, or we need more guns.

2 Yes, but they exist nonetheless.

3 See question 2.

4 Asked and answered.

5 Long ago is when.

6 Asked and answered.

7 I made that suggestion.

8 No one.

9 Yes.

10 No.

11 No reason.

12 No reason.

13 See #12.

14 Right.

15 No, probably not.

16 In my heart, mind and soul.

17 Correct.

18 See#10.

19 Same as above.

20 Ask Skepdick.

21 Yes.

22 Yes.

23 Yes.

24 Ask Skepdick.

25 Ask Skepdick.

[Age]

Which, by the way "skepdick", is CERTAINLY NOT 'a policeman'.

So we can add another liar to the list.

LOL

It appears that 'you' CHOSEN the MISINTERPRETED version here, ONCE AGAIN, "skepdick", and DECIDED TO JUMP TO that MISINTERPRETATION as being the ultimate and FINAL CONCLUSION here.

[Age]

The ABSOLUTE LACK OF 'maturity' here IS BLINDING.

Lack of maturity is still infinitely better than the level of immaturity displayed by Age.

There's no argument that would convince you that you are wrong about firearm ownreship, so the only valid argument is "Go fuck yourself"

Do you really think SAYING, 'Go fuck yourself', is a clear sign of ANY 'maturity' AT ALL, especially in A discussion anywhere, let alone in a philosophy forum of all places?

Also, LOL "skepdick", what do you even think or BELIEVE I have ACTUALLY SAID, which could even be supposedly, and so-called, 'wrong' here, EXACTLY?

And by the way, ANY sound AND valid argument would be some 'thing' that I could NOT refute. So there ACTUALLY ARE arguments that I do AGREE WITH and ACCEPT.

[Age]

Which, by the way "skepdick", is CERTAINLY NOT 'a policeman'.

I think the number coming to that conclusion is steadily growing.

Indeed. The bandwagon of liars is steadily growing.

LOL But I NEVER SAID ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' ABOUT 'you' here, "skepdick", which could even be a 'lie'.

How much more evidence does one need that philosophy leads one away from truth?

The way 'you' WRITE and SPEAK are GREAT examples of just how QUICKLY ' you', people, BACK in those OLDEN DAYS would MISCONSTRUE 'things' AND START BELIEVING 'your' OWN VERY MISINTERPRETATIONS and MISCONCEPTIONS. WHICH CERTAINLY DID LEAD 'you', people, VERY FAR AWAY FROM the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things'.

I will, ONCE AGAIN, suggest that you SEEK OUT and OBTAIN CLARIFICATION BEFORE you DO what you ARE DOING here.

[Age]

Establish an open and respectful communication.

It's incredibly disrespectful to distrust people without any evidence.

Is it 'incredibly respectful' to MAKE CLAIMS, but then NOT back up and support THOSE CLAIMS when QUESTIONED ABOUT, and thus ASKED TO?

Be transparent in order to build trust.

Why do we have to build trust? It's the default position [/quote]

Did 'you' 'trust' the one 'you' SHOT DEAD "skepdick"? Was 'trust' 'your' 'default position' at that time?

unless evidence to the contrary is presented.

So, one could 'trust' "another", that is; until the "other" produces a pencil, for example, then it may be all right to SHOOT that "other" DEAD, just because 'trust' had gone and one felt 'threatened' somewhat, right?

If one just happened to be carrying a gun around with them, then being ABLE TO SHOOT "others" becomes so much MORE EASIER and SIMPLER. By the way, WHY would one who, supposedly, has 'trust' as their 'default position' feel the NEED to carry a gun around with them anyway?

Reframe failure and mistakes as opportunities for learning and growth.

Not possible until trust is achieved.

What do 'you' think or BELIEVE the words, 'Reframe failure and mistakes as opportunities for learning and growth', here is IN RELATION TO, EXACTLY?

[Skepdick]

Is it 'incredibly respectful' to MAKE CLAIMS, but then NOT back up and support THOSE CLAIMS when QUESTIONED ABOUT, and thus ASKED TO?

It's incredibly disrespectful to waste people's time with your own confusion.

If you distrust my claims - why would you suddenly trust my backup of my claims? What changed?

Did 'you' 'trust' the one 'you' SHOT DEAD "skepdick"? Was 'trust' 'your' 'default position' at that time?

Of course it was my default position. And then evidence to move me off my default emerged.

So, one could 'trust' "another", that is; until the "other" produces a pencil, for example, then it may be all right to SHOOT that "other" DEAD, just because 'trust' had gone and one felt 'threatened' somewhat, right?

Why are you threatened by pencils; or by guns not being used to harm you, Age?

If one just happened to be carrying a gun around with them, then being ABLE TO SHOOT "others" becomes so much MORE EASIER and SIMPLER. By the way, WHY would one who, supposedly, has 'trust' as their 'default position' feel the NEED to carry a gun around with them anyway?

It's precisely because I have a way to deal with those rare individuals who shouldn't be trusted is why I don't have to distrust everyone by default.

[Age]

1 …what 'we', REALLY, NEED MORE OF is a continual DECREASE of guns in society, that is; IF 'we' REALLY do WANT to live in Peace and Harmony together, right?

2 WHY, they are ALL REALLY UNNECESSARY?

3 But I did I EVER SAY here that guns ARE UNNECESSARY?

4 Also, WHY do you SAY and CLAIM hear that guns are UNNECESSARY, UNLESS LOTS of people already have guns?

5 WHEN, EXACTLY, is there some so-called 'tipping point' when guns are NOT NECESSARY to when guns are, supposedly, NECESSARY?

6 WHY?

7 But WHO is suggesting or making the CLAIM that just because LOTS of people have guns, then among them' there ARE so-called 'aberrant gun owners'?

8 Who is NOT to SAY that ONLY the following ones to obtain guns WILL BE the ACTUAL 'aberrant gun owners'?

9 Or, conversely, could it NOT be a fact that if just one or two people owned guns, which would be very FEW people in say the so-called "united states of america", in the days when this is being written, who one of or BOTH were actually 'aberrant gun owners', now would it be WISE for absolutely EVERYn one to gno out and obtain guns, just because of one or two here? .

10 Would it NOT be smarter and WISER to just RID these people of those guns, COMPLETELY?

11 Also, WHY ONLY STOP at guns?

12 For example, if there ARE 'aberrant gun owners', in society, WHY NOT 'the rest' get rocket launchers, or weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear warheads, in order to 'protect' "themselves" from 'those aberrant gun owners'?

13 WHY NOT 'the rest' get rocket launchers, or weapons of mass destruction, or nuclear warheads, in order to 'protect' "themselves" from 'those aberrant gun owners'?

14 For SURELY 'you' would WANT TO DO ALL 'you' COULD to 'protect' 'you', and a VERY SELECT 'few' around 'you' right?

15 Would 'you' REALLY be doing the 'Right thing' if 'you' STOPPED at just guns ONLY to 'protect' 'you', and a FEW "others" only, from 'those' types of 'aberrant gun owners'?

16 WHERE is 'your' "american spirit" here. [sic]

17 Load "yourself" UP WITH MORE and BIGGER WEAPONRY than what THE "other" has, is the 'right way' of thinking and doing, correct? .

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

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

20 So, WHY has "skepdick's" views on so-called 'pro-gun' been, supposedly, right all along, EXACTLY?

21 Which is more or less what just about ALL of 'you', posters, DO here?

22 …can one lie so much that 'they' end up BELIEVING 'their' OWN lies?

23 Or, can one BELIEVE some 'thing' so much that 'they' may end up lying, even unintentionally?

24 If 'you' WANT to CONTINUE to CLAIM that 'you' CAN 'deceive' "your" 'self' here "skepdick", then EXPLAIN HOW MANY times 'you' have done 'this' ALREADY, WHY 'you' DO 'this', and HOW 'you' DO 'this', EXACTLY?

25 But, if 'you' REALLY BELIEVE that 'you' CAN 'deceive' "your" 'self' here "skepdick", then this might EXPLAIN BETTER HOW and WHY 'you' BELIEVE that 'you' ARE A so-called 'police man' here?

1 Right, or we need more guns.

But owning MORE guns does NOT lead to Peace NOR Harmony. As can be CLEARLY SEEN in the days when this is being written, as was PROVED True, in those days when guns and weapons were around.

2 Yes, but they exist nonetheless.

Human created 'pollution', for example, is ALSO NOT necessary, but because 'it' exists, nonetheless, then is 'this' ANY reason to CONTINUE creating pollution and to CONTINUE to keep creating MORE and MORE pollution?

3 See question 2.

So, did I, or did I NOT, EVER SAY guns ARE NECESSARY?

4 Asked and answered.

'you' NEVER ANSWERED 'that QUESTION' ANYWHERE here. And, if you WANT to CLAIM that you DID, then a CONSIDERATE 'link' TO 'it', or a 'copy and paste' OF 'it', would be MUCH APPRECIATED.

5 Long ago is when.

So, in other words, 'you' have NO REAL IDEA, and 'you' ARE just PRESUMING that 'it' DID HAPPEN, SOME TIME.

6 Asked and answered.

'you' NEVER ANSWERED, 'WHY guns became, supposedly, NECESSARY?'

7 I made that suggestion.

HOW do 'you' DISTINGUISH, EXACTLY, the DIFFERENCE between so-called 'aberrant gun owners' from 'non aberrant gun owners'?

In other words, what IS 'accepted gun ownership', and to WHO, EXACTLY?

8 No one.

So, what this ACTUALLY MEANS is that the 'current' MISBEHAVIOR in society, in the days when this being written, might ACTUALLY get FAR WORSE, If EVERY one was to own a gun.

9 Yes.

So, to you, just because one or two people own guns, then EVERY one "ELSE" should OWN guns AS WELL, in order to 'protect' "themselves" from just that one or two people who owned guns originally.

Can you REALLY NOT SEE the ABSOLUTELY ABSURDITY of 'this'?

10 No.

So, to you, it is NOT SMARTER and WISER to RID 'the world' of the just one or two guns in existence and instead 'arm' EVERY one "ELSE" WITH guns.

11 No reason.

Okay, so to you it is a MUCH BETTER idea if EVERY one KEPT 'arming' "themselves" with BIGGER and BIGGER, and continually MORE and MORE EFFICIENT WEAPONS and KILLING machines rather than just RIDDING 'the world' of one, two, or more guns.

12 No reason.

So you can NOT, REALLY, SEE ANY reason WHY EVERY one should 'arm' "themselves" WITH BIGGER and BETTER KILLING machines. Yet you still think or BELIEVE that 'this' is a MUCH BETTER idea than just taking ALL weapons out of society/'the world'.

13 See #12.

you have NO reason AT ALL for what you consider to be a BETTER idea here.

14 Right.

But RIDING 'the world' of ALL weapons would NOT protect you BETTER than a continual increase of weapons and of bigger weapons would.

15 No, probably not.

So, you only THINK that it is 'probably not' the 'Right thing' to do. I will INFORM you that it is DEFINITELY NOT the ACTUAL 'Right thing' to do.

16 In my heart, mind and soul.

Do 'you', REALLY, HAVE or POSSESS a 'heart', 'mind' AND 'soul'?

If yes, then will 'you' INFORM 'us' of who and/or what 'you' ARE, EXACTLY, and HOW 'you' could HAVE, or POSSESS, 'those three things', and then DEFINE what 'those three things' ARE, EXACTLY?

THEN will 'you' INFORM 'us' of HOW, EXACTLY, some so-called "american spirit" could come to exist in the so-called 'your heart', 'your mind', and 'your soul', EXACTLY?

If yes to both, then GREAT.

But if no to either, then WHY NOT?

17 Correct.

'This' is just HOW Truly STUPID and INSANE SOME adult human beings, back in those days, HAD ACTUALLY BECAME.

'This one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES, WHOLEHEARTEDLY, that, 'Loading "one's" 'self' UP WITH MORE and BIGGER WEAPONRY than what THE "other" has, is the 'right way' of THINKING and DOING.

And what IS Truly AMAZING to WATCH and OBSERVE happening here is that 'this one' started this thread thinking or BELIEVING the EXACT OPPOSITE of this here.

SO, just WITHIN a few days, and in fact with just one minuscule post, 'this one' was ABLE TO be CONVINCED as some 'thing' as ABSURD and RIDICULOUS AS; EVERY one SHOULD 'load' "themselves' UP with MORE BIGGER and BIGGER WEAPONS, and the TOTALLY ILLOGICAL PART, to 'protect' "themselves" FROM "themselves".

18 See#10.

But 'this question' was NOT a 'Yes' NOR a 'No' answer question.

19 Same as above.

20 Ask Skepdick.

So you FOLLOW and thus ARE GUIDED by "another's" VIEWS, but you, "yourself", do NOT even KNOW WHY 'those views' are, SUPPOSEDLY, 'right'.

21 Yes.

22 Yes.

23 Yes.

24 Ask Skepdick.

I DID.

25 Ask Skepdick.

I DID.

THANK you PROFUSELY for CLARIFYING here. It IS VERY REFRESHING to SEE. and HEAR.

[Skepdick]

But owning MORE guns does NOT lead to Peace NOR Harmony. As can be CLEARLY SEEN in the days when this is being written, as was PROVED True, in those days when guns and weapons were around.

Yeah. It does.

To the left of this graph were the days when we had less guns around.

trends.png

[Harbal]

But owning MORE guns does NOT lead to Peace NOR Harmony. As can be CLEARLY SEEN in the days when this is being written, as was PROVED True, in those days when guns and weapons were around.

Yeah. It does.

To the left of this graph were the days when we had less guns around.

trends.png

Anybody can draw a graph that shows whatever they want it to show.

[Age]

Is it 'incredibly respectful' to MAKE CLAIMS, but then NOT back up and support THOSE CLAIMS when QUESTIONED ABOUT, and thus ASKED TO?

It's incredibly disrespectful to waste people's time with your own confusion.

But WHY would absolutely ANY one so-call 'waste their OWN time' WITH "another's" ALLEGED 'confusion'?

If you distrust my claims -

When have I EVER so-called 'distrusted' 'your' CLAIMS, "skepdick?

I just ASK 'you' CLARIFYING QUESTIONS ABOUT 'your' CLAIMS, and then just WAIT, patiently, to SEE if 'you' CAN ACTUALLY back up and support 'those CLAIMS.

why would you suddenly trust my backup of my claims? What changed?

WHY have 'you', ONCE AGAIN, TWISTED and DISTORTED my ACTUAL WORDS AROUND, and then, ONCE AGAIN, proceeded from 'there', that is; FROM 'your' OWN PRE-ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, ONLY?

And WHEN do 'you' IMAGINE 'you' have backed up 'your CLAIMS' here?

Did 'you' 'trust' the one 'you' SHOT DEAD "skepdick"? Was 'trust' 'your' 'default position' at that time?

Of course it was my default position. And then evidence to move me off my default emerged.

I would suggest NEXT TIME 'you' OBTAIN ACTUAL PROOF, and NOT JUST 'evidence'.

The reason WHY would be VERY OBVIOUS, right?

So, one could 'trust' "another", that is; until the "other" produces a pencil, for example, then it may be all right to SHOOT that "other" DEAD, just because 'trust' had gone and one felt 'threatened' somewhat, right?

Why are you threatened by pencils not being used to stab you, Age?

Here we have ANOTHER GREAT example of ATTEMPTING TO DEFLECT.

See, what 'this one' here is CLAIMING that 'its' so-called 'default position' IS that 'it' TRUSTS ABSOLUTELY EVERY one, that is; WITHIN ANY 'second' absolutely ALL 'trust' CAN BE completely and utterly LOST, or GONE, and 'this one' COULD and WOULD SHOOT 'you' DEAD. As 'it' has PROVED to HAVE DONE, ALREADY. And, all it could take to LOOSE ALL 'trust' and BE SHOT DEAD by 'this one' is just ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that 'it' PERCEIVES to be so-called 'EVIDENCE', and 'THREATENING', which could just be by PRESENTING a pencil, for example, to 'this one'.

ALSO, what 'this one' could CLAIM IS 'EVIDENCE' could be ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' that 'it' WANTED TO JUST EVEN IMAGINE UP.

If one just happened to be carrying a gun around with them, then being ABLE TO SHOOT "others" becomes so much MORE EASIER and SIMPLER. By the way, WHY would one who, supposedly, has 'trust' as their 'default position' feel the NEED to carry a gun around with them anyway?

It's precisely because I have a way to deal with those rare individuals who shouldn't be trusted is why I don't have to distrust everyone by default.

LOL ANOTHER VERY CLEAR 'freudian slip' here.

LOL 'my 'default position' IS 'trust' BUT then there ARE 'those who should NOT be trusted'.

LOL "skepdick" the amount of INCONSISTENCIES, CONTRADICTIONS, and/or HYPOCRISY in what you SAY and WRITE here, there is NO REAL WONDER WHY 'you' are NOT believed as OFTEN as 'you' ARE. And this IS WITHOUT even mentioning nor talking ABOUT the amount of times 'you' TWIST and DISTORT what "others" SAY and WRITE when 'TRYING TO' DEFLECT or HIDE FROM the ACTUAL REFUTATIONS and COUNTERS of 'your CLAIMS'.