Philosophy Now Forum

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:53 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:38 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:35 pm Your inability to navigate the complexities of life is hardly a problem with the planet.

It's a problem with you.

Yes, I have a problem having to navigate people. I have no problem with life in general. It's the people that seem to create all the problems.

I think we should just resort back to being apes and chimps and monkies, that are not held accountable for their killing sprees, that would be less stressful actually.

I'd much prefer the simple life, to the man made complexities.

So you are a misanthrope and a sociopath.

Good to know.

Skep, cut it out—quit name calling. You’re better than that and your arguments are, too.

And yes you Skepdick, and I have both figured out that it is no less stressful living as a wild animal, they too have their moments of grief and strife in life, they are more prone to suffer than we are I guess, having no medical care or means to protect themselves against their predators. They are all just sitting ducks I suppose.

So yeah, heck, it's not looking good is it. But if you like living, then good for you Skepdick, but living this life is not for everyone. I know you must know that.

If I could have chosen, I would rather have never existed, but that's not possible, none of us have that luxury, and just because I would rather have never been born does not make me a sociopath. I have no problem with those people who enjoy living this human life. But I do not have to enjoy what other people choose to do to prolong their time on earth by using guns to protect them from other people who are seen as a threat to their property and livelyhood.

I just think whatever happens will happen and there is nothing I can do to control whatever happens. That's why protecting ourselves is in my opinion a waste of time and energy, and pointless, even in what I think is a civilised world, it's still pointless to think we can protect ourselves from ourselves, even if we are civil or not, it's really hard to tell what defines a civil human life anymore.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 5:26 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:53 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:38 pm

Yes, I have a problem having to navigate people. I have no problem with life in general. It's the people that seem to create all the problems.

I think we should just resort back to being apes and chimps and monkies, that are not held accountable for their killing sprees, that would be less stressful actually.

I'd much prefer the simple life, to the man made complexities.

So you are a misanthrope and a sociopath.

Good to know.

Skep, cut it out—quit name calling. You’re better than that and your arguments are, too.

And the same goes for DAM.

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 5:26 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:53 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:38 pm

Yes, I have a problem having to navigate people. I have no problem with life in general. It's the people that seem to create all the problems.

I think we should just resort back to being apes and chimps and monkies, that are not held accountable for their killing sprees, that would be less stressful actually.

I'd much prefer the simple life, to the man made complexities.

So you are a misanthrope and a sociopath.

Good to know.

Skep, cut it out—quit name calling. You’re better than that and your arguments are, too.

I think you've misunderstood - I am not "name calling" in the sense that I am not at all attacking him in any way.

I am merely pointing out what the facts spell out.

He dislikes and distrusts people. Believes people are the source of problems with no mention about people being the source of all solutions too.
This is pertinent in understanding why somebody like that would be against other people owning guns.

This is an important psychological insight into the debate in general. If one's world-view is (generally speaking) that human beings are good, decent, gentle, loving creatures who just want to get on with their lives then it makes no sense why we might distrust them with firearms in general. Of course there are particular cases where the general principle doesn't applyy but the debate is about default choice - policy/law.

Allow guns by default (innocent until proven guilty) EXCEPT...
Versus
Ban guns (guilty until proven innocent) EXCEPT...

It's really quite unfortunate that gun owners get painted as the paranoid ones, when we are the ones willing to trust the general population with the "dangerous weapons made for killing".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 5:59 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 5:26 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:53 pm
So you are a misanthrope and a sociopath.

Good to know.

Skep, cut it out—quit name calling. You’re better than that and your arguments are, too.

I think you've misunderstood - I am not "name calling" in the sense that I am not at all attacking him in any way.

I am merely pointing out what the facts spell out.

He dislikes and distrusts people. Believes people are the source of problems with no mention about people being the source of all solutions too.
This is pertinent in understanding why somebody like that would be against other people owning guns.

This is an important psychological insight into the debate in general. If one's world-view is (generally speaking) that human beings are good, decent, gentle, loving creatures who just want to get on with their lives then it makes no sense why we might distrust them with firearms in general. Of course there are particular cases where the general principle doesn't applyy but the debate is about default choice.

Allow guns by default (innocent until proven guilty) EXCEPT...
Versus
Ban guns (guilty until...?) EXCEPT...

It's really quite unfortunate that gun owners get painted as the paranoid ones, when we are the ones willing to trust the general population with "dangerous weapons".

So you can conclude that he’s a misanthrope and a sociopath based solely on his posts?

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 6:12 pm So you can conclude that he’s a misanthrope and a sociopath based solely on his posts?

Sure it's the recurring anti-social/anti-society theme in his words.

misanthrope noun a person who dislikes humankind and avoids human society.

sociopath noun a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:38 pm Yes, I have a problem having to navigate people. I have no problem with life in general. It's the people that seem to create all the problems.

I think we should just resort back to being apes and chimps and monkies, that are not held accountable for their killing sprees, that would be less stressful actually.

I'd much prefer the simple life, to the man made complexities.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 6:14 pm

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 6:12 pm So you can conclude that he’s a misanthrope and a sociopath based solely on his posts?

Sure it's the recurring anti-social/anti-society theme in his words.

misanthrope noun a person who dislikes humankind and avoids human society.

sociopath noun a person with a personality disorder manifesting itself in extreme antisocial attitudes and behaviour.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 2:38 pm Yes, I have a problem having to navigate people. I have no problem with life in general. It's the people that seem to create all the problems.

I think we should just resort back to being apes and chimps and monkies, that are not held accountable for their killing sprees, that would be less stressful actually.

I'd much prefer the simple life, to the man made complexities.

OK, I get it.

Must the only solutions offered for this sticky issue be all or nothing? Does it have to be everyone has guns or no one (I.e. no private citizen) has guns? Is there no middle ground? Can’t any of us come up with a compromise?

Depending on whatever argument you choose to accept, guns are unsafe or necessary for self protection, guaranteed by the Constitution or unimagined by the Framers, and so on.

I would propose that it should only be illegal to sell guns or transfer ownership in any other way. That would put a cap on the number of guns available without taking anyone’s guns away. It is illegal to buy or sell other items (Class I narcotics, eg.). Upon demise of the owner, the arsenal would be submitted to law enforcement or, perhaps, to the military.

Is this at all conceivably practical? Is there a better thought out there?

commonsense wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 10:38 pm Must the only solutions offered for this sticky issue be all or nothing? Does it have to be everyone has guns or no one (I.e. no private citizen) has guns? Is there no middle ground? Can’t any of us come up with a compromise?

Yes, look at Britain & Australia with their gun laws, a middle ground.

commonsense wrote:Depending on whatever argument you choose to accept, guns are unsafe or necessary for self protection, guaranteed by the Constitution or unimagined by the Framers, and so on.

Guns are only necessary for self protection in a country that is awash with everyone owning a gun (USA).

commonsense wrote:I would propose that it should only be illegal to sell guns or transfer ownership in any other way. That would put a cap on the number of guns available without taking anyone’s guns away. It is illegal to buy or sell other items (Class I narcotics, eg.). Upon demise of the owner, the arsenal would be submitted to law enforcement or, perhaps, to the military.

Is this at all conceivably practical? Is there a better thought out there?

Yes, look beyond the ridiculous USA where politicians cower to the vote of the gun lobby.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:39 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 10:29 am
So why do you have laws against them?

Because of the unpredictable potential for their owners to carry out needless and mindless random acts of mass murder of the innocents, just because they've decided to lose the plot, and blow everyone to oblivion, including themself.

Same reason why cocaine and heroin, mephedrone and ketamine drugs are banned in Britian.

Their usage only serves to hinder and undermine any hope of a mature mentally balanced intelligent functioning healthy society.

I mean, lets face it, would you allow your own young child to smoke heroin, or own a gun? Who on earth would choose to kill on mass, and what irresponsible mindset must they have that would think that doing something like that was ok?

OF COURSE it is OKAY to BLOW people UP WITH guns. Have you NOT YET seen that it is PERFECTLY OKAY to do such things. In maybe the MAJORITY of films that come from "america", which are shown to and seen by children, the use of guns is PERFECTLY OKAY, and NORMAL, and seemingly BLOWING UP as many people as possible is apparently ALSO PERFECTLY NORMAL and OKAY, and even just done and occurs for 'ENTERTAINMENT' purposes. That is going by what is being PROPAGANDIZED and INDOCTRINATED through movie and film to "american citizens" anyway.

Is there REALLY ANY WONDER WHY children 'grow up' (or maybe more correctly 'just get older in years') and go on 'mass shootings'? After all it is PERFECTLY NORMAL and OKAY to OWN guns, and even MANY guns, and just go around SHOOTING DEAD people, and even SHOOTING DEAD MANY people, well as it appears and IS SHOWN anyway on television and in cinemas to 'its citizens'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:39 am I guess there are pockets of people around that are just not fit to have a gun in their possession, just as you wouldn't dream of allowing your child to own a gun.

Are guns even FIT for 'societies' or 'their citizens' who WILL eventually WANT REAL peace and harmony?

Could have guns once HAD 'their purpose', like navigational instruments for viewing stars once HAD 'their purpose', but EVENTUALLY are just grown OUT of?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:39 am Somewhere along the line someone who is capable of laying down some laws of responsibilty has to take over, just as you wouldn't dream of giving your own child a gun ... you'd lay down a law for the child to not be allowed a gun, and that would become the right thing to do.

But adults WITH guns "in america" do like to TEACH 'their children' how to hold, handle, and shoot 'their guns', while ENCOURAGING those children to ENJOY the BELIEVED 'perfectly normal and okay behavior' of SHOOTING guns, and SHOOTING in so-called 'self-defense'.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:39 am That's the reality, where there are some parts of the world that have people walking around with the intent to kill on mass using their gun. It's very cowardly behavior too.

WHY do some people say 'this sort of thing'?

WHY is it supposedly 'cowardly behavior' to 'kill on mass using ones guns'?

Is 'this sort of thing' said, in some hope that it will STOP "others" from doing the same?

Could it be possible that saying that 'some behaviors are for the cowardly', while 'other behaviors are for the brave', be contributing to MORE of those OBVIOUSLY Wrong behaviors, SOMEHOW?

Like, what is REALLY 'cowardly' to spend months learning to fly planes to then line up a tower or two and fly DIRECTLY INTO 'its path' KNOWING that that one is KILLING "them" 'self', and "others", for some 'cause', which would have been to be purported to 'them' to be A BRAVE 'thing' to do?

Would when just about to go on and be going on a 'mass killing' REALLY be 'a cowardly' 'thing' to do, to the one doing this', especially considering how many times it IS the so-called "hero", and "the true brave one", who has the guns and goes on 'mass killings' of the so-called "badies", especially in the "american" film genre?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:39 am Thankfully, most mature mentally, and emotionally sensible well balanced intelligent people refrain from such an inhumane practice, because of laws that serve to deter people from taking it out on others their own disturbed mental states of mind...in the same manner we use to protect our own children who have under developed minds to fully understand the serious implications of their actions.

A few 'things' here.

NO one has a so-called 'undeveloped mind' BECAUSE of what the 'Mind' IS, and what the 'Mind' word REFERS TO, EXACTLY?

I WOULD and DO hope ALL of 'you', adult human beings, REFRAIN from ANY so-called 'inhuman practice' or 'Wrong behavior' because doing so would just BE Wrong, and NOT just because of written down or spoken 'laws'.

Do adult human beings REALLY YET, in the days when this is being written, FULLY UNDERSTAND the serious implications of 'their behaviors'? From the way that ALL of 'you' are 'mis/behaving', which I am observing, there does NOT appear ANY REAL UNDERSTANDING YET, let alone ANY FULL UNDERSTANDING, AT ALL.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:39 am
So just as we wouldn't dream of arming our children with guns,

But arming children with guns is a relatively very common practice in some countries/societies, and in some periods of time in human history, like, for example, in the 'current times' when this is being written.

In fact in some countries/societies, when this is being written, some even BELIEVE that 'the right of the people (that is; men, women, AND children) to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed). And, SOME are SO 'mentally immature' that 'they' BELIEVE that 'this amendment', IN CONTRADICTION, should NOT BE CHANGED.

I say, IN CONTRADICTION, because an 'amendment', itself, MEANS that 'that second AMENDMENT' WAS A CHANGE, itself.

See, some people ARE SO 'mentally immature' that they can NOT SEE than 'AMENDMENT' ARE, by themselves, MINOR CHANGES or ADDITIONS designed to improve a text or piece of legislation, which OBVIOUSLY 'that second amendment' NEEDS AMENDING, AGAIN.

But, because of those who ARE 'mentally immature' ALL they REALLY SEE are the words 'right', 'to bear arms', and 'shall not be infringed', and 'that' is ALL 'they' CAN SEE, and thus ONLY 'what' 'they' CAN COMPREHEND.

AGAIN, this is just 'confirmation bias' at 'its' WORST, and in this scenario one of the BEST examples OF.

See, SOME people REALLY WANT 'a gun' SO MUCH, like when SOME VERY YOUNG children REALLY WANT some 'thing', AND. BELIEVE, wholeheartedly and absolutely, that 'they' HAVE A RIGHT to BEAR ARMS, or OWN GUNS, and that this, LOL, "RIGHT" 'shall NOT be INFRINGED, NOR TAKEN FROM 'them'. Which, when ATTEMPTED 'these VERY mentally IMMATURE ones, literally, GO ON like SOME VERY YOUNG CHILDREN DO, when 'what' 'they' WANT 'they' can NOT HAVE or when TAKEN AWAY FROM 'them'.

'This' kind of way of ACTING and/or MISBEHAVING can be CLEARLY SEEN here in this thread, by a couple of people here, and could be SEEN IN a huge part of some societies like the one existing in the country known as "united states of america", in the days when this was being written.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:39 am or allowing them to smoke drugs, we make laws against such potential disasters and insane irresponsibly attitudes of ever having the chance to germinate the entire population with the right to take their mental states out on others. Laws serve as a useful deterrent against such potential tragic events.

And 'this' is JUST BECAUSE 'children' have NOT YET LEARNED HOW to 'GROW UP' or 'MATURE' 'mentally' into True and Right thinking adult human beings. So, 'laws' WERE NEEDED, back in those OLDEN DAYS SEEN here. Adults STILL NEEDED to be TOLD 'what to do', back then, as 'they' had NOT been TAUGHT what IS ACTUALLY Right from what IS ACTUALLY Wrong in Life, YET.

Which is ALL Truly UNDERSTANDABLE considering what 'we' ACTUALLY KNOW, NOW.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:43 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:39 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 10:29 am
So why do you have laws against them?

Because of the unpredictable potential for their owners to carry out needless and mindless random acts of mass murder of the innocents, just because they've decided to lose the plot, and blow everyone to oblivion, including themself.

Same reason why cocaine and heroin, mephedrone and ketamine drugs are banned in Britian.

Their usage only serves to hinder and undermine any hope of a mature mentally balanced intelligent functioning healthy society

But you live in a civil society with reasonable people!

You already have a mature, mentally balanced intelligent and functioning society. How are guns going to unravel that?

We know that drugs directly impact sound judgment and decision-making. We know that drugs make people impulsive, irritable aggressive and and anti-social.

Guns don't do that.

OF COURSE NOT.

BUT, with the LOVE-OF-GUNS and with the LOVE-OF-SHOOTING and KILLING, then 'the unravel begins'. As ALREADY EVIDENCED and ALREADY SHOWN and PROVED True.

ALSO, AFTER one has ALREADY had sound judgment and decision-making directly impacted, for WHATEVER reason, access to guns is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT going to HELP in STOPPING 'the unraveling', of society.

Unless, OF COURSE, 'you', "skepdick", do NOT call the shooting of masses of people, or the shooting of one person, for whatever reason, NOT 'the unraveling of society'?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:43 am So why do you have or need laws against guns?

For the EXACT SAME reason 'you' went through the 'legal system' FOR 'your' KILLING of "another" human being.

See, if there were NO 'laws', or NO 'legal system', which you HAD TO GO through, then there would be absolutely NO 'deterrent' for people like 'you', "skepdick", to just KILL MORE people or to just KEEP KILLING MORE people.

So, can 'you' NOW SEE WHY 'you' HAVE AND NEED 'laws' AGAINST guns?

If no, then 'those laws' are IN PLACE to keep 'us' SAFE from 'people' just like 'you', "skepdick", who walk around the streets CARRYING guns.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:53 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:51 am Yes we have because we realised we have no use for gun ownership. Just as we understand not to allow children gun ownership.

If you personally have no hangups about guns, or every gun owning American have no hang ups about guns, then so to should every child in America own a gun.

The absence or presence of guns has absolutely no effect on a civil, mature, mentally ballanced intelligent and functioning society.

VERY True. Just as the absence or presence of ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing' would have ABSOLUTELY NO effect on what IS 'a civil, mature, mentally balanced, intelligent, and functioning society.

BUT, because guns are being USED to KILL and MAIM 'people' in the societies in which you are living in, when these are being written, those societies are OBVIOUSLY NOT 'civil, mature, mentally balanced, intelligent, NOR functioning societies'.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:53 am So why do you have or need laws against them?

As SHOWN and EXPLAINED in my previous post to 'you', "skepdick".

But which 'you' WILL NOT REPLY TO, because of the CONSEQUENCES, which WILL SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOW.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:57 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 6:30 amI'll tell you why Henry, because you are posting on the gun thread about guns, and you own a gun.

Yes, I do and I am. This means I'm locked into the popular conversation? No. I'll stick with my odd little corner, if you don't mind (and, even if you do). Someone might come along who wants to join me in it.

LOL

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:58 am

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:55 am Would you supply your child with a gun to take into school each day, just in case it needs to protect itself?

No. My child is not civil, mature, mentally ballanced, intelligent and socially functional yet.

LOL
LOL
LOL

If 'it' is NOT YET those 'things' as a child, then 'it' will NEVER be when 'it' becomes, literally, 'adulterated'.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:58 am That's why he's a fucking child. And that's why he goes to school.

This IS PRIME EXAMPLE of just how BACKWARDS adult human beings SEE and VIEW 'life', and 'living'.

Harbal wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 12:00 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 11:53 am
The absence or presence of guns has absolutely no effect on a civil, mature, mentally ballanced intelligent and functioning society.

So why do you have or need laws against them?

Our law says we are not allowed to kill people, so it kind of makes sense that the law also says we are not allowed to own equipment that is specifically designed to kill people. There's a kind of logic there, if you think about it hard enough.

Thinking about 'it', and SEEING what 'you' do here "harbal" there was absolutely NOTHING 'hard' AT ALL.

In fact that 'kind of logic', there, could NOT and does NOT get MORE SIMPLER, and MORE EASIER, ACTUALLY and REALLY.

That is; OF COURSE if one has NOT ALREADY become CLOSED due to pre-existing BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.