WE NEED MORE GUNS..

[Age]

That's right, I can only make-believe I know you.

Not unexpected for a misanthrope to default to distrust.

No matter how hard you shout "i don't live in fear"

WHY do 'you' CARRY a gun then?

And, WHY do 'you' NOT ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS posed and ASKED to 'you' here in regards to what 'you' SAY and CLAIM here?

If 'you', supposedly, do NOT live 'in fear', then WHY are 'you' NOT ALWAYS OPEN and Honest here? Especially considering that 'you' want to come here and MAKE CLAIMS.

- you sure feared that I am lying to you.

I'm not gonna lie, You seem to spend a great deal of your time on this forum for philosophy ..it's like you are constantly off duty for a made-up policeman, and that would be a truth, not a lie.

And there can't be any reasonable explanation for that?

You know - if you chose a different bias...

[Age]

I don't believe you are a policeman, there's nothing I can do about it, except to advise everyone else not to believe it either.

That seems a little defeatist. Given that you've basically flipped a coin on what to believe you could trivially choose to believe the other thing. Have you no free will?

Will you also advise others that you don't actually have a good reason to believe what you believe, or are you going to omit that part?

But there may well be A VERY GOOD reason to NOT believe 'you' "skepdick". 'you', OBVIOUSLY, have NOT YET SHOWN 'us' ANY GOOD reason to BELIEVE 'you'.

[Age]

It seems not. The more you protest, the more sure I feel that I'm right. It's as if I'm being controlled by you.

You are being controlled, alright

Nobody can fool you better than you can fool yourself.

Could 'this' be ANOTHER so-called 'freudian slip' here?

[Age]

Now you are just getting desperate by claiming you might only be pretending to be a policeman, when I already don't know if you are or not.

Why do you keep saying you don't know?

I told you.

If you don't trust my words then I don't trust yours.

Do you USUALLY NOT trust the words of "others" ONLY AFTER 'they' do NOT trust 'your' words, first?

And, for 'that reason', ONLY?

Prove that you don't know.

Also, in what kind of 'world' or 'Universe' does it apply that when one MAKES A CLAIM, then it is NOT up to 'them' to PROVE 'their CLAIM' but it is up to the "other" to PROVE WHY they do NOT know if 'the CLAIM' is correct or not?

[Age]

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?

Skepdick has been pro-gun all along, obviously to most.

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

[Age]

Why do you keep saying I am a sociopath?

I'm not a sociopath, why don't you believe me?

Because I got better evidence than you saying you aren't a sociopath.

You make decisions like a sociopath. You are extremely anti-social and distrusting of fellow members of society telling you trivial and inconsequential truths. Like the truth that I am a policeman - it makes no fucking difference.

If one being 'anti-social' and 'distrusting of fellow members of society' makes one a so-called 'sociopath', then what is one called who carries a gun BECAUSE they ARE 'distrusting of fellow members of society', does NOT even KNOW who the so-called 'nutjobs' of their 'fellow members of society' are, exactly, who ACTUALLY KILLS 'fellow members of that society', and who is STILL intent on doing so?

I was SAY and CLAIM that this kind of MISBEHAVING is VERY 'anti-social' and VERY 'distrusting' of 'fellow members of society'.

[Age]

What does that have to do with the OP?

Well, if I could be lying about being a policeman - he could be lying about being anti-gun.

If someone intentionally deceives you by presenting arguments he doesn’t believe, does that affect the validity of his arguments?

NO.

The WHOLE POINT of doing 'debating' is TO NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE the 'arguments' that one is presenting, BUT, TO JUST formulate the most COGENT argument.

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

The ACTUAL 'validity' of one's arguments here STANDS, SOLELY, ON the ACTUAL words PRESENTED, and NOT necessarily what one BELIEVES or NOT.

[Age]

A lie is an intentional deception. I have no access to intentions other than my own. I take words at face value. I accept statements made by other people for what they are .

If somebody chooses to believe what they have no good reason to believe then they are intentionally deceiving themselves.

It fits the bill for lying.

And what about for 'those' who BELIEVE some 'thing' is true, but which may well NOT be true?

Are 'they' deceiving "themselves" ALSO?

Does that so-call 'fit the bill', for lying, AS WELL?

[Age]

A lie is an intentional deception. I have no access to intentions other than my own. I take words at face value. I accept statements made by other people for what they are .

If somebody chooses to believe what they have no good reason to believe they are intentionally deceiving themselves.

It fits the bill for lying.

You cannot lie to yourself.

Maybe not. But can one lie so much that 'they' end up BELIEVING 'their' OWN lies?

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

[Age]

If somebody chooses to believe what they have no good reason to believe they are intentionally deceiving themselves.

It fits the bill for lying.

You cannot lie to yourself.

Of course you can. Self-deception is still deception.

BUT are 'you' LYING if 'you' have been SELF-DECEIVED?

If yes, then HOW and WHY, EXACTLY?

[Age]

I don't understand why you need me to answer that question.

Suppose you go out and about tomorrow and some Allah Snackbar chases you down with a machete - what's your plan?

If you can stop him - you will.
If you can't - you'll die, your friends and family will mourn you and that's the end of it.

Choices. Consequences. The end.

Yes that’s right.

That could happen to anyone, including your own offspring. How would that be keeping your own offspring out of harms way?

Yes it can. Me and you included.

If it happens to somebody with the mindset, means and luck to stop it - they are less likely to die.
If it happens to somebody without the mindset, means and luck to stop it - they are more likely to die.

One of those choices seems better.

What's confusing you?

Can 'you' REALLY STILL NOT SEE the ACTUAL ABSOLUTE FLAW in 'your' so-called 'reasoning' here "skepdick"?

After all THE FLAW has been SHOWN and EXPRESSED in DIFFERENT WAYS TO 'you' ALREADY.

Also, 'what' so-called 'mindset' are 'you' talking ABOUT and REFERRING TO here, EXACTLY?

[Age]

So you can think something is false that you know is true, right?

If you think that something as being true; or false while also knowing that you have no good reason to believe either.

WHAT?

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' were ASKED A QUESTION, for CLARIFICATION, BUT instead of JUST ANSWERING, OPENLY and Honestly, 'you' TWIST and DISTORT 'those words' AROUND SO MUCH, and then PROCEED on from 'there'.

LOOK, OBVIOUSLY, if one has NO good reason to just BELIEVE ANY 'thing', then 'this' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with 'what' was ACTUALLY ASKED here. Which was ABOUT KNOWING some 'thing' INSTEAD.

Could 'you' just ONCE NOT TWIST and DISTORT the ACTUAL WORDS USED, when they COUNTER or REFUTE 'your' CLAIMS, and JUST BE OPEN and Honest here when 'you' are QUESTIONED and/or CHALLENGED?

I could believe that I can hold my breath for 10 minutes.

So what?

What IS the ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth? 'This' is FAR MORE IMPORTANT, and IN LINE WITH what was being DISCUSSED and ASKED here.

[Age]

A lie is an intentional deception. I have no access to intentions other than my own. I take words at face value. I accept statements made by other people for what they are .

If somebody chooses to believe what they have no good reason to believe then they are intentionally deceiving themselves.

It fits the bill for lying.

But it’s not possible.

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?

OTHERWISE, 'it is NOT possible to 'deceive' "yourself" is coming across WITH MORE CREDENCE.

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?

[Age]

If somebody chooses to believe what they have no good reason to believe then they are intentionally deceiving themselves.

It fits the bill for lying.

But it’s not possible.

Of course it's possible. Incompetent epistemologists do it all the time. They fool themselves.

BUT, 'fooling' "one's" 'self' is NOT 'lying' to "one's" 'self'.

ONCE AGAIN, 'you' HAVE TWISTED and DISTORTED "another's" words AROUND, and then PROCEEDED to RESPOND to 'your' OWN TWISTED or DISTORTED view and perception.

Which IS ANOTHER FORM, and ANOTHER example, of 'one' 'FOOLING' "one's" OWN 'self'.

The first principle is that you musn't fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.

So, if 'you', "skepdick", are the EASIEST person TO FOOL, then 'you' may NOT be A 'police man' AFTER ALL, right? Or, do 'you' BELIEVE WHOLEHEARTEDLY otherwise?

By the way, if 'you' do NOT BELIEVE that 'you' ARE the EASIEST person TO FOOL, then WHO, EXACTLY, did 'you' just MAKE 'this' CLAIM IN RELATION TO, EXACTLY?

Do 'you' BELIEVE that it IS ONLY the one here known as "commonsense" who is the so-called 'first principle' here REFERS TO, EXACTLY, for example?

[Age]

Most likely you have no reason to believe because you have a reason to disbelieve. No reason to believe is not the same as knowing something is false.

No, this mutually exlclusive thinking and trying to perfectly define your words doesn't work in practice.

Maybe 'trying to' define one's words 'perfectly' does NOT work in practice. But, OBVIOUSLY, JUST defining works 'perfectly' CAN be done, and as a matter of Fact HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. Not that 'those' BACK in the OLDEN DAYS when this WAS being written would be AWARE of 'this' YET.

Whether I know that something is true; or know that something is false I need a good reason to be moved off the "I don't know" spot.

I USE ONLY one 'reason', that is; IF ANY one is interested.