Facebook

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: Facebook

Postby derleydoo » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:48 pm

A Shieldmaiden wrote:Wendy wrote:
Isn't it convenient that he was found dead at the scene so he can't be questioned, so we'll never know why he would bother performing such destruction. I say it was an inside government, military operation to eliminate someone or warn someones family to keep their mouths shut about something to do with the USA government. The 64 years old guy was already dead when he was placed inside the hotel room to take the rap for this life taking charade. Specialized military shooters pulled this off and I say it was more than one.


I agree.

A deliberate intention to create chaos so taking control will be easy and WELCOMED.


You are welcome to your conspiracy theories. Having listened to Mister Trump's address at the NRA Convention, it doesn't sound as though he has any intention of taking your guns away. Talking of the 2nd Amendment? He intends to ... "Preserve it - cherish it - take care of it." He wouldn't tell a porkie. :-"
User avatar
derleydoo
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:03 am

Re: Facebook

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:36 am

WendyDarling wrote:No, it is not an accurate depiction unless you are a white American who is ashamed of being white and who likes to be misrepresented.

How do you think people should protect themselves from threats?


By cutting off their balls. If noone has balls then there's no more threats.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Facebook

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 4:37 am

WendyDarling wrote:Yes, there is a huge campaign by the liberal left USA to take everyone but the government's guns away. Once men and woman can no longer defend themselves successfully against government tyranny like the Europeans who are helpless, then we'll be permanently held hostage by the military industrial complex until the globalist agenda is enacted enslaving all human beings equally.

Well, you folks in the UK can simply throw massive amounts of acid on an aggressive military since you know how to mix it up.


Without guns how will we defend ourselves from donald trump's army of nazis?
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Facebook

Postby MagsJ » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:15 pm

derleydoo wrote:
MagsJ wrote: We must meet for a beverage sometime.. the last attempt to fell flat on it's face. :|
Sounds good, although I am not sure it will happen!

Uh, thanks! :|
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17215
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Facebook

Postby Jakob » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:39 pm

Its probably just another attempt to force people into accepting gun control.
Its funny, as horrible and sick as the anti-gunlobby is, starting all their mass shootings, killing all these people just to get guns off the street.

Murrka

Demokkkrats.


Death to each and ever filthy piece of scum of them.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Facebook

Postby derleydoo » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:41 pm

MagsJ wrote:
derleydoo wrote:
MagsJ wrote: We must meet for a beverage sometime.. the last attempt to fell flat on it's face. :|
Sounds good, although I am not sure it will happen!

Uh, thanks! :|


Aw... You sound disappointed, MagsJ. It would be nice to have a beverage (sounds good). However, selfish sod that I am, the prospect of travelling 120-140 miles to do so holds little appeal. Should it happen that you are ever down this way, I would be more than happy to have any number of beverages! :)
User avatar
derleydoo
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:03 am

Re: Facebook

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Wed Oct 04, 2017 3:55 pm

Jakob wrote:Its probably just another attempt to force people into accepting gun control.
Its funny, as horrible and sick as the anti-gunlobby is, starting all their mass shootings, killing all these people just to get guns off the street.

Murrka

Demokkkrats.


Death to each and ever filthy piece of scum of them.

Statistically, 160,000 humans on Earth die every day.
These mass killings make less than 0.01 of the deaths.

Fact is, people are a bunch of inherent cowards looking out for #1 - themselves. When someone dies they freak out and instantly assume it will be them. If you want to understand gun-control, follow the path of cowardice.

Since their line of thinking is inherently self-centered and short-term focused, they have no sympathy for people who live in areas with high crime, no sympathy for oppressed people, no sympathy for people who fear tyranny, and no sympathy for people who actually need guns.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Facebook

Postby Jakob » Wed Oct 04, 2017 5:32 pm

Franco DC wrote:With all due respect to those who died in Las Vegas during and after this horrifying event… I am afraid that we need to call the official MSM narrative of the Las Vegas shooting a load of B.S. Several witnesses claim seeing multiple shooters (this can also be seen on video), that and the fact that it is absolutely ludicrous to believe that a poor retired accountant with a gambling problem living in a retirement home with no experience handling weapons, (especially not heavy artillery weapons) suddenly had the will, capability, and funds to buy 10 automatic rifles (found in his hotel room (all of which would be extremely difficult for one to attain)) and shoot thousands of rounds into a crowd of people. These and many other reasons point the direction of the media or authorities outright lying about the events that happened on that day. Oh and why the hell did the venue put the house lights on when they learned that someone was opening fire on the crowd? This only helped the shooter(s) find targets. They should be held accountable for this.
That said, let's stop wasting time discussing issues that aren’t relevant, like gun laws, when the real thing we should be focusing on is the media's deliberate lying campaign and why these lies are being told. Who is really behind this event?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5903
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Facebook

Postby derleydoo » Sat Oct 07, 2017 12:07 am

Jakob wrote:
Franco DC wrote:With all due respect to those who died in Las Vegas during and after this horrifying event… I am afraid that we need to call the official MSM narrative of the Las Vegas shooting a load of B.S. Several witnesses claim seeing multiple shooters (this can also be seen on video), that and the fact that it is absolutely ludicrous to believe that a poor retired accountant with a gambling problem living in a retirement home with no experience handling weapons, (especially not heavy artillery weapons) suddenly had the will, capability, and funds to buy 10 automatic rifles (found in his hotel room (all of which would be extremely difficult for one to attain)) and shoot thousands of rounds into a crowd of people. These and many other reasons point the direction of the media or authorities outright lying about the events that happened on that day. Oh and why the hell did the venue put the house lights on when they learned that someone was opening fire on the crowd? This only helped the shooter(s) find targets. They should be held accountable for this.
That said, let's stop wasting time discussing issues that aren’t relevant, like gun laws, when the real thing we should be focusing on is the media's deliberate lying campaign and why these lies are being told. Who is really behind this event?


Jakob: Several witnesses claim seeing multiple shooters (this can also be seen on video),

Perhaps show it?

Jakob: it is absolutely ludicrous to believe that a poor retired accountant with a gambling problem living in a retirement home with no experience handling weapons

A poor retired accountant?

https://youtu.be/SPZFN6VFFow

I wouldn't normally bother. However, having began the thread...
User avatar
derleydoo
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:03 am

Re: Facebook

Postby MagsJ » Thu Oct 19, 2017 4:22 am

derleydoo wrote:
MagsJ wrote:
derleydoo wrote:Sounds good, although I am not sure it will happen!
Uh, thanks! :|
Aw... You sound disappointed, MagsJ. It would be nice to have a beverage (sounds good). However, selfish sod that I am, the prospect of travelling 120-140 miles to do so holds little appeal. Should it happen that you are ever down this way, I would be more than happy to have any number of beverages! :)

Where is 'this way'? :-?
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17215
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Facebook

Postby derleydoo » Thu Oct 19, 2017 8:22 pm

MagsJ wrote: Where is 'this way'? :-?


cathedraly.jpg
cathedraly.jpg (151.54 KiB) Viewed 1370 times


cross.jpg
cross.jpg (21.62 KiB) Viewed 1370 times

cross5.jpg
cross5.jpg (96.76 KiB) Viewed 1370 times


A brief glimpse. Now you know. :)
User avatar
derleydoo
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:03 am

Re: Facebook

Postby MagsJ » Mon Dec 25, 2017 11:30 pm

derleydoo wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Where is 'this way'? :-?


cathedraly.jpg


cross.jpg

cross5.jpg


A brief glimpse. Now you know. :)

Canterbury?

Cambridge?

Winchester?

Chelmsford?

Banbury?

:-k

I'm not very well-travelled as far as the UK is concerned.
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17215
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Facebook

Postby derleydoo » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:25 am

MagsJ wrote:
derleydoo wrote:
MagsJ wrote: Where is 'this way'? :-?


cathedraly.jpg


cross.jpg

cross5.jpg


A brief glimpse. Now you know. :)

Canterbury?

Cambridge?

Winchester?

Chelmsford?

Banbury?

:-k

I'm not very well-travelled as far as the UK is concerned.


"I'm not very well-travelled as far as the UK is concerned."

Me neither. You have NC1 as a starting point. (Your location as given)

D: "Down this way..." Ruling out Banbury, Chelmsford, Cambridge.

Clue: He dwells in the heart of the city.
User avatar
derleydoo
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:03 am

Re: Facebook

Postby Dan~ » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:32 am

Guns cost too much. They are all about money, regardless of who ever they harm or help.
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9906
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: Facebook

Postby derleydoo » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:43 pm

Dan~ wrote:Guns cost too much. They are all about money, regardless of who ever they harm or help.


How much would I need to pay to purchase a gun? I am in the UK. I have tried googling gun prices in the USA - "this site cannot be reached". Is there a similar gun culture in Canada?
User avatar
derleydoo
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:03 am

Re: Facebook

Postby MagsJ » Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:25 pm

derleydoo wrote:
MagsJ wrote:Canterbury?

Cambridge?

Winchester?

Chelmsford?

Banbury?

:-k

I'm not very well-travelled as far as the UK is concerned.
"I'm not very well-travelled as far as the UK is concerned."

Me neither. You have NC1 as a starting point. (Your location as given)

D: "Down this way..." Ruling out Banbury, Chelmsford, Cambridge.

Clue: He dwells in the heart of the city.

...nice marinas ;)

Is it a famous writer that dwells in the heart of the city?

Yes.. that's a trek I agree, but if I'm ever down that way, I'm heading straight to the marina for drinks.. and maybe visit you. :-k

:lol:

Lucky you.. what a beautiful place to live. Has it always been home?
Image
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 17215
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: Facebook

Postby derleydoo » Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:05 pm

MagsJ wrote: Has it always been home?


Yes, it has always been home, Magsj. Expensive place to live! You get what you pay for! :)
User avatar
derleydoo
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:03 am

Re: Facebook

Postby Silhouette » Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:28 pm

Pro gun crazies really need to think through realistic scenarios.

Someone breaks into your house, whether to steal from you or harm you, are you ready with your gun? Consider a few things:
1) This doesn't happen often, to most people it never will, so you won't expect it.
2) People are unlikely to break into your house at a time when you're likely to expect it, even if you're trying. You will probably be busy or relaxing if you're even awake - it will much more likely be in the middle of the night when you're asleep.
3) If you keep your gun(s) around ready to use, people are far far more likely to use guns on themselves than against others, or to shoot others by accident - especially kids. And an intruder could just as easily find it first.
4) If you keep your gun(s) safe they're even less accessible if you're ever attacked. You won't have time to unlock them and load them, and you'll likely be full of adrenaline, shaking and not thinking straight.
5) Even if you're ready with your gun, if you're not trained to army standards you will very likely miss, and you will very likely not be able to bring yourself to hurt or even kill another human being. This even happened to most soldiers in the World Wars.

There are better ways to protect your home that stop people getting in in the first place. Most crime is opportunistic, and if you don't give the opportunity in the first place then you wouldn't need the gun.

In public places like schools and cinemas, a guy comes in and starts shooting, already the damage is done. A hero with a gun, assuming he has a clear shot and has a good aim (and he will be priority one for the attacker obviously) will stop it continuing once most of the damage is done at best. Again, adrenaline, shock, disorientation, guns can be very very loud. The attacker will usually shoot themselves at this point or soon after anyway, if they realise their spree is coming to an end, they've usually planned to anyway. It would be better if he didn't have access to a gun in the first place, another weapon would have done much less and is much easier to counter attack. Who trusts a guy who brings a gun around with him everywhere anyway? Or even a knife? If it was common knowledge that most people did this, how scared would you be to even go outside? Even if there were an armed security guard, even they're not going to be paid or trained like someone in the army, they'll be there to resolve the odd minor act of violence or other disturbance but their incentive and ability to take down someone who out-guns them will be minimal.

Countries that banned guns see much less gun violence, fact. Other weapons will still be used instead but they don't kill and injure nearly as many people. When these weapons are illegal they cost much much more because of the risk in selling them, meaning if you had the money you're probably not likely to want one, and if you're mentally unstable enough it's probably apparent and the vendor probably won't trust you enough to sell you any.

Onto government "turning against its people".

a) if a government turns against its people, they are just old men in suits - they would need to convince the very people they're turning against, the ones who happen to be in the armed forces, to do their dirty work. It's not like in films and video games where the government has hordes of nameless, faceless minions.
b) these days their firepower is going to far outweigh what you are likely to have at home if anything, and with drones etc they won't even have to turn up or involve the army and they'll be far more lethal and with the reactions and accuracy of their technology you stand zero chance. What good are your guns then?

THINK IT THROUGH. Apply some realism to your rationale and you'll find pro-gun arguments make literally no sense.

About the video, it's not that good of one. At that level of sophistication you'd be better off sharing the comedian Jim Jefferies' bit on gun control - he says everything I've just said, but it's funnier if you like his sort of humour.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Facebook

Postby derleydoo » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:36 pm

Silhouette wrote:Pro gun crazies really need to think through realistic scenarios.

Someone breaks into your house, whether to steal from you or harm you, are you ready with your gun? Consider a few things:
1) This doesn't happen often, to most people it never will, so you won't expect it.
2) People are unlikely to break into your house at a time when you're likely to expect it, even if you're trying. You will probably be busy or relaxing if you're even awake - it will much more likely be in the middle of the night when you're asleep.
3) If you keep your gun(s) around ready to use, people are far far more likely to use guns on themselves than against others, or to shoot others by accident - especially kids. And an intruder could just as easily find it first.
4) If you keep your gun(s) safe they're even less accessible if you're ever attacked. You won't have time to unlock them and load them, and you'll likely be full of adrenaline, shaking and not thinking straight.
5) Even if you're ready with your gun, if you're not trained to army standards you will very likely miss, and you will very likely not be able to bring yourself to hurt or even kill another human being. This even happened to most soldiers in the World Wars.

There are better ways to protect your home that stop people getting in in the first place. Most crime is opportunistic, and if you don't give the opportunity in the first place then you wouldn't need the gun.

In public places like schools and cinemas, a guy comes in and starts shooting, already the damage is done. A hero with a gun, assuming he has a clear shot and has a good aim (and he will be priority one for the attacker obviously) will stop it continuing once most of the damage is done at best. Again, adrenaline, shock, disorientation, guns can be very very loud. The attacker will usually shoot themselves at this point or soon after anyway, if they realise their spree is coming to an end, they've usually planned to anyway. It would be better if he didn't have access to a gun in the first place, another weapon would have done much less and is much easier to counter attack. Who trusts a guy who brings a gun around with him everywhere anyway? Or even a knife? If it was common knowledge that most people did this, how scared would you be to even go outside? Even if there were an armed security guard, even they're not going to be paid or trained like someone in the army, they'll be there to resolve the odd minor act of violence or other disturbance but their incentive and ability to take down someone who out-guns them will be minimal.

Countries that banned guns see much less gun violence, fact. Other weapons will still be used instead but they don't kill and injure nearly as many people. When these weapons are illegal they cost much much more because of the risk in selling them, meaning if you had the money you're probably not likely to want one, and if you're mentally unstable enough it's probably apparent and the vendor probably won't trust you enough to sell you any.

Onto government "turning against its people".

a) if a government turns against its people, they are just old men in suits - they would need to convince the very people they're turning against, the ones who happen to be in the armed forces, to do their dirty work. It's not like in films and video games where the government has hordes of nameless, faceless minions.
b) these days their firepower is going to far outweigh what you are likely to have at home if anything, and with drones etc they won't even have to turn up or involve the army and they'll be far more lethal and with the reactions and accuracy of their technology you stand zero chance. What good are your guns then?

THINK IT THROUGH. Apply some realism to your rationale and you'll find pro-gun arguments make literally no sense.

About the video, it's not that good of one. At that level of sophistication you'd be better off sharing the comedian Jim Jefferies' bit on gun control - he says everything I've just said, but it's funnier if you like his sort of humour.


Yeah, yeah, yeah! All very interesting, Silhouette, but what's any of the above got to do with where I live? :)

Seriously, thanks for your very considered post. I find it difficult to challenge anything you say (perhaps question your assertion that all gun owners are crazies... 98% tops). I am sure one or two will still seek to justify gun ownership.

Silhouette wrote:About the video, it's not that good of one. At that level of sophistication you'd be better off sharing the comedian Jim Jefferies' bit on gun control - he says everything I've just said, but it's funnier if you like his sort of humour.


Thanks, I watched the video. Very funny, and as you acknowledge, pretty much what you posted. Difficult to argue with him!

One further thought, it occurred to me, should the government wish to turn on 'the people', they need only taint the water supply. No real need for mass destruction by way of drones or F15's or 16's or 17's, or tanks! :) Either way, the point is made, 'your' guns would be ineffective against such an 'enemy'.
User avatar
derleydoo
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:03 am

Re: Facebook

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:17 pm

Let's make everyone safe by making everyone powerless.

No guns for you, my friend, you're dumb you're gonna shoot yourself in the leg.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3694
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Facebook

Postby Silhouette » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:53 pm

derleydoo wrote:Yeah, yeah, yeah! All very interesting, Silhouette, but what's any of the above got to do with where I live? :)

Seriously, thanks for your very considered post. I find it difficult to challenge anything you say (perhaps question your assertion that all gun owners are crazies... 98% tops). I am sure one or two will still seek to justify gun ownership.

I'm afraid I don't know where you live so I can't answer your question specifically, but I can generally say that my arguments (or Jim's, really) apply to everyone wherever they live.

And yes, good point that government, or any party that turned malicious just needs to taint the water supply - probably cheaper and easier than some army porn fantasy straight out of a film that people are probably imagining when they think they're protecting themselves from government with guns. Like Jim said, it used to make sense when the 2nd Amendment was initially amended.

I'm also sure huge amounts of people would still seek to justify gun ownership out of irrationality, regardless of the rationality that I laid out. Like Jim said, some people just like guns, and like your video said, it's just fear e.g. the following:

Magnus Anderson wrote:Let's make everyone safe by making everyone powerless.

No guns for you, my friend, you're dumb you're gonna shoot yourself in the leg.

The problem is that making everyone powerful makes everyone even less safe. If safety is the aim, then ensuring powerlessness is rationally the optimal way to achieve it. Sorry.

If safety isn't the aim, as I have heard such people as the late Christopher Hitchens speculate about Americans, then sure - let them carry on as they are. Let them continue to be under massively higher risk of themselves, people they know and people they don't know getting shot by crazies on purpose, shooting themselves on purpose and getting shot by accident by either others or themselves. It's a valid lifestyle, but you can't have one intermingled with the other. Maybe all the adrenaline junkies can move to America and everyone else, "if they don't like it, they can geeeet out" - just as those wise southern hicks supposedly say. I'll continue to find the country an utterly ridiculous place to never visit again.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Facebook

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:14 pm

Maybe we should ban intelligence too. If everyone is dumb then noone can posit socially unacceptable goals and figure out a way to attain them.

The thing is that what makes you safe within one kind of environment makes you unsafe within another. Being docile can make you safe within moden environments but it makes you terribly unsafe outside of them.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3694
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Facebook

Postby Silhouette » Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:45 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Maybe we should ban intelligence too. If everyone is dumb then noone can posit socially unacceptable goals and figure out a way to attain them.

The thing is that what makes you safe within one kind of environment makes you unsafe within another. Being docile can make you safe within moden environments but it makes you terribly unsafe outside of them.

It's not as black and white as "either safe or not" and "always unsafe so no point in safe".
The point of different societies is that they get to choose what kind of safe they want, and what kind of unsafe they want to leave more open as a result.

As it happens, safety from violence at the cost of less safety from intelligence caused us to rise from savages to a much more civilised and technologically advanced species, who would kick the shit out of our former iterations if some hypothetical time-war were to occur. Much of the rest of the world is further down that path than countries like America, which tries to do both and only scrapes by because of its size making it statistically likely enough that exceptions will emerge to carry the rest of them on par with everyone else. On average they do pretty poorly.

Of course you will always get those who would protest realms of unsafety when they are lacking in those particular respects - especially if they believe they excel in alternative ways that are currently underappreciated. And naturally what will happen is that if one of these alternative ways turns out to beat current ways, they will emerge as "the new realms of unsafety that occur as a result of safety in different ways" - it's actually a good thing that we have all these protesting movements because potentially one day one might pay off and we'll all advance in a new and improved direction. Whatever is around and works best will rise to the top, whatever it is. You just have to wait for new things to be around, like mutations, and eventually natural selection will favour one and we will evolve.
User avatar
Silhouette
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 1:27 am
Location: Existence

Re: Facebook

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:29 am

For every environment there is a set of traits the environment "favors" and a set of traits it does not "favor". Consider a hypothetical environment where only organisms that are small in size survive. Everything that is big simply dies -- it does not live long enough to reproduce. Whatever wants to survive must adapt in the sense that it must change its form to the one that is "favored" by the environment. You're a big guy? Sorry, you must be a small guy. Either become a small guy or perish. Now, rationally speaking, it is better to be alive than to be dead. So faced with a choice between becoming small in order to live and going extinct everyone would choose to become small . . . even though it would require that they lose everything their ancestors accumulated in the past. However, in reality, the ability to adapt to a specific situation is not something everyone is born with. If you evolved to be a big guy and you suddenly find yourself within an environment where only small guys survive you're gonna die. Sorry, my friend, you can pride yourself on being adaptable as much as you wish, but the ability to adapt has its limits. You take a fish out of water and it does not adapt . . . it dies. The gun debate is more about habits -- what kind of environment we want to live in -- than it is about maximizing our potential to survive within the current environment we live in. I want to own a gun because that's the kind of environment I want to live in and not because that's what will maximize my survival within the current environment. Who's gonna be selected by nature in the end? I don't know. Maybe docile people will win the game. I don't care. But I want to own a guy and that's the end of it. Maybe I am stupid and will shoot myself in the foot, I still want it no other way but to own a gun.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3694
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Facebook

Postby derleydoo » Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:50 am

M A: But I want to own a guy and that's the end of it. Maybe I am stupid and will shoot myself in the foot, I still want it no other way but to own a gun.

d: I would imagine most folk who wish to own a gun feel the same way.
User avatar
derleydoo
 
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:03 am

Previous

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]