Canada bans assault-style weapons after its worst ever mass murder

[apalisoc_9]

(CNN)Assault-style weapons are banned in Canada effective immediately, the country's prime minister said Friday.
The move comes less than two weeks after Canada's deadliest rampage in modern history, when a gunman in Nova Scotia killed 22 people after a 12-hour reign of terror.
"You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer," Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at a news conference in Ottawa. "So, effective immediately, it is no longer permitted to buy, sell, transport, import or use military-grade assault weapons in this country."

Police said the gunman had several semi-automatic handguns and at least two semi-automatic rifles, one of which was described by witnesses as a military-style assault weapon.
"These weapons were designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, to kill the largest number of people in the shortest amount of time. There is no use and no place for such weapons in Canada," Trudeau said.
The ban is effective immediately but disposal of the weapons will be subject to a two-year amnesty period. Trudeau said some form of compensation would also be put in place but the firearms can also be exported and sold after a proper export license is obtained.
Trudeau said that "thoughts and prayers" for mass shooting victims were no longer enough and that's why his government acted.

This is a what you do!!

Canada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>America

[Thread]

This is a what you do!!

Canada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>America

Or, you institute a U.S. Supreme Court & keep Garland on ice & RBG close to a field of banana peels.

tee, hee.

[apalisoc_9]

Or, you institute a U.S. Supreme Court & keep Garland on ice & RBG close to a field of banana peels.

tee, hee.

Trudeau>Orangehead

[Blake]

Oh great now only the criminals will have access to AR-15s in Canada because vans can also kill people. Also Detroit!

[apalisoc_9]

Oh great now only the criminals will have access to AR-15s in Canada because vans can also kill people. Also Detroit!

Scrah, move to canada. I'm serious.

[DMC]

This is a what you do!!

Canada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>America

Yet no one here is on a Canadian forum talking shit.

[Thread]

Trudeau>Orangehead

- "Promises, promises."

- Ernie "The Cat" Ladd

[ElNono]

Great country... just too cold...

[hater]

nobody needs an AR15

only inbred faggots would disagree

still. fuck the canucks and that massive faggot Trudick

[midnightpulp]

Great country... just too cold...

It's embarrassing how other countries are leaving us behind from everything to healthcare to education to gun rights to Coronavirus response. And it didn't start with the Orange Man, either. I attribute the US's decline to some key factors that politicians and thinkers of yesteryear feared might be in America's future if we don't remain vigilant.


In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.

- Eisenhower

Came true.


“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.”

~Barry Goldwater

Came true.


The idea behind Reaganomics is this: a rising tide lifts all yachts.

- Walter F. Mondale

Came true.

And going real old school:

https://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/62/67/1102200475-AndrewJackson1834WEB.jpg

Jefferson basically described the modern stock market almost 200 years ago and how big corporations and investment bankers privatize the profit and socialize the losses. :lol

Orange Man is simply a symptom of the disease caused by those aforementioned fundamental shifts that have occurred in the US over the past 40-50 years.

[monosylab1k]

Oh great now only the criminals will have access to AR-15s in Canada because vans can also kill people. Also Detroit!

And look at this news report of a knife rampage killing 2 people! And Chicago!

[DMC]

If some of you who pine for other countries would just up and move there, this country would be a better place to live. You won't though. We've seen that act before. As soon as a dem takes office it will be roses.

[midnightpulp]

If some of you who pine for other countries would just up and move there, this country would be a better place to live. You won't though. We've seen that act before. As soon as a dem takes office it will be roses.

I agree that the whole "I'm moving to Canada" tantrum is faggotry. But the "love it or leave it" tantrum is equally as lame. Complaining about the country's faults doesn't equal wanting to leave that country. It equals wanting to improve the faults of your country.

Do you think the religious right (aren't you critical of religion?) gaining massive influence over the GOP in the last 3 or 4 decades was a good thing? The founders put in that whole separation of church and state thing for a reason, but the modern GOP and their evangelical puppet masters have sneakily found a way for "Jebus" to obliquely influence public policy and stir up culture wars. And I have nothing against religion and Christianity. There's "Jesus" and "Jebus," the latter being a bastardization of Christian tenets to rally a voting base into a narrow single issue mindset (abortion or prayer in schools, etc). Ironically, when the country was more Christian back in those days, it was less theocratic because people kept politics and religion separate for the most part. The humility of faith was more observed back then. There's a reason megachurches and preachers owning private jets weren't a thing in the 50s.

Goldwater was pretty damn prescient. So was Eisenhower. I guess they would need to "love or leave it" if they were expressing their criticisms and worries today.

[DMC]

I agree that the whole "I'm moving to Canada" tantrum is faggotry. But the "love it or leave it" tantrum is equally as lame. Complaining about the country's faults doesn't equal wanting to leave that country. It equals wanting to improve the faults of your country.

Do you think the religious right (aren't you critical of religion?) gaining massive influence over the GOP in the last 3 or 4 decades was a good thing? The founders put in that whole separation of church and state thing for a reason, but the modern GOP and their evangelical puppet masters have sneakily found a way for "Jebus" to obliquely influence public policy and stir up culture wars. And I have nothing against religion and Christianity. There's "Jesus" and "Jebus," the latter being a bastardization of Christian tenets to rally a voting base into a narrow single issue mindset (abortion or prayer in schools, etc). Ironically, when the country was more Christian back in those days, it was less theocratic because people kept politics and religion separate for the most part. The humility of faith was more observed back then. There's a reason megachurches and preachers owning private jets weren't a thing in the 50s.

Goldwater was pretty damn prescient. So was Eisenhower. I guess they would need to "love or leave it" if they were expressing their criticisms and worries today.

If you're going to sit around and bash your own country and extol other countries as being so much better, then have some courage and haul ass, no one will miss you. If you're doing something to change your own country for the better, then the complaining you do is more of a status update.

Both the people you mentioned were active in changing the country. Most of the whiners won't lift a finger to improve their own lives, much less the country overall.

Let's look at the religious right - they saw something they didn't like and set out to affect change. I disagree with their stance but the one who actually does something about their convictions is more likely to get positive change.

I am all for critique, but some here just offer negative reviews because they lost in 2016.

[DMC]

And look at this news report of a knife rampage killing 2 people! And Chicago!

:cry Charlottesville

[midnightpulp]

If you're going to sit around and bash your own country and extol other countries as being so much better, then have some courage and haul ass, no one will miss you. If you're doing something to change your own country for the better, then the complaining you do is more of a status update.

Both the people you mentioned were active in changing the country. Most of the whiners won't lift a finger to improve their own lives, much less the country overall.

Let's look at the religious right - they saw something they didn't like and set out to affect change. I disagree with their stance but the one who actually does something about their convictions is more likely to get positive change.

I am all for critique, but some here just offer negative reviews because they lost in 2016.

To relate this to sports, when you extol another organization for having a better front office, do you switch teams or complain that your organization needs to get their heads out of their asses? The "love it or leave it" rebuttal comes off to me as a display of cognitive dissonance that can't accept American isn't "the greatest country in the world" they were lead to believe it was. Maybe the flag waving love it or leave guy should say, "Wow. I didn't know the US lacked behind other first world countries in X and X and X. That's disappointing. What can we do to fix this?"

Every solution to a problem starts with a complaint.

[DMC]

To relate this to sports, when you extol another organization for having a better front office, do you switch teams or complain that your organization needs to get their heads out of their asses? The "love it or leave it" rebuttal comes off to me as a display of cognitive dissonance that can't accept American isn't "the greatest country in the world" they were lead to believe it was. Maybe the flag waving love it or leave guy should say, "Wow. I didn't know the US lacked behind other first world countries in X and X and X. That's disappointing. What can we do to fix this?"

Every solution to a problem starts with a complaint.

But it doesn't end with one.

You get these huge caravans of immigrants moving toward the US because they want a better life. Should they sit home and bitch about their own countries? How will that help them or anyone else?

People migrate all the time.

Bird "sure is cold here.. fucking sucks, this place fucking sucks"

Bird 2: "we should fly south"

Bird: "So love it or leave it huh? That's rich"

[midnightpulp]

But it doesn't end with one.

You get these huge caravans of immigrants moving toward the US because they want a better life. Should they sit home and bitch about their own countries? How will that help them or anyone else?

People migrate all the time.

Bird "sure is cold here.. fucking sucks, this place fucking sucks"

Bird 2: "we should fly south"

Bird: "So love it or leave it huh? That's rich"

:lol That's exactly what colonial Americans did under British rule. They bitched and bitched and then finally took action. Did they migrate to Mexico or South America? Nope.

The Bird argument is also a strawman. No one is saying the US "fuckin sucks." They're saying there's room for improvement. Your bird example also fails because birds don't have the luxury of changing their environment to the extent modern humans do. We can make our environment better vs. always having to migrate to a better environment.

[Blake]

If you're going to sit around and bash your own country and extol other countries as being so much better, then have some courage and haul ass, no one will miss you. If you're doing something to change your own country for the better, then the complaining you do is more of a status update.

Both the people you mentioned were active in changing the country. Most of the whiners won't lift a finger to improve their own lives, much less the country overall.

Let's look at the religious right - they saw something they didn't like and set out to affect change. I disagree with their stance but the one who actually does something about their convictions is more likely to get positive change.

I am all for critique, but some here just offer negative reviews because they lost in 2016.

False dilemma

[Blake]

Bird "sure is cold here.. fucking sucks, this place fucking sucks"

Bird 2: "we should fly south"

Bird: "So love it or leave it huh? That's rich"

You're really bad at fallacies

[Spurtacular]

Good. It'll be easier for us to take them over when the time comes.

[Trill Clinton]

Wow just read the story about dude in the OP...WTF. That is some demonic shit.

[DMC]

yap


more yap

[Blake]

Do more entertaining false dilemma bird stories :tu

[Nathan89]

It's embarrassing that people think taking rights away from people makes a country superior.

[Nathan89]

https://youtu.be/8fV-i3QDR6g

[Nathan89]

The authoritarian leftists praising their blueprint country for authoritarian decisions. I'm shocked.

"We just want common sense gun control.:madrun"

[ducks]

This is a what you do!!

Canada >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>America

Prove it move your ass there
Live in there
They flock to Yuma all the time though
They love the az gun laws

[DMC]

:lol That's exactly what colonial Americans did under British rule. They bitched and bitched and then finally took action. Did they migrate to Mexico or South America? Nope.

The Bird argument is also a strawman. No one is saying the US "fuckin sucks." They're saying there's room for improvement. Your bird example also fails because birds don't have the luxury of changing their environment to the extent modern humans do. We can make our environment better vs. always having to migrate to a better environment.

:lol Did they migrate? The colonists? Many moved west and settled the land. People who didn't like their situations spent a lot of time and effort to get to this country to help build and settle it.

The bird example was like "it's not about the nail".

It's conventional wisdom, if you don't like your situation, change it.

[ducks]

nobody needs an AR15

only inbred faggots would disagree

still. fuck the canucks and that massive faggot Trudick

They work good killing coyotes saving your cows !

[Nathan89]

It's embarrassing how other countries are leaving us behind from everything to healthcare to education to gun rights to Coronavirus response. And it didn't start with the Orange Man, either. I attribute the US's decline to some key factors that politicians and thinkers of yesteryear feared might be in America's future if we don't remain vigilant.



Came true.



Came true.



Came true.

And going real old school:

https://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/62/67/1102200475-AndrewJackson1834WEB.jpg

Jefferson basically described the modern stock market almost 200 years ago and how big corporations and investment bankers privatize the profit and socialize the losses. :lol

Orange Man is simply a symptom of the disease caused by those aforementioned fundamental shifts that have occurred in the US over the past 40-50 years.

Yeah, restricting rights is how you lap the competition.:lmao

[Blake]

The authoritarian leftists praising their blueprint country for authoritarian decisions. I'm shocked.

"We just want common sense gun control.:madrun"

What's the common sense reasoning for owning an AR-15?

[DMC]

Prove it move your ass there
Live in there
They flock to Yuma all the time though
They love the az gun laws

I think he's saying he already lives in that shithole known as Toronto.

[Nathan89]

The American leftist has 30 countries they like more than America and wants impose their will others. They are selfish authoritarians. That's just the reality.

[Blake]

:lol Did they migrate? The colonists? Many moved west and settled the land. People who didn't like their situations spent a lot of time and effort to get to this country to help build and settle it.

The bird example was like "it's not about the nail".

It's conventional wisdom, if you don't like your situation, change it.

Dmc trying to subtly move his original goalpost of "love it or leave it" to "change it"

[ElNono]

It's embarrassing how other countries are leaving us behind from everything to healthcare to education to gun rights to Coronavirus response. And it didn't start with the Orange Man, either. I attribute the US's decline to some key factors that politicians and thinkers of yesteryear feared might be in America's future if we don't remain vigilant.

True, but other countries have other problems. And frankly, the US is not beyond repair at this stage.


If some of you who pine for other countries would just up and move there, this country would be a better place to live. You won't though. We've seen that act before. As soon as a dem takes office it will be roses.

I've lived half my life in other countries, tbh. I'll gladly move if I wasn't tied up with family on the wife side at this point. Plenty of great places to live out there, if you can afford it and/or have the necessary papers.

[Blake]

They work good killing coyotes saving your cows !

Are there any other reasons for needing an AR-15 or is that it?

[ElNono]

The authoritarian leftists praising their blueprint country for authoritarian decisions. I'm shocked.

"We just want common sense gun control.:madrun"

Canada is fortunate not to have a 2nd Amendment.

[Spurtacular]

Are there any other reasons for needing an AR-15 or is that it?

Great for taking on tyrants. That's what I'd want them for.

[ElNono]

Yeah, restricting rights is how you lap the competition.:lmao

There's no 'right' to weapons in Canada.

[midnightpulp]

:lol Did they migrate? The colonists? Many moved west and settled the land. People who didn't like their situations spent a lot of time and effort to get to this country to help build and settle it.

The bird example was like "it's not about the nail".

It's conventional wisdom, if you don't like your situation, change it.

And those settlers didn't like their situation under English rule for the following 100 years. Did they migrate to somewhere else? No. They threw tea in a harbor and took up arms.


It's conventional wisdom, if you don't like your situation, change it.

Um, that's what I'm suggesting.

[ElNono]

and lol @ the right talking about authoritarians in other countries... the party of the Patriot Act, the Mulford Act, 'enemy combatants' including Americans, etc.

[DMC]

True, but other countries have other problems. And frankly, the US is not beyond repair at this stage.



I've lived half my life in other countries, tbh. I'll gladly move if I wasn't tied up with family on the wife side at this point. Plenty of great places to live out there, if you can afford it and/or have the necessary papers.

^This is what I am saying. Move to where you fit.

[DMC]

and lol @ the right talking about authoritarians in other countries... the party of the Patriot Act, the Mulford Act, 'enemy combatants' including Americans, etc.

None of that is decided by a single person.

[ElNono]

None of that is decided by a single person.

I can give similar examples created by EO... ie: the massive NSA wiretap order (that eventually was cleaned up into law once the fake news NYT brought it to light)

However, pointing out these things are specific to the left or right is inane.

[ElNono]

^This is what I am saying. Move to where you fit.

And let's not pretend that if you're at a certain stage in life, you get pickier too... no shitty weather, etc.

Outside of the political shitshow, the US is a big country, has a lot of options.

[midnightpulp]

Yeah, restricting rights is how you lap the competition.:lmao

Lol, your rights per the second amendment are restricted and you don't even know it. Can you privately own a stealth bomber? An F35 fighter? A nuclear weapon? The "2nd amendment" is a farce. It throws you a few scraps in the form of letting you own small arms for personal defense that won't do shit against a "tyrannical government" if they decided to act against you. "Yeah, but see, owning a stealth bomber is just nonsensical." Why? A stealth bomber would allow you to protect yourself a hell of a lot better against "tyranny" than a semi-automatic rifle. Point is, there 2nd amendment isn't actually consistently applied. Its original intention was to balance the firepower between citizens and government, so the latter couldn't impose tyranny. Citizens had the same weapons as the government.

Is that the case today? No.

But I don't want the 2nd amendment banned. I'm a believer in citizens having small arms for personal protection. But we need to get off this dumb idea that the 2nd amendment exists in the modern age as allowing citizens to arm themselves against a potential tyrannical government. And I don't think AR-15s should be banned, but they should be a hell of a lot harder to get. 19 year olds shouldn't just to be able to cruise into a Turners and pick one up.

[Nathan89]

Are there any other reasons for needing an AR-15 or is that it?

There are plenty of things we have that we don't need.

[ducks]

Are there any other reasons for needing an AR-15 or is that it?

No need for health insurance costing you thousands
If you have none they do not make you pay
Just ask the illegals

[ducks]

Blake needs no electronics
People lived without them

[ElNono]

Lol, your rights per the second amendment are restricted and you don't even know it. Can you privately own a stealth bomber? An F35 fighter? A nuclear weapon? The "2nd amendment" is a farce. It throws you a few scraps in the form of letting you own small arms for personal defense that won't do shit against a "tyrannical government" if they decided to act against you. "Yeah, but see, owning a stealth bomber is just nonsensical." Why? A stealth bomber would allow you to protect yourself a hell of a lot better against "tyranny" than a semi-automatic rifle. Point is, there 2nd amendment isn't actually consistently applied. Its original intention was to balance the firepower between citizens and government, so the latter couldn't impose tyranny. Citizens had the same weapons as the government.

Don't worry though, half these crossdressers have no idea what muh Constitution says. They've got the annotated version from pastor Alex Jones.

[Nathan89]

AR-15s result in a miniscule amount of murders in America. There is no legitimate argument against them.

[Blake]

^This is what I am saying. Move to where you fit.

And back to the love it or leave it fallacy

[Blake]

AR-15s result in a miniscule amount of murders in America. There is no legitimate argument against them.

What's the legitimate argument for them besides coyotes?

[Nathan89]

Mid seems to be arguing for more access to more firepower. Yes, the government has more weapons that are more powerful. In recognition of that it's moronic to make citizens even weaker against that reality.

[midnightpulp]

AR-15s result in a miniscule amount of murders in America. There is no legitimate argument against them.

Limiting the AR-15s proliferation isn't about reducing overall gun deaths, it's about reducing mass murders. Dynamite has always caused a "miniscule amount of deaths in America" but you can't just walk into a hardware store and pick a few sticks up. Why is that? Because we know if someone wanted to, they could cause a hell of a lot of damage very quickly with it.

[midnightpulp]

Mid seems to be arguing for more access to more firepower. Yes, the government has more weapons that are more powerful. In recognition of that it's moronic to make citizens even weaker against that reality.

Lol. A bunch (even millions of them) of rednecks with some AR-15s against the US military might as well not be any defense at all.

And I don't want more access to firepower. I'm saying your 2nd amendment right is "infringed upon" and you don't even know it. What's one more weapon platform (in this case, AR-15s) restricted in the grand scheme of what is already restricted? And to clarify, restricted doesn't mean prohibited. Possession of AR-15s and the like should be restricted to proven, responsible gun owners. Some 18 year old alt-right faggot shouldn't be able to walk into a gun shop and buy one.

[Nathan89]

Limiting the AR-15s proliferation isn't about reducing overall gun deaths, it's about reducing mass murders. Dynamite has always caused a "miniscule amount of deaths in America" but you can't just walk into a hardware store and pick a few sticks up. Why is that? Because we know if someone wanted to, they could cause a hell of a lot of damage very quickly with it.

There is no demand for dynamite in a hardware store.

Mass murders with AR-15s are also rare. Still not a legitimate reason to take rights away from law abiding Americans.

[ElNono]

Mid seems to be arguing for more access to more firepower. Yes, the government has more weapons that are more powerful. In recognition of that it's moronic to make citizens even weaker against that reality.

That ship sailed though. I would argue it's moronic to pretend citizens could ever stand up to the government at this point. It's actually double-moronic to attempt to intimidate lawmakers with violence during democratic times.

[Nathan89]

That ship sailed though. I would argue it's moronic to pretend citizens could ever stand up to the government at this point. It's actually double-moronic to attempt to intimidate lawmakers with violence during democratic times.

If the lawmakers are intimidated then perhaps get lawmakers with more courage.

[ElNono]

Lol. A bunch (even millions of them) of rednecks with some AR-15s against the US military might as well not be any defense at all.

Yeah, that ship has sailed a long time ago. Remember Portland or whatever the fuck was that BLM thing was during the previous admin?

I have zero problems with the 2nd amendment for home defense, or even hunting/sports... using it for intimidation is a different situation though, but I think it speaks much louder about the impotence of a very small minority.

[ElNono]

If the lawmakers are intimidated then perhaps get lawmakers with more courage.

It's not the lawmakers' problem that we have a very tiny minority that feels like threatening them. Not the first time either, see The Mulford Act. Perfectly legal too.

[TheGreatYacht]

nobody needs an AR15

only inbred faggots would disagree

still. fuck the canucks and that massive faggot Trudick

We gonna need those AR-15's to stop government tyranny and communist takeover of America. It has already begun.


If some of you who pine for other countries would just up and move there, this country would be a better place to live. You won't though. We've seen that act before. As soon as a dem takes office it will be roses.

I would gladly leave seeing the way this country is becoming a communist shithole because of a hoax virus that you believe in cuz daddy Trump and the GOP say it's real. Also they closed down the borders cuz they wanna keep us trapped here.


The authoritarian leftists praising their blueprint country for authoritarian decisions. I'm shocked.

"We just want common sense gun control.:madrun"

That's how the left thinks. They love big government to save lives. SMH at closing down meat plants because of a stupid hoax virus in the name of saving lives.

That's the same reason the elites use to open up the borders to "save lives."

Stay home, save lives.

How fucking stupid can people be? How much more will we tolerate this crap?

[ElNono]

We gonna need those AR-15's to stop government tyranny and communist takeover of America. It has already begun.

It never has begun. There's no 'revolution' coming.

[Nathan89]

It's not the lawmakers' problem that we have a very tiny minority that feels like threatening them. Not the first time either, see The Mulford Act. Perfectly legal too.

If they are intimidated by those people then they are weak lawmakers tbh

[ElNono]

If they are intimidated by those people then they are weak lawmakers tbh

Clearly the intimidation didn't work, that points to them not being weak at all, and distracts from the real issue here: this minority not understanding how democracy works.

[Nathan89]

We gonna need those AR-15's to stop government tyranny and communist takeover of America. It has already begun.



I would gladly leave seeing the way this country is becoming a communist shithole because of a hoax virus that you believe in cuz daddy Trump and the GOP say it's real. Also they closed down the borders cuz they wanna keep us trapped here.



That's how the left thinks. They love big government to save lives. SMH at closing down meat plants because of a stupid hoax virus in the name of saving lives.

That's the same reason the elites use to open up the borders to "save lives."

Stay home, save lives.

How fucking stupid can people be? How much more will we tolerate this crap?

They support the same logic behind "stop and frisk" without realizing it.

I mean why do we "need" the ability to be in public without a little safety frisk to save lives? It's for the greater good.

[Nathan89]

Clearly the intimidation didn't work, that points to them not being weak at all, and distracts from the real issue here: this minority not understanding how democracy works.

Then it's not worth discussing as a problem.

[ElNono]

Then it's not worth discussing as a problem.

That'd be convenient only if you're one of those retards. Democracy is always worth discussing.

[Nathan89]

That'd be convenient only if you're one of those retards. Democracy is always worth discussing.

Carrying a gun around doesn't stop democracy.

[ElNono]

Carrying a gun around doesn't stop democracy.

Intimidating politicians with weapons because you don't like the laws is certainly damaging to democracy, especially if they can get away with it.

Fortunately they didn't this time.

[midnightpulp]

There is no demand for dynamite in a hardware store.

Mass murders with AR-15s are also rare. Still not a legitimate reason to take rights away from law abiding Americans.

:lol What? That's where it was originally sold back in the day. There's "no demand" because hardware stores aren't allowed to sell it anymore. If hardware stores could, every redneck Tom, Dick, and Harry would buy that shit up to blow up shit for fun.

Mass murders with explosives are also rare. So why do we take the rights away from "law abiding" citizens to own C4? You know why. Because a bad actor can cause a shit load of deaths with it. Just the same with an AR-15 and a 100 round drum mag.

[Nathan89]

Intimidating politicians with weapons because you don't like the laws is certainly damaging to democracy, especially if they can get away with it.

Fortunately they didn't this time.

If you are intimidated by people carrying guns then you should not be a politician. They were intimidated as you've already said. I see no problem. I also see no problem choosing to defy that law.

[Spurtacular]

https://youtu.be/8fV-i3QDR6g

One man unilaterally making this decision.

:lmao Cuck-uh-duh

[Nathan89]

:lol What? That's where it was originally sold back in the day. There's "no demand" because hardware stores aren't allowed to sell it anymore. If hardware stores could, every redneck Tom, Dick, and Harry would buy that shit up to blow up shit for fun.

Mass murders with explosives are also rare. So why do we take the rights away from "law abiding" citizens to own C4? You know why. Because a bad actor can cause a shit load of deaths with it. Just the same with an AR-15 and a 100 round drum mag.

Sure, I was thinking the average hardware store across America. I'm sure there would be demand in select areas.

Well that currently not a problem because these things are rare. Further people go through a process to get guns it's not just going into a store and picking something up. People can also get access to dynamite through a process. Seems everything is pretty effective with regards to the guns.

[baseline bum]

If you are intimidated by people carrying guns then you should not be a politician. They were intimidated as you've already said. I see no problem. I also see no problem choosing to defy that law.

Weird to see you shit on Reagan like that

[Nathan89]

One man unilaterally making this decision.

:lmao Cuck-uh-duh

Yeah, it's a great system for authoritarians.

[midnightpulp]

Here's the thing. Both Conservatives and Liberals actually have the same opinion on the 2nd amendment, that it should allow weapon ownership up to certain point. No rational Conservative would agree that somebody should be able to walk onto a car lot and buy a fully armed M1 Abrams tank. They wouldn't want citizens owning stealth bombers, nuclear powered submarines, biological and chemical weapons, and so on. Liberals basically just go a couple of weapons further in the small category, like machine guns and semi-automatic rifles of the AR-15 mold. And actually, many Liberals do not want to prohibit ownership of those weapons, but simply restrict them, like imposing a higher age limit or a stricter licensing procedure.

[Nathan89]

Weird to see you shit on Reagan like that

I don't care tbh.

[midnightpulp]

Sure, I was thinking the average hardware store across America. I'm sure there would be demand in select areas.

Well that currently not a problem because these things are rare. Further people go through a process to get gunsit's not just going into a store and picking something up. People can also get access to dynamite through a process. Seems everything is pretty effective with regards to the guns.

Nicholas Cruz didn't go through any process to buy his AR-15. Slapped the money down and walked out with an AR-15.

[ElNono]

If you are intimidated by people carrying guns then you should not be a politician. They were intimidated as you've already said. I see no problem. I also see no problem choosing to defy that law.

No I didn't say they were intimidated, I said the exact opposite. What I did say is these clowns tried to intimidate and failed.

It's actually pretty common for people to be intimidated by weapons. Like I said, there's plenty of examples about that, including The Mulford law that addressed that specific point.

I know you want to shift this conversation towards politicians, but that's not how it works, and I won't let you. They weren't doing anything different than they do every day.

[Nathan89]

Here's the thing. Both Conservatives and Liberals actually have the same opinion on the 2nd amendment, that it should allow weapon ownership up to certain point. No rational Conservative would agree that somebody should be able to walk onto a car lot and buy a fully armed M1 Abrams tank. They wouldn't want citizens owning stealth bombers, nuclear powered submarines, biological and chemical weapons, and so on. Liberals basically just go a couple of weapons further in the small category, like machine guns and semi-automatic rifles of the AR-15 mold. And actually, many Liberals do not want to prohibit ownership of those weapons, but simply restrict them, like imposing a higher age limit or a stricter licensing procedure.

Liberals mostly get fear mongered into that position. Also it's very obvious they'll continue to erode at access to guns. So their current position is ultimately irrelevant. One just has to look at how all their blueprint countries control guns.

[Nathan89]

Nicholas Cruz didn't go through any process to buy his AR-15. Slapped the money down and walked out with an AR-15.

So incredibly rare even without the process.

[midnightpulp]

Liberals mostly get fear mongered into that position. Also it's very obvious they'll continue to erode at access to guns. So their current position is ultimately irrelevant. One just has to look at how all their blueprint countries control guns.

Slippery slope fallacy. And Liberals can never, ever "erode access" to guns per the second amendment. Other countries don't have a second amendment. I think Conservatives are fear mongered into believing that every Liberal who calls for more gun control is a "gun grabber." From what we know about brain development, the fact we have more young people than ever on anti-depressants, with suicide among young people the highest it's been in decades, I think the minimum age of 18 for gun ownership is illogical. 21 to drink, 21 to gamble, 21 to own a gun (and yes, 21 to enter military). 18 isn't an "adult." It's an arbitrary age to define adulthood we picked out of a hat.

[midnightpulp]

So incredibly rare even without the process.

A mass shooting of innocent people in a Walmart or school in a first world, supposedly civilized society shouldn't be "rare," it should be nonexistent. Hmm.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/no-mass-shootings-australia-20-years-how-did-they-do-n597091

[baseline bum]

I don't care tbh.

What about when Trump made peoples' guns illegal a couple of years ago then?

[ElNono]

Slippery slope fallacy. And Liberals can never, ever "erode access" to guns per the second amendment. Other countries don't have a second amendment. I think Conservatives are fear mongered into believing that every Liberal who calls for more gun control is a "gun grabber." From what we know about brain development, the fact we have more young people than ever on anti-depressants, with suicide among young people the highest it's been in decades, I think the minimum age of 18 for gun ownership is illogical. 21 to drink, 21 to gamble, 21 to own a gun (and yes, 21 to enter military). 18 isn't an "adult." It's an arbitrary age to define adulthood we picked out of a hat.

It's worse than that, tbh... the 'left' is just the convenient boogeyman, they're indoctrinated into thinking they can battle big bad gubmint with a weapon. The whole construction is a fallacy at many levels.

[DMC]

A mass shooting of innocent people in a Walmart or school in a first world, supposedly civilized society shouldn't be "rare," it should be nonexistent. Hmm.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/no-mass-shootings-australia-20-years-how-did-they-do-n597091

Bullshit

There's been several mass shootings since then.

They are just cherry picking. Those people who shot and killed 4 or 5 people in their own families don't matter?

[DMC]

It's worse than that, tbh... the 'left' is just the convenient boogeyman, they're indoctrinated into thinking they can battle big bad gubmint with a weapon. The whole construction is a fallacy at many levels.

This is wrong too.

They know they cannot battle the US military or even the police force. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Technically, more gun control = more gun grabbing, because there's never enough gun control to suit the anti-gun crowd as long as people still own guns.

[Nathan89]

Slippery slope fallacy. And Liberals can never, ever "erode access" to guns per the second amendment. Other countries don't have a second amendment. I think Conservatives are fear mongered into believing that every Liberal who calls for more gun control is a "gun grabber." From what we know about brain development, the fact we have more young people than ever on anti-depressants, with suicide among young people the highest it's been in decades, I think the minimum age of 18 for gun ownership is illogical. 21 to drink, 21 to gamble, 21 to own a gun (and yes, 21 to enter military). 18 isn't an "adult." It's an arbitrary age to define adulthood we picked out of a hat.

It's not a slippery slope. Their position is emotional and that's why they parade kids around. That will not stop with regards to other weapons. They praise other countries that already restrict access. Some even admit their temporary demands are only a stepping stone. It's pretty clear where the puck is going.

[midnightpulp]

Bullshit

There's been several mass shootings since then.

They are just cherry picking. Those people who shot and killed 4 or 5 people in their own families don't matter?

How many vs. the good ole US of A? If we're counting those as mass shootings, I'd wager Australia has seen less than 10 since Port Arthur, while the US has probably seen over a 1000.

[DMC]

I would gladly leave seeing the way this country is becoming a communist shithole because of a hoax virus that you believe in cuz daddy Trump and the GOP say it's real. Also they closed down the borders cuz they wanna keep us trapped here.


If you'd gladly leave, why are you still here?

[midnightpulp]

It's not a slippery slope. Their position is emotional and that's why they parade kids around. That same thing will not stop. They praise other countries that already restrict access. Some even admit their temporary demands are only a stepping stone. It's pretty clear where the puck is going.

No, the emotional position is "From mah cold, dead hands! Yeehaw. 2nd amendment!" The rational position is appealing to scientific fact that the prefrontal cortex (which controls impulse) isn't fully developed until age 25.

[DMC]

How many vs. the good ole US of A? If we're counting those as mass shootings, I'd wager Australia has seen less than 10 since Port Arthur, while the US has probably seen over a 1000.

How many before the gun ban?

Goalpost move btw... if you're going to tote ciphers, don't offer up that false narrative about Australia not having any mass shootings in 20 years.

[Nathan89]

A mass shooting of innocent people in a Walmart or school in a first world, supposedly civilized society shouldn't be "rare," it should be nonexistent. Hmm.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/no-mass-shootings-australia-20-years-how-did-they-do-n597091

People get killed in numerous ways by a numerous amount of legal products.

[midnightpulp]

Oh, found the stat. Jesus.


Gun Violence Archive, frequently cited by the press, defines a mass shooting as firearm violence resulting in at least four people being shot at roughly the same time and location, excluding the perpetrator.[8][9] Using this definition, there have been 2,128 mass shootings since 2013, roughly one per day.[8][10]

Per DMC's criteria.

"From my cold, dead hands."

[ElNono]

This is wrong too.

They know they cannot battle the US military or even the police force. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Technically, more gun control = more gun grabbing, because there's never enough gun control to suit the anti-gun crowd as long as people still own guns.

It isn't wrong, you have one of your purported idiots advancing that argument right here.

Technically we deal with government excesses all the time, through the judiciary or even through voting. States legislatures used to flip all the time (at least until gerrymandering came around).

We also know that Constitutional amendments can certainly be regulated, up to a certain extent, and we also have laws in the books that deal with this particular situation.

So it's not like there's no democratic process to deal with this, it's just that you have a very tiny minority that think a gun trumps the law, and they couldn't be more wrong.

That's why I said the whole construction is built on a fallacy.

[midnightpulp]

People get killed in numerous ways by a numerous amount of legal products.

But guns cause an overwhelming number of those. Nice try, though.

[Nathan89]

No, the emotional position is "From mah cold, dead hands! Yeehaw. 2nd amendment!" The rational position is appealing to scientific fact that the prefrontal cortex (which controls impulse) isn't fully developed until age 25.

Nah, the emotional is clearly pushing their agenda on the masses through children. Mass crowds that have zero knowledge on the statistics behind guns. If you'd recognize that you'd realize how foolish/irrelevant your stance about liberals current position on guns really is.

[midnightpulp]

How many before the gun ban?

Goalpost move btw... if you're going to tote ciphers, don't offer up that false narrative about Australia not having any mass shootings in 20 years.

“From 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred,” they wrote.

Depends on the definition you use. The mass shootings in question are this kind: One definition is an act of public firearm violence—excluding gang killings, domestic violence, or terrorist acts sponsored by an organization—in which a shooter kills at least four victims.

Tell me the last time a gunman shot up a concert from a hotel window or a killed 26 elementary school children in Australia. I'll wait (forever).

[Nathan89]

But guns cause an overwhelming number of those. Nice try, though.

Are you talking about guns or AR-15s now?

[baseline bum]

Nicholas Cruz didn't go through any process to buy his AR-15. Slapped the money down and walked out with an AR-15.

Not a peep from the second amendment crowd when Trump made the rifles Stephen Paddock used to murder a bunch of people in Vegas illegal. Because none of the big manufacturers the NRA is a trade lobby for made bump stocks. But since they make the rifles Nicolas Cruz used to murder a bunch of kids in Florida it's so critical to protect them. This whole second amendment movement is a bunch of people being used for the purpose of keeping big gun manufacturers from being regulated. Gun rights are the one thing I actually used to really like about the Republican party and hate about the Democrats, but now Trump has laid it out crystal clear that muh gun rights is really about protecting the profits of large gun manufacturers.

[DMC]

:lol What? That's where it was originally sold back in the day. There's "no demand" because hardware stores aren't allowed to sell it anymore. If hardware stores could, every redneck Tom, Dick, and Harry would buy that shit up to blow up shit for fun.

https://tannerite.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/PP10-slide.jpg

[baseline bum]

Are you talking about guns or AR-15s now?

Not a peep from you when bump stocks were made illegal though they were only responsible for 58 deaths in the history of this nation. Because it was Trump who did it. There would have been so much autistic screeching though if it was Obama or Clinton taking them away.

[midnightpulp]

Nah, the emotional is clearly pushing their agenda on the masses through children. Mass crowds that have zero knowledge on the statistics behind guns. If you'd recognize that you'd realize how foolish/irrelevant your stance about liberals current position on guns really is.

Who do you think you're talking to? I know all the statistics. And I'll reiterate: We've had over 100 mass shootings of the "guy shoots up a public space of innocent people" variety over the past twenty years. I don't give a shit how "rare" these events are. Shooting up a school or church is something that should rarely, as in maybe once every 50 years rare, happen in a so-called "civilized society." I realize making these events a zero factor is impossible, but we should endeavor to make them "more rarer." Guess what. They aren't becoming more rare. https://www.christianforums.com/data/attachment-files/2018/02/272102_ff204aedce3d0f3ec5edbc469247d237.png

This is like saying, "Well, since the OKC bombing was 'rare,' people should be allowed to have explosives." Point is, one fuckin' OKC is one too many. Similarly, one Las Vegas or Newton is one/two too many.

[ElNono]

https://tannerite.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/PP10-slide.jpg

Yep, but it's a binary explosive and highly regulated. He's not wrong dynamite is banned for the general consumer.

[DMC]

Yep, but it's a binary explosive and highly regulated. He's not wrong dynamite is banned for the general consumer.

"Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a Federal explosives license or permit."[5] However, "persons falling into certain categories are prohibited from possessing explosive materials".[5] Those prohibited from possessing explosives include most non-citizens, unlawful drug users and addicts, those convicted or indicted for serious crimes, fugitives, and those who have been officially declared mentally defective or have been committed to a mental institution.[5] Restrictions imposed at the state and local level also apply.[3][5] In California in particular, a permit may be required to use or possess the product.[6]

Various regulations also govern the storage of unmixed explosives. As oxidizers and combustibles, the unmixed components still have some shipping restrictions in the United States.[8][9]

Tannerite isn't an explosive if it's in binary form. The loophole is you have to mix it onsite, and cannot transport afterward without permit.

[DMC]

“From 1979-1996 (before gun law reforms), 13 fatal mass shootings occurred in Australia, whereas from 1997 through May 2016 (after gun law reforms), no fatal mass shootings occurred,” they wrote.

Depends on the definition you use. The mass shootings in question are this kind: One definition is an act of public firearm violence—excluding gang killings, domestic violence, or terrorist acts sponsored by an organization—in which a shooter kills at least four victims.

Tell me the last time a gunman shot up a concert from a hotel window or a killed 26 elementary school children in Australia. I'll wait (forever).

Before the ban

https://i.imgur.com/0zavl7m.jpg

After the ban

https://i.imgur.com/GKfLXMw.jpg

I realize how convenient it is to use that one event and ignore all the others, but the two images are not noticeably different other than the Port Author massacre.

Australia never had a mass shooting epidemic.

[DMC]

Not a peep from you when bump stocks were made illegal though they were only responsible for 58 deaths in the history of this nation. Because it was Trump who did it. There would have been so much autistic screeching though if it was Obama or Clinton taking them away.

Most gun owners I know who give 2 shits about automatic weapons are against bump stocks for a couple reasons. 1. They cheapen the concept of an automatic weapon 2. They aren't required to use that same shooting style, just loop a finger through a belt hole and it works the same way.

7RdAhTxyP64

[Blake]

If you are intimidated by people carrying guns then you should not be a politician.

Jesus you're retarded.

[midnightpulp]

Australia never had a mass shooting epidemic.

Hey, I'm fine with the argument "guns don't kill people, people do." So if Aussies never had a mass shooting epidemic prior to the ban, and the ban is correlational at best in preventing more Port Arthur style massacres, this perhaps suggests Australians are responsible gun owners and/or more mentally stable than Americans? If we used the criteria from your posted pictures (including drive bys and gang fights), the US count would be in the thousands, not the dozens like the Aussies here. So maybe it's not guns that are the problem, but guns plus Americans that are the problem? After, we're the most pilled up, physically unhealthy, drug addicted nation in the so-called 1st world.

I've always felt that way to an extent, that Americans in general are too irresponsible/mentally unstable to honor the privileges the 2nd amendment affords. Proof is in the pudding here. Why didn't any other country have a mass shooting epidemic like America when gun control was more lax?

[Blake]

This is wrong too.

They know they cannot battle the US military or even the police force. Only an idiot would think otherwise.

Technically, more gun control = more gun grabbing, because there's never enough gun control to suit the anti-gun crowd as long as people still own guns.

More slippery slope

[Blake]

Most gun owners I know who give 2 shits about automatic weapons are against bump stocks for a couple reasons. 1. They cheapen the concept of an automatic weapon 2. They aren't required to use that same shooting style, just loop a finger through a belt hole and it works the same way.

7RdAhTxyP64

More anecdotes

[Blake]

"Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a Federal explosives license or permit."[5]

BUT IF WE START REQUIRING PERMITS IT'LL NEVER END UNTIL ALL MUH GUNS ARE SNATCHED UP BY THE LEFT

[ElNono]

"Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a Federal explosives license or permit."[5] However, "persons falling into certain categories are prohibited from possessing explosive materials".[5] Those prohibited from possessing explosives include most non-citizens, unlawful drug users and addicts, those convicted or indicted for serious crimes, fugitives, and those who have been officially declared mentally defective or have been committed to a mental institution.[5] Restrictions imposed at the state and local level also apply.[3][5] In California in particular, a permit may be required to use or possess the product.[6]

Various regulations also govern the storage of unmixed explosives. As oxidizers and combustibles, the unmixed components still have some shipping restrictions in the United States.[8][9]

Tannerite isn't an explosive if it's in binary form. The loophole is you have to mix it onsite, and cannot transport afterward without permit.

Yep, transportation of non-binary explosives is banned by the ATF. We did that in the name of safety, and that was a good decision, IMO.

[DMC]

Hey, I'm fine with the argument "guns don't kill people, people do." So if Aussies never had a mass shooting epidemic prior to the ban, and the ban is correlational at best in preventing more Port Arthur style massacres, this perhaps suggests Australians are responsible gun owners and/or more mentally stable than Americans? If we used the criteria from your posted pictures (including drive bys and gang fights), the US count would be in the thousands, not the dozens like the Aussies here. So maybe it's not guns that are the problem, but guns plus Americans that are the problem? After, we're the most pilled up, physically unhealthy, drug addicted nation in the so-called 1st world.

I've always felt that way to an extent, that Americans in general are too irresponsible/mentally unstable to honor the privileges the 2nd amendment affords. Proof is in the pudding here. Why didn't any other country have a mass shooting epidemic like America when gun control was more lax?

The bottom line is Australia's gun ban did not change their gun violence. They had one event before that was significant. They still have shootings. A person willing to kill everyone in their own family and turn the gun on themselves could very well walk into a mall and kill plenty. The ability is there.

In my travels around other countries, one think I noticed is the lack of general disgust with other people like here in the US. You see these people get into fights outside a nightclub in Sweden, one guy knocks the shit out of the other, dude falls, they roll him over and drag him off the sidewalk. Here in the US someone not even in the fray would run up and stomp his head, then someone else would steal his wallet. Hatred and lack of give-a-fuck about people in general in this country makes mass killings just a step further than suicide. I don't get the thing with the kids, mental illness I suppose, but some others.. those people have lived lives of not really giving 2 shits about anyone. Whatever causes that, I don't know. Maybe they weren't raised properly.

[BD24]

Prove it move your ass there
Live in there
They flock to Yuma all the time though
They love the az gun laws
He already lives there you stupid cunt :lol

[DMC]

Yep, transportation of non-binary explosives is banned by the ATF. We did that in the name of safety, and that was a good decision, IMO.

It's a placebo. You can easily mix explosives for use where you stop. It takes seconds to pour dry powder into dry powder. Shit, the OKC bomber used fertilizer and a catalyst, perhaps diesel.

In fact, a lot of the laws are placebos. The bump stock ban is a huge placebo and accomplishes basically nothing but appeasing the gun ignorant crowd.

[Blake]

The bottom line is Australia's gun ban did not change their gun violence. They had one event before that was significant. They still have shootings. A person willing to kill everyone in their own family and turn the gun on themselves could very well walk into a mall and kill plenty. The ability is there.

So why make any more difficult for killers to get the guns if they're just gonna get them any way, amirite?



In my travels around other countries, one think I noticed is the lack of general disgust with other people like here in the US. You see these people get into fights outside a nightclub in Sweden, one guy knocks the shit out of the other, dude falls, they roll him over and drag him off the sidewalk. Here in the US someone not even in the fray would run up and stomp his head, then someone else would steal his wallet. Hatred and lack of give-a-fuck about people in general in this country makes mass killings just a step further than suicide. I don't get the thing with the kids, mental illness I suppose, but some others.. those people have lived lives of not really giving 2 shits about anyone. Whatever causes that, I don't know. Maybe they weren't raised properly.

Cool more anecdotes

[Nathan89]

I love when disingenuous people use "slippery slope" to hide obvious realities.

[ElNono]

Hey, I'm fine with the argument "guns don't kill people, people do." So if Aussies never had a mass shooting epidemic prior to the ban, and the ban is correlational at best in preventing more Port Arthur style massacres, this perhaps suggests Australians are responsible gun owners and/or more mentally stable than Americans? If we used the criteria from your posted pictures (including drive bys and gang fights), the US count would be in the thousands, not the dozens like the Aussies here. So maybe it's not guns that are the problem, but guns plus Americans that are the problem? After, we're the most pilled up, physically unhealthy, drug addicted nation in the so-called 1st world.

I've always felt that way to an extent, that Americans in general are too irresponsible/mentally unstable to honor the privileges the 2nd amendment affords. Proof is in the pudding here. Why didn't any other country have a mass shooting epidemic like America when gun control was more lax?

Minorities like the ones at this event give a bad name to responsible gun owners, tbh... I'd like to think the majority of Americans are actually pretty responsible with their gun fetish, otherwise we would have a lot more incidents reported.

What's sorta puzzling is responsible owners not coming out to condemn this. Clowns like these are probably a bigger threat to their gun rights than 'the left'.

[DMC]

More slippery slope

When "gun control" is being used as a nebulous term, the slope is very slippery. Keep puking out logical fallacy accusations though Blake. It's impressive :tu

[DMC]

More anecdotes

With a video for proof.

[Blake]

I love when disingenuous people use "slippery slope" to hide obvious realities.

It's actually annoying when disingenuous people want their fallacy to count as a real argument.

[ElNono]

It's a placebo. You can easily mix explosives for use where you stop. It takes seconds to pour dry powder into dry powder. Shit, the OKC bomber used fertilizer and a catalyst, perhaps diesel.

In fact, a lot of the laws are placebos. The bump stock ban is a huge placebo and accomplishes basically nothing but appeasing the gun ignorant crowd.

And now we track and regulate ammonium nitrate sales and transport. It isn't a placebo, it's a deterrent. Whereas before you could claim ignorance and go on your merry way, now you have some explaining to do. It's the right thing to do.

[Blake]

With a video for proof.

OH VIDEO ANECDOTES!

[DMC]

So why make any more difficult for killers to get the guns if they're just gonna get them any way, amirite?



Cool more anecdotes

I know you want to come off as clever but you're really too ignorant to participate in these types of discussions. As soon as we start talking about the Christians and how they are going to create a society of biblical law, you can resume your petty quips. OK, bye then.

[midnightpulp]

The bottom line is Australia's gun ban did not change their gun violence. They had one event before that was significant. They still have shootings. A person willing to kill everyone in their own family and turn the gun on themselves could very well walk into a mall and kill plenty. The ability is there.

In my travels around other countries, one think I noticed is the lack of general disgust with other people like here in the US. You see these people get into fights outside a nightclub in Sweden, one guy knocks the shit out of the other, dude falls, they roll him over and drag him off the sidewalk. Here in the US someone not even in the fray would run up and stomp his head, then someone else would steal his wallet. Hatred and lack of give-a-fuck about people in general in this country makes mass killings just a step further than suicide. I don't get the thing with the kids, mental illness I suppose, but some others.. those people have lived lives of not really giving 2 shits about anyone. Whatever causes that, I don't know. Maybe they weren't raised properly.

My theory is because Americans are indoctrinated with this "fuck you, I'm getting mine at any cost" social Darwinism mentality throughout life. Al Capone, Scarface, etc are cultural icons for a reason, while hardly anyone remembers Elliot Ness. This explains the rise of Trump, as well. His mantra of "winning" at all costs appeals to this American sickness.

[Blake]

When "gun control" is being used as a nebulous term, the slope is very slippery. Keep puking out logical fallacy accusations though Blake. It's impressive :tu

You're the one calling it nebulous, dipshit. Most of us here want to start with getting rid of AR-15s since there's no need for them.

[Blake]

I know you want to come off as clever but you're really too ignorant to participate in these types of discussions. As soon as we start talking about the Christians and how they are going to create a society of biblical law, you can resume your petty quips. OK, bye then.

Oh ad hominem now. Don't stop now, keep going.

[DMC]

And now we track and regulate ammonium nitrate sales and transport. It isn't a placebo, it's a deterrent. Whereas before you could claim ignorance and go on your merry way, now you have some explaining to do. It's the right thing to do.

It's easy to make ammonium nitrate. As long as the non-involved crowd thinks something is being done, placebo legislation will continue to be the answer post-event panic.

See? Every law has verbiage, and things have to be clearly spelled out. Can't buy a bump stock, but you can still use bump fire techniques. Can't have a fully automatic weapon, but you can still shoot around the same RPM using bump fire on a semi-auto. Cannot manufacture and sell high cap magazines, but you can still sell what you already own. For every law like that, there's an underlying intent and an outcome that doesn't quite satisfy the intent.

[midnightpulp]

I love when disingenuous people use "slippery slope" to hide obvious realities.

Slippery slope is an actual logical fallacy. Where's your evidence that one restriction will lead to another restriction to another until full "gun grabbing" is achieved? California instituted an assault weapons ban way back in 1989. This has not lead to any kind of wholesale gun grabbing. It's actually not particularly difficult to buy a gun in California.

[DMC]

Slippery slope is an actual logical fallacy. Where's your evidence that one restriction will lead to another restriction to another until full "gun grabbing" is achieved? California instituted an assault weapons ban way back in 1989. This has not lead to any kind of wholesale gun grabbing. It's actually not particularly difficult to buy a gun in California.

No one said "one restriction". You're moving goalposts. I said "gun control". Without quantification, the slope can be as slippery as I want.

i5bI2CrB2xI

[Nathan89]

Slippery slope is an actual logical fallacy. Where's your evidence that one restriction will lead to another restriction to another until full "gun grabbing" is achieved? California instituted an assault weapons ban way back in 1989. This has not lead to any kind of wholesale gun grabbing. It's actually not particularly difficult to buy a gun in California.

Yeah, I've already explained numerous factors that hint to the direction of the puck. Including people that admit that these things are just stepping stones.

[Blake]

No one said "one restriction". You're moving goalposts. I said "gun control". Without quantification, the slope can be as slippery as I want.

Lol "moving goalpost"

What do you think this thread is about?

[ElNono]

My theory is because Americans are indoctrinated with this "fuck you, I'm getting mine at any cost" social Darwinism mentality throughout life. Al Capone, Scarface, etc are cultural icons for a reason, while hardly anyone remembers Elliot Ness. This explains the rise of Trump, as well. His mantra of "winning" at all costs appeals to this American sickness.

Add jeebotards to that for an explosive combo. The Constitution and "what the forefathers wanted" has been reduced to "the bible" and "what jesus wanted" pretty much...

[Blake]

It's easy to make ammonium nitrate. As long as the non-involved crowd thinks something is being done, placebo legislation will continue to be the answer post-event panic.

See? Every law has verbiage, and things have to be clearly spelled out. Can't buy a bump stock, but you can still use bump fire techniques. Can't have a fully automatic weapon, but you can still shoot around the same RPM using bump fire on a semi-auto. Cannot manufacture and sell high cap magazines, but you can still sell what you already own. For every law like that, there's an underlying intent and an outcome that doesn't quite satisfy the intent.

Nirvana fallacy.

Yes, why even attempt to make it any bit more difficult for mass murderers.

[ElNono]

It's easy to make ammonium nitrate. As long as the non-involved crowd thinks something is being done, placebo legislation will continue to be the answer post-event panic.

See? Every law has verbiage, and things have to be clearly spelled out. Can't buy a bump stock, but you can still use bump fire techniques. Can't have a fully automatic weapon, but you can still shoot around the same RPM using bump fire on a semi-auto. Cannot manufacture and sell high cap magazines, but you can still sell what you already own. For every law like that, there's an underlying intent and an outcome that doesn't quite satisfy the intent.

Again, placebo would mean that it only addresses psyche but doesn't have a substantive effect otherwise, that's not the case here. It might be easy to make ammonium nitrate, but if you get caught piling it up, you'll be facing real consequences.

What you're trying to say is bad actors can circumvent laws, that's neither here or there. The point is that should they get caught, they'll be facing consequences.

[DMC]

Lol "moving goalpost"

What do you think this thread is about?

Crawl back up Chumpy's asshole, faggot.

[midnightpulp]

Add jeebotards to that for an explosive combo. The Constitution and "what the forefathers wanted" has been reduced to "the bible" and "what jesus wanted" pretty much...

And what's mind boggling is that I don't think Jesus would approve of cut throat capitalism, constant wars, a health care system driven by profit, relentless material pursuit, and denying poor immigrants a chance at a better life. That's why I say these people worship "Jebus," a weird bastardization of him that was created by the prosperity gospel and Evangelical movements. What happened to the ascetic Christian vow of poverty, humility, washing the feet of the poor and sick, and all that?

[ElNono]

And what's mind boggling is that I don't think Jesus would approve of cut throat capitalism, constant wars, a health care system driven by profit, relentless material pursuit, and denying poor immigrants a chance at a better life. That's why I say these people worship "Jebus," a weird bastardization of him that was created by the prosperity gospel and Evangelical movements. What happened to the ascetic Christian vow of poverty, humility, washing the feet of the poor and sick, and all that?

I don't care what imaginary people think, tbh. The biggest problem is that everything is interpreted for confirmation bias, and unfortunately social media platforms have thrived on the ignorant.

[Blake]

Crawl back up Chumpy's asshole, faggot.

If you don't like it, you should leave.

[DMC]

Again, placebo would mean that it only addresses psyche but doesn't have a substantive effect otherwise, that's not the case here. It might be easy to make ammonium nitrate, but if you get caught piling it up, you'll be facing real consequences.

What you're trying to say is bad actors can circumvent laws, that's neither here or there. The point is that should they get caught, they'll be facing consequences.

WCmO_y-0YdY

Here's another example of how placebos are being used.

[Blake]

WCmO_y-0YdY

Here's another example of how placebos are being used.

Red herring

[midnightpulp]

I don't care what imaginary people think, tbh. The biggest problem is that everything is interpreted for confirmation bias, and unfortunately social media platforms have thrived on the ignorant.

Doesn't matter if Jesus is real or imagined. The ideas of Jesus are very real, and those tenets are at direct odds with how so-called "Christians" behave in modern America. I would actually like to see more emulation of Jesus from them.

[baseline bum]

Most gun owners I know who give 2 shits about automatic weapons are against bump stocks for a couple reasons. 1. They cheapen the concept of an automatic weapon 2. They aren't required to use that same shooting style, just loop a finger through a belt hole and it works the same way.

7RdAhTxyP64

Who cares if they cheapen the concept of an automatic weapon? Paddock showed bump stocks were very effective killing machines, so they'd be useful in a guerrilla war against a tyrannical government that's supposed to be the intent behind the second amendment.

[baseline bum]

And what's mind boggling is that I don't think Jesus would approve of cut throat capitalism, constant wars, a health care system driven by profit, relentless material pursuit, and denying poor immigrants a chance at a better life. That's why I say these people worship "Jebus," a weird bastardization of him that was created by the prosperity gospel and Evangelical movements. What happened to the ascetic Christian vow of poverty, humility, washing the feet of the poor and sick, and all that?

Al Franken's Supply Side Jesus bit was brilliant


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8xU-gKK17A

[DMC]

Who cares if they cheapen the concept of an automatic weapon? Paddock showed bump stocks were very effective killing machines, so they'd be useful in a guerrilla war against a tyrannical government that's supposed to be the intent behind the second amendment.

As the video showed, the stock wasn't required to have bumpfire.

Banning it did not address that.

The gun ignorant crowd is cool with it though, and the gun savvy crowd is glad.

[ElNono]

Here's another example of how placebos are being used.

Sorry, don't generally watch political videos. Do you disagree that actual laws and regulations are not a placebo?

[Blake]

Sorry, don't generally watch political videos. Do you disagree that actual laws and regulations are not a placebo?

I think I've asked DMC that at least a dozen times in these gun control type threads. Maybe you'll have better luck.

[DMC]

My theory is because Americans are indoctrinated with this "fuck you, I'm getting mine at any cost" social Darwinism mentality throughout life. Al Capone, Scarface, etc are cultural icons for a reason, while hardly anyone remembers Elliot Ness. This explains the rise of Trump, as well. His mantra of "winning" at all costs appeals to this American sickness.

Manifest Destiny wasn't about others.

[ElNono]

Doesn't matter if Jesus is real or imagined. The ideas of Jesus are very real, and those tenets are at direct odds with how so-called "Christians" behave in modern America. I would actually like to see more emulation of Jesus from them.

It does matter in more ways than one, but, regardless, it's a useful tool to drive the ignorant. I would rather people get an education and think for themselves, but I understand that's difficult to achieve.

[DMC]

Sorry, don't generally watch political videos. Do you disagree that actual laws and regulations are not a placebo?

I do. Look at the WSJ video I posted above to Midnight. It explains without any political proselytizing how gun makers got around these placebo laws. I don't post proselytizing vids intentionally.

The intent of the law is for outcome A. Outcome A doesn't happen because the people who push for these laws don't understand what they are actually doing. It's either lazy or intentionally made placebo legislation. It's why the same assault weapons (in reality) are still sold in California despite a ban on them a decade or so ago.

[DMC]

It does matter in more ways than one, but, regardless, it's a useful tool to drive the ignorant. I would rather people get an education and think for themselves, but I understand that's difficult to achieve.

And you could pick a better figure to emulate than Jesus.

[ElNono]

I do. Look at the WSJ video I posted above to Midnight. It explains without any political proselytizing how gun makers got around these placebo laws. I don't post proselytizing vids intentionally.

Well, we disagree. Without the law there's no consequences... again, finding loopholes in a law only means we have to augment it, now that they're placebo.

Plenty of cases on this, including the regulation on explosives as we discussed, and there's nothing placebo about them, Tannerite notwithstanding.

[DMC]

Well, we disagree. Without the law there's no consequences... again, finding loopholes in a law only means we have to augment it, now that they're placebo.

Plenty of cases on this, including the regulation on explosives as we discussed, and there's nothing placebo about them, Tannerite notwithstanding.

If you can own the same weapon regardless, what teeth did the law have? So you cannot drop the magazine now without a slight maneuver to the frame. Now the gun doesn't meet the criteria to be banned but the effects of using that gun in the same way one could have used the original Colt AR-15 is exactly the same. Although the law will punish people for manufacturing and selling the original Colt AR-15 in California, the adjusted version only addresses cosmetic features, does nothing for the effectiveness of the platform as a killing tool if so desired.

I'd call that placebo legislation. The fact many people think California actually banned the gun is testament to that fact.

If someone like me, a relative neophyte gun person knows ahead of time that ineffective measures will be added into the legislation and it is, then sure it's a placebo and no, they will not change that.

[ChumpDumper]

As the video showed, the stock wasn't required to have bumpfire.

Banning it did not address that.

The gun ignorant crowd is cool with it though, and the gun savvy crowd is glad.I'd much rather have the Paddocks of the world have to shoot that way 30 floors up across the strip than have him use a bump stock, but you think it's exactly the same so win-win.

[ElNono]

If you can own the same weapon regardless, what teeth did the law have? So you cannot drop the magazine now without a slight maneuver to the frame. Now the gun doesn't meet the criteria to be banned but the effects of using that gun in the same way one could have used the original Colt AR-15 is exactly the same. Although the law will punish people for manufacturing and selling the original Colt AR-15 in California, the adjusted version only addresses cosmetic features, does nothing for the effectiveness of the platform as a killing tool if so desired.

I'd call that placebo legislation. The fact many people think California actually banned the gun is testament to that fact.

If someone like me, a relative neophyte gun person knows ahead of time that ineffective measures will be added into the legislation and it is, then sure it's a placebo and no, they will not change that.

But that's the point we're discussing. You can't just own dynamite, generally speaking. What you're pointing out is that assault weapon regulation in general is much more lax, and that's what we're saying that needs to be addressed. Whether people are going to try and circumvent any laws is besides the point, that happens on almost every realm (taxes comes to mind).

[midnightpulp]

It does matter in more ways than one, but, regardless, it's a useful tool to drive the ignorant. I would rather people get an education and think for themselves, but I understand that's difficult to achieve.

You're assuming Christians can't "think for themselves" in the same way as someone with an "education." Or that someone with an education can't be indoctrinated with any manner of counterproductive to dangerous ideas. I don't see any difference in someone using Stoic philosophy to try and make sense of it all vs. someone using Christianity to make sense of it all. As long as those ideas are used rationally and sensibly, I don't have an issue. The biggest atrocities committed in the 20th century were influenced by a misinterpretation of Nietzsche and Darwinian evolution. The Nazis took Nietzsche's Superman concept way too literally and they used Darwinian evolution to justify eugenics (so did many other countries around the world). Point is, secular philosophy and ideas supposedly informed by science aren't inherently more "enlightened," because interpretation of those ideas still has to be filtered through human perspective. Depending on the perspective, those ideas can be used for good or for evil.

[Blake]

You're assuming Christians can't "think for themselves" in the same way as someone with an "education." Or that someone with an education can't be indoctrinated with any manner of counterproductive to dangerous ideas. I don't see any difference in someone using Stoic philosophy to try and make sense of it all vs. someone using Christianity to make sense of it all. As long as those ideas are used rationally and sensibly, I don't have an issue. The biggest atrocities committed in the 20th century were influenced by a misinterpretation of Nietzsche and Darwinian evolution. The Nazis took Nietzsche's Superman concept way too literally and they used Darwinian evolution to justify eugenics (so did many other countries around the world). Point is, secular philosophy and ideas supposedly informed by science aren't inherently more "enlightened," because interpretation of those ideas still has to be filtered through human perspective. Depending on the perspective, those ideas can be used for good or for evil.

Evangelical Christianity is different than stoicism in that the rules are in essence rigid and unchanging.

If a Christian comes across a moral quandary such as homosexuality, instead of using logic and reason to make decisions, they have been found to default to whatever the Bible says cuz God

[midnightpulp]

Evangelical Christianity is different than stoicism in that the rules are in essence rigid and unchanging.

If a Christian comes across a moral quandary such as homosexuality, instead of using logic and reason to make decisions, they have been found to default to whatever the Bible says cuz God

Christianity has a built in flexibility in this regard because the Bible clearly states "Only God can judge." It's not the individual Christian's place to judge another person for their "sins." To clarify, I'm not a Christian, but the ideology is by no means morally bankrupt nor inherently more or less dangerous than another religion, secular philosophy, political ideology, etc.

[Spurminator]

There is no demand for dynamite in a hardware store.

That's because your NRA overlords haven't tried to convince your easily-manipulated ass that it's your god-given right to own dynamite. One social media ad from TP USA and you'd be in here creating a thread a day whining that you can't buy it. Such a tool.

[midnightpulp]

Evangelical Christianity is different than stoicism in that the rules are in essence rigid and unchanging.

If a Christian comes across a moral quandary such as homosexuality, instead of using logic and reason to make decisions, they have been found to default to whatever the Bible says cuz God

Oh, but if you want to single out Evangelical Christianity, I agree that their interpretation of the religion leads to self-righteousness and dogmatic inflexibility.

[Blake]

Christianity has a built in flexibility in this regard because the Bible clearly states "Only God can judge." It's not the individual Christian's place to judge another person for their "sins." To clarify, I'm not a Christian, but the ideology is by no means morally bankrupt nor inherently more or less dangerous than another religion, secular philosophy, political ideology, etc.

"Only God can judge" is actually exactly why Christianity is inflexible. God's rules are laid out in the Bible. Same with Islam/Quran.

Christian legislators don't do the judging anyway. They propose the legislation which concerns me when it comes to things like public education.

[Blake]

Oh, but if you want to single out Evangelical Christianity, I agree that their interpretation of the religion leads to self-righteousness and dogmatic inflexibility.

Yeah, pretty much any person that is an extreme [insert religion] is a terrible person to have shaping public policy.

If they can keep their religion to themselves then we're good for the most part.

[ElNono]

You're assuming Christians can't "think for themselves" in the same way as someone with an "education." Or that someone with an education can't be indoctrinated with any manner of counterproductive to dangerous ideas. I don't see any difference in someone using Stoic philosophy to try and make sense of it all vs. someone using Christianity to make sense of it all. As long as those ideas are used rationally and sensibly, I don't have an issue. The biggest atrocities committed in the 20th century were influenced by a misinterpretation of Nietzsche and Darwinian evolution. The Nazis took Nietzsche's Superman concept way too literally and they used Darwinian evolution to justify eugenics (so did many other countries around the world). Point is, secular philosophy and ideas supposedly informed by science aren't inherently more "enlightened," because interpretation of those ideas still has to be filtered through human perspective. Depending on the perspective, those ideas can be used for good or for evil.

I don't think Christians can't think for themselves, I was merely responding about following X, Y or Z tenets. I rather people follow them not because of muh faith, but because they did their homework and understand where they come from, why they exist, and how they came to be (which in a nutshell is what education is). Why they should be challenged, why you take some things wholesale and some not. There's nothing on Darwinian science that directly correlates to eugenics, it just takes a misunderstanding of science with a twisted mind, and an apparatus very akin to organized religion (lack of critical thinking, appeal to authority, dubious moral standards, etc) for that to flourish. Nietzsche was never a scientist.
The point is, science might certainly not be perfect, but should we apply the same rigorous scientific method in other realms, a lot of these phonies wouldn't be around, and this would be a better place.

My point about being difficult to achieve is that we live in a society that unfortunately devours people. I can't ask a person to do a lot of reading, learning, introspection on their own while they have two jobs and a family to feed. We live in a society that doesn't reward a career in philosophy or anthropology. This is stuff that you have to do largely yourself because of your own innate curiosity understanding why people do A or B or C, or because you want to better yourself.

As much as I come across as a religious hater, I actually think it was a useful psychological/societal tool when we didn't have the basics of society millennia ago and probably did save many lives then. I also know that it can psychologically help, even nowadays, rein in troubled individuals. But those things are not a prominent feature, they're simply utilitarian side effects. It really no different than when people mention that Nazis advanced technology greatly during their run. It's not a false claim, but it came at a ridiculous cost.

[midnightpulp]

"Only God can judge" is actually exactly why Christianity is inflexible. God's rules are laid out in the Bible.Same with Islam/Quran.

Christian legislators don't do the judging anyway. They propose the legislation which concerns me when it comes to things like public education.

But it's not the human being's place to enforce those rules. Only God can "enforce" them, and the Christian would be in blasphemy to claim to know the mind of God and how he would judge any individual person.

That's not motivated by religion but by politics. If you're talking about Christians proposing things like teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution, I don't think the Bible has anything to say about that. Prayer in schools? Nothing to say about that, either. And prayer in schools would contradict the whole "Go to your room and pray" edict in the Bible.

But yes, Evangelicals have bastardized the religion to a cartoon level that deserves criticism to no end.

[midnightpulp]

I don't think Christians can't think for themselves, I was merely responding about following X, Y or Z tenets. I rather people follow them not because of muh faith, but because they did their homework and understand where they come from, why they exist, and how they came to be (which in a nutshell is what education is). Why they should be challenged, why you take some things wholesale and some not. There's nothing on Darwinian science that directly correlates to eugenics, it just takes a misunderstanding of science with a twisted mind, and an apparatus very akin to organized religion (lack of critical thinking, appeal to authority, dubious moral standards, etc) for that to flourish. Nietzsche was never a scientist.
The point is, science might certainly not be perfect, but should we apply the same rigorous scientific method in other realms, a lot of these phonies wouldn't be around, and this would be a better place.

My point about being difficult to achieve is that we live in a society that unfortunately devours people. I can't ask a person to do a lot of reading, learning, introspection on their own while they have two jobs and a family to feed. We live in a society that doesn't reward a career in philosophy or anthropology. This is stuff that you have to do largely yourself because of your own innate curiosity understanding why people do A or B or C, or because you want to better yourself.

As much as I come across as a religious hater, I actually think it was a useful psychological/societal tool when we didn't have the basics of society millennia ago and probably did save many lives then. I also know that it can psychologically help, even nowadays, rein in troubled individuals. But those things are not a prominent feature, they're simply utilitarian side effects. It really no different than when people mention that Nazis advanced technology greatly during their run. It's not a false claim, but it came at a ridiculous cost.

My point with bringing up Nietzsche and Darwin is that pretty much anything, from continental philosophy to amoral scientific fact, can be skewed and twisted by those "evil minds" you mentioned to justify all manner of atrocities. Organized religion isn't unique in motivating evil people to justify doing evil things.


But should we apply the same rigorous scientific method in other realms

We really can't do this with regard to belief. Science can't make value judgements and is only useful at discovering empirical fact. Since the existence of God is an unfalsifiable theory, science is rather irrelevant in this case. Pragmatically, the value of believing in God or practicing religion is subjective. Science can't tell that person they're wrong or right in terms of value.


As much as I come across as a religious hater, I actually think it was a useful psychological/societal tool when we didn't have the basics of society millennia ago and probably did save many lives then.

Since we live in an uncertain universe and there's questions and events that science fact nor empiricism will probably never answer nor make sense of, humans will always have a religious impulse. The "why" questions are beyond science. And that religious impulse doesn't always manifest itself in believing in "sky daddies." I think the next big "religion" over the following decades will be the Transhumanism/Singularity/AI movement, which is just as fanciful to me as believing in Zeus. Mind uploading into a "digital afterlife" to live forever. An omnipotent AI (that is basically God) magically emerging from Moore's Law exponential growth that will solve all our problems. Belief that we're the "ancestors" of some future post-human species that are simulating us for whatever reason. And these ideas are rather mainstream in the technolibertarian set in Silicon Valley. They pay Ray Kurzweil 25K per appearance to "sermonize" about it.

But I understand the want. Mortality sucks, so if having faith that you'll eventually be uploaded into Heaven gives you comfort, carry on. Personally, I wish I could believe some of this stuff, whether it's the sky daddy version or the Skynet version.

[Blake]

But it's not the human being's place to enforce those rules. Only God can "enforce" them, and the Christian would be in blasphemy to claim to know the mind of God and how he would judge any individual person.

Only God can judge sinners. Men enforce God's laws on Earth. Leviticus and Deuteronomy lay out society laws and subsequent punishments rather clearly.


That's not motivated by religion but by politics. If you're talking about Christians proposing things like teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution, I don't think the Bible has anything to say about that. Prayer in schools? Nothing to say about that, either. And prayer in schools would contradict the whole "Go to your room and pray" edict in the Bible.

But yes, Evangelicals have bastardized the religion to a cartoon level that deserves criticism to no end.

Uh are you really saying that prayer in school and creationism are not motivated by religion?

Just to be clear here

[midnightpulp]

Only God can judge sinners. Men enforce God's laws on Earth. Leviticus and Deuteronomy lay out society laws and subsequent punishments rather clearly.



Uh are you really saying that prayer in school and creationism are not motivated by religion?

Just to be clear here

Yes. I think those people are trying to make a political statement with prayer in schools and creationism. The Bible had nothing to say about either. They're motivated by "owning the libs" petulance more than anything else.

The New Testament is supposed to override the Old Testament, right? My feeling about Christianity is that the buck ultimately stops with Jesus. He's the final authority, the living embodiment of God on Earth.

[midnightpulp]

^
For that which He said above, that He would make a new testament to the house of Judah, shows that the old testament which was given by Moses was not perfect; but that which was to be given by Christ would be complete.

[Blake]

Yes. I think those people are trying to make a political statement with prayer in schools and creationism. The Bible had nothing to say about either. They're motivated by "owning the libs" petulance more than anything else.

I thought Genesis 1:1 was common knowledge.

I'll disagree that it's motivated by mostly "owning the libs".



The New Testament is supposed to override the Old Testament, right? My feeling about Christianity is that the buck ultimately stops with Jesus. He's the final authority, the living embodiment of God on Earth.

It depends on which type of Christian you ask, but every popular American denomination and many non denominational Christian churches say the Old Testament still counts. They just never talk about the dark, evil parts in Sunday School.

[midnightpulp]

I thought Genesis 1:1 was common knowledge.

I'll disagree that it's motivated by mostly "owning the libs".



It depends on which type of Christian you ask, but every popular American denomination and many non denominational Christian churches say the Old Testament still counts. They just never talk about the dark, evil parts in Sunday School.

Catholic thought feels God used evolution as his creative method. I still feel they use it to advanced their politics rather than religion. Start here at 6:35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=114&v=YiT7WoePdaY&feature=emb_logo

"The care more about their political ideology than their religion."

I think that's defined Evangelicals for the past 20 or more years. I remember in the Jesus Camp documentary, they brought out a George W. Bush standee and had the kids pray for him. False idols much? And holy shit (no pun), do they love Trump.

[midnightpulp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg

I mean, just :lol

I grew up in a Catholic family and went to Catholic school all my life (evolution was taught) and I ain't never seen shit like this. We were taught to love everyone and help the poor and all that good stuff. No fire and brimstone shit and certainly no praying to cardboard figures of presidents. :lol

[apalisoc_9]

Catholic thought feels God used evolution as his creative method. I still feel they use it to advanced their politics rather than religion. Start here at 6:35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=114&v=YiT7WoePdaY&feature=emb_logo

"The care more about their political ideology than their religion."

I think that's defined Evangelicals for the past 20 or more years. I remember in the Jesus Camp documentary, they brought out a George W. Bush standee and had the kids pray for him. False idols much? And holy shit (no pun), do they love Trump.

Evangelicals are not even christians.

[midnightpulp]

Evangelicals are not even christians.

They're strange people indeed.

[Spurtacular]

Evangelicals are not even christians.

Tell us more about this.

(He won't because he's in a safe space)

[Blake]

Catholic thought feels God used evolution as his creative method. I still feel they use it to advanced their politics rather than religion. Start here at 6:35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=114&v=YiT7WoePdaY&feature=emb_logo

"The care more about their political ideology than their religion."

I think that's defined Evangelicals for the past 20 or more years. I remember in the Jesus Camp documentary, they brought out a George W. Bush standee and had the kids pray for him. False idols much? And holy shit (no pun), do they love Trump.

Yeah it's that Evangelical Protestant base that really pushes creationism, prayer in school and the like in public school.

[Blake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxdt_f0hwUg

I mean, just :lol

I grew up in a Catholic family and went to Catholic school all my life (evolution was taught) and I ain't never seen shit like this. We were taught to love everyone and help the poor and all that good stuff. No fire and brimstone shit and certainly no praying to cardboard figures of presidents. :lol

I went to Protestant Christian school in grade school. We were taught pure creationism and that Catholicism was a cult.

[midnightpulp]

I went to Protestant Christian school in grade school. We were taught pure creationism and that Catholicism was a cult.

:lol Crazy.

[Blake]

:lol Crazy.

Shit, this was just three years ago:

https://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-create-catholicism-trump-supporting-pastor-robert-jeffress-thinks-so-690176

[Blake]

Shit, this was just three years ago:

https://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-create-catholicism-trump-supporting-pastor-robert-jeffress-thinks-so-690176

921524504836395008

[Spurtacular]

Shit, this was just three years ago:

https://www.newsweek.com/did-satan-create-catholicism-trump-supporting-pastor-robert-jeffress-thinks-so-690176

Did Jesus make you a cuckold, blake?

[ElNono]

My point with bringing up Nietzsche and Darwin is that pretty much anything, from continental philosophy to amoral scientific fact, can be skewed and twisted by those "evil minds" you mentioned to justify all manner of atrocities. Organized religion isn't unique in motivating evil people to justify doing evil things.

Sure, but at that point it isn't a problem per-se of any particular philosophy, it's really a mental health problem.


We really can't do this with regard to belief. Science can't make value judgements and is only useful at discovering empirical fact. Since the existence of God is an unfalsifiable theory, science is rather irrelevant in this case. Pragmatically, the value of believing in God or practicing religion is subjective. Science can't tell that person they're wrong or right in terms of value.

Faith is mind candy. What science does is takes you away from the god of the gaps fallacy. It's perfectly fine and logical to have a position where we don't have an answer to a question at a given time. It's irrational to automatically assign the answer to some invisible deity that allegedly knows it all, but cannot be proven to even exist. That's plain ol' crazy talk.
And we should definitely have a similar standard when doing decision-making that affects more than oneself. Clearly religion wouldn't want to, as religion itself cannot possibly exist in those terms, but frankly, as we've advanced into a more rational society, their influence has dwindled, and that's a good path to continue walking.


Since we live in an uncertain universe and there's questions and events that science fact nor empiricism will probably never answer nor make sense of, humans will always have a religious impulse. The "why" questions are beyond science. And that religious impulse doesn't always manifest itself in believing in "sky daddies." I think the next big "religion" over the following decades will be the Transhumanism/Singularity/AI movement, which is just as fanciful to me as believing in Zeus. Mind uploading into a "digital afterlife" to live forever. An omnipotent AI (that is basically God) magically emerging from Moore's Law exponential growth that will solve all our problems. Belief that we're the "ancestors" of some future post-human species that are simulating us for whatever reason. And these ideas are rather mainstream in the technolibertarian set in Silicon Valley. They pay Ray Kurzweil 25K per appearance to "sermonize" about it.

But I understand the want. Mortality sucks, so if having faith that you'll eventually be uploaded into Heaven gives you comfort, carry on. Personally, I wish I could believe some of this stuff, whether it's the sky daddy version or the Skynet version.

I don't particularly care much about futurology. I'm more concerned of making sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past, at least in the remaining time I have here. Goes without saying I'm not a spiritual person.

Religion is really based on psychology and emotion. This is why it correlates to an extent with politics, or even team sports. We just know so little about the mind, still. But I suspect that's not something that will stay that way forever, and we're already making slow advances in understand it. It's really a matter of time.

[DMC]

Did Jesus make you a cuckold, blake?

Adam was cuckold, Eve had a snake with an apple on the end of it and even Joseph got cucked. The Bible is a long tale of cuckoldry.

[DMC]

But that's the point we're discussing. You can't just own dynamite, generally speaking. What you're pointing out is that assault weapon regulation in general is much more lax, and that's what we're saying that needs to be addressed. Whether people are going to try and circumvent any laws is besides the point, that happens on almost every realm (taxes comes to mind).

This is why I say the gun control push will invariably result (if successful) in banning guns, because cute language that tries to describe the gun, to define it, those can easily be defeated by gun manufacturers and have been for decades.

The most effective gun legislation, imo, is the FOPA. This banned fully automatic weapon manufacturing for sale to civilians, but even then the pre-existing guns had to be registered by X date or they would be worthless (other than a prison sentence). So now if you want to own a subgun, you will be paying a lot of money and you'll have to register it, and that particular registered part gets tracked up and down. Since then, things like magazine capacity bans, all these tip toe laws that address cosmetic features, they only make much of the gun ignorant public feel like they are trying to control guns but they really aren't, There's no way these legal experts don't already know what's going to happen.

[apalisoc_9]

They're strange people indeed.

my buddy told me he met a lady and told her he thinks jesus is brown and she got so mad

Evangelicas so hilarious:lmao

[midnightpulp]

Faith is mind candy. What science does is takes you away from the god of the gaps fallacy. It's perfectly fine and logical to have a position where we don't have an answer to a question at a given time. It's irrational to automatically assign the answer to some invisible deity that allegedly knows it all, but cannot be proven to even exist. That's plain ol' crazy talk.

This is what I was talking about. You're making a subjective value judgement that only works for you personally. Appealing to science here is irrelevant because attempting to define value is outside its wheelhouse. Furthermore, rationality can be arbitrary when you're dealing with propositions and events that have unknown conclusions. If someone insisted that 2+2=5, they're acting obviously acting irrationality and it is indeed "plain ol' crazy." But in religion's case, if gives a person the answers they need to the big existential questions and provides them a framework for making sense of things like tragedy and meaning and gives them a set of guiding moral principles, I consider that a "rational response" since science can only satisfy so much epistemically.


And we should definitely have a similar standard when doing decision-making that affects more than oneself. Clearly religion wouldn't want to, as religion itself cannot possibly exist in those terms, but frankly, as we've advanced into a more rational society, their influence has dwindled, and that's a good path to continue walking.


And what's this "standard?" Again, moral decision making isn't in science's wheelhouse. Any standard you propose would likely be arbitrary. In terms of guiding decision-making that affects more than oneself, I would take the Christian framework 100 percent of the time over a hyperrational "moral" philosophy like utilitarianism that leads to this kind of thinking:

https://abc30.com/ken-turnage-ii-antioch-city-official/6147457/


I don't particularly care much about futurology. I'm more concerned of making sure we don't repeat the mistakes of the past, at least in the remaining time I have here. Goes without saying I'm not a spiritual person.

Religion is really based on psychology and emotion. This is why it correlates to an extent with politics, or even team sports. We just know so little about the mind, still. But I suspect that's not something that will stay that way forever, and we're already making slow advances in understand it. It's really a matter of time.



What I described wasn't futurology, but a religious movement that operates 100 percent on faith just like any other. I used the Transhumanism/Singularity movement to illustrate that the religious impulse to believe in something that promises immortality, utopia, heaven, etc is still very alive and well in our so-called "rational society." We're now just replacing "sky daddies" with something else, but it's still driven by that same impulse to believe in something certain in an uncertain universe. I specifically referenced that movement because many of its adherents could be described as "scientists," and we see they're not above the "mind candy" of faith. And make no mistake, just because this movement is couched in "scientific and technological" terms, it's anything but empirical. For mind uploading to work, for instance, it would necessitate the dualism of mind and body. No different than claiming the body has an immaterial soul. And the "simulation theory" is basically creationism/intelligent design that substitutes God for omnipotent computer programmers.

This is an actual NASA scientist.

https://kotaku.com/one-nasa-scientists-quest-to-prove-were-all-trapped-ins-5942400

This illustrates my point that scientific and "rational" thinking doesn't lead you away from religious/faith based thinking. And I don't speak critically here. Like I said, if it provides that person with comfort in the face of that aforementioned uncertainty, carry on. I understand the worry is that this thinking might spill over to influencing policy, so that's something we'll always to be guarded against. That's why the separation of church and state stipulation was so brilliant. So we have a safeguard there. But there's no safeguard against faith based claims being sold to us as "science." The US government has spent billions on investigating dubious science that were argued from a faith-based position, like nanotech (another bullshit science).

[baseline bum]

Adam was cuckold, Eve had a snake with an apple on the end of it and even Joseph got cucked. The Bible is a long tale of cuckoldry.

Poor Joseph, whore of a wife that he's never boned tells him she's knocked up because god did it. Jesus was probably raised by a gay.

[DMC]

Poor Joseph, whore of a wife that he's never boned tells him she's knocked up because god did it. Jesus was probably raised by a gay.

Joseph probably was the catalyst for Amway. You can sell some people on anything. 1st friend zoner - Joseph.

[ElNono]

This is why I say the gun control push will invariably result (if successful) in banning guns, because cute language that tries to describe the gun, to define it, those can easily be defeated by gun manufacturers and have been for decades.

The most effective gun legislation, imo, is the FOPA. This banned fully automatic weapon manufacturing for sale to civilians, but even then the pre-existing guns had to be registered by X date or they would be worthless (other than a prison sentence). So now if you want to own a subgun, you will be paying a lot of money and you'll have to register it, and that particular registered part gets tracked up and down. Since then, things like magazine capacity bans, all these tip toe laws that address cosmetic features, they only make much of the gun ignorant public feel like they are trying to control guns but they really aren't, There's no way these legal experts don't already know what's going to happen.

We already ban some guns, that's the status quo. The gun control push will likely ban some more. We know from Heller that we can't ban all guns. We also know a federal assault weapon ban is legal (we had one already and let it sunset).

I agree about FOPA, but we know now that it's missing teeth in a few areas, like mental health and universal background checks.

[Blake]

This is what I was talking about. You're making a subjective value judgement that only works for you personally. Appealing to science here is irrelevant because attempting to define value is outside its wheelhouse. Furthermore, rationality can be arbitrary when you're dealing with propositions and events that have unknown conclusions. If someone insisted that 2+2=5, they're acting obviously acting irrationality and it is indeed "plain ol' crazy." But in religion's case, if gives a person the answers they need to the big existential questions and provides them a framework for making sense of things like tragedy and meaning and gives them a set of guiding moral principles, I consider that a "rational response" since science can only satisfy so much epistemically.

Yeah dude, that's the god of the gaps fallacy. It's not really rational to say "well science can't explain it, it must be god".

Or spaghetti monster.

[Blake]

We already ban some guns, that's the status quo. The gun control push will likely ban some more. We know from Heller that we can't ban all guns. We also know a federal assault weapon ban is legal (we had one already and let it sunset).

I agree about FOPA, but we know now that it's missing teeth in a few areas, like mental health and universal background checks.

BUT WHERE DOES IT STOP!
SOON THEY'LL WANT TO TAKE VANS!

[Spurtacular]

BUT WHERE DOES IT STOP!
SOON THEY'LL WANT TO TAKE VANS!

Exactly how do you feel protected taking away law-abiding citizens guns away?

[Spurtacular]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zfysHwGVJo

[monosylab1k]

Exactly how do you feel protected taking away law-abiding citizens guns away?

womp womp cry some more cuck

[Spurtacular]

:cry

Exactly how do you feel protected taking away law-abiding citizens guns away?

[monosylab1k]

Exactly how do you feel protected taking away law-abiding citizens guns away?

womp womp cry some more cuck

[midnightpulp]

Yeah dude, that's the god of the gaps fallacy. It's not really rational to say "well science can't explain it, it must be god".

Or spaghetti monster.

No it isn't. The God of the gaps fallacy is, as you said, "Well if science can't explain it, it must be God." I'm talking about things that are outside the empirical realm, like value, meaning, and morality. I was pretty clear in saying that religion's use in this case is to provide a moral and philosophical framework for someone. I'm not talking about empirical matters, like cosmology, e.g. "Well science can't explain how something can come from nothing ex nihilo, so it must be God that did it." As I said, science can only satisfy so much epistemically, as facts and knowledge lead to "beliefs." https://jocellepgabriel.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/epistemology.jpg

Beliefs deal with the subjective, obviously. Beliefs about value, meaning, morality, and the like. This is the realm of philosophy and religion, not science. My feeling here is that religion is as pragmatic as any other philosophical framework in crafting a world view. As I said, I'd rather someone act on Christian principles than on utilitarian principles, because I consider utilitarianism one of the most troubling moral philosophies if taken to its logical endgame. And it has been by many 20th century dictators and leaders to murderous consequences.

[Blake]

No it isn't. The God of the gaps fallacy is, as you said, "Well if science can't explain it, it must be God." I'm talking about things that are outside the empirical realm, like value, meaning, and morality. I was pretty clear in saying that religion's use in this case is to provide a moral and philosophical framework for someone. I'm not talking about empirical matters, like cosmology, e.g. "Well science can't explain how something can come from nothing ex nihilo, so it must be God that did it." As I said, science can only satisfy so much epistemically, as facts and knowledge lead to "beliefs." https://jocellepgabriel.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/epistemology.jpg

Beliefs deal with the subjective, obviously. Beliefs about value, meaning, morality, and the like. This is the realm of philosophy and religion, not science. My feeling here is that religion is as pragmatic as any other philosophical framework in crafting a world view. As I said, I'd rather someone act on Christian principles than on utilitarian principles, because I consider utilitarianism one of the most troubling moral philosophies if taken to its logical endgame. And it has been by many 20th century dictators and leaders to murderous consequences.

Ah, gotcha.

I think we should be advanced enough though to ditch both unilateralism and especially religion but I get what you're saying.

[DMC]

We already ban some guns, that's the status quo. The gun control push will likely ban some more. We know from Heller that we can't ban all guns. We also know a federal assault weapon ban is legal (we had one already and let it sunset).

I agree about FOPA, but we know now that it's missing teeth in a few areas, like mental health and universal background checks.

My point is legislation on gun control is almost always missing teeth, and sometimes the entire dog is toothless.

[DMC]

No it isn't. The God of the gaps fallacy is, as you said, "Well if science can't explain it, it must be God." I'm talking about things that are outside the empirical realm, like value, meaning, and morality. I was pretty clear in saying that religion's use in this case is to provide a moral and philosophical framework for someone. I'm not talking about empirical matters, like cosmology, e.g. "Well science can't explain how something can come from nothing ex nihilo, so it must be God that did it." As I said, science can only satisfy so much epistemically, as facts and knowledge lead to "beliefs." https://jocellepgabriel.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/epistemology.jpg

Beliefs deal with the subjective, obviously. Beliefs about value, meaning, morality, and the like. This is the realm of philosophy and religion, not science. My feeling here is that religion is as pragmatic as any other philosophical framework in crafting a world view. As I said, I'd rather someone act on Christian principles than on utilitarian principles, because I consider utilitarianism one of the most troubling moral philosophies if taken to its logical endgame. And it has been by many 20th century dictators and leaders to murderous consequences.

What I read from your responses is that things that cannot be proven empirically can easily be assigned a cause without worry of being proven wrong.

Which religion are you referring to exactly?

[Spurtacular]

womp womp cry some more cuck

:lol Featherweight Slob

[midnightpulp]

What I read from your responses is that things that cannot be proven empirically can easily be assigned a cause without worry of being proven wrong.

Which religion are you referring to exactly?

See the epistemic Venn diagram again. Facts/Truth and Knowledge is the realm of the empirical. Ex. Empirical fact: People die. Knowledge: People can die at 30 or 80. Belief: "I believe if we had the choice, we should save the 30 year old over the 80 year old." There's nothing empirical about the last statement. It's a moral argument. You can't "prove" that statement is empirically correct. Moral arguments come from a philosophical or religious framework. Science can't tell us anything about what the correct choice here is. And trying to find out what the correct choice should be by making different arguments from any number of philosophical, political, economic, or religious positions is anything but an empirical process. It's an entirely subjective process, whereas science is a "view from nowhere" objective process in testing hypotheses to discover facts about nature.

[midnightpulp]

Ah, gotcha.

I think we should be advanced enough though to ditch both unilateralism and especially religion but I get what you're saying.

I think utilitarianism is actually becoming more prevalent, since a capitalist society demands a kind of sacrifice of the "weak" in order to maximize productivity, profit, progress, and thus "utility." Take the push toward automation, for example. Theory is that yes, unfortunately millions of workers will suffer job less (and all the problems that come with that), but eventually automation will lead to a "greater good" for society in terms of accelerated productivity and "progress." But we know many of history's most horrifying events have been argued to have been done in order to promote the "greater good."

One aspect I like about New Testament Christianity is that is places the value of life at the center of its framework. "All life is sacred." It doesn't care about "burden" or "productivity" of that life, like a utilitarian or social Darwinist philosophy might. That is also why it boggles my mind that Evangelical Christians can be such hardcore, cut throat capitalists. Makes zero sense to me.

I guess my main point is that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss what religion has to teach just because it has a supernatural cosmology that is obviously unscientific. As I said, I find the moral framework of Christianity to be superior to many "secular" moral philosophies, like utilitarianism, relativism, Deontology, etc. I would say Christianity aligns best with Effective Altruism, which could be described as a compassionate moral philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism

[Blake]

I think utilitarianism is actually becoming more prevalent, since a capitalist society demands a kind of sacrifice of the "weak" in order to maximize productivity, profit, progress, and thus "utility." Take the push toward automation, for example. Theory is that yes, unfortunately millions of workers will suffer job less (and all the problems that come with that), but eventually automation will lead to a "greater good" for society in terms of accelerated productivity and "progress." But we know many of history's most horrifying events have been argued to have been done in order to promote the "greater good."

One aspect I like about New Testament Christianity is that is places the value of life at the center of its framework. "All life is sacred." It doesn't care about "burden" or "productivity" of that life, like a utilitarian or social Darwinist philosophy might. That is also why it boggles my mind that Evangelical Christians can be such hardcore, cut throat capitalists. Makes zero sense to me.

I guess my main point is that we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss what religion has to teach just because it has a supernatural cosmology that is obviously unscientific. As I said, I find the moral framework of Christianity to be superior to many "secular" moral philosophies, like utilitarianism, relativism, Deontology, etc. I would say Christianity aligns best with Effective Altruism, which could be described as a compassionate moral philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism

The problem with Evangelical Christians is that they cherry pick the good parts of the Bible and ignore the evil.

At that point it just becomes what we've learned of morality on our own and we're ready to put the Bible in a viking boat and let it go

[midnightpulp]

The problem with Evangelical Christians is that they cherry pick the good parts of the Bible and ignore the evil.

At that point it just becomes what we've learned of morality on our own and we're ready to put the Bible in a viking boat and let it go

That's fine. No problem in focusing on the positives of anything. Problem is, they don't even abide by the "good parts" of the Bible. :lol. I still don't understand how Evangelicals can be for gung-ho for Capitalism, the death penalty, war, nationalism, and all the other immoral shit the Republican party embodies. The only "moral" issues Evangelicals seem to be preoccupied with are abortion and the gays. Funny, because Christ had a hell of a lot more to say about charity, antiviolence, compassion than anything about gays and abortion, which he didn't talk about at all.

I honestly don't think we've learned much about morality because of our devotion to capitalism. I'm not an anti-capitalist, but I think unrestrained capitalism naturally leads to immoral outcomes. I'm in favor of it being the "engine" but within restraints that direct it toward maximizing flourishing. Social Democracy is probably the best method for that.

[ElNono]

sorry brah, missed this response before...


This is what I was talking about. You're making a subjective value judgement that only works for you personally. Appealing to science here is irrelevant because attempting to define value is outside its wheelhouse. Furthermore, rationality can be arbitrary when you're dealing with propositions and events that have unknown conclusions. If someone insisted that 2+2=5, they're acting obviously acting irrationality and it is indeed "plain ol' crazy." But in religion's case, if gives a person the answers they need to the big existential questions and provides them a framework for making sense of things like tragedy and meaning and gives them a set of guiding moral principles, I consider that a "rational response" since science can only satisfy so much epistemically.

There's nothing subjective about it, and has nothing to do with what works for me. Objectively speaking, faith is simply wishful thinking that appeals to emotion. Either we conclusively know something or we do not. Faith is wishing something is a certain way, even though we don't know that to be true. As such, I don't particularly care if some people get warm and fuzzy based on a lie, it's still a lie. Religion doesn't give answers, it provides a rather obfuscated emotional/psychological framework, oftentimes based strictly in unproven claims, which we normally call lies.


And what's this "standard?" Again, moral decision making isn't in science's wheelhouse. Any standard you propose would likely be arbitrary. In terms of guiding decision-making that affects more than oneself, I would take the Christian framework 100 percent of the time over a hyperrational "moral" philosophy like utilitarianism that leads to this kind of thinking:

https://abc30.com/ken-turnage-ii-antioch-city-official/6147457/

Moral decision making has no place anywhere but your own house. Nobody wants to live with somebody else's moral standards, period. That's why we don't (or I should rather say, try not to) legislate morality.
The standard I was referring to is the scientific method: you make a claim, you have to back it up, and you have to provide means for it to be testable and reproducible. Then we'll conclude it's true, otherwise, it's rubbish. That would save a lot of time and hurt out there.


What I described wasn't futurology, but a religious movement that operates 100 percent on faith just like any other. I used the Transhumanism/Singularity movement to illustrate that the religious impulse to believe in something that promises immortality, utopia, heaven, etc is still very alive and well in our so-called "rational society." We're now just replacing "sky daddies" with something else, but it's still driven by that same impulse to believe in something certain in an uncertain universe. I specifically referenced that movement because many of its adherents could be described as "scientists," and we see they're not above the "mind candy" of faith. And make no mistake, just because this movement is couched in "scientific and technological" terms, it's anything but empirical. For mind uploading to work, for instance, it would necessitate the dualism of mind and body. No different than claiming the body has an immaterial soul. And the "simulation theory" is basically creationism/intelligent design that substitutes God for omnipotent computer programmers.

This is an actual NASA scientist.
https://kotaku.com/one-nasa-scientists-quest-to-prove-were-all-trapped-ins-5942400

This illustrates my point that scientific and "rational" thinking doesn't lead you away from religious/faith based thinking. And I don't speak critically here. Like I said, if it provides that person with comfort in the face of that aforementioned uncertainty, carry on. I understand the worry is that this thinking might spill over to influencing policy, so that's something we'll always to be guarded against. That's why the separation of church and state stipulation was so brilliant. So we have a safeguard there. But there's no safeguard against faith based claims being sold to us as "science." The US government has spent billions on investigating dubious science that were argued from a faith-based position, like nanotech (another bullshit science).

Anything based on faith simply doesn't work out with science, they just don't mix and match. Now, that doesn't mean we don't have a lot of scientists that also practice some sort of faith. I don't know how they can reconcile that, that's up to them. I can only think it takes a severe amounts of mental gymnastics.
But the reality is that as soon as you bring up an untestable claim (ie: god) into any scientific paper, it's baloney, and it won't pass muster. So that's where it ends, and that's what's great about the scientific standard.

And I'm going to disagree here, but rationalism and science both should take you as far away from religion/faith/emotional wishful thinking as possible. That's by design.

[Spurtacular]

Anything based on faith simply doesn't work out with science

:lol Propaganda

[ElNono]

My point is legislation on gun control is almost always missing teeth, and sometimes the entire dog is toothless.

Hard enough to pass them as it is. That's, however, a political problem, not necessarily a legal one.

[ElNono]

:lol Propaganda

It doesn't. Do go ahead an explain how they do.

[ElNono]

See the epistemic Venn diagram again. Facts/Truth and Knowledge is the realm of the empirical. Ex. Empirical fact: People die. Knowledge: People can die at 30 or 80. Belief: "I believe if we had the choice, we should save the 30 year old over the 80 year old." There's nothing empirical about the last statement. It's a moral argument. You can't "prove" that statement is empirically correct. Moral arguments come from a philosophical or religious framework. Science can't tell us anything about what the correct choice here is. And trying to find out what the correct choice should be by making different arguments from any number of philosophical, political, economic, or religious positions is anything but an empirical process. It's an entirely subjective process, whereas science is a "view from nowhere" objective process in testing hypotheses to discover facts about nature.

Science can tell you that the statement is bullshit. That's all you really need to know. Not knowing the answer to something is a perfectly logical and rational state.

The fact that (some) people "want to believe" because of existential/whatever-the-reason is immaterial.

[Spurtacular]

It doesn't. Do go ahead an explain how they do.

Faith-based persons overwhelmingly put their faith in science.

There are non-faith based persons that put their faith in pseudo-science. I don't go around spouting ignorant decrees like you do cos of it.

[ElNono]

Faith-based persons overwhelmingly put their faith in science.

There are non-faith based persons that put their faith in pseudo-science. I don't go around spouting ignorant decrees like you do cos of it.

People can believe whatever they want, that doesn't make them right, or scientists.

That was pretty clear when I wrote right after what you quoted:
But the reality is that as soon as you bring up an untestable claim (ie: god) into any scientific paper, it's baloney, and it won't pass muster. So that's where it ends, and that's what's great about the scientific standard.

You should read up about the "scientific method", should be a quick Google, and then you'll understand right away why faith and science don't mix.

[Spurtacular]

People can believe whatever they want, that doesn't make them right, or scientists.

That was pretty clear when I wrote right after what you quoted:
But the reality is that as soon as you bring up an untestable claim (ie: god) into any scientific paper, it's baloney, and it won't pass muster. So that's where it ends, and that's what's great about the scientific standard.

You should read up about the "scientific method", should be a quick Google, and then you'll understand right away why faith and science don't mix.

I know about the scientific method, you condescending clown.

[ElNono]

I know about the scientific method, you condescending clown.

Even more baffling you would make that claim, then. Science isn't 'people', science is a very specific method and standard.

[Spurtacular]

Even more baffling you would make that claim, then. Science isn't 'people', science is a very specific method and standard.

WTF are you talking about? You're going full retard.

[ElNono]

WTF are you talking about? You're going full retard.

If you know anything about the scientific method, how can you claim faith mixes at all with science? Who's retarded here?

[ducks]

Not ar15
https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/category.cfm/sportsman/firearms/combos/633?utm_source=050320&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=050320

[Spurtacular]

If you know anything about the scientific method, how can you claim faith mixes at all with science? Who's retarded here?

I'm not saying the scientific method is based on faith. You're still at full retard.

[ChumpDumper]

Not ar15
https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/category.cfm/sportsman/firearms/combos/633?utm_source=050320&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=050320THANK JESUS

[ElNono]

I'm not saying the scientific method is based on faith. You're still at full retard.

What are you saying then? You responded talking about what people believe.. that's faith, not science.

[midnightpulp]

sorry brah, missed this response before...



There's nothing subjective about it, and has nothing to do with what works for me. Objectively speaking, faith is simply wishful thinking that appeals to emotion. Either we conclusively know something or we do not. Faith is wishing something is a certain way, even though we don't know that to be true. As such, I don't particularly care if some people get warm and fuzzy based on a lie, it's still a lie. Religion doesn't give answers, it provides a rather obfuscated emotional/psychological framework, oftentimes based strictly in unproven claims, which we normally call lies.

I still don't think you understand where I'm coming from. For morality and existential questions (i.e. meaning of life), everything about it is subjective and "emotional." My response to DMC works here:


See the epistemic Venn diagram again. Facts/Truth and Knowledge is the realm of the empirical. Ex. Empirical fact: People die. Knowledge: People can die at 30 or 80. Belief: "I believe if we had the choice, we should save the 30 year old over the 80 year old." There's nothing empirical about the last statement. It's a moral argument. You can't "prove" that statement is empirically correct. Moral arguments come from a philosophical or religious framework. Science can't tell us anything about what the correct choice here is. And trying to find out what the correct choice should be by making different arguments from any number of philosophical, political, economic, or religious positions is anything but an empirical process. It's an entirely subjective process, whereas science is a "view from nowhere" objective process in testing hypotheses to discover facts about nature.

Yes, "faith" can be a rational response to questions and events that science can't provide answers to, and what "works" for someone in this regard is subjective. For example, for a Christian who lost their child in a tragic accident, "faith" in the afterlife is a completely rational response to that situation since other answers won't be able to provide any kind of comfort and meaning, i.e. an atheist would likely respond to that person with something like, "Well, they're gone now, but try to remember the good times you had with your daughter. It'll get better." For some, that might be a satisfactory way with which to cope. For others, it isn't.

I really don't care if it's "mind candy" or "a coping mechanism." When we're dealing with subjective phenomena like this, outside of an empirical scientific framework, I judge rationality on not what is likely to be "objectively correct" (in this case, the parents will never see their child again), but what has the most efficacy in helping the situation. The most efficacy here, for these particular people, would be to believe in the afterlife, because the prospect of never seen a loved one again is too psychologically traumatizing. Believing in the afterlife is "pragmatic" in the William James's sense, and is thus a valid philosophical position.


Moral decision making has no place anywhere but your own house. Nobody wants to live with somebody else's moral standards, period. That's why we don't (or I should rather say, try not to) legislate morality.
The standard I was referring to is the scientific method: you make a claim, you have to back it up, and you have to provide means for it to be testable and reproducible. Then we'll conclude it's true, otherwise, it's rubbish. That would save a lot of time and hurt out there.

This makes no sense. I don't think you'd be too fond of another family believing wanton murder is morally fine. I know the point you're probably getting it is that nobody outside of you should impose moral standards on you and yours on with regard to things like homosexuality, pornography, abortion, and other "moral majority" concerns. But outside of those, yes, the government legislates morality all the time and you do live by someone else's moral standards. You can't murder, steal, rape, evade your taxes, commit libel, etc.

And I'll repeat. The scientific method can't determine anything about the value of morality. Return to my Venn diagram example. Determining the "value" of "beliefs" is often hashed out through philosophical and religious debate, usually argued from arbitrary philosophical and religious frameworks, i.e. "How would the utilitarian position answer the dilemma of having to choose between saving a 30 year old and 80 year old?" or "How would Christianity answer the dilemma?" "Is one answer "better" than the other? Why?" This is why after 5000 years of religion and philosophy, we still can't come to a consensus on certain moral dilemmas, like the Trolley Problem. Science only deals with what is, not what ought to be. If you start appealing to science to influence moral decision making, you'll eventually commit the naturalistic fallacy.

And currently, there's no neat answer to the dilemma of reopening the economy at the cost of more lives vs. staying shut down, which saves life in the short term but could potentially lead to a greater loss of life from the fallout.


Anything based on faith simply doesn't work out with science, they just don't mix and match. Now, that doesn't mean we don't have a lot of scientists that also practice some sort of faith. I don't know how they can reconcile that, that's up to them. I can only think it takes a severe amounts of mental gymnastics.
But the reality is that as soon as you bring up an untestable claim (ie: god) into any scientific paper, it's baloney, and it won't pass muster. So that's where it ends, and that's what's great about the scientific standard.

And I'm going to disagree here, but rationalism and science both should take you as far away from religion/faith/emotional wishful thinking as possible. That's by design.

Sure, if you're talking about discovering facts nature. But that's not what I'm talking about. I think I've been clear enough that what I'm talking about is moral and, for lack of a better term, existential value. Again, science can't "prove" to you what the correct choice is regarding a moral dilemma. Science can't tell you what the meaning of your life is. Religion or wild ideas like brain uploading have pragmatic value in providing psychological comfort in the face of mortality. There's nothing inherently "bad" about wishful thinking in this context. I'll refer back to James in his defining something as philosophically true if it "works" (and is thus "rational"). Note, we're talking about philosophically true and not empirically true.

[Blake]

Yes, "faith" can be a rational response to questions and events that science can't provide answers to, and what "works" for someone in this regard is subjective.

Ahh no. That's back to god of the gaps. It's a logical fallacy.

[midnightpulp]

Science can tell you that the statement is bullshit.That's all you really need to know. Not knowing the answer to something is a perfectly logical and rational state.

The fact that (some) people "want to believe" because of existential/whatever-the-reason is immaterial.

Science can't tell you anything about what is the correct choice in that 30 year old or 80 year old dilemma.

[ElNono]

I still don't think you understand where I'm coming from. For morality and existential questions (i.e. meaning of life), everything about it is subjective and "emotional." My response to DMC works here:

Yes, "faith" can be a rational response to questions and events that science can't provide answers to, and what "works" for someone in this regard is subjective. For example, for a Christian who lost their child in a tragic accident, "faith" in the afterlife is a completely rational response to that situation since other answers won't be able to provide any kind of comfort and meaning, i.e. an atheist would likely respond to that person with something like, "Well, they're gone now, but try to remember the good times you had with your daughter. It'll get better." For some, that might be a satisfactory way with which to cope. For others, it isn't.

I really don't care if it's "mind candy" or "a coping mechanism." When we're dealing with subjective phenomena like this, outside of an empirical scientific framework, I judge rationality on not what is likely to be "objectively correct" (in this case, the parents will never see their child again), but what has the most efficacy in helping the situation. The most efficacy here, for these particular people, would be to believe in the afterlife, because the prospect of never seen a loved one again is too psychologically traumatizing. Believing in the afterlife is "pragmatic" in the William James's sense, and is thus a valid philosophical position.

No, it's not a rational response. It's an emotional response. Whether it works for that particular person or not, that's simply an utilitarian factor. The reality is that his/her child is dead and not coming back. That's rational. If that person has to lie to him/herself to feel better, that's a personal choice. It's still a lie though.
What might be 'effective' at any given time from a psychological/emotional standpoint is really irrelevant. It's not that science doesn't give you an answer in this situation, it just doesn't give you an answer the person likes to hear. Then, sure, we often engage in psychologically/emotionally palatable lies, sugar-coat reality to make it more digestible at that particular moment. I'm not going to tell you that's right or wrong, it depends on the person. We already know the rational answer, and that person will have to face it in the long run, regardless of the excuses that were made up along the way.


This makes no sense. I don't think you'd be too fond of another family believing wanton murder is morally fine. I know the point you're probably getting it is that nobody outside of you should impose moral standards on you and yours on with regard to things like homosexuality, pornography, abortion, and other "moral majority" concerns. But outside of those, yes, the government legislates morality all the time and you do live by someone else's moral standards. You can't murder, steal, rape, evade your taxes, commit libel, etc.

I have zero interest on what people believe. What people believe is none of my concern, until that belief either affects me personally or breaks the social contract we have. We don't prohibit murder in our society because of some moral standard (as a matter of fact, we have a quite a few exceptions to it, see: war, capital punishment, self-defense, etc), we do it because we agreed that society is better served if we don't act like a bunch of savages killing each other. That's part of historical societal evolution, and why morality systems that used to regulate that, like religion, have been dwindling in influence over time. We also agreed that having a Postal Service (something that has zero moral value) was also better for society, and so we penned it down too. We're societies of law, and one of the main reasons the US democracy has lasted as much as it has, is because we don't legislate morality.


And I'll repeat. The scientific method can't determine anything about the value of morality. Return to my Venn diagram example. Determining the "value" of "beliefs" is often hashed out through philosophical and religious debate, usually argued from arbitrary philosophical and religious frameworks, i.e. "How would the utilitarian position answer the dilemma of having to choose between saving a 30 year old and 80 year old?" or "How would Christianity answer the dilemma?" "Is one answer "better" than the other? Why?" This is why after 5000 years of religion and philosophy, we still can't come to a consensus on certain moral dilemmas, like the Trolley Problem. Science only deals with what is, not what ought to be. If you start appealing to science to influence moral decision making, you'll eventually commit the naturalistic fallacy.

And currently, there's no neat answer to the dilemma of reopening the economy at the cost of more lives vs. staying shut down, which saves life in the short term but could potentially lead to a greater loss of life from the fallout.

I just have a problem with the whole argument. Science will give you the data (you can make statistical analyses, which might not be 100% accurate, but they're likely better than nothing), and decisions are made by people. One hopes that decisions are made with information behind them, not by hunches, or faith.

And there are answers that simply do not exist at this point in time. That's perfectly fine, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's certainly better than a lie.

Morality itself is an abstract concept. It's like an opinion, everybody has one. You can expand morality to all sorts of realms... life, death, drugs, sex, The Last of US 2, etc... it changes over time as we change culturally and we evolve/devolve as a society. Sure, there's largely agreement on a number of things, like stealing is wrong, because anybody that has ever been robbed knows it sucks. And so as a society we know there are certain pillars of mutual self-respect and trust we need to have. And it's not because if you don't follow them bitchmade god is going to have you burn in hell for eternity (lolz).


Sure, if you're talking about discovering facts nature. But that's not what I'm talking about. I think I've been clear enough that what I'm talking about is moral and, for lack of a better term, existential value. Again, science can't "prove" to you what the correct choice is regarding a moral dilemma. Science can't tell you what the meaning of your life is. Religion or wild ideas like brain uploading have pragmatic value in providing psychological comfort in the face of mortality. There's nothing inherently "bad" about wishful thinking in this context. I'll refer back to James in his defining something as philosophically true if it "works" (and is thus "rational"). Note, we're talking about philosophically true and not empirically true.

Well, look. I'm not saying you're wrong when we enter the moral/opinion realm, because everybody is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong I think it is. I would just point out that you don't enter there to find answers. You enter there to find something to feel good about, or something you can talk your brain into so you can sleep at night. And that's a huge difference.

[midnightpulp]

Ahh no. That's back to god of the gaps. It's a logical fallacy.

It's not. We've gone over this. I'm not talking about empirical facts or substituting faith for natural events science is yet to explain. I'm talking about faith being a rational response to moral and existential dilemmas that science, by its design, can't answer or provide "pragmatic" value for. I'm also talking about philosophically true in the pragmatic sense, i.e.


James believed propositions become true over the long term through proving their utility in a person's specific situation.

Let's revisit the specific situation of parents losing their child tragically. The "scientific" answer of they're dead and you'll never see them again provides ZERO utility to that specific situation and is "untrue" relative to that situation. "Faith" in the afterlife is "true" because it provides utility with regard to psychological comfort which has "value." The parent's psychological comfort takes primacy over whether or not the afterlife is true. I don't think anyone who isn't a sociopath would tell a Christian parent, "Look, I know you're looking forward to seeing your child again in Heaven, but, I'm sorry, you're going to have to face the fact that there is no afterlife. It's all wishful thinking unsupported by science."

To step away from Christianity, I'm not going to try and disabuse a Transhumanist of his mind uploading or cryogenics fantasies (both are just as likely as the existence of an afterlife) if they provide comfort. Mortality and tragedy are tough pills to swallow, and a person could choose whatever coping mechanism they wish.

[ElNono]

Science can't tell you anything about what is the correct choice in that 30 year old or 80 year old dilemma.

See my previous post.

[ElNono]

Let's revisit the specific situation of parents losing their child tragically. The "scientific" answer of they're dead and you'll never see them again provides ZERO utility to that specific situation and is "untrue" relative to that situation. "Faith" in the afterlife is "true" because it provides utility with regard to psychological comfort which has "value." The parent's psychological comfort takes primacy over whether or not the afterlife is true. I don't think anyone who isn't a sociopath would tell a Christian parent, "Look, I know you're looking forward to seeing your child again in Heaven, but, I'm sorry, you're going to have to face the fact that there is no afterlife. It's all wishful thinking unsupported by science."

To step away from Christianity, I'm not going to try and disabuse a Transhumanist of his mind uploading or cryogenics fantasies (both are just as likely as the existence of an afterlife) if they provide comfort. Mortality and tragedy are tough pills to swallow, and a person could choose whatever coping mechanism they wish.

Frankly, mid, I can't think ONE case where when you have a rational answer, you would rather give some sugarcoated lie. Even in the example you bring up.

So the kid died... does the doctor tells the parents that "God borrowed your kid for a while, he'll be right back"... or does it tells them the kid is dead?

Even the "He's in a better place now" is bullshit. You and I know that. The parent knows that, and it's not what they want. And the ultimate is "thoughts and prayers"... yeah, that one is not bringing him back either.

[Blake]

It's not. We've gone over this. I'm not talking about empirical facts or substituting faith for natural events science is yet to explain. I'm talking about faith being a rational response to moral and existential dilemmas that science, by its design, can't answer or provide "pragmatic" value for. I'm also talking about philosophically true in the pragmatic sense, i.e.


Dude that is literally text book god of the gaps.

Like Nono said, if you want/need to lie to comfort yourself or others, so be it. Just don't call it rational. It's really not.

How did this even become a conversation in this thread?

[midnightpulp]

No, it's not a rational response. It's an emotional response. Whether it works for that particular person or not, that's simply an utilitarian factor. The reality is that his/her child is dead and not coming back. That's rational. If that person has to lie to him/herself to feel better, that's a personal choice. It's still a lie though.
What might be 'effective' at any given time from a psychological/emotional standpoint is really irrelevant. It's not that science doesn't give you an answer in this situation, it just doesn't give you an answer the person likes to hear. Then, sure, we often engage in psychologically/emotionally palatable lies, sugar-coat reality to make it more digestible at that particular moment. I'm not going to tell you that's right or wrong, it depends on the person. We already know the rational answer, and that person will have to face it in the long run, regardless of the excuses that were made up along the way.

I disagree because my definition of rationality (and this is per pragmatic philosophy in a sense) isn't limited to what is empirically true and false, because empirical answers can't solve all problems depending on the specific situation. If it "works," it's rational. If belief in an afterlife "works" from keeping a gun out of a person's mouth who lost a loved one, it solved the problem, it "worked," and thus "true" in the pragmatic sense. James believed propositions become true over the long term through proving their utility in a person's specific situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth

"Truth" is a lot more multivariate than just what can be "proven" by science.



I have zero interest on what people believe. What people believe is none of my concern, until that belief either affects me personally or breaks the social contract we have. We don't prohibit murder in our society because of some moral standard (as a matter of fact, we have a quite a few exceptions to it, see: war, capital punishment, self-defense, etc), we do it because we agreed that society is better served if we don't act like a bunch of savages killing each other. That's part of historical societal evolution, and why morality systems that used to regulate that, like religion, have been dwindling in influence over time. We also agreed that having a Postal Service (something that has zero moral value) was also better for society, and so we penned it down too. We're societies of law, and one of the main reasons the US democracy has lasted as much as it has, is because we don't legislate morality.

I don't buy this at all. Of course we prohibit murder out of moral standard. Why else would we do it? "Because society is better served." And what constitutes a "better served" society is moral argument, which in the case would be, "we think it's a morally good thing that people aren't just killed for no reason, because life is valuable." The simple definition of morality is determining what is right and wrong behavior. So yes, we do legislate morality because we believe murder and theft are "wrong" per what we want to achieve in society, which is overall human flourishing. We legislate morality in terms of sexual age of consent laws, bestiality, animal rights, and so on.


I just have a problem with the whole argument. Science will give you the data (you can make statistical analyses, which might not be 100% accurate, but they're likely better than nothing), and decisions are made by people. One hopes that decisions are made with information behind them, not by hunches, or faith.


No amount of data in the world can tell you what the "right" decision is in determining the jail sentence length someone should receive for attempted murder. Tell me how that would work? In any event, what I'm saying is science can't define right or wrong. Sure, you can use science to gather information about a situation. Like if you're arguing if eating meat is immoral, you can use science to perhaps investigate how self-aware an animal is, and then argue we shouldn't eat animals proven to be self-aware, but science has nothing to say about the value of self-awareness. Self-awareness is something humans decided was valuable. Appealing to science "all the way down" would eventually lead you into the naturalistic fallacy.


Morality itself is an abstract concept. It's like an opinion, everybody has one. You can expand morality to all sorts of realms... life, death, drugs, sex, The Last of US 2, etc... it changes over time as we change culturally and we evolve/devolve as a society. Sure, there's largely agreement on a number of things, like stealing is wrong, because anybody that has ever been robbed knows it sucks. And so as a society we know there are certain pillars of mutual self-respect and trust we need to have. And it's not because if you don't follow them bitchmade god is going to have you burn in hell for eternity (lolz).

This is a perfect example to return to pragmatic utility. What if the threat of burning in Hell acts as the only deterrent to someone from committing crimes? If someone told you, "Shit, man. I'd steal everything I could if I didn't get punished by going to Hell for it. Jail doesn't scare me." Would you really want to tell that individual Hell is a lie? Believe it or not, people like this exist. I find the simplistic valuing of "truth" over "lies," ironically enough, irrational in this sense when reality is a lot more complex and unpredictable that simple axioms like truth>lies aren't enough to solve every problem. Truth is good most of the time, but not all of the time.


Well, look. I'm not saying you're wrong when we enter the moral/opinion realm, because everybody is entitled to their opinion, no matter how wrong I think it is. I would just point out that you don't enter there to find answers. You enter there to find something to feel good about, or something you can talk your brain so you can sleep at night. And that's a huge difference.

You can only enter the opinion realm to find answers to moral, philosophical, and existential questions. "What's the meaning of life?" This isn't a falsifiable concept, so science is irrelevant in trying to answer it.

[midnightpulp]

Dude that is literally text book god of the gaps.

Like Nono said, if you want/need to lie to comfort yourself or others, so be it. Just don't call it rational. It's really not.

How did this even become a conversation in this thread?

It's not.


"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term "gaps" was initially used by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.

I'm not talking about someone trying to prove the existence of God. I'm examining what utility belief in God has in specific situations. Please become more familiar with pragmatic philosophy. What is most "useful" is most "rational."


By this, James meant that truth is a quality the value of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to actual practice (thus, "pragmatic").

F.C.S. Schiller, on the other hand, clearly asserted beliefs could pass into and out of truth on a situational basis. Schiller held that truth was relative to specific problems.

The specific problem in this case (parents losing child) is coping with grief. If belief in an afterlife solves that problem better than the "cold, hard truth" then the former is actually more "truthful" in the pragmatic sense.

[midnightpulp]

Frankly, mid, I can't think ONE case where when you have a rational answer, you would rather give some sugarcoated lie. Even in the example you bring up.

So the kid died... does the doctor tells the parents that "God borrowed your kid for a while, he'll be right back"... or does it tells them the kid is dead?

Even the "He's in a better place now" is bullshit. You and I know that. The parent knows that, and it's not what they want. And the ultimate is "thoughts and prayers"... yeah, that one is not bringing him back either.

Depending on the doctor's religious beliefs and if he knows the parents personally, he just might say your kid is in Heaven now. Beyond that, it's not a doctor's place to go beyond statement of the simple fact of telling the parents the child is dead (since he doesn't know their religious affiliation. You wouldn't to tell a Hindu your child is in Heaven, since they don't believe in that). What I'm talking about is say if the doctor, an atheist, heard the parents tell themselves, "It's okay. He's in Heaven now." No doctor in their right mind would say, "Actually, he's not. He's dead forever because science hasn't proven that an afterlife exists." You're telling me with a straight face you would tell the parents that if you were the doctor?

Now, is the doctor's silence "a lie?" Or is the fact that the doctor is withholding the "truth" from the parents ethically wrong? I don't think so. Even though I'm a non-believer, I wouldn't want any doctor trying to disabuse any of my believing loved ones in that situation of their faith. I might be tempted to knock his ass out. So yes, sugarcoated lies or withholding of the "truth" are the better options in many situations since they have more utility. Telling them the cold, hard truth has NO utility in that specific situation for those specific people.

[midnightpulp]

See my previous post.

Replied to it. And science still can't tell you anything about what the correct choice is.

[midnightpulp]

Anyhow, I think the issue here is that ElNono and Blake are defining rationality as process that leads someone to discovering what is "objectively" true, when, in the philosophical sense, rationality has many more dimensions that that. It's not simply a process that leads you to "facts." Philosopher/Sociologist Max Weber introduced a variety of ways to think rationality in his theory.


The second type, Weber called Wertrational or value/belief-oriented. Here the action is undertaken for what one might call reasons intrinsic to the actor: some ethical, aesthetic, religious or other motives


The advantage in Weber's interpretation of rationality is that it avoids a value-laden assessment, say, that certain kinds of beliefs are irrational. Instead, Weber suggests that ground or motive can be given—for religious or affect reasons, for example—that may meet the criterion of explanation or justification even if it is not an explanation that fits the Zweckrational orientation of means and ends.

[ElNono]

I disagree because my definition of rationality (and this is per pragmatic philosophy in a sense) isn't limited to what is empirically true and false, because empirical answers can't solve all problems depending on the specific situation. If it "works," it's rational. If belief in an afterlife "works" from keeping a gun out of a person's mouth who lost a loved one, it solved the problem, it "worked," and thus "true" in the pragmatic sense. James believed propositions become true over the long term through proving their utility in a person's specific situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatic_theory_of_truth

"Truth" is a lot more multivariate than just what can be "proven" by science.

Well, then we're talking about two different things. First let me repeat Philosophy is not a science, and thus I have a hard time putting much value in it. "It works" is not rational. Rationalism stems from logic and reason. "It works" can also come from complete randomness, thus not match either of those premises.

Pragmatism, on the other hand, it's probably closer to what you're thinking about. They're not the same thing (although I am generally more often pragmatic than rational).


I don't buy this at all. Of course we prohibit murder out of moral standard. Why else would we do it? "Because society is better served." And what constitutes a "better served" society is moral argument, which in the case would be, "we think it's a morally good thing that people aren't just killed for no reason, because life is valuable." The simple definition of morality is determining what is right and wrong behavior. So yes, we do legislate morality because we believe murder and theft are "wrong" per what we want to achieve in society, which is overall human flourishing. We legislate morality in terms of sexual age of consent laws, bestiality, animal rights, and so on.

Nope. We do it because we have plenty of historical experience on societies built on individual moral whims (organized religion included), where people were killed all the time because of what they thought, said or some other trivial, ignorant distinction. We also have plenty historical experience in societies that were nothing but a bunch of savages, and as any society that evolves, we know we don't want to be those guys. Sure, I'll readily admit some of those rules overlap with judeo-christian moral values, but why didn't we grab the whole moral code then? Because that's not what we're doing here. I mean, if we were to be legislating morality, both conservatives and progressives would have a fucking field day. You don't want that, I don't want that. As far as what each one individually thinks it's true or false, there's really not much to discuss. People are free to do and think whatever, as far as I'm concerned, just like I said earlier, the only caveat is that it doesn't affect me personally or our social contract. That's why we come across decisions as to whether we should legalize weed, we end up with a proposition that people vote democratically, and then a law is made (or not). Now you could make the argument that's a heavily charged moral decision. It might be for those that think drugs are a moral issue. My concern, on the other hand, is entirely about safety (again, what could affect me and/our our social contract). So, again, we can't possibly go by what each individual's concept of morality is on any given topic. I would even argue morals are even worse than opinions. Opinions could be at least sustained somewhat with information, even if not complete to turn them into a fact. Morals are much more tilted towards traditionalism, faith, etc.


No amount of data in the world can tell you what the "right" decision is in determining the jail sentence length someone should receive for attempted murder. Tell me how that would work? In any event, what I'm saying is science can't define right or wrong. Sure, you can use science to gather information about a situation. Like if you're arguing if eating meat is immoral, you can use science to perhaps investigate how self-aware an animal is, and then argue we shouldn't eat animals proven to be self-aware, but science has nothing to say about the value of self-awareness. Self-awareness is something humans decided was valuable. Appealing to science "all the way down" would eventually lead you into the naturalistic fallacy.

Well, we do have sentencing guidelines, and we follow the law. Science can certainly give you hard information (like cost, health of the inmate, odds of successful reinsertion into society, all of the above, etc) so you can inform those laws when they're made or modified. Unfortunately, that's normally has not been the case, and thus we have a serious incarceration problem in this country. But to your point of right or wrong, science will only go so far as to determine what's fact and what's fiction, and sometimes it won't be able to, for the time being, and the answer will be "we don't know yet". What's the distinction? Well, when somebody claims the sun's color is green, we can certainly state they're not right. Now you could give me the argument that this person is color-blind and he sees the sun green, and thus he's "right". But this person and us, we don't live in two different universes. We know what the color of the sun is, regardless of how he perceives it. So when it comes to right or wrong at a personal level, my policy is, believe whatever you want. When you try to stretch that to everybody else, hold that horse.
Lastly, as I pointed out, sometimes science doesn't have an answer just yet. We're still looking to verify some answers from Einsten's theory of relativity, for example, as technology evolves. But sometimes answers can't be delayed (sentencing example above), so we then move to pragmatism. And frankly, unless it's somewhat informed by actual data, history or experience, it's mostly made up on the spot. I mean, you ask that same question you're asking science to 5 different people that are not lawyers or judges, and you're probably going to get 5 different answers. At that point, we're making shit up, with no rhyme or reason.


This is a perfect example to return to pragmatic utility. What if the threat of burning in Hell acts as the only deterrent to someone from committing crimes? If someone told you, "Shit, man. I'd steal everything I could if I didn't get punished by going to Hell for it. Jail doesn't scare me." Would you really want to tell that individual Hell is a lie? Believe it or not, people like this exist. I find the simplistic valuing of "truth" over "lies," ironically enough, irrational in this sense when reality is a lot more complex and unpredictable that simple axioms like truth>lies aren't enough to solve every problem. Truth is good most of the time, but not all of the time.

I admitted as much. I said religion has helped some troubled individuals through those utilitarian aspects. Psychology also helps some people and not some others. The problem is that those utilitarian 'goods' do not overcome the whole. It's much different if I told you that we're going to force everyone to be Christian and must have and practice Christian values because it helps the troubled guy here or there. So that's the problem. I am pragmatic in the sense that I readily admit there's some outliers that work for some people, and because it doesn't really affect me in any ways, I have no problem with it.


You can only enter the opinion realm to find answers to moral, philosophical, and existential questions. "What's the meaning of life?" This isn't a falsifiable concept, so science is irrelevant in trying to answer it.

Because it doesn't have an answer mid, not yet anyways. You know THAT is the actual answer. I wouldn't adventure just yet that's not falsifiable, like I said, we know very little about the mind itself right now.
All you can do right now is have some mind candy and think about abstract things to make you feel better. Again, sorry, might not be what you want to hear, but that's exactly what it is.

[ElNono]

Anyhow, I think the issue here is that ElNono and Blake are defining rationality as process that leads someone to discovering what is "objectively" true, when, in the philosophical sense, rationality has many more dimensions that that. It's not simply a process that leads you to "facts." Philosopher/Sociologist Max Weber introduced a variety of ways to think rationality in his theory.

Well, I enjoyed the conversation regardless. :toast

[DMC]

See the epistemic Venn diagram again. Facts/Truth and Knowledge is the realm of the empirical. Ex. Empirical fact: People die. Knowledge: People can die at 30 or 80. Belief: "I believe if we had the choice, we should save the 30 year old over the 80 year old." There's nothing empirical about the last statement. It's a moral argument. You can't "prove" that statement is empirically correct. Moral arguments come from a philosophical or religious framework. Science can't tell us anything about what the correct choice here is. And trying to find out what the correct choice should be by making different arguments from any number of philosophical, political, economic, or religious positions is anything but an empirical process. It's an entirely subjective process, whereas science is a "view from nowhere" objective process in testing hypotheses to discover facts about nature.

Religion doesn't own morality and it doesn't limit itself to the philosophical realm.

There are central tenets shared by many religions, because they are the foundation of any successful society. As Hitchens said, a central commanding figure who insists that you be born sick then commands you by divine edict to be well else face eternal hellfire isn't even in line with morality, much less compatible with society. Creating a buffer of sycophant level "love" and sacrifice through the story of Jesus doesn't forgive the transgressions by the dictator supreme. Many religions are incompatible with ethics and morality yet somehow a large number of people have been convinced that morality itself is a product of religion.

[midnightpulp]

Well, then we're talking about two different things. First let me repeat Philosophy is not a science, and thus I have a hard time putting much value in it. "It works" is not rational. Rationalism stems from logic and reason. "It works" can also come from complete randomness, thus not match either of those premises.

Pragmatism, on the other hand, it's probably closer to what you're thinking about. They're not the same thing (although I am generally more often pragmatic than rational).

Logic and Reason doesn't always necessarily deal with "facts." Logic is an evaluative tool used to examine the validity of arguments within a propositional framework, i.e. All men are mortal, Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal. If we return to my Christian parents losing their child example, if the proposition is, "Christian parents are comforted by the fact their dead child is in Heaven, these parents are Christian, therefore they are comforted." This is what James was referring to by describing rationality based on its utility for a specific situation. I think you conflate rationality and empiricism. They're not the same thing.


Empiricism: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2]

I think this is the crux of our disagreement. You see rationality and empiricism as the same thing, when they are actually quite different (I'm not criticizing, it's an easy conflation to make). And maybe it's because you don't put much value in philosophy and don't like qualitative arguments, but when you rationally evaluate something, whether it be a political position or gun rights, you're engaging in philosophy, since you're employing rationality to make your arguments (and funny enough, this rationality can be considered irrational by your opponents). Science deals with the empirical. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.


Nope. We do it because we have plenty of historical experience on societies built on individual moral whims (organized religion included), where people were killed all the time because of what they thought, said or some other trivial, ignorant distinction. We also have plenty historical experience in societies that were nothing but a bunch of savages, and as any society that evolves, we know we don't want to be those guys. Sure, I'll readily admit some of those rules overlap with judeo-christian moral values, but why didn't we grab the whole moral code then? Because that's not what we're doing here. I mean, if we were to be legislating morality, both conservatives and progressives would have a fucking field day. You don't want that, I don't want that. As far as what each one individually thinks it's true or false, there's really not much to discuss. People are free to do and think whatever, as far as I'm concerned, just like I said earlier, the only caveat is that it doesn't affect me personally or our social contract. That's why we come across decisions as to whether we should legalize weed, we end up with a proposition that people vote democratically, and then a law is made (or not). Now you could make the argument that's a heavily charged moral decision. It might be for those that think drugs are a moral issue. My concern, on the other hand, is entirely about safety (again, what could affect me and/our our social contract). So, again, we can't possibly go by what each individual's concept of morality is on any given topic. I would even argue morals are even worse than opinions. Opinions could be at least sustained somewhat with information, even if not complete to turn them into a fact. Morals are much more tilted towards traditionalism, faith, etc.

Morality, again, is simply defined as the distinction between right and wrong behavior. Morality can be described as an "opinion" about is right and wrong behavior. And right and wrong behavior can be decided by appealing to any number of frameworks. They can be religious, social, philosophical, and so on. We consider murder bad because we think life is valuable. Christianity considered murder bad for the exact same reasons. And yes, a social contract is a moral framework.* In our society, we value peace, freedom (as long as it doesn't violate another person's rights), happiness, and so on, and any action that is opposed to those principles is "immoral." So they do legislate morality. I'm puzzled why you think outlawing murder and rape isn't "legislating morality?" Again, what is morality? Distinction between good and bad behavior. That's it. We deem murder bad vs. the moral framework of our social contract. It seems like you're trying to redefine the definition of morality to suit your argument. Or you define it differently.


*
In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model...



Well, we do have sentencing guidelines, and we follow the law. Science can certainly give you hard information (like cost, health of the inmate, odds of successful reinsertion into society, all of the above, etc) so you can inform those laws when they're made or modified. Unfortunately, that's normally has not been the case, and thus we have a serious incarceration problem in this country. But to your point of right or wrong, science will only go so far as to determine what's fact and what's fiction, and sometimes it won't be able to, for the time being, and the answer will be "we don't know yet". What's the distinction? Well, when somebody claims the sun's color is green, we can certainly state they're not right. Now you could give me the argument that this person is color-blind and he sees the sun green, and thus he's "right". But this person and us, we don't live in two different universes. We know what the color of the sun is, regardless of how he perceives it. So when it comes to right or wrong at a personal level, my policy is, believe whatever you want. When you try to stretch that to everybody else, hold that horse.

Lastly, as I pointed out, sometimes science doesn't have an answer just yet. We're still looking to verify some answers from Einsten's theory of relativity, for example, as technology evolves. But sometimes answers can't be delayed (sentencing example above), so we then move to pragmatism. And frankly, unless it's somewhat informed by actual data, history or experience, it's mostly made up on the spot. I mean, you ask that same question you're asking science to 5 different people that are not lawyers or judges, and you're probably going to get 5 different answers. At that point, we're making shit up, with no rhyme or reason.

No matter how much science "informs" someone of a situation, it can't make nor "prove" a value judgement. Making a sentencing guideline up on the spot vs. looking at past cases to suggest what the sentence might be are both equally arbitrary. What if I agree with the "made up on the spot" sentencing guideline? Or what if we polled society on their feelings of the made up on the spot sentencing guidelines vs. the traditional sentencing guidelines, and society is in favor of the former? Once again, we're in the "belief cluster" of the epistemic diagram, where we have to try and come to consensus solution through "argumentation." And once again, it will be arbitrary, because we're bound to not get a 100 percent complete consensus on the conclusions. Science isn't arbitrary. I can can't argue myself out of hitting the pavement when I jump from a tall building. If I deny gravity, I still hit that pavement. But I can argue for/against either sentencing guideline being more "valuable" or useful.

Morality isn't an empirical reality. It's an abstract one. Morality isn't "out there" in the universe in some physical form waiting to be tested and proven. It's something we have to arbitrarily create relative to what we value, and we're far from settling anything, as the constant political strife illustrates.



I admitted as much. I said religion has helped some troubled individuals through those utilitarian aspects. Psychology also helps some people and not some others. The problem is that those utilitarian 'goods' do not overcome the whole. It's much different if I told you that we're going to force everyone to be Christian and must have and practice Christian values because it helps the troubled guy here or there. So that's the problem. I am pragmatic in the sense that I readily admit there's some outliers that work for some people, and because it doesn't really affect me in any ways, I have no problem with it.

No one is suggesting it should. Religion should be a personal matter when it comes to dealing with things like grief and meaning and personal morality (like homosexuality and abortion). We have the "government will make no respect toward any religion" and separation of Church and State for a reason. And to answer your question about why we didn't grab Christianity's entire moral code is because it's not wise to be absolute in anything and there's some Christian moral codes that we collectively deem unworkable, like we wouldn't punish someone for taking the Lord's name in vain. But that doesn't mean all Christian morality is unworkable. It actually has informed much of modern Western morality. Pagans and such were making sacrifices to the Gods before "Thou Shall Not Kill." And as I said to Blake earlier, Christianity was the first religion to place the sanctity of human life as central.


If we turn to the roots of our western tradition, we find that in Greek and Roman times not all human life was regarded as inviolable and worthy of protection. Slaves and 'barbarians' did not have a full right to life and human sacrifices and gladiatorial combat were acceptable... Spartan Law required that deformed infants be put to death; for Plato, infanticide is one of the regular institutions of the ideal State; Aristotle regards abortion as a desirable option; and the Stoic philosopher Seneca writes unapologetically: "Unnatural progeny we destroy; we drown even children who at birth are weakly and abnormal... And whilst there were deviations from these views..., it is probably correct to say that such practices...were less proscribed in ancient times. Most historians of western morals agree that the rise of ...Christianity contributed greatly to the general feeling that human life is valuable and worthy of respect.[38]

If anything, I'd actually to see more "Jesus" inform morality in the economic space. If we acted like the supposed Christian nation we are, we wouldn't think too highly of cutthroat Capitalism.



Because it doesn't have an answer mid, not yet anyways. You know THAT is the actual answer. I wouldn't adventure just yet that's not falsifiable, like I said, we know very little about the mind itself right now.
All you can do right now is have some mind candy and think about abstract things to make you feel better. Again, sorry, might not be what you want to hear, but that's exactly what it is.

If we're talking about rational vs. irrationality, this is a total irrational answer to me. How on Earth could science ever define the meaning of life? First of all, that's an intensely subjective determination. If someone says their meaning of life is to love their family, and another says their meaning of life is to be a great checkers player, how can science "prove" either is correct? How do you run an experiment to prove the comparative value of loving your family vs. playing checkers? "Value" doesn't exist "out there" in chemical or elemental form waiting to be discovered by science. You determine value. If you derive the most meaning in life from playing checkers, you're correct. Science can't disabuse you of that belief by showing you the proverbial Sun isn't green or the Earth isn't flat.

Now you might say, "Well, the experiment we could run would illustrate that a devoted parent and spouse would provide more net happiness in the world through his positive influence on his children (note: we can't empirically prove this), so therefore his meaning of life is more valuable." This would be a troubling position because it's nigh-fascist and could lead to "forcing" people to all becoming devoted parents and spouses in service of societal good or at the very least shaming people who aren't family men/women. This is the kind of thinking that lead to many 20th century horrors, with many people being deemed less "valuable" for their physical disabilities, race, lifestyle, etc.

[midnightpulp]

Religion doesn't own morality and it doesn't limit itself to the philosophical realm.

There are central tenets shared by many religions, because they are the foundation of any successful society. As Hitchens said, a central commanding figure who insists that you be born sick then commands you by divine edict to be well else face eternal hellfire isn't even in line with morality, much less compatible with society. Creating a buffer of sycophant level "love" and sacrifice through the story of Jesus doesn't forgive the transgressions by the dictator supreme. Many religions are incompatible with ethics and morality yet somehow a large number of people have been convinced that morality itself is a product of religion.

I have no problems with criticizing religion. And you're doing what is intended epistemically and what I defined in that post. You're arguing and not trying to empirically prove anything. I'm arguing against this notion that you can prove what is morally good empirically. You can't. It's not falsifiable. We determine moral good by first agreeing on what we collectively want for humanity (and most seem to agree it's "human flourishing," and what human flourishing is can also be forever debated) and then arguing about how to best achieve that. Some might argue we best achieve that through adhering to Christianity or Utilitarianism or Effective Altruism or a mix of all three, etc, etc, etc, on and on and on for 5000+ years of religion and philosophy and on and on for another 5000+++++ years.

[midnightpulp]

Well, I enjoyed the conversation regardless. :toast

I enjoy these types of conservations. :toast. And most philosophical disagreements do stem from the participants not having the same definition of certain concepts. I wrote you another novel above, but you can have the last word (these discussions can be never ending). I'll leave you with this by a fellow Italian (philosopher) I've been reading for awhile.


To begin with, if by “universal” we mean that morality is like the laws of physics, or like mathematical theorems, or perhaps like the laws of logic, then forget it. Setting aside interesting discussions on the nature of mathematics and logic and whether even their tenets are truly universal or not, morality isn’t even in the ballpark.

That's what I'm getting by saying morality isn't something you can discover "out there" through empirical investigation.


Kant wanted to put moral philosophy on the same firm footing that Newton had provided for natural philosophy (what we today call science, though at the time it was mostly physics). And he thought he could do that by sheer force of reason. Rejecting — rightly — any divine inspiration on the matter, Kant arrived at what he thought was a universal logic of morality, his famous categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” Kantian deontology (i.e., duty-based ethics) has all sorts of specific problems, well known to philosophers, but the most fundamental one is that moral philosophy is nothing like physics. Or logic.

^That's my essential position. Morality is nothing like physics or even logic.

https://evolution-institute.org/is-there-a-universal-morality/

[RandomGuy]

Yes, "faith" can be a rational response to questions and events that science can't provide answers to

No, not really.


"we don't understand how fire works, and our science can't provide answers to it"

"I have faith it is vulcan, the god of fire"


"we don't understand how lightning works, and our science can't provide answers to it"

"i have faith it is Zeus, the god of lightning"


"we don't understand how disease works, and our science can't provide answers to it"

"we have faith it is invisible humors"

Just because we have not yet explained something, does not mean that we can fill in the gaps with invisible magic things.

[DMC]

I have no problems with criticizing religion. And you're doing what is intended epistemically and what I defined in that post. You're arguing and not trying to empirically prove anything. I'm arguing against this notion that you can prove what is morally good empirically. You can't. It's not falsifiable. We determine moral good by first agreeing on what we collectively want for humanity (and most seem to agree it's "human flourishing," and what human flourishing is can also be forever debated) and then arguing about how to best achieve that. Some might argue we best achieve that through adhering to Christianity or Utilitarianism or Effective Altruism or a mix of all three, etc, etc, etc, on and on and on for 5000+ years of religion and philosophy and on and on for another 5000+++++ years.

If you define good quantitatively then it can be tied to empirical evidence. Example: It would be good if I had 200 dollars to pay my electricity bill.

I have 200 dollars

It's good that I have 200 dollars

If you define good based on how you feel about someone's actions, it's like taste - it can be described but not proven. Even if you taste the food I taste, you cannot prove or ever know we have the same response to it. We can, however, prove we ate the same food. Morality too is opinion based. Being as such, it's not based on fact even if facts do help shape it, and even if several people agree on the basic tenets of morality. We agree with what we collectively want for humanity based on rationality and empirical evidence. Killing freely is bad for society. This has be proven empirically. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - treat others how you want to be treated (therefore you stand a better chance of being treated well). Teaching that its morally wrong to murder serves to create a "better" society. In this sense, "better" means something different to different people however to each person it means something that serves their personal needs one way or another. The concept is to allow people to live and enjoy their lives because you want to live and enjoy yours. It can be shown empirically that cooperation can help achieve goals. We consider it good when we achieve a goal we have set, we get a feeling of accomplishment. I cannot prove to you that I get that feeling, but you probably get the same feeling so I don't need to prove it to you. We use this concept to teach our children to achieve goals. They achieve a goal, they feel good about it. They don't require proof that our feeling is the exact same as theirs - they experience it. That doesn't mean the feeling isn't a science based phenomena. Our morality can be whittled down to learned response and self preservation. That is science based as well. Sure, in the more nebulous viewpoint, I cannot prove or disprove we see the same colors, but it's not a problem we face to do so. Like morality, we learn what to like based on finite choices and associations. Those are science based concepts.

Religion is a tick behind the ear of philosophy. Because people have the ability and tendency to seek proof, the things that are not falsifiable can quite easily be shoved into the god box. Religion jumped on that and took ownership of it. This is why the god of the gaps concept continues along even today. Being non-falsifiable though doesn't give religion an out since religion makes a positive claim about the physical reality. Religion then has the burden of proof and because the concept is not falsifiable, it's really not worthy of much consideration.

Some might argue we best achieve everything by hastening the apocalypse. This is the problem with granting religion a philosophy degree - it is not satisfied with pondering "what if". Religion wants to tell us "what is". This is why religion is not a viable answer to philosophical questions. It sets itself up time and again for failure by crossing over into the scientific, falsifiable realm.

[DMC]

Hard enough to pass them as it is. That's, however, a political problem, not necessarily a legal one.

The two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive since political people make the laws.

[RandomGuy]

. Of course we prohibit murder out of moral standard. Why else would we do it? "Because society is better served." And what constitutes a "better served" society is moral argument, which in the case would be, "we think it's a morally good thing that people aren't just killed for no reason, because life is valuable."

Even here we can apply logic and rationality to ethics.

We can observe all manner or social species, other than humans. We can observe that these species murder is rare. We can reach some tentative conclusions.

A society where murder is allowed under any case would simply disintegrate. A species that murders its members indiscriminately would simply cease to exist.

Not saying morals don't or can't exist, merely that morals can, and are, informed by objectively verifiable reality.

[RandomGuy]

If you define good quantitatively then it can be tied to empirical evidence. Example: It would be good if I had 200 dollars to pay my electricity bill.

I have 200 dollars

It's good that I have 200 dollars

If you define good based on how you feel about someone's actions, it's like taste - it can be described but not proven. Even if you taste the food I taste, you cannot prove or ever know we have the same response to it. We can, however, prove we ate the same food. Morality too is opinion based. Being as such, it's not based on fact even if facts do help shape it, and even if several people agree on the basic tenets of morality. We agree with what we collectively want for humanity based on rationality and empirical evidence. Killing freely is bad for society. This has be proven empirically. Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you - treat others how you want to be treated (therefore you stand a better chance of being treated well). Teaching that its morally wrong to murder serves to create a "better" society. In this sense, "better" means something different to different people however to each person it means something that serves their personal needs one way or another. The concept is to allow people to live and enjoy their lives because you want to live and enjoy yours. It can be shown empirically that cooperation can help achieve goals. We consider it good when we achieve a goal we have set, we get a feeling of accomplishment. I cannot prove to you that I get that feeling, but you probably get the same feeling so I don't need to prove it to you. We use this concept to teach our children to achieve goals. They achieve a goal, they feel good about it. They don't require proof that our feeling is the exact same as theirs - they experience it. That doesn't mean the feeling isn't a science based phenomena. Our morality can be whittled down to learned response and self preservation. That is science based as well. Sure, in the more nebulous viewpoint, I cannot prove or disprove we see the same colors, but it's not a problem we face to do so. Like morality, we learn what to like based on finite choices and associations. Those are science based concepts.

Religion is a tick behind the ear of philosophy. Because people have the ability and tendency to seek proof, the things that are not falsifiable can quite easily be shoved into the god box. Religion jumped on that and took ownership of it. This is why the god of the gaps concept continues along even today. Being non-falsifiable though doesn't give religion an out since religion makes a positive claim about the physical reality. Religion then has the burden of proof and because the concept is not falsifiable, it's really not worthy of much consideration.

Some might argue we best achieve everything by hastening the apocalypse. This is the problem with granting religion a philosophy degree - it is not satisfied with pondering "what if". Religion wants to tell us "what is". This is why religion is not a viable answer to philosophical questions. It sets itself up time and again for failure by crossing over into the scientific, falsifiable realm.

Well put. I agree.

[RandomGuy]

That's what I'm getting by saying morality isn't something you can discover "out there" through empirical investigation.

https://evolution-institute.org/is-there-a-universal-morality/

Read the link. Scrolled to the bottom. "previous post" = "Morality is objective"


“… morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm.”

This is where we can be objective. Harm and pain, are readily verifiable. Add this plank to your conceptual framework, and you have a solid, non-faith basis on which to build a morality.

It is more logical, rational, and objective than I think you are positing.

[midnightpulp]

No, not really.







Just because we have not yet explained something, does not mean that we can fill in the gaps with invisible magic things.

Read the thread. I'm not talking about facts about nature discovered through empirical investigation. Trust me, I already know the God of Gaps argument backwards, forwards, up, and down. I wouldn't appeal to that if we were talking about unsolved "mysteries" in science. The questions that science can't answer concern morality, meaning, aesthetics, and the like. What we'd define as subjective phenomena. And whatever framework is used to answer those questions is just as valid in solving what William James called "specific situations." Or:


F.C.S. Schiller, on the other hand, clearly asserted beliefs could pass into and out of truth on a situational basis. Schiller held that truth was relative to specific problems.

[midnightpulp]

Even here we can apply logic and rationality to ethics.

We can observe all manner or social species, other than humans. We can observe that these species murder is rare. We can reach some tentative conclusions.

A society where murder is allowed under any case would simply disintegrate. A species that murders its members indiscriminately would simply cease to exist.

Not saying morals don't or can't exist, merely that morals can, and are, informed by objectively verifiable reality.

Who places value on society? Human beings do. Science can't "prove" society is valuable and worth preserving one way or another. Science is a "view from nowhere." It's amoral. Human beings are the ones who decided that society was valuable. And, troublingly, there's philosophical movements that believe human society isn't valuable, like the voluntary human extinction movement and antinatalism philosophy. And guess what, neither side is "objectively right." There's no chemical or elemental fact "out there" in nature that can tell us human beings are valuable and worth preserving. Science can't make value judgements. We make them, and we make them in an arbitrary fashion.

"Informing" just describes the facts of something, it's doesn't "prescribe" an action. That's where belief comes in. And I'm not talking about religious belief, but belief about knowledge in the epistemic sense. I think this graph is helpful to clarify things.

https://jocellepgabriel.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/epistemology.jpg

You see how we transition away from objectivity (facts) into subjectivity (belief). In arguing whether human societies should allow murder and die out, this is how the debate between a humanist and antinatalist might unfold epistemically.

Humanist: Truth: Humans are capable of murder. Knowledge: Societies that murder each other die out. Belief: Human societies are a good thing, so we should prevent murder.
Antinatalist: Ditto, Ditto, Belief: Human societies are a bad thing, so we should allow murder to hasten their extinction to prevent future human generations from experiencing suffering (note: antinatalism feels there's more net suffering to human existence than happiness, ergo, it's immoral to allow human existence).

You see here how the same exact facts can lead to different beliefs? Neither belief is "factual." You can't "prove" either wrong. So how do we proceed? Through logical and rational argumentation (which aren't empirical exercises). I won't go into it, but antinatalism is rather easily logically refuted based on its proposition. Point is, I can't find some "immutable" fact of nature "out there" in the world that can disprove a philosophical position. There's no chemical compound that can "disprove" the premise of antinatalism or humanism.

[RandomGuy]

Read the thread. I'm not talking about facts about nature discovered through empirical investigation. Trust me, I already know the God of Gaps argument backwards, forwards, up, and down. I wouldn't appeal to that if we were talking about unsolved "mysteries" in science. The questions that science can't answer concern morality, meaning, aesthetics, and the like. What we'd define as subjective phenomena. And whatever framework is used to answer those questions is just as valid in solving what William James called "specific situations." Or:

Gotcha. Still reading, and there is a lot to unpack, sort of picking out things as I go. Sorry for the half-baked take then.

I agree with you here. Science just allows us to model the universe accurately in our minds.

What we do with that model.. is on us. :D