Athias

As I said.

Real within a context.

Whether or not the Bible accurately relates to real events.....I have no idea, and know way of knowing.

Discuss it, if it's a topic that interests them. As no one including you seems to be interested in discussing it, I conclude it's not that interesting a topic, which is another way to say "no one here cares about this." Maybe I should have posted in current events. 

No, I am saying mob rule is being thwarted by elites in DC. We are biologically naturally herd creatures, and DC elites want us to think we are warring tribes within the same herd.

Everything is real within a context.

Even morality, which is predicated on human data assessment and variously opinionated output.

And GODS too.

Survival of the fittest recognizes mob rule as absolute law. The few that do not contribute to survival must be eliminated to prevent extinction.

But in terms of gun law, gun accessibility and gun fever there's no comparison.

In the mean time everyone agrees, either tacitly or explicitely, that the position that atheism is irrational is not a rationally defensible one.

The statement, "God does not exist," is irrational. (If one wants to know the reason, I'm willing to oblige.) So if one premises one's belief on an irrational statement, then I suppose one could argue that the belief itself is irrational. With that said, one's beliefs don't have to be rational.

"Mob rule" as you put it is the fundamental mechanism for all evolutionary advancements.

The problem is when "the mob" is no longer in control due to the manipulation of information by a select minority.

What's the prevailing discussion over firearms, where is it, I'll look at it and tell you what's different. The concern I have is four children were sent to school and will never come home again, and the reaction seems to be a collective "Well, it happens." Is that the prevailing discussion over firearms?

We have a crony Democracy at the moment where the only votes that matter are the dollars from lobbyists. The average voter will barely see a fractional percentage point of any corrupt spending from DC. They are not part of the club. Even if they follow orders.

• How does Democracy work?
  
• What is Democracy's purpose?
  
• What are the consequences of Democracy?
  

 Polytheist-Witch was responding to Greyparrot

Not in post #2.

Pretty sure you can go to any topic on guns and address the issue there's at least 17 I'm sure in this section.

This I read as inured to the topic at hand. 

This is a discussion board, so in this context, I would have expected people to express an opinion on the matter in some fashion. It seems from the lack of opinions expressed, as well as opinions like Polytheist Witch's, that indeed people here are in fact indifferent enough to not bother discussing it. Or to discuss the lack of discussion on a national scale, because I guess not enough kids died. When I'm indifferent toward a topic, I don't post in it. 

Greyparrot:

--> @ILikePie5

According to the CDC: About 90% of school-associated youth homicide incidents from 1994-2016 involved only one victim.

So if you are one of the lucky 10% that gets in the media, then your death matters. Otherwise, Democrats say 90% of the dead kids can go to hell.

--> @Greyparrot

I think it has to be four or more victims to be a mass killing. Probably why the media never picked it up.

I know you're smart enough not to need me to define "caring" or "not being indifferent". 

I don't think it is weak link. 

I don't intend them to take away anything from school shootings, I don't do school shootings. 

What else do you expect.

It's what Americans vote for.

Just strikes me as strange, it's like we don't even care. I heard someone say "it was only three kids," which is disheartening as a parent. What's the deal, are we just indifferent, or do we not want to discuss it? 

I’m just curious what my Trump supporting friends on this site think about this. Why anyone who might call themselves a patriot would support a man who is almost singlehandedly destroying the American experiment.

Their whole montra is, "Shall not be infringed" with guns.  Meaning they want to remove all gun restrictions.

If undocumented immigrants don't pay taxes and the right wing approach was to replace the income tax with a sales tax and a capitol gains tax, then undocumented immigrants would pay the same amount of taxes as documented citizens.  Why doesn't the right support this policy?

Because they cost a lot of money, so the government has to force you to give money to them to fight all these wars.  If theft isn't freedom, than neither is war because taxpayers have to pay for it without their inherit consent.

Conservatives believe that abortion is an unjustified killing, but not murder.  Murder has to be illegal as a requirement to be murder.

But should abortion be classified as murder? 

If the starving person gets fed, then they are temporaraly safe from starvation.

Trump's Endless Wars - CounterPunch.org states a bunch of wars Trump caused.  Granted, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Biden and Regean also caused horrible wars, but Trump is as bad as the other presidents for the most part on war.

Both these regions have low levels of homicide and the UK used to have a lot of guns. 

I'm not saying implement gun control.  But if saftey is your value, you should support gun control.

Not inheritely.  Independents tend to come up with some sort of principle that partisan hacks don't abide by.  You don't have to agree with the left or the right all the time.

For instance, they want more gun rights because of their, "small government" ethos.

They want to ban abortion because of the safety of the unborn.

Some of them even want to ban homosexuality because "the bible says so".

Pretty much every republican wants to deport undocumented immigrants because of "nationalism; America first".

small government because if they if their value is freedom, then surely they must also be in favor of the recreational legalization of all drugs

they would be in favor of abortion rights with no restrictions

they would support open borders

they would want to end all the foreign wars

and they would essentially be libetarians.

Conservatism can't mean freedom because if it was, there is a party that already exists that consistently believes in freedom; libetarians.  Conservatism therefore has to mean something else.

Another value conservatives have; safety.  They apply this value towards the unborn.  They call it the "right to life".  I call it safety.  It's the same thing.  However, they don't apply this logic to letting undocumented immigrants in, even though America is a safer place for the undocumented than their home country. 

They oppose welfare programs which keep the poor safe from starvation. 

They support these foreign wars whenever Trump wages a war even though it causes foreign civilians, our troops, and even the United States to be less safe because as we wage endless war, more countries hate us and are therefore more likely to fund terrorist attacks on us. 

They oppose the concept of safety on gun, insisting that their freedom to own guns is more important than the safety of others.  You'd figure the conservatives (if safety was their value) would want to disarm everybody to make society as safe as it can be. 

Conservatives often claim it's impossible, however THEY ARE THE REASON IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.  If every conservative wanted to ban all guns, they would immediately turn all of their guns in.  This would only apply if the conservative value was safety.

If the conservative value was theocracy (implementing black and white biblical law into society), then conservativism calls for treating the undocumented just like the native born (Exodus 12:49)

40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.

41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt.

42 It is a night to be much observed unto the Lord for bringing them out from the land of Egypt: this is that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations.

43 And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof:

44 But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.

45 A foreigner and an hired servant shall not eat thereof.

46 In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth ought of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof.

47 All the congregation of Israel shall keep it.

48 And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof.

49 One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you.

50 Thus did all the children of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.

51 And it came to pass the selfsame day, that the Lord did bring the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their armies.

If conservatism was about nationalism/keeping the status quo (the laws your nation currently has are the ones that ought to stay), then they would be in favor of Roe V Wade, Affirmative action, and not cutting taxes because off of this goes against the status quo/nationalism (the belief that your nation is great just the way it is)

On taxes, they want higher taxes on those whom the sacrifice would be minimal to minimize the pain of other people that they can see.

The conservatives have no principles.

The chads are the independents, who think for themselves.

An innocent individual is the only number and the only statistic that matters here.

Has he actually said this? No, "I" said it. I was very clear. "Woman age like milk and men age like fine wine is what "I" would use to describe his philosophy. 

"Women are born with inherent value and men are not."  Nature says so. Women are born with the ability to have children.

It requires no practice, effort or work.

Men have to earn value, they are useless until they demonstrate they are not.

Many men remain useless their entire life.

They cant even take care of themselves let alone a wife and kids.

Women control sex and birthing, men control relationships.

Men by the vast vast vast vast majority seek woman for relationships.

That means men choose who they will be in a relationship with. The fact a man gets rejected is irrelevant,

woman by a vast vast vast majority wait for a man to choose them. 

If someone changes their gender, it is bigotry to refer to them in the way that they presented years ago: we accept people for who they are currently. If this were considered a good standard, then why is it acceptable to refer to an unsavoury tweet from a decade ago by a person who has since changed? 

Any of you familiar with Jordan Peterson?

If so what kind of opinions do you have of his lectures regarding men and women and what their differences are and what each brings to the table in a relationship when they are younger and then get older. I think he is spot on. It goes without saying most women will disagree but the statistics do not lie and are irrefutable.

Woman age like milk and men age like fine wine is what I would use to describe is philosophy.

Women are born with inherent value and men are not.

Women control sex and birthing, men control relationships.

entertainment industry is evil

its probably a reflection of what they genuinely do.

Its pretty common in entertainment to see this stuff.

Did you see astroworld? The deaths are a result of low iq savages but the symbolism is there

it is literally an elitist occult who wear golden masks like rothschilds and at the dinner scene, there is a triangle with a checkerboard pattern and two posts. This is a masonic ritual that usually involves blood and well the guards leave behind a knife for that purpose

The show is a right wing consipiracty theorist's dream

Why would Bill Maher, a Democrat, say something so hateful?

Take Poly's above statement for example.

Presumably Poly regards her words relative to her thoughts, as rational.

But in as much as I don't understand what Poly is trying to say, then her words don't seem rational to me.

So who is deemed to be correct?

Or are we both being independently rational?

Can your verdict be any more or less rational?

This is based on the uncertain understanding that all three of us, fit a fairly standard physiological profile.

Now you’re just lying, either that or you have reading comprehension issues. I already explained that when I used the term “ignore” I was paraphrasing your allegation, not characterizing it myself.

What do you think about post #99?

Equally immoral is a democracy where freedom is not on the ballot and the only choices allowed are a false dichotomy of left and right alternatives of equally oppressive authorities.

This is an excellent clip that proves your point here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcJk64UdxIQ

And this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkHStde5rrk

If you feel ignored that’s your problem, I will just respond to what I consider relevant to the actual disagreement.

What your advocating for is a society without a government, so in your idealistic world there would be no such thing as binding arbitration. That's the issue.

Because the issue I have with your ideal scenario is that it is not realistic

It is decentralized to 330,000,000 people, that’s what we call democracy.

Why would I explain something I never argued?

Human nature was the entire topic of conversation at the constitutional convention, our government was founded on the idea of a government that does not succumb to the dangers of human nature. That’s why we have power divided amongst three different branches, it’s why we have a house and a senate, it’s why our DOJ operates independently from the president, etc. etc. etc.

Let’s try this, do you know what checks and balances are and do you agree that a government should have them? I understand you don’t want a government, but that’s not the question. Assume for the sake of argument that we must have a government, what would you want that government to look like? Would you prefer a dictatorship?

I’m asking this because I seriously don’t know how to address your objection without being condescending.

I’ve never met someone who didn’t understand the point of checks and balances, yet you act as if you don’t.

No, democracies are a realization of basic human nature. Winston Churchill famously said “democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried”, and at least so far he has been proven absolutely right.

In the absence of democracy all we see is one man rule, and that one man has no rules he must follow, no checks of any kind, and the only thing determining whether he remains in power is how well he instills fear into the people he governs. That is infinitely less moral than a democracy.

The fear that stops people from doing immoral/illegal things is an entirely different thing from the fear that forces people to accept an authority they would otherwise reject as the authority.

No, as in I am entitled to a fair trial vs. being subject to whatever justice anyone out there thinks is fair to be imposed on me.

Is rational that which occurs as a result of standard physiological processes?......Whatever they are.

How would you define rational Mr A?

based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

What actually is and isn't rational?

I responded to every single one of them.

Your first example of a point I ignored what you asking me for an example of a scenario where non-binding arbitration would not suffice. Why would I answer that when we’re already having a whole back and forth on one (resolving a murder)? Or what issues would result from it (again, already discussed)? Or why your scenario is unrealistic? I gave you a whole two paragraphs as to how human nature does not work the way your system would depend on and yet you still act as if I didn’t address that.

Follow the conversation. Take a step back and start thinking big picture instead getting getting swallowed up by every individual sentence and this conversation would go a lot better.

Government does reflect their nature, that’s the whole point. Human nature was the entire topic of conversation at the constitutional convention, our government was founded on the idea of a government that does not succumb to the dangers of human nature. That’s why we have power divided amongst three different branches, it’s why we have a house and a senate, it’s why our DOJ operates independently from the president, etc. etc. etc.

If done right we end up with a system where everyone has a say, if done wrong we end up with an authoritarian regime. Looks like we did it right… for now.

We’re not talking about mortality,

we’re talking about a system by which society would function without a governing authority. You claimed those who commit egregious immoral acts would be held accountable and I’m asking you what mechanism would make that happen, which begins by answering who decides what is and is not moral in the first place.

And who decides what is an egregious immoral act?

It isn't "who?"; it's "what?" And that would be individualist moral philosophy.

It really was a rhetorical question because the answer is obvious - everyone, which really means no one. I kill you, your family comes back and kill’s me.

That’s your system of dealing with this, because the idea of an accused murderer accepting the ruling of a non binding arbitrater and volunteering themselves up for jail time is absurd. 

People’s will always act in their own personal best interests.

What drives criminals to turn themselves in is the knowledge that the government will find them if they don’t

Dictatorships rise because an individual comes along who becomes the alpha of his group, who then uses a combination of charisma, loyalty, and promise of reward to get those around them to carry out their will. And as this individual becomes more powerful they are able to add fear to that equation.

Self preservation. It’s the reason why everyone in Russia follows Putin - because if you don’t you end up dead. How is that not the obvious answer to you? How do you not understand that this is how it works in every country on earth without a strong democratic government?

and non-binding arbitration is perfectly fine for some circumstances, but not for every circumstance.

Such as?

What your advocating for is a society without a government, so in your idealistic world there would be no such thing as binding arbitration. That's the issue.

What issue or issues would arise absent of binding arbitration? Make sure to substantiate your response.

Because the issue I have with your ideal scenario is that it is not realistic

What isn't realistic about my ideal scenario? Please explain.

I would if I understood your question. I don’t. Please rephrase.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I just made. It was a hypothetical scenario. Please address the scenario.

How have you rationalized with respect to your condition and that of those with whom you interact that killing someone for merely looking at your wife maximizes utility and minimizes suffering?

This is your system, so perhaps you can offer what form of mediation would work in the absence of a murder trial.

I can do whatever I want, and so can everyone else.

And it’s up to each of us to decide for ourselves who should be punished for what and it’s up to each of us to enforce it. 

This can work within, say, a tribe of 30-40 people. This is not a recipe for a prosperous society.

All you’re advocating for is survival of the fittest, and by fittest we’re not talking about those who have contributed the most to the well being of society, we’re talking about those with the biggest guns.

Human civilization has been around for over 200k years, a government of some kind will always form. Whether it be an Indian chief, a monarch, a dictator, or an elected politician, there will always be an authority over society. It’s just a question of which one is best. Personally, I’ll take the one where we all have a say. Fantasizing of a society without authority doesn’t change human nature.

Of course there is,

and non-binding arbitration is perfectly fine for some circumstances, but not for every circumstance.

What your advocating for is a society without a government, so in your idealistic world there would be no such thing as binding arbitration. That's the issue.

Because the issue I have with your ideal scenario is that it is not realistic

Your argument completely disregards greed and the drive for power, some of the most basic elements of human nature. Dictatorships rise because an individual comes along who becomes the alpha of his group, who then uses a combination of charisma, loyalty, and promise of reward to get those around them to carry out their will. And as this individual becomes more powerful they are able to add fear to that equation. Look at what Hitler did in Germany, what Putin did in Russia, hell look at what Trump is doing here.

A system of government like the one you're advocating could only work if people feel assured that the system will continue to work, but you offer no source of assurance. You just presume everyone will respect everyone else even though we know objectively that this is not how human nature works. Even upon the threat of an authority that is far more powerful, far more resourceful, and far more relentless than any individual could ever be, people still take their chances to steal, cheat, and kill. Yet you believe in a system without that authority people wouldn't do far more of this? That's pure fantasy.

Look at what Hitler did in Germany, what Putin did in Russia, hell look at what Trump is doing here.

Everyone has a different moral philosophy.

I might decide that looking at my wife is an egregious immoral act and then kill someone over it.

Does the family of the victim hire an arbitrator to rule against me?

Well I say that I don't respect their authority, now what?

Do you have a single example anywhere in human history where a large civilization has successfully functioned through such a system?

No, it doesn’t. You’re pointing to arbitration systems that have the backing of the government, so if the party ruled against does not follow the ruling they can be held legally liable for violating their contract in addition to being ruled against. That’s entirely different from what you’re suggesting.

A form of arbitration where the arbitrator recommends, but does not impose, a decision regarding the parties' rights and/or obligations. Non-binding arbitration includes the procedures of binding arbitration but without the conclusiveness of a binding decision. This type of arbitration can benefit parties to a simple dispute with perspectives that differ too greatly to engage in mediation, but who want a neutral analysis of their respective viewpoints.

Let me ask it this way… under your privatized arbitration system, who is the ultimate authority enforcing these rulings? If I were to be ruled against, who ultimately ensures that I follow the ruling should I decide not to? (That’s all one question, since I have to specify).

And who decides what is an egregious immoral act?

And as an added question, how would a completely privatized society defend itself against the rise of a dictatorship?

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

It’s time to remember that we, the people are the government.

Biden boldly claimed who the Constitution protects.

It protects the government now.

No.

Would you like to share any of them?

What? How do you resolve issues with private arbitration?

The entire idea of arbitration is that both sides appoint an arbiter to rule on a dispute, but that ruling is entirely meaningless without the law behind it and you don’t accept government as an authority so what are you talking about?

How could this possibly work?

What happens when one side does not accept the arbiters ruling?

(Those questions are all along the same thread so no need to answer each individually).

Any thoughts on how we should actually deal with criminals?

Just hand everyone a gun and expect no one will violate any laws?

In fact there are no laws cause you don’t accept government so is there any such thing as a criminal in your view?

Is there such thing as murder

just an unfortunate end to someone’s life that others can take retribution on if they should so choose?

This is just pointless. If you have an actual deep thought, something that requires more than one word or sentence to be expressed let me know.