This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Snake387
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that people should think of the lives of other people just as much as they think of their own.
That's physically impossible as it's kind of difficult to think of 7 billion people's problems on top of your own. And no matter how much times you say it, people can't think about the rest of the world for the whole of their lives. One day after you give a lecture on the poor and homeless, for most people, they've already forgotten it and nothing changes in their lives.
Post by
Gone
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that people should think of the lives of other people just as much as they think of their own.
That's physically impossible as it's kind of difficult to think of 7 billion people's problems on top of your own. And no matter how much times you say it, people can't think about the rest of the world for the whole of their lives. One day after you give a lecture on the poor and homeless, for most people, they've already forgotten it and nothing changes in their lives.
1) He's not saying it's practical, he's saying that it's something people should strive for.
2) Big difference between thinking about the people in your life and those you come across on a day to day basis, and thinking about every other person on the planet.
Post by
Snake387
1) He's not saying it's practical, he's saying that it's something people should strive for.
What's the point of striving for something that you can't do? It's like striving to live forever when you can't live forever and you know it. It's pointless.
2) Big difference between thinking about the people in your life and those you come across on a day to day basis, and thinking about every other person on the planet.
Skree just said other people, nothing specifically about people that you meet all the time.
Post by
Gone
What's the point of striving for something that you can't do? It's like striving to live forever when you can't live forever and you know it. It's pointless.
You are making it seem like there are only two options, caring about everyone as equally as yourself, or caring only about yourself. There are varying degrees of selflessness and altruism. By striving to care about everyone in the world the same way you do yourself, you are more likely to care about other people to a greater degree than you would otherwise. And people do strive to live as long as they can, so I'm not sure where you're going with that example.
Skree just said other people, nothing specifically about people that you meet all the time.
But what does common sense dictate he meant?
Post by
Squishalot
The CSIRO (Australia's national science agency) has apologised for
lack of progress
in their dragon R&D program
.
Post by
322702
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
See,
incidents like this
really cast questions over the whole 'bearing arms' debate in the US. Is a gun culture really that important to people? Is it worth the cost?
Post by
Monday
If you ever go to the South or Midwest: Yes, yes it is. They love their guns more than they love people. It's kinda sick, actually.
On another note, they claim to follow the Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But they always seem to gloss over the words "well regulated."
Post by
asakawa
My understanding of that passage is that it's about the people being well-enough armed that, should the need arise, they can overthrow the government (like throwing out those damned limeys). If that's the case, and people believe in it then, the idea of that regulation coming down from, and being imposed by, the same body the amendment was created to guard against, will always look like trouble... I guess.
I don't live in a culture that was born from revolution so it's difficult to properly understand from the outside but it does seem to me that, after a couple of hundred years, things
are
vastly different. The state of the country is different and the current state of firearms is frighteningly different. It doesn't seem crazy to reassess things after this much time.
That said, if one has a "right" (any right) then it's very difficult to see that altered or revoked without feeling one's broader freedoms impinged upon and a slippery slope forming. In this case it's even more fraught because the right was put in place to limit the actions of the body that is now trying to revoke it.
Basically, I can understand that it's a very complex issue that's wrapped up in hundreds of years of history and a culture that was born and shaped from this necessity. However, as a Brit, I feel
much
safer now than I would were guns commonplace.
Post by
Squishalot
However, as a Brit, I feel
much
safer now than I would were guns commonplace.
I don't know how much safer you feel with
this particular news story
about the US's nuclear arsenal, or more importantly, the people in charge of managing it...
Post by
asakawa
lol, nice segue.
Post by
Monday
That's... a bit terrifying.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
Stanislav Petrov
was actually Russian and not the man with the responsibility to push the red button (no such system ever existed) but the man monitoring satellite surveillance when the detection system erroneously reported a small US attack. He, basically, saw that the system was reporting something very unlikely and chose not to report it as an attack.
Although not the Nobel Peace Prize, he has been hailed as a hero in both Russia and The West, and has also been awarded several prizes for his decision that day. He was never court marshalled or dishonourably discharged for his actions. It appears that he would have been strongly praised but to do so would have required admitting embarrassing failures in the USSR systems and so things were mostly kept quiet until the 90s (when it was released by a Russian air force General, in praise of Petrov's decision).
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
asakawa
Intended as a clarification, not a correction. I'd heard the same version of the story you mentioned but I got to wondering about the full story. It certainly doesn't dilute the notion that we have been (and likely often are) a hair's breadth away from disaster.
Post by
Skreeran
The thing is, though, that the cat is out of the bag. Pandora's Box has been opened.
We can't uninvent Nuclear Weapons. All we can do now is restrict their development and use.
Post by
Gone
The thing is, though, that the cat is out of the bag. Pandora's Box has been opened.
We can't uninvent Nuclear Weapons. All we can do now is restrict their development and use.
I kind of apply the same logic towards handguns. If literally nobody else had them, then great, I wouldn't need one either. But the fact is criminals do get their hands on them and restricting their use only effects law abiding citizens. Ideally, there would be no such thing as nuclear weapons, but I'm sure as !@#$ not going to vote for the US disarming theirs before the rest of the world does.
as a Brit, I feel
much
safer now than I would were guns commonplace.
Setting aside the fact that the UK is basically the rape and mugging capital of Western Europe these days, according to actual numbers you are safer in an area with freer gun laws.
It's no coincidence that 80% of the violent crimes in the US take place in the half of the country with the most strict gun control laws.
Post by
asakawa
Setting aside the fact that the UK is basically the rape and mugging capital of Western Europe these days
This kind of flippant and insulting comment really doesn't have a place in a mature discussion.
To address the accusation, you're stating something inflammatory (in an inflammatory way) without evidence. You're saying that the UK has more violent crime than other countries in Western Europe, most of which also have restrictive firearm laws thus not reinforcing your point. Most importantly however, even if it's true you're taking a single data point and trying to suggest it backs up your firmly held beliefs without any evidence to suggest it actually does.
All of which leads to your comment being personally insulting to me and ineffectual as a cogent argument.
It's no coincidence that 80% of the violent crimes in the US take place in the half of the country with the most strict gun control laws.
Indeed, I imagine it's due to the crossing venn diagram of high population density and low social and economical standards. There are likely multiple ways to guess at a reason for an individual data point.
Again though, deciding that the higher crime rates (if we assume the data truly does back this up) is due to something you firmly believe, without serious evidence to back it up, would be another example of a
cum hoc ergo propter hoc
fallacy.
This is what you're doing
I'm not really sure why you decided I was an opponent based on my personal feeling about my (and my family's) safety but perhaps, in discussion of serious matters, we can try to get rid of notions of personal enmity moving forward.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.