Sandbox (4)

Sometimes very active discussions about peripheral issues overwhelm a thread, so this is a permanent home for those conversations.

I’ve opened a new “Sandbox” thread as a post as the new “ignore commenter” plug-in only works on threads started as posts.

5,830 thoughts on “Sandbox (4)

  1. Allan Miller: The fact that some madmen can get hold of the means to kill (rarely guns, actually, for those terrorists) does not mean that anyone can.

    Why the focus on guns being outlawed, then? At least they are an effective means for the average citizen to defend themselves against crazies with weapons. Crazies have no problem with violating gun laws.

  2. EricMH: Why the focus on guns being outlawed, then?

    It reduces deaths from people being shot, criminally, accidentally, lawfully.

    At least they are an effective means for the average citizen to defend themselves against crazies with weapons.

    I’m skeptical. Are there reliable statistics to show that there being more guns in private hands than people in the US saves lives on balance?

    Crazies have no problem with violating gun laws.

    Especially when they can get hold of one with no questions asked.

    It amazes me that folks can live comfortably in a society where anyone may be concealing a gun and has the right to do so and also the right to kill with it given the right circumstances, such as being white and the target black.

  3. EricMH: Why the focus on guns being outlawed, then? At least they are an effective means for the average citizen to defend themselves against crazies with weapons.

    Please support this statement or concede that this is your unsupported opinion.

  4. EricMH: Why the focus on guns being outlawed, then? At least they are an effective means for the average citizen to defend themselves against crazies with weapons.

    You must have copious amounts of evidence from the peer reviewed literature in crime and law that gun ownership is an effective means to defend themselves against crazies with weapons? Don’t bother with a few handpicked anecdotes, we need large amounts of data that has been analyzed and published by qualified professionals. What are the statistics?

  5. EricMH: Why the focus on guns being outlawed, then?At least they are an effective means for the average citizen to defend themselves against crazies with weapons.Crazies have no problem with violating gun laws.

    No, they don’t, but I would point you again at the stark difference between the US and most of the rest of the developed world in terms of numbers killed – even counting terrorism, of which we have much more.

    2010. Our last mass shooting was in 2010. How long before you get another? It will be measured in days.

    Given that there are crazies, the very last thing you should do is give them free access to guns.

  6. Alan Fox,

    Here’s a figure from the paper that’s on point:
    Focus on the blue circles, countries with good sociodemographic index.
    Note
    1) the positive correlation between firearm ownership and firearm deaths
    2) The effing insane location of the USA

  7. DNA_Jock: Please support this statement or concede that this is your unsupported opinion.

    hahaha

    Because in your opinion he ought to do that, because you say so?

  8. Mung: hahaha

    Because in your opinion he ought to do that, because you say so?

    How is that different from your opinion?

  9. Allan Miller: Oh goody, we’re gearing up for another go-around on objective morality.

    No, objective hypocrisy.

    But really, shouldn’t you support that statement or concede that this is your unsupported opinion?

    Rumraket: How is that different from your opinion?

    Give that man a cigar.

    But really, shouldn’t you support that statement or concede that this is your unsupported opinion?

  10. Mung: So?

    So? People that might otherwise die from gunshot wounds would live a little longer. I see the problem – maybe you have a point.

  11. Mung: Rumraket: How is that different from your opinion?

    Give that man a cigar.

    So, how is it different from your opinion? Try to not avoid the question with these lame, cowardly deflections.

    But really, shouldn’t you support that statement or concede that this is your unsupported opinion?

    I have already explained my views on morality to you before, yet you have not reciprocated. I think you’re afraid of seeing them criticized.

  12. Mung: So?

    Are you asking “so?” because you genuinely don’t care or think it matters? If you think it matters, why do you think so? In what way does it matter? Do you even dare seriously answering these questions?

  13. Rumraket: So, how is it different from your opinion?

    It’s not.

    Try to not avoid the question with these lame, cowardly deflections.

    Please learn to follow. This is really a simple linear line of thought. No deflections.

  14. Mung:
    (But really, shouldn’t you support that statement or concede that this is your unsupported opinion?)

    x 2

    That phrase seems to have bugged you somewhat!

    When I see people mocking any hint of an ‘ought’ coming from a non-religious person, I perceive an attack on their basis for moral opinion. I’m perfectly open to the possibility that I am wrong, and it wasn’t about that at all. My spidey-sense has been tuned by experience, is all.

  15. Actually Allan, I had a different take. Rather than the old ‘objective morality’ chestnut, I thought Mung was making fun of the “This is the Skeptical Zone, people should be willing to support their claims.” position, which he has never bought into.
    He was going for the “Opinions are like ass-holes, everybody has one” gag and, as usual, carefully ignoring the difference between a supported opinion and an unsupported opinion.
    Which I find rather offensive when vaccines or gun control is the topic of conversation. Perhaps he will clarify, but don’t hold your breath.

  16. I always find it baffling that (1) theists assume that atheists are not rationally entitled to accept that morality has an objective basis and (2) atheists accept this characterization. No doubt because I’ve read too much Aristotle, Kant, and Spinoza over the years.

  17. Kantian Naturalist: …atheists accept this characterization.

    Do they? I happen to think there is no objective basis for morality, just consensus, and that that a better justification than authority assumed by those who want to remain in control of others’ private lives.

  18. Alan Fox: I happen to think there is no objective basis for morality, just consensus

    And what do you base that theory on? (Oh, and what do you mean by “objective”?)

  19. I have always been under the impression that guns don’t kill people… It takes people to pull the trigger…

  20. walto: And what do you base that theory on?

    That objectivity is an impossible goal

    (Oh, and what do you mean by “objective”?)

    The impossible goal of complete consensus. Consensus is an agreement of tolerance among a group, inter-subjectivity perhaps.

  21. J-Mac:
    I have always been under the impression that guns don’t kill people… It takes people to pull the trigger…

    Well, not necessarily. People get shot accidentally. I know it’s difficult for folks in the US to comprehend, but it is possible to have a society where nobody thinks they need to possess, let alone carry, a firearm.

  22. J-Mac:
    I have always been under the impression that guns don’t kill people… It takes people to pull the trigger…

    Any more cliches to grace us with?

    That is one of the dumbest lines ever. Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people kill people. Let’s open up the market, huh? Cursory background checks, natch.

  23. Alan Fox: walto: And what do you base that theory on?

    That objectivity is an impossible goal

    (Oh, and what do you mean by “objective”?)

    The impossible goal of complete consensus. Consensus is an agreement of tolerance among a group, inter-subjectivity perhaps.

    Hunh, what happened to your claim that instead of objectivity, all one CAN get is consensus (from a couple minutes before):

    I happen to think there is no objective basis for morality, just consensus.

    So now “complete consensus” is a necessary condition for objectivity? FWIW, you are probably the only person in the world who believes that.

    Alan my (highly subjective) view, is that you should have fewer theories.

  24. walto: Alan my (highly subjective) view, is that you should have fewer theories.

    Maybe but it’s good to get feedback. I say absolute is fantasy, a religious concept, objective an arguably desirable goal but unattainable, intersubjective an ideal in civilised society, consensus what might emerge if folks are being realistic and subjective is the minimum standard.

  25. walto: FWIW, you are probably the only person in the world who believes that.

    I’d be flattered if that were true. Consensus isn’t really part of the scale between utter subjectivity of the newborn and an attempt at objectivity for the tribal elders.

  26. Alan Fox: Well, not necessarily. People get shot accidentally. I know it’s difficult for folks in the US to comprehend, but it is possible to have a society where nobody thinks they need to possess, let alone carry, a firearm.

    Do people get shot accidentally by guns themselves? How often?

  27. Allan Miller: Any more cliches to grace us with?

    That is one of the dumbest lines ever. Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people kill people. Let’s open up the market, huh? Cursory background checks, natch.

    I don’t know why I was able to read your line as I don’t care for your input…
    Who is in charge on nukes?
    Don’t care for your answer…

  28. J-Mac: Do people get shot accidentally by guns themselves? How often?

    Not very often where I live. Hunters seem to be the most vulnerable to shooting accidents but some attribute this to score-settling.

  29. Moderate number of people get shot when they drop their gun, hence the “don’t climb over a fence with a loaded firearm” safety rule.
    A handful of Americans get shot by their dog. Toddlers are dangerous too, but they count as people, I guess.
    “Guns don’t kill people” is still in the running for the most pathetic cliche of all time.

  30. DNA_Jock:
    Moderate number of people get shot when they drop their gun, hence the “don’t climb over a fence with a loaded firearm” safety rule.
    A handful of Americans get shot by their dog. Toddlers are dangerous too, but they count as people, I guess.
    “Guns don’t kill people” is still in the running for the most pathetic cliche of all time.

    We are talking about an ideology not accidents.. Do you get it?

  31. J-Mac: We are talking about an ideology not accidents.. Do you get it?

    No, I do not. You will have to unpack that for me. I am having trouble finding the ideology in

    I have always been under the impression that guns don’t kill people… It takes people to pull the trigger…

    and

    Do people get shot accidentally by guns themselves? How often?

    Sure looks like you are talking about accidents there…

  32. DNA_Jock: No, I do not. You will have to unpack that for me. I am having trouble finding the ideology in

    and

    Sure looks like you are talking about accidents there…

    Have you ever watched the Hacksaw Ridge movie?
    For those who haven’t the movie is about a pacifiist who refuses to carry arms, in the war, but stilll is impelled to help out the soldiers who suffer in the war…something like that?
    Why wouldn’t he pick up a weapon and fight instead?

    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2119532/

  33. Allan Miller: When I see people mocking any hint of an ‘ought’ coming from a non-religious person, I perceive an attack on their basis for moral opinion.

    It has nothing to do with the ought or with morality, unless you consider hypocrisy to be immoral. It has to do with whether DNA_Jock has something other than opinion to back up his own assertion as to what EricMH ought to do if his comment is opinion.

    Try this:

    It’s my own unsupported opinion that you should support this statement or concede that this is your unsupported opinion.

  34. J-Mac: I don’t know why I was able to read your line as I don’t care for your input…
    Who is in charge on nukes?
    Don’t care for your answer…

    You keep doing this – ask a question, followed by ‘don’t care for your answer’. You’re a bit fragile for someone who frequently leads with the chin.

    Fact remains, it is a poor argument – that we should not restrict guns because it turns out it’s ‘people’ doin’ the shootin’, not guns at all.

  35. Mung,

    I don’t know how one could think I was offering anything other than an opinion. If it’s not about objective morality, fair enough; it just looked that way. To me.

  36. Alan Fox: I’d be flattered if that were true. Consensus isn’t really part of the scale between utter subjectivity of the newborn and an attempt at objectivity for the tribal elders.

    FYI, here is an SEP attempt at scientific objectivity:

    For one thing, there are two fundamentally different ways to understand the term: product objectivity and process objectivity. According to the first understanding, science is objective in that, or to the extent that, its products—theories, laws, experimental results and observations—constitute accurate representations of the external world. The products of science are not tainted by human desires, goals, capabilities or experience. According to the second understanding, science is objective in that, or to the extent that, the processes and methods that characterize it neither depend on contingent social and ethical values, nor on the individual bias of a scientist.

    I think most philosophers and scientists would accept that sciences are process objective (some may say this is a necessary condition to demarcate science). But product objective is more controversial: it gets into scientific realism.

    I believe meeting the Mertonian norms is a good characterization of process objectivity.

    Morality could be process objective under an appropriate interpretation of those norms (eg substitute ‘moral community’ for ‘scientific community’.)

  37. Just to further clarify my point, I will use a real example.:

    I many regions of Alaska people have to own guns (special rifles) to protect themselves from predators, like bears, wolfs etc. Apparently, one can’t travel through those regions unless he has a gun and knows how to use it. So, some Christian pacifists, like Seven Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses or even atheists or agnostics who are pacifists have to own guns or they will have a slim chance of surviving there…
    However, the difference is that those pacifists will not point their gun at another human being especially when it comes to political conflicts…They would rather go to jail or be killed than kill a human being…
    During the I and II World War many pacifists were jailed and executed… My wife’s grandfather escaped an execution for refusing to join the Nazi army…

    So…in that sense guns are useless and don’t kill people if one has made up his mind that killing another human being is morally or otherwise wrong…

  38. walto: So now “complete consensus” is a necessary condition for objectivity?

    Actually I didn’t claim that. I regard objectivity as a desirable goal in ascertaining facts. Whether the climate is changing in undesirable ways and whether humans are causing or adding to the effect and whether collective effort could reverse it would be examples of where objectivity would be useful, especially among politicians. What I think about consensus that it is a precursor to morality rules. It starts with social behaviour.

  39. Allan Miller: I don’t know how one could think I was offering anything other than an opinion.

    Not you Allan, DNA_Jock. You weren’t the one demanding that EricMH support his statement or concede that it is unsupported opinion.

Leave a Reply