dimreepr

Both sides. Nobody who represents that kind of reasoning will get political power if I can help it. It's too big a threat.

You think compassion is a threat? I have to assume you’re a Trump supporter.

“This too will pass” something suicide can never know.

Now, can someone please explain that to waitforufo?

Many have tried, but alas, that particular wall of denial has yet to be breeched.

You just won't give up on putting words in my mouth. Keep it up. I think it is funny.

 

You think it’s funny????

Every dead child that is found (through a gun related accident), you've conspired to kill. Laugh it off hero...

Bears witness morality in reality; despite the dream/password.

Yet you provide no argument based on law at all.

Given your only valid argument to keep guns is “fuck off, I like guns”; do I really need to, either, present a lawful argument or indeed present any other argument than children are dying because of guns?

Whatever, the courts choose to take; they may also choose to give back.

 

While this is true, it is uncommon. Again, look up "stare decisis". You have Google don't you?

 

If it’s true, however uncommon, then your entire argument fails and you’re just left with...

BTW you may want to google “how many times has the US constitution been amended?”

I have never said this.

Yet it remains your only viable argument.

Some claim that the militia does not exist. I and overtone have pointed out that it does.

Some claim that "well regulated" means controlled by government. I and overtone have demonstrated that it does not.

Some claim that the right to keep and bear arms was intended for military purposes only. I have provided Supreme Court precedent setting rulings that clearly state that the second amendment applies to an individuals right for self defense.

Whatever, the courts choose to take; they may also choose to give back.

Sure we can learn a bit if we are open minded, but that is it.

Really? You may want to give that a go.

Blogs like these are simply sound and fury,signifying nothing.

But still your best argument is "fuck off, I like guns".

And yet pools are still 100 times more dangerous than guns.

And yet both have a solution; your insistence that keeping your gun is sacrosanct and is worth the horrible wounding, or death of children, would be sorely tested, should one of your children lay before you, missing a limb or life, be it an unprotected pool or a firearm.

Unicorns don't exist. The militia does.

Damn it, who knew ‘waitforufo’ would wreck another irony meter?

I’d put my life savings on you being the 10% that’s trapped in a loop, I bet you loved that bit, if only to revel in the anger and vent properly.

Of course it isn't. People buy guns for the express purpose of committing homicide, after all, and if there is no gun then no gun homicide is possible, and so forth.

 

But that doesn't mean any change in gun prevalence in any situation will have any significant effect on homicide - cutting the current flood prevalence of guns in the US by a third overall and in general, for example, is not in my opinion likely to help much. I suspect the guns most likely to be used in homicides will prove the most difficult to reduce in prevalence, and that they are such a small percentage of the total prevalence that their retention would be lost in the noise.

 

And it doesn't obviate the threat of prevalence reduction as an intermediary goal in the US: how do advocates of serious prevalence reduction actually plan to accomplish it? They use Australia as a recommended example, and that is a threat in the US. They use car regulation and usage curbs as examples, and that is a threat in the US. They advocate prevalence reduction while pushing for gun registration, and that is a threat in the US.

 

So I'm wondering why it keeps coming up with such urgency and insistence and so little care or prudence - why bs statistics are continually invoked in support of bad arguments on the topic of gun prevalence, why such a complex and culture dependent correlation of so little immediate significance is continually brought front and center in ways that jam the discussion.

 

 

 

All aggregation by State in these matters invalidates any conclusions.

 

 

What's a "gun rate"?

 

One can observe that lead exposure is negatively correlated with gun prevalence aggregated by sociological race in the US (more lead, fewer guns, in black communities).

 

At the risk of looking profoundly stupid, I’ll ask one last time, do you support the status quo or some form of gun control (I haven't read this post BTW it just didn't seem worth the effort)?

 

This is that "magical nonexisting" version of happiness I was talking about. Read my previous post for more information. I had a discussion with the user Strange who agrees with my definition of joy and happiness. So according to both him and me, that would be the "magical nonexisting" version of joy and happiness. If this definition of happiness and joy you speak of is the Buddhist definition or any other personally created version in our lives that is not our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system, then this is that "magical nonexisting" version of joy and happiness.

I very much doubt “Strange” would agree with you, since you’re conflating happiness and contentment.

Edit/ Not to mention a deliberate misrepresentation, but even if he did it would still be an ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy.

Being happy is an emotional state and so is fleeting; being content is a base state (much like a dog is happy when you shout walkies but will be content to lie down and wait for the shout).

It doubt it was lost, DrP, it was most likely ignored I posted similar (post #31) in the other thread (on the same topic).

Just take your protein pills and put your helmet on.

 

Inspiration sometimes comes upon me unawares, like seeing something that sparks an idea about something else. It's not a do-this-get-that type of moment. If I'm inspired looking at something to figure out a problem, how is that part of any type of reward system? And please don't redefine "reward system" just to exclude my example.

Please don’t be too despondent when this approach also fails.

 

It's not supposed to "work." It is just my view of the truth. Nothing in this life was ever meant to work out for us. Does the fact that cancer and depression destroys the lives of others make the idea of depression and cancer nonsensical? No! Despite the fact that depression and cancer clearly don't work out for us as human beings, this doesn't mean that they are nonsensical and don't exist.

Then why entitle your previous/same thread:

“My theory that could find a cure for depression”

I have to wonder what you’re trying to accomplish here; are you trying to depress everyone? Bring them down to your level, would that bring you peace?

I have anecdotal, first hand evidence that many cancer victims have a deeper understanding of life and crave every last second to simply enjoy it.

You seem to relish misery and to be honest you’re welcome to it, you can choose misery or you can choose life, it’s your call.

 

Actually, I myself struggle with depression and a complete chronic 24/7 absence of all my pleasant feelings/emotions (anhedonia). So this really does not work out for me at all.

Then your ‘theory’/idea falls at the first hurdle, if it doesn’t work for why would it work for others?

 

But since it has never been tested, then who knows

Or cares.

there could be whole new empirical evidence to support it.

 

Much like there could be a fleet of hyper-intelligent multi-dimensional squirrels ready to show how right you are... or destroy us.

To engender understanding, between humans, requires a mutual reference point; so anyone who lacks a mutual reference point, will lack understanding whatever the scientific explanation.

Edit/ do you, for instance, know how it feels to stand atop Everest?

OK, how does it feel to be happy or angry or sad?

 

Note To Reader: I am just like any other normal person wanting to discover the truth. I am not being selfish and am not trying to bother you or be nonsensical. I just really wish to discuss and find the answer to my theory here. So far, I haven't. People have just been dismissing my theory based upon their own personal opinions. But I need to discuss an actual valid reason as to why they reject my theory besides just from their own personal opinions.

There are many philosophies out there on how to live a happy/joyful life. But these are nothing scientific. They know nothing about science and how the brain really works (what our mental experiences really are). As a matter of fact, these philosophies say that you can live a joyful, happy life and enjoy your life while in a depressed and/or anhedonic state. But that is just nonsense and I will tell you why.

The term "rewarding experience" is a scientific term. It is defined as being our pleasant feelings/emotions (good moods) from our reward system since our reward system is the only function of our brains that can give us a rewarding experience. If there is a scientific version of something, then a different version of it would have to be fake. For example, since we have the scientific terms sight, hearing, smell, and taste, then a philosophical/moral version of sight, hearing, smell, and taste would be fake and would not give us sight, hearing, smell, or taste.

What we have "over here" is the term "rewarding experience" which is a scientific term in the world of science. But what we have "over there" are the terms happiness, joy, pleasure, and enjoyment which are outside the realm of science and in the realm of morality/philosophy (the world of our own personal created meanings in life).

So what I am going to do now here is bring what is "over there" to "over here." We all know that joy, pleasure, and happiness are always rewarding mental experiences for us as human beings. They are always rewarding to us. If you had disrewarding pain and misery such as depression and you said that your family and goals/dreams still brought you joy and happiness, then you would be having a rewarding mental experience in despite of your disrewarding pain and misery.

But if you did not experience any pleasant feelings/emotions in despite of your depression, then it would be false of you to say that you are having joy and happiness despite your depression. So since joy and happiness are synonymous with the scientific term "rewarding experience," then joy and happiness are also scientific terms as well. They belong "over here" in the realm of science. Also, as a side note, my descriptions of "over here" and "over there" are merely descriptions to make my explanation more effective and convenient.

This also applies to love, inspiration, etc. which are also always and can only be rewarding mental experiences for us as human beings. They are also scientific terms which means the philosophical/moral version of those things are false. As a matter of fact, I think there is a scientific version of everything and that the world of morality/philosophy (the world of our own personal created meanings) is false.

There is a scientific version of a lion. If you personally define yourself as a lion, then that would be false. That would not make you a lion. There is a scientific version of the sun, there is a scientific version of helium, etc. If you personally define anything else in life as being the sun or helium, then that would be false as well. It would not make those things actual helium or the sun.

So with all of this being said, I think there is even a scientific version of good and bad. Since having good meaning in one's life is always a rewarding mental experience for us and can only be a rewarding mental experience to us, then good is also a scientific term as well. It would be a synonym for our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system. When, for example, your family has good meaning to you, then you are perceiving a rewarding experience towards them and towards helping them out. Even if you say that your life was nothing good and that helping them out is what matters, you are still perceiving good value and worth towards them and, thus, you are still perceiving a rewarding experience towards them.

If you had disrewarding pain and misery to win a game and earn a trophy, then the idea of the team, trophy, and the game would be rewarding to you despite your pain and misery. They would be a rewarding mental experience for you in despite of your pain and misery since they have good value and worth to you. Therefore, good also belongs in the realm of science as well. Bad also belongs in the realm of science. Bad would be a synonym for our unpleasant feelings/emotions from our limbic system.

The term "incentive" is also always and can only be a rewarding or a disrewarding experience for us as human beings. It can be disrewarding because you can have the incentive to run away from danger. It would be disrewarding since you would be experiencing an unpleasant feeling/emotion known as fear. Therefore, incentive is also a scientific term as well and our only incentive in life is either our pleasant feelings/emotions from our reward system or our unpleasant feelings/emotions from our limbic system.

 

Science can’t explain everything any more than I can explain how it feels to be happy or sad.

To understand that you have found the truth, first you need to know what truth you seek (the answer BTW is 42, who knows what the question is).

Y'know, I don't think you've even yet noticed what was being hinted at, or figured out whom I was communicating with (if anyone).

Y'know. I think you're right...

Yet again? Look, last time I did this I got a moderator warning, but really: How about if I quote from a couple of earlier posts?

You mean the last time you ignored a simple question and tried the hint method of communication?

Were a species on the brink.

Let's start with this 'on the brink' of what?

Solvay 2015..

 

And we will make our own selfie like this:

 

 

Which ones your dad?

I am trying to build air-liquefying device. Can be instant ice cream like they did in Discovery Science TV show instead.. ?

 

We don't need more complications but given the volatility of some here when a cheesy snack is unavailable, brain freeze is the last thing we'd want.

Insane for a few reasons:

1/ the ‘logistics’ where/which country/city would we meet.

2/ the quality of trolls/gun toting nut jobs this site attracts.

3/ who would pay for the venue?

4/ do we serve cheese nips or wotsits?

A mad semi-stoned/slightly-tipsy idea but who’d be up for it, in principal and with the appropriate security?

Come on who’s curious enough to, maybe, make it a virtual get together?

So, instead of Dunning-Kruger, perhaps we call this Bungling-Reviewer.

The angry response to a simple question (and subsequent evasion), is good rule of thumb as to which is which.