Philosophy Discussion Forums

Greta wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2018, 7:26 pm
I don't think you understand how close your much-hated governments and much-loved corporations are simply part of one larger entity, with corporations increasingly becoming dominant.

As per the previous thread, you are lost in the economic models of the last century, seemingly trying to block out the fact that the power structures of our societies have changed greatly this century. . . .

I'm not sure what that response has to do with my comments in the previous post, much less what it has to do with the topic of the thread.

Perhaps you could launch a new thread setting forth this corporate coup d'etat (or whatever you think it is) theory of yours and outlining all the grave implications you apparently fear from it. Hopefully you will present the thesis clearly and precisely enough to allow rational analysis and empirical testing.

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2018, 10:14 pmI'm not sure what that response has to do with my comments in the previous post, much less what it has to do with the topic of the thread.

It was in reply to your comment but you seemingly was unable to understand it.

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2018, 5:48 pm

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2018, 2:43 pm
Exactly my point! A huge portion of the suicidal are trying to "draw attention" to their temporary depressive episode through actually trying to kill themselves, hence why lowering the statistical chance of surviving the temporary crisis and thus transforming a cry for help into a bodybag is a bad thing for most of the suicidal.

It may be, but it is not the job of government to prevent people from doing things that might be bad for them, or doing what it deems to be "good for them." It is not their Mommy.

BTW folks who try to kill themselves are "the actually suicidal" (by definition).

Some of them. Others (those who do not expect the act to succeed) are not actually suicidal; they are pretenders. Those serious about ending their lives choose methods sure to be effective.

The point in my previous comment regarding the "actually suicidal" was that group is not coextensive with suicide survivors. Hence conclusions about the "actually suicidal" do not follow from premises about suicide survivors.

This discussion is wandering rather far afield from the topic of "Gun Control and Mass Murder," BTW.

The "Mommy state" complaint is the excuse trotted out when one disagrees with a policy and one is looking for a reason to justify the opinion. This is proven when the same group advocates for the same government to intervene to an equal or greater degree in policies that they happen to agree with.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 24th, 2018, 3:22 am
The "Mommy state" complaint is the excuse trotted out when one disagrees with a policy and one is looking for a reason to justify the opinion. This is proven when the same group advocates for the same government to intervene to an equal or greater degree in policies that they happen to agree with.

Indeed. It's regrettable that I cannot do to my kids what my step father did to me; thrash me with a hard buckle to knock some sense into me.

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 24th, 2018, 3:22 am

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 23rd, 2018, 5:48 pm
It may be, but it is not the job of government to prevent people from doing things that might be bad for them, or doing what it deems to be "good for them." It is not their Mommy.

The "Mommy state" complaint is the excuse trotted out when one disagrees with a policy and one is looking for a reason to justify the opinion. This is proven when the same group advocates for the same government to intervene to an equal or greater degree in policies that they happen to agree with.

Actually it is a deprecatory euphemism for government paternalism, invoked when there is a disagreement about the proper role of government in free societies --- a topic raised in a previous thread, "A Moral Argument for Minarchy," but which (as far as I can recall) you did not address. But if you believe there are some inconsistencies in my view of that role (outlined in that thread) please point them out.

GE Morton wrote: ↑May 24th, 2018, 9:38 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑May 24th, 2018, 3:22 am

The "Mommy state" complaint is the excuse trotted out when one disagrees with a policy and one is looking for a reason to justify the opinion. This is proven when the same group advocates for the same government to intervene to an equal or greater degree in policies that they happen to agree with.

Actually it is a deprecatory euphemism for government paternalism, invoked when there is a disagreement about the proper role of government in free societies --- a topic raised in a previous thread, "A Moral Argument for Minarchy," but which (as far as I can recall) you did not address. But if you believe there are some inconsistencies in my view of that role (outlined in that thread) please point them out.

I'm not sure what that response has to do with the comments in previous posts, much less what it has to do with the topic of the thread.

Greta wrote: ↑May 24th, 2018, 8:12 pm
I'm not sure what that response has to do with the comments in previous posts, much less what it has to do with the topic of the thread.

It directly responds to your comment re: the "Mommy state excuse." But it has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, as I pointed out earlier with respect to the issue of whether preventing suicide is a "good thing."

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether the new majority for Democrats in the US House of Representatives will result in any interesting developments in the gun control debate?

Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 9th, 2018, 5:42 am Does anyone have any thoughts on whether the new majority for Democrats in the US House of Representatives will result in any interesting developments in the gun control debate?

There will be more grandstanding on the subject, but the fact is that there is little more that can be done, given that the GOP still holds the Senate and the court rulings on the 2nd Amendment.

What's needed is effective criminal control, not gun control.

An interesting article about the NRA:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -oaks.html

Following the republican playbook, it is all about scare tactics.

GE, it is not about “criminal control”. Like most mass shootings the Thousand Oaks shooter was not a criminal.

California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. The gun was purchased legally.

According to the Gun Violence Archive there have been 307 mass shootings in the 312 days of 2018. There are definitions of mass shootings, but by whatever measure mass shootings account for only a small percentage of gun deaths.

I do not think anything will be done as long as Trump and the so called republicans remain in power.

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑November 9th, 2018, 12:54 pm An interesting article about the NRA:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -oaks.html

Following the republican playbook, it is all about scare tactics.

GE, it is not about “criminal control”. Like most mass shootings the Thousand Oaks shooter was not a criminal.

California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. The gun was purchased legally.

According to the Gun Violence Archive there have been 307 mass shootings in the 312 days of 2018. There are definitions of mass shootings, but by whatever measure mass shootings account for only a small percentage of gun deaths.

I do not think anything will be done as long as Trump and the so called republicans remain in power.

The NRA is a different subject than the politicians under it's sway. The NRA is a trade group not dissimilar to the Tobacco Institute of the Dairy Council. Thus they have no call or need to be rational or even handed etc. They exist specifically to promote the sales and profits of their industry and asking them to be otherwise is a misunderstanding of what they do for a living.

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑November 9th, 2018, 12:54 pm An interesting article about the NRA:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -oaks.html

From the cited article: "These horrors happen far more often in America than in other advanced countries partly because of the outsize political influence of the National Rifle Association."

That, of course, is nonsense. No doubt the sociologists, psychologists, cultural anthropologists pondering this problem will get a kick out of that theory.

GE, it is not about “criminal control”. Like most mass shootings the Thousand Oaks shooter was not a criminal.

You're right. Nor were most of the other recent mass killers. But as you note, those represent but a tiny fraction of gun homicides, and most of the others are committed by persons with prior criminal convictions.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16077054

I do not think anything will be done as long as Trump and the so called republicans remain in power.

Little more can be done without repealing the 2nd Amendment.

The NRA has become a political propaganda machine. This goes far beyond promoting the gun industry. As the article clearly show they underwent a fundamental shift from a concern with gun safety and sport to a right wing political organization.

Sociologists, psychologists, and cultural anthropologists are very much aware of the power of propaganda. The political influence of the NRA extends to the beliefs and opinions of its membership. Its members vote for politicians who support whatever position the NRA advocates.

GE you cite information from 2005. I do not know what the current statistics show, but even if they are the same this does not mean that we should accept mass shootings as an acceptable norm. Gun advocates want to point their finger everywhere except the guns.

Fooloso4 wrote: ↑November 9th, 2018, 2:57 pm The NRA has become a political propaganda machine. This goes far beyond promoting the gun industry. As the article clearly show they underwent a fundamental shift from a concern with gun safety and sport to a right wing political organization.

They shifted to that emphasis in response to increasing threats to the 2nd Amendment from left-wing political organizations.

Sociologists, psychologists, and cultural anthropologists are very much aware of the power of propaganda. The political influence of the NRA extends to the beliefs and opinions of its membership. Its members vote for politicians who support whatever position the NRA advocates.

I'm sure they are. They're also aware that it is not NRA members pulling the homidical triggers. Those members do not want their constitutional rights violated to prevent violence they are not committing.

GE you cite information from 2005. I do not know what the current statistics show, but even if they are the same this does not mean that we should accept mass shootings as an acceptable norm.

I agree.

Gun advocates want to point their finger everywhere except the guns.

Not everywhere. They point them at the persons actually committing the crimes. As the NRA says, guns do not commit crimes. People do.

'it is not NRA members pulling the homidical triggers. Those members do not want their constitutional rights violated to prevent violence they are not committing.'

Nothing worse than having your constitutional rights violated, right. It really hurts.