Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There has ALWAYS been a lot of guns here, but these violent episodes of public, mass assassinations seem to be on the increase (?are there really more or does the 24hr/d cable news cycle just make it seem like more)
Something must have changed to increase this style of violence. The guns were always there. They haven't changed.
The Internet and the 24 hour news cycle are giving sick people their 15 minutes of infamy.
Appeal to the absurd isn't really a logical fallacy though. The razor example given is completely logical.
"If gun violence is a problem, we need to restrict guns." Okay.
You may think it is an appeal to the absurd to then say "Suicide by razors is a problem, so we need to restrict razors." But it really isn't. You MIGHT be able to argue there is a slippery slope fallacy here, but really, the logic actually checks out.
A true logical fallacy is one like a straw man, where a person argues against claim when such a claim was never made.
I'll type slowly here so maybe you can understand the analogy:
If a person is extremely depressed, they may try to commit suicide with a razor. The PROBLEM is Depression. The razor is merely the mechanism of acting out their warped solution.
In gun violence, the PROBLEM is some mental illness. The gun is just a mechanism. Removing guns will have no effect on the problem. They will still act out with some other mechanism. Cf- increased knife attacks lately in London.
Okay. So what are you going to do about mental illness...because let's face it, the gun lobby hasn't done anything about it/
Okay. So what are you going to do about mental illness...because let's face it, the gun lobby hasn't done anything about it/
Au contraire, mon ami--- It's brought a lot of peace of mind to a lot of honest Americans.
I've already stated my thoughts: big govt means detection & handling of mental illness has dehumanized the process and made it inefficient. I say shrink the govt, leaving more funds for local groups, not necessarily govt, and to stop encouraging people to raise families without benefit of two parents in the house. We could go on...
OTOH- you can't legislate against stupidity.... What's up with texting?...IT'S A PHONE! TALK!
A better analogy: if there were an epidemic of people trying to commit suicide by slicing their wrists with razors, the libs would want to have tougher razor registration laws.
You can't solve a problem until you figure out its cause.
The cause is some people (all throughout history) are entitled, violent jerks who don't care who gets hurt.
Au contraire, mon ami--- It's brought a lot of peace of mind to a lot of honest Americans.
I've already stated my thoughts: big govt means detection & handling of mental illness has dehumanized the process and made it inefficient. I say shrink the govt, leaving more funds for local groups, not necessarily govt, and to stop encouraging people to raise families without benefit of two parents in the house. We could go on...
OTOH- you can't legislate against stupidity.... What's up with texting?...IT'S A PHONE! TALK!
Mental illness acoounts for a tiny fraction of the problem.
It would be anyone's right, but it seems like a pretty empty way to live.
It seems not only empty but mental-health-wise, unhealthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
And there is no doubt it my mind that the most radical aspects of feminism, in the hands of a few militant judges, have weakened the institution of marriage, and left a relatively small number of men with large obligations and few options. I've met a few of them, tied to jobs which reduce their take-home pay to a few hundred dollars a month, and feeding themselves via SNAP cards.
It's not my place to sit in judgement, but when applied by those not familiar with individual cases, the "new rules" seem to produce some strange results.
IMHO, one cannot, solely through introspection & self-examination, understand one's self, or the forces that mold one's life, without understanding one's culture.
Cultures do not change unless everyone changes. There are neurological-biological, political-economic-historic, & cultural-psychodynamic reasons for this.
Culture tends to be dictatorial unless & until understood & examined.
It's not that Humanity must be in sync with, or adapt to, our cultures ~ but that our cultures grow out of sync with humanity. When this happens, people go crazy & they don't know it.
In order to avoid mass insanity, people need to learn to transcend their cultures to the times & to their biological organisms.
To accomplish this monumental-seeming task, since introspection alone is not sufficient, we need each other.
Quote:
Society must be organized in such a way that man's social, loving nature is not separated from his social existence, but becomes one with it. If it is true, as I have tried to show, that love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence, then any society which excludes, relatively, the development of love, must in the long run perish of its own contradiction with the basic necessities of human nature.
Au contraire, mon ami--- It's brought a lot of peace of mind to a lot of honest Americans.
I've already stated my thoughts: big govt means detection & handling of mental illness has dehumanized the process and made it inefficient. I say shrink the govt, leaving more funds for local groups, not necessarily govt, and to stop encouraging people to raise families without benefit of two parents in the house. We could go on...
OTOH- you can't legislate against stupidity.... What's up with texting?...IT'S A PHONE! TALK!
Shrinking government doesn't "leave funds" for any other large-scale social movements. That doesn't happen. It leaves funds for more big-screen televisions.
Removing guns sure as Hell removes gun violence. I’ll settle for that.
Not necessarily ....if only the good and honest citizens give up their guns.
No criminal is gonna just give up their gun because some gov has told them to.
What would happen is a large segment of the population would then be much more vulnerable to the criminals in society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
