User Tag List

First 19272829303139 Last

Results 281 to 290 of 431

  1. #281
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post

    Aren't you being inconsistent here?
    No. Some cultures are (admittedly subjectively) better than others. Most people would agree that they prefer either their own, and/or other particular cultures.

    That doesn't mean I hate everybody from cultures I don't care for though. I understand that people are individuals, and so I may be fond of people from cultures I don't care for, or dislike individuals from cultures I prefer.


    Using scientific categories is not a sound way of describing human constructs. I'm sure your everyday Russian isn't concerned with any political and ethnic conflicts, no one ever describes ordinary people as representatives. Even if when you examine folk culture, you can look at the views of that.
    You asked me how my response was factual and I told you. This is why I think you're subjective, because you can't even acknowledge that what I said is scientifically factually correct, even if you personally don't find it culturally relevant to your point.


    The problem is still, their domestic issues come from them annexing large swathes of land that belong to non-Slavic nations, that were non-Muscovite in the 18-19th century. This resulted in their current conflicts with neighboring nations. I don't know how you can reconcile having a state which is multi-ethnic, a multicultural federation, while still feeling traditionalist and xenophobic. If Russians want to conserve their culture and end terrorism, they can start by ceding territories to peoples who do not want to be a part of the Russian federation. You can't have the cake and eat it. What about other peoples right to preserve their culture? Should only powerful nations have the right to things?
    And you're asking an American this?

    You don't have to sympathize with the Chechen cause. All you have to do, to maintain your moral integrity is to acknowledge that the Chechens right to independence is valid. Unless of course, you support Russian domination of foreign nations.
    My moral integrity is just fine, thanks.



    What is going on? No I'm not going to argue against Russians on behalf of Chechens here. I have not the slightest concern whether you'll feel any differently or change your perspective. My posts are factually correct and my only concern.
    Now it's time for a musical interlude.


  2. #282
    Senior Member ColonelGadaafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    Si
    Socionics
    ESTP
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    No. Some cultures are (admittedly subjectively) better than others. Most people would agree that they prefer either their own, and/or other particular cultures.
    That's not the point. It doesn't matter if you perceive chechen and caucasus culture as inferior to Russian. The point is you shouldn't make a political judgement which has political implications based on which culture has more external appeal to you. I enjoy american culture and have american friends, it doesn't mean I agree with the war in Iraq.


    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    You asked me how my response was factual and I told you. This is why I think you're subjective, because you can't even acknowledge that what I said is scientifically factually correct, even if you personally don't find it culturally relevant to your point.
    It's not a fact, since the terminology in this case is determined by human constructs. Europe isn't europe because somehow scientists found out through the continental plates that it's called europe. The noun for it came to being by an entirely subjective process. It's not a universal fact, like the fact that energy is needed to sustain organic cells.



    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    And you're asking an American this?
    I was just addressing Contradictions and Flaws in that form of reasoning by Russians. It was rhetorical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Marmotini View Post
    My moral integrity is just fine, thanks.
    I don't know your position on the Russian-Chechen conflict. Do you atleast agree with the notion of "nations right to exist", in this case independantly?
    Last edited by ColonelGadaafi; 04-25-2013 at 09:29 AM.
    "Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor arms stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations."

  3. #283

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    And I'm not a fan of the tactic of presenting one's own examples, then dismissing the counterexamples of others. My point is that restriction of firearms will not eliminate gun violence, even large-scale gun violence. The statistics don't bear this out, and the anecdotal evidence doesn't either.
    The experience of the UK is the opposite of what you're saying, Tyrinth even agreed with the evidence, albeit begrudgingly and seeking to make the caveat you yourself have made about violence.

    Whether or not the society is any the more or less violent isnt in question if you're discussing gun control specifically, its the incidence of gun violence, which in the UK is much, much less than the incidence of gun violence in the US, in no small part because whether people are motivated to violence or not they do not have guns in circulation or freely available to put their hands to.

    The example you used I felt was disgusting because it was an otherwise peaceable and law abidding society which has absolutely no incidence of gun violence or spree killing what so ever really, it read like you were making a cheap shot in really poor taste.

    I'm not dismissing your points, I dont think they are good, in the main I err on the side of arguments about the efficacy of gun control, especially were there are cultures of widespread ownership and norms which go against it. However the sorts of arguments you and others have made on this topic in this thread, the way you all have made them and emotiing involved too, so both the content and the affect involved, do not garner any sympathy what so ever.

  4. #284
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ColonelGadaafi View Post
    That's not the point. It doesn't matter if you perceive chechen and caucasus culture as inferior to Russian. The point is you shouldn't make a political judgement which has political implications based on which culture has more external appeal to you. I enjoy american culture and have american friends, it doesn't mean I agree with the war in Iraq.



    It's not a fact, since the terminology in this case is determined by human constructs. Europe isn't europe because somehow scientists found out through the continental plates that it's called europe. The noun for it became to being by an entirely subjective process. It's not a universal fact, like the fact that energy is needed to sustain organic cells.




    I was just addressing Contradictions and Flaws in that form of reasoning by Russians. It was rhetorical.


    I don't know your position on the Russian-Chechen conflict. Do you atleast agree with the notion of "nations right to exist", in this case independantly?
    There's a reason I want to stay out of this, and it's partly because I don't feel that I have the authority to even make such a decision. I have heard everything from Chechens not really wanting independence in the majority (many former Soviet satellite states do better with Russian help) and the argument for keeping a watch on them is the same reason people fear American satellite states in the same region, to keep control over dangerous Islamic extremist cultures.

    Some people say Chechnya isn't even capable of fully functioning as a country, and I've seen some things, and I take pity on the people, but my god.

    Am I saying that the Soviet regime is great? No.

    And I think you saying my moral integrity hinges on me giving you an absolute yes that Chechnya should be independent is pretty absurd, given all the conditions and circumstances.

    This is something I don't have a strong opinion on, and all I'm avoiding is you demonizing Russians and me avoiding arguing with you because I fear you actually may have personal life experience reasons to feel that way if you live in the Caucasus, in which case I can offer no opinion, because that would be unfair, since I base so much on life experience, give so much credence to it.

  5. #285
    ... Tyrinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    649 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The experience of the UK is the opposite of what you're saying, Tyrinth even agreed with the evidence, albeit begrudgingly and seeking to make the caveat you yourself have made about violence.

    Whether or not the society is any the more or less violent isnt in question if you're discussing gun control specifically, its the incidence of gun violence, which in the UK is much, much less than the incidence of gun violence in the US, in no small part because whether people are motivated to violence or not they do not have guns in circulation or freely available to put their hands to.

    The example you used I felt was disgusting because it was an otherwise peaceable and law abidding society which has absolutely no incidence of gun violence or spree killing what so ever really, it read like you were making a cheap shot in really poor taste.

    I'm not dismissing your points, I dont think they are good, in the main I err on the side of arguments about the efficacy of gun control, especially were there are cultures of widespread ownership and norms which go against it. However the sorts of arguments you and others have made on this topic in this thread, the way you all have made them and emotiing involved too, so both the content and the affect involved, do not garner any sympathy what so ever.
    The problem is that this argument is basically saying that somehow gun-related deaths are somehow more sinister than deaths in general. Yes, removal of guns from the picture will reduce the number of guns which can be used in crimes. You don't have to convince anyone that there would be no automobile accidents without cars, it's simply common sense. However, dead is dead, and unless the removal of firearms has an observable effect on the overall murder/violence rate, there is little reason to implement it. Implementing legislation against firearms which will not reduce overall violence is simply feel-good legislation being used for retribution against what hurt you; you will get hurt again by something else (or by the same thing) and you will in turn try to restrict that. It's addressing the symptom without addressing the problem; getting mad at, and killing mosquitoes while meanwhile the front door is wide open. The preceding is the reason I cited the UK in my previous post, though admittedly I should not have been so sarcastic about it.

    This all taking place in some theoretical world where gun-control is 100% effective, of course.

    However, even this is a gross simplification of the matter at hand. I'm simply framing it around the "will it reduce violence?" perspective which you seem to like using.
    ...

  6. #286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrinth View Post
    The problem is that this argument is basically saying that somehow gun-related deaths are somehow more sinister than deaths in general. Yes, removal of guns from the picture will reduce the number of guns which can be used in crimes. You don't have to convince anyone that there would be no automobile accidents without cars, it's simply common sense. However, dead is dead, and unless the removal of firearms has an observable effect on the overall murder/violence rate, there is little reason to implement it. Implementing legislation against firearms which will not reduce overall violence is simply feel-good legislation being used for retribution against what hurt you; you will get hurt again by something else (or by the same thing) and you will in turn try to restrict that. It's addressing the symptom without addressing the problem; getting mad at, and killing mosquitoes while meanwhile the front door is wide open. The preceding is the reason I cited the UK in my previous post, though admittedly I should not have been so sarcastic about it.

    However, even this is a gross simplification of the matter at hand. I'm simply framing it around the "will it reduce violence?" perspective which you seem to like using.
    The incidence of gun related spree kills are lower in societies with without guns, there's a positive correlation and that's factual, no sense in denying or attempting to side step that only harms your argument actually.

    Will it make society overall less violent? I dont know, it will mean there are less gun related deaths, I suspect that it will mean there are less deaths overall because I dont buy the idea that people who would kill with a firearm will be out with a car or kitchen knife inflicting as much damage as they could if they had firearms.

    Its much more realistic, honest even, to argue that while the availability of firearms has a cost, in lives and violence, that its one you believe is worth while and defensible than that it does not exist, is negligible or on a par with deaths from automobiles.

  7. #287
    ... Tyrinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    649 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The incidence of gun related spree kills are lower in societies with without guns, there's a positive correlation and that's factual, no sense in denying or attempting to side step that only harms your argument actually.
    I never implied otherwise. Though once could argue, with the Anders Brevik argument which you love so much, that when gun control fails, the results are far more dangerous in a disarmed society.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Will it make society overall less violent? I dont know, it will mean there are less gun related deaths, I suspect that it will mean there are less deaths overall because I dont buy the idea that people who would kill with a firearm will be out with a car or kitchen knife inflicting as much damage as they could if they had firearms.
    I would ask you to do some research of the overall violent crime rate of countries before and after the implementation of strict gun control. The results, as should be expected, vary from country to country, culture to culture, but generally, there is little impact on crime. Those who are determined to to harm continue to do so.

    And as you pointed out something which weakens my argument, I will do the same with yours. Do not frame your arguments about gun control around spree killing; doing so simply makes you seem like one of those emotion-based arguers. Spree killings, despite what the media would have you believe, constitute an incredibly small portion of crime in general, with any weapon. I'm not saying they should be ignored, but they are a poor thing to repeatedly cite as a reason for restrictions.
    ...

  8. #288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrinth View Post
    I never implied otherwise. Though once could argue, with the Anders Brevik argument which you love so much, that when gun control fails, the results are far more dangerous in a disarmed society.
    I'm really not sure what you mean by that but I didnt read the rest of your post because I've already told someone else that I dont like the way in which spree killing of that kind is used to capitalise in discussions of this sort. Have a bit of respect for the dead why dont you, the guy was a child killer.

  9. #289
    ... Tyrinth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    649 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    1,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm really not sure what you mean by that but I didnt read the rest of your post because I've already told someone else that I dont like the way in which spree killing of that kind is used to capitalise in discussions of this sort. Have a bit of respect for the dead why dont you, the guy was a child killer.
    Wait. So you cite spree killings repeatedly as a reason firearms should be banned, but I'm not allowed to talk about them? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting, I'm awfully tired so it's a possibility.

    I would also ask you to read the rest of my post, the rest was unrelated to the Brevik incident.
    ...

  10. #290
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The experience of the UK is the opposite of what you're saying, Tyrinth even agreed with the evidence, albeit begrudgingly and seeking to make the caveat you yourself have made about violence.

    Whether or not the society is any the more or less violent isnt in question if you're discussing gun control specifically, its the incidence of gun violence, which in the UK is much, much less than the incidence of gun violence in the US, in no small part because whether people are motivated to violence or not they do not have guns in circulation or freely available to put their hands to.
    The experience of the UK, like the experience of Norway, is anecdotal on a large scale. All nations that restrict guns are not the same, just as all nations with greater gun availability are not the same. In considering what restrictions make sense in the U.S., we should look first at available evidence from the U.S., which shows no real decrease in gun violence while we did have an assault weapons ban. To broaden our research, we would need to examine statistics from a wider range of nations, focusing on those most similar to ours in lifestyle and resources. Yes, the UK example provides valid and important data, but only one set.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The example you used I felt was disgusting because it was an otherwise peaceable and law abidding society which has absolutely no incidence of gun violence or spree killing what so ever really, it read like you were making a cheap shot in really poor taste.

    I'm not dismissing your points, I dont think they are good, in the main I err on the side of arguments about the efficacy of gun control, especially were there are cultures of widespread ownership and norms which go against it. However the sorts of arguments you and others have made on this topic in this thread, the way you all have made them and emotiing involved too, so both the content and the affect involved, do not garner any sympathy what so ever.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I'm really not sure what you mean by that but I didnt read the rest of your post because I've already told someone else that I dont like the way in which spree killing of that kind is used to capitalise in discussions of this sort. Have a bit of respect for the dead why dont you, the guy was a child killer.
    I am not looking for sympathy, and you are the one being emotional here. (Perhaps your own accusation of emotionalism is simple projection.) You want me to acknowledge the evidence of the UK (which I do), but don't even want to consider Norway because of your emotional reaction to the recent killings there. That is no way to conduct an objective analysis. The evidence I am discussing stands on its own, and informs my opinion on this topic until countered by greater contradictory evidence. So far, that has not happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrinth View Post
    And as you pointed out something which weakens my argument, I will do the same with yours. Do not frame your arguments about gun control around spree killing; doing so simply makes you seem like one of those emotion-based arguers. Spree killings, despite what the media would have you believe, constitute an incredibly small portion of crime in general, with any weapon. I'm not saying they should be ignored, but they are a poor thing to repeatedly cite as a reason for restrictions.
    Yes. Focusing on spree killings is an attempt to target the emotional responses of the reader. Politicians have long understood and manipulated this to whip up public support for myriad ill-conceived policies.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] A Marathon of Consciousness
    By Prototype in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-15-2010, 01:07 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-22-2009, 08:09 PM
  3. What made my INTJ friend to start marathon training..
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 01-02-2008, 10:28 PM
  4. Homemade Science Experiment To Create Explosion? (Leftover T3s; codeine?)
    By Usehername in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-16-2007, 02:36 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO