Page 31 of 74 FirstFirst ... 21262728293031323334353641 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 620 of 1473
  1. #601  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    [...] (I feel that people who will take advice from a stranger on how they should feel about themselves/their lives could probably get more effective advice from reading the lyrics from an old Styx album.)
    I like the lyrics from old Styx albums.
    "Tell me tell me where I'm going
    I don't know where I've been ..."
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2. #602  
    "Are you sure this paragraph is not some cry for help. I think it just shows that you have some supressed feelings about your mother. It's okay. Just admit it "

    "Anybody talks about my mother and sex in the same sentence is going to feel toothless, regardless of how well edumacated he/she is! "

    After I realized I wrote a sentence that contained both my mother and sex, I took myself out back and loosened some of my teeth for myself. That's the last time I'll ever disrespect my mom!



    "Why must you be such an angry young man, when your future looks quite bright to me?"
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  3. #603  
    Ok, fess up, who here writes for the onion?

    http://www.theonion.com/onion3802/peace_activist.html
  4. #604  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Nope. I'm talking about effective use _and_ function.

    uh huh. I guess this is my fault for trying to distinguish function from use. I should have known better than to make a semantic argument on this board.
    Truly the only function of a gun is to fire a projectile out of the barrel at a given speed.

    yup. But why, do you suppose, somebody would design such a device? What could possibly be the purpose (dare I say function?) of it? Why do you suppose the government supplies the Army with them? Must be to help them brush up on their physics...
    What you put at the terminal vector of the bullets path (or whether or not you ever even fire the thing) is wholly up the individual.

    ...and the law governing the nation-state with which that individual has chosen to associate herself. We're discussing those laws, aren't we?
    You still haven't answered any of the questions, though.

    Which questions?
    Never mind, though, this is pointless since we can't even agree on the general premises,
    Right. Mainly, I blame D-R, he knew I'd get clobbered on this one.
    and you can't get beyond your own prejudices in determining yours.
    We're both prejudiced here, Chester: name-calling may get you the last word, but it don't get you right. You like-a the gun, I don't like-a the gun. We both have our reasons, and they're reasonable reasons, and they're defendable reasons. So Be it: we both think the other one is silly for not sufficiently addressing our reasonable, defendable reasons, but neither one of us has managed to pull out the jugular of ther other's argument, and I grow tired of picking nits.
  5. #605  
    Originally posted by Toby
    I'm sure it would have something to do with sex and it would be negative. The secret to understanding Freudians is that everything is about sex and the repression or expression thereof (unless it dealt with himself, e.g. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." ). Whether or not a certain thing is negative or positive when it is repressed/expressed is a function of the personal bias of that Freudian. IOW, most Freud is a Fraud. Anytime I hear someone talking about phallic symbols or ***** envy, it flips the bullsh*t switch in my head and I automatically discount nearly anything they have to say (unless of course _I'm_ the one saying it ))) ).
    Well, yeah, but much of his thought we accept as plain common sense. We've dropped the nasty sex stuff and hung onto the useful stuff--repression, the unconscious, dream interpretation, and so on.

    As far as the sex stuff goes, I think we've gone over that before (in this thread?). Explanatory theories are difficult because they're post hoc--they do a really good job of making sense of stuff that's already happened, but suck when it comes to making proactive decisions. You can explain pretty much anything in terms of sex. With some things it works well (Movies, some literature, pop music guns... ), with other things it is a load of crap.

    it's the same thing as people trying to distill all the different forms of morality into egoism. yes, it's true that it is possible to explain everything in terms of self-benefit, but is it helpful?

    Forget the question of whether or not its accurate, we're after the fact here and when it comes to explaining the motivations for past events, the "fact" is what we decide it to be.
  6. #606  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    uh huh. I guess this is my fault for trying to distinguish function from use. I should have known better than to make a semantic argument on this board.
    Especially a pretty weak one.
    yup. But why, do you suppose, somebody would design such a device? What could possibly be the purpose (dare I say function?) of it?
    That really depends. The function might be to defend oneself from predators (both quadrapedal and bipedal). It might be killing people on a battlefield. It might be lots of things.
    Why do you suppose the government supplies the Army with them?
    Because the army's job is supposed to be to protect our borders. Nowadays, it seems that it's to kill brown people.
    Must be to help them brush up on their physics...
    No, those are just the snipers who tote guns like the Barrett. They're the only ones who tend to need a lot of physics.
    ...and the law governing the nation-state with which that individual has chosen to associate herself. We're discussing those laws, aren't we?
    No. Actually, we were supposedly discussing your reasons for wanting to change those laws. Unfortunately, it never seemed to get beyond "guns are bad, mmmkay?"
    Which questions?
    The ones posted shortly after the Vogt article. IOW, what exactly do you want to achieve? Banning guns isn't a goal because it doesn't solve anything, plus you'll never do it. The genie is already out of the bottle. There's no way to implement it without violating every right that the ACLU holds dear.
    Right. Mainly, I blame D-R, he knew I'd get clobbered on this one.
    Maybe you deserve to get clobbered on this one.
    We're both prejudiced here, Chester: name-calling may get you the last word, but it don't get you right.
    Except that I'm not letting any prejudices I might have influence the premises.
    You like-a the gun, I don't like-a the gun.
    *shrug* I don't like-a the gun anymore than I like-a the microwave or the car. They're a tool, plain and simple. 'THEY'RE A TOOL DESIGNED TO KILL!!!1!!11! :-/~~~~' Even if I granted that, so what? Some people need killin', and some people should be enticed not to do certain actions by the threat of lead poisoning.
    We both have our reasons, and they're reasonable reasons, and they're defendable reasons. So Be it: we both think the other one is silly for not sufficiently addressing our reasonable, defendable reasons, but neither one of us has managed to pull out the jugular of ther other's argument, and I grow tired of picking nits.
    Then stop picking nits and advance a real argument, or try to establish some real premises. "You can do it. It's all up to you, mmmkay..."
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. #607  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    Ok, fess up, who here writes for the onion?

    http://www.theonion.com/onion3802/peace_activist.html
    I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #608  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    Well, yeah, but much of his thought we accept as plain common sense.
    What you mean 'we', paleface? Pop psychology like pop music is usually so much horse puckey.
    We've dropped the nasty sex stuff and hung onto the useful stuff--repression, the unconscious, dream interpretation, and so on.
    Actually, most of the stuff that's hung around isn't because of Fraud, but rather Jung.
    As far as the sex stuff goes, I think we've gone over that before (in this thread?). Explanatory theories are difficult because they're post hoc--they do a really good job of making sense of stuff that's already happened, but suck when it comes to making proactive decisions. You can explain pretty much anything in terms of sex. With some things it works well (Movies, some literature, pop music guns... ), with other things it is a load of crap.
    *shrug* I think it's a load of crap far more often than it's useful.
    it's the same thing as people trying to distill all the different forms of morality into egoism. yes, it's true that it is possible to explain everything in terms of self-benefit, but is it helpful?
    And it's possible to explain everything about guns in terms of killing, but is it helpful?
    Forget the question of whether or not its accurate, we're after the fact here and when it comes to explaining the motivations for past events, the "fact" is what we decide it to be.
    Hmm...perhaps that's why it flips my bullsh*t switch...because such a 'fact' isn't a 'fact' at all. Common sense isn't always common and doesn't always make sense (but Alan Keyes does! ).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  9. #609  
    Especially a pretty weak one.

    bah

    That really depends. The function might be to defend oneself from predators (both quadrapedal and bipedal). It might be killing people on a battlefield. It might be lots of things.

    ...and how does one defend oneself with a gun? You say we're not agreeing on first principles (although what you mean is that I don't agree with you), but you're refusing to track back to the first principle.--I know that you believe you have and that I haven't, and I believe the same.

    Because the army's job is supposed to be to protect our borders. Nowadays, it seems that it's to kill brown people.

    Sigh. Wouldn't it be nice if the mass culture of America could admit such complexities?

    No. Actually, we were supposedly discussing your reasons for wanting to change those laws. Unfortunately, it never seemed to get beyond "guns are bad, mmmkay?"

    well, no. What happened is that nobody seemed to want to address anything else except that. I'll repost the stuff I was trying to discuss after this. And stop trying to take cheap shots, mmmkay?

    The ones posted shortly after the Vogt article. IOW, what exactly do you want to achieve? Banning guns isn't a goal because it doesn't solve anything, plus you'll never do it. The genie is already out of the bottle. There's no way to implement it without violating every right that the ACLU holds dear.

    Thanks for the reminder. I only want to ban a small portion of guns, or at least to clarify the laws surrounding gun ownership. Truth be told, I'm perfectly fine not banning guns, but banning them for those who do not pass a very rigorous licensing process and can show a need. I've said this many times.

    WRT: utility. I get the same bullsh*t feeling with "guns make the world a safer place" arguments that you do with freud. Truth be told, even if they were true, i'd be making the same arguments. I want the laws I've suggested passed for the principle of them, in cases of darker days and for the purpose of coherent, logical laws. I know that "logical laws" is nearly an impossibility in these days, but hey, that's what I want.

    Maybe you deserve to get clobbered on this one.

    Maybe you're not seeing my points clearly. We've veered off the road because of minor points--I'm pretty sure we agree on the major ones. I don't think I deserve to get clobbered on this one.

    Except that I'm not letting any prejudices I might have influence the premises.

    uh huh. right. sure. sorry, I dislike being flip, but this is too much.

    *shrug* I don't like-a the gun anymore than I like-a the microwave or the car. They're a tool, plain and simple. 'THEY'RE A TOOL DESIGNED TO KILL!!!1!!11! :-/~~~~' Even if I granted that, so what? Some people need killin', and some people should be enticed not to do certain actions by the threat of lead poisoning.

    Right. They're a tool. All I'm saying is that given the nature of the tool, we shouldn't be handing them out--especially the very efficient tools. You let any old guy operate a shovel, it takes a specialist to operate a steam-shovel.

    Then stop picking nits and advance a real argument, or try to establish some real premises. "You can do it. It's all up to you, mmmkay..."

    ditto. I'm restating my arguments in a sec....
  10. #610  
    ...everything in this gd thread is ancilary to the following points:

    http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16736&perpage=40&pagenumber=11

    4) So I want a compromise. sure, have your guns, but you can't have cop-killing automatic laser-guided smart assault rifles. And you need a license. no, I'm not kidding, an honest-to-god-got-your-picutre-on-it-and-is-tracked-by-the- government-license. And they can revoke it if you're a felon. None of these measures breaks the 2nd amendment.

    http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16736&perpage=40&pagenumber=12

    Agreed. I would add some checks to that training and education, like mandatory licenses at the end of that training, sophisticated gun-tracking measures, waiting periods, background checks (at gunshows too, what kind of ***** would support background checks everywhere but gun shows? I don't care if it hurts the sellers! It's like "We check all bags and passangers going on planes, except on the 2nd sunday of every month.").

    regulate behavior regarding guns and track guns in a national system. It's too easy for people to get guns, too easy to use them wrongly. There is no earthly reason for there to be [the] number and lethality (ie nasty-scary-gun-level) of guns out there for the purposes that most gun apologists say they're used for.
  11. #611  
    What you mean 'we', paleface? Pop psychology like pop music is usually so much horse puckey.
    *sigh*. Paleface?--now you're just bein confrontational for the sake of it.

    I wasn't referring to pop psych, which is horse puckey, but to the most common professional psych standards.

    Actually, most of the stuff that's hung around isn't because of Fraud, but rather Jung.
    ...who got it from Freud. Really, though, it's been my experience that much of what Jung added is over-mystic hoo-ha.

    And it's possible to explain everything about guns in terms of killing, but is it helpful?

    From Plato's Phaedo
    Soc: ...What hopes I had formed, and how grievously was I disappointed! As I proceeded, I found my philosopher altogether forsaking mind or any other principle of order, but having recourse to air, and ether, and water, and other eccentricities. I might compare him to a person who began by maintaining generally that mind is the cause of the actions of Socrates, but who, when he endeavored to explain the causes of my several actions in detail, went on to show that I sit here because my body is made up of bones and muscles; and the bones, as he would say, are hard and have ligaments which divide them, and the muscles are elastic, and they cover the bones, which have also a covering or environment of flesh and skin which contains them; and as the bones are lifted at their joints by the contraction or relaxation of the muscles, I am able to bend my limbs, and this is why I am sitting here in a curved posture: that is what he would say, and he would have a similar explanation of my talking to you, which he would attribute to sound, and air, and hearing, and he would assign ten thousand other causes of the same sort, forgetting to mention the true cause, which is that the Athenians have thought fit to condemn me
    The point being that a purely physical explanation falls well short of a full explanation of function.

    Hmm...perhaps that's why it flips my bullsh*t switch...because such a 'fact' isn't a 'fact' at all.
    All of our explanations are not 'fact.' Freud flips your switch for other reasons--probably because you've most often seen him in contexts where his theory is poorly applied or misapplied--these contexts probably consititute the majority of our reality.
  12. #612  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    ...and how does one defend oneself with a gun?
    In most cases, the attacker's knowing it's there is enough.
    You say we're not agreeing on first principles (although what you mean is that I don't agree with you),
    No, not at all. WRT the laws of this country, you disagree with the very foundations of those laws (i.e. the Constitution and its clear meaning as evidenced by the thoughts of those who wrote it and got it ratified).
    but you're refusing to track back to the first principle.--I know that you believe you have and that I haven't, and I believe the same.
    I don't think we agree on what the 'first principle' even is at this point.
    well, no. What happened is that nobody seemed to want to address anything else except that. I'll repost the stuff I was trying to discuss after this. And stop trying to take cheap shots, mmmkay?
    Perhaps I'm mixing up your positions with Rob's, but you can't nitpick my responses to him without expecting some flack if you're nitpicking them in a different context.
    Thanks for the reminder. I only want to ban a small portion of guns, or at least to clarify the laws surrounding gun ownership. Truth be told, I'm perfectly fine not banning guns, but banning them for those who do not pass a very rigorous licensing process and can show a need. I've said this many times.
    Except that when you say 'ban' and don't mean 'ban' you're being very sloppy semantically. Ban means eradicate functionally. Regulate or license? That's fine (although I personally believe it flies in the face of 'infringe', I'd consider it a solution that might be implementable). Ban does not mean 'stop certain people from getting certain guns', though. The problem with most people's talk of 'clarifying gun ownership laws' is that they don't grok the meaning of the second amendment. They start off with 'we don't want to touch your grandpappy's hunting rifle, just those dangerous military type weapons'. Sorry, but those dangerous military type weapons are ultimately the only ones that the second amendment really applies to. You can ban hunting rifles tomorrow (provided they have no militia application) and be well within the bounds of the second amendment.
    WRT: utility. I get the same bullsh*t feeling with "guns make the world a safer place" arguments that you do with freud.
    I don't recall ever saying that 'guns make the world a safer place'. Only people can do that. History shows that it's unlikely to happen anytime soon, though.
    Truth be told, even if they were true, i'd be making the same arguments. I want the laws I've suggested passed for the principle of them, in cases of darker days and for the purpose of coherent, logical laws. I know that "logical laws" is nearly an impossibility in these days, but hey, that's what I want.
    Except that the problem is that there's nothing inherently logical about banning or regulating gun ownership on the front end (except on the individual level after the approriate due process).
    Maybe you're not seeing my points clearly.
    Actually, your points became much less clear once you started nitpicking responses not directed at you.
    We've veered off the road because of minor points--I'm pretty sure we agree on the major ones.
    I think there are likely some major ones that we don't agree on, though.
    I don't think I deserve to get clobbered on this one.
    I have not yet begun to clobber!
    uh huh. right. sure. sorry, I dislike being flip, but this is too much.
    What prejudice do you think is entering into this?
    Right. They're a tool. All I'm saying is that given the nature of the tool, we shouldn't be handing them out--especially the very efficient tools. You let any old guy operate a shovel, it takes a specialist to operate a steam-shovel.
    Last I checked, we weren't handing them out. Although, if Minnesota has that policy...
    ditto. I'm restating my arguments in a sec....
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #613  
    Originally posted by dietrichbohn
    *sigh*. Paleface?--now you're just bein confrontational for the sake of it.
    "That was humor, son!" - Foghorn Leghorn Didn't you ever hear the old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto being surrounded by a band of bloodthirsty, white-man hating Sioux? Lone Ranger turns to Tonto, and says 'what are we going to do Tonto?' Tonto says 'What you mean 'we', paleface?' IOW, don't speak for 'we' without authorization.
    I wasn't referring to pop psych, which is horse puckey, but to the most common professional psych standards.
    Then you should have said that rather than 'common sense'. Also, by most common professional psych standards when I was in school, Fraud was passe. Behaviorists were all the rage then.
    ...who got it from Freud.
    And changed it.
    Really, though, it's been my experience that much of what Jung added is over-mystic hoo-ha.
    For the most part.
    The point being that a purely physical explanation falls well short of a full explanation of function.
    No more than an oversimplification does. Besides that quote isn't applicable to a _thing_. It is applicable to a _being_. To carry the analogy, you'd be talking about banning larynxes because some people shouted hateful phrases with them.
    All of our explanations are not 'fact.' Freud flips your switch for other reasons--probably because you've most often seen him in contexts where his theory is poorly applied or misapplied--these contexts probably consititute the majority of our reality.
    No, it's more likely because I've read some of his works. That combined with the 'fact' that something derived purely by consensus (like the sun revolving around the earth, or Freud having a clue as to what he was talking about) doesn't deserve to be called a fact since there's no way to prove it. That's why psychology is a 'social science' at best. While it may certainly help some people, it's about as reliable as people helping each other or themselves on the whole.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #614  
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #615  
    Pretty Soon this will be the Longest Thread at VC?

    Now up to 613 posts. The longest I found was 644, 18 months ago, about Warman (inventorB) and his "patent" on screen protectors. (that was fun, watching him try to twist words)

    btw, he seems pretty silent. has he gone away?
  16. #616  
    Originally posted by srwdc1
    Pretty Soon this will be the Longest Thread at VC?
    I think that was the 'goal' when it hit 500. Or it could be that several people in the discussion just prattle on forever about nothing (or everything).
    Now up to 613 posts. The longest I found was 644, 18 months ago, about ****** (*********) and his "******" on ****** **********. (that was fun, watching him try to twist words)
    Never speak of 'He who must not be named' or his "******" on ****** **********.
    btw, he seems pretty silent. has he gone away?
    We can dream, but somehow I think he awaits silently. One ****** ********* to rule them all!!
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #617  
    well done toby, you managed to cite both Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings in one post!
  18. #618  
    The thing about this thread though is that it is the most off-topic of off-topic posts. It doesn't even have a central theme or question. Wait it does, inane ramblings which his thread seems to have fulfilled.

    Onward to 1000!
    Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?
  19. #619  
    Originally posted by volcanopele
    The thing about this thread though is that it is the most off-topic of off-topic posts. It doesn't even have a central theme or question. Wait it does, inane ramblings which his thread seems to have fulfilled. [...]
    Oh dear! If it's supposed to be inane ramblings, then that would suggest rambling about no particularly relevant subject at all, but if we stay on topic by rambling inanely, then are we really rambling about nothing or by staying inane are we really making sense and hence not rambling inanely? Where are Michio Kaku and his 10-dimensional hyperspace theories when you need them?!?!
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #620  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Where are Michio Kaku and his 10-dimensional hyperspace theories when you need them?!?!
    Well I believe in the chaos theory. The high number of replies in this thread is largely due to a mosquito biting a young child in Burkino Faso last year.

    Have you had your P-Branes today?
    Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?

Posting Permissions