AMERICA IS LOST.

Homepage Forums Politics AMERICA IS LOST.

This topic contains 65 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Autumn 3 days, 22 hours ago.

Viewing 6 posts - 61 through 66 (of 66 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #43163

    Unseen
    Participant

    GUESS WHAT? YOU CAN NOW BUY A MORE HORRIFYING GUN!

    It’s the one the military is switching to because it has a longer range and the rounds can even pierce body armor (you know, like police use to protect their body’s core).

    Think of the mass murder possibilities. The best thing: Civilians can buy them!

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Unseen.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 5 days ago by  Unseen.
    #43166

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Yeah that is cool. Death made easier.

    But if you are religious like Enco and take as an absolute the right to bear arms then the consequences of increased lethality is irrelevant. Right to bear arms is sacrosanct and to fuck with the consequences.

    #43428

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Europe and Australia both are filled with domestic violence, soccer and cricket riots and hooliganism, Mafia extortion, robbery, and hits, knife violence, Islamic terrorists slaughtering people on the street with machetes and throwing bettery acid in the faces of unveiled women, Islamic invaders torching cars and police boxes and running rqpe gangs in the streets of Paris, France; Berlin,,Germany; Copenhagen, Denmark; and Malmo, Sweden, and it goes on and on.

    OK, got hyperbole? IMO, it also appears that typos reveal the anxiousness of the author. 🙂

    #43429

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    The absolutist’s hermeneutics of the bible and the constitution demand that we know what was intended by the framers. Never mind that modern conditions were never contemplated and the language, necessary for a well regulated militia, a complete anachronism.

    This is exactly what I was thinking while finally reading this entire thread, albeit your wording is at a much higher level than I’m usually capable of, thank you. (I had to use a dictionary while reading… another thank you.)

    The idea/ideals that there is such a thing as perfect problem solving by referring to scriptural references or other, historical documents like the US Constitution is/are problematic, as most currently evident in the abortion rights and gun rights issues. A packed SCOTUS can flip interpretations on a dime. How well informed could “original intent” be accurately or plausibly inferred, from back in the days before we discovered zygotes/embryos, portable machine guns, and before libertarians knew we’d be faced with an issue like face mask mandates vs respiratory disease pandemics? Personal idealism, even among SCOTUS appointees, is as subjectively or arbitrarily given credence as various personal interpretations of the Bible or Koran by priest, popes, mullahs, or imams. The word “sacred” is yet another human-invented, hyperbolic kind of attribution.

    Which leads us (or at least Jake and me) to another big-picture consideration:

    How radical is it to derive policy and constitutional rights empirically? […]

    Brain-function/cognition-wise, we’re evolutionally-optimized to draw conclusions and invent idealisms in terms of black/white, true/false, good/evil simplisticisms. (Did I break a dictionary standard with that word here? And I think my punctuation and starting a sentence with “And” breaks rules here, too, could even upset some people.) Might I add that Conservatives, practically by definition, tend to favor traditional simplisticisms over more Progressive interpretations. Ala Boko Haram-ish ideology, “education is forbidden here” because it breaks ancient wisdoms, or something like that.

    Before years of therapy in treatment of severe social anxiety, my strength was in logical thinking and assessing reality in terms of probabilistic conclusions, usually at odds with social conformity and social skills. Kindof like Dr. Spock? (Either the black-box Spock or the Star Trek Spock will work here.) A nod to AI here, too… emotionless decisioning, just the facts mam. Albeit the danger that shouldn’t be ignored or reliably forbidden in AI is the unfortunate reality that humans invent and/or own said AI. Note Facebook’s, Google’s, or China’s purportedly  emotionless objectiveness practically impossible to eliminate or enforce, setting agenda-enforcing AI that we invent and set loose into the world. When will a supremely irresponsible party give AI abilities and permission to “take over”?

    Another observation: Our tendency to imagine some kind of perfection in a divine being also, imo, extends to a tendency among many of us to imagine a similar kind of perfection possible in AI. While AI design will always have been originally invented by flawed, mortal human beings. Just like religion.

    Look at this topic. Is it, or will it ever be possible to have a reasonable and fact/evidence-only debate on it, much less will it ever be possible to invent any foolproof, sacred text that could survive future discoveries, inventions, and circumstances? (My answer: Hell, nope!) Future success must ultimately come down to making ourselves, starting at school-age kids, more able to understand and deal with our shared reality while being able to create and maintain enlightening and respectful conversations with each other about it, with and without AI.

    (If no one responds, I can still say I didn’t kill this thread because it’s been 22 days since anyone added a response. There, I feel absolved already.)

    • This reply was modified 4 days, 3 hours ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: a gazillion typo edits and improved clarity, over the fricken period of a half hour or so. typical, amateur authorism
    #43431

    _Robert_
    Participant

    jakelafort wrote:
    The absolutist’s hermeneutics of the bible and the constitution demand that we know what was intended by the framers. Never mind that modern conditions were never contemplated and the language, necessary for a well regulated militia, a complete anachronism.

    This is exactly what I was thinking while finally reading this entire thread, albeit your wording is at a much higher level than I’m usually capable of, thank you. (I had to use a dictionary while reading… another thank you.)

    Yeah, Jake hit on the crux. Unwarranted interpretation of a constitution conceived when woman could not vote, blacks were owned as property and a well regulated militia was a state-sanctioned, citizen musket army, not a snot-nosed kid with a 30-shot AR…all in an effort to “match-up” with Iron-age scriptures. Lost is right.

    #43433

    Autumn
    Participant

    <iframe title=”Let’s talk about more questions about the army’s new rifle….” src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/5Pc0cYxopHM?feature=oembed” width=”670″ height=”377″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>

    “Y’all don’t seem to want to carry that responsibility. I guess it weighs more than nine pounds.”

    That was a pretty solid dig.

Viewing 6 posts - 61 through 66 (of 66 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.