Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

Surely you know he doesn't have an enquiring mind.

You engage in lies and personal attacks against me because quite frankly you aren't intelligent enough to challenge any of my arguments.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

out and out bullshit,

No BS on my end.

That "the NRA has never murdered anyone" is true.

That "outlawing civil liberties organizations provides the opposite of freedom" is true.

That "five years in prison for supporting civil liberties is Orwellian" is an opinion.

That "the opposite of freedom is tyranny" is true.

That "history contradicts izzythepush's definition and supports mine" is true.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

What is truly Orwellian is the glee conservatives exhibit in putting guns in the hands of people who murder the innocent

You cannot provide any examples of conservatives ever doing such a thing.

Note that "preventing you from outlawing pistol grips" does not result in any murders. It merely prevents you from violating people's civil liberties.

Preventing you from violating people's civil liberties has never cost any lives.

MontereyJack wrote:

and then try to convince us that that murder is really a civil liberty.

You cannot provide any examples of me or any other conservative ever making such an argument.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Neither of your responses show any understanding of what I have been saying, nor any understanding of what underlies all language, nor why it changes, nor why different languages have different words for the same concept (and to add some more - nor why words dont translate fully into other languages, nor why some languages dont have a word for a set concept). That said, I did not expect that you would understand it, as you are motivated towards black & white - certainly you avoided any discussion of any of the examples of how and why language changes, and how it relates to concepts (which always precede language). This avoidance too, was very predictable.

Wrong again. I understand all that.

If that is truly all that you meant to say, then you meant to spout irrelevant trivia that has nothing to do with anything that was being discussed.

I do not believe that you only meant to spout irrelevant trivia. I think that you were trying to challenge my points, and are only talking about irrelevant trivia now because my points survived your challenge.

But either way, your irrelevant trivia does not invalidate my points. And the fact that I stick to defending my points instead of addressing your irrelevant trivia does not mean that I do not understand your irrelevant trivia.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

There is a reason that a single concept:
- has over 1000+ words that 'mean' that concept (in different languages)
- those 1000+ words don't actually fully capture the concept (if you have learned another language you will know what I mean)
- does not have a word for that concept in every language
- the words for that single concept in those 1000+ langauges change over time
....but the concept itself remains the same....for the individual

No two people conceptualise exactly the same. Even with a label attached, each individual actually holds a slightly different concept - this is the way concepts work, rather than language.

Language tries (and to a significant degree succeeds at) labelling concepts so that people can communicate. But the label isn't the individuals concept - at best it comes close to perfectly capturing their concept, at worse there is no accurate word for the concept and the individual makes use of the word that most closely matches the individuals concept.

In this, you show no evidence of understanding.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

There is a reason that a single concept:
- has over 1000 words related to it (in different languages)
- does not have a word for that concept in every language
- the words for that single concept in those 1000+ langauges change over time
....but the concept itself remains the same....for the individual
No two people conceptualise exactly the same. Even with a label attached, each individual actually holds a slightly different concept - this is the way concepts work, rather than language.
Language tries (and to a significant degree succeeds at) labelling concepts so that people can communicate. But the label isn't the individuals concept - at best it comes close to perfectly capturing their concept, at worse there is no accurate word for the concept and the individual makes use of the word that most closely matches the individuals concept.

So what? You do realize that this is not a thread about language science?

vikorr wrote:

In this, you show no evidence of understanding.

The fact that I do not ask for a clarification is evidence that I understand.

When there is something that I do not understand, I ask questions.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Yep, I realise it is not a thread about the science of language.

You objected that people define the elements of freedom / what constitutes freedom differently to you. I pointed out that this is how language works. You objected. I am pointing out why your objection is flawed. Language is not fully black & white. It is not fully set in stone. And people attach the closest label to the concept they hold. This is a fact of life. 'Freedom' is part of a language, so it has the same issues langauge does.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I am pointing out why your objection is flawed.

If you want to try to point out any flaws in my objection, you will have to actually address my objection instead of pretending that your comments about language are unrelated to my objection.

If you'd like to try again:
https://able2know.org/topic/131081-599#post-7277294

1 Reply

@oralloy,

It is at the heart of your objection, as you object to people who define freedom differently from you, calling them evil. Same for what you perceive as civil liberties. Each of these are concepts that mean slightly different things to different people

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Doesn't he remind you of Medvedev ranting about Satan in Ukraine?

He lives in an inverted world, preventing children being murdrred is evil

While 47286 gun related homicides last year is good.

That's the perverse sociopathic morality you're dealing with.

Himmler also thought he was one of the good guys.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

preventing children being murdered

You are not trying to prevent any children from being murdered. You merely violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Look, the more guns allowed to be sold, the more chances are they'll get into the hands of crazies. The more crazies with guns, the more chances of innocent deaths. Many of these (mass) shootings are from mentally unhinged people. We're not talking about gang deaths here... we're talking about sidewalk, cafe, church, playground, school, etc, shootings. I know you don't want that anymore than anyone else. It's the availability for these deranged individuals to obtain guns that is everyone's issue. That's it.

1 Reply

@Mame,

That isn't everyone's issue. The gun control movement doesn't care about saving lives.

The gun control movement relentlessly focuses on measures that are not designed to save any lives, but are only meant to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

It is at the heart of your objection, as you object to people who define freedom differently from you, calling them evil. Same for what you perceive as civil liberties. Each of these are concepts that mean slightly different things to different people

You are a bit vague regarding what you mean by "it". And also a bit vague as to what your point is in labeling "it" as being the heart of my objection.

The heart of my objection was explained in that post that you claim is unrelated to your posts about language.

0 Replies

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Which begs the questions:
- where do rights come from (before they are written on a piece of paper)?
- who decided what is your right?
- who decides what is your right into the future? (its not just judges or politicians)
- why have 'rights' evolved over time?
- if they evolve, can rights really be said to be set in stone?

The answer of course, is directly related to why language changes over time / why definitions change (eg. obnoxious used to mean something rather different to what it means today) / why different words exist for the same concept in different languages / why some concepts aren't captured in certain languages / why words in different langauges frequently dont translate word for word (ie. they are similar but not the same in concept), etc.

Concepts (for an individual) are what they are, and aren't subject to language - but language is significantly subject to concepts. Language works because of significant agreement - but it doesn't perfectly capture each persons conceptualisation of any given topic. Definitions (ie. the concept behind each word) never reach complete agreement (which is why they can change over time).

Most of the arguments on freedom are because peoples concept of freedom differs. Language does not perfectly capture their concept of what freedom is and how it works.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

The right of free people to keep and bear arms seems to have originated with the Germanic tribes of the Pre-Roman Iron Age.

We have no records of what their thinking was, but the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes brought the right with them when they invaded the British isles around 600 AD.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

I wasn't speaking of gun rights, but rights in general, because individual rights (including gun rights) all follow the pattern regarding how every other right is established / given meaning / evolved / modified over time.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

as you say, nko records. in other words, pure conjecture. the fact that virtually everybody at some stage, used those arms to invade, slaughter and conquer someone else unwilling to be conquered and slaughtered is hardly a ringing endorsement of their use or your alleged freedom.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

that is a reliably stupid argument thah has always flown in the face of reASON and reality.

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know