The conservative philosophy of tragedy: guns don't kill people, people kill people by Jill

[Republicanguy]

I wanted to post this article written for the Guardian newspaper by Jill Filipovic she says that conservatices especially those who are saturated with religious zealousy feel that reality is far too short to bother changing culture or address the issues that society actually has, I think she makes some good points. After all there are plenty of people out there that think the way she described.

To most people who believe in evidence-based policy and sociological realities, those solutions make sense. But to people who have no interest in actually finding solutions or making the world a better, safer, happier place, it's like talking to a brick wall. Why improve life on earth if life on earth is temporary and all that matters is to secure a seat in the clouds?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...osophy-tragedy

[Acala]

That article is a bunch of crap.

[Pericles]

"evidence-based policy" was the first laugh right there

[Republicanguy]

Would you like to re-read that article?

And what exactly is a bunch of crap. Putting effort into changing culture and nutty male dominate power structures.

The fact that people say they kids are in heaven, they aren't heaven. That is just sly, awful narrow minded perceptions of our world.

She writes intelligently about a society's problems.

[Acala]

Would you like to re-read that article?

And what exactly is a bunch of crap. Putting effort into changing culture and nutty male dominate power structures.

The fact that people say they kids are in heaven, they aren't heaven. That is just sly, awful narrow minded perceptions of our world.

She writes intelligently about a society's problems.

She uses politically-engineered terms like "reasonable gun control" and flat out statistical lies like lower firearms death rates in states with gun control. Did you look at the "analysis" used to back up that statement? It is a fraud. They have so twisted the definition of gun control to reach that "result" that they include Nevada, Texas, and New Hampshire as states with strict gun control. Hahahahaha! You are being lied to. But it helps you to justify having allowed your rights to be stripped away.

She also conflates gun rights protectors with Christian evangelists, which is utterly preposterous.

I am probably more of an advocate of trying to change our culture of violence than most people on this Board, but anyone who thinks more government, more laws, more armed agents, more power in the hands of the state is addressing the culture of violence is a fool. Government is the prime source of violence in this culture.

[Republicanguy]

She uses politically-engineered terms like "reasonable gun control" and flat out statistical lies like lower firearms death rates in states with gun control. Did you look at the "analysis" used to back up that statement? It is a fraud. They have so twisted the definition of gun control to reach that "result" that they include Nevada, Texas, and New Hampshire as states with strict gun control. Hahahahaha! You are being lied to. But it helps you to justify having allowed your rights to be stripped away.

She also conflates gun rights protectors with Christian evangelists, which is utterly preposterous.

I am probably more of an advocate of trying to change our culture of violence than most people on this Board, but anyone who thinks more government, more laws, more armed agents, more power in the hands of the state is addressing the culture of violence is a fool. Government is the prime source of violence in this culture.

I think she is touching on a fact, that their is a link. You can't say that there isn't can you?

She could be wrong about certain things mentioned, but I do think she does touch on a strong subject that few prefere to deny or ignore it.

And Acala, what would you do to end violent culture in America as an example?

Does it mean ending Machoism, violence on television? End the conflict that young children who grow into young adults see on television, may have even see the former President say "Bring em on", aren't educated by uneducated parents who are apathetic about the subject.

Do all male power structures have any link to these problems, perhaps.

[Acala]

I think she is touching on a fact, that their is a link. You can't say that there isn't can you?.

I was raised in a family with guns. Most of my friends own guns. More than half of the homes in my state of Arizona have guns. I would say that only a tiny fraction of them are some kind of apocalyptic Christians. I think this is an example of a distorted European perspective in which the USA is some kind of giant Bible-thumping gun fight. that is an inaccurate perception, to say the least.

She could be wrong about certain things mentioned, but I do think she does touch on a strong subject that few prefere to deny or ignore it..

She isn't just wrong. She is disseminating flat-out lies to promote her agenda.

And Acala, what would you do to end violent culture in America as an example?.

Let me start off by saying that giving government a monopoly on violence does not end violence, it merely changes the balance of power and not in favor of the more humane side. Governments have been responsible for more slaughter than all of the criminals and homicidal civilians in all of history. But putting that aside, your question is a valid one.

I don't view it as a gender issue at all. There are just as many women as men cheering on the ongoing (and UK-approved) drone slaughter of innocents. So what is the problem?

The problem at its root is that people are driven by, and easily manipulated by, unconscious fear, anger, sadness, guilt, greed, lust, etc. The solution is for each individual to bring mindfulness to their own emotional experience. Taking away their guns or their video games or their tv or having government (the most murderous of all entitites in history) prescribe child-rearing techniques will not do it.

Violence is a software problem, not a hardware problem. And when the software is fixed, the hardware will take care of itself. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, the real fix is difficult and time-consuming. So we usually opt for the easy non-fix.

[James Madison]

Peace has not once existed in 14 Billion Years, most certainly not among living organisms. Whether you like it or not, violence and aggression will never go away because it isn't in our nature. Try as he might, the gazelle cannot reason with the lion. He can only defend himself. Likewise, criminals will always look to live at the expense of others; we must follow the rule of nature and defend ourselves at whatever the cost.

[Republicanguy]

The reason I bring up the male dominance is that there is truth to it.

The fact that Barack hasn't change foreign policy sends soldiers off to kill and get killed shows that banning guns is hypocritical and stupid if you look at it from the foreign policy perspective. Yes the UK has and does sanction the Drone attacks, but the report I have read recently shows Barack's and the CIA's involvements in the drone attacks since Barack was in office, with the Pakistani government's such as the Prime minister and President saying it would be protested in the parliament. It is predominately American led.

I saw the live television inauguration of Obama nearly four years ago, the first time I had ever watched one, it did look hopeful but years later, I can't say I would have any thing good to say about Barack. I believe even one secondary school in Greater London had allowed to watch it for an audience of school children. I suppose because he was mix race, it seemed like an interesting watch. That never happened when W was, but then again he was inaugurated on a saturday in 2001, notsure about 2005.

James Madison - are you saying that out of cold reality. This isn't based off any religious citation of a promised heaven, but you do state a fourteen billion year old universe, so you are an evolutionist, atheist are you?

[James Madison]

James Madison - are you saying that out of cold reality. This isn't based off any religious citation of a promised heaven, but you do state a fourteen billion year old universe, so you are an evolutionist, atheist are you?

It is reality, and reality is very rarely pleasant. I say this with contempt, not glee. We must understand that man will always seek power over his peers, not because it is morally right or wrong, but because we are the decendants of those who did. You must remember, evolution doesn't favor any strict form of morality, only results. In short, whoever produces the most offspring controls the future of the species. Tyrants in the past routinely took hundreds of wives, mistresses, and concubines...I remember reading that Ghanis Kahn (I think that's who it was) fathered over one thousand children. Cruel, yes. Uncommon, no. And the alpha male (the biggest, strongest, or smartest) of the bunch had the most children, just as we see across thousands of vertebrate species today. We are all the descendants of bullies, conquerors, and oppressors. You shouldn't be surprised when some people rediscover their genetic memories.

To answer your second question, I have spent much of my life in the biological sciences. I accept evolution as fact and am also a Christian, formerly an atheist. My response above is from my study of science not religion.

[Republicanguy]

It is reality, and reality is very rarely pleasant. I say this with contempt, not glee. We must understand that man will always seek power over his peers, not because it is morally right or wrong, but because we are the decendants of those who did. You must remember, evolution doesn't favor any strict form of morality, only results. In short, whoever produces the most offspring controls the future of the species. Tyrants in the past routinely took hundreds of wives, mistresses, and concubines...I remember reading that Ghanis Kahn (I think that's who it was) fathered over one thousand children. Cruel, yes. Uncommon, no. And the alpha male (the biggest, strongest, or smartest) of the bunch had the most children, just as we see across thousands of vertebrate species today. We are all the descendants of bullies, conquerors, and oppressors. You shouldn't be surprised when some people rediscover their genetic memories.

To answer your second question, I have spent much of my life in the biological sciences. I accept evolution as fact and am also a Christian, formerly an atheist. My response above is from my study of science not religion.

What you have said is quite true, if we met our ancestors especially the men we wouldn't want to know them!

But accepting reality as it is, there is always room for improvement. Unless some may prefer to be an idealist dreamer.

Women should grow up wanting to be strong, especially those that can be. I think it makes sense. I'm not a traditionalist or conservative. I don't believe in "Ladies first" nonsence, only fascist men and women say those phrases.

Though personally I would say that about Ron Paul at times, when he looks at American history.

[Danke]

And what exactly is a bunch of crap. Putting effort into changing culture and nutty male dominate power structures.

Someone who has never been married...

[Acala]

Putting effort into changing culture and nutty male dominate power structures.

Men and women are different. They are scientifically, measurably, demonstrably different. They are different biochemically. They are different neurologically. They are different anatomically. Not inferior, not superior, just different.

One of the ways in which men and women are different is that men, by and large, are substantially more physically powerful than women. This fact of nature has had much to do with the all-too-frequent assaults on women throughout history. Ironically, given the OP, the one development in human history that has done the most to equalize the physical power of men and women is the development of the gun. A woman and man with the same minimal training are true physical equals with gun in hand. Nobody benefits more from access to a firearm than women. On a day to day basis, on the street, in the home, NOTHING does more to undermine the male dominance you talk about than guns.

[PaulConventionWV]

Would you like to re-read that article?

And what exactly is a bunch of crap. Putting effort into changing culture and nutty male dominate power structures.

The fact that people say they kids are in heaven, they aren't heaven. That is just sly, awful narrow minded perceptions of our world.

She writes intelligently about a society's problems.

Throughout history, men have been the providers because, genetically, they are simply more fitted to those duties, just as women are better geared for child-rearing. I don't see why the structures we observe in society need to be toppled over just because some feminists feel they are not being treated fairly. Believe it or not, they are. Just because women who want to bear children won't exercise dominance, it doesn't mean a feminist has to sit and complain about how her gender is being held down. She has just as much opportunity as anyone. The only reason women don't compete is because, historically, it's been the most sensible and useful structure for general function for women to take a less-dominant role. That's not to say she doesn't have choices or control over her own life. It simply means that she has different duties to fulfill because her natural talents and abilities are different.

She writes intelligently, but her solution is to make more out of a simple argument than needs to be made. She treats it as fatalistic when, in reality, it is simple reality. The people who made that argument never said nothing should be done, as she is saying they are. In general, they are saying something different than what she suggests should be done. She's framing it as a do-something versus a do-nothing strategy when it's not like that at all. She'll never address the argument that, "if we outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" because she can't argue against that. She can only hope that baiting the question as a philosophical one will distract people from the real issue, which is the evidence that shows that more guns is better.

[PaulConventionWV]

What you have said is quite true, if we met our ancestors especially the men we wouldn't want to know them!

But accepting reality as it is, there is always room for improvement. Unless some may prefer to be an idealist dreamer.

Women should grow up wanting to be strong, especially those that can be. I think it makes sense. I'm not a traditionalist or conservative. I don't believe in "Ladies first" nonsence, only fascist men and women say those phrases.

Though personally I would say that about Ron Paul at times, when he looks at American history.

I think there are quite a few on these boards who would disagree with you that saying "ladies first" is fascist. Many of us hold those conservative ideals while still being strict libertarians or anarchists. Recognizing societal roles is not fascist. It's simply the way society has advanced throughout history.

[CaptainAmerica]

I wanted to post this article written for the Guardian newspaper by Jill Filipovic she says that conservatices especially those who are saturated with religious zealousy feel that reality is far too short to bother changing culture or address the issues that society actually has, I think she makes some good points. After all there are plenty of people out there that think the way she described.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...osophy-tragedy

Its quite simple: there will always be criminals, and so I will always have the capability to defend myself at home