Re: Another mass shooting in a gun-free zone

Ultraviolet <paula.light@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 23, 6:52 am, boots <n...@xxxxx> wrote:
Ultraviolet <paula.li...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 23, 5:40 am, boots <n...@xxxxx> wrote:

<>

Personally I consider the changes I perceive in the world to be
orderly and inherently simple even though they appear complex on the
surface. To believe that there is no order in the world, no
underlying basic principle that makes it all "go", would be to embrace
chaos in its place.

So it's basically wishful thinking: believing X makes me feel bad, so
I'll believe Y. You have no evidence, just a desire that it be so.

"Wishful thinking"? When there are two views, equally valid, choosing
the one that seems more useful is "wishful thinking"?


Wishful thinking can be useful, no question. It's what keeps zillions
of people doing what others want.

There's something interesting in that, hidden somehow. You say "it's
what" keeps zillions doing what others want, is that meant to imply
that it's the only thing? Are you talking about peoples' belief that
the childhood indoctrination most of us receive (hard work makes for
success, etc) is true, or some other wishful thinking?

Knowing you, you'll be tempted to say that I have no evidence for
believing it's not so. That is true.

Well, since it's unprovable one way or the other, that's all right.

But, being logical, in the
absence of evidence for a thing's existence, I do not postulate that
it exists, even if it would be nice.

So you adhere to the belief that "absence of evidence is evidence of
absence"? That seems illogical, it seems more reasonable to believe
only that absence of evidence is absence of evidence. Besides, if you
do not postulate a thing's existence, how can you begin to falsify its
existence?


I don't need to. It's up to the claimer to prove existence.

Several people here seem to think along those lines. I find that if
the 'claimer' makes a statement like "i have proof that..." or "it is
a proven fact that..." then yes, I agree that it's up to the claimer
to show the referenced proof; but if a person just says "green is pink
in disguise" no proof is needed because it's just a statement of
opinion or a view of things and those don't need proof, though calling
for some clarification might be useful.

Apparently there are people who can embrace chaos yet somehow believe
that 'good' and 'bad' have meanings beyond convenience.

Who does that?

You can find the same people talking about how things happen randomly
and how important moral choices are, that's the same thing wouldn't
you say?


Do you have a specific example?

That depends on how 'specific' you need to get. I recall Hope saying
that moral choices have some value, and also expressing the idea that
some things occur randomly, but if you want exact wording I don't have
it on hand. I'd say keep an eye out for it and maybe you'll notice
it, but don't waste time digging around trying to find it.

Without one, I'll just say that many
people speak and write sloppily.

I'd agree that many of us do that. Perhaps all of us, at times.

I know that in my own case I speak even more sloppily than I write,
because (aside from having a case of Ohio mushmouth picked up while
passing through) in person there is immediate interactivity to cut
through a good bit of sloppiness.

>> If I was to
live in that world of ultimate anarchy, where things just happen,
where there is no superlative underlying principle (nevermind deity
that isn't a necessary part of it) there would be no reason whatsoever
to obey laws that could be skirted, which in large part seems to be
the way most of the world operates from Joe who scoffs at speed laws
and cheats on his taxes to national governments that scoff at treaties
they have agreed upon.

Yep. If you were 100% sure you could get away with all that, sure. The
consequences of getting caught are pretty unpleasant though, so in the
absence of 100% certainty, it's logical to obey the laws.

The consequences of being helpless are pretty unpleasant too, so
what's the difference between being upfront about taking what you want
and sneaking around to suck it up when the tit is unoccupied? I mean,
if it's all chaos and we're going to die of it, who fucking cares? If
there's no underlying order to things, all's fair because fairness is
a conceptual scapegoat used by those who have to get more from the
Stupids.


Without laws and the enforcement thereof (or the perception of
enforcement), that would indeed be the case except when people
believed it was more in their self-interest to cooperate.

Gravity is a "law", but every "justice system" I've ever seen or heard
of is a joke.

Also, most
people have evolved to want to be part of a community, and if cheating
your fellows makes you feel separate from them and thus sad, you might
not want to in that case either.

Have most people evolved that way? Interesting. Bovine, even.


It is what it is. There's a general perception of safety in numbers,
which is not irrational.

It seems very irrational to me because I grew up as a perpetual
outsider.

If the physical drives the spiritual there is only advantage to
consider and we're stuck in it with no way out; if the spiritual
drives the physical it's fuckall complicated and difficult to
understand but if one can somehow manage to understand why he's done
that to himself it's a matter of changing a few small things that
magnified change everything.

It's a choice. You can be the victim of a physical chaotic world and
fight for whatever is to your advantage, or take the other view and
seek out what is right.

I'm glad you're not a victim of the physical world; that's neato. Like
magic!

Your sarcasm is appreciated. There is more magic in the world than
you care to recognize.


I've yet to directly experience anything that can't be explained by
physical events.

That's another of those hiddenly interesting things you sometimes say.

--
Don't read this crap... oops, too late!

[superstitious heathen grade 8]
.