Civil War 2.0

[Guitar's Cry]

I recommend searching the news.
You'll discover otherwise.

Armed civilian neutralized Indiana mall shooter in just 15 seconds, authorities say

Three victims were killed and two more were wounded in the attack.

www.cbsnews.com

Mass shootings are given far more coverage
in mainstream media than shootings that a
civilian stops. Why? Consumers are more
interested in bad than good news. Hence
media tendency to feed doomscrollers.

According to the article it's still uncommon:

"An armed civilian stopping a gunman is very uncommon, according to data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center cited by The Associated Press. From 2000 to 2021, less than 3% of instances where someone attacked multiple people ended with a civilian firing at them, the AP said. Much more common were police shooting the perpetrator, police or bystanders subduing them in another manner, or the attacker leaving the scene."

I did, however, use the adverb "never," so I stand corrected. I still say that for the most part folks who talk about gun violence aren't really ready for the realities of it. It's one thing to say "if I was there with my gun" and another to actually be there.

People using Civil War rhetoric aren't likely ready for that level of violence and civil disruption, especially if it occurs in their own backyards.

 

[Revoltingest]

According to the article it's still uncommon:

"An armed civilian stopping a gunman is very uncommon, according to data from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center cited by The Associated Press. From 2000 to 2021, less than 3% of instances where someone attacked multiple people ended with a civilian firing at them, the AP said. Much more common were police shooting the perpetrator, police or bystanders subduing them in another manner, or the attacker leaving the scene."

I did, however, use the adverb "never," so I stand corrected. I still say that for the most part folks who talk about gun violence aren't really ready for the realities of it. It's one thing to say "if I was there with my gun" and another to actually be there.

People using Civil War rhetoric aren't likely ready for that level of violence and civil disruption, especially if it occurs in their own backyards.

It all depends upon what one calls "uncommon".
We hear that mass shootings are very common in USA.
So is 3% of "common" would still be significant because
of many lives saved.
Another problem is the assumption that an armed civilian
stopping a perp before they shoot multiple wouldn't have
been included in that statistic. Instances of self defense
that could possibly have had multiple victims are much
more common

 

[Stevicus]

People using Civil War rhetoric aren't likely ready for that level of violence and civil disruption, especially if it occurs in their own backyards.

This is true. A lot of it may depend on how much of a stake someone has in society and whether or not they have anything significant to lose in the event of some great upheaval. That's another reason why socioeconomic well-being should be the top priority, since it's the most effective way to ensure that the majority of people have a stake in the stability of society.

But if too many people are left alienated and disaffected, they won't care what happens in their own backyard. That seems often the case with these mass shootings, where the shooters are generally socially isolated, rejected, angry - and they have absolutely zero stake in the well-being (or even the continuation) of society.

 

[Colt]

And now for a moment of zen......IMOP

 

[Revoltingest]

And now for a moment of zen......IMOP

View attachment 87572

Where's a lightning strike when ya need one, eh.

 

[F1fan]

This is what morality means. It’s an essential aspect of reality. Moral truth is to act more in accordance with reality.

Despite your arrogance and insults, you are one of those people I mentioned before who is confused about truth.

I find it insulting and arrogant that you are asking vague questions and then accusing me of not agreeing with you about what you think truth means.

ironically you don't seem able to explain what you mean by truth. What is the problem? If it's so easy and obvious then just describe it, and use facts. I notice you didn't bother to refute what I stated, so I take it you agree with what I wrote?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I agree.

I disagree.
Morality is subjective, while reality is objective.
You may include ethics into reality, as they are at least intersubjective. "Killing people is bad" is not an unquestionable truth, "killing people is frowned upon in my society" is (depending on where you live).

But there is still a qualitative difference between "the Earth is an oblate spheroid" and "the unity of the United States is a good thing".
The first is true, no matter what you think about it, the second is only true as long as the majority agrees that it is.

We cannot escape subjectivity. Even empirical data is filtered through the subjective.

Do you agree that we can act more in accordance with reality? If so, you can’t deny that morality is part of reality. This is the reason why morality attracts our attention.

I can list an endless number of facts about the furniture in the room I’m in. Do you care? I’m describing reality and therefore truth, right? Most people, most of the time, would care more to read an article about meaning and purpose in life. Reality and truth are a hierarchy. We care more about moral truths (how best to act) than mundane facts about the world.

The idea that the political divide is primarily about each side having different truths solely due to factual truth - that is an insufficient analysis.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

We cannot escape subjectivity. Even empirical data is filtered through the subjective.

Do you agree that we can act more in accordance with reality? If so, you can’t deny that morality is part of reality. This is the reason why morality attracts our attention.

This is why I'm a moral anti-realist. I don't think that "morality" is part of reality, per se, but once we admit that the axioms we accept are - at a fundamental level - subjective, we CAN still make objective assessments based on those axioms.

For example, the axiom "hurting people is bad" is purely subjective. There is no means to demonstrate objectively that hurting people is bad, because "bad" is a value we can only subjectively attribute to things. However, once we have accepted said axiom is subjective we can move on to assessing, with at least some objectivity, what action is more or less moral by that axiomatic standard.

In other words, "hurting people = bad" is a subjective axiom, but the observation "shooting someone hurts less than not shooting them" can be considered an objective assessment. So, although our axiomatic standard may be subjective, we can still use that axiom to make objective moral assessments.

That's how I see it, at least.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

This is why I'm a moral anti-realist. I don't think that "morality" is part of reality, per se, but once we admit that the axioms we accept are - at a fundamental level - subjective, we CAN still make objective assessments based on those axioms.

For example, the axiom "hurting people is bad" is purely subjective. There is no means to demonstrate objectively that hurting people is bad, because "bad" is a value we can only subjectively attribute to things. However, once we have accepted said axiom is subjective we can move on to assessing, with at least some objectivity, what action is more or less moral by that axiomatic standard.

In other words, "hurting people = bad" is a subjective axiom, but the observation "shooting someone hurts less than not shooting them" can be considered an objective assessment. So, although our axiomatic standard may be subjective, we can still use that axiom to make objective moral assessments.

That's how I see it, at least.

The closest we ever get to an “objective” experience of reality is as a child, lacking awareness of our own consciousness. However, once you become aware of your distinct consciousness, then you have entered into the subjective, and once you open that door, there is no fully closing it ever again.

You can distort your consciousness into pretending like you can escape your subjectivity, but you really can’t. It’s an illusion.

 

[Heyo]

We cannot escape subjectivity. Even empirical data is filtered through the subjective.

Do you agree that we can act more in accordance with reality? If so, you can’t deny that morality is part of reality. This is the reason why morality attracts our attention.

Reality is what can be measured with a scientific instrument. Can you measure morality?

I can list an endless number of facts about the furniture in the room I’m in. Do you care? I’m describing reality and therefore truth, right? Most people, most of the time, would care more to read an article about meaning and purpose in life. Reality and truth are a hierarchy. We care more about moral truths (how best to act) than mundane facts about the world.

The idea that the political divide is primarily about each side having different truths solely due to factual truth - that is an insufficient analysis.

Logic is consistent. There can be only one truth if there is consent about the premises.

You are relatively new, so you may not have seen my take on reality (and existence):
5 Planes of Existence

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Reality is what can be measured with a scientific instrument.

Can you measure an idea? Can you measure willpower? Can you measure a word? Are these not real?

 

[Heyo]

Can you measure an idea? Can you measure willpower? Can you measure a word? Are these not real?

They exist, but they are not real. Ideas are Platonic ideals (and unlike Plato, I don't consider ideals real). Words are constructs, They only exist through common agreement. I'm not so sure about willpower, I have no experience with that.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

They exist, but they are not real. Ideas are Platonic ideals (and unlike Plato, I don't consider ideals real). Words are constructs, They only exist through common agreement. I'm not so sure about willpower, I have no experience with that.

Your position says that something can exist but not be real. Are you sure you don’t want to reconsider your position?

 

[Heyo]

Your position says that something can exist but not be real. Are you sure you don’t want to reconsider your position?

Does Dumbledore "exist" in the Harry Potter universe? Is he real?

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Does Dumbledore "exist" in the Harry Potter universe? Is he real?

Yes, anything we can imagine has a reality / existence to it, but again, reality is a hierarchy. Because I am a self in the world, unless something has existence in this world, it’s going to have a low level of truth / reality for me.

At the same time, I have a soul, which transcends the reality of this world. This is why I can imagine a better version of the world, believe it’s more real than the present world, and expend energy towards its actualization. Morality bridges the gap between the self and the soul.

In summary, the political divide is much deeper than “the other side denies truth because they’re getting the wrong facts.”

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Yes, anything we can imagine has a reality / existence to it, but again, reality is a hierarchy. Because I am a self in the world, unless something has existence in this world, it’s going to have a low level of truth / reality for me.

At the same time, I have a soul, which transcends the reality of this world. This is why I can imagine a better version of the world, believe it’s more real than the present world, and expend energy towards its actualization. Morality bridges the gap between the self and the soul.

In summary, the political divide is much deeper than “the other side denies truth because they’re getting the wrong facts.”

To clarify, fictional stories have a low level of truth / reality to the self but can have a high level of truth to the soul. This is why I say the best religious stories are true (soul) even if they aren’t historical (self).

 

[Heyo]

Yes, anything we can imagine has a reality / existence to it, but again, reality is a hierarchy. Because I am a self in the world, unless something has existence in this world, it’s going to have a low level of truth / reality for me.

At the same time, I have a soul, which transcends the reality of this world. This is why I can imagine a better version of the world, believe it’s more real than the present world, and expend energy towards its actualization. Morality bridges the gap between the self and the soul.

In summary, the political divide is much deeper than “the other side denies truth because they’re getting the wrong facts.”

Are you a disciple of Deepak Chopra? Your mumbo jumbo sounds like you learned from him.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Are you a disciple of Deepak Chopra? Your mumbo jumbo sounds like you learned from him.

Classy.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Are you a disciple of Deepak Chopra? Your mumbo jumbo sounds like you learned from him.

It’s so out-of-bounds to talk about the implications of having a soul on a religious forum?

 

[Heyo]

It’s so out-of-bounds to talk about the implications of having a soul on a religious forum?

No, but the wording reminded me of him.

I don't think we will be able to agree on a common definition of "reality". I like mine objective and definite, you like yours subjective and ambiguous.
But as of now, I think you don't deny my reality, so can we agree that my reality is a subset of yours, and if I refer to it as "physical reality", we can still understand each other?