The 2nd Amendment and a Living Constitution.

[Beretta92FSLady]

[Snip


Why don't you give us a formal paper, backed by psychological study and anthropological citation, qualifying your claims that, and I do surely quote you, "Most people need to be controlled...".

Pessimism has little to nothing to do with fact and scientific discovery. I am pessimistic, no doubt, but I refuse to cloud my education, experiences, and studies with an emotional condition or state of being.

[snip]

Ahh, an appeal to 'authority'. How cute. Don't get me wrong, I do read, a lot, but not for the purposes of appealing to authority.

Most be do need to be controlled. They are to 'willfully', or incapable enough to do anything other than be told what to think. It is present on both sides of the political spectrum; even tea party types (who fall within the political spectrum).

What, Optimism? Pessimism is somehow bad, worse, or the opposite of Optimism? Give it a break. There is some thing rather Pessimistic about a scientific fact, such as the Sun will eventually run out of energy, expand then implode in on itself, and all life on Earth, if there is life on Earth when such a thing occurs, will cease to exist. Scientific findings seem to lean to a rather pessimistic future, a fleeting moment in time that will give way to the chaos of all things. Neither pessimism, not optimism have any more or less value than the other, nor are they necessarily the opposite of the other.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Ahh, an appeal to 'authority'. How cute. Don't get me wrong, I do read, a lot, but not for the purposes of appealing to authority.

The worthlessness and baselessness of your opinions has now been neatly summarized for all.

Most be do need to be controlled.

Quoted for display of true colors.

I have emboldened it and increased the size of the typeface for easy reading.

They are to 'willfully', or incapable enough to do anything other than be told what to think. It is present on both sides of the political spectrum; even tea party types (who fall within the political spectrum).

There are so many holes in this point of view that lend itself into incredibility, that no response is even needed. Please apply a scientific model to determine why what you just said is completely, and totally wrong.

What, Optimism? Pessimism is somehow bad, worse, or the opposite of Optimism? Give it a break.

Beretta. Can you please exercise the bare minimum English competency necessary to understand what I said? Please? Is this too much to ask for?

I stated that it has no bearing on the outcome of a model or scientific process.

There is some thing rather Pessimistic about a scientific fact, such as the Sun will eventually run out of energy, expand then implode in on itself, and all life on Earth, if there is life on Earth when such a thing occurs, will cease to exist. Scientific findings seem to lean to a rather pessimistic future, a fleeting moment in time that will give way to the chaos of all things.

Wow. How terribly......non-insightful.

Science paves the way for discovery, and is perhaps our only hope to avoiding the tragedies of our future. Any future.

We conduct scientific research for inspiration and hope, more than to reveal the dark side of things.

Hence the possibility of FTL space travel.
Hence the creations that have eased our living standards.
Hence the possibility of discovering extraterrestrial communications.

Yup, the sun will eventually deplete its fuel reserves. Science however, may give us a way to get out of here before that happens.

Please, at a bare minimum, try to keep up with the subject material you opine about. Thanks!

Neither pessimism, not optimism have any more or less value than the other, nor are they necessarily the opposite of the other.

Wow. It seems like somebody already said that....

Let me see...

Pessimism has little to nothing to do with fact and scientific discovery. I am pessimistic, no doubt, but I refuse to cloud my education, experiences, and studies with an emotional condition or state of being.

WOW AMAZING.

 

[eye95]

Wow.

Who needs to be controlled?

Who gets to make that decision?

Who gets to do the controlling?

There are nations on Earth dedicated to the proposition that most need to be controlled and do just that. May I suggest that those who want others controlled move there?

This nation was founded on the antithetical proposition that individuals are responsible for their actions and should be trusted until it has been proven, on an individual basis, through due process of law, that they cannot. If you wish to live here, you really should respect the rights and responsibilities of others and the system of trust that must result from the protection of rights and expectation of responsibility. Otherwise, the societal model you are looking for is amply available elsewhere. Please leave this world the one bastion of Liberty that it has left.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Pessimism has little to nothing to do with fact and scientific discovery. I am pessimistic, no doubt, but I refuse to cloud my education, experiences, and studies with an emotional condition or state of being.

So, does pessimism have "little," or "nothing" to do with fact, and scientific discovery?

Also, is there a difference between "fact," and "scientific discovery?" You seem to think there is, and you are right if that is the case. So-called "scientific discovery" is merely a product of theoretic models. You should know this. There is nothing factual about theoretical models, hence the term "theoretical."

You seem to have missed my point I am not saying that being pessimistic has anything to do with "facts," or "scientific discovery," rather, that the so-called "facts," and "scientific discoveries" seem more pessimistic than optimistic.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Wow.

Who needs to be controlled?

Who gets to make that decision?

Who gets to do the controlling?

There are nations on Earth dedicated to the proposition that most need to be controlled and do just that. May I suggest that those who want others controlled move there?

This nation was founded on the antithetical proposition that individuals are responsible for their actions and should be trusted until it has been proven, on an individual basis, through due process of law, that they cannot. If you wish to live here, you really should respect the rights and responsibilities of others and the system of trust that must result from the protection of rights and expectation of responsibility. Otherwise, the societal model you are looking for is amply available elsewhere. Please leave this world the one bastion of Liberty that it has left.

Ok, I will offer you a better describer: individuals are inclined to negate their intellectual inquiry to a host (Authority). The majority of individuals prefer that they be controlled, and freely hand over said control. Which is part of the reason that individuals, as the function of politics for instance, designate representatives. It is the ego saving face when the individual argues that the representative is there to represent them for political purposes, and not the purposes of negating their responsibility to being intellectually, and actually involved in the process, rather than delegating it to someone else.

 

[slowfiveoh]

So, does pessimism have "little," or "nothing" to do with fact, and scientific discovery?

Also, is there a difference between "fact," and "scientific discovery?" You seem to think there is, and you are right if that is the case. So-called "scientific discovery" is merely a product of theoretic models. You should know this. There is nothing factual about theoretical models, hence the term "theoretical."

You seem to have missed my point I am not saying that being pessimistic has anything to do with "facts," or "scientific discovery," rather, that the so-called "facts," and "scientific discoveries" seem more pessimistic than optimistic.

"Little" in the capacity that it may affect the order, method, or timeline of a discovery. "Nothing" in the effect that the discovery or research will be conducted. Your perception is amazingly dull.


I can almost not even stomach reading your ill-written, grammar destroying replies.

You are intellectually shallow, to be perfectly blunt with you.



I will now watch you back-pedal and create significant circular reasoning in a vile attempt to dodge, duck, dive, dodge the ball that is your own shallow reasoning.



Eye,

Conduct a search on her commentary in other threads in the social lounge.

She is extremely socialist and marxist in her points of view. My signature is literally a cut and paste of her argumentation from the very same thread, back to back.

I leave the research up to you without more vilification of her on my behalf.


Good day.

 

[wrightme]

Ok, I will offer you a better describer: individuals are inclined to negate their intellectual inquiry to a host (Authority). The majority of individuals prefer that they be controlled, and freely hand over said control. Which is part of the reason that individuals, as the function of politics for instance, designate representatives. It is the ego saving face when the individual argues that the representative is there to represent them for political purposes, and not the purposes of negating their responsibility to being intellectually, and actually involved in the process, rather than delegating it to someone else.

What data do you use to formulate your opinion. Or, what study have you seen which supports your contention?


NOTE: That isn't asking you for an "appeal to authority." It is requesting the background, data, and/or study that leads you to your conclusions. Otherwise, all you are doing is making declaratory statements, attempting to pass off your opinion as if it were factual reality.


In other words, it ain't "so" just because you declare it to be "so."

 

[wrightme]

Ahh, an appeal to 'authority'. How cute. Don't get me wrong, I do read, a lot, but not for the purposes of appealing to authority.

Then show your references. Or are you simply plagiarizing the idea you read, and want to falsely present them as if they were your own?

Most be do need to be controlled. They are to 'willfully', or incapable enough to do anything other than be told what to think. It is present on both sides of the political spectrum; even tea party types (who fall within the political spectrum).

What, Optimism? Pessimism is somehow bad, worse, or the opposite of Optimism? Give it a break. There is some thing rather Pessimistic about a scientific fact, such as the Sun will eventually run out of energy, expand then implode in on itself, and all life on Earth, if there is life on Earth when such a thing occurs, will cease to exist. Scientific findings seem to lean to a rather pessimistic future, a fleeting moment in time that will give way to the chaos of all things. Neither pessimism, not optimism have any more or less value than the other, nor are they necessarily the opposite of the other.

That is not "pessimism." That is realism.
"Pessimism" would include, "life as we know it will end soon, when the sun runs out of energy!"
"Optimism" would include, "life as we know it will survive virtually forever!"

Depending upon each person's world view, both are reasonably accurate, yet one is pessimistic, and one is optimistic.

Now for some realism. "Life as we know it will end in the distant future when the sun runs out of energy."


The main difference is that science takes much of the emotion out of the equation, leaving optimism or pessimism to those who hear about scientific fact, and instead of repeating a fact, share an emotion based upon that fact.

The science is facts. The reactions are emotions, labeled as optimistic or pessimistic.

 

[eye95]

...Eye,

Conduct a search on her commentary in other threads in the social lounge...

God, NO!

I have her on ignore. The only reason I saw that silly "control" comment was because you quoted it. May I suggest that you also put her on ignore. I can see the frustration her anti-Liberty ideas spurs in you. However, you are wasting your time with her. She is axiomatically anti-Liberty, and you ain't gonna change that. Also, it's not like your convos with her will change anyone else's mind either way. Folks are already here either because they are essentially pro-Liberty and already know that government's proper function is to preserve as much Liberty as possible, or they are already here to try to troll the Liberty-lovers with talk of "control."

Toss her on ignore. It beats feeding her.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

What is this "morality" of which you speak Slow? Assuming you are deemed by the structure to be a human being, your right to life, and equitable defense are negotiable. the latter is also a structural issue. Slow seems to be of the ideological belief that we are the pavers of what we are destine to be, to become - that could not be further from the reality on the ground. There are far to many variables in the equation that would allow for such an assertion. Slow, remember your place my intellectual friend. Don't be distracted with generalizations, and distract the sheep with more tasty kool-aid. They get enough of that crap from politicians.

Also, the vast majority of individuals are freaking idiots, it has always been the case. Most of them are idiots by choice. So much for believing in some human condition where individuals actually want to know what the hell is going on, no, they would rather be led, even if it is off a cliff. I am such a pessimist. I think it is living in the hell-hole country, California. This place is a gun-toters worse nightmare...ok, there is always Chicago, right!

Don't forget NY, NJ, MD, MA & RI for places not to live. Even CT, VT, NH, and ME are not bad compared to the previous list.

:banghead:

 

[Gunslinger]

Don't forget NY, NJ, MD, MA & RI for places not to live. Even CT, VT, NH, and ME are not bad compared to the previous list.

:banghead:

NH, VT and ME are gun friendly. NH has one of the best shall issue laws and is OC friendly; VT is Constitutional carry. ME is shall issue and OC friendly, in general, as well. Don't even compare them to the Gulag of CT.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

I want a "Living Constitution"

I want a "Living Constitution" about as much as I want a -

"living" set of rules for football or baseball; where a score changes value because one team is behind and needs to catch up, or "safe at base" means the runner came almost close enough to touch, so that's 'good enough.'

"living" contract with my finance company; where "monthly" can become every 28 days instead of 30 because February has 28.

"living" speed limits; where a 70mph limit becomes 67 because it's a Tuesday, or 65 because the flowers are blooming.

"living" marriage vow, because oral sex isn't really 'sex' so it's not cheating.

"living" rules for bridge, canasta, chess, backgammon or checkers...


..... I think everyone gets the point.