Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
dk and crompsin--but dk's no. 50 in particular----point to something else, though, and i find that actually interesting.
when you imagined yourself in the scenario of the mall, you imagined yourself immediately as in a position to react with a weapon.
i imagined myself as---counter-intuitive as this is to me--walking around the mall, not thinking of anything in particular, and finding myself in the vicinity of this kid at the moment he started shooting.
so in your scenario, you imagined yourself as in a position to assert a degree of control, and then filled in other possibilities because of your disposition and background--it is at that point that i found no. 50 interesting.
it made me wonder why exactly my immediate reaction was to put myself imaginatively in the position of someone who just happened to be wandering around in a mall at the wrong time.
the difference seems to me that you reduced chaos by the way you chose to insert yourself into the scene. but i did the opposite: i multiplied the origin points. so i projected myself as a spectator.
i dont have a particular argument to make about this, but it is an interesting sidebar.
actually, i understand the desire to feel as though you could have done something in such a situation.
and it makes sense that anyone, really, would be inclined to project that desire into scenarios that one constructs.
where things grow strange is the moment one starts to conflate the content of a scenario/projection with something more than that.
i dont agree with your argument that you built on the basis of the scenario that you generated, dk, but that's to be expected i suppose: i just find the choice each of us made, which i take to be a kind of reflex choice, and the difference between them, to be interesting.
|
This is a thoughtful and interesting post, thank you roachboy. I think you could expand a bit more. I especially like your compare and contrast of your view and that of DKs. Perception does have a role to play and each one will have it's own narrative. At some point, these narratives will have to converge. I think it would be all how you frame it. There has to be something more endemic than just "guns" to the human experience. We are still a relatively young species; evolving, growing socially, mentally, and physically. Violence is very much a part of our nature (I know you hate that term roach, but lets use it and engage it). The point or frame of reference as a starting point in my mind would be: Everyone has guns and over time, some sort of detente, or deterrent effect would be achieved. No one has guns but then one person manages to get one and tips the balance of power. Etc..so on and so forth. I think an effective debate should start with these premises or something like it. I think current gun debates are overly simplistic and do not explore the issue enough in depth.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by abaya
Demographer checking in here...Halx, the percentage of the US population identifying as white-only (as opposed to 2 or more "races") is almost exactly 80%, as of the latest population estimate (July 2006), done by the US census. You can download an Excel file from their website to check the actual numbers... http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php
/Now returning to our regularly scheduled thread... |
"white" also includes so called latino or hispanics, Arabs, Persians, etc Central Asians, North Africans, even south Asians,
Race truly is the dumbest label ever.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Halx
Fine fine. 80%. My point is that white people make up a vast majority of the population, so the fact that a vast majority of _______ crimes are committed by white people is irrelevant. There are more effective ways to look at numbers.
|
Yet people use this same type of logic all the time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Wow did this thread get absurd ever fast.
Too many guns makes everyone crazy.
Adding more guns will solve the problem, right?
|
C'mon now Baraka, this is a cop out. You usually have awesome, well thought out posts (even though I don't agree alot). Surely you have something to add to the discussion?