Great, so still nothing. Yawn. Well, perhaps sometime you'll get off the question mark you've been sitting on and stop trolling. A man can dream...

Here, sweetie, I'll try this again. If your solution to gun violence is to combat "dangerous, criminal and mentally ill" people, what are the ways in which these people are to be dealt with? All that you have done so far is throw the coals in the laps of "scientific institutions", not once providing any substance that might prove your solution right. If you cannot do so, say so. If you will not do so, then I'm done speaking to someone so intellectually disingenuous.

It's utterly ridiculous that someone can't see the difference between an AK-47 and a toothpick or an Uzi and a fishing pole.

I did reply, if you cannot understand it I am sorry. — Sir2u

I asked you how you would carry out the solution you've proposed and you've yet to answer. If you want to sidestep providing any substance to your argument, fine.

So exactly what is it that you do support? — Sir2u

I'm more interested in what you support, seeing as I asked first, I think you should tell before I do.

No I do not disagree. But I think that is roughly the equivalent of closing the barn door after the chickens, pigs and horses have run away. There are supposedly 5,000,000 AR-15's in the USA. Would banning the sales of them now really make that much of a difference? And it would not be cheap to remove those already out there. — Sir2u

As I've been trying to do, you need to explain why your alternatives will make the difference. At present, you've made baseless assertions, so I have no reason to take you seriously until you do.

"What ever is necessary for the health and safety of the citizens" is the motto of those that believe banning guns is the solution to killings, so why should they complain about a thing like that? — Sir2u

What? :lol: How about you respond to the content of my reply? Thanks :up:

So taking all of the guns off the people will be done for free? I have already discussed this in previous threads, you can read about it there. — Sir2u

I don't support a blanket ban on all firearms, but nice try.

And I really do not think that any scientific investigation into what you consider a serious problem is "throwing money at the problem". I would call it seeking a solution.

I thinking banning AR-15's is also a solution sought in fixing a problem. Do you disagree?

Gun controls should be focused on people that are obviously dangerous, criminals and mentally ill — Sir2u

Focused by whom? The government? And do you want the government going even deeper into the bowels of healthcare and what constitutes mental illness?

and more money should be spent on preventing guns getting into their hands. — Sir2u

Ah, yes, just throw money at the problem. I'm sure the government will spend it wisely, :up:

If you're against any gun legislation, what is your proposed remedies to the issue of gun violence in America?

I tolerate everyone I respect, but I don't respect everyone I tolerate.

Common — Posty McPostface

China — Posty McPostface

Everyone's done their part, though I think NK has simply reached the breaking point. No food, no money, and their nuclear program sucks, so not much of a bright future for them. Regardless, it's remarkable what has happened between NK and SK. Seemed like the tension would just keep going on and on.

Trump helping to make Korea great again!

They run, screaming, from the premises, holding their hands over their ears while they try at the same time to hold their pants up. It's very traumatic for them. — Bitter Crank

I play them Liszt.

Oh dear, the poor boy does have some sensitivities left to be offended about ("") after all the head-banging heavy death thrash metal noise... — Bitter Crank

You can think what you like, but me thinks that...

You need to get out more. — Bitter Crank

:ok: :eyes:

Unfun? Teasing you is the most amusing fun, like aggravating the cat or annoying the French — Bitter Crank

I know you're trolling, but I also know that you can do better :hearts:

Look, you have all these alleged "genres" like Ambient/Synth, Drone/Noise, Electronic (EDM, Industrial, Techno, Heavy metal, Extreme metal (thrash, death, black, etc.), and Punk/Crust/Hardcore from the last two or three decades, but 800 years worth of music for voice you lump together under "Religious Oration/Chants". — Bitter Crank

The differences between Buddhist chants and Gregorian chants are less than differences you find between drone, techno, metal, whatever. Also, I dunno why you wrote "genres" as if they don't exist or aren't real music. I just wanted to make a casual thread about the OP's question, not spark some musicology kerfuffle. Stop being so unfun.

Look, here is a seduction scene from Don Giovani (at about 2:50) and here is Gregorio Allegri's Miserere from the Good Friday service, and here is Mao's wife in John Adams' Nixon in China. Obviously this can't all fit into "Religious Oration/Chants". You need more categories of music. — Bitter Crank

I went with broader categories. as your appeal to more categories could and would just go on forever. Besides, if you have a very specific style that answers the OP's question but doesn't fit one of the other categories, then there is the "Other (please specify)" option for a reason.

And I didn't even touch on Chinese opera, Buddhist monks producing unearthly harmonic overtone singing called Sygyt in Tuva, go here for a sample, African music, Indian music, Gamelan music, Andean flutes, and so on and so forth. — Bitter Crank

"Traditional/Cultural Folk" is music that goes with a lot of those. And c'mon, how is Buddhist monks producing unearthly harmonic overtone signing not "Religious Oration/Chants."

You're just being a peckerhead, Crank. Please refrain.

"the rest of your life" is god-awful long in my case. Otherwise I would have chosen another genre. — Kitty

Cat lyfe will soon be upon ye, donut worry. What other genre would you have picked if you only live a little while longer?

You don't have broadway musicals on your list. There are people who would die without it. You didn't list music for film or music for video games.

You also don't have band music, as in brass band, concert band. Some people like listening to band music. Some people like to stomp around to Prussian marches. — Bitter Crank

You can put all of those under Modern.

bluegrass nor bagpipes — Bitter Crank

These can go under "Religious/Cultural Folk", or Medieval for bagpipes.

choral music — Bitter Crank

See "Religious Oration/Chants."

You need to get out more. — Bitter Crank

Shaddap Bitter Crust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neofolk

I'm not crazy. Dis da label, old mang.

He's more folk than country, which by the way you left out. What the furgle is "neofolk?" — T Clark

I didn't leave it out, I put "Traditional/Cultural Folk." That label I just made up, but I thought you could put lots of different styles under that.

Neofolk is like this:

I legitimately debated whether to add it, but I do like Johnny Cash, John Fahey, a couple of others. They're not modern country musicians though.

Hard to choose between classical and jazz, but jazz has more innovation. Everything else...I like plenty of other genres just fine, but would have a problem never hearing a song with more than three chords (if that) again xD — NKBJ

See, this is why I made this thread. I think it's pretty difficult to settle on one style because, at least for me, it needs to cover a lot of emotional/musical/aesthetic bases.

It seems to me that having and raising children is a kind of gift, if done in the right way. What you are doing is providing a whole new life the means to live happily. — Moliere

And it seems to me that you (or the hypothetical you) is wearing rose-tinted glasses here. One ought to remember that for every pleasant picnic at the park, there's such a degree of suffering that exists in the world that one's best and only choice is to ignore the vast majority of it. No one with a well-cultivated conscience could go on living if the weight of the world's suffering was in their mind as much as it probably should be. This angling toward life rather than suffering, I'd argue, means that people are naturally disposed to procreation as being instep with their own will to live.

Also, love is not certain in life. A couple may intend well in having a child or children, but in my opinion the only way that you'd be able to get away with mere good intentions is to equate existence with love. As I believe @Thorongil mentioned before, you're kind of forced to preach a Thomistic approach, where existence (being) and essence (love) aren't disparate - meaning that the essence of procreation is love, thus procreation is morally permissible! I do not, however, equate being with love, which explains why I'm not a Christian and why I don't find it justifiable to procreate.

Additionally, and going back to the bit I quoted of you, I would agree that raising a child/children is a gift, a good gift, but the having of them I don't find on the same moral footing. To say that having a child is a gift means that the child must agree with your judgement of them, otherwise you've failed in giving your sense of life and goodness to your child. However, were I and my spouse to not have a child, but only raise one, our judgement of our child as being a gift is not dependent upon the child's acceptance of our view because we were not ingredient in their willed creation. In other words, if you have a child and label them a gift, and that child completely disagrees and decides later to kill themselves, would you still say with an earnest heart that their life, which ended in misery and suicide, was a gift? If after such a tragedy no sorrow finds you and you proclaim to the heavens what a great gift your child's life was to have ended that way, I would struggle to find a more selfish and twisted perspective.

Lastly, the picture that comes to mind for me when thinking about procreation is children falling into an ocean. Some will learn to swim, some will drown. Some will swim and find dry land, some will swim a ways but give up. You can give the child a rope, a life vest, a granola bar - things that can represent good parenting - but none of it, in my opinion, is enough to justify the throwing of children into an ocean in the first place. Suffering will find you whether you learned how to swim, found land, founded an empire. I think it is Schopenhauer who argued rather peculiarly that suffering, not happiness, is what marks the world for compassion. In this way, or at least how I view it, one rather paradoxically lives for suffering in order to love, as opposed to loving so as not to suffer. To me, that puts everyone in the same "boat" or ocean. The fact that some find love and compassion doesn't actually matter if suffering is the mean.

Anyway, I'll stop here as I think I've rambled enough :eyes:

Emotional needs are tied up with these concepts, and gender has absolutely nothing to do with it. — Noble Dust

Love doesn't uniformly manifest itself, though. Surely you realize that loving a woman as opposed to a man makes for different love. I love my brother differently than my mother, and it does in fact matter that one is a man and the other is a woman. Were I in an intimate and romantic relationship, it would be, in part, because of the fact that (she) is a woman. I wouldn't, therefore, be in an intimately romantic relationship with a man.

Besides, even if you take a less elusive angle on the topic than considering love is, gender differences with regard to emotional needs still remain, sometimes glaringly so. Women are more likely to be neurotic than men, for example. If my spouse is a woman that's exceedingly neurotic, then my love for her - which helps to satisfy her emotional needs - must be in line with who she is as a person.

Yeah, when someone holds the door open for you at the post office you expect them to blow you a kiss, is that it?

Because I'm a gentleman.

Hmm, yeah. I have found two out of my three friends here lol. And those two I don't know with certainty if they want to stay friends. — Lone Wolf

:rage:

The pastoral life has been at odds with modernity since the beginning. An alienation from the production of modern Man's necessities is an inevitable result of massive populations and urban sprawl.

When I post a picture — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You better be careful, Sappy is deathly afraid of pictures. He hates them. They try to turn him toward the dark side.

When the "something" is not required, the "nothing" will suffice. — Sapientia

Yeah, because you really follow that lingo, :chin:

Indicative of evangelism. — Sapientia

So, lemme try and get this straight, as Petrichor has written 13, 617 words, none of that was "indicative of evangelism," but as soon as he posted a couple of pictures, he ought to be taken out back and shot for evangelism? Please, Sappy, I think it is you who needs to leave along with your hurt butt. Your "point" the last page is pathetic and vacuous, give it a rest.

First of all, he doesn't need to state that, so whether he has or he hasn't stated that - and he probably hasn't - I do not need to waste my time searching through his post history to find out. — Sapientia

So you've got nothing, okay.

It doesn't have to be so explicit, and it likely isn't so explicit in most cases. — Sapientia

What does it have to be then? Whatever you suspect with a tin foil hat on?

Secondly, as I think I've already made clear, posting multiple images of the type which are likely to elicit an emotional reaction to the benefit of the agenda that you support, in response to a specific intellectual point, which do not address that specific intellectual point, is something one would expect from an evangelical. — Sapientia

Whenever you're in the wrong on this forum your first reaction has always been to say that the other is not properly addressing you, and so in the end the debate ends because you were threatened and chose to divert attention. You seem to be doing the same thing here by assuming the entirety of Petrichor's intentions. This is quite clearly wrong. That the mods have chosen to do nothing appears to validate that in some way.

That's impressive. I'll make sure he gets his medal. — Sapientia

You're utterly incapable of admitting when you're wrong, aren't you?

he responded accordingly - in accordance with what one would expect from an evangelical, rather than than in accordance with what one would expect from someone whose main concern is to stick to the point - that's the problem. — Sapientia

"Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having."

That's the relevant site guideline to which you have appealed. Now, since you know Petrichor's words so well, inside and out, please direct me to where he has stated that his opinion "is the only one worth having," and that him posting animal abuse photographs reflects that. Go on, I'll be waiting...but no, hold on...

I have a better idea. How about you retrace my foot up your arse? — Sapientia

There we go, I've saved you the time of getting out your white flag by retrieving it for you myself! I'm the nicest chap, I know. God bless me.

Just done, copy-pasted into a word counter: @petrichor has written 13,617 words and 75,135 characters so far in this thread. I think that qualifies as "thousands and thousands," but please, herr me red with talk of me missing the point again, :up:

When are you going to explain the relevance to the point that was being made? How many replies is it going to have to take? That he responded with a post about use and suffering does not adequately explain the relevance. — Sapientia

One can argue how they like. Petrichor read your post and responded to it accordingly. Whether or not you agree with what he posted is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not he is able to post pictures.

Yes, but you're still confusing them with what they're not, more specifically other animals, like chickens or pigs. I wouldn't treat humans like we do chickens or pigs, and I wouldn't treat chickens or pigs like we do humans, and there's nothing wrong about that.

Given that chickens and pigs are not like humans, it's a different argument. That they're useful to us, and can be farmed, is not to suggest the same of humans. — Sapientia

^

The above assertion was what he responded to with a post about use and suffering, about which pictures were relevant. You never even made an argument, so whatever "point" you've been whispering to me about still isn't coming through.

(Also "thousands and thousands": :lol: ) — Sapientia

Here, I'll put his shit in a word counter, give me a moment, sweetie.

That's a cute theory. Now, explain the relevance to the point that it was replying to. — Sapientia

As far as I can tell, his intention was to highlight the ability for animals to suffer. Pictures, in addition to the thousands and thousands of words that he has written in the thread, help to support his post. As I said before, you don't like the pictures, so you started crying about them.

Are you happy for us to post pictures of animals being eaten alive then? Are you happy for us to post images of mass drowning or starvation in nature etc?

Links would be sufficient. — Andrew4Handel

If a thread is about veganism, the ethics of veganism, animals, the rights and wrongs of using and eating animals, then pictures relating to these topics and many other subtopics are entirely relevant. If a thread is about drowning, starvation, or natural disasters, then pictures relating to those topics are also relevant.

Now that's funny! So I can just waltz into a discussion about the ethics of smoking and pick comments at random to reply with by posting multiple pictures of lung cancer, impotence, bad teeth, and so on - even if it bears no relevance to the specific point that was being made? — Sapientia

The fuck are you talking about? Petrichor's been in this thread from the beginning and has stayed on point throughout. You simply don't like the pictures and want them removed because you're too insecure to address them.

On ya bike, Heister! — Sapientia

Sure, and I'll leave you crashed in the ditch, laytuh beeitch.

Thinking about what the moderators should do? Yeah, maybe I should not have bothered. But they are unnecessary, irrelevant, and an indication of evangelism. — Sapientia

Pictures of animals in a "vegan ethics" thread is entirely relevant. You're just a snowflake and it's not the moderators' problem that you've a guilty conscience. It'll be okay, Sappy.

I think that the moderators should consider deleting those pictures - not for graphic content, but because they're unnecessary, irrelevant, and an indication of evangelism. — Sapientia

:lol:

Funniest shit I've seen all day.

People often talk about such things as our tooth structure as evidence of what we should be eating. To show that we "evolved to eat meat" or otherwise is simply to show that at some point in the past, our species did such and such and managed to survive and propagate the species while doing this or partly by means of this practice. So would we then be wise to argue that whatever aided the survival of our ancestors is automatically okay for us? — petrichor

That argument stems from an inability to realize that evolution is on going and does not stop. For whatever reason it is challenging for some to understand that our species can evolve away from a dependence on meat. I've been vegetarian for about five years, but after some months when I started I mistakenly ate some chicken soup and was dying for the next day as though I had food poisoning. On an individual basis and a short period of time, that sort of biological response is a product of a body that changes itself over the time. And I think it is a testament to our bodily limits that obesity is such an issue in much of the Western world where red meat in particular is so available in the market. Our body isn't built for excessive consumption of fatty meats, and I think many vegetarians and vegans would argue that we aren't built for any consumption of meat.

@petrichor

Welcome to the forum, :up:

I have specifically pointed out they are being killed for food and not for fun. It is not wrong to kill another species for food. Humans even eat each other in famine as a means of survival. — Andrew4Handel

So it's only right to be a cannibal when there's a famine? How more arbitrary can you get?

This is so clearly the statement of a person who has no logical leg to stand on, but wishes to cling to his own ideology (and hamburger). :smirk: — NKBJ

:fire: :ok: :eyes:

What's the point of these examples? Are you implying we ought to take lizards as our moral role models? Alligators eat their own young--is that something we ought to emulate as well? — NKBJ

Well, depending on how much tin foil rests atop your head, perhaps we should take lizards as our moral role models, :snicker: