What Happened in Vegas?

[mattiasNYC]

This question has already been settled by the jury system.

It is a majority decision or a unanimous one, that way the question of right or wrong or bad or good is decided in a practical way.

Surely you're not saying that the courts determine whether or not something is right/wrong or good/bad?

Suppose there is a new legal mandate to register people of a certain ethnic group by tattooing an ID number on their forearms. Suppose a person refuses. Suppose that person then gets convicted in court..... Did that determine the aforementioned things? I say 'no'.

Ultimate  accountability is God's province.

DaveP

No. There is no god.

If there is a god, then he is outdone in the amount of evil committed only by satan, who I presume also exists if god exists.

But fortunately for us all there is no god.

 

[Gold]

It's a simple yes or no question.

No.

You keep confusing good and bad in an absolute moral sense equivalent to good and evil with good and bad in a like don't like sense. They are not the same thing. It is a philosophical failure on your part.

 

[DaveP]

Surely you're not saying that the courts determine whether or not something is right/wrong or good/bad?

The law of the land has already decided what are designated crimes and suitable punishments for them.

The jury decides guilt or innocence based on evidence and the judge decides the severity of the sentence.

The actions of criminals are deliberated upon on a daily basis.

The law and  what consists as right or wrong behaviour towards others is decided by lawmakers in Parliament or Congress.

To use your previous example of paedophilia, this has been designated as wrong period.  This is because it causes damage to children.  The sentencing might vary depending on whether the perp was damaged mentally from an accident, or was just an evil individual.  These are simple procedures that work in a practical way,  if debates about right and wrong were part of every court case the justice system would effectively grind to a halt.

I'm sorry if this seems too simple and understandable, but it is reality.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

No.

So you simply mis-wrote then when you said you'd think people were good or bad?

Why would you think people are good or bad if they can't be good or bad?

You keep confusing good and bad in an absolute moral sense equivalent to good and evil with good and bad in a like don't like sense. They are not the same thing. It is a philosophical failure on your part.

No, I don't. You're the one who brought up the term "bad person" in the conversation regarding mental illness and you didn't define those words at all. You simply implied some sort of meaning I had ascribed to those terms. And here you go again saying I am confusing two things when I'm just trying to get you to answer a simple question, and you do so by adding more terms I haven't used. The usage of "good and evil" is all you again.

You can define words any way you want, but don't say that I'm misusing words that you bring into a discussion before I've even used them, especially if I don't even know what your definitions of those words are.

 

[mattiasNYC]

The law of the land has already decided what are designated crimes and suitable punishments for them.

The jury decides guilt or innocence based on evidence and the judge decides the severity of the sentence.

The actions of criminals are deliberated upon on a daily basis.

The law and  what consists as right or wrong behaviour towards others is decided by lawmakers in Parliament or Congress.

Yes. You're describing what happens. Nobody disagrees.

To use your previous example of paedophilia, this has been designated as wrong period.  This is because it causes damage to children.  The sentencing might vary depending on whether the perp was damaged mentally from an accident, or was just an evil individual.  These are simple procedures that work in a practical way,  if debates about right and wrong were part of every court case the justice system would effectively grind to a halt.

I'm sorry if this seems too simple and understandable, but it is reality.

DaveP

You're missing the point. What you wrote implied that the law determines what's right or wrong - morally speaking, i.e .'good' or 'bad'. It doesn't.

Instead, people get representatives to create laws that get voted on and then the courts simply interpret and apply that law. But the decision on whether or not pedophilia is illegal comes from the lawmakers and they in turn vote yes for that based on something. It is that something that determines whether or not it's morally right or wrong, not the courts. That was my point.

Breaking a bad law isn't immoral, bad or wrong, it could even be moral, good and right.

 

[Gold]

So you simply mis-wrote then when you said you'd think people were good or bad?

Why would you think people are good or bad if they can't be good or bad?

No, I don't. You're the one who brought up the term "bad person" in the conversation regarding mental illness and you didn't define those words at all. You simply implied some sort of meaning I had ascribed to those terms. And here you go again saying I am confusing two things when I'm just trying to get you to answer a simple question, and you do so by adding more terms I haven't used. The usage of "good and evil" is all you again.

You can define words any way you want, but don't say that I'm misusing words that you bring into a discussion before I've even used them, especially if I don't even know what your definitions of those words are.

Oakey dokey. Lets get our terms straight. What do you mean by good and bad? I obviously can't answer the question without understanding what you mean.

 

[DaveP]

Breaking a bad law isn't immoral, bad or wrong, it could even be moral, good and right.

This starts a venture into dangerous territory where individuals make their own judgments about which laws to abide by or not.

Although I take your point if we are talking about Hitler and Jewish persecution as an example.

But fortunately for us all there is no god.

Your arguments are usually based on logic.

A new Einstein in the next 100 years may discover a dimension where time and material are absent, so the jury is out on that one.  People have had out of the body experiences and described events taking place while they were unconscious that they could not possibly have seen.
https://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Archives/archives_main.htm

At this moment, it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God, to say otherwise is not logical.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

This starts a venture into dangerous territory where individuals make their own judgments about which laws to abide by or not.

Although I take your point if we are talking about Hitler and Jewish persecution as an example.

Right.

I think the thing is that the vast majority of us for the vast majority of our time never consider whether or not we will break a law. But, I also think that most of us end up considering it at one point or another. Again, most of the time I think we probably decide to not break the law, but some people do.

What I think is also true is that we're more inclined to possibly think less at the two extremes of legislation. So in the example above we hopefully don't have to think about whether or not breaking that law is right or wrong, we just intuitively or with little thinking figure out that the law is wrong. But there are other cases where people break the law because the opposite is true; the perceived "wrong" is so minor that 'who cares?'. Consider perhaps you stopping at a traffic light that takes forever to switch from red to green, but you're on a wide open field with one intersection, clear sight, nothing is even close etc... many people at that point feel that the 'wrong' they're committing is so minor it doesn't matter, and proceed to break the law. Or it might be double-parking, or doing a u-turn, or whatever.

The most dangerous thing we can do is assume that the law is (morally) correct and that the state knows what's best for the people. That's exactly how genocide and slavery and other horrible things happen. We should always question authority.

Speaking of questioning authority:

Your arguments are usually based on logic.

A new Einstein in the next 100 years may discover a dimension where time and material are absent, so the jury is out on that one.

Not sure what that has to do with god.

  People have had out of the body experiences and described events taking place while they were unconscious that they could not possibly have seen.
https://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Archives/archives_main.htm

I'm willing to bet dinner on there being zero evidence other than witness testimony though. I even know of an experiment where someone tried to get people to perceive during a near-death out-of-body experience things that were known only to the researcher. Failed.

Having a supernatural experience doesn't really require much more than creating an imbalance in brain chemistry. Good 'ol LSD does the job neatly. Doesn't mean what we think we see is true though.

At this moment, it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God, to say otherwise is not logical.

DaveP

I agree.

 

[DaveP]

A new Einstein in the next 100 years may discover a dimension where time and material are absent, so the jury is out on that one.

Not sure what that has to do with god.

We have had to adjust our minds to the principles of quantum physics  on the atomic scale (electrons being in all places at the same time) and indeed, the quantum computer is being worked on as we speak, based on that very principle.

A similar mind set may be needed on the macro scale, where the Universe and Time appear to an "outsider" as a system within a goldfish bowl.  The physics inside is different from the physics outside.  Time and matter being a special case of existence in four simple dimensions.

When you upload or download information to the forum, Ethan's server does not get heavier, because nothing physically moves, yet information is transferred.  It seems but a small step to imagine our consciousness and memories being transferred to a new medium.  In fact, this process has been described countless times in near death experiences.

Forget about religious clap trap, this is future science I'm talking about.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

We have had to adjust our minds to the principles of quantum physics  on the atomic scale (electrons being in all places at the same time) and indeed, the quantum computer is being worked on as we speak, based on that very principle.

A similar mind set may be needed on the macro scale, where the Universe and Time appear to an "outsider" as a system within a goldfish bowl.  The physics inside is different from the physics outside.  Time and matter being a special case of existence in four simple dimensions.

When you upload or download information to the forum, Ethan's server does not get heavier, because nothing physically moves, yet information is transferred.  It seems but a small step to imagine our consciousness and memories being transferred to a new medium.  In fact, this process has been described countless times in near death experiences.

Forget about religious clap trap, this is future science I'm talking about.

DaveP

I think you're pretty much describing a multiverse, one with  multiple universes similar to the "bowls" you mentioned. The other interpretation is far more dimensions, and possibly alternative universes on a 'dimensional level' rather than 'bowl-level'.

 

[Banzai]

And another one... American white male, Christian, semi-automatic weapon, shooting women and children. Expecting plenty of thoughts and prayers, and shrugs from a government telling its citizens 'there's nothing we can do'.

 

[DaveP]

And another one... American white male, Christian, semi-automatic weapon, shooting women and children. Expecting plenty of thoughts and prayers, and shrugs from a government telling its citizens 'there's nothing we can do'.

+1
DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

Yep. A fairly typical response, sadly. Trump already said this is not a gun issue  but a mental health issue, not to mention that he basically reiterated that an armed civilian limited the damage.....

Some people sure are privileged....

 

[DaveP]

Back in the fifties, when there were no machine guns in public hands.  I wonder how the gun lobby would have responded if they had been told what the future would bring?

Looking down the line, what is most cost effective, having armed guards on every public venue holding more than 20 people and every school of course, or taking machine guns out of public access?  In the end it will probably come down to money.

In Europe, the mentally unbalanced can only cause mass killings with a bomb or a truck, the US makes everything too easy.
If the same things had happened in Europe change would have followed very quickly indeed, the difference between our cultures is a constant source of amazement to me.

DaveP

 

[Timjag]

I don't know if you've seen this Dave, but it's very interesting if you can cope with subtitles

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HfEsz812Q1I

 

[DaveP]

I don't know if you've seen this Dave, but it's very interesting if you can cope with subtitles

Good film, thanks for posting.
What struck me most was the percentage of people in prison.  I think that there are far greater income and opportunity extremes in US society than in Nordic countries.
To explain the higher number of inmates, I would say it has to do with the degree of hopelessness compared to a socialist society. 

In the US, with it's emphasis on freedom of choice rather than paternalism, a simple or trivial wrong turn can lead to a slippery slope of offending.  I think the "Mistake Gradient" for want of a better term, is much steeper than in Nordic countries.  Of course the availability of guns makes the crimes worse too and acts like an amplifier on the statistics.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

To bring this slightly back on topic, a recent report about the Vegas shooter suggests he lost a bunch of money in recent years. I kind of questioned video poker as being his source of revenue.  :

JR

 

[adeptusmajor]

I'll take a stab:

What happened? -

Failed assassination attempt of Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman. They expected him to be upstairs in his property on the top 4 floors but he was out on the town dressed as a normal american human. Here is the SWAT team escorting him out of the Tropicana: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd-qz6ei-UM

Shooters provided cover/distraction for the rival prince(s) to leave when they found out that agents were waiting to ambush them, one shot at the crowd while the other tried to explode fuel tanks shooting at the airport. All the other shooters and bodies reported in the other casinos were a result of SWAT evacuating the crown prince. Tragic that several survivors/witnesses turned up dead shortly after.
Obviously the princes and others who called the hit were rounded up or killed over the weekend, big question to me is who let them leave Vegas, had to be someone very high up.

Interesting to see where all these guys have been putting their money for decades. So nice of them to give all of those millions to the foundation, wonder what they got in return. They were even nice enough to get no-name 26 y.o. Barry into Harvard and pay for his tuition. Always wondered who footed that bill. Even the Bush's old business partner Bin Laden got arrested. No not THAT Bin Laden, his brother. The one that was the business partner, not the arch-nemesis.

Comforting to know our president is safely under guard of our military right now. It's like he has his own little security and intelligence team that reports directly and only to him! I wonder what they know!
Interesting to see where this all goes, maybe we will learn more tomorrow? The date seems significant for some reason.

Or maybe I'm just an idiot. Be safe out there

 

[bruno2000]

Back in the fifties, when there were no machine guns in public hands.  I wonder how the gun lobby would have responded if they had been told what the future would bring?

Looking down the line, what is most cost effective, having armed guards on every public venue holding more than 20 people and every school of course, or taking machine guns out of public access?  In the end it will probably come down to money.

1.  It was easier to own a machine gun in the 50s than it is now.
2.  A machine gun was NOT used in Vegas nor Texas, nor any other mass shooting since the 50s that I can recall, except by the government.
Please check facts before posting.
Best,
Bruno2000

 

[JohnRoberts]

1.  It was easier to own a machine gun in the 50s than it is now.
2.  A machine gun was NOT used in Vegas nor Texas, nor any other mass shooting since the 50s that I can recall, except by the government.
Please check facts before posting.
Best,
Bruno2000

arghhhh... +1

I saw a talking head on TV last night call an AR-15 a "M-16"... two different classes of weapons that only cosmetically resemble each other (that's probably why the AR-15s are popular big boy's toys).  He wasn't ranting, or an anti-gun nut, just clearly never fired one or the other, and didn't know what he was talking about.

JR 

[edit] saw some more gun misinformation on a fictional TV cop comedy program... bad guys were shooting at them with automatic rifle fire, and they identified it as semi-auto rifles...  Perhaps an innocent ignorant mistake from TV writers and not an attempt to conflate semi and full auto weapons. We can surely trust hollyweird can't we?  [/edit]