Underlore - Latest Comments

Re: Things every kid should know.

innomen — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 21:03:36 -0000

"Genuine fear causes the adrenal glands to get working..."

Correlation does not denote causation.

From a design perspective I could easily trigger adrenaline production without the affect of fear.

"Evolutionary psychology: We wouldn't have these emotions if they weren't useful."

Useful in a selfish gene driven dog eat dog primitive hunter gatherer context.

It's absurdly clear that about 90% of the body's automatic actions are bad policy. Just ask any medical tech that's had to face organ rejection or anaphylactic shock ventricular fibrillation, or simple poison ivy.

“I believe that meaningful, genuine anger is often supressed for bogus reasons, and this often causes other, more complex expressions such as passive aggression, bitterness, depression etc”

You have this vision of a human being as a horse needing to by driven with whips and treats.

How a feel about something is often at odds with how I’ve decided I should behave. Indeed courage, is by definition action in the face of fear.

Negative emotions are intrinsically bad, even when they happen to align with our reasoned ethics.

Unfortunately humans seems to have little interest in repairing this massive flaw for the time being so the best I can offer is some awareness with which to hopefully counter or at least delay the lesser versions.

_”The performed indignation I mentioned was not aimed at you...”_

That could have been made more clear.

”...seem to find anger distasteful.”

That’s because a rational mind realizes anger for what it is. An emotion specifically designed to overwhelm reason and fear for the purpose of allowing for violence and conflict. It’s only useful purpose is in fighting fear and despair, but they are problems in and of themselves.

“But all this is quite untestable...”

Not so. Every aspect of human experience is testable. Even consciousness and things as subject as flavor are being picked apart by good science.

http://underlore.com/why-study...

“What if the burning bush that Moses encountered in the desert was just a burning bush and not God at all?”

That’s an excellent example of why the messenger should be ignored. Verify the message, not the messenger. Knowing context isn’t the same as knowing the messenger.

This reminds me of the lazy minded wikipedia pro-con debate. I think humans vastly over rely on source examination so they can avoid having to think and read critically which means examining each piece of data to whatever degree is prudent as opposed to letting a third party give you your opinion.

Focusing on the messenger is actually an excuse to avoid processing actual context altogether.

The burning bush illustrates this nicely. The context isn’t how trustworthy moses is, but how accurate perceptions can be or not be coming from a mystic in the desert.

“Can we somehow retain the core meaning of a message, even when we know that the sender is a liar?“

Absolutely. I learn from fiction all the time. In fact learning from fiction is distressingly unavoidable which PR firms are based on.

“Is there even a core meaning, or only an interpretation?”

That’s a philosophical question beyond the scope of critical thinking skills.

“So the messenger is *always* a part of the message context”

Not true. Objective statements are by design independent of the messenger. If I say “1+1=2” I am utterly irrelevant to the accuracy of that utterance.”

“To disconnect a message from its messenger is to transform the message into some other message, and perhaps to assume ownership of that message, or to reassign authorship in absentia...”

Which is all the more reason to avoid including the messenger when judging the message at all.

Indeed cutting out the messenger improves the fidelity of the message in all cases where the content is consistent and provable.

Take the Epimenides paradox for example. “all the Cretans are liars” If you ignore the messenger suddenly a paradoxical statement becomes a falsifiable one, which is infinitely more useful.

Indeed in this case reformatting the message to exclude the messenger and retain the meaning yields a more more concise and interesting event. “I am lying.”

“Only black people may use the word 'nigger' without expecting to cause offence, for example.”

That’s a cultural issue, and also a blatant double standard. Such things are to be avoided, not lauded.

“if you cut my bits off, I won't be the same person 'inside'. (“

I see, so would it be right to dispose of an amputee’s property on the grounds that the “original” person is now dead?

I couldn’t disagree more. By that logic I’m a whole different person the instant a single blood cell dies, or a pico second of time passes.

Granted this occurs in a way, for surely I’m not the same person I was when I was 10 or 20, but if I lost a toe, or my legs, I’d still be me, just me in a different context.

The person is the mind, the mind is the brain and yes the body affects the mind, obviously, but that doesn’t mean the mind requires the body to be a person, or are you saying quadriplegics and those unfortunates with locked in syndrome aren’t people?

“You might consider the little-known fact that the gut contains so many neurons - almost as many as in the brain itself - that it is fair to say that we have an additional 'brain' taking care of the many complex processes of digestion and so on.”

By that logic a whale should have the IQ of a small town combined simply by virtue of mass. Never the less I’m willing to stipulate that my gut is an adjunct of my brain, but then again I can still be me even after massive head trauma and brain injury.

Painting my body as in effect an extension of my brain and therefore requisite in defining me as a person, is a slippery slope and in one sense preemptive surrender. You’re already admitting there is a line, you’re just haggling over where to draw it.

“There are in fact more microorganisms in there than there are cells in the body itself. It is therefore more correct to regard the body as an ecosystem rather than an individual.”

Agreed. But it’s arguable that ecosystems typically have subjective experience. Sure I can’t prove you exist in this sense in the way that I know for a fact that I do, but I operates under the safer is better model and err on the side of caution. Rather than simply treat other humans as so much meat, as psychopaths do.

You remind me of the ant eating mind surgeon in godel escher bach. Can an ant colony have feelings and awareness despite being composed of simple ants? I don’t know, (I lean towards yes) but I do know that ant colonies don’t give any indication of it that we can understand or recognize.

Frankly I think I would be more me, not less, if I could safely remove certain parts. My gal bladder for example, and my teeth, and other parts of me which create pain and fear quite pointlessly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re: Things every kid should know.

Brennan Young — Wed, 22 May 2013 09:25:26 -0000

Ok, an example: What am I afraid of if I get angry about spilling red wine down my white shirt?

It's quite reasonable, quite rational to be angry about something like that. Maybe I'm 'afraid' I won't be able to get the stain out? I would argue that that is not the same kind of fear as (say) cowering while a hungry beast slinks past my cave. Genuine fear causes the adrenal glands to get working - in preparation for fight of flight. "Damn! That's my best shirt!" - the damage is done. Nothing to prepare for, except perhaps an urgent trip to the laundry. Evolutionary psychology: We wouldn't have these emotions if they weren't useful.

I believe that meaningful, genuine anger is often supressed for bogus reasons, and this often causes other, more complex expressions such as passive aggression, bitterness, depression etc. The performed indignation I mentioned was not aimed at you, but it's interesting that you took it that way ;) It refers to the kind of performative 'anger' which (e.g.) conservative journalists and politicians seem to relish in. It's false anger, as you point out (the intention is to rouse the rabble!), but it is *acceptable* because it conforms to the dominant narratives of power. ('Those damn immigrants/drug addicts/single parents are looking for hand-outs again' and so on). Genuine anger on the other hand is often unwelcome because it breaks those power narratives. I find the socialised circumscription of anger very interesting. Even many 'new-age' 'let-it-all-hang-out' types seem to find anger distasteful.

As for for the quote from Yoda. It seems far too one-dimensional, too causal to be generally applicable. Even if fear leads to anger (which is surely not always true), it does not follow that all anger originates in fear. But all this is quite untestable, and I suppose we must find our own truth about the matter.

About 56 and 15. Rhetoric teaches us that we interpret messages partly according to the authority or reputation (the 'ethos') of the messenger. In some cases the message is lost or transformed entirely when disconnected from the messenger, or when the authority falls from grace, or is revealed to be an impostor. What if the burning bush that Moses encountered in the desert was just a burning bush and not God at all? In what way is the message transformed if Moses' interpretation of the identity of the messenger is assumed to be incorrect? Can we somehow retain the core meaning of a message, even when we know that the sender is a liar? Is there even a core meaning, or only an interpretation?

All messages require context in order to be meaningful Gregory Bateson has written extensively about this, for example in his famous and rather excellent essay 'A Theory of Play and Fantasy' where he points out that even animals understand the difference between a playful nip and an angry bite. That difference is not part of the nip or the bite, but rather part of the context where the nip or the bite occurs (e.g. kittens playing somehow 'know' that they are involved in fictional combat rather than a real struggle).

So the messenger is *always* a part of the message context, sometimes the most significant part. To disconnect a message from its messenger is to transform the message into some other message, and perhaps to assume ownership of that message, or to reassign authorship in absentia, even if the formal 'content' of the message (e.g. the sequence of words) is unchanged. Only black people may use the word 'nigger' without expecting to cause offence, for example.

About 30. I am glad that you have pointed out the radical simplication. Yes, as a non-dualist, I believe that consciousness emerges from the whole organism, and yes, if you cut my bits off, I won't be the same person 'inside'. (See Oliver Sacks "A Leg to Stand On" for an extended treatment of this idea). All illness is mental illness because all illness affects the disposition, mood, outlook etc. of the individual Would you feel like the same person if you lost an arm or a leg? A person with a hangover is usually very poor company.

You might consider the little-known fact that the gut contains so many neurons - almost as many as in the brain itself - that it is fair to say that we have an additional 'brain' taking care of the many complex processes of digestion and so on. It's common knowledge that stress aggravates conditions such as Many of these processes are handled by microorganisms in the gut. There are in fact more microorganisms in there than there are cells in the body itself. It is therefore more correct to regard the body as an ecosystem rather than an individual. There are many reflex arcs in the body which do not involve the brain at all. As Milton Erickson pointed out "not all brain cells are located in the cranium".

Good discussion. Thanks!

Re: Things every kid should know.

innomen — Sat, 18 May 2013 18:12:41 -0000

Thanks for reading the list and taking the time to comment. :)

"7 contradicts 12 somewhat."

7. Angry people are afraid of something.
12. No one chooses how they feel.

No they don't, they are perfectly complimentary. To perhaps clear up any confusion, you should realize emotions often cause other emotions over time. I'll let someone older and wiser explain :)

"Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to suffering" ~Yoda

Angry people don't choose to be angry, nor do they choose to be afraid, because no one chooses how they feel.

"There's not enough genuine anger, and too much performed indignation."

On who's part? I don't quite understand this statement. It comes across as being aimed at me personally but I don't see the relevance. But I don't "perform" any emotions, unless simple civility to people whom I lack respect for counts as an emotional performance.

"56 qualifies 15. (Rhetoric, ethos etc.)"

56. You are always entitled to an explanation that ignores authority.
15. The message is independent of the messenger.

Again I can't quite see what you're saying. Care to elaborate?

But to engage in a bit of elaboration myself: If by "qualifies" you are referring to a kind of agent/principal problem, I'll point out that I didn't say from whom the explanation must come. Example: Let's say a king sends guards to arrest a Baron, but doesn't tell the guards why. In this case the Baron is entitled to an explanation, but not from the guards arresting him. Also the guards are not responsible for the edict, the king is.

"30 is just silly (I am a non-dualist)."

30. Your body is your brain’s pet.

Well, it's a radical simplification, but I stand by it as being essentially correct. I can't know what you mean by duelist, but to respond to a hypothetical argument based on my guess, I'd ask you if you believe having your head removed from your body and placed on a heart lung machine would result in 90% of you essential self being lost, and if so, which parts? I am not my arms, or my legs, or my lungs. My body is in a very real way an environmental suit for my brain. And if you want to get technical about it, not even my whole brain.

This opens a gargantuan can of worms :) But I'd be happy to help you pick through them. http://underlore.com/why-study... (Comment here if you'd like to explore the brain/body issues with me :) )

Addition: The point of the pet analogy is to quickly draw attention to the fact that much of what you think of as your body is in reality a totally independent organism with its own motivations. Seeing you body as an animal makes much of the human condition easier to anticipate.

As an example just think of how much of medical effort is expended countering what the body does. A quick and ubiquitous example would be immune reactions like fever, cold, and allergies. Or the desire to sleep as hypothermia approaches despite that being the worst possible thing you could do. Or the utter diagnostic uselessness of pain. A heart attack for example often hurts in your arm, while the brain doesn't have pain receptors at all.

Re: Things every kid should know.

Brennan Young — Sat, 18 May 2013 13:40:58 -0000

Mostly a very good list, but:

7 contradicts 12 somewhat. The latter wins. There's not enough genuine anger, and too much performed indignation.
56 qualifies 15. (Rhetoric, ethos etc.)
30 is just silly (I am a non-dualist).

Re: Things every kid should know.

innomen — Fri, 17 May 2013 21:45:33 -0000

My material isn't supposed to have a shelf life. At least not in the single digit years range. :)

Thank you for your kind words. That anyone reads any of my work always surprises me. That they find is beneficial is nothing less than my primary source of purpose in life. I adore comments. :)

If you like what I have to say in this list you may genuinely like parts of my book. You can get it for free on smashwords.

https://www.smashwords.com/boo...

(It says "buy" but you can set the price to zero.)

Re: Things every kid should know.

leslie — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:51:57 -0000

What , am I crazy commenting on a comment written 3 years ago? No idea how I got here but I need to say, you are very bright. I like your writing , your thoughtfulness, and I love the list! And I hasten to add I am an adult 53 years old and couldn't if I tried, stop thinking about all these things. Some of us are born explorers and seek always. Thanks for some lovely thoughts and words. Leslie

Re: RTS=PRS

innomen — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 08:16:03 -0000

Yeah, it's true of anything really. Opportunity cost is always present.

ArmA is a good example from what I can see of videos of dayZ. People will metagame always.

It would be fascinating to make a truly realistic game in any context. I've thought about it a lot. The only way to do it would be to put the ability to manipulate game mechanics in as a game mechanic. I think this trend is the future of gaming. E.g. Starforge.

Imagine trying to make a lucid dream simulator.

A close approximation would be to make something like red faction guerrilla but put the more or less standard compliment of fps cheats in the gui.

Bioshock would be a good candidate for a base interface also since many of the weapons are presented as first person powers.

Re: RTS=PRS

-drj- — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 00:37:36 -0000

Well, it's a *game* and games should be fun to play. Take a look at Battlefield for example; it might not be very realistic but it sure is a fun and fast paced game. If you have a problem with it being unrealistic, just play ArmA. Of course, ArmA tends to be rather slow paced and "fun" isn't a priority. I think the problem is simple (and rather obvious) - you can't have everything. At least not at once.

Re: 2nd Amendment and Related Links

innomen — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 17:26:08 -0000

Firstly (I see what you did there :) ) thanks for commenting. Congratulations on being the first less-rights advocate to have the spine to debate me on my own ground. I look forward to another chance to prove that I don't cheat.

Secondly, I’m making it clear now that I haven’t the slightest belief that I’ll convince you, or that anything on the Internet is even capable of convincing you. As I quipped on twitter recently, people don’t have positions anymore, they have religions. And I am not fool enough to think I can talk you out of yours.

Onward!

"Some involved in the rebellion were actually tried and convicted of TREASON..."

Treason proceedings don’t prove or disprove anything with regard to the 2nd amendment. The articles of confederation were replaced by the Constitution because a stronger federal government was needed. As part of the transition the 2nd was included to appease elements that were resisting the change because they feared they were taking a step away from the freedom they had so recently fought for.

The 2nd's usefulness as a bulwark against tyranny only works if the situation is so dire and universally agreed on that virtually everyone responds. Here is a basic work flow for the thinking behind the 2nd: Government grows improper. People oppose it peacefully. Government ignores process and stifles freedoms. People protest and peacefully resist. Government grows overtly tyrannical and responds with violence and overreaction. Some people criminally rebel. Government goes insane, attempts to disarm the public, makes examples, forcibly disband militias under the rubric of national security.

This disarming action is a prelude to the declaration of martial law, mass imprisonment, military action against civilians, etc. Whatever they think it takes to get whatever they want from us. Look at other governments in history for examples of just how far that can be carried against a powerless population. It's not even a matter of submission. We're talking about systemic insanity here, like for example McCarthyism. Seeing enemies and crime where there are none.

By its very nature the first thing any tyrannical government wants is a non-lethal people. If you have a tiger in your house and you plan to mistreat it, the first thing a wise person would consider is declawing it or otherwise rendering it harmless, before it realizes you are a threat.

The genius of the 2nd is that it is both a defense against, and a early warning system of, the government losing its mind. If our government does go truly insane, because of the 2nd the result will be a civil war as opposed to (Stalin style) purges or even a second holocaust. The difference between a civil war and a mass slaughter is the ability of the attacked to defend, to resist. (I anticipate an argument that we are incapable, see below and links above.)

"So the 2nd amendment was NOT to protect the people against the government (they had just formed!) but to protect the newly formed government against rebellions by the people."

Again, the constitution was created to replace the articles of confederation. The debate of this transition and the resulting required compromises are what gave rise to the amendments.

All of those amendments were introduced to protect the interests of the people who were happy with the articles and did not like the directing of moving towards a stronger more centralized federal government. These were people who had more or less just gotten out from under an autocrat, a monarch. Look at them. Each amendment is obviously a protection of the people, not the government.

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

The argument that the 2nd is an elucidation of the government's right to arm itself is nonsensical.

"Even if I believed your convoluted interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the 2nd amendment like the 1st amendment is NOT ABSOLUTE. By your argument, I, or my crazy neighbor, could own machine guns, drones even nuclear weapons."

Actually if you believed my interpretation, it would make sense that yes I am of the opinion that the point of the 2nd is to grant the citizenry access to weapons, information, and training sufficient to defend themselves against a misdirected military. This is really a whole separate debate. (To what degree, as opposed to if at all.) And I'd rather not get bogged down by this tangent. But it will suffice to say that the only weapons that should be kept out of civilian hands in principal -at the federal level- (more locally is a different matter) should be nuclear, biological, and some chemical weapons. I say "some" because mace and pepper spray are chemical weapons. That definition could be warped, but again that's part of this secondary debate that really should be had among the second's defenders exclusively. If you don't agree on the purpose of the 2nd, arguing about the degree to which it is honored is disingenuous and should exclude you.

"Rocks are not man made."

This is actually a third debate. (Can gun law be enforced?) Yes, rocks are not man made, but they are potentially lethal. This means that lethality alone is an insufficient argument against gun rights. The point is that you cannot render people totally harmless by any reasonable means, even if you were incorrect enough to think that was a good idea. It's futile from the outset, which means the character and effect of gun law is automatically not going to be what was intended. Prohibition and the drug war are excellent examples of what happens when laws are enacted which cannot be enforced. You don't get the results you expect, and I'm telling you the results of gun control law will not be a less lethal populace, but a more vulnerable demographic within the populace plus a more lethal, better funded, demographic. It's cliche but it's also true, by banning guns you simply ensure that only criminals remain armed.

Think about it. You consider me a gun nut right? Well, do you think as a gun nut I'll hand over my guns if ordered by the government? No, I won't. But you presumably already don't have any, so nothing changed there. I'll still have my guns and the only thing between you and criminals is the police. Now, if the police were sufficient to protect you, how do you explain all the murders, rapes, robberies, arsons, etc which the police can not prevent? All your law did was add me to the list of criminals. It turned a passive law abiding ally into an armed and now cornered adversary. For my own protection I would have to join with others of my type to survive. In other words I would have to organize. Did you catch what happened there? Your law did nothing but create additional resources for organized crime. We saw it with prohibition, we see it with the drug war, and we would see it more if gun control expands.

Indeed the degree to which gun control laws already exist have already created underground markets. Black market weapons are a booming global business. Ironically, most obviously among the other class of criminals we created with asinine laws as part of the drug war.

Actions in favor of gun control are actions in favor of empowering the mob. Because the mob or, whatever you want to call organized crime of any stripe, is already well adapted to living criminally . If I and other gun owners are turned into criminals who do you think we'll end up working for? Think it through.

"And hammers, knives, ropes, whatever are not made to kill."

Irrelevant. The arguments above apply. This is actually a fourth debate. What price are we prepared to pay for gun laws?

In addition, making a technology illegal in an attempt to curtail a single specific use is a radical over reaction, especially when that one use is already specifically and vigorously prohibited. It would be like making paint illegal to prevent graffiti. As I linked above, all security decisions must among other things consider the trade-off and cost. Clearly you are willing to tolerate some degree of potential misuse from your technology. You are willing to risk graffiti so long as we can all have paint. And I agree. I just extend that logic to firearms and other weaponry because I see the value of weapons beyond their superficial ability to kill.

I've saved my own life with the threat of violence with a weapon. I know indisputably from personal experience that a weapon in the right hand at the right time prevents violence and protects the innocent and the weak. Your vision of what a weapon intrinsically is and does betrays a lack of imagination and experience. And that's fine, if you think weapons are useless, by all means, advocate against their use. But you have no right to attempt to take my right to peacefully disagree, or defend myself.

You have no right to declaw me. And nor does anyone else ultimately.

"Owning a hammer, doesn't make me 42 times more likely to die by hammer."

That is a still fifth debate. Is having a weapon worth the risk to the owner? Well in my hands my weapon is about as dangerous as the stove. I respect it, I understand it, and I am responsible with it. Sure it's dangerous, but so is the breaker box. That's not a sufficient argument to have it outlawed. In any case such a choice is mine to make. I'm allowed to climb a mountain also, or attempt to live on fast food. Being wreckless to one's self isn't and shouldn't be a crime. If you think I'm taking a stupid risk, by all means say so, but you don't have the right, nor should you, to dictate my life choices when the cost in this context is my own well being. This facet is exactly like the drug debate in my opinion. I should be completely permitted to endanger my own health. (To say it's not about just me, is to move past this particular debate and move to one of the debates above, or somewhere else.)

"You answered that you weren't afraid."

I said my primary motivation wasn't fear. Of course I'm afraid. I'm very afraid that people like you out number people like me and that eventually I'll be forced to live and presumably die as a criminal. I'm already an activist and abolitionist. The last thing I want is another reason to worry about the government suddenly declaring me an undesirable. I already know that I'm in danger of having my life taken by a justice system saturated with errors, (Google "The innocence project") or that a multinational corporation could declare war on me at any moment and there is nothing that would happen to them. (Google "too big to jail")

But my response to that fear isn't as simplistic as thinking I can shoot my way out of these potential situations. That why I write, not shoot. If I thought shooting would make the world a better place, I'd be doing that. Your kind routinely imply that my kind are violent and stupid hillbilly thugs when the very fact that we engage with you and function in society proves we aren't. Why would I take the time to talk to you at all if I thought I could solve the problem of people like you with a bullet? Especially if I was so in love with the idea of killing with my "big guns" that you so childishly mock.

I already know that you're even more vulnerable and unprotected than I am. I don't fear you, I fear the death of democracy being voted in. Many despots have been rightfully elected in history, and many societies have voted in their own extinction. Indeed, I fear that democracy itself may prove unsustainable. This debate and it's cultural outcome is critical in that context.

In short, I have many fears, and I'm reacting to them as responsibly and peacefully as I know how.

This last section applies primarily to me personally. None of this should be construed as an argument for forcing gun ownership on others. Unlike you I'm willing to let other people live in opposition to my beliefs. I'm not the bigot (for lack of a better word for someone who would force their will on others) you seem to be.

"you needed an arsenal for "deterrence"

Not me personally, but as the power of the military grows due to gross over-funding the number of weapons in private hands required to give the strategists pause necessarily increases. As I said above this is an argument for parring down the military, not giving up and disarming the public.

I think barring various exceptions, from a strictly policy standpoint it would be wise for every house to have one military grade rifle, one pistol, and something like 500 rounds for every household. I think that would be enough to keep them from attempting psychotically tyrannical solutions here that other governments have attempted. (Mass internment, etc.) But since that kind of diffusion of arms isn't feasible since many are unable or unwilling, then to get the same social protection some people are going to have to stock pile so that in case the worst does happen at least our side has an armory or two. I personally would rather have those armories in rational civilian hands (as opposed to xenophobes, racists, radical fundamentalists, cultists, etc) but your side of the table makes that harder and harder. Only those groups are willing to put up with the risk and hassle your side creates as it throws up road blocks to armament, which only fuels their paranoid delusions with bits of actually evidence.

Who do you think is driving up the gun sales whenever you gun control types get traction? Arms dealers and people more crazy than I am with more money than I have.

You gun control types remind me of republicans, putting two wars on the credit card and legalizing publicly funded wallstreet gambling and then whining about the deficit. You're creating the very problem for which you offer marginalizing me and my kind as a solution. Convenient.

"Symbolism." | "What do your big guns symbolize? All most people see is fear."

This is a personal thing but yes, they are a powerful symbol. I can't run. Physically I'm incapable due to a leg deformity. Socially I am the same. They know where I live, they know my name and face. I am too poor to travel. I have no choice but to fight. Flight is not an option. I live in a state of being cornered. I would have been killed and eaten long ago had humanity not mastered all its predators through weaponry. The rock, the knife, the club, the spear, the sword, the bow, the rifle, the handgun. These things made this planet ours. My handgun is a symbol of my pride in my species and it's accomplishment. It also symbolizes self discipline and ascendance over my animal nature. I can kill my enemies. But I don't because I am a rational being now. I'm not just another animal, or at least I have the potential to rise above my animal nature. My weapon also symbolizes the trust my society places in me which I struggle very hard to be worthy of. I have a CCDW license. My state trusts me with the lives of everyone around me. I can physically hold proof of that trust in my hand. Can you understand why I will not give that up just because you or some 1% pawns start to worry about all the little people like me who want to defend those who can't defend themselves?

"Economic reasons."

My weapons rise in value as your efforts to ban them even seem to gain traction. A firearm is both currency and tool.

"Miscellaneous."

I can hunt with it if need be. I can signal for help with it. I can trade it. But most importantly in this context I can do with it things that I can't do with my naked hands. It is an expansion of personal options, every bit as much as any other technology. I have it for the thousand reasons I can think of and the millions that I can't. I'd rather have it not need it than need it and not have it.

"And if you think your big guns are going to deter the federal government, you are a fool. "

I'm curious what you think war is like. I suspect you think it's like a Michael Bay movie or Call of Duty. You seem to have this image of war like it's all a video game, when really it's more like a zombie movie in that it's very personal, and very low tech. There's a reason the people that give our military the most trouble are fundamentalists who literally want to live in the dark ages, in already war saturated countries.

As I said I already linked to this, but just for others since I know you won't read it with anything approaching an open mind...

https://plus.google.com/115056...

Those who think like you overlook so many basic facts about war it's hard to know where to begin. Ironically your ignorance of war is a consequence of our mastery of it locally. You are so insulated from war your image of it has grown completely inaccurate. This reminds me of a quote from a movie. "Peace has cost you your strength. Victory has defeated you." I am both pleased and worried by this. I'm not one of these tough love assholes that wants everyone tortured so we can be a nation of tough guys, but at the same time I don't think those who are completely ignorant of a thing should be using it as an argument to make policy relevant to it.

I'm glad when any human has no idea what war is. I'm worried when that ignorance threatens to create some.

Re: 2nd Amendment and Related Links

SeanSorrentino — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 14:48:02 -0000

"I am not a constitutional attorney."
This is clear. What is also clear is that you've not bothered to read ANYTHING that the founders said about why the people shall retain the right to keep and bear arms. Rather than trying to fix your misconceptions, I'll explain it as simply as possible. I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Whether they be domestic usurpers of the Constitution's authority, common rabble trying to overthrow our Constitutional form of government, or foreign invaders, they are my enemy, and I will be perfectly happy to use my privately owned firearm to persuade them to stop. Fatally if necessary.

Re: 2nd Amendment and Related Links

Anita Ferguson — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:04:01 -0000

I am not a constitutional attorney. However I will address a couple of easy to dispel arguments you have made. Firstly:):The 2nd amendment was not included to allow citizens to stop a tyrannical government. State militias were only needed at that time because the federal government did not have a standing army. When George Washington called up 13,000 militia members across the country to quell the Whiskey Rebellion, he set the precedent for the federal government to enforce it's laws. Some involved in the rebellion were actually tried and convicted of TREASON AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. So the 2nd amendment was NOT to protect the people against the government (they had just formed!) but to protect the newly formed government against rebellions by the people. Even if I believed your convoluted interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the 2nd amendment like the 1st amendment is NOT ABSOLUTE. By your argument, I, or my crazy neighbor, could own machine guns, drones even nuclear weapons.
Some of your arguments are even sillier. Really? "Rocks don't kill people, people kill people" is your argument. Rocks are not man made. And hammers, knives, ropes, whatever are not made to kill. We don't have drive by rock or knife throwings. Owning a hammer, doesn't make me 42 times more likely to die by hammer. We don't have 20 dead 1st graders and 6 dead teachers because of rope.
I asked what you were afraid of. You answered that you weren't afraid;you needed an arsenal for "deterrence", symbolism, economic reasons or "miscellaneous". Why would you need a deterrent against something you are not afraid of. And if you think your big guns are going to deter the federal government, you are a fool. What do your big guns symbolize? All most people see is fear. Economic reasons? Buy some gold or whatever gun nuts are into these days. Miscellaneous? What???

Re: New School

innomen — Sun, 03 Feb 2013 00:59:27 -0000

http://www.knowledgeoftoday.or...

Re: Thorium Reactors and Nuclear Bombs

Terry Floyd — Sun, 20 Jan 2013 03:16:19 -0000

There is 270,000 tons of nuclear waste {weapons and LWR spent fuel}
world wide available for LFTR to consume as fuel to produce CO2 free
thermal and electrical power, thus permanently eliminating IT's proliferation
potential. LFTR the proliferation eliminator.

Re: Thorium 101 for Human Beings

innomen — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:56:54 -0000

Thank you very much :)

I also wrote one countering a specific argument: http://underlore.com/thorium-r...

Re: Thorium 101 for Human Beings

garthster — Sat, 19 Jan 2013 16:32:01 -0000

very good stuff; shared here: https://www.facebook.com/Energ...

Re: Islanders

innomen — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 18:36:42 -0000

For a classic example of the bootlicker type read this sycophantic garbage: http://www.forbes.com/sites/re...

Re: An open letter to my parents, Thanksgiving 2012.

innomen — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 15:16:32 -0000

You're welcome :)

Heh, the star thing seems to have worked, it shows me as having two now, so bravo :)

Blame the trouble on the blog and my inexperience dealing with comments.

Re: An open letter to my parents, Thanksgiving 2012.

Mom — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:46:01 -0000

Thank you so much, Brandon. I am speechless. I'm so blessed to have you for a son, and my love and respect for you is truly unconditional.

You're the best thing I've EVER accomplished, or ever will and I'm thankful every day to have you in my life. I love you sweetie,

Mom

PS
I tried to give you stars but they some went into the negative and I don't know how to undo it. Just consider it backwards, as usual for me. :)\

Re: Open Letter to Snopes.com about Aspartame

innomen — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 20:14:45 -0000

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Re: Society, this is what you get.

innomen — Mon, 15 Oct 2012 04:38:44 -0000

https://plus.google.com/115056...

Re: Jewish Confusion

innomen — Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:42:04 -0000

FYI, since no one ever comments on this blog directly anymore: https://plus.google.com/u/0/11...

Re: May All Dentists Burn in Hell. (If there were a Hell.)

Tmyry9 — Tue, 26 Jun 2012 23:18:43 -0000

No shit brother! When I was working for day labor at a dental clinic for 6$/hr, I saw a fuckin Gold Hummer in the parking lot, with a bumper sticker that said, " This is my toy, my real treasure is in Heaven". As a Bible student, I wondered where in the hell does the Bible condone this kind of self-gratifying bullshiit. I felt like leaving a large scratch mark on his pretentious hummer. But I didn't. I figure he'll pay in the Hell he believes in! But this was at an intersection of 303 and Division in Arlington fuckin Tx., home of stupid red nednecks. I'm a 7th generation Texan, so fuck all you redneck yankee Texans who want to disagree!

Re: Anti Virus Community Creates False Positives For Fun and Profit

Ephraim — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:19:26 -0000

Nice work man!! My Comodo AV + windows defender almost scared me to death over this one.

Re: The Child Problem

innomen — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:16:11 -0000

Thanks much :)

Re: The Child Problem

Padre — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:13:01 -0000

I like the world "Revolver Map" nice touch!