Another shooting in the USA. Remind me about the reason for having guns again. - by SubJeff
Vasquez on 8/9/2012 at 13:40
Ok. I did.
SubJeff on 8/9/2012 at 14:16
I think the paragraph is pretty damn clear tbh.
Lazarus411 on 8/9/2012 at 14:35
To shoot people and delicious or dangerous animals, duh.
Lazarus411 on 8/9/2012 at 14:38
Also, the King of England is an ever-present threat, even today. And by the King of England I mean them.. you know...darkies.
Papy on 8/9/2012 at 16:19
Quote Posted by Vasquez
How so? Papy said it makes no sense to fear violence with 30 murders a year. But murder isn't the only kind of violence.
The subject was morality. My point was only that fear of danger might play a role in how we define our own morality and in how we behave. Any other interpretation of what I said is more or less out of context.
Also, murder was not an important point. It was just a simple illustration.
Vasquez on 8/9/2012 at 17:08
Wow, now I feel super stupid. I still see it like murder rate was something of a point there, but thanks for clearing that out.
SubJeff on 8/9/2012 at 17:23
Quote Posted by Papy
I live in a city with 1.8 million people.
There is about 30 murders each year. Most are related to either drugs or conjugal violence. Yet, people around seems to fear violence. I don't think it makes any sense. So I wonder... Could the fact that we hear and see violence every day on TV distort people's understanding of reality?
GTFO.
There is no other way this can be interpreted unless you have made an massive English language mess up.
jay pettitt on 8/9/2012 at 17:32
:joke:
Briareos H on 8/9/2012 at 19:10
Quote Posted by Vivian
I think it's wicked that people are actually throwing around regression stats and shit, go go go! Can we extend this technique to how much exactly bioshock sucked next?
y=1
Papy on 8/9/2012 at 19:26
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
There is no other way this can be interpreted unless you have made an massive English language mess up.
My English is poor, that's obvious, but that doesn't change the fact that you interpreted and used what I said out of context.
Here's a hint : when people discuss (and if they are honest in their discussion), then the important part is their conclusion, not something in the middle. If you feel like highlighting something in the middle and completely ignoring the conclusion is the right thing to do, then chances are you completely missed the context and you should read the whole thing again.
Again, my point (i.e. my conclusion) was that the society we live in might play a role in our moral behavior. More particularly, I'm trying to say that changes in our moral behaviors might be a consequence of changes in our societies. To illustrate that, I gave several examples, one of them was our perception of danger and how media (which are a now a major part of our society) could distort our perception of danger. Personally, I don't feel I live in a dangerous society, but several people around me do. In order to illustrate why I don't feel like I live in a dangerous society, I used the low rate of murder.
So basically, murder rate is point 1.2.1.1. of what I said. Was it wrong for me to use murder rate as an explanation of why I feel I live in a safe society? Probably, but the thing is I'm not writing a thesis here, so I do use shortcuts. Sorry for being so lazy.
Now, do you understand why you are completely out of context?
