Interesting Article About Mass Shooters

[KeepTalking]

for something to "solve itself", it does not require that the solution is entirely encompassed in the domain of the problem... just like the analogy...{snip}

It was a shit analogy (see what I did there?) to begin with.

well, I completely disagree with you (and the two positive reps I received from other posters in this thread, compared to your one negative speaks for itself).
But, yes, I do see what you did there and that was pretty funny anyway.

22 Obsolete technologies that people thought would last forever: https://io9.gizmodo.com/25-obsolete-technologies-that-future-generations-will-n-1526922030

Is it so hard to imagine that hand-held projectile weapons will ever make that list? That is just a failure of imagination.

Just because one problem (or even 22 problems) solves itself, it does not follow that all, or even a good majority, of problems will solve themselves. I haven't looked at your list, but I doubt that many of them would fall under the category of "problems that solved themselves'. In fact, even youe original scenario did not solve itself, it was solved by an external factor, the invention of the automobile.

 

[ronburgundy]

You may have... it depends. Are you a member of the government executing existing laws (i.e. their "basement" is the penal system)?
Are you performing a citizens arrest because you caught me raping your daughter?
Are you kidnapping me under threat of violence because you disagree with my political views?

Please describe how this is objectively any different than voting for laws that are enforced by imprisoning people (and note that all "fines" are only collected via threat of imprisonment). Is it b/c you got a group of other people to agree with you? (aka Democracy). Great, so I just need to get others to agree and magically it is no longer violence. Is it b/c the violence is sanctioned by law? Great, so then the Nazis committed no violence against the Jews, b/c it was sanctioned by law.

It is different because you want to extend the meaning of "violence" to "execution of democratically enacted laws"

IOW, you have a completely unprincipled definition of violence that has noting to do with the objective features of the actual actions, the motives of those behind them, or the objective impact on the target. Instead, your definition completely depends upon whether there are enough other people who also want to cause harm to those targets and punch a piece of paper to indicate that desire.

How terrifyingly authoritarian.

Also, do you realize that Hitler was put in power by a democratic system? Also, slavery was practiced under a democratic system? Slaves not being allowed to vote was a democratic law, no different then current laws that prohibit non-citizens residents from voting. And even if they were allowed to vote, they would have lost and slavery would have been no different. Yet, according to you Naziism and slavery were not systems of violence.

 

[TSwizzle]

Why are you being so aggressively difficult with simple things like that?

Why are you being such a dick ?

Anyway, I'm out.