Daedthr

Well I'd define the horticultural greenhouse as a glass building in which plants can be grown. Although a greenhouse could equally be a "green" (as in colour) house. I'd consider calling an environmentally friendly house "green" slang, as I don't think it necessary to describe an environmentally-friendly house in it's entirety by calling it green. To describe a green-coloured house in it's entirety would however necessitate it being called a "greenhouse" or "green house", and in the case of a greenhouse in which one would grow plants, green is not an adjective as greenhouse is surely a noun in that context. So now I reckon I'm gonna have a bit of fun and try and prove the existence of a Supreme Being through "Proof by Greenhouse". Start 1. Now, as we would normally call a house that is coloured green a "Green house" rather than a "Greenhouse", I will have to attempt to prove that both are in fact the same thing. So the only thing distinguishing the two is " ", that is, space. Now, "space" can refer to this linguistic device, but it can equally refer to an expanse of absence, that is nothing. If we can determine that (ignore quotations): "Space" = "Space", which we can because a total is no more than the sum of it's parts, thus as the two words have the same parts, they are the same total. Then we can also determine that if "Space" is equally a linguistic device and nothing, then the linguistic device space is also equally nothing. If that is the case, there is no difference between "Greenhouse" and "Green house" because the only thing distinguishing the two is as much nothing as it is something, but as this is illogical it cannot be, therefore a distinction between the two cannot be, so they are the same. 2. So "Green House" = "Greenhouse", and of course "Greenhouse" = "Greenhouse" for the same reason "Space" = "Space". So if Greenhouse = Greenhouse, and Greenhouse is equally a glass building in which plants can be grown as it is a house that is the colour green, then a glass building in which plants can be grown is equally a green coloured house. 3. The premise for this next stage of the argument is that colour is a visual description of substance, that is, whenever you see colour you are seeing substance too. Now the substance that a glass building is made of is glass, and if this building is equally green then it stands to reason that this glass must also be green. 4. However glass is transparent, which means we either accept that transparency = green, of that glass is not really transparent. Either way, the a posteriori evidence that our senses are giving us does not seem to match with what can logically be. Now by definition logic must be true, but the empirical may not necessarily be so (think how a hallucinogenic effects our senses, it causes us to see things that are not true, therefore our senses can be fooled). But if our sense are being fooled perpetually to the extent that transparency = green, then what use are they? Surely it is the purpose of the senses to provide us with reliable information about the world around us, but if our senses do not, then they fail to fulfil their purpose, and thus there is no purpose to them. If there is no purpose to something, then logically it should not exist, as it would never have had any reason to come into existence. Yet, these fooled senses exist, which indicates they must have a non-intrinsic purpose, that is a purpose given to them by something else. Thus, their purpose demonstrates the existence of something else. 5. But what can give them this purpose? It cannot be Evolution, as for one evolution cannot give purpose to anything, and also because it does not make sense in the context of Evolution that our species could have evolved to have senses that not only fail to be of any use (because the information they provide cannot be relied upon), but are also detrimental to our survival because unreliable information would be likely to jeopardise our survival. The only other explanation for our acquisition of such complex yet poor senses must therefore be that they were given to us by an omnipotent being, who also gives these bad senses their purpose - to demonstrate the existence of the being itself. Therefore as we have these senses, an omnipotent being exists, and as nothing else we know of is omnipotent (that is capable of accomplishing anything that is not logically impossible), this being is also supreme. Hence there exists a Supreme Being. End. Proof by Greenhouse. Wait, wut.

Go for it, personally I'm enjoying my 360 degree view of the outside world from within my own house! :D In fact, this revelation might mean we all live in greenhouses anyway. :O

Hehehe, I don't doubt it. Local governments here don't have as much power, but we're a far smaller country so that works better really. Although the Conservatives are planning to introduce legislation to further devolve some power to local governments I think, I just hope they don't get stupid with it.

Hehe, so if: Window = wall, because a greenhouses' windows can equally be considered walls, and we substitute in some algebraic terms: Window = a Wall = b a = b a - b = 0 -b = -a *-1 to get b = a (All obeys the laws of mathematics and I don't really want to go into logical axioms) So now if "b = a" then Walls = Windows, So I've proved that all walls are windows :D

Yeah that doesn't make any sense at all, maybe they just wanted to make a statement to the cartels/gangs nearby or something? Lol idk.

So I'll accept immediately that the latter type of greenhouse has windows (that is those that have open-able 'windows'), but in the case of those with only 'fixed' windows, are those not just the greenhouses' walls? :tongue:

As I am not American, I feel I can no longer continue to debate the feasibility of private disarmament in the US, I don't have the cultural experience to go into hypothetical's regarding the feelings of the populace so I'm forced to take your word for it, though I don't find it particularly surprising either. I've provided purely theoretical solutions which might work logically, but in practice there are too many other variables which could influence the outcome, and these I cannot judge, as I am not American. Actually certain shot-guns are under the National Firearms Act, though you are quite correct as these are short-barrelled ones. Now in theory, you should also be right about other guns not being tracked, but the truth is your government is a little too paranoid to stand by the laws they made to appease gun owners themselves. You see, the Firearm Owner's Protection Act actually outlaws the registration of any firearms at all in theory, but the truth is the ATF just ignores it, it holds millions of gun records that it shouldn't and is blatantly breaking the law. This is something I find hilarious, as it is a complete breach of the law, but nobody important in government ever does anything about it because the truth is they feel protected by it, and it's also incredibly valuable to forces like the FBI. Governments allowing something to break a law that they have the power change, in order to protect themselves and their interests, oh the irony. In fact, the ATF is building a massive new automated system to track them see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Tracing_Center#Controversies I don't doubt it, but to me this isn't something to be proud of at all. But hey, give 'em power and what d'you expect? You sure as hell won't get it back. Not surprised about this either, but don't pretend it was electoral support for their patriotic principles that got them in, it was money, it always is and always will be, and munitions companies tend to be pretty wealthy. So I'll accept that you aren't ever going to get disarmament over where you are, but my original point was the the Shooting of Brown highlighted problems in the police force, and to me the main one was that of the use of firearms, though you pointed out others such as lack of financing. The truth is this point still stands, just because a problem won't ever get solved, it doesn't mean it's not a problem. For reasons I've already made clear having a police force with lethal weaponry is detrimental, but of course it is necessitated because of private armament, which won't ever change. This doesn't mean it's still not detrimental, or that this isn't still a problem, it's just a problem that won't ever get solved, similarly to the problem of corruption in US politics that I pointed out in the other thread, or the problem of world poverty. Thus the point that the Ferguson incident illuminated issues in the force still stands, even if those issues won't ever be solved because no solution will ever warrant the cost, as based on principle and in an idealistic world they should be.

So, a slightly lighter and more philosophical/ontological based debate than some of the others I haves started or taken part in of late. Do greenhouses have windows? I'll try and give my views at some point but initially it is easiest for me to play Devil's Advocate.

This I can agree with, Wilson did do his job and in the circumstances his actions are understandable, I also accept that Mr. Brown was certainly in the wrong in the instance. I'm simply questioning whether or not situations such as this could be handled better should society undergo certain changes, one of which is private disarmament. Also I feel like rubber rounds would at least be a compromise, and are as far as I'm aware not regularly employed by standard cops, more riot police the like of which have recently been dealing with the Baltimore riots. There lies a fallacy here in the idea of impossibility. The only way to prove impossibility is logically so e.g. "Something is what it is not" is a logical impossibility. However other than that nothing can be proved to be impossible, for to do so would warrant the application of every possibility to result in an outcome of failure, but as suppositional possibilities are infinite, this cannot be done, the best you can get is "beyond reasonable doubt." However ignoring this issue, and continuing based on the assumption that you refer only to the concept of "practical impossibility" I must still disagree. Want to end private armament? First thing to do is stop the manufacture of domestic-use ammunition, which is relatively easy to do as said government could pass legislation warranting armament manufacturers to sell only to the government, foreign governments, or any other government permitted exceptions. Governments pass legislation limiting manufacturing all the time, it is in no way practically impossible. So now you've got no supply in ammunition or new weapons. The next step would be to introduce a federal law by which a deadline is placed for the handing in of all weapons to the local state authority, after which any unauthorised private possession of firearms is illegal. Now how do you encourage people to hand in their guns? Well the truth is despite the Firearm Owners Protection Act, your government probably has most of the firearms in your country tracked. All Title II weapons are tracked under National Firearms Acts in addition to some others, and the ATF Fire Arms Tracing system has hundreds of millions of firearms records across multiple databases (your country only has about 400 million people in anyway, and considering only 37% of American's claim to own a gun(s), knowing your government it's probably got records of just about every domestic ownership. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Registry_prohibition http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/04/a-minority-of-americans-own-guns-but-just-how-many-is-unclear/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Tracing_Center#Features_-_Computer_Systems Now, if your government has this number of guns tracked in a computer system (ATF), it really wouldn't be too difficult for a government with your nations resources to create a simple algorithm to cross-reference census and tax records with private firearms ownership records. Then, when people go to vote, go to register on the next census, go to claim any kind of benefit or take part in any nationalised activity, have they not done so already, they will be required to prove that they have disposed of their firearm and have therefore not committed an illegal act. This could be as simple a registering a code online that has been given to you upon your handing in of your firearm. A system like this would logically take most domestic firearms out of circulation, because: 1. Most people who own firearms may not like some of the laws the government makes, but they still appreciate they must abide by them, so a firearms prohibition is no different, there is no reason why citizens who abide by some laws they may not like now wouldn't begrudgingly oblige to obey yet another law they may not particularly like. 2. Life will become very difficult very quickly for those who do not turn in their arms, as any nationalised services (or perhaps even government reliant ones) will be denied to them should they fail to abide by this law. 3. Those who are more concerned with keeping a weapon than they are with their own self-benefit are of a destructive nature, in addition these people are breaking the law. Those of a destructive nature who are breaking the law should not be excused justice any more than you claim Brown should, therefore there should be no moral issue in arresting those who continue to refuse to hand in their weapons. Now once domestic firearms are out of circulation, you wait a couple of years and then they can start to remove them from the police force in a more gradual process. This should avoid a large crime spike if done effectively, and in fact reduce the number of petty crimes that escalate in to first-degree crimes due to the presence of a weapon. Furthermore, if circumstance really made it necessary certain elite units of the force could reserve the right to wield firearms in order to prevent an increase in serious gang-crime, as is the case here. This would allow the force to maintain it's strength in combating serious, hardcore criminals and gangs, whilst removing firearms from the holsters of street officers where they are not detrimental and not helpful. The above is just one solution, with a nation as rich as yours there would many others, most of which would not involve the army knocking on everybody's door. I understand a solution such as this would be expensive, but again, money is the lifeblood of the US and you spend plenty of it on far less important things, not to mention you would likely make a large amount back selling the confiscated arms to private security firms or other countries. Furthermore education has it's part to play. I think you'd find that if a government was to spend as much time educating people as to why private armament was an issue as they do telling people how good their party is and how the opposition is the Devil, you probably wouldn't end up with civil war. Such change IS possible, but as I have said before it is only possible if someone actually TRIES. However even then I understand it will never happen, not because it is impossible, but because your governments do not want to try, because the real power behind the politics in your country are the wealth (such as the very wealthy arms manufacturers - oho!) and because the moment anybody discusses removing a part of the Constitution a large number of people work themselves up into an apocalyptic frenzy. Also I might add, I think you will be surprised with the amount of support this would have, the January 2014 Gallup pole ended up with: - 40% satisfied with current gun law, 55% dissatisfied. - 31% want stricter control, 16% want less strict laws. Pretty compelling stuff, especially the latter statistic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#Gallup_poll Check out the polls, most seem in favour of more strict prohibition and some of the stuff is just weird, you know 5% of gun owners said they own guns just to fulfil the second amendment in the October 2013 poll? Seriously, owning a gun for the sake of being able to say you own a gun?

Yeah I understand that, it's similar here too, public services are always cut because it's easy for the government to do so, but this just highlights another issue with the system - a lack of financing. Considering the importance of the police it's something you'd hope governments would prioritise funding on. Sadly, this is true too, banning private ownership of firearms is just never going to happen with the US now, it's been too long, there's too much money in the business, and money translates very directly to political power over there. This doesn't mean that the principle isn't true though, the argument's I put forward still stand The fact that despite being logically compelling nobody wants to hear them doesn't invalidate the argument, and the principle that giving people access to power like firearms generally does more harm than good. From what I understand a large part of it comes from a lot people having a fit whenever someone mentions changing the constitution that the great "founding fathers" have written. I don't really understand the obsession to be honest, surely the fact that your government constitution was written more than two centuries ago and has undergone relatively little amendment to keep it up to date is not something to be proud of protective of? I think people must believe that whenever anybody tries to re-write or amend it, they're trying to challenge democracy and the political system rather than just keeping it up to date. I also stand by the principle that, despite it being difficult, it should still be attempted. As I said before, if the difficulty of solving a problem dissuades everyone from trying, then the problem will never be solved, so don't let difficulty dissuade. Though frankly America's too far gone for anyone to take notice of this, though the idea still stands. Please, most people do not simply shoot a policeman for turning up on a doorstep. Also Brown was 18, it wasn't his house, he lived with his parents, and no-body that young still living in their parents house is going to have the audacity to go and steal their parent's gun and shoot a policeman walking up to their front door. I mean sure, there is no guarantee of him coming along quietly, but when policemen turn up to most family houses to tell the parents their son has broken the law, the normally reaction is shock, disappointment and surprise, not running upstairs for the gun in the desk draw! Also considering what this article - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2730153/A-kid-broken-home-beat-odds-to-college-A-rapper-sang-smoking-weed-feds-A-violent-robbery-suspect-caught-shocking-video-just-real-Michael-Brown.html - says about his mother being "constantly on him" to get him into college, she's the type of woman who cares about her child, their aspirations and their actions, so if police turn up to the doorstep to tell her that her son just shoplifted, she's probably a little more likely to listen to them and talk about the consequences with him and Brown, than to tell her son to go fetch daddy's gun and take some potshots, hmm? Also it really doesn't take much to see that someone pumped full of adrenaline, running away after shoplifting and being pursued by the police is far more likely to get into a conflict than someone in a familiar place, with family around them, in a house in which they are not the dominant force. Yeah he did a stupid thing, you do stupid things, I do stupid things, everyone does stupid things, I still think it's tragic that what he did cost him is life, when I find it very hard to believe he was the evil person you're making him seem like. Who knows how he was feeling that day, who knows how you might be feeling when you're next stopped by the police, stupid decisions resulting in death is not something anyone can advocate, because the truth is nobody is any more fallible than anybody else, expressions of this fallibility might be different and have varying magnitudes of consequence, but justifying death because of somebody being "stupid" is not an appropriate foundation for society, and it is something you should have a problem with. This to me sounds like a far better and more considerate system than that of giving all policemen lethal rounds, even if it doesn't completely remove the issue of firearms, it means that they'll be less prominent in moments of conflict, which is when they're most problematic. Overall I believe the Shooting of Brown was tragic, as is any situation that involves or warrants death, because all situations such as this show a failing of society at multiple levels. In this case I believe it shows a failure of society to create an environment in which people can thrive (considering the neighbourhood Brown was from), a failure to evaluate whether or nor the equipping of firearms is beneficial or not, and as brought up by you - a failure to appropriately finance the parts of society that matter the most which in this instance is the police force.

I don't want to get into hypothetical's with a real situation like this, but I cannot believe that had Wilson not had a gun, he would have died. Wilson struggled with Brown through the window of his car, and some how I find it difficult to believe that even the superhuman some of the media make Brown out to be would have been capable of killing Wilson through the window of his car without a firearm. Furthermore, if Wilson had not had his firearm, would he have really been likely to pursue Brown alone when he was already in the knowledge that Brown was in a conflictual mood, and was larger than the was? I think not, though of course I this is hypothetical so I can only reason based on deductions, but I find it highly unlikely that had Wilson not had the gun, he would have died, as I suspect it would have made him re-consider his choice to pursue Brown in the first place. When seconds count? Brown had stolen some cigarettes, he wasn't on his way to start a killing spree! Surely it is better for law enforcement to be carried out well, with justice and minimum loss of life, than for it to be done quickly? Frankly I do not find this argument compelling at all, letting a criminal walk away does not mean letting the criminal get away with the crime. Brown had already been caught on CCTV camera in the shop he had stolen from, so he would have been identifiable, enabling the police to later turn up at his house to take him into custody there, which would have likely resulted in the preservation of the latter's life. Yes, it would be inefficient, but if inefficiencies can save lives, then I'm all for them. As for the second part of what you say, based on hypothetical's like that I could justify the arrest of every pedestrian in the country - "What if that man on the sidewalk is on his way to start a school shooting?!" "What if that woman is on her way to murder her father and claim the life insurance! Better arrest her in case." Justifying a course of action that could lead to a potentially deadly conflict, based on something that the criminal might do in the future is frankly ludicrous. People who get into conflict with the police generally aren't psychopaths or serial killers, they're just angry people, let them go home, cool off a bit and turn up to the house and I suspect most would be a little more affable, then when they're being chased down. Again inefficient, but when lost lives are justified by efficiency, I believe there is a problem. Yes, that is obvious, because I've stated it, and I'm perfectly aware of it thank you. But since when has the fact that I have never been a police officer inhibit my ability to reason, it may mean I have less empirical experience, but frankly experience can lead to bias - who wants to concede that a system they have spent some of their life serving has serious problems? Also the main issue I'm talking about here is the right to bear arms, something which you certainly do not need to have been a policeman for too evaluate. Moreover, I acknowledged my ignorance of police training, so I withdrew the point I first made about training police better, psychiatric testing, etc. but my point about the issue of firearms still stands. Yes the US is far larger than the UK in which I live, it also has the 4th largest population in the world (an that's including the entire European Union which is several countries), but the size of a police force will be relative to the population. So yes, you will have a lot more people than other countries, but you'll also have a much larger force as a consequence of your larger population, it's relative, so your force should be no more stretched than any other in theory. Also, people who "aren't very nice" and don't care about gun laws aren't exclusive to the US, we have them too, and our police manage perfectly well without firearms, as do those of many other countries. I understand that laws and legislation aren't going to stop hardcore criminals getting and using firearms, but most of the people who commit crimes aren't hardcore gangsters or thugs, and most crime isn't premeditated. Look at Brown himself, he stole a packet of cigarettes, he wasn't a thug who's occupation was first-degree crime, and in virtually every country in the world petty crime levels like robbery, theft, arson and the like are far higher than levels of serious crime like murder and coercion, just look at the USA: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/1tabledatadecoverviewpdf/table_1_crime_in_the_united_states_by_volume_and_rate_per_100000_inhabitants_1994-2013.xls Most of the people the police have to deal with are just idiots who get themselves into trouble because they don't know better, they might get into fights but they're not murderers, they're not the type of people who would actively try to get access to firearms if they were illegal so they could better fulfill criminal enterprise. So of course making guns illegal won't completely remove them from the country just like adding border control won't completely prevent illegal immigration, but making them illegal would dissuade the majority of those who would own them from having them, because most people aren't hardened criminals who break a law to help break more laws, just like adding border control is going to seriously cut down on immigration than were you too simply open your borders. Something else to mention regarding this is that I've heard many a reply along the lines of "Well if most people who own guns now aren't hardened criminals, then what's wrong with them owning guns?" Well the answer to that is that if you give someone power, they feel entitled to use it, and whilst most people are not hardened criminals, most people also do not think rationally when in conflict and would therefore be far more likely to try to kill someone if they had the tools to do so. Someone in such a state of anger would not however be able to just go and get a gun if they were illegal, by the time they'd got anywhere close to even finding out how one might be smuggled or bought on a black market, they'd have probably cooled off. Also a cold war analogy is appropriate here, as people often argue that if everyone has access to firearms then the "playing field" is even, it's no different from civilians and police not carrying firearms. Sure the playing field might be even, but that doesn't justify giving both sides more power, as it'll inevitably lead to more destruction. Take men in a passionate bar fight, they'd be rather hard-pressed to kill the other one without a firearm, so realistically the most damage you'd get are so broken noses and bruises. Now add in guns, the playing field is still supposedly even, but now you could have a fatality on your hands, if not two. It's like the cold war, prior to it both the US and the USSR had huge amounts of bombs, but that didn't cause nearly the amount of panic that occurred when they both had nukes, because while they were still "even" a war between them then would have caused astronomical destruction. I simply do not believe that it is beneficial for everyone in society to have easy access to weaponry that can take lives with ease, because not only does it make conflict more destructive, but it encourages people to use such weaponry in conflict because they have it, and power also tends to encourage conflict. I also understand that such legislation would be very difficult to implement and will never get passed because of a rather silly idolisation of the founding fathers and the constitution that exists in some parts of America. The moment anyone mentions changing it people start getting worked up about ending rights and democracy, when in fact some of those "rights" are more destructive than constructive for society. Also the fact that a solution to a problem is difficult to provide doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist or shouldn't be solved, because if this were true no difficult problem will ever be solved. Then again it will still probably never happen, the arms industry is surrounded by money, and money is paramount to all in US government, but I'm arguing from principle, and in principle I have strong reason to believe the right to bear arms is problematic, is an issue for policing and society in general, and bears much responsibility in allowing events like the shooting of Michael Brown to happen.

You have zero understanding of that of which you speak. The police ARE trained..... to aim for center mass. Given that he cranked out six or eight shots in quick succession, it's a wonder that as many of them hit as did. Take a look at what happened in New York City. The police all started banging away at the guy with the gun, and NINE bystanders were hit. (that was just stupid, I don't think the actually target had even pulled his gun.... but, I may be wrong there.) In the situation the officer found himself in with Mr. Brown, he did EXACTLY as he was trained. The ONLY thing Mr. Brown would have had to do to survive this experience, would have been to not walk down the middle of the road, when the officer told him. That would have ended the situation. The cop wasn't aware that the 'gentle giant' had just forcibly robbed a store...... Michael Brown got PRECISELY what he deserved. He was stupid, and it got him dead. So much the better for the gene pool. I make two concessions: 1. I am not knowledgeable of how the American police is taught to react to incidents like this, I did not know about "Aiming for centre mass". I therefore accept that Wilson was doing his job how he has been trained to do it, and I would not hold him morally accountable for the killing. 2. I understand that Michael Brown was foolish, and that ultimately he is responsible for the consequences of his own actions. However the fact that Wilson followed his training doesn't justify what he was trained to do. I accept that under the circumstances Wilson acted according to protocol, but the fact that the protocol can result in a death when at some point in the incident Mr. Brown ran 30ft away, I find very difficult to justify. In a scenario such as this would it not be wiser to call for police back up than to pursue Mr. Brown on foot, when it has already been proven that the latter is confrontational, and so pursuit would likely lead to further confrontation? My point is, there are other options when it comes to policing like this, and I know there are because I live in a country in which the police do not carry firearms, and manage to keep law and order to much the same standard as American police do, without unnecessary deaths like this occurring. Again, I accept that in the circumstances I do not hold Wilson responsible, and that I do hold Brown responsible, but if anything can be done to prevent deaths in the pursuit of law enforcement, then why shouldn't it be? It seems to me that the idea of police no longer carrying firearms is a good one, because as Aurielius says: Well then of course you are going to shoot! But if you do not have the gun in the first place, you can't, so take away the gun and prevent the death! Don't tell me it doesn't work, the police of Britain and several other countries have never possessed firearms, and our crime rates are lower than yours: http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime Therefore the point still stands that there is an issue in the policing system, if only in terms of being able to carry firearms. I also understand why police currently need to carry firearms, because the right to bear arms in US constitution allows everybody else to. So why not change the Constitution!? I just don't understand how things like this can be justified when national changes CAN BE MADE that would prevent many of them happening, and likely lead to better country anyway. Why does everyone in America need to be able to carry around the power to take a life, in what world does that seem a sensible idea? Therefore I stand by the idea that this incident highlighted an issue in the policing system, and also a National Issue for America, even if it is only the right to bear arms. Though I still don't understand why in a situation like that it might not be wiser to call for backup, though this may be due to some ignorance on my part for how the policing system works in that regard. I also understand that even if that were an option, under the circumstances it may not be one Wilson would consider, as cognitive ability decreases under pressure, but even so that would illuminate the issue that the current policing system presents options that can lead to fatalities more easily than those that don't. So finally I accept that this incident is not necessarily the huge issue the media made it out to be, but I believe it does show the problems that the right to bear arms in a constitution can create for a country and a police force. As for my comments as to the rapport between the black communities and the police forces of many states, I stand by them. I am not saying that all police forces are racist, but I am saying that from the evidence I have there is a very clear lack of understanding between these two groups in many areas, as evidenced by occurrences like the Baltimore riots. I also believe that in the past two year there have been several black deaths related to police action, such as the one I linked in my first post, the death of Freddie Gray and older issues such as this http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wounded-17-year-old-girl-shot-dead-police-knees/ On account of these incidents I am not particularly surprised by the response the Ferguson affair had, justified or not.

This is a very good point, in reality societies that are capitalist to the extent of the USA or Japan are just as likely to make slaves of people than Communism is. The idea of Capitalism is essentially that your money works for you, but for the masses in the USA, that's simply not the case, people are made wage slaves (inadvertently or intentionally) by those whose money truly does work for them, that is, the elite. Capitalism for the masses is a delusion. I have a couple of examples in regard to this theory. 1. The first is to do with government bonds, that the French with the help of Belgium have just realised. Now, when governments such as the French need money, the can borrow from the elite of society, and by elite I don't just mean upper-class or millionaires, I'm talking about the billionaires, the absolute top of the wealth ladder, figures such as the old Bill Gates in terms of wealth. There are not actually very many of them, perhaps 200, but a fair few are invisible because of what I will describe below. When governments borrow money off such figures, they provide them with government bonds, which essentially are the promise to repay the debt over a certain period of time in equal payments, which will culminate in the ultimate repayment of the borrowed sum with some interest on top. Thing is, these bonds can take years for governments to pay back because the quantities of money involved are so huge, which means that governments will still be paying back 30 year bonds now. So now you come to the problem of what happens when past governments have used lots of bonds in the past, and your government now suddenly finds that vast sums of money are vanishing into thin air, because government bonds are being exchanged for money to be transferred into accounts. These vast sums of money that are disappearing could be used to improve society, but instead they are vanishing because of debts paid for by previous governments in bonds. So what the French have recently started to do is recall and cancel all pre-existing government bonds, and offer people new ones. So I hear you ask, what's the problem here, government's are paying debts off all the time, why bother recalling them? Well, the answer to that is that in recalling the bonds as the French have started doing, you take something from those who have the bonds - their anonymity. You see, government bonds are not taxed, which is a problem because the interest governments have to pay back on sums of money such as that they were lent is enormous. Now however, they know who is getting the money, which allows them to tax the exchange of bonds. It took a very long time for the French (alongside Belgium) to work this out, huge amounts of money were disappearing to unknown source, which was something the government found rather limiting and very concerning, as it could be going anywhere. So now that the government knows this, there are going to be problems, as the public are going to start wondering why all this money is going to the absolute global elites, and why it has been for decades anonymously, and in a country with a history like France, things are likely to happen rather dramatically. So what does this example demonstrate? It demonstrates the effect the world elite can have on governments, multiple governments and even entire countries. It demonstrates that Capitalism works for the benefit of a few, at the cost of millions. 2. So here's the second example, which demonstrates that Capitalism such as this isn't ever likely to be beaten, short of revolution. So out of all the countries in the world that have become victim to the problems of capitalism, I firmly believe that the worst is the USA. Other countries have it bad, with the work ethic of Japan leading some people to become suicidal, and the true capitalism of China leading to poor living conditions for the majority, but none are as enslaved to it as the USA is. So here's a few statistics: -91% of the time, the candidate with the most money wins the election in the USA. -66% of political donations come from 0.2% of the population. -In the last 5 years, 200 big companies in the USA have spent $5.8bn on lobbying and contribution campaigns, and the same companies have received a total of $4.4 trillion back in tax payer support. What does this show? That in America political power is completely dependent on money. The first statistic shows that money wins election campaigns, the second shows that this money comes from a tiny slice of America, and the third shows this tiny slice making enormous profits from their investment. All this, while the standards of living in the USA are declining for millions. So why does it matter, what does it matter if these companies give to the politicians? Well how do you think the politicians pay them back? They pay them back by passing and support the legislation that will benefit said companies. Politicians are selling their political power off to companies who can use it to get themselves more money, and the more political power, it's a vicious circle. Not only is it a vicious circle, but it's getting worse, because the nature of the first statistic makes it exponential: 1. A candidate gets more financial support than another and subsequently wins the election, because they had more to spend campaigning. 2. The opposing party try harder next election to raise money, get more than before, and win that election. 3. Now the first party must raise more money than the last candidate did, and so on and so forth. This means that politicians are going to become increasingly dependent on the excessively rich few, giving them more power. The fact that the rich have this degree of political power also means that nothing is likely to change, the masses will continue to suffer as the few thrive. Some groups are trying to propose solutions, as seen on the website that this information is from: https://represent.us/ Simply put, the US needs to make it illegal for those who donate to political campaigns to lobby for legislation. At the heart of this lies the argument against capitalism, which is that while capitalism can create a stable society, it is one that becomes ever more unfair, constrictive of freedom, and oppressive, as shown by the heading of the politics of the US. Capitalism is clever, it uses human desire for freedom and natural individualistic tendencies to create a society that promises to fulfill these desires, but in reality cripples both for the masses and gives surplus to the few. It is for this reason that I would prefer to live in a Communist society than a society that is as Capitalist as what the US is heading towards, because at least in a Communist society, there is fairness. It might take longer, but Capitalism can make slaves of a nation just as easily as Communism can.

Yes that's true, and history shows a strong correlation between extremist regimes and dictatorships. I don't think necessarily think Communism warrants a dictator though, in theory it should actually work better using an elected council of some kind, even if it remains a one party state.

Perhaps, though a Communist might argue that you do not need to be recognised for individual achievement to have a fulfilling life, they might even say such reward is bad as it fuels ego, which can be detrimental to society. They may say that one can feel fulfilled through materialistic gains (whatever one decides to spend their share of the state profit on) or through the knowledge that one is helping the progress of humanity by collaborating with others to make an efficient society. Certainly the latter was promoted under scientific Stalinism. I don't think extremism is ever desirable, but if I were to lean one way or another, I'd rather lean left.

Perhaps the State must then decide whether or not those who cannot care for themselves are worthy of support based on whether or not the majority of those people will be capable of contributing, i.e. Are there more Stephen Hawking's in our country or are there more Locked-In Syndrome Babies? If the latter is the case (which unfortunately it likely is for most countries) then the State might decide not to try to provide for those who cannot contribute to society based on that majority, at which point we have reached Right-Wing extremist. Either way, we're able to conclude that Right-Wing extremism is not suitable for a stable society, because it can lead to mass "euthanasia" as it did in the case of the Nazi's, and the killing of large percentages of the populace would eventually lead to a dysfunctional society (as well as being extremely immoral ofc). If we have reached this point from the right-wing principle of the State existing to create an environment in which each individual can provide for themselves by merit of their own contributions and doings, then perhaps the right-wing is not the way to go at all, as the principles behind it lead down a "slippery slope" to an extremist, dysfunctional society. In which case perhaps a left-wing society is the way to go, in which all individuals are provided for, with the possible exception of those who could contribute to society but choose not too. However, you could then flip the above on it's head for a moderate right-wing state, in which all individuals must provide for themselves, with the exception of those who cannot. Therefore there is an argument for both sides, it goes round in circles. :D Personally though I would favour the more left-wing approach, as I would expect it to be easier to create a society which supports those who cannot care for themselves, if that society was built on the understanding that one is working for the good of all, rather than for oneself with a little charity on the side. Though perhaps the latter endorses more freedom? Gracious, it never ends!

I'm neither for nor against really, I don't use them because I don't really notice children enough (or they don't bug me enough) to warrant downloading one.

Ah, very well. Suppose I make two replies: Is an individual who cannot care for themselves likely to be able to contribute to the State either? If not, then why is the State obliged to care for such people. Could this not be considered the only case in a Left-Wing Society that warrants an individual be excluded from the State? Such a society might hold that there is no inherent value in doing a certain type of work, but that there is value in working, and therefore two people doing different jobs would be of equal value, but were one of them not to work, the would be of lesser value, and hence no longer be entitled to the benefits of the state. Can a Left-Wing state hold such a view and still be considered Left-Wing, or is even this distinction too promoting of individualism? I apologise in advance, I am playing Devil's Advocate.

In the spirit of the recent British General Election, do you consider yourself more left-wing, right-wing, or central and why? I'll leave an idea about each perspective here in case it's something people haven't explored much before, but really what each of the terms mean is a matter of debate in itself. The Left-Wing will generally hold that it is the responsibility of the State to provide for all individuals within it, which is permitted by the contribution of each individual. The Right-Wing will generally hold that it is the responsibility of the State to create an environment in which every individual is able to provide for themselves by merit of their own contribution. Centre will hold that an appropriate balance of both is the optimum condition for a good and stable society. The difference I give here is subtle, but it is one of the few distinctions that is both defining of each approach and yet still agreed upon as correct by members of both groups. It's also simple to put.

If you go back to Plato, you get some very interesting concepts of truth and for those who've looked at Plato's forms you'll already know what I'm talking about. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So I can most easily explain the concept of forms using the idea of a cat: Some basic characteristics of a cat might be that it is a mammal, it is furry, it has four legs and a tail, two eyes, etc. Everyone who has ever seen a cat knows it, and even those who haven't could generally conceptualise a reasonably good-looking cat if it is described to them with enough detail in a cat's characteristics. However, each cat is different, for instance it is not unlikely that at some point in one's life one will come across a cat that lacks a full-length tail, either because it was amputated or cut off, or because of a congenital disorder. Yet, a cat with a stumpy-tail remains a cat, and if we saw such an animal on the street, we would be able to identify it as a cat. Now, the same can be said for a cat lacking one eye, or one leg, or without fur, which leads to the question of "How if something's characteristics are all variable and may or not be possessed, can we consistently identify said something as we are capable of doing?" In other words, if a cat can lack a tail, an eye, a leg, or any other characteristic we have come to associate them with, what is it that makes them a cat? Thus Plato developed the idea of forms, that is, that the world we live in is an imperfect reflection of the real world, the "true" world, the world of the forms. Plato believed that humans possess a soul, and that we once all existed in the world of the forms, before passing into the material world through some means, and that our ability to identify and associating things of the same type but with different characteristics is a remnant of our time in the world of the forms. Now in theory, the world of the forms should therefore contain the true essence of everything, a form of everything, such as the form of a cat. It is from our knowledge of such a form that we are able to identify all cats as being cats, despite them not necessarily having all the characteristics we associate them with. Imperfections in our world come through the clarity of the forms being lost in the reflection of the world of the forms, and our ability to forget what we knew when we were in the world of the forms. So to Plato and his followers, truth could be well be considered something that does not exist in our world, but rather that our world is a reflection of the true world of the forms, which is immaterial. It's worth noting here that I have had to oversimplify and leave out certain parts of Plato's theory of the forms, but it's all covered in Plato's Republic, and also in Plato's Analogy of the Cave. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So that's one ancient philosophical take on truth. There are plenty more, for instance Aristotle (unlike his mentor Plato) was more concerned with the a posteriori (that is, the empirical, the material) and might therefore hold that the world in which live now and everything we can sense is an embodiment of truth, and that what is untrue are abstract concepts, that have no empirical place in the world. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personally, I don't think truth can be quantified by human logic, for instance take the phrase "Truth exists". Now if the phrase is not right or incorrect, then truth does not exist. However if you hold the phrase to be correct, then you are holding it to be untrue, and for you to hold a privation of truth to be such a thing you must first hold truth to be such a thing as to exist, thus in accepting the statement you are in fact begging the question (that is, your proof of something's existence relies on the assumption that it does in fact already exist). Therefore we take the first statement to be true, that truth does not exist. However yet again we are begging the question, simply one step more quickly. We are saying the statement is incorrect and is therefore untrue and again to assert a privation of something we must first assert that this something exists, else there can be no lack of it because it itself is lacking. Therefore the first option is also disputing the existence of truth on the unaccounted for assumption that truth already exists. Hence truth both exists and does not exist, is self-contradictory, illogical, and cannot be quantified by human logic.

I have an issue with calling them "Islamic Extremist Terrorists" because I am highly cynical of anybody's motives when it comes to doing so. You see, if Terrorism is simply the use of violence or coercion to achieve one's ends (which I believe it is), then whether or not somebody is a terrorist is completely irrelevant of their reasons, rather, it is dependent solely on their method of purveying their views. Therefore a terrorist who belongs to ISIS, a terrorist who is in the KKK, a terrorist acting on behalf of a government, are all equally terrorists, the reasons or motives for their actions are surely irrelevant of how we label them, as it is their methods that define the label. Hence, while I understand why labelling members of ISIS "Islamic Extremist Terrorists" can be perfectly innocent (for example as a media headline "Terrorist beheads US Journalist" would be rather ineffective, as it could refer to numerous different events and is not as informative as the context warrants) I am generally against it being used. This is because outside of certain contexts such as media or education, I don't believe it productive to quantify any morally reprehensible person using their motives and actions, instead of just their actions. If a person commits first-degree murder, they are a first-degree murderer, regardless of motivation or creed, and as such should be as addressed as such. Furthermore, I believe that including information such as "Islamic Extremist" before terrorist, often comes from a less than savoury motivation. That is I believe that it is frequently done out of a desire to subliminally discredit Islam by associating morally reprehensible people with views that are held by many, the majority of which do not conform to the same mould as the terrorists in question. The same can be said for many such groups and labels. I would also point out that one can use most anything as an excuse for "evil" actions, and thus the use of including the motive in the labelling of one's actions is made further irrelevant, as the action is not a reflection of the motive, rather the one who commits it. I would conclude with the exception that I would not condemn the use of such labels on a purely educational basis, that is, were a school History text-book to describe an ISIS terrorist as an Islamic Extremist Terrorist, I would not complain, as the only likely motive for doing so would be to give information to the reader in the most concise method possible. However I believe that in modern society there are very few such outlets, with virtually all of the media having some agenda, political or otherwise, thus I generally object to the use of label's such as this, because I believe that a good justification for their use is very rare.

Hmm, upon reviewing the rules I'd certainly try and get permission, I can quote this from here: "All files uploaded must have been created by the uploader or used with permission from the original author of the content. If you cannot provide proof of consent when asked then your file will be removed and your account is likely to be banned. ALWAYS CREDIT WORK THAT ISN'T YOURS If you have received permission to use someone elses assets in your files you should always credit them. If you don't credit assets you've used from other users you will be considered a thief and you're likely to be banned; so it's very important you credit the work of others that you have used. Note: crediting other people's work does not entitle you to use their work. You must always get permission from the creator of the work first before you upload it to the site." http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/771842-copyright-and-you/

It depends on the permissions for the mod in question, if the permissions for KS were indeed free use when credit is given, you'll probably be fine, and as it's taken down nobody's going to complain. It might still be worth contacting the author if possible, but I'd probably say it is safe. That being said, if the author removed the mod to protect intellectual property, don't be surprised if Nexus do take anything with it in down, they'll try and respect the authors rights regardless of what platforms they post on, as the should. Overall though, I think you should be safe unless the author themselves have a problem with it.

What Steve says, GetGoldValue returns the gold value of a form, but as objectrefence scripts extend form scripts, you should be able to use it for an object reference. In the case of modified items, make sure the property you're using to hold the item points to an object reference and not a form.

I really appreciate the offer. I'd accept, but it's quite difficult to manage. IF any more than one is really working on it at the same time, I have to keep merging plugins or use Version Control which I've no idea how to set up. I may take you up on your offer on looking over scripts at some point. Or ask for some advice. If you're interested in working on projects you could check out Beyond Skyrim, they're looking for scripters. Of course, you offered for IQ and noAt them but if you're interested they're hosted on Dark Creations. Thank you again. Ah no problem, I'm quite used to group efforts becoming rather inefficient. I'm not looking for projects particularly, and am already involved in a couple, now is just a quiet phase and trying to find time-filler. If you ever do want me to look over anything, don't hesitate to send me it out of the blue. Thank you.