<sexy voice> Would you remove my body?

<confused introspection wondering what I just said>

<outward commitment to original ambiguous statement to avoid perceived social stigma>

<ponderance of self-reflective statements in the comments of a long-dead philosophical video>

Sigh. What a sad day to have to read the likes of you.

I didn't know there was a strict definition. I asked a question and pondered some answers. Oh no! There world is ending. Why do you have to be a continual callow fool about such things? You'll note I didn't jump to google (like others do) to quickly look up a definition (I chose not to). I don't like using google as a false extension of my knowledge like others do. I like to have a good discussion using only the knowledge I have at that instant. But instead we all have to suffer people like you who jump in keyboard blazing "you're wrong on a thing and therefore you're an inferior fucktard who doesn't deserve to be here" instead of going "Actually, there is a strict definition of assault rifle. It's defined as...". Do you see the difference? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need to learn to control your emotions. As an adult you should have learned this by now. You may believe you are communicating effectively but you are not. You are abrasive and abusive to anyone and everyone on far to regular a basis. You should be ashamed of yourself but I doubt you have the introspection to see your flaws.

The most irritating thing about having to point this out is that, now with strict definition in hand (provided by you), I can point out that instead of you telling Digitalfiend there is a strict definition and that "assault rifles" are already heavily restricted (as you should have pointed out), that I have to point it out to him instead.

And yes, I was already familiar with the studies I quoted previously - I have previously researched the topic of gun control in Australia.

"Why must you feign being so obtuse and naive as a pretext to sesquipedalian and pedantic argument of your own creation?"

Please stop making things up. The second you see what you consider a mistake you jump in with bullshit like this thinking you are going in for the kill. You're laughable and you're making life hard for yourself.

Shotguns aren't rifles? No shit Sherlock. It was an example of where semi-automatic is better. Semi-automatics are better than pump guns. You're dreaming if you think they're even in the same league. Duck hunting is better with a semi-automatic.

The only person who said anything about "Indiscriminately pumping animals, even nuisance animals full of lead" is you. I don't know where you learned to hunt but I learned one shot one kill. And a semi-automatic makes this more efficient (and if you do need a backup shot it comes very quickly). Most pest animals are left to rot. It's too much trouble picking up the carcasses (and often legislated that you must leave them where they drop). If you don't know how to hunt then leave it to the people who do, please (it's so easy to turn your words around).

Trapping, baiting, etc. are others methods that work well in varying circumstances.

Choosing a pump gun over a semi-auto is a beginners mistake. The spread of buckshot or home defense rounds at close quarters is fairly low and you must always aim your firearm properly. In a home defense situation, anyone who is relying on the spread of shotgun pellets to hit their target is a terrible marksman and should consider getting some lessons. You get the same loading sound from a semi-automatic when you let the bolt go forward. I don't know of any data to support the notion that the loading sound scares people away. It has some merit though.

Now, as usual for me I'll be busy for the next 4 months (back at work this morning - I shouldn't even be replying to this but I thought - "hey, I've gotta throw a dog a bone"). I may or may not get to reply to the expected vehemence to come. Have fun howling at the wind. Don't worry, you're views are the immutable truth and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and you're insults are totally the best (snigger).

Weird. I get the sense that from the perspective of the author of the question, he's taking the specifics too literally; sort of the opposite of how people try to weasel out of introspection when confronted with things like the trolley problem ("I'd pull the lever, AND shout as loud as I could to try to warn the guy", etc.).

To me, the idea is not to be worried about things like accidental use of the power, whether or not you know/believe that you have the power, etc. Assume that you have the power, you are aware that you have it, and that there is no risk of accidentally triggering it. Would you use it?

I can say with near certainty that I would have used it when I was younger; faced with situations like the experience he had with the bully when he was 13. I might have given it up after a single use, when firsthand confronted with the reality of it. Or I might easily have descended into the depths of utter evil, and eventually started using it casually, for offenses real or imagined.

If I got the power NOW, I think it is fairly likely that I would never use it. I'd be strongly tempted, though.

"if someone had been able to take Hitler aside BEFORE all the horrors of WW2 and been able to convince him to lay off the genocide"

This is the pacifists dilemma though. There were numerous attempts to sway hitler from his course. Neville Chamberlain famously celebrating the Munich Agreement. At the end of the day, you can't peacefully stop someone if they are intent on causing violence.

I don't think you can really go down this road, either. It's a fun thought experiment, but it requires knowledge you only have once it's too late. You can't talk to the one kid who will grow up to be adolf hitler. There's very likely one out there now that we can't stop because we don't know them.

"At that point, violence is your only recourse to stop the atrocities."

The pacifist's dilemma and this combined, to me, put this in a morally ambiguous place. If you accept that you can't stop someone bent on violence, and nazis arrive announcing that they are, then is it better for a little violence, visited upon those who pursue violent ends? Or is it better that we wait and see the violence occur before we react to it?

On further introspection, i think both of our positions exist in a similar ambiguity - you need to know who to speak to before you know who to speak to, and i need to know who to correctively punch before i know who to correctively punch. Yours might be better for short term, worse for long term. Mine might be worse for short term, better for long term.

In truth, i probably lean more towards agreeing with you, but i'm trying to point out that even though we think "be civil" is the best option, it doesn't have any divine right to be the best option. The best option (we would probably agree) is the one that causes the least overall harm, and we don't *know* what that is, and never can. I think it's important we reconsider accepted wisdom like that. (which is really why i decided to argue it..in honesty, i probably feel the same as you; disapprove but not loudly. My main problem with the position i'm taking is - how do you *stop* the nazi punchers once the nazis are suitably punched? And when do i become the nazi?)

@transmorpher
"leaving yourself and your loved ones open to the same treatment next time someone disagrees with one of your views."

I made it very clear in earlier comments that i'm only ok with someone being punched if they are openly calling for genocide and death to people. I'm ok with you ripping that argument apart (because i think it can be.. i'm leaving myself open on purpose), but that isn't what you've done. I don't accept there's an equivalence between my harmless beliefs and a genocidal maniac's.

That's true. And only a racist would celebrate racists, right?

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

Time for Americans to do some real introspection. Slavery isn't acceptable because the founding fathers did it. Considering the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they penned, it seems all the worse that they could recognise the evil slavery was yet still profit from it (and they're not suddenly good people because they released some of their slaves, or released them after they died).

I think making sure history is well recorded and taught correctly is more important than tearing down a statue. If a statue or monument is left up then it needs to clearly state the history of the subject and how they were on the "wrong side of history".

I think it is possible to recognise the good and bad that an individual has done.

To be sure, we're in deep yogurt even if everyone learns their lessons.


Perhaps the DNC and the Clintonphillic will learn theirs, then there could still be hope next time, even if those independents with high ethical standards refuse to lower them.
Sadly, that's certainly not the case yet, they're still stuck playing a useless blame game instead of being introspective and working on their issues. That course leads directly to more losses. They will never blame, guilt, or shame their way to a win, so the direction needs to change.

Meh, I would have had to watch more than 15 seconds of that video to really reply thoughtfully to your comment. Turns out, 15 seconds is all it took to realize the presenter was full of shit.

:-)

I feel no shame for eating cheese. I feel no shame for eating the eggs that my backyard chickens produce. I don't even feel shame when I occasionally have to wring one for getting sick or old...I just don't relish the necessity.
I didn't feel shame when I ate the freezer full of beef from the cow my kids had named. (Man-Eating-Cow, if you're interested)

I do have shame in my life. Any life lived fully and introspectively will include some moments of shame. But none of those moments have anything to do with consuming the food my body needs to survive. Or even the foods I don't need to survive...but really enjoy.

This has way more value than I expected it to.

*promote

Recognizing a universal lack of introspection as a human being is a great step toward not being a douche.

I was thinking much the same thing. I think he's hamming it up a bit to suit the show, but that was some pretty deep honest introspection there, along with an almighty well of angst.

I'm starting to get why people vote for Trump. To throw a radical in to the equation, for better or worse. It's a gamble, and it's likely going to turn out bad if he wins the presidency, but it's not like the establishment is going to magically reform itself...

And though it's his show and he's trying to run it, I though Colbert was actually ruining it a little bit. It became apparently pretty early in that Bill was talking from the heart for a change (rather than shooting from the hip), it might be worthwhile listening.

"Oh shit, am I the dumb?"

Redeemed by some nice introspection.

Jesus fucking christ, how did this abortion ever get green lit?

Way to completely and utterly miss the point of a franchise.

What's next? The next Raid to be a slow-paced, dialogue heavy introspection into the nuances of Indonesian geopolitics?
Does the drummer in Whiplash 2 join a metal band?

Every single thing about this is just stupid, from the soundtrack* to the lame attempt to give Chris Pine Kirks haircut. Fuck, I haven't even mentioned anything about the direction or the story yet.

@CrushBug, don't take this personally, but if there was a way to unpromote or anti-quality I would use every single point I earned on this abomination.

Look, if you want to make an awesome action movie in space with a kick arse soundtrack, great! Sign me the fuck up for that one. In fact, I watched it last year, it was called Guardians of the Galaxy and I loved it.

But that's not what Star Trek is about. Why would you even bother spending money on the licence? It's not that you can't even make a great Trek movie with decent action beats (First Contact nailed both), but Star Trek is supposed to be a tiny bit more thoughtful.

Fuck everything about this.


* I love the Beastie Boys and Sabotage is a great song, but it fits Star Trek about as well as smooth jazz would fit the next Avengers.

Honest introspection is the hardest thing... =)

Considering the dick-waiving that the whole Star Trek vs Star Wars thing always devolves into, I actually enjoyed the light-heartedness of this skit.

That said, the purpose of the stories told by each is meant to be completely different. That Star Wars goes for the simpler, classic hero's journey doesn't make it a lesser work, it just has a more singular focus, and the original trilogy did it well. But when you have a strong foundation like that, you really can't expand on it without losing a lot of the charm of the basic story. That's part of why the sequels were so disappointing. They couldn't retell the hero's journey without being a rehash, and by focusing on the hero's downfall, they had to up the complexity of the plot. But how complex can you make a plot before it just drags the movie down? (The exception was Clone Wars, which was able to circumvent this because it had more space to tell the story.)

This is why I am fairly certain that the new Star Wars movies will be lacking. They can either go the simple route and end up with a rehash, or the complex route, and end up with a similar mess to the prequels. There's a fine line they need to ride in order to make a good set of movies, but there are a lot of things working against them, from the expectations of the Star Wars fans, to the concessions writers have to make to appeal to the mass audience of modern movies. (To say nothing of Abrams, whose insultingly abysmal treatment of Star Trek gives me little confidence.)

Now on the Star Trek end, the stories are meant to be more complex, with commentaries on philosophy, modern politics, and the human condition (as well as showing the unique technological possibilities that the future held). Most of the stories were designed for introspection, and that's a major part of what made the show popular.

But if you lose that introspection and focus on action and special effects, the stories become empty. This is why many of the later movies, which again had to focus on mass appeal, were so lacking. (Movies like Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, Generations, and First Contact avoided this because they were able to draw on the richness of the show to round out the themes they were trying to express, but even still, they weren't quite up to par to the shows when it came to the fundamental concepts of Star Trek.) The same goes for much of Voyager and Enterprise, which often ended up going more for appeal than intellect. (Perhaps the writers ran out of things to say, perhaps the audience just got dumber, who knows.)

So in the end, which one is nerdier? Star Trek, hands down, and as ChaosEngine said, it's a good thing.

Which one is better? That depends on what kind of story you're looking for.

But in the end, there's no denying . . .


Riker is a freaking boss.

That's a lot of introspection there, Vi.

Many (most?) dictionaries suggest that a belief of superiority is necessary for racism, not just noticing differences.

In the end, though, I don't think it's worth arguing too much about the vocabulary. Obviously I'm in the minority with this opinion. See:

1) The internet
2) People paying $40,000/year to define and discuss different forms of injustice at your local elite university

For my money, a little introspection and the golden rule goes a lot farther than labeling for every thought you have and everything you say.