Manhunt On for Road Rage Shooter

[Ringel05]

I am so glad they caught this guy. I have seen were these creeps get away Scott free. I don't own a car any more, I bike to work now. I see what total and oblivious jerks motorist can be. Last time I drove, (in a loaner) Yesterday, that was, July 7th.some idiot trucker played games with me. It isn't a competition, peeps, share the freakin' road. vehicles are also weapons, too.

Yanno --- and this is telling, referring right back to the root of the issue --- I can almost always tell the gender of a driver on the road who's too far away to see, by how they drive. The males will be the ones passing cars for no other reason than that "there's a car up there, therefore I must pass it".

This testosteronic mentality finds its way all the way down to my GPS, if this isn't too much of a stretch, which, given a destination, automatically assumes that my goal is to get there in the fastest way possible. As if I'm driving to "win" some "competition".

It's Males and their need to dominate, people talk about women as bad drivers? I remember thirty years ago, people where a lot more civil. More courteous and nobody shot each other for a mistake. People used their bloody turn signals, and did the speed limit Back then, we managed to get over slights and mistakes and even egregious stuff, and nobody feared maniacs in multi ton weapons packing an other weapon . I think we need to ban cars. That would be the solution to pollution and the urban sprawl.

There are multiple factors but one explanation (at least partially) is ethologist John Calhoun's Behavioral Sink. Overpopulation is one factor that can turn individuals into monsters but there is also impulse surrender, learned helplessness and dystopian paranoia.

 

[Ringel05]

I could care less what others claimed about Costas, psychological knee jerk reactions to his broadcast based on the (still) continuing battle over guns.

When virtually EVERY iteration of the same video describes it as a "gun CONTROL rant", despite the plain fact that there's literally not a word about "gun control" in there, it speaks much about the very culture that the commentary is in fact pointing out. What you or I think the commentary is about, is irrelevant. The fact that the whole country seems bent on inserting content that isn't there, pointedly proves its whole point.

As for the 'I can deal with this by shooting at it' isn't a glorification of guns

Of course it is. What else shoots? Cotton candy?

As for the first you're looking for logic in an illogical response, obviously many believed gun control was implied, normal psychological reaction within a highly emotive and contentious issue.
As for the second statement, that's called self bias construction/rationalization. It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.

 

[MaryL]

I will be real here. We NEED cars, even though car accidents overwhelmingly kill more Americans that gun violence. Guns are basically toys, consumer products with no intrinsic value. They do a lot of harm, beyond their necessity.

 

[Pogo]

I could care less what others claimed about Costas, psychological knee jerk reactions to his broadcast based on the (still) continuing battle over guns.

When virtually EVERY iteration of the same video describes it as a "gun CONTROL rant", despite the plain fact that there's literally not a word about "gun control" in there, it speaks much about the very culture that the commentary is in fact pointing out. What you or I think the commentary is about, is irrelevant. The fact that the whole country seems bent on inserting content that isn't there, pointedly proves its whole point.

As for the 'I can deal with this by shooting at it' isn't a glorification of guns

Of course it is. What else shoots? Cotton candy?

As for the first you're looking for logic in an illogical response, obviously many believed gun control was implied, normal psychological reaction within a highly emotive and contentious issue.
As for the second statement, that's called self bias construction/rationalization. It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.

In number one, obviously an illogical response that proves at the very least that people aren't even listening to the very video they just uploaded. That's another social problem we have --- people not listening and plugging in their preconceptions (and then when it's pointed out, sinking into absolute self-delusion). But that's got nothing to do with Gun Culture ---- does it?

And in number two, you didn't answer the question. What else shoots besides a gun? A basketball player?

 

[Pogo]

I will be real here. We NEED cars, even though car accidents overwhelmingly kill more Americans that gun violence. Guns are basically toys, consumer products with no intrinsic value. They do a lot of harm, beyond their necessity.

Of course the flaw in the implied comparison is that guns are supposed to do harm --- that's what they're designed to do. If a firearm is incapable of doing harm, it's not working. That's exactly why we call them "arms".

Cars only do harm accidentally, like most things.

They call cigarettes the only product that when used as designed and intended, kills the user. But even cigarettes aren't deliberately designed to do that.

 

[Ringel05]

I could care less what others claimed about Costas, psychological knee jerk reactions to his broadcast based on the (still) continuing battle over guns.

When virtually EVERY iteration of the same video describes it as a "gun CONTROL rant", despite the plain fact that there's literally not a word about "gun control" in there, it speaks much about the very culture that the commentary is in fact pointing out. What you or I think the commentary is about, is irrelevant. The fact that the whole country seems bent on inserting content that isn't there, pointedly proves its whole point.

As for the 'I can deal with this by shooting at it' isn't a glorification of guns

Of course it is. What else shoots? Cotton candy?

As for the first you're looking for logic in an illogical response, obviously many believed gun control was implied, normal psychological reaction within a highly emotive and contentious issue.
As for the second statement, that's called self bias construction/rationalization. It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.

In number one, obviously an illogical response that proves at the very least that people aren't even listening to the very video they just uploaded. That's another social problem we have --- people not listening and plugging in their preconceptions (and then when it's pointed out, sinking into absolute self-delusion). But that's got nothing to do with Gun Culture ---- does it?

And in number two, you didn't answer the question. What else shoots besides a gun? A basketball player?

Rationalized deflection. Sorry Pogo but even you are controlled by your own bias, ya can't escape it unless you chose to.

 

[MaryL]

I will be real here. We NEED cars, even though car accidents overwhelmingly kill more Americans that gun violence. Guns are basically toys, consumer products with no intrinsic value. They do a lot of harm, beyond their necessity.

Of course the flaw in the implied comparison is that guns are supposed to do harm --- that's what they're designed to do. If a firearm is incapable of doing harm, it's not working. That's exactly why we call them "arms".

Cars only do harm accidentally, like most things.

They call cigarettes the only product that when used as designed and intended, kills the user. But even cigarettes aren't deliberately designed to do that.

I wish you knew how much that post resonates with me.

 

[Ringel05]

I could care less what others claimed about Costas, psychological knee jerk reactions to his broadcast based on the (still) continuing battle over guns.

When virtually EVERY iteration of the same video describes it as a "gun CONTROL rant", despite the plain fact that there's literally not a word about "gun control" in there, it speaks much about the very culture that the commentary is in fact pointing out. What you or I think the commentary is about, is irrelevant. The fact that the whole country seems bent on inserting content that isn't there, pointedly proves its whole point.

As for the 'I can deal with this by shooting at it' isn't a glorification of guns

Of course it is. What else shoots? Cotton candy?

As for the first you're looking for logic in an illogical response, obviously many believed gun control was implied, normal psychological reaction within a highly emotive and contentious issue.
As for the second statement, that's called self bias construction/rationalization. It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.

In number one, obviously an illogical response that proves at the very least that people aren't even listening to the very video they just uploaded. That's another social problem we have --- people not listening and plugging in their preconceptions (and then when it's pointed out, sinking into absolute self-delusion). But that's got nothing to do with Gun Culture ---- does it?

And in number two, you didn't answer the question. What else shoots besides a gun? A basketball player?

Rationalized deflection. Sorry Pogo but even you are controlled by your own bias, ya can't escape it unless you chose to.

Ironic as hell people with a pro gun bias condemn bias. I guess it depends on your perspective, boy-o.

All of us humans have biases, nothing ironic about it. All us humans utilize availability heuristics and confirmation bias to differing degrees, the real trick is recognizing it in ourselves and fighting it as best as possible something the vast majority will never do. It takes real strength of character to even look for it let alone confront it and even those of us who do don't always succeed, we're still human. As for highly emotive issues unless one can separate the emotive from the logic then one will always be influenced by the emotive (even unconsciously) but again we are emotive creatures and not purely logical "Vulcans" so emulating Spock is nearly impossible for us. However that said it doesn't mean we can't recognize and separate the emotive if we choose to and by doing so minimize the need for rationalization though again most will never do that which is plainly obvious on this board daily.

 

[Pogo]

I could care less what others claimed about Costas, psychological knee jerk reactions to his broadcast based on the (still) continuing battle over guns.

When virtually EVERY iteration of the same video describes it as a "gun CONTROL rant", despite the plain fact that there's literally not a word about "gun control" in there, it speaks much about the very culture that the commentary is in fact pointing out. What you or I think the commentary is about, is irrelevant. The fact that the whole country seems bent on inserting content that isn't there, pointedly proves its whole point.

As for the 'I can deal with this by shooting at it' isn't a glorification of guns

Of course it is. What else shoots? Cotton candy?

As for the first you're looking for logic in an illogical response, obviously many believed gun control was implied, normal psychological reaction within a highly emotive and contentious issue.
As for the second statement, that's called self bias construction/rationalization. It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.

In number one, obviously an illogical response that proves at the very least that people aren't even listening to the very video they just uploaded. That's another social problem we have --- people not listening and plugging in their preconceptions (and then when it's pointed out, sinking into absolute self-delusion). But that's got nothing to do with Gun Culture ---- does it?

And in number two, you didn't answer the question. What else shoots besides a gun? A basketball player?

Rationalized deflection. Sorry Pogo but even you are controlled by your own bias, ya can't escape it unless you chose to.

Isn't a "bias" -- it's a simple definition. What shoots? Answer -- guns. Well, and penises but that's sort of a different thing. Sort of.

Philosophically, if penises did not exist ---- would guns?

 

[Pogo]

I will be real here. We NEED cars, even though car accidents overwhelmingly kill more Americans that gun violence. Guns are basically toys, consumer products with no intrinsic value. They do a lot of harm, beyond their necessity.

Of course the flaw in the implied comparison is that guns are supposed to do harm --- that's what they're designed to do. If a firearm is incapable of doing harm, it's not working. That's exactly why we call them "arms".

Cars only do harm accidentally, like most things.

They call cigarettes the only product that when used as designed and intended, kills the user. But even cigarettes aren't deliberately designed to do that.

I wish you knew how much that post resonates with me.

 

[Ringel05]

I could care less what others claimed about Costas, psychological knee jerk reactions to his broadcast based on the (still) continuing battle over guns.

When virtually EVERY iteration of the same video describes it as a "gun CONTROL rant", despite the plain fact that there's literally not a word about "gun control" in there, it speaks much about the very culture that the commentary is in fact pointing out. What you or I think the commentary is about, is irrelevant. The fact that the whole country seems bent on inserting content that isn't there, pointedly proves its whole point.

As for the 'I can deal with this by shooting at it' isn't a glorification of guns

Of course it is. What else shoots? Cotton candy?

As for the first you're looking for logic in an illogical response, obviously many believed gun control was implied, normal psychological reaction within a highly emotive and contentious issue.
As for the second statement, that's called self bias construction/rationalization. It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.

In number one, obviously an illogical response that proves at the very least that people aren't even listening to the very video they just uploaded. That's another social problem we have --- people not listening and plugging in their preconceptions (and then when it's pointed out, sinking into absolute self-delusion). But that's got nothing to do with Gun Culture ---- does it?

And in number two, you didn't answer the question. What else shoots besides a gun? A basketball player?

Rationalized deflection. Sorry Pogo but even you are controlled by your own bias, ya can't escape it unless you chose to.

Isn't a "bias" -- it's a simple definition. What shoots? Answer -- guns. Well, and penises but that's sort of a different thing. Sort of.

Philosophically, if penises did not exist ---- would guns?

So you do narrow the discussion when it suits your purpose.......... Uummmmm........

 

[iceberg]

oldlady i dont think any terms are generally acceptable cause of a few,reasons:

1) the media never gets the gun type correct. more often than not they call every scary looking gun "assault" which USED to have a specific meaning. fully automatic being their favorite
2) odds of any person using fully automatic is very rare, very hard to even own fully automatic.
3) the term assault rifle changes as the left needs it to. sound familiar? you tell me when does a gun become "assault"? what characteristics are,needed? when those characteristics go beyond ar15 the left tends to get mad n say "you know what i mean" and how could i when they dont?

not diminishing gun voilence but so far mass murders in the last year have been done with knives, guns, vehicles, and so much more.

but the left tends to see GUN PROBLEM while,the right sees VIOLENCE PROBLEM.

why do we not cry out for banning all things used to kill?

Because "things" ain't the issue. How we view those things is.
"Things" are not inherently violent. Violence is an act, not a thing.

so we agree trying to ban guns is stupid. got it.

 

[iceberg]

oldlady i dont think any terms are generally acceptable cause of a few,reasons:

1) the media never gets the gun type correct. more often than not they call every scary looking gun "assault" which USED to have a specific meaning. fully automatic being their favorite
2) odds of any person using fully automatic is very rare, very hard to even own fully automatic.
3) the term assault rifle changes as the left needs it to. sound familiar? you tell me when does a gun become "assault"? what characteristics are,needed? when those characteristics go beyond ar15 the left tends to get mad n say "you know what i mean" and how could i when they dont?

not diminishing gun voilence but so far mass murders in the last year have been done with knives, guns, vehicles, and so much more.

but the left tends to see GUN PROBLEM while,the right sees VIOLENCE PROBLEM.

why do we not cry out for banning all things used to kill?

Definitions of words change with common usage and understanding is my only point. When writing legislation, it is important to define your terms carefully. When a tv broadcaster uses the term "assault rifle" we know he is talking about a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, and we know that is a gun which has been designed to fire multiple, loads of, bullets in a minute. If they were aimed at you, I believe you would rightly term it an assault.
Yes?

you are a teacher, correct? is the terminology used in the teaching world specific to things? it has been at times when i was a part of it. mechanics use a specific terminology, pest control, police - all "sub-cultures" do.

to go in and start changing the words around cause you don't like them - how would you take it coming your way? no attempt to understand, just say "that's wrong - change it".

and when a tv announcer uses "assault rifle" i assume he's stupid as shit and doesn't know what he's talking about. again - define the word and the guns by characteristics that fall under this term?

"long rifle" is now coming into popularity and at least it's more correct and tries to define things.

when ANY journalist says "automatic weapons used" my first thought is they looked at the gun and made stupid assumptions. yes the AR15 looks like the M4. but go ahead and run out to cabelas and ask to buy an automatic weapons. pawn shop. gun show. hell, go anywhere that sells guns and ask to buy an automatic weapon and tell me your results.

highly illegal for the average persona and requires specific licensing to own one and the FBI pretty much puts you on their WATCH FOREVER list. so the odds of the average person getting a fully automatic weapon is awfully remote but it sure does pump up the drama of the shooting now doesn't it?

for grins, go look at all mass shootings in the last 20 years. now tell me how many of them actually used an "automatic" weapon?

i'll tell you 0 now to save you the time but feel free to check my facts.

as for writing legislation yes you have to use terms correctly which is why people who are gun-ignorant should NOT be writing these laws. period. end of story. when they don't know a magazine is reusable and think banning high capacity ones will get rid of them after they're used - they need to sit down, shut up, and stop showing off stupidity. colorado, google it. quite funny actually.

so while your understanding of the terms is to change as you understand the topic at hand, again, do you work to understand how it is FIRST or say "i disagree and your terminology sucks, THIS is what that really is"? and expect to be taken seriously?

the terms change for the most part because the gun-grabbling liberals don't understand what they're grabbing and don't want to. they just want them gone so call them whatever it takes to achieve that goal.

see it daily on most of what they do actually.

now again - define the characteristics of an assault rifle? when do we go from "rifle" to "assault"?

and by the definition you just gave me for what you consider an assault rifle, these qualify also:

and oddly enough:

all those qualify. care to redefine?

What in the wide wide world of **** frickin' DIFFERENCE does it make what kind of firearm is involved?

If you're hit by a drunk driver are you gonna stand around arguing over whether the drunk was driving a Silverado or an S10? Does that somehow heal your injuries?

are you trying to ban either vehicle? if not, you have zero point. move on, son. you're not even in the scope of the conversation and making no sense.

 

[iceberg]

>> It was during the peak of the homebound commute, witnesses said, that they saw a dangerous “cat-and-mouse game” in which two motorists were jockeying for positions on a quarter-mile stretch of highway where two lanes become one.


When it was over, an 18-year-old college-bound Chester County girl was dead, her family and friends were devastated, and a nationwide manhunt had begun for the driver of a faded red pickup who shot and killed Bianca Roberson in what police said was a road rage murder.

“This homicide was completely senseless,” said West Goshen Police Chief Joseph Gleason. “A beautiful young lady of 18 years of age, in the prime of her life, getting ready to go off to college. And for reasons that are incomprehensible to me, the family is now planning her funeral instead of a going-away party for college.”

More than 20 investigators were sorting through hundreds of leads by email and phone from across the country, collecting video clips, and canvassing the streets for clues to what happened on the Route 100 bypass at about 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. Police Capt. Gregory Stone called the incident a “heartless” act unlike any he’d witnessed in his 32-year career.

Police have retrieved and reviewed video footage from PennDot cameras just moments before the shooting, Noone said. Still images can be viewed on the Crime Stoppers webpage.

.... Authorities on Friday announced a $5,000 Crimestoppers reward and urged anyone with information to contact police at 610-696-7400 or detectives@westgoshen.org.

“This is going to come down, ladies and gentlemen, to assistance by the public,” Gleason said. “The family deserves this. Society in general deserves this.” << --- Philly.com​

He shot a stranger dead, for the purpose of getting ten feet further ahead on an exit ramp.

But what's important to remember is, "we don't have a gun problem".



theHawk

June seventh I was involved in a traffic incident. A bored trucker playing games, like a mad max or that movie "Duel" by Steven Spielberg. Going slow, I go to pass he speeds Up. For miles this went on. I got past the jerk, he tail gates me, I used the nearest ramp and got the hell out of there. It still scares me. Road rage dosen't explain that. But IF I could have shot the asshole that did that, I would have, people in 30,000 lb. vehicles intimidate little old people, and frighten and anger them this much, what the hell is wrong with people now? Vehicles are also weapons, they kill more people than guns.

except if you shoot him a 30k lb vehicle is now gonna plow into someone who had nothing to do with it.

 

[Pogo]

oldlady i dont think any terms are generally acceptable cause of a few,reasons:

1) the media never gets the gun type correct. more often than not they call every scary looking gun "assault" which USED to have a specific meaning. fully automatic being their favorite
2) odds of any person using fully automatic is very rare, very hard to even own fully automatic.
3) the term assault rifle changes as the left needs it to. sound familiar? you tell me when does a gun become "assault"? what characteristics are,needed? when those characteristics go beyond ar15 the left tends to get mad n say "you know what i mean" and how could i when they dont?

not diminishing gun voilence but so far mass murders in the last year have been done with knives, guns, vehicles, and so much more.

but the left tends to see GUN PROBLEM while,the right sees VIOLENCE PROBLEM.

why do we not cry out for banning all things used to kill?

Because "things" ain't the issue. How we view those things is.
"Things" are not inherently violent. Violence is an act, not a thing.

so we agree trying to ban guns is stupid. got it.

So you're just now catching on to that point after five years of my posting it.
Baby steps I guess.....

 

[Pogo]

oldlady i dont think any terms are generally acceptable cause of a few,reasons:

1) the media never gets the gun type correct. more often than not they call every scary looking gun "assault" which USED to have a specific meaning. fully automatic being their favorite
2) odds of any person using fully automatic is very rare, very hard to even own fully automatic.
3) the term assault rifle changes as the left needs it to. sound familiar? you tell me when does a gun become "assault"? what characteristics are,needed? when those characteristics go beyond ar15 the left tends to get mad n say "you know what i mean" and how could i when they dont?

not diminishing gun voilence but so far mass murders in the last year have been done with knives, guns, vehicles, and so much more.

but the left tends to see GUN PROBLEM while,the right sees VIOLENCE PROBLEM.

why do we not cry out for banning all things used to kill?

Definitions of words change with common usage and understanding is my only point. When writing legislation, it is important to define your terms carefully. When a tv broadcaster uses the term "assault rifle" we know he is talking about a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, and we know that is a gun which has been designed to fire multiple, loads of, bullets in a minute. If they were aimed at you, I believe you would rightly term it an assault.
Yes?

you are a teacher, correct? is the terminology used in the teaching world specific to things? it has been at times when i was a part of it. mechanics use a specific terminology, pest control, police - all "sub-cultures" do.

to go in and start changing the words around cause you don't like them - how would you take it coming your way? no attempt to understand, just say "that's wrong - change it".

and when a tv announcer uses "assault rifle" i assume he's stupid as shit and doesn't know what he's talking about. again - define the word and the guns by characteristics that fall under this term?

"long rifle" is now coming into popularity and at least it's more correct and tries to define things.

when ANY journalist says "automatic weapons used" my first thought is they looked at the gun and made stupid assumptions. yes the AR15 looks like the M4. but go ahead and run out to cabelas and ask to buy an automatic weapons. pawn shop. gun show. hell, go anywhere that sells guns and ask to buy an automatic weapon and tell me your results.

highly illegal for the average persona and requires specific licensing to own one and the FBI pretty much puts you on their WATCH FOREVER list. so the odds of the average person getting a fully automatic weapon is awfully remote but it sure does pump up the drama of the shooting now doesn't it?

for grins, go look at all mass shootings in the last 20 years. now tell me how many of them actually used an "automatic" weapon?

i'll tell you 0 now to save you the time but feel free to check my facts.

as for writing legislation yes you have to use terms correctly which is why people who are gun-ignorant should NOT be writing these laws. period. end of story. when they don't know a magazine is reusable and think banning high capacity ones will get rid of them after they're used - they need to sit down, shut up, and stop showing off stupidity. colorado, google it. quite funny actually.

so while your understanding of the terms is to change as you understand the topic at hand, again, do you work to understand how it is FIRST or say "i disagree and your terminology sucks, THIS is what that really is"? and expect to be taken seriously?

the terms change for the most part because the gun-grabbling liberals don't understand what they're grabbing and don't want to. they just want them gone so call them whatever it takes to achieve that goal.

see it daily on most of what they do actually.

now again - define the characteristics of an assault rifle? when do we go from "rifle" to "assault"?

and by the definition you just gave me for what you consider an assault rifle, these qualify also:

and oddly enough:

all those qualify. care to redefine?

What in the wide wide world of **** frickin' DIFFERENCE does it make what kind of firearm is involved?

If you're hit by a drunk driver are you gonna stand around arguing over whether the drunk was driving a Silverado or an S10? Does that somehow heal your injuries?

are you trying to ban either vehicle? if not, you have zero point. move on, son. you're not even in the scope of the conversation and making no sense.

::::::::wwhhhhhooosssshhhhh:::::::::

 

[Pogo]

When virtually EVERY iteration of the same video describes it as a "gun CONTROL rant", despite the plain fact that there's literally not a word about "gun control" in there, it speaks much about the very culture that the commentary is in fact pointing out. What you or I think the commentary is about, is irrelevant. The fact that the whole country seems bent on inserting content that isn't there, pointedly proves its whole point.


Of course it is. What else shoots? Cotton candy?

As for the first you're looking for logic in an illogical response, obviously many believed gun control was implied, normal psychological reaction within a highly emotive and contentious issue.
As for the second statement, that's called self bias construction/rationalization. It still doesn't prove a glorification of guns it simply reinforces your belief in a glorification of guns.

In number one, obviously an illogical response that proves at the very least that people aren't even listening to the very video they just uploaded. That's another social problem we have --- people not listening and plugging in their preconceptions (and then when it's pointed out, sinking into absolute self-delusion). But that's got nothing to do with Gun Culture ---- does it?

And in number two, you didn't answer the question. What else shoots besides a gun? A basketball player?

Rationalized deflection. Sorry Pogo but even you are controlled by your own bias, ya can't escape it unless you chose to.

Isn't a "bias" -- it's a simple definition. What shoots? Answer -- guns. Well, and penises but that's sort of a different thing. Sort of.

Philosophically, if penises did not exist ---- would guns?

So you do narrow the discussion when it suits your purpose.......... Uummmmm........

I do explore the unanswered questions, yes. If you don't do that they remain .... well, unanswered.

 

[yiostheoy]

Isn't a "bias" -- it's a simple definition. What shoots? Answer -- guns. Well, and penises but that's sort of a different thing. Sort of.

Philosophically, if penises did not exist ---- would guns?

There are lots of things designed by humankind that looks like and functions like a penis:

- guns

- blow guns

- torpedoes

- ships

- aircraft

- submarines

- rockets and missiles

- douche bag nozzles

- enema nozzles

- ear cleaning syringes

- hypodermic needles

- turkey basters.

As far as guns go, these were invented by the Chinese in the 11th Century A.D.

Would they have gotten the idea if humans reproduced like birds do (without a penis) ??

Hard to say.

 

[Pogo]

Isn't a "bias" -- it's a simple definition. What shoots? Answer -- guns. Well, and penises but that's sort of a different thing. Sort of.

Philosophically, if penises did not exist ---- would guns?

There are lots of things designed by humankind that looks like and functions like a penis:

- guns

- blow guns

- torpedoes

- ships

- aircraft

- submarines

- rockets and missiles

- douche bag nozzles

- enema nozzles

- ear cleaning syringes

- hypodermic needles

- turkey basters.

As far as guns go, these were invented by the Chinese in the 11th Century A.D.

Would they have gotten the idea if humans reproduced like birds do (without a penis) ??

Hard to say.

Zackly. I've never seen a snail invent a gun.

Hermaphrodites unite! So to speak....

 

[yiostheoy]

All of us humans have biases, nothing ironic about it. All us humans utilize availability heuristics and confirmation bias to differing degrees, the real trick is recognizing it in ourselves and fighting it as best as possible something the vast majority will never do. It takes real strength of character to even look for it let alone confront it and even those of us who do don't always succeed, we're still human. As for highly emotive issues unless one can separate the emotive from the logic then one will always be influenced by the emotive (even unconsciously) but again we are emotive creatures and not purely logical "Vulcans" so emulating Spock is nearly impossible for us. However that said it doesn't mean we can't recognize and separate the emotive if we choose to and by doing so minimize the need for rationalization though again most will never do that which is plainly obvious on this board daily.

Ringel05 you are correct.

And it is because all of us are brainwashed differently by our parents, teachers, ministers, schools, governments, and employers.

Each of these various brainwashers has a stated interest in brainwashing us for their own purposes.

At some point we can erase the brainwashing and become unbiased but only if we study Philosophy intensely.

And few people study Philosophy at all.