Can you believe anything any more?
- Thread starter GP44
- Start date
Your assertion that suicide is a mental health issue and not a gun is wrong. It's a mental health issues AND a gun issue.
So you're comfortable tossing out a snide remark about the OP, but not enough conviction to actually engage with the topic? Classic case of cold feet, if you ask me. Oh well, I guess it's easier to mock than debate.
Oh, I see, so it’s not just a mental health issue, it’s also a gun issue. Got it. By that logic, it’s also a bridge issue, a rope issue, a tall building issue and let’s not forget belts and plastic bags. The constant in suicide is mental distress, not the method. Blaming the tool instead of the cause is just lazy thinking. Bottom line, you’re responsible for your own actions.
I'm not assigning any blame as you seem to think am, I'm pointing out thast you're manipulating the rhetoric by passing off your opinion as a fact.
I would hazard a guess that I know a bit more about suicide and suicidality than you do.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that suicidal people are not fully responsible for their actions as they may be so distressed that they're not functioning properly.
Having said that I'd like to say how impressed with the sensitivity of your remarks, but I'd probably be lying if I did...
MarkD
Keeper of the Hounds & Garden
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area
Can you believe anything any more?
Sure. Just about anything based on what I see on the internet.Oh, I see, you want to play the moral superiority card while tossing out passive-aggressive jabs. Your sarcasm is noted and just as misplaced as your assumption that disagreeing with you means I lack understanding. You claim I'm "manipulating rhetoric" while asserting, without evidence, that suicidal individuals aren’t responsible for their actions. That’s your opinion, not the gospel truth.
Yes, suicidal people are often in distress, that’s the whole point. But distress doesn’t magically turn inanimate objects into causes. Guns don’t whisper suggestions. The method isn’t the root, it’s the means. And the moment we pretend otherwise, we’re just shifting the focus away from mental health and pretending that removing tools will fix the pain.
If you genuinely care about the issue, maybe stop aiming condescension at people who offer a different perspective and start advocating for better mental health care instead of playing hall monitor for tone.
VaughanJB
Scrappy VIP
I get it.
However, this whole area has gotten very very complicated. For example, back in ye olde days you'd have a circle of friends. Those friends would be a trusted resource. You knew, roughly, what they knew about, and information is freely shared. This is a community of knowledge, a community of trusted sources.
Move forward to 2025 - and now we have social media. "Communities" are tenuous, but convincing. I mean, what do we really know about the people we exchange messages with? Thing is, we treat these social media group as though they are trusted sources too. Yet, you're better off taking everything with a grain of salt.
But of course, you simply don't do that the whole time. We might wish we did, but we don't. So, Social Media leads to group think, siloed beliefs, and hurts how much we actually learn from those with opposing views, who are most often thought and treated as though they're the enemy.
When it comes to media - there is no difference in my view between so called Mainstream Media, and Alternative Media. The driving force behind them both is the same (money and exposure). Most often, Alternative Media is simply picking up what the Mainstream Media did the leg work on, they're not doing any actual work themselves. Yet, MM is apparently evil, they're liars, they're not to be trusted. As though AM doesn't lie and exploit their subscribers.
See, there used to be a bar of credibility. Hate on, say, the BBC all you want - but the fact is, they have real journalists doing real work. They trade in their reputation. Sometimes they get things wrong, and will have to apologize - because that's what it means when there are real checks and balances. Sometimes their editorial is suspect, because they're human after all. But what do we know about most of the AM? Where's their credibility? Too few people care.
Can you believe what you see on the internet? Well, you can believe some of it. Some of it is nonsense. Perhaps even the majority of it is nonsense. But we each have a brain, and the key is in figuring out what's real and what is not. You have to curate.
officerripley
Well-known Member
- Location
- Porlock, Calif
Lots of tools can be used for more than killing or injuring somebody. For instance, an ax can also be used to chop wood to heat one's house. A knife can be used to chop vegetables. A razor can be used to shave. A machete or sword can be used to cut back brush. A window, other than to push somebody out of, can also be used to let fresh air in. A gun, however? Hmmm, let's see. Murder or injuring somebody or destroying something (like a road sign or target or a car)? Check. Any good productive use? Hmmmm.
Yes, I can think of several good productive uses. If you live rurally, you must protect your livestock and yourself from predators. A neighbor has lost a number of chickens, two turkeys, and two roosters to a bobcat who could actually open the door to their pen at night. We had a bear try to break into the house. Ever tromped around in an area that is home to venomous snakes? I have. We had a cottonmouth in our house. My mother, when four months pregnant, was bitten by a coral snake while gardening. I had one crawl under my chair while sitting outside.
Many people hunt to provide food for their families. There was one winter when I hunted and caught a large deer. Had I not done that, my two young children would have gone hungry. I know a few who donate the meat they catch to non-profits who feed those who need help.
And there is the time when I came home from work, around midnight, when a man came up behind me as I got out of my car. He beat the crap out of me, strangled me into unconsciousness. Know how I survived? Another man heard me screaming and came out with his gun! Scared the bad guy away real quick. No shots were fired.
officerripley
Well-known Member
- Location
- Porlock, Calif
Well, I should've said good productive uses that didn't involve killing; the killing is necessary sometimes to feed your loved ones. Too bad anyone has to resort to killing to survive but there it is.
David777
Well-known Member
- Location
- Silicon Valley
After noticing this thread was quickly hijacked by unnecessary off-topic gun arguing, stayed away. So just now read all the posts and could pick apart statements of some of the posts except that would only irritate those members for making them look flawed in public. I personally don't have much trouble evaluating the relative validity of many things others post nor media news nor information about science and technology. The first flaw is in the thread title using "believe".
title is:
Can you believe anything any more?
title should be:
Can you believe SOME things any more?
----------------
Obviously, abstractly math wise 2+2 =4...absolutely true and 1+2=4 ... is absolutely false. So a fallacy of using absolutes so many cannot resist.
I've addressed some of this in the past in these two below threads. Will repeat part of the first post since too many are too lazy to read anything but what is within post bodies and that may show when they unwisely comment.
In conversation, using relative terms versus absolutes
-------------------
Starting Thought: Absolutely Avoiding Absolutes
Seemingly simple language can generalize the topic in a way that makes the speaker appear uninformed, unprepared or naïve. Worst case, it can potentially offend the listener. Simply put, avoid absolute words because they can:
Divert the listener’s focus from the topic at hand to finding the exceptions, often weakening important and well-informed points
Make an otherwise valid claim that can be interpreted as “no exceptions”
Raise doubts about the credibility of the speaker and their understanding of the topic
To be persuasive and influential, your communications should reflect a reality that’s accurate; situations are rarely black and white. Here are words to avoid and the substitutes to consider instead of:
Never: Uncommonly, Rarely, Infrequently, Under Few Conditions, In Rare Circumstances
None: Few, Little, Rare, A Small Number, Hardly Any
No: Not Really, Not Entirely, Not in the Slightest, By No Means
Everyone/Everybody: Most, A Good Amount, Many People, General Population, The Majority, All Inclusive, Multiple Segments,
Nobody/No one: Very Few, A Small Number
Always: Usually, Frequently, Consistently, With Few Exceptions, Routinely
In ordinary conversation, the terms "belief" and "believe" can be used in complex ways including both absolute and relative ways that may be ambiguous. It is also used in terms of religious attitudes that is another ambiguous facet. Accordingly, I tend avoid doing so.
-------------------
This second thread below attempted to educate those many that obviously don't understand what terms theory, hypothesis, and speculation really mean and which are often abused in casual conversation that Yahoo AI answered well.
Hypothesis versus Theory meaning AI Overview
A hypothesis is a testable prediction or explanation for a specific observation or phenomenon.
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be supported by a large body of evidence.
Speculation is the activity of guessing possible answers to questions without having enough information to be certain.
I usually bother to explicitly state so when using the term speculation.
title is:
Can you believe anything any more?
title should be:
Can you believe SOME things any more?
----------------
Obviously, abstractly math wise 2+2 =4...absolutely true and 1+2=4 ... is absolutely false. So a fallacy of using absolutes so many cannot resist.
I've addressed some of this in the past in these two below threads. Will repeat part of the first post since too many are too lazy to read anything but what is within post bodies and that may show when they unwisely comment.
In conversation, using relative terms versus absolutes
-------------------
Starting Thought: Absolutely Avoiding Absolutes
Seemingly simple language can generalize the topic in a way that makes the speaker appear uninformed, unprepared or naïve. Worst case, it can potentially offend the listener. Simply put, avoid absolute words because they can:
Divert the listener’s focus from the topic at hand to finding the exceptions, often weakening important and well-informed points
Make an otherwise valid claim that can be interpreted as “no exceptions”
Raise doubts about the credibility of the speaker and their understanding of the topic
To be persuasive and influential, your communications should reflect a reality that’s accurate; situations are rarely black and white. Here are words to avoid and the substitutes to consider instead of:
Never: Uncommonly, Rarely, Infrequently, Under Few Conditions, In Rare Circumstances
None: Few, Little, Rare, A Small Number, Hardly Any
No: Not Really, Not Entirely, Not in the Slightest, By No Means
Everyone/Everybody: Most, A Good Amount, Many People, General Population, The Majority, All Inclusive, Multiple Segments,
Nobody/No one: Very Few, A Small Number
Always: Usually, Frequently, Consistently, With Few Exceptions, Routinely
In ordinary conversation, the terms "belief" and "believe" can be used in complex ways including both absolute and relative ways that may be ambiguous. It is also used in terms of religious attitudes that is another ambiguous facet. Accordingly, I tend avoid doing so.
-------------------
This second thread below attempted to educate those many that obviously don't understand what terms theory, hypothesis, and speculation really mean and which are often abused in casual conversation that Yahoo AI answered well.
Hypothesis versus Theory meaning AI Overview
A hypothesis is a testable prediction or explanation for a specific observation or phenomenon.
A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can be supported by a large body of evidence.
Speculation is the activity of guessing possible answers to questions without having enough information to be certain.
I usually bother to explicitly state so when using the term speculation.
That’s quite the dissertation you’ve presented, and I commend your dedication to making ordinary conversation feel like a corporate training seminar on hedging language.
But let's be clear, the thread title “Can you believe anything anymore?” is a rhetorical prompt, not a doctoral thesis in logic. Most readers understood it as such and engaged in a discussion about trust, skepticism, and media. You, on the other hand, seem more interested in critiquing word choices than contributing to the actual topic. That’s your prerogative, of course, but don’t mistake semantic nitpicking for intellectual superiority.
Also, your condescending aside about "too many being too lazy to read" doesn’t make your argument stronger, it just makes it sound like you’re more interested in scolding the room than engaging with it. People didn’t hijack the thread, they discussed what the title invited. You simply didn't like the direction it went.
If you truly don’t have much trouble evaluating the relative validity of what others say, maybe next time try doing it without implying the rest of us are slack-jawed simpletons fumbling with absolutes. Because right now, you’re coming off less as an educator, and more as the guy muttering corrections during a movie.
But hey, that’s just my belief, or should I say, infrequently-held, loosely-inferred conceptual framework based on observable textual patterns.
Your move.
David777
Well-known Member
- Location
- Silicon Valley
Sorry, if you hadn't noticed on this board, I don't swallow day-glow PowerBait.
Ah, so we're doing the "cryptic brush-off" routine now. Impressive! All that posturing about clarity, logic, and semantic precision… and when challenged directly, you retreat behind a bait-shop metaphor.
Come back when you’ve got something worth chewing on because right now, it looks like all you’ve got is glitter and fluff.