My Knife Spooked My Co-worker

rubiconss said:
Sir, I learned many years ago that simply stating an opinion more loudly, more demonstrably and ending with "this can not be disputed" ...... does not make what prefaced - True, nor does it make it anything remotely close to indisputable.
If you care to debate Philosophy it is both a lifelong passion of mine and one of my degree fields so, have at it.
Click to expand...

Your philosophy will derive from.... your common sense.
 
Btw... higher taxes does not means a purely socialist economy. If that were the case the US would be considered socialist. Afterall, 25% of my paycheck goes to the gov.
 
bush-haus said:
Your philosophy will derive from.... your common sense.
Click to expand...

No actually it will not. An individuals personal Philosophies (plural) will emerge from a myriad of life experiences. Some spiritual, some intellectual, many fostered by experiences both positive as well as negative. As the journey of life continues these philosophies will tumble and shape as a stone destined to live its life within the two banks of the mighty river softens and ages.
Little more to it than meets the naked eye much like a finely honed edge or the realities of life that seem to elude "some" to include the fellow worker that seemed to object to our unsuspecting OP forum member, originator of this thread. :)
 
Oooh, did I see another philosopher in here? It's interesting to me to see how many people haven't gotten past the deconstruction stage of philosophy, and don't possess the logical rigor necessary to construct a consistent opinion, and yet believe that they can state something is incontestable or absolutely true. You've got another think coming. Seriously. Anything is contestable (obviously). An inability to see past your own preconceptions is the only thing that would lead to a claim that something is self-evident, without any actual argumentation. Having taught philosophy for several years--if you're going to debate ideology, at least do us the courtesy of PROVING your argument with something other than "I don't live in a fantasy world, Ideology is everything." That kind of argument receives a failing grade in my course.

I actually think this thread has spawned some very interesting comments, although it's amazing how far afield some people have gone. I mean, seriously, at least TRY to keep your comments on topic.

Returning to the topic, I think it's an important distinction that there's a big fundamental difference between "waving a bowie around" or otherwise flaunting your knife in public, and just showing a coworker your knife.

We should NEVER have to be afraid to show our knives to other coworkers who are interested, just because some other nosy coworker might wander by. It's impossible to predict that, and really, it's NOT their business to come over when you're sharing a LEGAL interest with another coworker, and make it their business. How are we supposed to educate people?

Regarding the explosives argument--steel doesn't have the same kind of issues with chemical decomposition and becoming unstable that explosives do. While I could post up the details proving this point, I think a bit of self-examination should quickly defeat this argument for most people. Honestly, if you think knives and explosives are even REMOTELY in the same category, I challenge you to keep some heavy explosives around you and treat it with the same care you treat your folding knives. Do this for 20+ years (assuming you survive that long).

The other point I found really interesting was the debate about "people kill people, not <insert object here>." Think about it this way: how many stories have you EVER heard about a knife just jumping up and stabbing a person who was walking by? But there are the rare but occasional stories about a gun misfiring and killing an owner (yes, you shouldn't keep a gun loaded, but even ammo can misfire without being in a gun, unlikely as that may be). For instance:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-three-children-in-HP/articleshow/5666129.cms
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/469805/AMMO-NOT-LAND-MINE-KILLED-US-SOLDIER.html

A knife isn't going to just randomly kill someone. All kinds of reasons, from the fact that we've probably all survived an accidental knife cut, but it's considerably more damaging if you have an accident with a gun.

The other main difference between knives and other objects is that knives have a WIDE variety of important and useful purposes. That's why they're one of the very oldest TOOLS known, from the rock knives made by our caveman ancestors, to the streamlined machined offerings from our favorite knife companies today. They can be USED as a weapon. So can a stick. Or a brick. Either of those are FAR more lethal in a combat situation than a 3" folder. A gun, in contrast, you aren't going to use to open boxes, or dice carrots in the kitchen, or fillet a fish (puree maybe, but nothing involving precision).

So the point is, it takes INTENT or extremely bad luck, or severe carelessness, to kill someone with a knife. Even if you are severely careless, likely the worst that will happen will be that you'll get a nasty cut. I've gotten cuts from opening DOORS before. The same is not true of, say, an assault rifle. Or a mortar shell. Or something that is properly classified as a weapon, because it has only ONE purpose.

Consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon

Intent is essential. That's why knives do not kill people. They do not have the intent to kill, nor is a folding knife manufactured with killing in mind. Some knives are, but most are not, and even those that are balanced as fighters are still very good at other tasks, and are more commonly used for tasks other than killing. I challenge you to find someone whose knife is used solely for killing. As knife aficionados, we are responsible for helping people understand the difference.
 
Los Angeles said:
First five words: "A weapon is a tool ..."

And there you have it.
Click to expand...

Congratulations, way to miss the point. Selective reading does not an intelligent comment make. Failing grade to you as well.

Perhaps you need to read the definition of tool also.

The whole notion of a tool indicates a use or purpose. A toilet is a tool also, but with the aim of disposing waste. While arguably a sniper rifle could fit the same definition, you are still missing the point. In order to understand the argument, you would need to at least include the necessary purpose to find out why intent is important. The very notion of a tool includes intent and purpose. Without that purpose, without that intent, it's not even a tool. In the case of a weapon, it must be used with intent to harm. Given that, explain how it makes sense to say that a knife, by itself, independent of a user, and absent intent, can kill someone.
 
Well Hello there CrimsonFalcon07.
Wrote my Dissertation on Friedrich Nietzsche's theory of God is Dead and how it relates to the Matriarchal influence on the son.... shortly before going into the Army and learning how to kill and maim with the spork.
As this thread has wandered hither and yon, occasionally colliding back with its originators topic stream many interesting tangential issues have indeed emerged - most of which had precious little to do with the root theme but.... interesting none the less.
 
Hello back at you. Wrote mine on neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics--living well in a social and emotional world. I like the opinions the most that get some good discussion and examples and use of deductive logic. Still, for Wolfjohn's sake, and in defense of his rant, I think it would be useful to stay as on-topic as we can. Still, it's fun to see what opinions people hold, and how they attempt to justify them.
 
BTW: WolfJohn.... Can we borrow that knife of yours and stick it into the Heart of this? Maybe you know somebody might wanna watch;)
 
crimsonfalcon07 said:
Hello back at you. Wrote mine on neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics--living well in a social and emotional world. I like the opinions the most that get some good discussion and examples and use of deductive logic. Still, for Wolfjohn's sake, and in defense of his rant, I think it would be useful to stay as on-topic as we can. Still, it's fun to see what opinions people hold, and how they attempt to justify them.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Just dunno if there's any juice left in this to squeeze:eek:
 
Crimson, I am sure anything that rubs you the wrong way recieves a failing grade right? I have also learned that the easiest way to divert from the topic is to debate "philosophy" itself. Easily pointed out. My original point was that your common sense (ie past education, past/current experiences, emotions, instincts) shape your political views. If you want to debate that then let's go. Please let me know how else my political values came to me.
 
How fantastic, a philosophy pissing match :barf:

Since you don't seem to be able to look objectively at your argument I'll just have to make it clear to you, you're arguing about nothing.

Asserting your intellectual dominance over others is hardly an attractive trait. Not that it matters to you, most of you philosophers, for all your apparent knowledge of humanity, seem woefully disconnected with it.

Oh and passive tone is yucky, I suggest you refrain from it in your writting.

And lastly philosophy is a terrible major, where do you think you're going with that? :D
 
FunkMasterFlex said:
How fantastic, a philosophy pissing match :barf:

Since you don't seem to be able to look objectively at your argument I'll just have to make it clear to you, you're arguing about nothing.

Asserting your intellectual dominance over others is hardly an attractive trait. Not that it matters to you, most of you philosophers, for all your apparent knowledge of humanity, seem woefully disconnected with it.

Oh and passive tone is yucky, I suggest you refrain from it in your writting.

And lastly philosophy is a terrible major, where do you think you're going with that? :D
Click to expand...

Which is why I did not major in it or even come close to studying it in college. It's like having a debate with a geography major that hasn't travelled outside of their state! Jus' sayin'....
 
Dunno? Don't believe I ever said I majored in Philosophy in college because I didn't. As for asserting intellectual dominance over anyone, again not an interest of mime. Some in this thread have attempted many exercises in distraction as for me I am just mildly interested in how long this can go. Forums are a form of entertainment as well as sourcing information.
 
FunkMasterFlex said:
And lastly philosophy is a terrible major, where do you think you're going with that? :D
Click to expand...

You might find this interesting, in response to your question.
http://www.thereitis.org/?p=637

As for the arguments, I was personally interested in and critiquing three different ones. Not "nothing." Do you have any idea which ones? My goal here is to see people actually read, research, and then present reasoned comments that reflect reality. In particular: "Why are philosophers so overwhelmingly employed? They have learned to think critically and creatively, to articulate, and to find outside-the-box solutions."

A bit more of this sort of attitude hardly hurts, and does not demand a knee-jerk insult to the profession. My initial interest in this thread came from the usual ignorant blanket insults to all liberals (again, comments that do not reflect any kind of actual thought), since many liberals, myself included, would agree with Wolfjohn, and continued with other similar discussions of various other points, none of which received any kind of careful thought or consideration. For me it's a matter of respect. In order to do justice to the opinions of others, it is beholden upon me to make my point as cogently and fully as possible.

@bush haus: I think our major issue with your argument lies in how you've defined common sense. It is hardly a standard definition (life experiences or human experience would be more common terms) of common sense. The critical aspect of common sense entails COMMON, aka, that which we ALL hold in common. Political views can hardly derive from common sense, because if they did, we would all believe the same things, because we would be deriving our ideology from that which we have in common. The differences in our political views should be enough to give the lie to your claim that common sense drives ideology. The sum total of our past education, experiences, beliefs, and instincts, on the other hand, very well COULD drive ideology. But our disagreement comes from the fact that we disagree in terms of how you use the term common sense. If you had made that clear from the get-go, your argument would have been much stronger.
 
Neither of you were really the intended target, I was thinking Crimson more than anyone.

But there was some spillage into a comment on philiosophers arguing in general.

Oh and this whole "Liberal's are whining pussys" is a little ridiculous. Someone's political beliefs aren't the end all be all example of their character.

Case and point, my neck of the woods. Most in the metropolitan areas are Liberal, and also outdoors-y, which of course leads them to owning and using knives and firearms.
 
FunkMasterFlex said:
Neither of you were really the intended target, I was thinking Crimson more than anyone.
Click to expand...

See, by and large we agree. I don't claim to be intellectually dominant over anyone. I just want them to provide due diligence to justify their claims. If someone is going to say that liberals are the root of all evil, then I want to hear WHY. I want them to actually think about their comments. If someone is going to claim that a knife can actually jump up and kill someone independent of the intent of the user, I want to hear some rational arguments as to how that would be possible.

I don't claim to be 100% right. I just find those comments, independent of any evidence of logic or examples or anything, to be improbable, and in some cases, offensive. And, in my classes, they would receive failing grades.

I don't have to agree with something to appreciate the argument. But I'd like to actually SEE an argument, and as you may notice, bush-haus, once prompted, did a much better job of explaining his point.
 
FunkMasterFlex said:
How fantastic, a philosophy pissing match :barf:

Since you don't seem to be able to look objectively at your argument I'll just have to make it clear to you, you're arguing about nothing.

Asserting your intellectual dominance over others is hardly an attractive trait. Not that it matters to you, most of you philosophers, for all your apparent knowledge of humanity, seem woefully disconnected with it.

Oh and passive tone is yucky, I suggest you refrain from it in your writting.

And lastly philosophy is a terrible major, where do you think you're going with that? :D
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Relative to this discussion all I ever hope to illustrate is an academic can be a pragmatic conservative while possessing both common sense and compassion all the while loving guns and knives and philosophy while living the Amarican dream and willing to voice frustration with the ever increasing intrusion into our everyday lives and dream if not God given Right to Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. One of those joys is carrying a simple pocket knife in ones pocket whether at work in a machine shop or wherever.
 
Last edited:
it is my opinion that people, even with the same ethnic/socio-economic background, share different "common sense." What is common in one culture or house hold may be foriegn in another. I live on a street with 5 different ethnic cultures. The common behaviors within each group is vastly different. They each derive from emotion, religious affiliation, political background, instintcs and so forth. Common sense is common yes to an extent. And thus your values are shaped by.... YOUR common sense. Not the communitie's common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top