Another campus shooting

[sophist]

To have a debate on the nature of humanity and its evils while excluding emotional factors is ridiculous.
Just so you know.

With all due respect, you couldn't be more wrong.  Subjective arguments are always flawed, and emotions are always subjective, thus the arguments based on emotions are always fallible.  You can objectively discuss that topic and I have presented an objective argument.  Any attempt to bring such emotion into the argument brings about the "inhumane" arguments, which are illogical and nothing more than a sympathetic appeal to one's emotions.  Add to the fact that subjective arguments always end in a stalemate (the absence of reason, and facts is the cause of this), and objective arguments always end with one side winning while the other loses.       

Injecting an emotional counterpoint into the argument is also a logical fallacy, and does nothing to refute the concept of "its the people not the tool" argument.  Your reverting to semantics in order to appeal to the emotional aspect of the problem, and emotion is subjective.  The argument can't be beaten objectively.         

I can appreciate both object/subject but what defines the / in this statement?  Are the two not linked?  In Robert Pirsig's novel, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, Pirsig defines Quality as the bridge between object/subject. 
Just as a refresher phan, what is your arguement again?

I don't understand what your talking about here (highlighted part).  I'm referring to objective arguments:

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

I haven't read the book mentioned by you, so I can't comment on what your referring to or the context of the comment.  Perhaps you could explain it in more detail.

[rowjimmy]

To have a debate on the nature of humanity and its evils while excluding emotional factors is ridiculous.
Just so you know.

With all due respect, you couldn't be more wrong.  Subjective arguments are always flawed, and emotions are always subjective, thus the arguments based on emotions are always fallible.  You can objectively discuss that topic and I have presented an objective argument.  Any attempt to bring such emotion into the argument brings about the "inhumane" arguments, which are illogical and nothing more than a sympathetic appeal to one's emotions.  Add to the fact that subjective arguments always end in a stalemate (the absence of reason, and facts is the cause of this), and objective arguments always end with one side winning while the other loses.       

what I mean is, your subject matter itself, is a product of human emotion.
No amount of mathmagical formulae can account for evil.

[sophist]

I see a difference though, I can have a personal definition, which would be subjective, or I can use one of several philosophical models, which would be objective.  For example, the argument of Free Will indirectly addresses evil.   The Free Will argument is objective, just as I could use Marx's definition or Rand's definition, etc, etc.  Philosophers have created objective points towards evil, and good.   

[fauxpaxfauxreal]

The product of society vs. the product of the individual argument is interesting to be sure.

I would rather not have that argument or any type of campus shootings.

The whole event sucks and stinks to be sure.

-matt.