Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-05-2013, 11:18 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(01-05-2013 09:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  There is a true issue when someone can't recognize that some words can have multiple meanings at the same time.

The Thinking Atheist, is a title that applies the same logic. TTA is a group, and the individuals that comprise it are all thinking atheists (at least in title, but perhaps not always in practice. Consider )

The people of the US in the Bill of Rights, is the collective group, and the individual. These are not mutually exclusive.

No, when I say that I like The Jackson 5, does that mean it logically follows that I'm obligated to like Tito as a solo? Am I expressing, in the statement "I like the Jackson 5", that I like them as a group or that I like them all as individual artists?

If I liked all of the members of The Jackson 5, as individuals, wouldn't that be expressed by saying that I liked all of the members as individuals? If that is the sentiment that I clearly wanted to express.

It is not a problem of pure collectivism versus pure individualism. Is just one of pointing out that we are not dealing with strong sentiments of individualism.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 11:20 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(01-05-2013 12:39 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  No, I want to hear what Truly X interprets by "the people", please explain. You are wrong, but I want to hear your reasoning anyhow. Seems pretty cut and dry to me, but you have somehow managed to find some ambiguity in it. Who has less rights than others?

I've already explained what I meant.

(01-05-2013 06:14 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Well, if "the people" doesn't encompass all individuals, then which individuals does it encompass? That's how I cam to ask that question.

When you are talking about "the people" and who that applies to and if it is protecting an specific individual, it is going to, like I mentioned to Chas, depend upon the circumstances surrounding a particular situation. If it undermines the integrity, purpose and meaning of the Constitutional clause, its is out; if it is in line with those things, it's fine. I've already explain well enough how I view the intention of the word, and it is clear enough without the explanation.

If you think that my view is wrong, you are the one that has some explaining to do, not me. I've already explained my position on the meaning. If you don't understand it by now and/or still think I'm wrong, you can explain yourself, being more specific with what you are concerned with, or you can stop behaving as if you have a legitimate concern, when you really don't.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 11:32 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(02-05-2013 11:18 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(01-05-2013 09:50 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  There is a true issue when someone can't recognize that some words can have multiple meanings at the same time.

The Thinking Atheist, is a title that applies the same logic. TTA is a group, and the individuals that comprise it are all thinking atheists (at least in title, but perhaps not always in practice. Consider )

The people of the US in the Bill of Rights, is the collective group, and the individual. These are not mutually exclusive.

No, when I say that I like The Jackson 5, does that mean it logically follows that I'm obligated to like Tito as a solo? Am I expressing, in the statement "I like the Jackson 5", that I like them as a group or that I like them all as individual artists?

If I liked all of the members of The Jackson 5, as individuals, wouldn't that be expressed by saying that I liked all of the members as individuals? If that is the sentiment that I clearly wanted to express.

It is not a problem of pure collectivism versus pure individualism. Is just one of pointing out that we are not dealing with strong sentiments of individualism.

We are not talking about something trivial, such as "liking" them. If you were to say that the Jackson 5 have certain rights, it would apply to the group and the individual. Your comparison is kind of shoddy.

The People of the US have certain rights afforded to them as a group and as individuals. These are not always mutually inclusive or exclusive. We are aware that the rights of the individual do trump the rights of the group in some cases, but in other cases the rights of the individual are trumped by the group.

An individuals right to free speech is protected up to the point of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and endangering the lives of many. The individuals right is trumped by the rights of the collective.

The rights of the group stop in the same kind of scenario. Ergo, when a group's rights infringe upon the health and happiness of an individual at that individuals expense. (like, denying citizenship to an individual based on race or religion).

Gun rights are an issue I see in the same vein. An individual's right to own and operate a firearm, only goes up to the limit of maintaining a neutral impact on society. That is to say, someone has the right to defend themselves, but not the right to use a gun to exacerbate the situation. Someone's right to own a gun, should not trump someone else's right to life.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
02-05-2013, 12:42 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(02-05-2013 11:32 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(02-05-2013 11:18 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  No, when I say that I like The Jackson 5, does that mean it logically follows that I'm obligated to like Tito as a solo? Am I expressing, in the statement "I like the Jackson 5", that I like them as a group or that I like them all as individual artists?

If I liked all of the members of The Jackson 5, as individuals, wouldn't that be expressed by saying that I liked all of the members as individuals? If that is the sentiment that I clearly wanted to express.

It is not a problem of pure collectivism versus pure individualism. Is just one of pointing out that we are not dealing with strong sentiments of individualism.

We are not talking about something trivial, such as "liking" them. If you were to say that the Jackson 5 have certain rights, it would apply to the group and the individual. Your comparison is kind of shoddy.

The People of the US have certain rights afforded to them as a group and as individuals. These are not always mutually inclusive or exclusive. We are aware that the rights of the individual do trump the rights of the group in some cases, but in other cases the rights of the individual are trumped by the group.

An individuals right to free speech is protected up to the point of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and endangering the lives of many. The individuals right is trumped by the rights of the collective.

The rights of the group stop in the same kind of scenario. Ergo, when a group's rights infringe upon the health and happiness of an individual at that individuals expense. (like, denying citizenship to an individual based on race or religion).

Gun rights are an issue I see in the same vein. An individual's right to own and operate a firearm, only goes up to the limit of maintaining a neutral impact on society. That is to say, someone has the right to defend themselves, but not the right to use a gun to exacerbate the situation. Someone's right to own a gun, should not trump someone else's right to life.

You completely bypassed that point. It doesn't matter what words you are using, with regard to how "trivial" they are-- I could have used some symbols or variables. It doesn't matter what you are talking about-- logic is logic.

If I said that The Jackson 5 had the contractual right to use my studio to record music (maybe without some kind of payment per hour), it does not then necessarily, logically follow that Micheal Jackson has the right to use my studio to record as a solo artist, with those same terms.

If (a+b+c+d+e) = F; it does not necessarily follow logically that a = F.

If you say that something applies to a collective, it can be the case that either it applies to all of those individuals of that collective, individually, or it does not. With the Constitution, it depends on the implications, meaning and purpose of the clauses, as to whether or not the rights granted to the people would apply to an individual within the context of a specific case.

The Constitution (Bill of Rights) specifically uses language to express democratic sentiments, which was my other point. They could have very easily outlined rights and explicitly stipulated the limits of those rights (if any), as well as directed rights toward 'an individual' (as opposed to 'the people') more explicitly. It is/was a legal document.

But, that's not what they wanted to do; they wanted to place broad restrictions on the federal government, to guarantee democratic rights to the States mainly, made up of the people of the States. A promise that the federal government wouldn't cross certain boundaries, limiting democratic, republican rule and undermining the power of States, their constitutions and their people. Not allowing for a despot and tyrannical federal government. And, I hope Lincoln and Republicans was not what a lot of people had in mind.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrulyX's post
02-05-2013, 12:53 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(02-05-2013 12:42 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(02-05-2013 11:32 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We are not talking about something trivial, such as "liking" them. If you were to say that the Jackson 5 have certain rights, it would apply to the group and the individual. Your comparison is kind of shoddy.

The People of the US have certain rights afforded to them as a group and as individuals. These are not always mutually inclusive or exclusive. We are aware that the rights of the individual do trump the rights of the group in some cases, but in other cases the rights of the individual are trumped by the group.

An individuals right to free speech is protected up to the point of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and endangering the lives of many. The individuals right is trumped by the rights of the collective.

The rights of the group stop in the same kind of scenario. Ergo, when a group's rights infringe upon the health and happiness of an individual at that individuals expense. (like, denying citizenship to an individual based on race or religion).

Gun rights are an issue I see in the same vein. An individual's right to own and operate a firearm, only goes up to the limit of maintaining a neutral impact on society. That is to say, someone has the right to defend themselves, but not the right to use a gun to exacerbate the situation. Someone's right to own a gun, should not trump someone else's right to life.

You completely bypassed that point. It doesn't matter what words you are using, with regard to how "trivial" they are-- I could have used some symbols or variables. It doesn't matter what you are talking about-- logic is logic.

If I said that The Jackson 5 had the contractual right to use my studio to record music (maybe without some kind of payment per hour), it does not then necessarily, logically follow that Micheal Jackson has the right to use my studio to record as a solo artist, with those same terms.

If (a+b+c+d+e) = F; it does not necessarily follow logically that a = F.

If you say that something applies to a collective, it can be the case that either it applies to all of those individuals of that collective, individually, or it does not. With the Constitution, it depends on the implications, meaning and purpose of the clauses, as to whether or not the rights granted to the people would apply to an individual within the context of a specific case.

The Constitution (Bill of Rights) specifically uses language to express democratic sentiments, which was my other point. They could have very easily outlined rights and explicitly stipulated the limits of those rights (if any), as well as directed rights toward 'an individual' (as opposed to 'the people') more explicitly. It is/was a legal document.

But, that's not what they wanted to do; they wanted to place broad restrictions on the federal government, to guarantee democratic rights to the States mainly, made up of the people of the States. A promise that the federal government wouldn't cross certain boundaries, limiting democratic, republican rule and undermining the power of States, their constitutions and their people. Not allowing for a despot and tyrannical federal government. And, I hope Lincoln and Republicans was not what a lot of people had in mind.

I'm not bypassing the point. The point is that it applies to the collective and the individual, but not in all cases. In some cases, it applies to the individual and in others it applies to the collective.

I agree that they left it vague intentionally, but that was because they didn't intend for anything they wrote to be immutable.

"If (a+b+c+d+e) = F; it does not necessarily follow logically that a = F. "

You should probably stick to not trying to use made-up equations to make your points either. We are not talking about something in mathematical terms. Because I can easily amend your equation so as to make whatever point I want.

For instance, if a = b = c = d = e, then F = a * 5
or
if b = c = d = e = 0, then a = F

Not trying to be combative, but trying to make some profound point using an equation outside of mathematics, is not lending you any credibility.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 05:55 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
I get it. It is: bullshit..bullshit..bullshit..bullshit..you're wrong.

With that, here is my argument to deal with all future arguments:

Bullshit..bullshit..bullshit..bullshit..BULLSHIT..you are all wrong.

This must have been, specifically, the intention behind the values expressed in the First Amendment.

Hedonism, here I come.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 06:14 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Truly X, what I've understood from you is that you think 'the people' have rights, but only if it conforms with your ideals. If you don't like something the the rights are stripped, which isn't rights at all. For example, from what I understand of your position,

You have the right to free speech, unless you want to say something extraordinarily offensive, then your right is no longer valid.

That defeats the whole points of the right to free speech. Did I understand you correctly? Do you think these rights are only universal when it's something you like or agree with?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 06:52 PM
Re: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
What? Was this an attempt to just be a fucking asshole or were you trying to make a point?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 07:03 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(02-05-2013 06:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What? Was this an attempt to just be a fucking asshole or were you trying to make a point?

To what is this the response?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2013, 10:05 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(02-05-2013 06:52 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  What? Was this an attempt to just be a fucking asshole or were you trying to make a point?

Not trying to be an asshole. I am asking if I understand his perspective/opinion, and if I do I am criticizing the fault with it. Based on your response I'm assuming that you think I've misunderstood him, which I may have. That is why I am asking for clarification; from him. That is all.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: