Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-05-2013, 06:09 AM
Re: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-05-2013, 08:54 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(06-05-2013 06:09 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?

I know. Who dare not yield to the opinion of the almighty BeardedBitch? Only the idiot.

Sorry that I inconvenienced you with my presence, use of reason and inferior ad hominem abilities.

Since you seem to have agreed to disagree, I'm glad we could resolve that problem. Thank you and good riddance.

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
06-05-2013, 09:03 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(06-05-2013 08:54 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 06:09 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You're kind of an idiot, aren't you?

I know. Who dare not yield to the opinion of the almighty BeardedBitch? Only the idiot.

Sorry that I inconvenienced you with my presence, use of reason and inferior ad hominem abilities.

Since you seem to have agreed to disagree, I'm glad we could resolve that problem. Thank you and good riddance.

I suppose I should apologize for my last response, it was a bit of a douche thing to say.

I've no issue with being disagreed with, but you just slapped a post together using the word "bullshit" over and over again. Neither that, nor your made-up equation lend you much credibility in my book. (and note, that I didn't just say debate against, but debate with. I don't think it an advantage when someone argues along the same lines as I do, and uses BS.)

You don't see Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, or Randi making up equations to go along with their arguments. Why? Because you can't demonstrate reality with a made-up equation. Now, if you take an existing equation that describes reality (or a geometric proof) and apply it in a more general way, that might be a little better (although can obviously still go sour very quickly).

I think Daniel Day-Lewis' version of Lincoln does that in the movie. Where he uses the geometric proof of if 2 angles are equal to one another, then any angle equal to one, is equal to both. Or something like that.

The point is this, your argument about "the people" being only the collective, is something I think is flat-out wrong. Free speech is not something that only protects the collective, it applies to individuals too. And my point with your equation is that it is basically the same as the "baffle them with bullshit" tactic where you throw out an equation to try and impress people by showing off some superior intellect.

“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
06-05-2013, 11:34 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(04-05-2013 10:41 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(02-05-2013 06:14 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  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?

No. That's not my view.

With regard to 'the people', my view is that's a collective, by definition. Whether or not a description of the collective applies to each of the individuals, separately and distinctively from the collective, is determined by context.

With regard to 'rights', the context within which the rights were granted, in principle, both textually and circumstantially, especially concerning the Constitution, determines how the rights apply, in practice.

You'd make a good politician. You wrote two paragraphs without saying a damn thing.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2013, 01:04 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Hands off my Amurica Commies!

[Image: wooooo-murica--23052.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-05-2013, 02:10 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(06-05-2013 09:03 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(06-05-2013 08:54 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  I know. Who dare not yield to the opinion of the almighty BeardedBitch? Only the idiot.

Sorry that I inconvenienced you with my presence, use of reason and inferior ad hominem abilities.

Since you seem to have agreed to disagree, I'm glad we could resolve that problem. Thank you and good riddance.

I suppose I should apologize for my last response, it was a bit of a douche thing to say.

I've no issue with being disagreed with, but you just slapped a post together using the word "bullshit" over and over again. Neither that, nor your made-up equation lend you much credibility in my book. (and note, that I didn't just say debate against, but debate with. I don't think it an advantage when someone argues along the same lines as I do, and uses BS.)

You don't see Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, or Randi making up equations to go along with their arguments. Why? Because you can't demonstrate reality with a made-up equation. Now, if you take an existing equation that describes reality (or a geometric proof) and apply it in a more general way, that might be a little better (although can obviously still go sour very quickly).

I think Daniel Day-Lewis' version of Lincoln does that in the movie. Where he uses the geometric proof of if 2 angles are equal to one another, then any angle equal to one, is equal to both. Or something like that.

The point is this, your argument about "the people" being only the collective, is something I think is flat-out wrong. Free speech is not something that only protects the collective, it applies to individuals too. And my point with your equation is that it is basically the same as the "baffle them with bullshit" tactic where you throw out an equation to try and impress people by showing off some superior intellect.

You obviously don't see Hitchens, Dawkins, etc., using logic/math, none of them are logicians, philosophers, mathematicians, etc. Hitchens was a good debater because he was a journalist and writer and had an extremely extensive grasp of literature, current events and history, as well as the English language, not because he made logical arguments, as most of his arguments were purely, emotionally based, some outright fallacy.

You are just missing my point then. 'People', by definition, is a collective; however, that is a collective of individual human beings, so it obviously contains individuals. I am well aware that what applies to a collective is going to have some sort of relationship to the individuals making up that collective, as I've pointed out many times throughout the thread. What I was addressing was how (in what way) does what is being applied to what is a collective, by definition, apply to the individuals of that collective. My counterexample was to the idea that what applies to a collective, directly applies to each individual member of the collective, in the same way. I was showing how there are cases of context/descriptions being applied to a collective, that make the way a description applies to a collective, different from how it applies to the individual members of the collective (basically making subsets).

It wasn't a made up equation either. I could have been wrong; I just wanted to be shown to be wrong and not just simply, rudely discredited.

I was just showing that how you define something to be applicable to a set/collective matters, especially with regard to the relationship between what is being applied to a collective and how it applies to the individual members of that set/collective. I just set up variables as a set {a,b,c,d,e} that could be the same as 'the people' which would be {a,b,c,...n,} with n equal to the total number of people (maybe in the US). Then I defined F as the sum of those variables-- that was to show that it could be the case (like if the variables were defined as 0) that what applied to describe the set was applicable (equal) to describe each/any of the individual members of that set, but depending on how things are defined, that does not necessarily, logically have to follow as being the case.

That becomes applicable to the Constitution/Bill of Rights, because it becomes a contention as to whether or not certain subsets are created/defined as being created. For example, with Free-Speech. In my view, from the beginning, it is intended as being a right, protecting the free exchange of substantive ideas within a society, protecting a certain type of speech (substantive and influential), and thus only being applicable to individuals as long as the speech is protected speech. That would include abolitionists equal to supporters of slavery-- for an example. I'm not implying any bias based on positions.

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
07-05-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
There is the problem that Dark Light brought up, where one could just be making a judgement call on what type of speech they like and don't like. Basically viewing any and all speech being applicable to all individuals, then arbitrary, afterwards, deciding that they find a certain type of speech as not applicable (maybe because they just don't like a person's views) and punishing a person. And that would hurt all of society, from not being able to hear a view/opinion, not just that one individual-- that's another point I was trying to make.

I take the position that there is, objectively, an intention, meaning and purpose behind Free-Speech (namely a collective one) that makes certain types of speech not applicable for First Amendment protection, from the beginning. There would be a certain subset, of individuals, falling into the protection, based on the type of speech they are seeking protection for in a certain case and the other subset of individuals using speech that doesn't warrant First Amendment protection.

That is a big deal in the 2nd Amendment debate, because there is the argument, for example, about militias. An example would be whether, or not, the people needing to be in a militia (or something similar), keeping and bearing arms as part of that duty, are the applicable subset of people. And there are other views along those lines, saying that the 2nd Amendment applies to certain members of society, protecting society and security as a whole, more toward collectivism than individualism. On the other side, some hold the view that the Amendment is an individual right, that applies to all individuals, all of the time. Obviously and more specifically, those that have access to guns, have the right to own/possess them, and the US can't infringe upon their right to do so, in any way.

Personally, I see it as only two choices: you see it more as a collective right applying with that type of interpretation, or you see it more as an individual right. With that latter point, a policy that said certain people could not legally own a gun/s, would be completely off of the table and would be blatantly against the Constitution. Any other gun control would be basically the government attempting to find loopholes to infringe upon your fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed, individual right, that if wasn't blatantly against the Constitution, it would be, at the very least, still against the principles behind it.

Just in looking at the Constitution, it is an important distinction between viewing the rights more as democratic or more toward individualism. Are we looking more at protecting the rights of individuals, or are the aims more at promoting a peaceful, effective, democratic (republican) state and governmental system? To what extent, either way, and then looking at the aims with regard to the amendments and clauses separately.

Guns do not kill people, and you can't really make the argument of protecting life and society over an individual right. The purpose of an individual right is to protect an individual from the will of society, so infringing on an individual's right with the excuse of protecting society is blatantly contradictory. Life is only in the Bill of Rights regarding Due Process, etc. There also isn't a right to life, and murder, assault, etc., happens afterward i.e. this isn't a Minority Report. Attempting to take someone's right away because you don't trust them as compared to other citizens, screams out for Equal Protection, or maybe the Bill of Rights.

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
07-05-2013, 02:19 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(07-05-2013 02:13 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  There is the problem that Dark Light brought up, where one could just be making a judgement call on what type of speech they like and don't like. Basically viewing any and all speech being applicable to all individuals, then arbitrary, afterwards, deciding that they find a certain type of speech as not applicable (maybe because they just don't like a person's views) and punishing a person. And that would hurt all of society, from not being able to hear a view/opinion, not just that one individual-- that's another point I was trying to make.

I take the position that there is, objectively, an intention, meaning and purpose behind Free-Speech (namely a collective one) that makes certain types of speech not applicable for First Amendment protection, from the beginning. There would be a certain subset, of individuals, falling into the protection, based on the type of speech they are seeking protection for in a certain case and the other subset of individuals using speech that doesn't warrant First Amendment protection.

That is a big deal in the 2nd Amendment debate, because there is the argument, for example, about militias. An example would be whether, or not, the people needing to be in a militia (or something similar), keeping and bearing arms as part of that duty, are the applicable subset of people. And there are other views along those lines, saying that the 2nd Amendment applies to certain members of society, protecting society and security as a whole, more toward collectivism than individualism. On the other side, some hold the view that the Amendment is an individual right, that applies to all individuals, all of the time. Obviously and more specifically, those that have access to guns, have the right to own/possess them, and the US can't infringe upon their right to do so, in any way.

Personally, I see it as only two choices: you see it more as a collective right applying with that type of interpretation, or you see it more as an individual right. With that latter point, a policy that said certain people could not legally own a gun/s, would be completely off of the table and would be blatantly against the Constitution. Any other gun control would be basically the government attempting to find loopholes to infringe upon your fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed, individual right, that if wasn't blatantly against the Constitution, it would be, at the very least, still against the principles behind it.

Just in looking at the Constitution, it is an important distinction between viewing the rights more as democratic or more toward individualism. Are we looking more at protecting the rights of individuals, or are the aims more at promoting a peaceful, effective, democratic (republican) state and governmental system? To what extent, either way, and then looking at the aims with regard to the amendments and clauses separately.

Guns do not kill people, and you can't really make the argument of protecting life and society over an individual right. The purpose of an individual right is to protect an individual from the will of society, so infringing on an individual's right with the excuse of protecting society is blatantly contradictory. Life is only in the Bill of Rights regarding Due Process, etc. There also isn't a right to life, and murder, assault, etc., happens afterward i.e. this isn't a Minority Report. Attempting to take someone's right away because you don't trust them as compared to other citizens, screams out for Equal Protection, or maybe the Bill of Rights.


The key point is that none of the rights are absolute. There are limits on speech, there are limits on religious practice, there are limits on gun ownership.

We, as a society, negotiate individual rights.

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
07-05-2013, 02:28 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(07-05-2013 02:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  The key point is that none of the rights are absolute. There are limits on speech, there are limits on religious practice, there are limits on gun ownership.

We, as a society, negotiate individual rights.

You don't, however, want to be arbitrary and capricious.

There has to be a well-defined, established standard and objectivity. You can't just randomly make things up as you go along.

You would be defeating the purpose at that point-- it would become contradictory and/or nonsensical.

Correct or incorrect, there has to be a basis off of which to make decisions regarding rights.

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
07-05-2013, 02:35 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(07-05-2013 02:28 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(07-05-2013 02:19 PM)Chas Wrote:  The key point is that none of the rights are absolute. There are limits on speech, there are limits on religious practice, there are limits on gun ownership.

We, as a society, negotiate individual rights.

You don't, however, want to be arbitrary and capricious.

There has to be a well-defined, established standard and objectivity. You can't just randomly make things up as you go along.

You would be defeating the purpose at that point-- it would become contradictory and/or nonsensical.

Correct or incorrect, there has to be a basis off of which to make decisions regarding rights.


People differ in their opinions on this.
I contend that our individual rights should be maximized to the greatest extent. We should only curtail an individual's rights where they impinge on others' rights. Sort of libertarian-ish.

Others believe that we should maximize happiness or safety or wealth or something for the greatest number regardless of individuals' rights. Sort of liberal-ish.

Most people are probably somewhere in between.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: