Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-05-2013, 10:11 AM
Thumbs Up RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(08-05-2013 04:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(08-05-2013 04:23 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  Ideologies are a block to rational thinking.

And you don't see your view as being ideological and irrational?

No, I don't. It is subject to reason.

It is one simple premise.

It could be one and simple, but it's not self-evident.

Ignoring that your view doesn't even have a philosophical basis as an axiom, it's an axiom that I can't see as being able to be used to make many rational decisions, which would kind of not make it applicable to morality. It looks a lot more like an end point or a justification, similar to how people use theism-- have individual, subjective beliefs (maybe related to a group or book) as to what is right and wrong, using god(s) (as an idea) in support.

You seem as if you just, at whatever point, had your own bias ideas as to what was right and wrong, based on what you personally wanted to do, then as a justification, arbitrarily claimed an inherent right to your own person; basically allowing you to do whatever you wanted, emphasizing how you don't want to be bothered by other people, until you insist on their support; telling everyone else to be comfortable in the fact that you arbitrarily applied your irrational ideology to them as well.

If I'm at all correct, I can't see why you wouldn't just forgo accepting that as an axiom. I would be, at least, more okay with the idea of every person behaving in whatever way they felt was moral, if it were the case that they made no formal attempt to justify their actions with ideology.

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
09-05-2013, 10:21 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
This thread has really spiraled away from the BS statistics part of my OP... Consider

The second amendment and the Bill of Rights don't conflict with gun control. Arguing the semantics of the verbage in it is a fruitless endeavor. We already restrict and regulate "arms" that can be owned, purchased, and possessed by the general public. The 1790's are not equivalent to the 21st century. The founding fathers knew that our laws and customs could not be immutable if this country were to remain a beacon for freedom.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2013, 01:23 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(09-05-2013 10:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The founding fathers knew that our laws and customs could not be immutable if this country were to remain a beacon for freedom.

The disfranchisement of women (half the population), and further disenfranchisement and slavery of half of those remaining... freedom besides for them you mean Drinking Beverage

So, with all these posts, what's the consensus on gun culture being stupid and destructive? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-05-2013, 01:25 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(09-05-2013 01:23 PM)PoolBoyG Wrote:  
(09-05-2013 10:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The founding fathers knew that our laws and customs could not be immutable if this country were to remain a beacon for freedom.

The disfranchisement of women (half the population), and further disenfranchisement and slavery of half of those remaining (another half)... freedom besides for them you mean Drinking Beverage

So, with all these posts, what's the consensus on gun culture being stupid and destructive? Consider

Right. The founding fathers were not perfect and did not live in a perfect world. They knew that much at least. They did not want the prejudices of yesterday to be the prejudices of today.

Is this place still a shithole run by a dumbass calvinist?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-05-2013, 09:37 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(09-05-2013 10:21 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This thread has really spiraled away from the BS statistics part of my OP... Consider

The second amendment and the Bill of Rights don't conflict with gun control. Arguing the semantics of the verbage in it is a fruitless endeavor. We already restrict and regulate "arms" that can be owned, purchased, and possessed by the general public. The 1790's are not equivalent to the 21st century. The founding fathers knew that our laws and customs could not be immutable if this country were to remain a beacon for freedom.

Why are gun grabbers so fixated on " WELL YOU DONT HAVE TANKS AND NUKES AND FIGHTER PLANES LIKE IN TOP GUN??

You are basically making the argument that "well we already have a certain amount of control, lets just crank the knob up'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 04:06 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(13-05-2013 09:37 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  You are basically making the argument that "well we already have a certain amount of control, lets just crank the knob up'.

I think you are making that argument for him.

As far as I can tell, he mentioned the current control to point out that those who speak against gun control from a Constitutional standpoint may be doing so in a personally biased fashion, because while Constitution-based arguments against new gun control are prevalent, they much less commonly include acknowledgment of decades-old gun control, and such arguments against some current restrictions are relatively rare. And I thought it obvious he mentioned the current control primarily to support what he mentioned about the founding fathers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-05-2013, 06:18 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(09-05-2013 10:11 AM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(08-05-2013 04:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, I don't. It is subject to reason.

It is one simple premise.

It could be one and simple, but it's not self-evident.

Ignoring that your view doesn't even have a philosophical basis as an axiom, it's an axiom that I can't see as being able to be used to make many rational decisions, which would kind of not make it applicable to morality. It looks a lot more like an end point or a justification, similar to how people use theism-- have individual, subjective beliefs (maybe related to a group or book) as to what is right and wrong, using god(s) (as an idea) in support.

You seem as if you just, at whatever point, had your own bias ideas as to what was right and wrong, based on what you personally wanted to do, then as a justification, arbitrarily claimed an inherent right to your own person; basically allowing you to do whatever you wanted, emphasizing how you don't want to be bothered by other people, until you insist on their support; telling everyone else to be comfortable in the fact that you arbitrarily applied your irrational ideology to them as well.

If I'm at all correct, I can't see why you wouldn't just forgo accepting that as an axiom. I would be, at least, more okay with the idea of every person behaving in whatever way they felt was moral, if it were the case that they made no formal attempt to justify their actions with ideology.


If I do not have the right to my own person, then I have no rights at all.

No one else has the right to my person, nor do I not have the right to anyone else's.

Seems self-evident to me.


We can't all just "behave in whatever way they felt was moral" since some people's beliefs will tread on others. We have to agree on how to behave - that's society.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
14-05-2013, 10:45 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Rights are a product of that agreement on how to behave. They are a construct of government rather than something inherent to existence. I believe that's what Truly meant when saying the right to your person is not self evident. Whether or not you have the right to yourself, you have the right to free speech, to bear arms, etc, because they are explicitly given to us each in the Bill of Rights.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-05-2013, 05:51 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(14-05-2013 10:45 PM)fat cat Wrote:  Rights are a product of that agreement on how to behave. They are a construct of government rather than something inherent to existence. I believe that's what Truly meant when saying the right to your person is not self evident. Whether or not you have the right to yourself, you have the right to free speech, to bear arms, etc, because they are explicitly given to us each in the Bill of Rights.

No, rights precede government or society. What we agree on are freedoms and limitations of 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
15-05-2013, 08:36 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(14-05-2013 04:06 AM)fat cat Wrote:  
(13-05-2013 09:37 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  You are basically making the argument that "well we already have a certain amount of control, lets just crank the knob up'.

I think you are making that argument for him.

As far as I can tell, he mentioned the current control to point out that those who speak against gun control from a Constitutional standpoint may be doing so in a personally biased fashion, because while Constitution-based arguments against new gun control are prevalent, they much less commonly include acknowledgment of decades-old gun control, and such arguments against some current restrictions are relatively rare. And I thought it obvious he mentioned the current control primarily to support what he mentioned about the founding fathers.

It's very common for one to vaguely imply things and then claim" I never said that" when you call them on it. It's a verbal luxury not deserved.

as for they much less commonly include acknowledgment of decades-old gun control,this is false as the gun buyer's world is flanked by the NFA of '34 and GCA of '68, plus various state restrictions. Pro gun people don't want anymore gun control, because it's failed to actually have a impact on violent crime(example: the "assault" weapons ban), and that's why gun grabbers have to result to comparing us to other countries using dubious numbers that unclude suicide and airsoft/paintball incidents in "violent gun crime".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: