Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "Luckily, my kids go to a good school, so they have the math skills to keep track of how many classmates get shot. "
Nice shot, Travis.
Pun definitely intended.
No, I think my options are laugh or cry because as a country we decided our guns are more important than our kids.
As a liberal arts type, were you absent the days they covered irony, satire and the concept of dark humor?
You do seem to have gotten A's in rushing to judgement and missing the point though.
So, ... you think ..."
Travis wrote: "If you are interested in factual honesty as you keep mentioning to us, then my pointing out religion is lacking in both shouldn't be a big problem."
When have I claimed it's a problem? Can you point to the posts?
The problem, in my eyes, is when people only see that and nothing else.
I see that. I even say that. I also see other things.
When have I claimed it's a problem? Can you point to the posts?
The problem, in my eyes, is when people only see that and nothing else.
I see that. I even say that. I also see other things.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I also know every single person I know and every single person I've seen give an interview talks about the child who was fine one day and became autistic two days after a round of v..."
Yeah.... It is.
But, there are different avenues of science. Aren't there.
Like psychology.
You know about that. I know you do.
You know that the vast majority of people are visual learners, and you know that people often trust attractive people over others. When you have an attractive actress, with star power and celebrity, who goes on news program after news program and says ....
People believe.
All sorts of people.
Regardless of conviction....
Do I believe her?
Not so much. I tend to think she has a character flaw for ever dating Jim Carey.
But, hey, I know a lot of folks are going to see her pretty face and hear her talking in a "convincing" manner, with personal stories and videos thrown in, and ....
They're going to believe her. Anti-science though it might be.
That's all I'm saying, Gary.
Again, ....
Religion can be bad. Very bad.
Science is good. Very good.
People should be vaccinated. Yes, they should.
But, please, ... consider that it's not as simple as blaming the anti-science religious types. Not even close to the truth. It has an element of truth. For sure and for certain. But, it isn't the whole truth. And, if we want to change things, we likely need a grasp on the entire reality of the situation.
Yeah.... It is.
But, there are different avenues of science. Aren't there.
Like psychology.
You know about that. I know you do.
You know that the vast majority of people are visual learners, and you know that people often trust attractive people over others. When you have an attractive actress, with star power and celebrity, who goes on news program after news program and says ....
People believe.
All sorts of people.
Regardless of conviction....
Do I believe her?
Not so much. I tend to think she has a character flaw for ever dating Jim Carey.
But, hey, I know a lot of folks are going to see her pretty face and hear her talking in a "convincing" manner, with personal stories and videos thrown in, and ....
They're going to believe her. Anti-science though it might be.
That's all I'm saying, Gary.
Again, ....
Religion can be bad. Very bad.
Science is good. Very good.
People should be vaccinated. Yes, they should.
But, please, ... consider that it's not as simple as blaming the anti-science religious types. Not even close to the truth. It has an element of truth. For sure and for certain. But, it isn't the whole truth. And, if we want to change things, we likely need a grasp on the entire reality of the situation.
Travis wrote: "As a liberal arts type, were you absent the days they covered irony, satire and the concept of dark humor?
You do seem to have gotten A's in rushing to judgement and missing the point though."
When all else fails ... or one doesn't have an argument or an excuse ... quasi-personal attacks or personal attacks reign supreme.
Rock on natural morality and intellectual honesty!
(Some don't think it's right to use the death of innocents or the possible death of innocents to prove a point, especially while making sarcastic jokes. Doesn't mean I missed the point. Means I think you crossed the line in order to make a point.)
You do seem to have gotten A's in rushing to judgement and missing the point though."
When all else fails ... or one doesn't have an argument or an excuse ... quasi-personal attacks or personal attacks reign supreme.
Rock on natural morality and intellectual honesty!
(Some don't think it's right to use the death of innocents or the possible death of innocents to prove a point, especially while making sarcastic jokes. Doesn't mean I missed the point. Means I think you crossed the line in order to make a point.)
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I also know every single person I know and every single person I've seen give an interview talks about the child who was fine one day and became autistic two days after..."Why do you keep thinking that people don't see the whole truth/big picture just because they don't show the same level of interest in the element of truth you are focusing on?
Maybe being such a big issue, like with any big job, we've chosen a smaller element to concentrate on.
Why do you keep moving away from the element of truth we are looking at? You could focus on the same element we are.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "As a liberal arts type, were you absent the days they covered irony, satire and the concept of dark humor?You do seem to have gotten A's in rushing to judgement and missing the poin..."
I had a line crossed as well, and it was when we decided as a country that our guns were more important than our kids.
If you are shocked and offended, than I've gotten the point of how horrible and absurd I find that idea across.
And I am being honest, as you have a pattern of being shocked by anything resembling irony and offended by anything resembling sarcasim.
How is sarcasim immoral or dishonest intellectually anyway?
Shannon wrote: "Find a way to honestly share information. Take a risk."Which has failed in the past because many people are too quick to accept anecdotal information over statistical evidence and because it sometimes takes a lot of knowledge to put a piece of information in context.
The damage done by such things are immense. Look at the Fukishima disaster or the Chernobyl (Chernobyl may eventually claim 9000 victims). Certainly they were not good, but the public fear of radiation is vastly out of proportion with scientific evidence of its actual effects. Furthermore, around the world public fear has led to the reluctance to use nuclear or to even fund newer safer designs, and instead to go back to environmentally harmful Coal-ash reactors, which ironically not only cause perhaps 13000 deaths per year but the fly ash emitted by a power plant carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.
The best way is for an independent peer reviewing scientific community that correlates and cross checks its results across religious, national and disciplinary boundaries. The problem is when non-scientists come along and accidentally or deliberately use mis-information or misunderstood information to undermine that process.
Shannon wrote: "I find it somewhat ironic that some might think it's acceptable for Chinese scientists to risk a worldwide pandemic but think it's unacceptable for a CDC scientist to explain why mercury was removed from vaccines in order not to, possibly, confuse the populous."
You see the way you misunderstood (deliberately or not) my words already. Exactly when did I say that Chinese scientists risking a pandemic was "acceptable". When did I say about the CDC Scientist saying anything being unacceptable. That is already massive distortions of what I said, and that's without any scientific context to establish.
1 - Chinese scientists "risking global pandemic"? According to whom. What precautions were taken? What benefits were being pursued? I don't know. Do you? Apart from a scary story in the media. Certainly at least one scientist has raised an alarm, if he's right then that should be addressed. That doesn't mean that science has failed. On the contrary a peer reviewer may have uncovered unethical activity on behalf of certain Chinese scientists. That is a success of the peer review system not a failure. However, we don't even know that much yet. It's like the scare about mini-black holes in the LHC. If you're a physicist you know why the danger was laughable, if you're not it sounds scary.
2 - The CDC's scientists silence or lack thereof. What has that got to do with anything? It is perfectly understandable why a scientist may not want to make a statement that may be taken out of context but neither want to lie to the public. For example they may have said that there was no statistically significant evidence of a problem with the substance, or he may have said there is a small risk, either could have caused even more problems. The point is I don't know and neither do you. However, I would be fairly sure that for such a high profile issue I could talk to a few biochemists and get an expert opinion. Though I may then need the expert to explain that expert opinion and I feel relatively confident in biology.
So yes, two isolated anecdotes are your "evidence" for some kind of systemic problem with science, all expressed on a medium that demonstrates the massive advantages of the scientific process.
Shannon wrote: "Dang. "
I am unfamiliar with that Americanism, though from context I think it may mean "I have just performed a wild extrapolation based on assumptions from sketchy anecdotes."
Travis wrote: "Why do you keep thinking that people don't see the whole truth/big picture just because they don't show the same level of interest in the element of truth you are focusing on?"
Probably because they make definitive statements like ... anti-science anti-vaccine people could cause a worldwide pandemic that could kill just as many people as the flu.
As an example ....
Then, when I ask for proof, things to read to educate myself on these claims, proof isn't offered.
Which, leads me to believe, yes ... believe, as I don't know for sure, that such statements have been made without actually seeing the whole picture, maybe without even seeing the picture itself, without having evidence to inform their statements, etc....
Probably because they make definitive statements like ... anti-science anti-vaccine people could cause a worldwide pandemic that could kill just as many people as the flu.
As an example ....
Then, when I ask for proof, things to read to educate myself on these claims, proof isn't offered.
Which, leads me to believe, yes ... believe, as I don't know for sure, that such statements have been made without actually seeing the whole picture, maybe without even seeing the picture itself, without having evidence to inform their statements, etc....
Travis wrote: "You could focus on the same element we are. "
What would that be?
That anti-science and anti-vaccine parents might cause a worldwide pandemic that will kill 20 million people, just like a flu strain created in an unsecured, supposedly, facility due to their illogical belief system. Pushing into our lives and killing millions.
If I were to focus on that, I'd be focusing on a false statement.
But, I did focus on that Friday night ... giving reputable information, one would think, from the CDC, etc... regarding things children are vaccinated for, how many children die of those illnesses, etc....
Further, I asked for proof. Evidence. Where am I going wrong? What are kiddos immunized for that would wipe out 20 to 40 million in a year, just like the flu?
Crickets.
I even did research for your argument and shared it, pertussis, though I'm not sure that would work due to numbers.
I'd have a hard time focusing on something that is off.
However, and I truly mean this, if you were to bring forth research to suggest the validity of your ideas on this subject, I'd actually like to read all of it and educate myself ... and discuss it.
I'm not likely to say, "Hey, you know, I bet parents refusing to give their daughters the HPV vaccine or measles shots will kill 30 million in a year, just like the pandemics in the past."
If that's what I have to do to please people, I don't know what to say ... other than ... where is the evidence ....
What would that be?
That anti-science and anti-vaccine parents might cause a worldwide pandemic that will kill 20 million people, just like a flu strain created in an unsecured, supposedly, facility due to their illogical belief system. Pushing into our lives and killing millions.
If I were to focus on that, I'd be focusing on a false statement.
But, I did focus on that Friday night ... giving reputable information, one would think, from the CDC, etc... regarding things children are vaccinated for, how many children die of those illnesses, etc....
Further, I asked for proof. Evidence. Where am I going wrong? What are kiddos immunized for that would wipe out 20 to 40 million in a year, just like the flu?
Crickets.
I even did research for your argument and shared it, pertussis, though I'm not sure that would work due to numbers.
I'd have a hard time focusing on something that is off.
However, and I truly mean this, if you were to bring forth research to suggest the validity of your ideas on this subject, I'd actually like to read all of it and educate myself ... and discuss it.
I'm not likely to say, "Hey, you know, I bet parents refusing to give their daughters the HPV vaccine or measles shots will kill 30 million in a year, just like the pandemics in the past."
If that's what I have to do to please people, I don't know what to say ... other than ... where is the evidence ....
Travis wrote: "I had a line crossed as well, and it was when we decided as a country that our guns were more important than our kids.
If you are shocked and offended, than I've gotten the point of how horrible and absurd I find that idea across.
And I am being honest, as you have a pattern of being shocked by anything resembling irony and offended by anything resembling sarcasim.
How is sarcasim immoral or dishonest intellectually anyway? "
Do you mean the recent failure to get background checks at gun shows and through some Internet sales through DC?
I support background checks, personally. If this is what you're talking about, post-Sandy Hook, I can see a lot of problems. Yes, it stinks that our politicians won't leave party politics and lobbies aside in order to, in a bipartisan way, look into the issue, really look into it, and do things that would help keep our kids safe. I think that would include background checks; however, I think it would also include how we deal with mental illness and people who should be medicated in order to be safe. Many of our recent mass shootings came from mental illness. We aren't, as a country, interested or willing to go there. Notice the lack of discussion, in DC and the media, when it comes to that ... and possible options.
Regarding morality and honesty ....
Not being pulled into the weeds.
That comment was directed at quasi-personal attacks and personal attacks when argument fails ... or when one doesn't make an arguments or follow-up argument ....That comment wasn't related to what you're attempting to link it to....
If you are shocked and offended, than I've gotten the point of how horrible and absurd I find that idea across.
And I am being honest, as you have a pattern of being shocked by anything resembling irony and offended by anything resembling sarcasim.
How is sarcasim immoral or dishonest intellectually anyway? "
Do you mean the recent failure to get background checks at gun shows and through some Internet sales through DC?
I support background checks, personally. If this is what you're talking about, post-Sandy Hook, I can see a lot of problems. Yes, it stinks that our politicians won't leave party politics and lobbies aside in order to, in a bipartisan way, look into the issue, really look into it, and do things that would help keep our kids safe. I think that would include background checks; however, I think it would also include how we deal with mental illness and people who should be medicated in order to be safe. Many of our recent mass shootings came from mental illness. We aren't, as a country, interested or willing to go there. Notice the lack of discussion, in DC and the media, when it comes to that ... and possible options.
Regarding morality and honesty ....
Not being pulled into the weeds.
That comment was directed at quasi-personal attacks and personal attacks when argument fails ... or when one doesn't make an arguments or follow-up argument ....That comment wasn't related to what you're attempting to link it to....
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "I find it somewhat ironic that some might think it's acceptable for Chinese scientists to risk a worldwide pandemic but think it's unacceptable for a CDC scientist to explain why mercury was removed from vaccines in order not to, possibly, confuse the populous."
You see the way you misunderstood (deliberately or not) my words already. Exactly when did I say that Chinese scientists risking a pandemic was "acceptable". When did I say about the CDC Scientist saying anything being unacceptable. That is already massive distortions of what I said, and that's without any scientific context to establish."
You're right.
While I said "some" versus you, I was talking about you and the arguments you've been making.
So, you are right.
You didn't say it was acceptable. You gave reasons why it would be done. Regarding China.... Regarding the scientist from the CDC, you didn't say it was acceptable or unacceptable. You gave reasons why scientists might not answer questions.
There is a difference.
You see the way you misunderstood (deliberately or not) my words already. Exactly when did I say that Chinese scientists risking a pandemic was "acceptable". When did I say about the CDC Scientist saying anything being unacceptable. That is already massive distortions of what I said, and that's without any scientific context to establish."
You're right.
While I said "some" versus you, I was talking about you and the arguments you've been making.
So, you are right.
You didn't say it was acceptable. You gave reasons why it would be done. Regarding China.... Regarding the scientist from the CDC, you didn't say it was acceptable or unacceptable. You gave reasons why scientists might not answer questions.
There is a difference.
Gary wrote: "So yes, two isolated anecdotes are your "evidence" for some kind of systemic problem with science, all expressed on a medium that demonstrates the massive advantages of the scientific process."
On this point, you are not right. Not even remotely. To make that statement, you're clearly not reading my posts or making any effort to understand what I'm saying.
Once again, ...
Science = Good
Scientists = Good
Vaccines = Good
Scientists at an unsecured lab making an avian/human flu strain is likely too risky, in my opinion. Which, is very different from saying science is bad or misrepresenting science.
Statements pulled out of thin air that can't be backed by any evidence at all aren't good. Asking one to pony up and giving additional information isn't bad ... and isn't sullying the reputation of all scientists and science in general.
On this point, you are not right. Not even remotely. To make that statement, you're clearly not reading my posts or making any effort to understand what I'm saying.
Once again, ...
Science = Good
Scientists = Good
Vaccines = Good
Scientists at an unsecured lab making an avian/human flu strain is likely too risky, in my opinion. Which, is very different from saying science is bad or misrepresenting science.
Statements pulled out of thin air that can't be backed by any evidence at all aren't good. Asking one to pony up and giving additional information isn't bad ... and isn't sullying the reputation of all scientists and science in general.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Dang. "
I am unfamiliar with that Americanism, though from context I think it may mean "I have just performed a wild extrapolation based on assumptions from sketchy anecdotes.""
Careful....
You know what you've always said about personal attacks....
They come when someone doesn't have the evidence to back his/her claim. Therefore, deflect, deflect, deflect.
By the way, "dang" is a "clean" version of damn. Wasn't aware that was a term unique to America and unknown by people in the UK. Good to know. From know on, when I use it, I'll be sure to give a reference, like I did for my comment about drinking Kool-Aid.
I am unfamiliar with that Americanism, though from context I think it may mean "I have just performed a wild extrapolation based on assumptions from sketchy anecdotes.""
Careful....
You know what you've always said about personal attacks....
They come when someone doesn't have the evidence to back his/her claim. Therefore, deflect, deflect, deflect.
By the way, "dang" is a "clean" version of damn. Wasn't aware that was a term unique to America and unknown by people in the UK. Good to know. From know on, when I use it, I'll be sure to give a reference, like I did for my comment about drinking Kool-Aid.
I'd rather live in a world where people think for themselves, so that empty definitions like "science" or "Religion" is no longer required
To Wes,Maybe you should put the 2nd amendment on your to read list. I'm currently reading the latest biography of Washington. It's very evident what was meant by the term militia.
Ken wrote: "To Wes,
Maybe you should put the 2nd amendment on your to read list. I'm currently reading the latest biography of Washington. It's very evident what was meant by the term militia."
Who made up the militia, Ken?
Able-bodied men, any able-bodied men?
I've not read the book you're referring to. Could you give us information?
In general, America was a very wild place then. Areas in Maine and Vermont were wild frontiers with many dangers.
If any and all able-bodied men owned guns, that could be used when forming a militia to deal with threats, those guns were available to their families. It would have been a very dangerous place without such a weapon. Rabid animals, wolves, wild animals attempting to steal families chickens, etc... which meant life and death to them .... Guns were needed.
I find it hard to believe, though I might be wrong, that Washington only wanted guns in armories, in order to be used by the militia, when called up for active duty.
But, I'd look at the book to clue myself in ....
Maybe you should put the 2nd amendment on your to read list. I'm currently reading the latest biography of Washington. It's very evident what was meant by the term militia."
Who made up the militia, Ken?
Able-bodied men, any able-bodied men?
I've not read the book you're referring to. Could you give us information?
In general, America was a very wild place then. Areas in Maine and Vermont were wild frontiers with many dangers.
If any and all able-bodied men owned guns, that could be used when forming a militia to deal with threats, those guns were available to their families. It would have been a very dangerous place without such a weapon. Rabid animals, wolves, wild animals attempting to steal families chickens, etc... which meant life and death to them .... Guns were needed.
I find it hard to believe, though I might be wrong, that Washington only wanted guns in armories, in order to be used by the militia, when called up for active duty.
But, I'd look at the book to clue myself in ....
Wes wrote: "Travis wrote: I had a line crossed as well, and it was when we decided as a country that our guns were more important than our kids."Oh dear dear Travis, nobody is saying guns are more important ..."
Oh dear, oh dear, yes, they did.
There has been no officeal anouncment from either the liberal savior or those that worship the NRA, but it is what we, as a country have decided.
We decided a long time back, that this right to bear arms is sacred and any amount of dead children is worth making sure it is never touched or even faintly inconvienced.
and an every growing pile of dead child children seems to give the theory a bit of weight.
Not sure how a background check impedes your ability and right to belong to a well regulated militia...but then again, it's not the part that anybody pays attention to. Most people stop after 'right to bear arms'.
I'm curious, as an outsider: what do you think would happen if your government made access to guns more difficult? What would the disadvantage be to you?
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "I had a line crossed as well, and it was when we decided as a country that our guns were more important than our kids.If you are shocked and offended, than I've gotten the point of ..."
Oh yes, we need to fix a lot of things, background checks is only a part of it.
There's all kind of work needed on how we treat people with mental illness, as well as the gun part.
But, if we can't get that to happen, the rest of it doesn't stand a chance.
let's face it, the right hates any attempt to fix or change healthcare almost as much as any hint that we have a problem with guns in this country and might need to do things differently.
To Shannon,Washington: A Life
by Ron Chernow
Washington and the other founders recognized the need for a militia, meaning armed citizens and not enlisted in the military. In the revolutionary war, Washington commmanded both. The second amendment protects the rights of citizens to own arms so they can join a militia to fend off enemies foreign or domestic - in this case the British or the Indians and earlier the French and Indians. The salient point being that the militia was on the side of the government and under the direction of the government.
Gary wrote: So why didn't you answer even half the point of what I said. You alluded that the fault was with science..."
It did and it was.
Pharmaceutical companies have their own scientists researching and developing new drugs and vaccines. To me that is science. What they then do with that drug ( good or bad) and how they profit from it is as a direct result of science and their scientists.
You may want 'science' or the idea of science to have it's own uniqueness and some how remain separate from what emerges from it, and that is fine but that is not written in stone, it is just your perception of what you think it should be, not what it is.
And if you apply that view to science then it would seem reasonable and balanced if you also applied it to religion.
Gary wrote: Yes, but some have mixes of ideology and some have a bias to one side or another..
They 'all' do.
Gary wrote: Therefore, a company that misrepresents scientific data to generate a profit for itself is not doing science when it does and is actually actively undermining science.
'doing science'? It is science and it is bad science. Using science for the wrong reason. But it is science.
If I was to apply that sentiment to religion I don't think you want to agree.
Gary wrote: This is why there are scientists out there who are determined to fight the corruption of the scientific process by big companies with a vested interest (For example Dr. Ben Goldacre)..."
"And finally, let us not forget the strays, the good scientists who have passed to the dark side. Was it those shares in that drug company, or the lust for fame and glory? Bad scientists, your days are numbered".
Ben Goldacre
...........Bad scientists = bad science.
Gary wrote: "I am unfamiliar with that Americanism"."Dang" to me sounds like a plastic sword hitting someone on the head, so I'm doubtful you've never heard it. Seriously though, I'm surprised, though how delightful of you to invent a cheeky context for it. Bravo. Props. (Although yes, before you blurt it out, I did that too, I know! Sue me or something.)
Meanwhile, it's not unique to America, Shannon, though admittedly it's not very often used in these parts.
Ken wrote: "To Shannon,
Washington: A Life
by Ron Chernow
Washington and the other founders recognized the need for a militia, meaning armed citizens and not enlisted in the military. In the revolutionary w..."
Thanks for the info, Ken. I did a little looking around and found reviews of this book. I wondered. I found one review, The Washington Times or Post that mentioned Chernow discussing how distraught Washington was about the Whiskey Rebellion and that he didn't feel the minority had a right to rule the majority, questioning the minority using guns against the government. After reading that, I wondered if that's what you were referencing.
I was thinking about Washington on my way home, what I knew about him. He wasn't one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He did support the Constitution and attempted to get it ratified. I don't, though, know where he stood on the Bill of Rights.
I do know some of the other founders were adamant about the Bill of Rights, insisting that be the first order of business of the first Congress. Some of the founders and states didn't think the Constitution offered enough protections. So, ....
I'm also aware that there was some disagreement on this point, in general, not just relating to arms. But, while I know they came to an agreement, I don't know where Washington stood.
As I was driving home, I wondered at my lack of knowledge on this point and pondered whether or not Washington's alleged concerns, alleged since I've not read it myself, made a difference to me and my views on the right to bear arms.
It came to me when I got home .... Washington was just one man. Of all men, Washington only wanted to be one man, one of the men who forged our country. One voice among many. The founders embraced, even when frustrated, the idea that all should have a voice. And, clearly, their voices, in their entirety, were heard. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified by the states and became law. Average citizens bore arms from that moment forward in our history. That was and is our system of government.
So, for me, while it's an interesting point and something for me to read about and use while coming to decisions about certain issues, it's not necessarily a deal breaker regarding my views on the 2nd Amendment. It is very interesting, though. Glad you mentioned the book!
Washington: A Life
by Ron Chernow
Washington and the other founders recognized the need for a militia, meaning armed citizens and not enlisted in the military. In the revolutionary w..."
Thanks for the info, Ken. I did a little looking around and found reviews of this book. I wondered. I found one review, The Washington Times or Post that mentioned Chernow discussing how distraught Washington was about the Whiskey Rebellion and that he didn't feel the minority had a right to rule the majority, questioning the minority using guns against the government. After reading that, I wondered if that's what you were referencing.
I was thinking about Washington on my way home, what I knew about him. He wasn't one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He did support the Constitution and attempted to get it ratified. I don't, though, know where he stood on the Bill of Rights.
I do know some of the other founders were adamant about the Bill of Rights, insisting that be the first order of business of the first Congress. Some of the founders and states didn't think the Constitution offered enough protections. So, ....
I'm also aware that there was some disagreement on this point, in general, not just relating to arms. But, while I know they came to an agreement, I don't know where Washington stood.
As I was driving home, I wondered at my lack of knowledge on this point and pondered whether or not Washington's alleged concerns, alleged since I've not read it myself, made a difference to me and my views on the right to bear arms.
It came to me when I got home .... Washington was just one man. Of all men, Washington only wanted to be one man, one of the men who forged our country. One voice among many. The founders embraced, even when frustrated, the idea that all should have a voice. And, clearly, their voices, in their entirety, were heard. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified by the states and became law. Average citizens bore arms from that moment forward in our history. That was and is our system of government.
So, for me, while it's an interesting point and something for me to read about and use while coming to decisions about certain issues, it's not necessarily a deal breaker regarding my views on the 2nd Amendment. It is very interesting, though. Glad you mentioned the book!
Tim wrote: "I'm curious, as an outsider: what do you think would happen if your government made access to guns more difficult? What would the disadvantage be to you?"
Not sure if you had someone in mind to answer or if it's open to all.
I'll speak for myself....
What do I think will happen if the government made access to guns more difficult?
Hopefully, not much will happen. On the face of it, stricter background checks wouldn't have much of an impact on me. If I want to buy a gun, I'll buy one from a reputable and licensed dealer. Therefore, I'll undergo a background check.
When they began discussing this after Sandy Hook and proposed legislation, some began to discuss infringements. I didn't research what they said as it didn't interest me overly. So, I'm not sure if this information is correct or not.
I heard, on the news, that the proposed legislation would make it illegal to pass guns down, from one family member to another, without the original bill of sale. Again, true or not, I don't know. This might sound an odd tradition to some from other countries. But, many in this country pass down guns from one generation to another. Of course, it's, for the most part, something men do. For many years, many men in my area had very little to pass down. Their guns, usually hunting rifles, were passed down to their children. It was a big deal. One of my great-grandfather's guns, made in the late 1700's, was passed down to my father. It had been his great-grandfather's ... I don't know ... grandfather's gun. That was a huge deal for my father, to get that gun. My father passed one of his guns down to me. It's the first gun he ever bought. He saved for years, when he was in high school, and bought the gun as soon as he was old enough. It was the first major purchase he ever saved for and bought. It was a huge deal for him to pass it on to me.
So, for some of us who were raised with these traditions, the former legislation might have, actually, changed a big thing in our lives.
I heard this ... and what I'll mention next ... was fixed in the legislation, removed before the vote. Again, I heard all of this in passing and didn't research it myself.
Another thing that was mentioned dealt with giving guns to children. Honestly, I'm not big on giving guns to children. My family isn't either. My father was in his 40's when he got his great-grandfather's gun. I was in my 30's when I got my father's gun. Did we know how to use our parents' guns growing up. Yes. But, we sure as shoot didn't have our own then. I guess some like giving guns to teens as presents. From what I heard, only parents would be able to do so due to the writing of the proposal. Grandparents would not. Some were having a fit about that. Again, personally, I don't think anyone should give kiddos guns. No skin off my nose. But, again, I heard this was removed.
Those were two of the points that were swirling around back in January and February.
Now, ... beyond background checks .... There was talk regarding banning certain weapons, like AR-15's. Again, personally, I don't care to own an AR-15 and can't imagine the average citizen would ever need such a weapon. Those bans would have an impact. Though, I'd not care much about those.
Some discussion centered around the number of bullets that could be in a clip, etc.... Some wanted to limit it to 8 or 10. At first, I was totally for that. After hearing several law enforcement officers discuss this, I changed my mind. First, I didn't know some weapons, .22's, for instance, don't have enough power to stop an attacker. I also didn't know some 9 millimeters, etc... wouldn't necessarily stop and attacker with one or two bullets. A few law enforcement officers asked me ... look at you ... look at him ... (one of the guys in the group) ... imagine he's coming for you and wants to attack you ... do you want a gun, to even the odds, to protect yourself ... do you want the biggest gun you could handle ... now, imagine it's not just him ... imagine three of us are coming for you ... would 8 bullets or 10 bullets be enough ... even if you hit us with every bullet, would that be enough to protect yourself.
Hmmm....
That set me back a bit. So, on that possible ban, a ban in some states, I'm finding I disagree. Further, they said most home invasions involved multiple perpetrators. (I've not confirmed that.)
If, ... if ... I lived in a state that has a ban on the number of bullets your gun could hold, I would, possibly, not be as able to protect myself. That would be a problem.
Some news stories ... Not for the faint of heart. Be warned.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_16...
Guessing a gun would have come in handy for this poor woman. A tragic local story that ripped our hearts out.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-s...
Now, ... would banning a certain number of bullets in guns have made a difference in these cases. I don't know.
There are a lot more stories, and I could find the number of people who the government says protect themselves with guns each year. Though, they stopped taking note of that in the '90's, ... for some reason. We'd have to fudge a bit. It was 100,000 using the '90's numbers but the crime rate was much higher then, maybe by 30%. So, does that mean we'd take 30% of that number?
Anyway, background checks likely wouldn't impact us. Not to my knowledge, at least with the most recent legislation. Limiting the number of bullets might.
Not sure if you had someone in mind to answer or if it's open to all.
I'll speak for myself....
What do I think will happen if the government made access to guns more difficult?
Hopefully, not much will happen. On the face of it, stricter background checks wouldn't have much of an impact on me. If I want to buy a gun, I'll buy one from a reputable and licensed dealer. Therefore, I'll undergo a background check.
When they began discussing this after Sandy Hook and proposed legislation, some began to discuss infringements. I didn't research what they said as it didn't interest me overly. So, I'm not sure if this information is correct or not.
I heard, on the news, that the proposed legislation would make it illegal to pass guns down, from one family member to another, without the original bill of sale. Again, true or not, I don't know. This might sound an odd tradition to some from other countries. But, many in this country pass down guns from one generation to another. Of course, it's, for the most part, something men do. For many years, many men in my area had very little to pass down. Their guns, usually hunting rifles, were passed down to their children. It was a big deal. One of my great-grandfather's guns, made in the late 1700's, was passed down to my father. It had been his great-grandfather's ... I don't know ... grandfather's gun. That was a huge deal for my father, to get that gun. My father passed one of his guns down to me. It's the first gun he ever bought. He saved for years, when he was in high school, and bought the gun as soon as he was old enough. It was the first major purchase he ever saved for and bought. It was a huge deal for him to pass it on to me.
So, for some of us who were raised with these traditions, the former legislation might have, actually, changed a big thing in our lives.
I heard this ... and what I'll mention next ... was fixed in the legislation, removed before the vote. Again, I heard all of this in passing and didn't research it myself.
Another thing that was mentioned dealt with giving guns to children. Honestly, I'm not big on giving guns to children. My family isn't either. My father was in his 40's when he got his great-grandfather's gun. I was in my 30's when I got my father's gun. Did we know how to use our parents' guns growing up. Yes. But, we sure as shoot didn't have our own then. I guess some like giving guns to teens as presents. From what I heard, only parents would be able to do so due to the writing of the proposal. Grandparents would not. Some were having a fit about that. Again, personally, I don't think anyone should give kiddos guns. No skin off my nose. But, again, I heard this was removed.
Those were two of the points that were swirling around back in January and February.
Now, ... beyond background checks .... There was talk regarding banning certain weapons, like AR-15's. Again, personally, I don't care to own an AR-15 and can't imagine the average citizen would ever need such a weapon. Those bans would have an impact. Though, I'd not care much about those.
Some discussion centered around the number of bullets that could be in a clip, etc.... Some wanted to limit it to 8 or 10. At first, I was totally for that. After hearing several law enforcement officers discuss this, I changed my mind. First, I didn't know some weapons, .22's, for instance, don't have enough power to stop an attacker. I also didn't know some 9 millimeters, etc... wouldn't necessarily stop and attacker with one or two bullets. A few law enforcement officers asked me ... look at you ... look at him ... (one of the guys in the group) ... imagine he's coming for you and wants to attack you ... do you want a gun, to even the odds, to protect yourself ... do you want the biggest gun you could handle ... now, imagine it's not just him ... imagine three of us are coming for you ... would 8 bullets or 10 bullets be enough ... even if you hit us with every bullet, would that be enough to protect yourself.
Hmmm....
That set me back a bit. So, on that possible ban, a ban in some states, I'm finding I disagree. Further, they said most home invasions involved multiple perpetrators. (I've not confirmed that.)
If, ... if ... I lived in a state that has a ban on the number of bullets your gun could hold, I would, possibly, not be as able to protect myself. That would be a problem.
Some news stories ... Not for the faint of heart. Be warned.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_16...
Guessing a gun would have come in handy for this poor woman. A tragic local story that ripped our hearts out.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/georgia-mom-...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/okla-woman-s...
Now, ... would banning a certain number of bullets in guns have made a difference in these cases. I don't know.
There are a lot more stories, and I could find the number of people who the government says protect themselves with guns each year. Though, they stopped taking note of that in the '90's, ... for some reason. We'd have to fudge a bit. It was 100,000 using the '90's numbers but the crime rate was much higher then, maybe by 30%. So, does that mean we'd take 30% of that number?
Anyway, background checks likely wouldn't impact us. Not to my knowledge, at least with the most recent legislation. Limiting the number of bullets might.
Tim wrote: "I'm curious, as an outsider: what do you think would happen if your government made access to guns more difficult? What would the disadvantage be to you?"Changes nothing for me, as I've never owned a gun and have no intention of ever owning one.
Only big disadvantage is I have to listen to my in-laws complain.
Travis wrote: "the right hates any attempt to fix or change healthcare almost as much as any hint that we have a problem with guns in this country and might need to do things differently. "
True. And, the left gets squeamish when talk turns to forced medication and institutionalization.
All in all, neither side, in general, wants to address the issue of mental illness in this country.
True. And, the left gets squeamish when talk turns to forced medication and institutionalization.
All in all, neither side, in general, wants to address the issue of mental illness in this country.
And, ... the hits just keep on coming!!!!
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-o...
This is why our government has checks and balances, a Bill of Rights, and a legal system.
You HAVE GOT to be kidding me!
Dang! Otherwise known as, DAMN!
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/govt-o...
This is why our government has checks and balances, a Bill of Rights, and a legal system.
You HAVE GOT to be kidding me!
Dang! Otherwise known as, DAMN!
Shannon wrote: "Kathy wrote: "Shannon, it would never occur to me to make out that any war, or conflict, or disaster of worldwide proportions is or ever has been caused by one factor. But I think we can clearly s..."Would it not be great if one factor, such as the elimination of religion, could chase away all the world's evil and ills? We should all be so lucky!!!
It is hard for me to get to the definition of "war" that means a day one starts and then constant fighting and then the end of the "war." To me there will always be a war in Israel. They share land and cities with what they consider to be the enemy and that same enemy considers this territory to be theirs. And they are not simply fighting because they have different beliefs. No it is very complex and that is probably why there is no end in sight.
Of course here are days and weeks and months where they are not armed and shooting each other, but then something causes the fighting to start again. It goes that some slight agreement is made and then it does not work out and so on and so on.
And this has literally been going on hundreds of years. See no end in sight as both groups consider this their homeland.
Guess I am speaking of Ireland in the past, or I hope so. It is not just all about their independence from England though. As in any case there are so many factors that cause this conflict.
And the Middle East. One country fights another (Iran/Iraq) then so on and so on. It is over oil and land and certainly religion. The ones hurt the most are the everyday citizens that just want to walk the streets, buy groceries, have a place to take the groceries too and even have a job to go to. But they can't because the radicals have to be in constant battle.
I am not saying that religion is evil or that it should be eliminated, but people should vote on war. People should have been able to vote here on whether they wanted to spend all these lives, money and resources on war.
And initially I was totally against the teaching of all ideas regarding the creation of humankind. I thought it brought religion too much into what should be an objective learning environment. But then I changed my mind. As many options should be discussed. But not one only as the final word.
If parents want to teach their children that there is only one answer, then they can do that at home. Parents have a huge sway over where children's minds are going and while peer pressure is touted as meaning so much, I can tell you from experience that the values I have and the things I hold dear come from my parents and grandparents, not peers I can't even remember now.
Tangent city. But it does focus on science and religion a bit.
Kathy wrote: "And this has literally been going on hundreds of years. See no end in sight as both groups consider this their homeland.
"
Well, .... Israel has only been Israel since 1948. Before that, the British controlled that area, which was a different thing all together. Before that, far before, there had been the diaspora and not many Jews in that land ... scattered to the four winds. So, I'm not sure I'd say a war has waged in Israel for hundreds of years. At least not between the Jews and the Muslims. Perhaps it's the history nut in me, but I think there is a difference, at least historically, and a difference between war and conflict. I have a distinct memory of the difference being beaten into me in history classes.
"
Well, .... Israel has only been Israel since 1948. Before that, the British controlled that area, which was a different thing all together. Before that, far before, there had been the diaspora and not many Jews in that land ... scattered to the four winds. So, I'm not sure I'd say a war has waged in Israel for hundreds of years. At least not between the Jews and the Muslims. Perhaps it's the history nut in me, but I think there is a difference, at least historically, and a difference between war and conflict. I have a distinct memory of the difference being beaten into me in history classes.
Shannon wrote: "Then, when I ask for proof, things to read to educate myself on these claims, proof isn't offered."That's because you keep asking for anecdotal proof or proof of specific possibilities that are too narrow and don't address the exact point. Furthermore the kind of "proof" that you require (i.e. a personal understanding rather than accepting the research of experts) would require you to be educated in the science.
This is a common tactic used by anti-science people to try to take fragments of science out of context where it can then be ridiculed or destroyed using so-called "common sense" arguments. For example whenever it snows some denier scoffs that a spell of cold weather undermines the 93%+ scientific consensus on climate change.
Shannon wrote: "Which, leads me to believe, yes ... believe, as I don't know for sure, that such statements have been made without actually seeing the whole picture, maybe without even seeing the picture itself, without having evidence to inform their statements, etc...."
Exactly, except that it's people focusing on specifics in order to pick apart the generic that have not seen the whole picture, deliberately or otherwise. For example Creationists try to use a handful of cases that they can make to sound dubious to try to undermine the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution. In fact when they keep claiming that "there are no transitional fossils" by simply ignoring the evidence, they like it when paleontologists find another transitional as to their mind that has now created two gaps where there was once one!
Shannon wrote: "That anti-science and anti-vaccine parents might cause a worldwide pandemic that will kill 20 million people, just like a flu strain created in an unsecured, supposedly, facility due to their illogical belief system. Pushing into our lives and killing millions."
Yes. The difference here is that research into genetic manipulation of diseases actually can lead to cures, so there are good potential reasons for the Chinese research, and we don't know the precautions taken or the real risks inherent (it could turn out that the genes spliced had nothing to do with the effectiveness of the disease.) Meanwhile the anti-vaccination groups are primarily acting on belief, fear and misinformation. Sound familiar?
Shannon wrote: "Further, I asked for proof. Evidence. Where am I going wrong? What are kiddos immunized for that would wipe out 20 to 40 million in a year, just like the flu?"
Learn genetics then.
'When smallpox was finally eradicated in 1979, during the 20th century alone it had killed an estimated 300–500 million people.'
http://books.google.co.uk/books/ucpre...
Polio, measles and other diseases are dangerous as they are, as are many others that are vaccinated against. Do we know one of them will lead to a global pandemic? No. Can any of them? Yes! Especially with a large mobile interacting population.
Shannon wrote: "Crickets."
Again you use the anti-science method of assuming that a lack of answer means there is no answer, rather than the truth which is a short answer would misinform and a long answer would be potentially incomprehensible or misunderstood without a lot of groundwork. Like when Chris takes a bit of physics and argues with a physicist on his interpretation of what he learned.
Shannon wrote: "I even did research for your argument and shared it, pertussis, though I'm not sure that would work due to numbers."
In it's current form, like measles, or other diseases. But diseases evolve! Not only that but diseases left to reproduce in a population can hybridise and some of them can even directly swap genes. This is possibly how HIV evolved when SIV was introduced into humans in bushmeat and some of it managed to survive long enough to exchange the genes to attack the human system. Leading to the HIV epidemic.
Shannon wrote: "However, and I truly mean this, if you were to bring forth research to suggest the validity of your ideas on this subject, I'd actually like to read all of it and educate myself ... and discuss it."
So you are intending to become an epidemiologist? Or are you using the common anti-science tactic of assuming that if something cannot be easily explained to a layperson then it's a hoax?
Shannon wrote: "I'm not likely to say, "Hey, you know, I bet parents refusing to give their daughters the HPV vaccine or measles shots will kill 30 million in a year, just like the pandemics in the past.""
Not 'will', 'could'. The problem with such a thing is that the risks are great but we don't know which one may kill us or whether it will kill a handful or kill almost everyone. The point is that vaccination reduces the risk a lot, not only of catching and dying from said disease but also from that disease having a population to evolve and mutate to a new lethality in.
Shannon wrote: "If that's what I have to do to please people, I don't know what to say ... other than ... where is the evidence ...."
In the sciences of epidemiology, genetics and the bulk of medical knowledge. If you don't trust those who have studied it then study it yourself. Put it this way, if a person who only spoke Russian didn't believe the translation of Shakespeare done by people who can read Russian and English, what choice would they have but to learn English before claiming they know better than the experts?
cHriS wrote: "Pharmaceutical companies have their own scientists researching and developing new drugs and vaccines. To me that is science. What they then do with that drug ( good or bad) and how they profit from it is as a direct result of science and their scientists."So we should release all murderers from jail because most of them used technology (gun, knife, poison) invented by "science" and "science" and scientists are therefore to blame?
Laughable.
cHriS wrote: "You may want 'science' or the idea of science to have it's own uniqueness and some how remain separate from what emerges from it, and that is fine but that is not written in stone, it is just your perception of what you think it should be, not what it is."
No. It's called comprehension of what science is. If someone calls for "non-whites to be exterminated" in the language of English, do you blame linguists for inventing or studying English.
Is someone puts a tool in your hand and you choose to use it to harm, then you are responsible for that harm.
cHriS wrote: "And if you apply that view to science then it would seem reasonable and balanced if you also applied it to religion."
No. Because religion not only has no independent verifications for it's many varied and conflicting claims, but most religions do provide motivation for behaviour and claims to moral superiority (which indeed you repeatedly claim). Therefore if people point at religion and go "but it says there that I should kill the gays" then that particular religion is responsible unless it can clearly and certainly be shown that it was not what the religion said.
cHriS wrote: "They 'all' do."
That's what I said. But I merely pointed out that the bias was not all equal nor consistent. Yet it's kind of beside the point.
cHriS wrote: "'doing science'? It is science and it is bad science. Using science for the wrong reason. But it is science."
Actually no. Because once the methodology of science is discarded to misinform, then you are no longer really doing science. Yet I can understand that you have issues comprehending relative scales rather than absolutes.
cHriS wrote: "If I was to apply that sentiment to religion I don't think you want to agree. "
That doing "bad religion" is not religion? Actually I'd agree, the only problem is that religion is a set of beliefs and dogma, not a methodology of uncovering knowledge. Therefore taking any concept you like and believing in it and refusing to change that belief as new information comes to light is doing religion. It may be a peaceful religion of inner contemplation or a vicious retributive religion based on human sacrifice but as long as you are holding faith in a rigid set of ideas and precepts then it's religion.
Shannon wrote: "You didn't say it was acceptable. You gave reasons why it would be done. Regarding China.... Regarding the scientist from the CDC, you didn't say it was acceptable or unacceptable. You gave reasons why scientists might not answer questions. There is a difference."
The difference seems to be hyperbole. You asked about this event involving a Chinese research group and this loan CDC scientist and then conflated that view to the entire international scientific community. Then alluded that there was some sort of shocking inconsistency that other people were somehow "defending" these specific allegations.
Shannon wrote: "On this point, you are not right. Not even remotely. To make that statement, you're clearly not reading my posts or making any effort to understand what I'm saying."
As you obviously are not reading mine.
Why do you bring up this loan incident at all on this thread unless you wish it to somehow undermine "science" as related to religion? Why these anecdotes of "bad" things "science" might be doing which strips away the sheer volume of good done every day by it? Especially by potential abuses of science?
This is the problem I have, not just with you but with the general public. People think in terms of anecdotes rather than in overall terms. This is used repeatedly by those with a vested interest to attack groups that they want to undermine.
For example in the UK recently a person on welfare (who was actually defrauding the welfare too) was convicted of killing children. The PM and others of his party was quick to link this horrible crime to being on welfare despite there being no statistical link and the fact that the vast majority of people on welfare are not on it for long and don't murder kids.
Of course when there is a spate of suicides that are based on the welfare cuts to the disabled and vulnerable (as attested to by those who left notes) the government claims "not to comment on individual cases'.
Shannon wrote: "Scientists at an unsecured lab making an avian/human flu strain is likely too risky, in my opinion. Which, is very different from saying science is bad or misrepresenting science."
In your opinion which is based on third hand accounts of other peoples opinions. Certainly if the risks were as great as you fear, and the precautions so lax then I would certainly agree with you, as would any sensible scientist. So what is the point of your bringing it up here?
Shannon wrote: "Statements pulled out of thin air that can't be backed by any evidence at all aren't good. Asking one to pony up and giving additional information isn't bad ... and isn't sullying the reputation of all scientists and science in general."
Yet they can be backed up, by so much evidence it takes years to teach it all. Plus some of the "pony up the evidence" you request seems deliberately specific or obtuse.
For example. The medical evidence that vaccines save potentially hundreds of millions of lives a year is well known.
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/vpd-mev...
The risks of not vaccinating are also well known. Furthermore, risks that are very real but hard to quantify exist, for example a minor disease may transfer antibiotic resistance to a major one by horizontal gene transfer if both diseases exist in a population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizont...
The only way to combat this is to try to prevent as many diseases having the chance to proliferate as possible.
Shannon wrote: "Careful.... You know what you've always said about personal attacks.... They come when someone doesn't have the evidence to back his/her claim. Therefore, deflect, deflect, deflect."
I agree, which is why I only tend to use them when I feel someone has used ad hominem attacks in the first instance. As I have said to you in the past I just don't see a difference between disguising your attack in long statements, allegations or inferences.
For example, turning around and trying to claim that because no one immediately gave a succinct and precise answer to your queries that meant they couldn't and they knew it. In the same way that you implied that a CDC scientist not answering the question about mercury compounds was evidence of complicity in some sort of scandal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomers...
If you are genuinely concerned about vaccine and Thiomersal, then why bring it up here, and why not research it yourself. Instead you have used it here and demanded that people give you "evidence" to refute anecdotal and vague claims made about it.
It does not feel like you are honestly interested in the answer, it does just feel like you are employing the common anti-science technique of flinging kaka and seeing what sticks (or what is too complicated to easily answer in a soundbite).
If that wasn't the intention - fair enough.
Shannon wrote: "By the way, "dang" is a "clean" version of damn. Wasn't aware that was a term unique to America and unknown by people in the UK. Good to know. From know on, when I use it, I'll be sure to give a reference, like I did for my comment about drinking Kool-Aid."
Funnily enough I knew the Kool-Aid one thanks to my learning about comparative religion and cults. As for "dang" I have heard it before but I realised I wasn't sure what the actual meaning was, since it's not common here. However, as it turns out it was used as an exclamation to sarcastically highlight what you implied was an inconsistency.
Then you followed that mockery with an admonition against personal attacks.
Which is ironic in itself.
Shannon wrote: "True. And, the left gets squeamish when talk turns to forced medication and institutionalization. All in all, neither side, in general, wants to address the issue of mental illness in this country. "
That's because in the US (and the UK now) there isn't really a "left" to speak of. Democrats and Republicans in America are generally speaking very similar to each other. "Obamacare" is not socialised medical care at all. Unfortunately it's the model that both our main parties is also working towards, from the other side! Because the American system is better? No. Because the American system gives opportunities for profit for big corporations. Even when some of the work is moved into the private sector and the company contracted to do it then subcontracts to the NHS!
Our own mental institutions and healthcare is deteriorating as our politicians gut the NHS and quietly sell it off to their business interests. I guess I should just be glad that in this country the nutters wandering the street find it a lot harder to arm themselves.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "You didn't say it was acceptable. You gave reasons why it would be done. Regarding China.... Regarding the scientist from the CDC, you didn't say it was acceptable or unacceptable. You gave reasons why scientists might not answer questions.
There is a difference."
The difference seems to be hyperbole. You asked about this event involving a Chinese research group and this loan CDC scientist and then conflated that view to the entire international scientific community. Then alluded that there was some sort of shocking inconsistency that other people were somehow "defending" these specific allegations. "
Do you realize, Gary, that, on this point, I told you that you were right. You were right. You didn't say that. You, you, Gary, were right.
And, do you realize, you're even arguing about that.
Gotta give it one more time....
Can't resist the urge to give it one more time, one more swipe, one more ... You, Shannon, made it seem the entire world community of scientists is bad.
How am I to have a conversation with you?
First, if it's important to you to take swipes at people to the point that, when they tell you that you're right, you keep going, it's rather difficult.
Secondly, ... I wasn't saying that science and scientists were bad.
But, hey, if you keep saying it, over and over, whether true or a total and complete lie, people might believe you.
So, .... If you'd like to get people to believe you, believe that I said the entire community of scientists are bad, say it about five more times. People might believe it. You, however, will have done the thing you say your against.
Regarding the rest of it, .... Thanks for all the "wiki" sources....
If I want further information, I'll find things myself and talk with science teachers at school who care more about educating than making a point about creationism and creationists and anti-science conspiracies, none of which were at issue here.
Meanwhile, Gary, your posts have proven absolutely nothing and absolutely everything in one fell swoop. Just not sure what you intended to prove was proven.
There is a difference."
The difference seems to be hyperbole. You asked about this event involving a Chinese research group and this loan CDC scientist and then conflated that view to the entire international scientific community. Then alluded that there was some sort of shocking inconsistency that other people were somehow "defending" these specific allegations. "
Do you realize, Gary, that, on this point, I told you that you were right. You were right. You didn't say that. You, you, Gary, were right.
And, do you realize, you're even arguing about that.
Gotta give it one more time....
Can't resist the urge to give it one more time, one more swipe, one more ... You, Shannon, made it seem the entire world community of scientists is bad.
How am I to have a conversation with you?
First, if it's important to you to take swipes at people to the point that, when they tell you that you're right, you keep going, it's rather difficult.
Secondly, ... I wasn't saying that science and scientists were bad.
But, hey, if you keep saying it, over and over, whether true or a total and complete lie, people might believe you.
So, .... If you'd like to get people to believe you, believe that I said the entire community of scientists are bad, say it about five more times. People might believe it. You, however, will have done the thing you say your against.
Regarding the rest of it, .... Thanks for all the "wiki" sources....
If I want further information, I'll find things myself and talk with science teachers at school who care more about educating than making a point about creationism and creationists and anti-science conspiracies, none of which were at issue here.
Meanwhile, Gary, your posts have proven absolutely nothing and absolutely everything in one fell swoop. Just not sure what you intended to prove was proven.
Gary wrote: "For example, turning around and trying to claim that because no one immediately gave a succinct and precise answer to your queries that meant they couldn't and they knew it. "
Immediately = Instead of meaning instantaneously, it means four days.
Or, does it ....
Does it actually mean ... instantaneously?
Does saying someone expected a response immediately and is wrong for doing so make it true?
Even though the questions were posed four days ago ... and the statement was made about not being given proof last night.
I guess, if someone says it, it must be true, at least within the realm of belief.
Immediately = Instead of meaning instantaneously, it means four days.
Or, does it ....
Does it actually mean ... instantaneously?
Does saying someone expected a response immediately and is wrong for doing so make it true?
Even though the questions were posed four days ago ... and the statement was made about not being given proof last night.
I guess, if someone says it, it must be true, at least within the realm of belief.
Gary wrote: "This is a common tactic used by anti-science people " - to pick one of the latest.You haven't yet evolved from the regular use of this "common tactic" approach. You did it a few posts back with conspiracy theorists and I have fond laundry-requiring memories of you using it to describe my use of capital letters many moons back. "Capslock authoritarianism" you called it, "a common tactic amongst theists". When I mention that to people (some of whom are also users of this site) - for merely anecdotal purposes you understand - they look at me like I wiretapped Narnia.
In the past, the "common tactic" approach has added nothing to your argument or views, and it still doesn't because it's empty, hollow and meaningless because any blatherer could say that. It's easy, see: "Ah yes, common use of 'a common tactic' is a common tactic among people who are forcing an opinion out and assume people will believe it if 'common' is used enough times". Sounds ridiculous, even without the hyperbole.
Your repetition suggests a Fixed Action Pattern that you need to exploit or even a schema you can't shake.
You need a better catchphrase frankly, or better still none at all - you accused me of implying you were a "witless mouthpiece" when I laid this observation the first time. Well, that was how you sounded then and it's unfortunately how that catchphrase often makes you sound now, though I bet you're thinking "rhetorical device" not "catchphrase". I'd be fizzingly delighted, effervescent even, if you disproved that, even if it may not make me agree with your points any more than I do (you'd have to be a fool obviously, anybody would, to assume that as an inevitable outcome). It would at least make the points sound like your own though - and you can see the benefit of that.
Shannon wrote: "Some news stories ... Not for the faint of heart. Be warned."Again, you do seem to put far too much emphasis on anecdotal evidence than actual statistical evidence.
For example, would the mother murdered by four machetes been safer with a gun? Maybe. If she, as a mother, could turn her gun on children. Maybe she could have gunned them down to save herself.
What if the kids were also armed with guns too? Certainly guns may "even the odds" when a small person faces a larger one, but all this does is make it more likely someone will die. There is little statistical evidence that it means less good people will die.
Guns as a defence only make sense if the majority of victims of gun violence are the "bad guys". I don't think that's supported by the statistics. In fact a person in the USA is far more likely to die by their own gun (suicide or accident) than to die by murder, and a significant portion of those murders are by a gun owned by someone known to the victim (a relative or partner).
http://www.nature.com/news/firearms-r...
Of course, the US government rather than "coming for your guns" is rather complicit in ignoring the actual risks and promoting anecdotal accounts. In fact;
"Unfortunately, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has been scandalously successful in suppressing public safety research into guns. The problems began when investigators funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that having a gun in the home tripled the chance that a family member would get shot. Outraged that reality was not falling into line with presuppositions, then representative Jay Dickey of Arkansas added language to federal law in 1996 that barred the CDC from conducting research that might be used “to advocate or promote gun control." - http://www.scientificamerican.com/art...
The irony is that with terrorism which claims currently maybe 17 lives in a year (Around 3000 counting 9/11) Americans are willing to surrender massive amounts of civil liberties including right to due process, right to privacy etc. etc. but with 30,000 lives lost per year due to guns the government is paralysed from doing even the most basic precautions.
Now personally I am not saying that banning guns in the USA is vital to save lives, because every country is different and just because the rest of the developed world can play nice without guns, doesn't mean automatically it will work in the USA. Especially given the sensationalist media and public fears compared to even armed countries like Canada. However, research needs to be done and sensible precautions are necessary.
Shannon wrote: "Secondly, ... I wasn't saying that science and scientists were bad."So what was the relevance of the posts to this thread? It certainly seemed to give the impression that you were implying science could be "bad", and indeed that's the point that Chris has also been plainly stating.
Perhaps I have misunderstood you as your verbose replies I find sometimes meandering and difficult to follow what your intended point is. If you agree with me that science = good, vaccinations = good, then please explain briefly what point you were trying to make and I shall be grateful.
Michael wrote: ad hominem repeatium... :-D
Gary wrote: Michael wrote: ad hominem repeatium... :-D Ab uno disce omnes, but you kept it short and didn't say it was a common tactic, so I'm seeing progress.
Michael wrote: "Ab uno disce omnes, but you kept it short and didn't say it was a common tactic, so I'm seeing progress."I didn't think I had to. :-D
Gary wrote: I didn't think I had to. :-DI'll ascribe relevance to that to get it over with, because life is too short most days, but the truth remains that the thing I mentioned should genuinely concern you and you really shouldn't so blithely dismiss the thought that your methods occasionally make what you say sound like regurgitated left-overs. If you're OK with that, fine, but you sure as hell don't need to be.
Also, if by some strange urge to do the old boing-flip you want to tell me I'm generalising, then fine, but while you're at it telling people "it's a common tactic" is also wildly generalising. And lazy. It actually means that for all your effort, you are unreliable.
Michael wrote: "I'll ascribe relevance to that to get it over with, because life is too short most days, but the truth remains that the thing I mentioned should genuinely concern you and you really shouldn't so blithely dismiss the thought that your methods occasionally make what you say sound like regurgitated left-overs. If you're OK with that, fine, but you sure as hell don't need to be."Your opinion of how I sound to you is of absolutely no concern to me. Especially as you have done nothing to address the points I raised other than to offer personal attacks and derision based entirely on personal opinion.
Michael wrote: "Also, if by some strange urge to do the old boing-flip you want to tell me I'm generalising, then fine, but while you're at it telling people "it's a common tactic" is also wildly generalising. And lazy."
No you haven't got as far as generalising yet. You are offering personal attacks and opinion presented as fact, so I will not want to "boing" and "flip". If you have something relevant to say then say it civilly and I will endeavour to do likewise, even if I disagree.
I am sure you would like pointing out common fallacies, tactics and rhetoric to be considered lazy. However I consider employing said tactics lazy. It is indeed a common tactic to try to undermine a large body of evidence by countering it with an anecdote about an anomaly that doesn't fit with the trend. (See the oft repeated "heavy smoker lives to 90" anecdote). It's a common tactic to point at a lack of a certain response, or a response that does not conform to some arbitrary level of detail, and take that as a victory for the accuser. So common that most civilised countries have it written into law that this cannot be used as evidence against someone. It is also a common - if rather unsuccessful and immature - tactic to use capslock to try to lend weight to ones words, just as some people in a verbal conversation will mistake yelling for authority.
Is it lazy to point this out or is it lazy to employ it in the first place?
Offer respect, reason and civility and see it returned. Offer nothing but scorn, derision and hyperbole and see it returned.
Would you like to start on a new page?
Gary wrote: "Your opinion of how I sound to you is of absolutely no concern to me."On the obvious level, why should my personal individual view bother you? Figured that out, not just today, but long ago, and that genuinely doesn't worry me. I was thinking more widely than that. To be honest though I'd have been happy, sort of, with "Piss off Michael!" Like I never heard that before! Would have said all I needed. I stand by my basic view though, so we'll leave it there. Or I will. Which is almost but not quite the same thing.
Michael wrote: "To be honest though I'd have been happy, sort of, with "Piss off Michael!" Like I never heard that before! Would have said all I needed. "Which is one reason that I hope I never "progress" in the manner you inferred. I don't care about your opinion of me because I have yet to view from your communiques anything to make me respect your opinions.
Michael wrote: "I stand by my basic view though, so we'll leave it there. Or I will. Which is almost but not quite the same thing. "
Is your basic view anything more than you don't like me/my views?
If they are, I again invite you to share them rationally and calmly.
Gary wrote: "Again, you do seem to put far too much emphasis on anecdotal evidence than actual statistical evidence."
Gary....
You're ignoring the statistical evidence I mentioned. I can't do it now, but I'll include all of the relevant sources later.
Studies have been done that claim 100,000 people use guns to save themselves each year. That has come under criticism. Why? The numbers used were from the '90's and are likely off, given the fact that the crime rate, including violent crime rate, was much higher then. Maybe as much as 30%.
Would you like to tell me and the readers why you ignored that?
Further, I mentioned we'd likely have to take the 100,000 number and cut it by 30%.
Would you like to explain why you ignored that?
To heck with it.
I'll get you the corresponding sources right now .... Immediately.
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckan...
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National...
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhet...
The last giving facts regarding gun murders and suicides in 2010, 11,078 and 19,392 respectively. If 100,000 people "use" guns to protect themselves each year, but we need to take that down by 30%, we still have more people using guns to protect themselves than we do people committing murder and suicide, though I'm the first to say those stats are atrocious.
There you go. Statistics. Immediately.
You might, though, keep in mind that I was answering a question posed by a man who wanted to know what would be different, in our lives, if the government made acquiring guns more difficult.
That was the point of my response.
You might keep that in mind.
Further, for the crime victims in the articles I noted, limiting the number of bullets that might be used in a gun might have had an impact in their survival. Might.
Big picture ... and the picture in question.
Gary....
You're ignoring the statistical evidence I mentioned. I can't do it now, but I'll include all of the relevant sources later.
Studies have been done that claim 100,000 people use guns to save themselves each year. That has come under criticism. Why? The numbers used were from the '90's and are likely off, given the fact that the crime rate, including violent crime rate, was much higher then. Maybe as much as 30%.
Would you like to tell me and the readers why you ignored that?
Further, I mentioned we'd likely have to take the 100,000 number and cut it by 30%.
Would you like to explain why you ignored that?
To heck with it.
I'll get you the corresponding sources right now .... Immediately.
http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/kleckan...
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdet...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National...
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhet...
The last giving facts regarding gun murders and suicides in 2010, 11,078 and 19,392 respectively. If 100,000 people "use" guns to protect themselves each year, but we need to take that down by 30%, we still have more people using guns to protect themselves than we do people committing murder and suicide, though I'm the first to say those stats are atrocious.
There you go. Statistics. Immediately.
You might, though, keep in mind that I was answering a question posed by a man who wanted to know what would be different, in our lives, if the government made acquiring guns more difficult.
That was the point of my response.
You might keep that in mind.
Further, for the crime victims in the articles I noted, limiting the number of bullets that might be used in a gun might have had an impact in their survival. Might.
Big picture ... and the picture in question.
Gary wrote: "For example, would the mother murdered by four machetes been safer with a gun? Maybe. If she, as a mother, could turn her gun on children. Maybe she could have gunned them down to save herself. "
Maybe she could have used the gun to save her daughter from being hacked near to death. Because, her 11 year old daughter was hacked nearly to death. Especially around and about her face and head, if memory serves.
Regardless....
If I wake up tonight with four teenage boys breaking in, teenage boys who made a plan to murder everyone in the house they entered ... if anyone was home, would it be wrong for me to use my gun in order to save myself. I mean, ... maybe it would be better to let them hack me to death? After all, they're just boys. Should a woman lie back and let herself be brutally murdered, due to the age of her murderers? Is her life not as valuable? If not, why not? Would my life not be as valuable? Was this woman's life not as valuable? Maybe, since I'm not a mother, I'd more readily kill "children"? Maybe? Okay, if she had a gun that night, as a mother, would it have been better for her to use that gun to save herself and her innocent child, a child who was actually a child and actually innocent? Or, would it have been better for her to realize the murderers were just ... "children" ... and lie back and let them go at it?
Would it be different if it was a man? Should he use violent force in order to save himself? Would his life be worth it? Or, should he also lie back and let four teenage boys bent on murder to chop him up and chop up his 11-year old daughter?
What do you think?
Why don't you share....
Maybe she could have used the gun to save her daughter from being hacked near to death. Because, her 11 year old daughter was hacked nearly to death. Especially around and about her face and head, if memory serves.
Regardless....
If I wake up tonight with four teenage boys breaking in, teenage boys who made a plan to murder everyone in the house they entered ... if anyone was home, would it be wrong for me to use my gun in order to save myself. I mean, ... maybe it would be better to let them hack me to death? After all, they're just boys. Should a woman lie back and let herself be brutally murdered, due to the age of her murderers? Is her life not as valuable? If not, why not? Would my life not be as valuable? Was this woman's life not as valuable? Maybe, since I'm not a mother, I'd more readily kill "children"? Maybe? Okay, if she had a gun that night, as a mother, would it have been better for her to use that gun to save herself and her innocent child, a child who was actually a child and actually innocent? Or, would it have been better for her to realize the murderers were just ... "children" ... and lie back and let them go at it?
Would it be different if it was a man? Should he use violent force in order to save himself? Would his life be worth it? Or, should he also lie back and let four teenage boys bent on murder to chop him up and chop up his 11-year old daughter?
What do you think?
Why don't you share....
Gary wrote: "So what was the relevance of the posts to this thread? It certainly seemed to give the impression that you were implying science could be "bad", and indeed that's the point that Chris has also been plainly stating."
Because you weren't actually reading my words, it would seem. Because, if you were actually reading my words ... and my constant posts assuring you that I was not saying that and reiterating what I was saying, you would never have gone where you did because you'd not have misunderstood.
Bully for you for making another quasi-personal attack, though.
Silly, Shannon. Longwinded posts that I just can't possibly be expected to understand....
Maybe she should go elsewhere and post elsewhere ....
Yup. Gary, I got it.
Loud and clear and repeatedly.
Because you weren't actually reading my words, it would seem. Because, if you were actually reading my words ... and my constant posts assuring you that I was not saying that and reiterating what I was saying, you would never have gone where you did because you'd not have misunderstood.
Bully for you for making another quasi-personal attack, though.
Silly, Shannon. Longwinded posts that I just can't possibly be expected to understand....
Maybe she should go elsewhere and post elsewhere ....
Yup. Gary, I got it.
Loud and clear and repeatedly.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Prove me wrong.
Could you give me a list of articles, news posts, etc... that show people within the field of science discussing this? Perhaps it exists. I'd like to read it. All of it.
Perhaps, instead of crying Godwin's or saying I'm trying to make all scientists into criminals, we could discuss it here. By the way, in my years here, I've never seen a person who argues for science discuss that. Godwin's is shouted, etc....
But, seriously, prove me wrong. Where in the record is it discussed? Books, articles, tv news clips, posts here. Where is it? Again, I'd like to read it and watch it.
Point me to the evidence.