|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Feb 19, 2018 20:17:52 GMT
He is an audience member for the singing and is on the receiving end of the noise so is entitled to an opinion about it. Similarly, he can be on the receiving end of bullets, so is entitled to an opinion about the guns. And because this is a field that affects us all (guns are a public issue), his opinion is just as valid as the owners. In public matters, that is called democracy. It's sad that you think a public matter should not be subject to democracy. I never said he wasn't entitled to his opinion. As a matter of fact, I said everyone is entitled to their opinion. But as a responsible gun owner, it is obvious many of these gun control advocates have no idea what they are talking about. They are still entitled to their opinion. But after talking and listening to them, I don't give their opinions much weight because their inexperience shines through with their ill-informed positions. I know, my point is that his opinion is just as valid as the owners. He does not need to own a gun to know that being on the receiving end of bullets is bad. You said exactly the same about gonorrhoea - you do not need to have had it to know that getting it is bad. Likewise, you do not need to have owned a gun to know that getting its bullets is bad.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 19, 2018 21:10:19 GMT
I never said he wasn't entitled to his opinion. As a matter of fact, I said everyone is entitled to their opinion. But as a responsible gun owner, it is obvious many of these gun control advocates have no idea what they are talking about. They are still entitled to their opinion. But after talking and listening to them, I don't give their opinions much weight because their inexperience shines through with their ill-informed positions. I know, my point is that his opinion is just as valid as the owners. He does not need to own a gun to know that being on the receiving end of bullets is bad. You said exactly the same about gonorrhoea - you do not need to have had it to know that getting it is bad. Likewise, you do not need to have owned a gun to know that getting its bullets is bad. But I also know that being on the receiving end of a car accident is not appealing. And I also know banning all cars is not an informed solution. Just like banning all guns is not an informed solution to mass shootings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 23:24:15 GMT
Agreed! But you can bet that some think tank funded by the left doing a data study is going to classify and report the Florida school shooting as terrorism, when at the very same time they classify the DC sniper attacks in 2002 as only a domestic dispute between a husband and wife. I'm serious, they really did classify the DC sniper (John Allen Muhammad) that way even though he was convicted of terrorism charges.
I followed the trail on one of these data studies a couple of years ago, actually got a copy of the source data and found this to be what they had done in categorizing the attack. You can be sure that some college prof used the study to lecture her students. I know that news outlets used it in such headlines as "White American men are a bigger domestic terrorist threat.." or "Far Right Extremists Are Bigger Threat....". DO NOT believe these studies unless you have seen the source data and the full report. All it takes is a misclassification of data to get the results they want. The MSM will proceed to write lengthy articles or op-ed pieces quoting the data study, but the data study is deeply flawed. It's not science when it's biased. People are being fooled by this all f'ing time! This is one of my areas of expertise and the dishonesty I see is staggering.
Come on, we all know that the methods used for classifying whether or not something is a terrorist attack is a load of horse shit. The guidelines were written by Republicans during the George W. Bush administration for the purpose of putting an end to environmental pollution protests once and for all, as a service to oil companies like Chevron and Exxon. It was no accident that the former CEO of Chevron ended up in a key position in the George W. Bush administration and now the former CEO of Exxon holds a key position in the Trump Administration. This is and has been a right wing political stunt to victimize the public without any consequences. Killing off the public by simultaneously cutting back public services while funding and training Alt-Right Trump supporters to go on shooting sprees at schools and other locations. The political implications of that are not good so it isn't surprising that you would do or say almost anything to try to keep the public from coming to the conclusion that the current government administration is trying to kill them off on purpose while looting the lower and middle classes to give to the top 1% most wealthy. Nazi Germany tried to do the same thing when they found their nation in a deep financial bind like what the U.S. is in right now, and Donald Trump will try to do exactly the same thing. Spurred on by the likes of Charles Koch, relative of Ilse Koch, one of the worst villains of the Holocaust. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilse_Kochallthatsinteresting.com/ilse-kochExactly what the Trump administration is doing, just like the Nazi party, turning the public against democracy. Geez. That is one huge deflection away from my acute and accurate critique regarding the dishonesty of data studies, in which I allow that data can be (is) misused by both sides. My point is that people are being fooled by this all the time and they can be made to believe almost anything.
It's like all you said in response was, "Yeah, but Trump is a Nazi." Are you unaware of the dishonesty, corruption and support for the rich that exists on your side, assuming you have one? I really don't know you enough to say. I'm not a fan of the top 1% (not at all), but they do consist of Democrats, probably even more than Republicans these days. The Democrat politicians are blatant bedfellows to these filthy rich too, who are mostly liberal jews (I just point out the fact) in oil, food, technology and media. I am not blind to the fact big money creates some very strange bedfellows too (I don't exempt the Bush's for example). These people are truly an interconnected and incestuous group, but Hillary Clinton is far more connected to this than Donald Trump. With Trump, I see a good type of American nationalism, one that is open to all its citizens regardless of race, class or gender. The claim that it is only a white nationalism is a outright lie.
You give opinion in your response that I don't see the basis for, nor the truth for. Your view is obviously different from mine. I'm a seeker of truth, but claims of Nazism are ridiculous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2018 23:54:29 GMT
My position is entirely logical yours on the other hand isn't and it appears from your brief response you know it. Let me put it more simply for you: Which of these is more likely to have an informed opinion when it comes to the "gun control debate": The academic who has spent twenty years researching gun deaths,the trends in ownership,political and sociological affects,spree killings,weapon bans and has published several papers on the subject. The teenager who goes into his local sporting goods store and buys a glock. Who knows nothing about how many gun deaths there are in America,who owns them,what background checks are needed,what weapons are legal or illegal. You see in the real world most people are going to take the academics informed opinion despite the fact that he doesn't own a gun. In your world the teenagers opinion is more informed than the academics simply because he is a gun owner. Now do you see the absurdity of your OP? The intelligent, mature and experienced gun owner will know more about guns than some cheesehead sitting behind a desk at some stupid college. Nobody said lunatic, murderous teenagers knew anything. That is a red herring. Nobody is trying to protect the gun rights of any stupid teenager. Experienced, mature gun owners don't want to be penalized because you panty waisted cheeseheads don't know the difference between mentally ill teenagers and a responsible gun owner. Movieliker, I advise not trying to engage the self proclaimed Mr. Superior (wolfesth) because he'll just do a logistical circle jerk on you.
He leads by putting forth a subtle "ad hominin" attack, and even leading the audience by saying: My position is entirely logical yours on the other hand isn't and it appears from your brief response you know it.
He "begs the question" with "an appeal to authority". Which of these is more likely to have an informed opinion when it comes to the "gun control debate":
...by putting forth in his example an unproven authority, "the academic who has spent twenty years researching gun deaths,the trends in ownership,political and sociological affects,spree killings,weapon bans and has published several papers on the subject."
My posts in this thread have already shown the level of dishonesty employed by these so-called academic authorities. It all sounds good, 20 years of research, writing papers, etc., but the fact is: They are fudging the data to get the result they want. All that "research" and "paper writing" is as meaningless as the data collection techniques and the lack of integrity in the data study itself.
Then of course, he will then accuse you of: 1) Anti-intellectualism!! Funny, isn't it? and 2) Not understanding logical fallacies.
Hence, the logistical circle jerk. He's the one who thinks he's the brightest bulb while admiring himself in the mirror, when the light on him is all coming in through the window (he's not even in the same room as the light). Yet, he'll tell everyone how he shines!
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 20, 2018 6:54:07 GMT
The intelligent, mature and experienced gun owner will know more about guns than some cheesehead sitting behind a desk at some stupid college. Nobody said a lunatic, murderous teenagers knew anything. That is a red herring. Nobody is trying to protect the gun rights of any stupid teenager. Experienced, mature gun owners don't want to be penalized because you panty waisted cheeseheads don't know the difference between mentally ill teenagers and a responsible gun owner. Movieliker, I advise not trying to engage the self proclaimed Mr. Superior (wolfesth) because he'll just do a logistical circle jerk on you.
He leads by putting forth a subtle "ad hominin" attack, and even leading the audience by saying: My position is entirely logical yours on the other hand isn't and it appears from your brief response you know it.
He "begs the question" with "an appeal to authority". Which of these is more likely to have an informed opinion when it comes to the "gun control debate":
...by putting forth in his example an unproven authority, "the academic who has spent twenty years researching gun deaths,the trends in ownership,political and sociological affects,spree killings,weapon bans and has published several papers on the subject."
My posts in this thread have already shown the level of dishonesty employed by these so-called academic authorities. It all sounds good, 20 years of research, writing papers, etc., but the fact is: They are fudging the data to get the result they want. All that "research" and "paper writing" is as meaningless as the data collection techniques and the lack of integrity in the data study itself.
Then of course, he will then accuse you of: 1) Anti-intellectualism!! Funny, isn't it? and 2) Not understanding logical fallacies.
Hence, the logistical circle jerk. He's the one who thinks he's the brightest bulb while admiring himself in the mirror, when the light on him is all coming in through the window (he's not even in the same room as the light). Yet, he'll tell everyone how he shines!
Thanks for your opinion. It always helps to get a second opinion from one who's opinion you respect. I kinda already suspected Wolfish of being an egg head with a master's in bullshit. Now I have more reason to doubt his self proclaimed gravitas.
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on Feb 20, 2018 13:58:42 GMT
Appeal to Authority argumentum ad verecundiam (also known as: argument from authority, appeal to false authority, appeal to unqualified authority, argument from false authority, ipse dixit) Description: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made. Anti-intellectualism is hostility to and mistrust of intellect, intellectuals, and intellectualism commonly expressed as deprecation of education and philosophy, and the dismissal of art, literature, and science as impractical and even contemptible human pursuits.[1] Anti-intellectuals present themselves and are perceived as champions of common folk—populists against political and academic elitism—and tend to see educated people as a status class detached from the concerns of most people, and feel that intellectuals dominate political discourse and control higher education Aren't those opposites? Trusting authority and mistrusting authority?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2018 16:13:44 GMT
You think there aren’t whites of Hispanic descent who aren’t part of Aryan/white nationalist groups? If Florida killer isn’t white, then I don’t know who is.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Feb 23, 2018 23:14:51 GMT
But I also know that being on the receiving end of a car accident is not appealing. Good. So you are agreeing with me - you do not have to own a car to know that being on the receiving end of a car accident is bad, and you believe your opinion as an accident receiver is as valid an accident deliverer. Same as guns - the receiver of the bullets has an equally valid opinion as the deliverer of the bullets.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 23, 2018 23:58:13 GMT
But I also know that being on the receiving end of a car accident is not appealing. Good. So you are agreeing with me - you do not have to own a car to know that being on the receiving end of a car accident is bad, and you believe your opinion as an accident receiver is as valid an accident deliverer. Same as guns - the receiver of the bullets has an equally valid opinion as the deliverer of the bullets. Wrong. You are misconstruing my post. A person on the receiving end of a gun shot --- who is and has never been a gun owner --- does not understand what it takes to be a responsible gun owner. Or an irresponsible gun owner. Like a responsible gun owner does. Just like a person on the receiving end of a car accident --- who is and has never been a car operator --- doesn't understand what it takes to be a responsible car operator. Or an irresponsible car operator. Like a responsible car operator does.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Feb 24, 2018 9:30:27 GMT
Good. So you are agreeing with me - you do not have to own a car to know that being on the receiving end of a car accident is bad, and you believe your opinion as an accident receiver is as valid an accident deliverer. Same as guns - the receiver of the bullets has an equally valid opinion as the deliverer of the bullets. Wrong. You are misconstruing my post. A person on the receiving end of a gun shot --- who is and has never been a gun owner --- does not understand what it takes to be a responsible gun owner. Or an irresponsible gun owner. Like a responsible gun owner does. Just like a person on the receiving end of a car accident --- who is and has never been a car operator --- doesn't understand what it takes to be a responsible car operator. Or an irresponsible car operator. Like a responsible car operator does. Wrong. It doesn't matter if they don't know what it is like to own a gun or car. Their opinion about not being shot or hit is equally valid as the opinion of the gun or car owner, because the gun or car can have a significant impact on them. That is all they need to know - what the impact can be - not how to own or drive it.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 24, 2018 17:08:21 GMT
Wrong. You are misconstruing my post. A person on the receiving end of a gun shot --- who is and has never been a gun owner --- does not understand what it takes to be a responsible gun owner. Or an irresponsible gun owner. Like a responsible gun owner does. Just like a person on the receiving end of a car accident --- who is and has never been a car operator --- doesn't understand what it takes to be a responsible car operator. Or an irresponsible car operator. Like a responsible car operator does. Wrong. It doesn't matter if they don't know what it is like to own a gun or car. Their opinion about not being shot or hit is equally valid as the opinion of the gun or car owner, because the gun or car can have a significant impact on them. That is all they need to know - what the impact can be - not how to own or drive it. There is no way someone who has never owned or operated a gun or a car would know how to be a responsible owner/operator without ever owning or operating a gun or a car. So, their opinion would be valid from a non owner/operator standpoint. But it would have nothing to do with what it takes to be a responsible or irresponsible owner/operator.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Feb 24, 2018 20:35:53 GMT
Wrong. It doesn't matter if they don't know what it is like to own a gun or car. Their opinion about not being shot or hit is equally valid as the opinion of the gun or car owner, because the gun or car can have a significant impact on them. That is all they need to know - what the impact can be - not how to own or drive it. There is no way someone who has never owned or operated a gun or a car would know how to be a responsible owner/operator without ever owning or operating a gun or a car. So, their opinion would be valid from a non owner/operator standpoint. But it would have nothing to do with what it takes to be a responsible or irresponsible owner/operator. No-one is arguing that. The discussion is whether their opinion as a potential victim carries weight. Clearly it does.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 24, 2018 20:45:05 GMT
There is no way someone who has never owned or operated a gun or a car would know how to be a responsible owner/operator without ever owning or operating a gun or a car. So, their opinion would be valid from a non owner/operator standpoint. But it would have nothing to do with what it takes to be a responsible or irresponsible owner/operator. No-one is arguing that. The discussion is whether their opinion as a potential victim carries weight. Clearly it does. No one is arguing that either. Their opinion would carry weight. Just not as much as people who own and operate guns.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Feb 24, 2018 21:28:29 GMT
No-one is arguing that. The discussion is whether their opinion as a potential victim carries weight. Clearly it does. No one is arguing that either. Their opinion would carry weight. Just not as much as people who own and operate guns. And here is where you are wrong again, for the umpteenth time. You do not need not have owned a gun to have an opinion about being a victim of a gun, which is equally as valid as a gun owner's opinion of being a victim of a gun.
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Feb 24, 2018 21:43:41 GMT
No one is arguing that either. Their opinion would carry weight. Just not as much as people who own and operate guns. And here is where you are wrong again, for the umpteenth time. You do not need not have owned a gun to have an opinion about being a victim of a gun, which is equally as valid as a gun owner's opinion of being a victim of a gun. I disagree. It is less valid than an owner/operator.
|
|