Dawkins and Politics

Where no two people are likely to agree.
User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3279
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby ElectricMonk » Wed Dec 06, 2017 3:23 pm

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:offical US data on the subject can be suspect, too, since Congress has banned proper data collection and analysis.


You've been misinformed.

It is not true that Congress has banned proper data collection and analysis.

I posted about this before in another thread. Go read the actual law and correct your misunderstanding of it.


so why is there no decent research? Come to think of it, why doesn't the NRA sponsor research if guns are so great for society?

The fact is that for 20 years there was no funding for research of gun violence, partially by law, partially because it would have been career suicide to do so. Researchers get death threats if they try to investigate.
On top of that, the ATF can't keep the right kind of records and can't digitalize what it's got.
As a result, all research on the topic is done through private funding, which gives the NRA the excuse to declare the research as biased.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:24 pm

There is a law denying government funding to any research that might support gun control recommendations.

Xouper is strictly correct in his wording. But the end result of this law is to seriously restrict the amount of research into the social impact of guns. One of the things that warps Xoupers mind against the Harvard research is the simple fact that Harvard has had to go to alternative sources of funding for their research, and (of course) the NRA claims that Harvard is doing the bidding of anti gun groups.

There is no doubt in my mind that this law is a result of government corruption and the nefarious influence of the gun makers on politicians. It is interesting that the NRA supported Dubya, including with massive campaign contributions, and for the 8 years Dubya ran things, gun control was totally off the government agenda. The NRA did the same to Trump, and Trump is avoiding any suggestion of gun control, no matter how bad the mass shootings. The NRA opposed Hilary Clinton with vehemance, and the gun supporters, like Xouper, say incredibly foul things about her. The whole issue of supporting guns or supporting gun control is warped by the corruption of the NRA and other gun maker minions.

On Xoupers claim that his data comes from peer reviewed scientific papers.
This is mostly incorrect, because most of the pro gun arguments are just that, arguments.

To a minor degree, there is a little correctness there, though. That is because the gun makers, just like the tobacco companies before them, finance any scientific work that might result in something to their benefit. Of course, if the scientist(s) they support come up with results they do not like, it does not get published. We rely on teams like Harvard and Stanford for honest publishing. If the scientist(s) they support find something to help the gun makers, it gets published, and Xouper quotes the results.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:31 pm

I think it is also nefarious that there is no law requiring Police (FBI....?) to track and report their shootings and killings of people. Hard to make/reform public policy without any data.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 06, 2017 10:57 pm

https://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/02/america ... mbers.html

The above reference shows some of the statistics for a couple of years back. Let me mention one.

The value of the gun and ammunition industry to the American economy. $42.9 billion per year.

The cost of gun violence to the American economy. $229 billion per year.

Duh!

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:40 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is a law denying government funding to any research that might support gun control recommendations.


That is still not accurate.

I have explained this before but apparently you remain willfully ignorant of the facts.

Same for Mr Monk since he asked this same exact question two years ago:

viewtopic.php?f=97&t=25526&p=461927#p461927


Lance Kennedy wrote: One of the things that warps Xoupers mind . . .


There you go again, making derogatory and false comments about my mental processes.

You {!#%@} piece of {!#%@}.

Seriously, you are one {!#%@} up person, Lance, and anyone can see from your faulty rhetoric.


Lance Kennedy wrote:There is no doubt in my mind that this law is a result of government corruption and the nefarious influence of the gun makers on politicians.


And there is no doubt in my mind you are full of {!#%@}.


Lance Kennedy wrote:The NRA opposed Hilary Clinton with vehemance, and the gun supporters, like Xouper, say incredibly foul things about her.


I say foul things about her because she is a foul person. It has nothign to do with the NRA.

Once again, you try to pull the fallacy of guilt by association.

Pathetic.

You must think the people here are as stoopid as you are, if you expect them to fall for your rhetorical fallacies like that.


Lance Kennedy wrote:On Xoupers claim that his data comes from peer reviewed scientific papers.
This is mostly incorrect, because most of the pro gun arguments are just that, arguments.


BS.

Once again you lie about where I get my data. You {!#%@} piece of {!#%@}.


Lance Kennedy wrote:To a minor degree, there is a little correctness there, though. That is because the gun makers, just like the tobacco companies before them, finance any scientific work that might result in something to their benefit. Of course, if the scientist(s) they support come up with results they do not like, it does not get published. We rely on teams like Harvard and Stanford for honest publishing. If the scientist(s) they support find something to help the gun makers, it gets published, and Xouper quotes the results.


More BS.

But what did we expect from someone who has their head so far up their ass, that's all they can see.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10319
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby Pyrrho » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:29 am

Warning issued; please don't post severely abusive content directed at other users.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:03 pm

"We rely on teams like Harvard and Stanford for honest publishing." /// Details are fading, but seems to me last year I started a thread about Harvard paying scientists to study the harmful effects of fat so they wouldn't spend their time studying sugar..........paid for by the sugar lobby.

So.......I quibble on the notion of "rely." We should rely on ALL sources, triage them for accuracy if not just statements against self interest, and go from there.

Once a source confirms they believe guns don't kill people, no further research is required.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 07, 2017 6:59 pm

Pyrrho wrote:Warning issued; please don't post severely abusive content directed at other users.


If that is directed at Xouper on my behalf, let me say it bothers me not. Water off the ducks back.

If you want to direct some at me, let me point out that I am challenging Xoupers sources, not abusing him.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 07, 2017 7:03 pm

A broad brush can do damage where a narrow brush is called for.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26761
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:47 pm

Pyrrho wrote:Warning issued; please don't post severely abusive content directed at other users.

As members were threatening to sue each other, I looked up the current USA law on forums, as I had no idea how damages could be calculated by a mix of anonymous people and those who disclose their real names. I didn't get a clear answer to that, but i did see the routes towards potential exposure to the forum's owners, The Skeptic Society.

I fully understand why these threats must stop.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:16 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:. . . let me point out that I am challenging Xoupers sources, not abusing him.


Image

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3279
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:21 am

Looks like someone didn't get the warning...
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:16 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Looks like someone didn't get the warning...


According to Lance's dictionary, that wasn't abuse. I was merely challenging his assertions.

Secondly, the warning was about "severely abusive content", so again, not applicable in this instance.

If you disagree, then feel free to run to mommy and whine about it file an official complaint.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3279
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 08, 2017 11:33 am

Civility is really not your thing, is it, Xoup?

Must be so so hard to be the only honest, rational being in the world.
Not to mention unlikely.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:31 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Civility is really not your thing, is it, Xoup?


Those who treat me with civility will get civility in return.

It's that simple.

I have offered to treat Lance with civility if he would do likewise, but he refused. Apparently he prefers to reserve the option to badmouth me when it suits him. And he continues to badmouth me and lie about me. So I choose to treat him how he treats me.

If you can get Lance to agree to mutual civility, then I will buy you a beer.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3279
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:58 pm

two-way street.
And so far, you are way behind when it comes to being civil.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 08, 2017 2:17 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:two-way street.
And so far, you are way behind when it comes to being civil.


Image

I offered Lance a truce. He refused.

When I see you complain about his incivility, then maybe I will consider your complaints.

Otherwise, go pound sand.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:10 pm

Xouper

I really do not care how much you attempt to insult me. The saying is : "I cannot be insulted against my will." Any insult I permit to slide off, like shedding water.

But you really should realise that your information sources are not reliable.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:43 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

I really do not care how much you attempt to insult me. The saying is : "I cannot be insulted against my will." Any insult I permit to slide off, like shedding water.


Let the record show that Lance has refused my offer of a truce and wishes to continue badmouthing me and lying about me.


Lance Kennedy wrote:But you really should realise that your information sources are not reliable.


That is factually incorrect.

I have cited peer reviewed journals and official US government data.

My sources are no less "reliable" than yours.

When you claim otherwise, you are lying. And you know it. And so does anyone else who has been paying attention.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:01 am

JEBUS....................................................... grow up.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 09, 2017 2:45 am

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... ngton-post

This one is for you, Bobbo. I know Xouper will either not bother reading it, or else say it is all due to bias. The article summerises studies on the effect of gun control, and concludes both that it reduces murders and suicides.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:02 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:JEBUS....................................................... grow up.


What would you know about growing up? Perhaps after you grow up, then you can talk.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:08 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post

This one is for you, Bobbo. I know Xouper will either not bother reading it, or else say it is all due to bias. The article summerises studies on the effect of gun control, and concludes both that it reduces murders and suicides.


Same old flawed anti-gun rhetoric and propaganda, and from a not-so-credible source.

Vox?

You gotta be kidding me.

They are a spin off from the very left-wing Washington Post  and Slate . Not credible at all. Not even close.

But it's typical of Lance to get his talking points from such a stoopid source. On a skeptic forum, that's clearly not good enough. Only a warped mind will fall for that nonsense.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:53 am

thanks Lance. It is though just the basics being collated and stated once again. We've stated pretty much each point raised int he article ourselves here.

X==SPECIFICALLY....What was erroneous in the Linked Article?

X==you opined the 3 sources used are not even close to being credible. What credible sources do you use?........and when we check those sources for number of deaths and what not and they are the SAME as shown in the Linked Article, what are we to think?
''
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 09, 2017 9:17 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:. . . what are we to think?'


I suspect you are going "think" whatever you want to "think", regardless what I say.

We have already had this conversation.

What is to be gained by repeating what you and I already know has been said?

If you get your jollies by repeating the same tired old mantras, then go right ahead. And I reserve the option to point out they are tired old mantras, repeated by tired old minds warped by tired old propaganda.

Why not just admit the entire conversation is tired and old and move on to something more interesting. Otherwise you just be stuck in your tired old rut. Silly hoomans.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:19 pm

total dodge. You got NOTHING but talking points.

Yep.................. it sucks.

Its called a "dialectic progression". A talks and poses questions. B ANSWERS THE FRICKIN QUESTIONS, and then poses his own.


X==SPECIFICALLY....What was erroneous in the Linked Article?

X==you opined the 3 sources used are not even close to being credible. What credible sources do you use?........and when we check those sources for number of deaths and what not and they are the SAME as shown in the Linked Article, what are we to think?

Ha, ha......took a few reviews to even note I asked you a question, and you besmearched my character. Hypocrisy flows over..............or just a lack of alternatives?

What YOU do is: dodge.................. because you have nothing but talking points.

prove me wrong................or go to the talking points. Mix it up? You haven't used "I know you are but what am I" or "I'm rubber and you are glue" for 2-3 posts..............
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:24 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:total dodge. You got NOTHING but talking points.

Yep.................. it sucks.

Its called a "dialectic progression". A talks and poses questions. B ANSWERS THE FRICKIN QUESTIONS, and then poses his own.


X==SPECIFICALLY....What was erroneous in the Linked Article?

X==you opined the 3 sources used are not even close to being credible. What credible sources do you use?........and when we check those sources for number of deaths and what not and they are the SAME as shown in the Linked Article, what are we to think?

Ha, ha......took a few reviews to even note I asked you a question, and you besmearched my character. Hypocrisy flows over..............or just a lack of alternatives?

What YOU do is: dodge.................. because you have nothing but talking points.

prove me wrong................or go to the talking points. Mix it up? You haven't used "I know you are but what am I" or "I'm rubber and you are glue" for 2-3 posts..............


I already addressed all your points in my previous reply.

Please pay more attention and stop asking questions that have already been answered.

In case you have trouble finding my previous reply, here's a handy link to it:

viewtopic.php?p=617614#p617614

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 09, 2017 7:47 pm

No. ==SPECIFICALLY....What was erroneous in the Linked Article?

Regarding Xouper Approved Linkable Resources, you have made some references and links to some sources........so, I recognize the challenge and won't push for specificity.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:08 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:No. ==SPECIFICALLY....What was erroneous in the Linked Article?

Regarding Xouper Approved Linkable Resources, you have made some references and links to some sources........so, I recognize the challenge and won't push for specificity.


What part of my previous reply did you not comprehend?

Was it the part where I said your questions have already been answered in previous threads on this forum?

If you can't remember my answers to your questions, then that's your problem. Get a better memory.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:22 pm

SPECIFICALLY....What was erroneous in the Linked Article? All I got was your conclusion that the sources were liberal and erroneous. That doesn't give anything specific.

Have I memorized your responses?===>wut????

..................aka: get over yourself, a pose for sure but still.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:10 pm

A major problem I have with those who oppose rational gun control is that they never answer the most basic question in a realistic way.

The most basic question is this.
Why does the USA have a massively higher per capita firearms murder rate than other developed countries, if it has nothing to do with guns?

Compare the USA with my country, New Zealand. We have one eighteenth of the per capita firearm murder rate. Why is this?

The crappy answers I have received include suggesting that people of African descent are innately more violent. Or that the USA has a big street gang problem. Both are bull-shit answers, because my country has a much higher percentage of dark skinned citizens (25%) and prison statistics show they are much more violent than their white skinned cousins (or at least a substantial minority of them are). Yet very few of them murder, and of that number even fewer use firearms in murder. The street gang answer is even sillier, since NZ has lots of street gangs, and the members are generally not nice people.

A third answer is drugs. Yet drug pushers are a problem in every developed nation. Here in NZ, we have major drug problems. Yet very few firearm murders.

The truth is that there are two reasons why the USA has so many firearms murders, and it relates to two things unique about the USA.
1. The fact that guns, and especially hand guns, are so readily available.
2. The fact that the USA has a gun culture, which includes gun violence. Prof. Pinker called it the vigilante mentality, which apparently is very strong in the ex confederate states, where murder rates are especially high.

Nations with strong gun control have very few gun murders. Japan is the epitome of strong control and few murders. Australia went through the process of strengthening its gun control and buying back firearms. A drop in gun murder rate was the result. Today, Australia has stronger gun control than my country, and has a lower gun murder rate, though their overall murder rate is slightly higher than NZ.

I am still waiting for any other answer to that most basic question, which actually makes sense.
Last edited by Lance Kennedy on Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:44 pm

lance: I agree. But, let's give it a try? "Lots of hand gun deaths in the USA because we drive cars to work." /// Hmmm....no that doesn't seem right.

How about: "Lots of hand gun deaths in the USA because we have lots of good people with guns defending people." //// Yes, that sounds much better. Dumb ass as {!#%@}, but "sounds" better.

One element I've heard could be added to the list? That guns are legal and guns laws that we do have are weak or variously enforced...and another that USA is highly diverse across all distinctions...lots of other cultures are too but its another factor.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:25 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I am still waiting for any other answer to that most basic question, which actually makes sense.


You have shown repeatedly on this forum that you are unwilling to consider any other possible answer.

You dismiss any reasonable answer because it does not fit with your BS narrative about guns in the US.

You are of course allowed to express your opinion here on this forum, but that's all it is, your willfully ignorant opinion.

Other people with a brain who have actually looked at all the evidence have other opinions.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:35 am

Xouper

The difference between New Zealand and the USA is a factor of 18 fold. That is massive. No minor difference can account for it. The true reason must be also a very major difference. Minor differences in the degree of general crime, drug trafficking, and street gangs simply do not make the cut.

But there are two major differences.
1. The USA permits virtually anyone to have guns, and most especially hand guns.
2. The USA has a strange gun culture, which involves gun violence, and a vigilante attitude. This is not, to the best of my knowledge, found in any other developed country.

Those two factors explain the truly massive difference in the rate of firearms murders, and nothing else that has been suggested comes close.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 10, 2017 4:45 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Xouper

The difference between New Zealand and the USA is a factor of 18 fold. That is massive. No minor difference can account for it. The true reason must be also a very major difference. Minor differences in the degree of general crime, drug trafficking, and street gangs simply do not make the cut.

But there are two major differences.
1. The USA permits virtually anyone to have guns, and most especially hand guns.
2. The USA has a strange gun culture, which involves gun violence, and a vigilante attitude. This is not, to the best of my knowledge, found in any other developed country.

Those two factors explain the truly massive difference in the rate of firearms murders, and nothing else that has been suggested comes close.


You have already explained your delusions and prejudices numerous times on this forum.

Boring.

Let me know when you get something new to add to the conversation.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 11033
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:27 am

xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:I am still waiting for any other answer to that most basic question, which actually makes sense.


You have shown repeatedly on this forum that you are unwilling to consider any other possible answer.

I don't think this question has been asked before. IIRC, the issues have been mostly whether or not the number of deaths even correlates to the number of guns, whether they should be regulated at all and so forth.

but not WHY so many people are killed in the USA.

But...............I can see why you make no distinction. Thinking is hard.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3279
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Dec 10, 2017 5:29 am

Xouper, you can repeat your answers - no extra charge.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:45 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
xouper wrote:
Lance Kennedy wrote:I am still waiting for any other answer to that most basic question, which actually makes sense.


You have shown repeatedly on this forum that you are unwilling to consider any other possible answer.

I don't think this question has been asked before. IIRC, the issues have been mostly whether or not the number of deaths even correlates to the number of guns, whether they should be regulated at all and so forth.

but not WHY so many people are killed in the USA.

But...............I can see why you make no distinction. Thinking is hard.


Yes, thinking is hard. Apparently that's why you don't bother doing much of it.

So is remembering, another thing you don't do much of.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10693
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 10, 2017 6:50 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Xouper, you can repeat your answers - no extra charge.


I could, yes.

But when a troll asks me the same questions I have already answered, then no.

Booboo has long ago lost any benefit of the doubt to be taken seriously.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
True Skeptic
Posts: 10210
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Dawkins and Politics

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 10, 2017 7:21 am

Xouper
As it happens, I have not asked you that exact question before. Previously I asked about total murder rates, where the per capita murder rate of the USA is 5 times as high as NZ. This time I asked about the firearms murder rate, where the discrepancy is 18 fold. It is a different question, and requires a much better answer.


Return to “Politics and Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests