Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Mass stabbing on Texas college campus

254 replies to this topic
ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#151

Posted 20 May 2013 - 02:00 PM

1. I have explained my logical reasoning.

2. You're ignoring the fact that I mentioned the other causes of violent crime.

3. Although violent crime rates are the result of several independent factors, easy and legal access to effective self-defense weapons has one of the strongest mitigating effects upon them.

4. You refuse to accept the concrete evidence I offer by vilifying and deceitfully discrediting the sources. I can't help the fact that you're prejudiced against certain cultures.

5. Your arguments are inconsistent and lack intellectual honesty. You purposely manipulate, omit facts from and backpedal upon your arguments.

6. Saying that someone can effectively defend themselves from reasonable threats without any kind of weapon is utterly ridiculous.

7. You seem incapable of understanding that it is unethical and immoral to forcefully deprive another of all effective means of self-defense.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#152

Posted 20 May 2013 - 02:34 PM Edited by sivispacem, 20 May 2013 - 02:41 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Monday, May 20 2013, 15:00)
1. I have explained my logical reasoning.

2. You're ignoring the fact that I mentioned the other causes of violent crime.

3. Although violent crime rates are the result of several independent factors, easy and legal access to effective self-defense weapons has one of the strongest mitigating effects upon them.

4. You refuse to accept the concrete evidence I offer by vilifying and deceitfully discrediting the sources. I can't help the fact that you're prejudiced against certain cultures.

5. Your arguments are inconsistent and lack intellectual honesty. You purposely manipulate, omit facts from and backpedal upon your arguments.

6. Saying that someone can effectively defend themselves from reasonable threats without any kind of weapon is utterly ridiculous.

7. You seem incapable of understanding that it is unethical and immoral to forcefully deprive another of all effective means of self-defense.

You haven't. You highlights an apparent correlation between legal ownership of self defence weapons and violent crime, murder and suicide- a correlation which in and of itself is factually questionable as I have demonstrated with a number of examples- and have made the argument that there is an implication of causality. It's a fundamental logical fallacy, and my questioning of it is vindicated by your failure to produce any kind of expert or academic support for your idea. Your insistence that it makes sense does not constitute logical reasoning. Explain to me how you have come to the conclusion that of all the possible influencing characteristics on violence rates you have fixated on this one.

You gave them no credence by perpetuating your theory which has no empirical basis over them despite the fact they're much better supported by scientific evidence.

Please demonstrate causality. I want to see evidence that it is this specifically which affects violence rates. Without proper evidence of actual causality your argument lacks validity.

If I remember correctly, which I do, I provided numerous examples of how your analysis in ralation to Saudi Arabia was questionable. Are you claiming that all those international organisations are also biased and prejudicial? If so, please demonstrate how you are more enlightened and less partisan than them given that you have made so many glaring errors and been so disparaging to views that have a far greater credence than your own theories?

Regardless of the consistency of my argument, the fact remains that yours remains entirely unproven. Again, you can critique my argument without actually quantifying your rebuttals as much as you like but without satisfactorily explaining your supposition of causality your argument is void.

Your opinions are noted.

You seem incapable of quantifying your argument.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#153

Posted 20 May 2013 - 03:34 PM

Here is the main source material which supports my theory:

http://en.wikipedia....l_homicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia....by_suicide_rate

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

http://en.wikipedia....l_mental_health (in general non-pacifist countries tend to have better mental health than those who impose non-violence on citizens)

http://www.civitas.o...oecdjan2012.pdf





Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#154

Posted 20 May 2013 - 05:28 PM

You don't make much sense, I must say. At first I thought you were advocating eliminating the stigma on violence (settling disputes with fist fights and what not), which, while flawed and being a very strange thing to think in general, at least had the reasoning that "it's nature." Now I see you're actually arguing that nations with heavy firearm proliferation encourage violence in self-defense and therefore have better mental health and less crime, based only on correlation between good mental health/low crime rates and rates of firearm ownership, but no such correlation exists! Europe (where firearm laws differ significantly from country to country) is fairly uniform in terms of mental health (apart from the apparently very unhappy French) according to your statistics, Australia comes out looking pretty good and the US is the worst in the world! Did you even look at your source?

user posted image

In terms of crime and suicide, the US is possibly the worst in the Western World yet it has the highest rates of firearm ownership. You offer Japan and Saudi Arabia which are not valid comparisons due to the vast cultural rift (and in terms of suicide, Japan is worse off than any other country mentioned thus far).

Pretty much every argument you've made thus far has either been factually inaccurate, unsubstantiated, fallacious or just completely nonsensical. They actually provide a perfect example of how not to construct an argument or reach a conclusion. I'm thinking of collecting your arguments from the last two pages and turning them into a pamphlet to hand out at universities: "Don't Do What Donny Don't Does: A Guide to Avoiding Specious Reasoning and Fallacies."

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#155

Posted 20 May 2013 - 05:31 PM

You seem to be struggling to understand that none of those sources actually support your thesis. None of them say or imply that nations which don't possess legal armed self-defence provisions are more violent than those that do. You've cherry-picked a few examples of nations that have low violence and legal armed self defence but the general trends don't actually support your argument and even if they did the correlation does not imply causality. To be blunt, there is absolutely no evidence that there is any causal link between armed self defence being legal and lower violence rates. Some nations that happen to have armed self defence laws also have low rates of violence, but the latter does not imply the former.

K20
  • K20

    Woooo-rah

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2012

#156

Posted 20 May 2013 - 06:03 PM

More stabbings and shootings will happen.

What the governments (other nations as well) need to do is step back again to being barbaric. Incite fear into the population. If the person who commits such atrocities is caught, the punishment is death through torture. (like the norway shootings). I guarantee that mass murders will almost stop. At the moment there is no fear. A murderer who is caught red handed will most likely go to prison, and have a bed and tv. The easy life.

If a person is charged but wasn't caught in the act, then normal routine of judge and jury should follow.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#157

Posted 20 May 2013 - 08:46 PM

Do you even read my posts and sources?

Compare each nation's combined rate of murder, violent crime, suicide and mental illness to it's level of self-defense rights, and you will see that it is indeed the non-pacifist countries who are generally the safest (and healthiest) of all.

The United States is an anomaly, partially due to the fact that it's not the haven of self-defense rights most believe it to be and partially due to the abnormally high levels of the other contributing factors (mainly poverty and sexual frustration) which arise from it's unique social structure.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#158

Posted 20 May 2013 - 09:33 PM Edited by sivispacem, 20 May 2013 - 09:36 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Monday, May 20 2013, 21:46)
Compare each nation's combined rate of murder, violent crime, suicide and mental illness to it's level of self-defense rights, and you will see that it is indeed the non-pacifist countries who are generally the safest (and healthiest) of all.

What part of "correlation does not imply causality" do you not understand? Quite aside from the fact this assertion is wrong, nations having lower violence rates and armed self-defence rights does not imply that the latter causes the former even if it was true.

You really should read your own sources. As Melchoir already pointed out, a number of them categorically contradict what you are saying.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#159

Posted 20 May 2013 - 10:03 PM

I guess American’s haven’t learned anything from Texas?
QUOTE
Large party in Lynn Township leads to multiple stabbings. By Express-Times staff  on April 28, 2013 at 11:32 AM.

QUOTE
Multiple Stabbings Near Elm Street In Montclair Last Night Apr 30, 2013 2:15pm

QUOTE
Church stabbing suspect feared Masonic “conspiracy” By Journal Staff on Mon, Apr 29, 2013

QUOTE
Police Say Multiple Overnight Stabbings Could be Related to Lilac Festival Fights By: WROC-TV  May 19, 2013


ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#160

Posted 20 May 2013 - 11:49 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Monday, May 20 2013, 22:33)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Monday, May 20 2013, 21:46)
Compare each nation's combined rate of murder, violent crime, suicide and mental illness to it's level of self-defense rights, and you will see that it is indeed the non-pacifist countries who are generally the safest (and healthiest) of all.

What part of "correlation does not imply causality" do you not understand? Quite aside from the fact this assertion is wrong, nations having lower violence rates and armed self-defence rights does not imply that the latter causes the former even if it was true.

You really should read your own sources. As Melchoir already pointed out, a number of them categorically contradict what you are saying.

I am fully aware of the fact that my theory is not "watertight", but the evidence in it's favour is so overwhelming that it would be foolish to dismiss it on arbitrary grounds.

Your obsession with telling me that "Correlation does not equal causation" is a blatantly obvious and crude attempt to dismiss my theory without engaging in logical counter-argumentation; it constitutes an arbitrary dismissal.

In addition to this you do not appear to understand that even if an argument may be flawed its conclusion can remain entirely valid.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#161

Posted 21 May 2013 - 03:32 AM

There have been no arbitrary dismissals. Everything you've said has been factually wrong. Japan does not have a low suicide rate, Britain's crime rate isn't as high as you think, America is not a paragon of good mental health. Even if all those blatantly false things were true, it wouldn't mean anything. It could all (and most like would be) a coincidence. You need to demonstrate causality.

Here's an example that's used to explain the logical trap you are falling into:

user posted image

Notice that global temperatures have risen in direct correlation with the waning numbers of archetypal European pirates. Were I to claim that the loss of pirates is directly responsible for global warming, using that graph as evidence and refusing to drop it because I think it holds such weight as evidence, I'd be doing exactly what you are doing here.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#162

Posted 21 May 2013 - 07:13 AM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 00:49)
I am fully aware of the fact that my theory is not "watertight"

You can say that again. It doesn't even make logical sense.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 00:49)
but the evidence in it's favour is so overwhelming that it would be foolish to dismiss it on arbitrary grounds.

This is where the issue seems to arise. What you appear to have done is formed a thesis, and then selected evidence that ostensibly appears to support it rather than rationally analysing all evidence and producing an accurate trend from that. This is why you appear to be having so many problems with factual accuracy, and having so many problems responding to questions like "if self-defence produces safer societies, why do Singapore and Hong Kong rank as safer than any example you've provided"? To which your response has been to claim "they don't", even though they do. I can dismiss your argument on the grounds that it is based on a logical fallacy; I don't even need to pick holes in the factual basis for it- which I've already done, for the record- because your reasoning is flawed and it is abundantly clear your evidence doesn't actually imply your thesis.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 00:49)
Your obsession with telling me that "Correlation does not equal causation" is a blatantly obvious and crude attempt to dismiss my theory without engaging in logical counter-argumentation; it constitutes an arbitrary dismissal.

As I've said above, I've already picked numerous holes in the empirical aspects of your argument. I've challenged you to "solve" the issue of why several nations with very restrictive self-defence laws have extremely low violence rates; asked you to quantify your reasoning by supporting it with academic evidence, and provided you ample opportunity to explain why there are so many outliers and statistical anomalies which don't follow the basic trend of your thesis. You've done none of these things, instead effectively sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I'm right" at the top of your voice. Which doesn't make you right. It suggests you can't actually properly support your argument. And this is quite aside from the fact that, as Melchoir has demonstrated and I have already alluded to, your argument is based on a logical fallacy and therefore holds no weight.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 00:49)
In addition to this you do not appear to understand that even if an argument may be flawed its conclusion can remain entirely valid.

No, an argument that is flawed in it's conclusion is invalid. If I present a wealth of evidence suggesting one thing, and then conclude it means something so fundamentally different as to make the link between the evidence and the conclusion untenable the argument loses its validity. Similarly, if I decide on a thesis, cherry-pick some evidence that appears to support it but ignore the strategic trends, ignore the fact that there's no evidence of causality in between my thesis and evidence, and then failing to quantify my logical reasoning, my argument would be effectively void. That's a one-line summary of what you've done over the last few pages.

Killerdude8
  • Killerdude8

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#163

Posted 21 May 2013 - 07:27 AM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Monday, May 20 2013, 01:47)
QUOTE (Killerdude8 @ Sunday, May 19 2013, 20:28)
No but the people getting stabbed scream loudly.

You would be surprised to know that many people don't know they have been stabbed, they usually think they have been punched, until they feel the warmth of the blood.

Oh damn, That's some pretty scary sh*t, But surely after the first few people stabbed, people would have clued in and got away, Right?

Obviously not unfortunately.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#164

Posted 21 May 2013 - 05:25 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 21 May 2013 - 05:32 PM.

Pathetic, it's like watching two young earth creationists try to disprove the theory of evolution with hurdia fossils and biblical quotes.

Because you cannot prove my entire theory wrong (as i have already said the evidence in it's favour is overwhelming) you instead resort to ad hominems, cherry-picking and reductio ad absurdum whilst beating a dead horse (correlation does not equal causation) in order to arbitrarily discredit my theory.
This is tantamount to saying "the theory of evolution is wrong because there is no conclusive proof that God did not create life in stages, ergo God must have done it because the platypus and hurdia look too weird to have evolved from other life forms".

And, once again, as for your claim that my evidence contradicts my conclusion, stop cherry-picking and look at the whole picture.

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    The Night Is Like A Dagger, Long And Cold And Sharp

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#165

Posted 21 May 2013 - 06:45 PM

I have read through the last few pages of arguing and I have one question.

Why does the US have higher rates of sexual frustration than other countries?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#166

Posted 21 May 2013 - 07:42 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 18:25)
Pathetic, it's like watching two young earth creationists try to disprove the theory of evolution with hurdia fossils and biblical quotes.

Now whose engaging in ad-hominem attacks? Hypocrite. Besides, exactly what's so wrong with asking you to quantify an argument?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 18:25)
Because you cannot prove my entire theory wrong

...Not wrong, invalid. Which we have. The burden of philosophical proof is on you to satisfactorly demonstrate your argument before anyone is obliged to pick holes in it. We've picked holes in it even before you managed to justify it. In short, it's ruined.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 18:25)
(as i have already said the evidence in it's favour is overwhelming)

It isn't, because you've entirely failed to link your assertion to your evidence.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 18:25)
you instead resort to ad hominems

Irony. See above

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 18:25)
cherry-picking

Double irony. Tell me, exactly why did you dismiss Singapore, Hong Kong, Brunei and Iceland as nations which discredit your thesis?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 18:25)
reductio ad absurdum

How is questioning your logical reasoning and the factual basis of your claims reductio ad absurdum? Please don't use terms you don't understand.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 18:25)
correlation does not equal causation

It doesn't, so demonstrate causality or your argument remains void.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 18:25)
This is tantamount to saying "the theory of evolution is wrong because there is no conclusive proof that God did not create life in stages, ergo God must have done it because the platypus and hurdia look too weird to have evolved from other life forms".

Now this is reductio ad absurdum. And a straw man argument. And the height of hypocrisy, all rolled into one. Let's recap. You presented a thesis backed with evidence that didn't support it, then effectively falsified evidence to support your argument, then insisted you were right by personally attacking anyone who disagreed with you whilst ignoring several requests for clarifications when it comes to reasoning, logic and factual accuracy, and finally concluded by insisting that because you couldn't be proved wrong you must be right. Which is a nice try, but as you're the person suggesting the alternate hypothesis the burden on you is to demonstrate it logically before you can rebut any critiques of it. You haven't, and apparently this has made you very cross. I can see why, given that I count at least half a dozen reasonable questions or clarifications you've been asked to respond to and yet you've ignored all of them. You are very clearly completely out of your depth.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 18:25)
And, once again, as for your claim that my evidence contradicts my conclusion, stop cherry-picking and look at the whole picture.

Your evidence does contradict your conclusion. Melchoir even gave you a pretty little picture to demonstrate it. You've ignored numerous nations which bring your theory into question and focused on a very small number that ostensibly support it, and the example you've used as your negative proof aren't even right, as you've already conceded.

Come back when you've got something resembling a logical argument. It's embarrassing watching you suffer like this. Oh, wait, not embarrassing; that wasn't the word I mean. Hilarious, that's the one. Hilarious.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#167

Posted 21 May 2013 - 07:54 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 21 May 2013 - 08:01 PM.

QUOTE (gtamann123 @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 19:45)
I have read through the last few pages of arguing and I have one question.

Why does the US have higher rates of sexual frustration than other countries?

The USA has an extremely competitive "dating culture" which encourages hypergamy, whilst also almost completely outlawing prostitution.


@ sivispacem: I've already explained everything you brought up, now you're starting to grasp at straws. It's actually quite funny to see you go to such lengths in manipulation and deceit, all in a vain attempt to mock me.

And lol @ you, of all people, accusing me of hypocrisy.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#168

Posted 21 May 2013 - 08:37 PM Edited by sivispacem, 21 May 2013 - 09:28 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 20:54)
@ sivispacem: I've already explained everything you brought up

No you haven't.

1) Not once have you provided a single piece of empirical evidence, professional opinion or academic theory that demonstrates that legal civilian ownership of self-defence weapons directly causes lower violence rates.
2) Your claims of statistical trends are simply false. Only three of the ten nations with the lowest murder rates and populations above one million have laws permitting the ownership of otherwise restricted weaponry for self-defence purposes. In contrast, all of the ten nations with the highest murder rates and populations above one million have no practical restrictions on civilian ownership of weaponry. Of all the nations with an effective murder rate below 1 per 100,000, only about four (of a total of 25) list "self-defence" as a legitimate reason for owning a firearm. It's complete ignorance of facts like this that make you argument so spurious.
3) You ranted several times about how my views on Saudi Arabia were wrong, despite them being supported by a wealth of academic evidence, and then failed to produce anything to quantify your assertions or provide any evidence that actually demonstrated them incorrect.
4) You've provided nothing to assess the myriad of social, political and economic contributing factors- instead dismissing them as secondary to your absurd, spurious theory.
5) You still haven't explained your reasoning that Singapore and Hong Kong must have doctored their violent crime statistics.

That's not an exhaustive list. It's abundantly clear to anyone who cares to read your responses that your argument is, at best, extremely spurious, and at worst complete and utter nonsense. The fact you haven't even shown a causal link between your basic premise and your statistical evidence- most of which doesn't actually support your argument- represents the coffin in which your thesis resides. Your stonewalling, ad-hominem attacks, wild accusations of bias and complete unwillingness to provide anything academic or merit-worthy; in fact, to even explain the reasoning of how you jumped from the premise "some nations with low crime rates permit civilian ownership of defensive weapons" to the maxim "defensive weapons therefore make nations safer" are the nails.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 20:54)
manipulation and deceit

Last time I checked, you were the person who claimed that people didn't commit suicide in Japan, and that Switzerland had a lower suicide rate than the Netherlands.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 20:54)
And lol @ you, of all people, accusing me of hypocrisy.

Your hypocrisy was plain to see.

I don't think I'm asking the world. All I want is a reasonable, logical and empirically supported demonstration of how concluding that the primary reason that Japan and Switzerland have lower violence rates than the UK is because they have less restrictive weapon laws is rational. That's what you have completely failed to provide thus far.

Has it, for instance, not struck you during this exchange that no academic or subject matter expert has ever formed a cohesive thesis similar to your own? I mean, there have been hundreds of studies of the correlation between firearm proliferation and violence, which have varied in their findings from "all else being equal, more firearms tends to equal a higher murder rate", to "there's some circumstantial evidence suggesting higher weapon proliferation levels means higher violence, but it's by no means a hard trend" to "there are simply too many other factors to take into account". I've never seen, nor have I been able to find, a single piece in a merit-worthy journal by a subject matter expert that argues "high proliferation of weapons and lax lethal and less-lethal weapon legislation results in lower violence rates". Why do you think that might be? Either none of those thousands of academic who have contributed to the discourse on the subject matter has seen the trend and you are some kind of genius figure for seeing what no other could, or it's already been considered and discounted as invalid, and you are effectively perpetuating a theory known amongst subject matter experts to be void. I'm inclined to use Occam's Razor to decide which of those is more probable.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#169

Posted 22 May 2013 - 03:32 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, May 21 2013, 21:37)
Delusional rant.

After seeing that you used biased studies ("all studies indicate that higher rates of gun ownership equals higher murder rates") to back up your lies in a vain effort to dismiss my theory, whilst also refusing to acknowledge the undeniable and purely beneficial effect that the widespread (legal) private ownership of less-lethal weapons has on society, I'm inclined to believe that you're a closed-minded pacifist extremist (with possible eugenicist tendencies, due to your lack of consideration for those who cannot defend themselves unarmed).

You will not accept any evidence for the fact that allowing individuals legal access to effective self-defense tools protects them better than submissive weakness.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#170

Posted 22 May 2013 - 03:40 PM Edited by sivispacem, 22 May 2013 - 03:53 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 16:32)
You will not accept any evidence for the fact that allowing individuals legal access to effective self-defense tools protects them better than submissive weakness.

Perhaps that's because you still haven't presented any. Show me one single piece of evidence, one solitary source that supports that conclusion. I see you are still completely unwilling to address the numerous legitimate questions I've asked. I can only conclude that you have nothing more of note to say on the matter and your continued presence in the thread constitutes nothing more than trolling.

If your conclusions are so solid, how come you can't find any academic sources that come to the same ones?

Also, in future, if you want to misrepresent someone else's argument it's generally best not to do it one post immediately below them, where everyone else can see the original statements as well as the straw man- or in this case just plain factually wrong- argument you fabricate from them.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#171

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:02 PM

http://people.duke.e...icles/myths.htm.

https://www.gunowner...g/sk0802htm.htm

http://www.forbes.co...-control-lobby/

http://en.wikipedia....stern_Australia. (Western Australia is the only Australian territory allowing the private ownership of self-defense weapons [pepper spray], and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the country).

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php


There have been no large scale studies conducted on the number of lives saved by the use of privately owned less-lethal weapons, but the evidence almost speaks for itself.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#172

Posted 22 May 2013 - 06:31 PM

You still don't seem to grasp the concept of demonstrating causality. The fact that two things correlate is not proof of anything. I could observe that every time I wear white shoes it rains, and therefore, claim that the weather is dependent solely on the colour of my shoes and I'd be doing exactly what you are doing now. The fact that two things correlate is not "overwhelming evidence" if it were you'd have to accept the validity of my weather-by-shoe-colour hypothesis, which any sane person would reject immediately as a coincidence and a fundamental logical error on my part.

That said, your contention would be worth considering if the correlation was universal, which it isn't. In fact, very few places and time periods can be used as an example to support your hypothesis. What about all the countries that do support lethal and nonlethal weapon ownership for self defense and also have soaring crime rates, like the United States and Mexico? What about all the years Western Australia had double the crime rate of New South Wales? You are cherry picking. If, according to you, correlation is considered "overwhelming evidence" then surely I have grounds to claim the exact opposite of what you're claiming and have my assertion hold just as much weight?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#173

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:42 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 19:02)
http://people.duke.e...icles/myths.htm.

Please quote and reference where this article it makes the claim that nations with legal self-defence weapon ownership directly or indirectly results in lower violence rates. It doesn't make such a claim. The closest that comes to arguing your point is by saying that the evidence that high firearm proliferation rates directly influence crime is spurious. Which is all well and good, and a perfectly legitimate point, but it doesn't even come remotely close to demonstrating your argument.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 19:02)
https://www.gunowner...g/sk0802htm.htm

Clear source bias, questionable merit, questionable academic credibility. Did this appear in a peer-review journal? I think not. Does it make the argument that nations that possess armed self-laws are empirically less violent? Not even close. If it does, please quote and reference. I guarantee if I posted statistics from The Brady Campaign you'd dismiss them without even looking into them. Mind you, I've seen your posts over on The Slingshot Forum and Above Top Secret so you're probably quite familiar with dismissing evidence just because it doesn't agree with your baseless theory. I wonder if the latter of the two was where you learned to stonewall and troll so well?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 19:02)
http://www.forbes.co...-control-lobby/

Please quote and reference where this article it makes the categorical claim that nations with legal self-defence weapon ownership directly or indirectly results in lower violence rates. There is no single aspect of the article which makes that claim, nor does it imply it.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 19:02)
(Western Australia is the only Australian territory allowing the private ownership of self-defense weapons [pepper spray], and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the country).

Correlation does not equal causality. Demonstrate that ownership of pepper spray directly results in the lower crime rates and then come back to me.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 19:02)
http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

Yes, I'm aware there's a website called NationMaster. What's your point?

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 19:02)
There have been no large scale studies conducted on the number of lives saved by the use of privately owned less-lethal weapons, but the evidence almost speaks for itself.

What evidence? The correlation between crime rates in a small, hand-selected group of nations, and the fact they have legal armed self-defence provisions? That's not even proper correlation, as I demonstrated previously. You still haven't shown anything even vaguely resembling causality. Please don't both posting again until you can demonstrate actual causality.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#174

Posted 22 May 2013 - 07:59 PM

All your protestation does not change the fact that it's immoral and unethical to forbid another from owning weapons for self-defense.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#175

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:04 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 20:59)
All your protestation does not change the fact that it's immoral and unethical to forbid another from owning weapons for self-defense.

And your subjective protestations about the morality or otherwise of societal decisions don't change the fact you haven't quantified your argument.

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    The Night Is Like A Dagger, Long And Cold And Sharp

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#176

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:17 PM

Jesus Christ do you guys have nothing better to do than spend hours on end arguing over stupid sh*t?

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#177

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:34 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 21:04)
And your subjective protestations about the morality or otherwise of societal decisions don't change the fact you haven't quantified your argument.

Your claim that societal decisions supersede morals and ethics exposes your utterly disgusting and barbaric attitude towards those who do not share your ideological convictions.

Knowing this, your prejudiced comments on the "barbarity" of Saudi Arabian society demonstrate the fact that you are indeed a hypocrite and an ideological extremist.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#178

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:36 PM

So where are morals derived from if not societal decisions?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Absolute Dunkel:Heit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#179

Posted 22 May 2013 - 08:57 PM Edited by sivispacem, 22 May 2013 - 09:05 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 21:34)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, May 22 2013, 21:04)
And your subjective protestations about the morality or otherwise of societal decisions don't change the fact you haven't quantified your argument.

Your claim that societal decisions supersede morals and ethics exposes your utterly disgusting and barbaric attitude towards those who do not share your ideological convictions.

What, so you are claiming that moral and ethical codes aren't a product of societal conditions? You actually believe the religiously-perpetuated myth that morality is objective, god-given and all-encompassing. Suddenly your comments comparing my views to early world creationism have taken on a whole new sense of irony.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#180

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:12 PM

Morals are the objective code ensuring the safeguard of freedom and justice, and they are indeed God given/natural/universal.

To refuse this is to be a proponent of slavery, oppression and barbarism.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users