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

#211

Posted 25 May 2013 - 05:41 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 18:11)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 16:25)
Also, firearms developing less than 7,5 joules of muzzle energy (floberts) should be treated like airguns; free to own for all individuals aged 18 and over.

This has me puzzled. Is it even possible for a conventional firearm to generate such a low energy output? Even subsonic low-powder loadings of the .22 Short produce ten times that. And the .32 Rimfire, in which many Floberts are chambered, produces more than twice that under normal loadings.

There are 4mm and 6mm flobert rounds who contain no powder; the projectile is propelled purely by detonation of the primer.
The guns chambered for such rounds (usually called "parlour pistols", "garden guns" or "gallery guns") are primarily intended for use either inside the home or in a small garden.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

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

#212

Posted 25 May 2013 - 09:43 PM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 18:18)
For Our Sheldon: That was when the frog was put in the pot.

Right.

So, according to your logic, firearm controls that infringe the right of citizens of own firearms began in 1968. Not the National Firearm Act of 1934, but the Gun Control Act of 1968. Let me get this straight. Your objection is the act which aims to limit the sales of guns by non-registered dealers and prevents interstate transfers of weaponry between citizens without government oversight, as opposed to the act that actually limited access to certain kinds of firearm for the citizenry?

Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

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

#213

Posted 25 May 2013 - 11:21 PM

I must say, I'm a bit confused. Wasn't your original contention that if hunting and gun ownership are stigmatised that people will a) rebel with even more violence b) suffer immensely and kill themselves?

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#214

Posted 25 May 2013 - 11:59 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 05 June 2013 - 09:49 AM.

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, May 26 2013, 00:21)
I must say, I'm a bit confused. Wasn't your original contention that if hunting and gun ownership are stigmatised that people will a) rebel with even more violence b) suffer immensely and kill themselves?

I fixed my reply.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#215

Posted 05 June 2013 - 11:15 AM

QUOTE (Raavi @ Saturday, May 25 2013, 15:39)
That's the exact reason the Firearm-related death rate in countries like Belgium is so low. I agree that people should be able to carry mace, purely for selfdefense. But I don't see the need to carry a firearm of any sort. It would inevitably only lead to higher firearm-related death rates. Something no one needs.

I can't stand the "I don't care how many people are murdered as long as no one gets shot" mentality.


Also,

Saudi Arabia allows all citizens to own firearms for self-defense with minimal restrictions, whilst all other types of defensive item (batons, pepper spray, stun guns, tazers, etc...) are not considered weapons under Saudi law and can be both owned and carried legally by anyone, including children.
Saudi Arabia has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

The Czech Republic allows all citizens to own firearms for self-defense with minimal restrictions, whilst all other weapons can be owned and carried freely by anyone aged 18 or over.
The Czech Republic has one of the lowest homicide rates in Europe and it's firearm homicide rate is lower than that of Belgium.

Switzerland and Austria both allow all citizens to own firearms for self defense and place no restrictions upon the ownership, carry and use of irritant sprays by individuals over the age of 18.
Switzerland and Austria have the lowest homicide rates in Europe, at 0.7 and 0.6 respectively.

Western Australia allowed the ownership and carry of pepper spray since 2003, it now has one of the lowest crime rates in Oceania.

Yemen has the second highest rate of gun ownership in the world, if terrorism is excluded from the homicide statistics Yemen's murder rate is only 1.25; lower than Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

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

#216

Posted 05 June 2013 - 12:12 PM Edited by sivispacem, 05 June 2013 - 12:20 PM.

Don't double post. Especially when you aren't actually bringing anything new to the table. The various points about correlation versus causality still stand and more cherry-picked examples does not really change that. Look, we all get the point you are trying to make. But the trends you refer to arent actually borne out in wider statistical analysis, as has been demonstrated a number of time by various people. Also I deeply question how valid using Yemen as an example of low murder rates is given that upwards of six thousand people have been killed in the insurgency in South Yemen since 1999.

Also, you still haven't explained why your cherry-picked examples are valid for supporting your argument, yet any time anyone else uses a similar example you claim it is invalid for whatever arbitrary reason you happen to make up at the time. A shame really, because your earlier opinion-based expressions were much more valid than your attempts to claim statistically incorrect arguments based on a handful of examples you personally selected whilst giving absolutely no regard to additional external contributing factors.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#217

Posted 05 June 2013 - 12:39 PM

1. Who the f*ck do you think you are with your "don't double post"?

2. I mentioned and explained other contributing factors.

3. Terrorism =/= murders occurring during street crime/home invasions/riots.
One involves brainwashed extremists attempting to cause as much damage as possible, the other involves a cowardly opportunists.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

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

#218

Posted 05 June 2013 - 01:24 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 13:39)
1. Who the f*ck do you think you are with your "don't double post"?.

3. Terrorism =/= murders occurring during street crime/home invasions/riots.
One involves brainwashed extremists attempting to cause as much damage as possible, the other involves a cowardly opportunists.

1. A staff member, but quite aside from that soneone informing you of the forum rules?

3. Actually, many fatalities of terrorist attacks are treated as murder victims, though that varies from nation to nation. All a muder really is is an intentional unlawful killing. Which bings about another issue- differences in metric as to how murders are categorised- nations like Yemen get away with having very low homicide statistics by purposefully excluding terrorism, even though the actual definition of homicide includes terrorism.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#219

Posted 05 June 2013 - 02:34 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 14:24)
QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 13:39)
1. Who the f*ck do you think you are with your "don't double post"?.

3. Terrorism =/= murders occurring during street crime/home invasions/riots.
One involves brainwashed extremists attempting to cause as much damage as possible, the other involves a cowardly opportunists.

1. A staff member, but quite aside from that soneone informing you of the forum rules?

3. Actually, many fatalities of terrorist attacks are treated as murder victims, though that varies from nation to nation. All a muder really is is an intentional unlawful killing. Which bings about another issue- differences in metric as to how murders are categorised- nations like Yemen get away with having very low homicide statistics by purposefully excluding terrorism, even though the actual definition of homicide includes terrorism.

1. I have an unanswered post, I want to receive an answer, the thread is dieing, I post again to revive the thread in hopes of getting an answer.
Your unconsidered and condescending reply of "don't double post" is absolute proof of your appalling etiquette.

3. Even with terrorism included Yemen has a much lower intentional homicide rate (4.2) than all countries in similar socio-economic conditions who prohibit or restrict the ownership of firearms for self-defense (Russia, china, Mexico, Venezuela, etc...).

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

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

#220

Posted 05 June 2013 - 03:14 PM

The thread was dying because you'd lost your argument and gone away. Your last post was "I fixed my reply". No questions there. Then you came wading back in to repeat your earlier points like some kind of parrot, violating two forum rules- one against pointlessly bumping topics, and one against double posting. And you have the audacity to complain about my etiquette?

Also, what evidence do you have that it is the presence of defensive weapons in Yemen which gives Yemen's low fatality rate, not poor statistics, the lack of central government oversight across most of the nation or the notorious ineptitude of the police and security apparatus? Plus there are numerous impoverished nations with low homicide rates. Dijubouti for instance. As for poor reporting, Somalia's listed homicide rate is one quarter of Yemen's.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#221

Posted 05 June 2013 - 04:55 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 16:14)
The thread was dying because you'd lost your argument and gone away.

Danth's law

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

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

#222

Posted 05 June 2013 - 05:36 PM Edited by sivispacem, 05 June 2013 - 06:13 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 17:55)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 16:14)
The thread was dying because you'd lost your argument and gone away.

Danth's law

The huge list of unanswered questions, logical fallacies, and the fact you essentially stopped perpetuating your primary thesis at this point whilst leaving all these various questions unanswered suggests otherwise. Also, I question whether you can apply Danth's law in this case given the weakness of the resistance to the argument I was perpetuating, and your complete ignorance of various points that have been made and questions that had been asked of your thesis- not just by me, but by Melchoir, Raavi, GTAvanja et al.

Quoted from that very page your referred me to:

QUOTE (Ration Wiki)
As an internet discussion grows and grows, it's often tempting to declare victory and move on, especially if you've rammed the point home too many times and your opponent just ignores everything you say.

In actual fact, you're the person who has faced strong opposition in the thread- I can't find a single other individual who sided with you in the debate. Therefore, given that you evidently had no interest in continuing your argument (otherwise why go into the far more interesting and insightful discussion of your personal views?), and that you left numerous points of contention unanswered, descended into logical fallacy and ad-hominem attacks, claiming anyone who didn't perpetuate your view was an inferior human being, I feel it's fair to say that my analysis of your argument is just, reasonable and supported in evidence. If you are willing to spark a whole new discussion by demonstrating a causal link between legal self-defence weapons and low violent crime rates, and can satisfactorily explain your use of cherry-picked examples by demonstrating they do indeed constitute part of a wider trend, then please do so- but it does not change the fact your initial post brought absolutely nothing to the discussion that you hadn't brought before.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#223

Posted 05 June 2013 - 07:04 PM

Quite amusing.

You're totally delusional, warping your own view of reality and ignoring the factors that forced me to digress so that you can unleash a barrage of ad hominems destined purely to bolster your ego and feel superior.

I have clearly expressed my position (forced pacifism is unnatural, immoral and unethical; self-defense weapons should be legal and justifiable violence in accordance with human nature must be de-stigmatised), I have formed a coherent theory supported by irrefutable evidence, I have answered every question I have opened and I have put up with far too much sh*t whilst doing so.

The attitudes of my opponents have proven beyond doubt that the "non-violent" mindset is founded on a combination of hatred, ignorance, fear, prejudice, self-righteousness and elitism.
Refusing to accept concrete evidence and obsessing over non-issues (such as firearm homicide rates and how superior you feel.) whilst ignoring every point I bring up so you can regurgitate fallacious claims exposes you [pacifists] as real world Eric Cartmans; little prejudiced sociopaths who want others to "respect your authority".

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

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

#224

Posted 05 June 2013 - 07:49 PM Edited by sivispacem, 05 June 2013 - 07:52 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:04)
You're totally delusional

Explain how I'm delusional, please.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:04)
ignoring the factors that forced me to digress

No, you voluntarily digressed when I presented a long list of unanswered questions and logical flaws in your argument. You still haven't addressed any of them, and I can't help noticing there's still no actual content in this response.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:04)
so that you can unleash a barrage of ad hominems destined purely to bolster your ego and feel superior.

Exactly where have I used ad hominem attacks against you? I've asked you to demonstrate this already once and you've apparently refused to.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:04)
I have clearly expressed my position

Yes, you have. I don't have any objection to your personal opinion; what I question is your assertion that statistical evidence supports this thesis when in reality it does no such thing. Hence why I stopped contributing once you decided that the whole thing was an opinion piece rather than a statistical argument. I'm not going to get drawn on the merits of your subjective views, unless you start claiming these views are empirical facts.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:04)
I have formed a coherent theory supported by irrefutable evidence

If your evidence is so irrefutable, how come so many people have refuted it? Why have you failed to demonstrate the causal relationship on which your primary argument wholly depends? Why do you still ignore the outliers and anomalies, such as Singapore, Brunei, Hong Kong, Iceland, Spain, Denmark, New Zealand et al who either ban or license defensive weapon such as pepper spray and electroshock weapons and have stringent firearm laws yet all have murder rates under 1 per 100,000 head of population? Explain to me how your colloquial, cherry-picked examples are valid in the context of the argument yet the various examples used to refute your assumptions can't be? How come you've been unable to respond to these critiques other than to make wild accusations, such as claiming that people who don't support your thesis are empirically inferior, and that anyone who questions your statistics must be an authoritarian/fascist/communist/pacifist/whatever else you fancy calling them at the time. The pacifist one being particularly amusing as the primary and most commonly used definition of pacifism applies to conflict rather than defensive violence, and being a strategic realist I'm about as far from pacifism as it's possible to get.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:04)
I have answered every question

I don't like to quote myself, but I believe these, along with others, remain unanswered:

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 19:17)
Wait, I don't think anyone here has made the claim that law-abiding citizens should be entirely denied access to weaponry. What we've disputed is:

1) Your assertion that societies that permit access to defensive weapons are safer than those that don't- the evidence does not support this conclusion.
2) That laws permitting ownership of weaponry amongst the populace are direct contributors to the safety of a society- not only does the evidence not support it, it is a logical fallacy as it assumes causality where none is evident.
3) That societal morals are subjective rather than objective. I see you gave up debating this once I demonstrated it was technically infeasible.
4) That "natural", "human" and "god-given" rights are "factual". You've not been able to quantify this in any way, and there is a wealth of evidence against it.

Now, I don't really think either of us has a case to answer until you can properly counter the arguments I've summarised above, and a number of others that I've made over the course of the last few posts. If your only response to that is creating straw men and claiming moral superiority, then the irony of your accusations of us being akin to young-earth creationists, and being authoritarian is absolutely wonderful. Combined with the fact that from the get-go you've entirely failed- not just to support your argument with evidence but to even explain the basis of the primary tenet of it, other than to claim that your personal moral beliefs are objective and present across society as a whole, and that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant/a fascist/authoritarian/communist/pacifist [delete as appropriate]- it makes your heightened aggression, unwillingness to be addressed rationally, and hard-nosed stonewalling and borderline-fanatical vitriolage truly hilarious to behold.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, May 23 2013, 18:49)
This hypocritically irrational extremism is not only pathetic and puerile, but also extremely authoritarian, and by extension, highly unethical.

I count six individual unsupported tenets in this one sentence. I would like you to demonstrate, with referenced sources and quotations, the following assertions
1) Hypocrisy on the part of Melchoir and myself
2) Any lack of rationality or logical reasoning on the part of Melchoir and myself
3) What you believe in the statements we have made to be categorically extremist, given that extremism is relative and our views are shared by a large proportion of society.
4) What about our rebuttals of your arguments is trivial
5) Where any of our statements have amounted to support of authoritarianism
6) Where anything we have said can be deemed as unethical in our own societies, or by any objective moral standard you are capable of empirically quantifying and therefore showing to be unequivocally objective.

That's quite a damning indictment of the idea that you've answered "every" question asked of you. I count a full ten, bullet pointed for convenience, in that single back-and-forth alone.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:04)
I have put up with far too much sh*t whilst doing so.

The only sh*t you've put up with is as a result of the sh*t you came up with.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:04)
The attitudes of my opponents...

...have "proven beyond doubt" a number of subjective, emotive things that you've failed to explain your basic logic or reason for relating to? You still seem to be struggling with the definition of the word "proof".

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:04)
Refusing to accept concrete evidence

As I've said numerous times, you've presented absolutely no concrete evidence for your arguments. There is absolutely no correlation between armed self-defence laws and rate of violence in societies. Innumerate scientific studies on societal armament and violence have come to precisely zero conclusion on the subject. Even if there were a correlation, that's no evidence of causality. If there were concrete evidence to support your argument, you'd have been able to provide properly referenced, academic works also drawing the same conclusions. You haven't.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:04)
obsessing over non-issues

What, like your failure to demonstrate causality, failure to look at general trends, failure to take into account external factors, lack of statistical evidence to support your claims, use of fallacious logic, use of ad hominem attacks, arguments consisting of logical fallacies including but not limited to: argument by assertion, generalisation from fictional evidence, false equivocation, poisoning the well, circular reasoning, confusing correlation for causality, confusing opinion for fact, confusing cherry-picked evidence for statistical trends, post hoc- ergo propter hoc, association fallacy, presupposition and appeals to emotion by employing various derogatory comments; clear confirmation bias and attempting to fit evidence to a prescribed theory? Yes, non-issues.

I put it to you that you only consider these non-issues because the fundamentally weaken your argument. Apparently you enjoy the employing of double standards, wherein the merest hint or vague perception of fallacious or questionable logic based on your own preconceived biases is apparently a capital offence; yet your own employment of numerous logical fallacies and questionable statements ranging from the sublime to the utterly ridiculous via pure fantasy and clear falsehoods apparently passed you by in this crusade.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:04)
little prejudiced sociopaths

What were you saying about ad hominem attacks earlier?

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#225

Posted 05 June 2013 - 08:05 PM

I have demonstrated causality, you dismissed the facts as biased.

This is so hilarious it feels like a joke, you're so obsessed with attacking me that you can't even remain coherent in your arguments.

The Scottish Guy
  • The Scottish Guy

    Toasty!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#226

Posted 05 June 2013 - 09:05 PM Edited by The Scottish Guy, 05 June 2013 - 09:09 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 20:05)
I have demonstrated causality, you dismissed the facts as biased.

This is so hilarious it feels like a joke, you're so obsessed with attacking me that you can't even remain coherent in your arguments.

If I may interject. There's something you must understand and learn about sivispacem (if you haven't already). His reputation around this forum is something that evidently ranks of very high importance to his well being, and I imagine mind-set, in general life. This is a man who will never admit and/or accept defeat, no matter how many of his desired and aggressively-demanding sources are thrown at him. Even if this defeat can clearly be seen by his opponents, and/or the casual observer who may be on the fence. He will fight his corner to the death in his cringe inducing attempt to preserve his rep (and ego, I might add). He's so far up his own arse, brylcreem is his daily diet.

He will no doubt take this latest contributing observation of him from myself as me simply "entering this thread on the sole intent of insulting him", with completely ignoring the fact I am merely pointing out my justified opinion of him to another opponent of his. Hey sivi, if you don't like criticism, then don't get into politics. It's not something of your apparent sensitive nature to trouble yourself with.

It's also very ironic actually (as I've tirelessly said on numerous occasions already), that our dictator should call out anyone who takes a more strongly worded critique of his position, considering when it comes to any sort of political discussion around here, he must be top of the charts when it comes to belittling and attempting to demean others. He is built of the typical left mold where it's okay to shout, criticise, slander and insult anyone who happens to disagree with them, but should the shoe be on the other foot, then they must be silenced. Free speech is certainly something that's a one way street to these people.

My advice? Don't waste anymore time with this guy. At least not in this thread.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

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

#227

Posted 05 June 2013 - 09:07 PM Edited by sivispacem, 05 June 2013 - 09:10 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 21:05)
I have demonstrated causality, you dismissed the facts as biased.

Where? Not once have you even come close to demonstrating causality. Not least because you haven't even got a correlation to draw causality from. Go on then. Show me actual, empirical evidence of a definite, direct, irrefutable causal link. There's a good reason I, and others, have repeatedly explained to you that you haven't demonstrated causality. And it's not because we're contrary, or pacifist, or authoritarian, or whatever else you fancy accusing people of being at any given moment.

So, go on. Show me a empirical evidence that the unrestricted civilian possession of defensive weapons directly and irrefutably results in lower violence rates. If you are so certain of this causal link, provide me with merit-worthy, peer-review academic sources that make the same conclusion from the given evidence. But I'm not going to hold my breath. In between a list of logical fallacies as long as my arm, repeated ad hominem attacks and your consistent and perpetual failure to even come close to quantifying an utterly absurd, untenable and statistically impossible argument, I don't really think this argument is going to go anywhere. You certainly aren't providing any of the insights you appear to think you are.

I also note that, yet again, you ignored pretty much the entirety of my post, including a substantial list of unanswered questions you practically challenged me to point out. Come on, if you are going to continue "gracing" us all with your presence, at least engage with the responses I've posted.



I wouldn't bother coming back unless you intend to respond to at least one of my points with something empirical and worthwhile which directly and irrefutably supports your arguments.



@Scottish- As I've pointed out before, and will point out again, for all your complains about my demeanor, attitude and views- deserved or otherwise (I would argue otherwise given my current log, but hey, let's not let actual facts get in the way of your diatribes), you've never once tried to claim I'm wrong. Please come back when you're actually willing to discuss something material.

The Scottish Guy
  • The Scottish Guy

    Toasty!

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2011

#228

Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:17 AM Edited by The Scottish Guy, 06 June 2013 - 02:39 AM.

Sober up and pm me this log of your's.

Please.

Edit: You have an interest in Tag Heuer watches I've come to learn. Differences aside, you certainly
have class in that department.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#229

Posted 06 June 2013 - 11:18 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 22:07)
Condescending drivel.



You're demanding the impossible; you want me to provide mainstream (left-wing) peer-reviewed studies who admit that populations which have easy and legal access to effective means of self-defense deter crime.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

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

#230

Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:06 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, Jun 6 2013, 12:18)
You're demanding the impossible; you want me to provide mainstream (left-wing) peer-reviewed studies who admit that populations which have easy and legal access to effective means of self-defense deter crime.

Right, so your argument is "I can't quantify the primary crux of my argument because the entire academic community is intrinsically biased against my view". If that's not a damming indictment of your argument and its evidential basis, I don't know what is. What next, the Gallileo gambit? .

Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

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

#231

Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:08 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, Jun 6 2013, 21:18)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Jun 5 2013, 22:07)
Condescending drivel.



You're demanding the impossible; you want me to provide mainstream (left-wing) peer-reviewed studies who admit that populations which have easy and legal access to effective means of self-defense deter crime.

So, you contend that guns deter crime, and that every academic paper and every report by think tanks and international and government bodies are simply manipulated by a gigantic pacifist conspiracy to somehow reflect that inverse of their findings? Just clearing that up.

Also, I fail to see how "mainstream" and "left-wing" are synonymous, especially when opinion polls usually show that most governments are well to the right of their populations.

GTASAddict
  • GTASAddict

    0_0

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 24 Dec 2012

#232

Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:33 PM

Here's what I want to know: Why is Dylan Quick being charged with "three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon" instead of 15 counts of attempted, first degree murder?

QUOTE
Dylan Quick, 20, was charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after the stabbings, said Donna Hawkins, an official with the Harris County Prosecutor's Office.


http://www.cnn.com/2...ollege-stabbing

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#233

Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:33 PM Edited by ultimatelizardman, 06 June 2013 - 12:43 PM.

1. Yes, there is indeed an authoritarian pacifist "conspiracy" to castrate (figuratively) and retard the individual.
If there was no such conspiracy then freedom of thought and the ownership of weapons for the purpose of self-defence would be accepted in all supposedly "democratic" and "free" nations.

2. Left-wing and mainstream are synonymous; seeing as the vast majority of western legal systems are based on leftist doctrines such as pacifism, feminism, anti-intellectualism (the suppression of opposing views) and elitism.

3. There is concrete evidence in favour of my theory, the fact you have readily dismissed it each time it was provided proves that you [this applies to both of you] are either a delusional pacifist extremist or simply an ignorant divorced from reality.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

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

#234

Posted 06 June 2013 - 12:49 PM

...and now you've descended to creating conspiracy theories as thr only way to maintain your argument. Do you not appreciate how absurd this looks to an external observer? The whole debacle smacks of paranoia.
If there is concrete evidence that demonstrates a causal link between armed populations and low violence rates, why havent you provided it and why do you insist on creating bizarre conspiracies like "academia seeks to oppress the rights of man as part of a huge pacifist conspiracy" to explain why you cant quantif your arguments?

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#235

Posted 06 June 2013 - 01:54 PM

I provided evidence, you rejected it.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

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

#236

Posted 06 June 2013 - 01:59 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, Jun 6 2013, 14:54)
I provided evidence, you rejected it.

I rejected it because it didn't actually support your argument. I gave you ample opportunity to quote from your evidence anything you felt directly supported or corroborated the assertion that legal defensive weapon ownership directly resulted in lower violence rates in societies. You still haven't done so. I suspect that is primarily because the so-called "evidence" doesn't actually support this assertion. The bits of it I read certainly didn't.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#237

Posted 06 June 2013 - 02:10 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Jun 6 2013, 14:59)
The bits of it I read certainly didn't.

Cherry picking and a lack of comprehension.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

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

#238

Posted 06 June 2013 - 02:32 PM

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, Jun 6 2013, 15:10)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Jun 6 2013, 14:59)
The bits of it I read certainly didn't.

Cherry picking and a lack of comprehension.

Go on then, demonstrate I'm wrong. Still waiting for this irrefutable evidence to be quoted and referenced in the thread. It certainly hasn't been in anything you posted previously unless you've made additions to you earlier posts. Plus in order to allege poor reading comprehension don't you have to provide an exanple? I have of yours earlier in the thread.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    The lights are so bright, but they never blind me

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

#239

Posted 06 June 2013 - 03:18 PM Edited by Melchior, 06 June 2013 - 03:24 PM.

QUOTE (ultimatelizardman @ Thursday, Jun 6 2013, 22:33)
2. Left-wing and mainstream are synonymous; seeing as the vast majority of western legal systems are based on leftist doctrines such as pacifism

This is where you come off as very confused. Gun control has nothing to do with pacifism; it's not enacted on the basis that defending yourself is inherently wrong. Gun control stems from the fact that unrestricted access to firearms facilitates crime. The reason non-lethal tools of self-defense are occasionally outlawed, is because those specific weapons (non-lethal weapons are not illegal in themselves) were used by criminals more often then they were actually used to prevent crime.

None of it has anything to do with an ideological objection to the very idea of self defense and I'm not sure where you've gotten the impression that it does. By and large, you aren't penalised for defending yourself, you just can't use certain tools because those tools are outlawed for other reasons.

This should be common sense.

QUOTE
feminism

You're presumably talking about the bias against males in the legal system. I don't know why you think this has anything to do with feminism. Do honestly believe that a feminist conspiracy engaged in covert operations to make every single magistrate biased against the male gender? Because apparently you do.

QUOTE
anti-intellectualism (the suppression of opposing views) and elitism

I'm not sure how you've come to believe that these are "left-wing doctrines." Being "left-wing" essentially means "supporting social equality." It doesn't mean "giant, interconnected conspiracy that's in direct opposition to ultimatelizardman's bizarre beliefs and wants to take his guns and hates him for having a penis."

You also don't understand how to source your information. You quote the relevant passage, then provide a link for verification. You don't just throw out links and say "what I've interpreted as the relevant information is somewhere in these massive walls of text" then prattle on about how you've provided adequate references and accuse everyone else of cherry-picking, ad nauseum.

ultimatelizardman
  • ultimatelizardman

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#240

Posted 06 June 2013 - 05:53 PM

1. You're implying that it's common sense to prefer attacks committed with knives over attacks committed with less-lethal weapons.
That's delusional.

2. It's clear that there is a very high level of institutionalised misandry present in all western/westernised societies. This misandry is the result of feminists hypocritically exploiting traditionalism and manipulating males.

3. Anti-intellectualism and elitism are clearly present in conservative movements, but are far more common and highly pronounced in left-wing ideologies.

4. I never said that access to all types of weapons should be completely unrestricted.

5. Go back and look at the sources I provided.
If you can't interpret data and/or refuse to acknowledge it's validity, then I can't help you.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users