Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!   (92,156 visits to this link)

    2. News

    1. GTA Online

      1. Find Lobbies & Players
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Vehicles
      4. Content Creator
      5. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

    2. Red Dead Redemption

    3. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Quinn_flower

so the us goverment is blaming video games again for the mass shootings

Recommended Posts

Dryspace

"You have no interest in actually exploring whether or not my assertions regarding the misrecording of European fatalities attributed to shootings is valid"

That's exactly what I did: I asked you to explain WHY you assert that the European statistic is "factually wrong" when you used the same definition you take exception with in order to establish the number of school-related mass shootings in the U.S.. This is EXACTLY what you established earlier is illegitimate when attempting to refute my points. In lieu of simply answering and clarifying, you chose to accuse me of improperly attacking you.


"At no point did I ever say or suggest that the list of school related shootings I provided consisted of incidents directly comparable to your examples. In fact I clearly explained exactly what that list constitutes, if you would only so much as read the preamble"

So then you are saying: "Your assertion that, over period x, only three school-related incidents reasonably similar to the school shootings of today occurred is incorrect BECAUSE.....over period x, all of these incidents that match my Reddy-Made Reddit definition and are not directly comparable to the school shootings of today occurred." Gotcha.


"You have already conceded that the number of incidents occurring in the first 124 years of US history was incorrect by conceding additional incidents"

Additional incidents? I agreed to allow a fight at a school dance to count, though I take that back, as it just is in no way similar to a person or persons murdering innocent people at a school.


"Moreover, your failure to define what constitutes "reasonably similar" makes it basically meaningless"

I don't have to define 'reasonably similar' to a reasonable person. Any incident in which one or more persons targets a school for the purpose of murdering people with a gun is reasonably similar to the school shootings of today...n'est-ce pas?

None of the examples you listed are even close, not even the fight at the dance. As for my two examples before 1900, one was an incident in which two boys shot into a school, harming no one. I considered that incident to be 'reasonably similar'. Let's get something clear: If my inclusion of that incident is unreasonable, it would make my intent the opposite of that existing in your imagination. So please stop. You're not making a point and you're not making any sense.


"I think you misunderstand me. I'm not asking you to produce a detailed, quantified analysis of how the US differs specifically from individual European nations..."

Apparently you misunderstand me. If you want me to give you an alternative hypothesis, I asked you, since you are already familiar with the data, to provide me with info on the definitions used for the U.S. and for other places in the world so that I can peruse it and attempt to provide that hypothesis you asked for. Apparently you sorely misunderstood me. Almost as if willingly.


""Mass" is defined...as no preexisting "large number" is defined."

I admit, I can't rebut nonsense.


"I think we've both agreed on "at least four fatalities" in principle, but one could equally argue five, six or more."

This is nonsense that I am reading. What happened to "we can all agree that requiring four fatalities to count as a "mass" killing and excluding familicide even when more than four due are fairly ridiculous."?

What about "I think most people would argue that, say, 3 dead and 15 injured, for instance, is a "mass killings"?

What about "I personally think any single murder incident involving the deaths of two or more people and a total casualties, I'd say, of maybe 5 dead or injured, is a "mass killing"?

Don't worry, I no longer expect anything resembling a coherent, honest acknowledgement of error.


"If you're going to resort to an argument from semantics..."

There's no such thing as an argument from semantics--that is, if you meant a logical fallacy. There is no invalidity in arguing that another is using a word incorrectly.


"I never assert the incident involving Chris Kyle was directly comparable to incidents such as school shootings"
"I simply mentioned the Kyle incident in passing as a multiple fatality shooting that took place at a range, which is categorical fact."

No, that's simply not what you simply mentioned.

I asked why mass murders are unheard of at shooting ranges.

You replied, "Because mass murders typically target a location..." "...though they're not unheard of, Chris Kyle..."

Forgive my abysmal ability to parse plain English, but can you clarify the antecedent that the pronoun "they're" refers to? Again, forgive me..I guess my reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

And further, your own words: I asserted that your reference to Chris Kyle was in error, and you replied: "It wasn't- I wasn't meaning to draw a direct comparison, I was simply highlighting that your assertion that mass killings don't occur at places like shooting ranges is not quite true"

And my focus on Chris Kyle as your example of a mass murder is a straw man?


"What you seem to be saying is that mass shooters choose locations that have a low likelihood of containing armed individuals intentionally to maximise casualties, but I see no empirical evidence presented to justify that reasoning"

I can't explain why you see no empirical evidence, but at any rate, logic alone suffices. And it's more a near-certainty of a total absence of armed individuals.

Do people accidentally carry out mass shootings? Do they accidentally kill many people instead of one or none? Or is the mass nature of a shooting intentional? If it is intentional, then it is logical to assume that a shooter will not prefer a location with a high likelihood of defenders who put him in the Game Over screen before he even clears the first level. What other reason do you suggest for the avoidance of armed defenders?


"You alluded to (and continue to allude to) a correlation between race and violent crime rate"

I didn't allude to a correlation, I pointed to the massive correlation.


"Violent crime rates amongst minorities are generally higher than the average in most nations"

Generally higher? I'm talking about a shockingly massive difference. Many multiples higher than representation.


"but this is substantively due to a great many other factors such as increased deprivation in these populations, lower incomes and education levels, forced ghettoisation and other factors, most of which are derived from government action in the first place (just look at the history of redlining in the US, or the fact that even in 2018 blacks and latinos are still subject to endemic and institutionalised mortgage discrimination). The correlation between socioeconomic status and violent crime is far stronger than that of ethnicity and violent crime."

Show me the data. This is a truckload of fiction, period. A complete inversion of cause and effect. No one is deprived, except through the very action of welfare itself.

 

No one is oppressed in modern America. Let me state here and now that anyone who suggests such an absurdity has not the slightest clue what oppression is. I only hope for his sake he never finds out. If someone told me that in Otherlandia People X were oppressed, but when we arrived there, I saw members of People X representing the wealthiest of the society and occupying the highest and most culturally influential positions in television, movies, music, sports, and most importantly by far, government, I would of course be polite and laugh at his nice little joke.

Poverty doesn't cause crime. No one in the entire U.S. lives in poverty. Because the very notion defecates all over the millions of people in the world whose wealth is 1/100 or 1/000 of the poorest person in America. Historically in the U.S. before urbanization, millions of black and white people lived in "poverty", scratching a living out of a measly plot of land. Are you afraid to look up the related crime stats? (Sneak peek: black figures are far lower than today's)

If you would open your eyes, you would see that it is envy and greed that are primary causes of crime, which are exacerbated by population density of course. It is people deciding that they have a right to someone else's property or life. All I did was show you a fact. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR MURDERING A HUMAN BEING. So I'm not sure what the point of what seemed like a whole bunch of fiction-based justification is.

I'll be back, but that's all for now. The good news is that I'm very close to admitting defeat. I don't consider you a straight shooter. Ironically, you've shown that, no matter the evidence, you have decided to stick to your guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I don't know if there's a comprehension issue or you're being deliberately obtuse, but this is still a tu quoque. Let me explain again: your statistics for "mass shootings" in the EU are wrong because they include people who weren't killed in shootings. That is categorical fact. An argument that revolves around my categorisation of other incidents, quite aside from the fact that you seem to have misinterpreted the specific comments I made, is not addressing this point and is, by definition, a tu quoque.

 

So then you are saying: "Your assertion that, over period x, only three school-related incidents reasonably similar to the school shootings of today occurred is incorrect BECAUSE.....

Because in that list are incidents (such as the mass shooting of 14 children and the bombing of Bath school) which are inherently similar to later school incidents, yes. Hence my explicit avoidance of the term "shooting"- if we're going to discuss incidents where lone individuals either of unsound mind or motivated by hatred seek to target schools with mass violence, then I don't see the point in isolating these to incidents solely involving firearms. I mean you're the one arguing that firearms aren't the cause so surely you're amenable to this?

 

I don't have to define 'reasonably similar' to a reasonable person. Any incident in which one or more persons targets a school for the purpose of murdering people with a gun is reasonably similar to the school shootings of today...

So we aren't necessitating that people actually die in these attacks now? That's a change from your previous definition. We can then include the aforementioned shooting of 14 children in 1891, and I'm going to petition for Bath as I don't see why, in a general discussion of indiscriminate violence targeting schools, we should limit ourselves to firearms.

 

Apparently you misunderstand me. If you want me to give you an alternative hypothesis, I asked you, since you are already familiar with the data, to provide me with info on the definitions used for the U.S.

I already did. My comparison is between the US, as an entity, and any other state with broadly similar GDP, GINI, HDI and positioning in economic, political and individual freedom indices. You're the one asserting the US is "incomparable" with nations similar in these ways, many of which are in the EU, so I'm expecting an explanation as to why.

 

I admit, I can't rebut nonsense.

What's "nonsense" about this? "A large number" does not have a numerical definition. It's an entirely subjective and circumstantial term. If we aren't going to provide a defined number which constitutes a "mass shooting" or "mass killing" then it leaves the term open to interpretation. Where I've referenced things like "at least two dead and two/four further injured", I'm referencing definitions used for recording rampage killings because, let's not beat around the bush, that's actually what we're talking about here for all the handwaving vagaries around "mass killings".

 

What about "I think most people would argue that, say, 3 dead and 15 injured, for instance, is a "mass killings"?

What I'm doing is agreeing to use your definition for the purposes of this thought experiment. That doesn't mean I agree with it, just that it's easier to simply rebut you using your own metrics than it is try and argue for alternative ones.

 

I didn't allege fallacy, but are you really so completely oblivious to the logical absurdity that is hinging your entire rebuttal on a set of terms ("mass killing", "broadly similar") which are subjective, individual, circumstantial and hitherto undefined by you?

 

Forgive my abysmal ability to parse plain English, but can you clarify the antecedent that the pronoun "they're" refers to?

 

Admittedly this is less clear than it should have been; the "they're" should probably read "attacks". So yes, I can absolutely understand why you drew this conclusion but it wasn't my intent.

 

I can't explain why you see no empirical evidence, but at any rate, logic alone suffices.

No it doesn't. You've seen a correlation and assumed a causal link exists, even though there are other valid hypotheses you haven't explored that equally account for the observable trends. I'm not saying you're wrong, in fact I acknowledged it may well be a factor, I'm simply pointing out that assuming it is the primary driver behind chosen targets is an assumption and nothing more.

 

If it is intentional, then it is logical to assume that a shooter will not prefer a location with a high likelihood of defenders who put him in the Game Over screen before he even clears the first level

Which, as I've said on two occasions now, may well hold true in the cases of preplanned spree and rampage killers whose sole intent is to maximise body count, but does not necessarily follow where targets are chosen due to political or religious motivations, or in instances of "snap" mass killing where the perpetrator suffers from either temporary or prolonged mental illness episodes. The logic you employ is based on the core assumption that spree killers wish to maximise their kill count and act with preplanned forethought and consideration for their targets, both of which are true in some instances bit not in others. There are enough mass shooting incidents involving killers who literally wander local streets shooting people at random without any consideration for specific targeting to rebut the notion that all spree shooters conduct plan attacks against soft targets to prevent their kill count being reduced.

 

I've already provided an alternative hypothesis to explain the avoidance of armed defenders as potentially happenstance in the search for soft targets, so I'm not sure why you're asking for another. How about you address the one you've been given?

 

Show me the data.

There have been innumerate academic analyses of the link between poverty or income inequality and violent crime. This meta-analysis is particularly good; although paywalled the abstract contains the headline figures- 80% of 76 individual zero order correlation coefficients across thirty-four distinct studies show a moderate or higher correlation between poverty or income inequality and violent crime, with the correlation being strongest in homicide and assault. Here we have a UK study coming to similar conclusions, but with additional analysis given to the self perpetuating cycle of further criminality abetted by disproportionately harsh sentencing for low income individuals compared to wealthier ones convicted of the same crimes. These are again replicated by other studies though with the caveat that increasing income in already poor families does not necessarily reduce crime rates.

 

The simple fact of the matter is that meta-analysis of crime rates is difficult and nuanced, and there's no single "magic bullet" approach to explaining it. This I've acknowledged, but you have yet to do so.

 

Your regressive rant about the lack of oppression in modern America smacks of ideological dogma and comes across as overly defensive petulance. It seems to me you're actually unprepared or unwilling to really think much beyond blaming minorities when it comes to analysing violent crime rates. The aspect you fail to appreciate is that, unless you're going to descend into scientific racism and allege that minorities are genetically predisposed to criminality, stating "minorities are overwhelmingly the cause of violent crime" does not in fact do anything to explain violent crime, as it gives no reasoning or analysis of why this may be the case. In short, you've utterly failed to present even the most cursory of actual explanations for your blanket denial of my responses, which are well supported by empirical evidence and current academic, scientific and sociological thinking.

 

No one in the entire U.S. lives in poverty.

Amongst a myriad of faintly- no, make that utterly- ridiculous things you've said in this last post, this is possibly the most absurd. By the US' own metrics, 12.5% of the population live in poverty. Poverty rates amongst blacks are double those amongst whites, and poverty rates amongst Hispanics nearly triple. Forty-four percent of single parent black families live in poverty.

 

Until this point I'd been happy to humour you because, even though I don't agree with many of your points, at least you were being civil and coherent. However you've well and truly jumped the shark with this last diatribe; I've now got the distinct impression you've got no interest in actually discussing most of these subjects and would rather just regurgitate right wing ideology or make thinly veiled insinuations that I'm an "apologist for murder" simply because I dared posit that race isn't the be-all, end-all of violent crime.

 

For someone who keeps harping on about "truth" and "fact", you're awfully happy to just repeat ideological drivel without actual conducting any analysis and evaluation of the views you express. You've repeatedly ruled against "leftists" for their attitude to gun control but your own willingness to disregard empiricism for good old fashioned ideological crusading is every bit as intellectually bereft.

 

It's deeply ironic you say I'm the one "sticking to my guns" whilst you parrot dogma at me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

@sivispacem

 

I'm sure you understand that I need you to explain why it seems to you that I'm unprepared or unwilling to really think much beyond blaming minorities when it comes to analyzing crime rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HolyGrenadeFrenzy
Posted (edited)

About these people laying down the accusations: Yeah.........follow the money and their declared goals and associations.

 

Sorry, yet I need to vent some flames in addition to the critical analysis going on here.

 

 

-----------------

 

To anyone that recognizes this agenda, to show you how wwwrrrrronggggg you are about the dangers of video games!

 

:sarcasm: ------>VVVV

Yes, because all inappropriate violent behavior in history is because of video games; especially the wars, tech advances from the war efforts, all manner of sexual violence, nuclear war, biological war, economical war, electronic warfare, real terrorism:which has to definitively be done by a government against people yet is often democide in action, spermicide, patricide, the very idea of guerrilla ware fare and all manners of invasions, chemical warfare, talking back to teachers and other authority figures that should be punishable by death, the failure of communism, the failure of fascism, all riots throughout time, Uriel's obedience to God, arson, Vulcan sacrifice, infanticide, genocide and many others.

 

They are ALL because of video games. The origin of this behavior is directly connected to a time traveling cult of Atari Revenge Gamer Society types and others that sympathize with them.

 

.......and you are all guilty of THAT! :miranda:

 

Turn yourselves in and throw yourselves down to the mercy of the worldwide webs despot dictatorship oligarchy.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<---- :sarcasm:

 

-----------------

 

Free thinkers must be quarantined and eliminate the influence by dividing them from their means of analysis, communication, self expression and practice of strategy.

 

Sorry, I just had to show how these claims sound to anyone whom has studied even an inkling of history, ancient and modern science of warfare, criminal science, each of the soft and hard sciences from anthropology and sociology to the many areas of psychology..

Edited by HolyGrenadeFrenzy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I need you to explain why it seems to you that I'm unprepared or unwilling to really think much beyond blaming minorities when it comes to analyzing crime rates.

Because that's literally what you did- pointed at a Wikipedia article showing the proportion of ethnic minorities in different states and said "that's why X states are more violent". You then poured scorn on widely accepted factors driving criminality with a textbook, cookie-cutter right wing diatribe, and to this point have still failed to produce a hypothesis more profound than "minorities = crime".

 

If you don't want me to think you're blaming ethnic minorities for crime, don't make statements to that effect. Not rocket science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lucius M. Galloway

I literally wrote an essay on this a week ago. My instructor said that I had a tone. Maybe because I'm a gamer and the fact that f*ckfaces who NEVER played a single video game in their life, let alone a violent one, can say that violent video games causes shootings. Even that fat ass tangerine agrees with that bullsh*t. I've been playing games since I was 8, my first violent video game was either GTA San Andreas or GTA 3. Never have I ever considered shooting up a school. Motherf*ckers that bullied me got beat the f*ck up, wasn't no pondering shooting up the school, none of that. Dudes are just weak/nuts today.

 

This is my question, if violent video games *are* the culprit for mass shootings/school shootings, can all who play violent video games be profiled as future mass murderers?

 

Food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace
Posted (edited)

@sivispacem

You are accusing me of being "unprepared or unwilling to really think much beyond blaming minorities when it comes to analyzing crime rates"--not because I haven't actually speculated on a completely different cause; not because I haven't thought about or discussed anything else...and not because I have ever blamed minorities--but because I dared mention a fact??? You have got to be joking.

You asserted that broadly the same economic, social, political, and criminal pressures exist in wealthy European countries and the U.S. You asserted that "the US murder rate per capita is much higher...US murder rate is anomalously high compared to that of equivalent Western wealthy nations".

I responded by correcting you: One can clearly see that there are very significant differences between U.S. states. It is impossible that there can be significant differences between U.S. states but no significant differences between U.S. states and Western wealthy nations.

Your have based your argument on the stark fallacy that the entire U.S. and wealthy Western nations, or even Western Europe as a whole, are 'equivalent'--which is of course a rigorously defined term. And this from the same person who took issue with the fact that I did not define the terms 'reasonable' and 'similar'--when as you know I actually used those terms in the broadest, most accomodating manner in my attempt to establish parallels.

For some reason, you think that a union of fifty separate states (as well as protectorates--I have found these included in firearm-related data) comprising an enormous population, encompassing a portion of the globe of over 53 degrees of latitude and 91 degrees of longitude, with a long-extant 'melting pot' status and an extreme variation of measurements within is an 'equivalent' comparison to a given wealthy European nation.

If The United States of Half The World were formed tomorrow, we'll have sivispacem on hand to make ridiculously illegitimate comparisons between it and various incomparably smaller, mostly homogeneous nations--and stick to his guns when called out on it.

I deem it transparently obvious that such blanket generalizations about "the U.S." are evidence of a repetition of propaganda rather than the result of serious study. Generalizations are only legitimate if they apply consistently and evenly to the area in question. A group of extraterrestrials could make the same generalizations about Earth without studying the extreme variations between different areas, simply asserting, "Homo sapiens has a problem with x" when in actuality, some very much do and some not near as much. If these aliens had an agenda or a prejudice against Earth, they may find it useful to repeat such worthless statements, whereas if they were seeking truth, they would engage in the scientific process, and would be the ones warning others against the blind repetition of propaganda.


"to this point have still failed to produce a hypothesis more profound than "minorities = crime".

Now you are really testing my patience by pretending not to know the difference between an hypothesis and data. I presented neither hypothesis nor opinion relating to race or ethnicity. I presented data.

"If you don't want me to think you're blaming ethnic minorities for crime, don't make statements to that effect. Not rocket science."

Please quote the statement or statements that you refer to, in which I blame ethnic minorities for crime. Let me do you a favor you don't deserve and remind you that presenting data is not 'laying blame'. It's presenting data.

Edited by Dryspace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You are accusing me of being "unprepared or unwilling to really think much beyond blaming minorities when it comes to analyzing crime rates"--not because I haven't actually speculated on a completely different cause; not because I haven't thought about or discussed anything else...and not because I have ever blamed minorities--but because I dared mention a fact???

No, I'm accusing you of being unprepared or unwilling to think much beyond blaming minorities because the only statistic correlation you decided to make with violence was proportion of ethnic minorities. In fact, I would go as far as to say that you outright suggested that proportion of minorities was the explanation for violent crime rates, over factors such as poverty or social issues. Quoted, verbatim, from your previous post:

 

Here is Wikipedia's Murder in the United States by state.

 

And here is an entirely separate measurement whose correlation with the former is as plain as can be: List of U.S. states by African-American population.

 

The truth is out there, sivispacem. Just make sure you are seeking truth and not just defending your beliefs.

If that wasn't your point, then you might want to revisit your wording and choice of example, because that's pretty unequivocally what you've said.

 

 

You asserted that broadly the same economic, social, political, and criminal pressures exist in wealthy European countries and the U.S. You asserted that "the US murder rate per capita is much higher...US murder rate is anomalously high compared to that of equivalent Western wealthy nations"

Both of which are empirically true. I gave you a list of numerous points of comparison I was using to justify my view that they were "equivalent Western wealthy nations" and to this point you have failed to address a single one of them- simply asserting that I'm wrong without so much as even offering a cursory explanation why, much less actually addressing how the factors in which the US and other comparable Western nations differ is responsible for the marked differences in homicide rate.

 

Your have based your argument on the stark fallacy that the entire U.S. and wealthy Western nations, or even Western Europe as a whole, are 'equivalent'

Across a broad set of metrics related to per-capita GDP, Human Development, income distribution, political/personal/economic freedoms, et cetera, they are equivalent. The onus at this point is on you to provide a coherent explanation of why these data points are not valid for the purposes of comparison, and why your view that they are not comparable is merit-worthy. As I've already mentioned, this is something you have thus-far completely refused to do, instead simply repeating the same "they aren't comparable" mantra ad nauseum. The only noteworthy attempt you've made to address the apparently insurmountable differences between European nations and the US that means comparisons of violence rates are untenable was to point to ethnic diversity, which a) plays into the earlier assertions that minorities = violence, b) ignores the US' closest neighbour, Canada, which is much more ethnically diverse but vastly less violent, and c) was wrong regarding European countries anyway.

 

For some reason, you think that a union of fifty separate states (as well as protectorates--I have found these included in firearm-related data) comprising an enormous population, encompassing a portion of the globe of over 53 degrees of latitude and 91 degrees of longitude, with a long-extant 'melting pot' status and an extreme variation of measurements within is an 'equivalent' comparison to a given wealthy European nation.

Yes, becasue either these factors bear no obvious relevance to violence rates (and therefore are simply red herrings), or exist to a greater or lesser degree in other countries anyway (and therefore the assertion that they're solely manifest in the US is entirely wrong).

 

I deem it transparently obvious that such blanket generalizations about "the U.S." are evidence of a repetition of propaganda

It's a good thing your "deeming" holds no weight. Perhaps you should actually address the laundry-list of fallacies, factual errors, misinterpretations, mischaracterisations and convenient ignorance of rebuttals across the last six or seven posts before you start proselytising about how I'm repeating propaganda and therefore, implicitly, you're the arbiter of truth on the issue. Because from where I stand this looks like a desperate attempt to shut down discourse by poisoning the well.

 

Now you are really testing my patience by pretending not to know the difference between an hypothesis and data.

If you present a single data set, with no consideration for or representation of any others, as part of an argument, it's entirely reasonable to assume that the data set presented is one that you believe this data set is representative of the issue being discussed. Signing off the sentence with "The truth is out there" reinforces this. Again, if this wasn't your intent then you might want to give more consideration to both how you structure your points, and the specific sets of data you use to support them, going forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cleomaster

I can't say much about all the other same issues out there but I can definitely say that video games was not the issue here, even though in my aspects Video games (most of them) make you "wanna be the good guy" everywhere. So that's not the issue. The person who was responsible for the mass shooting was just mentally retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

"If you present a single data set, with no consideration for or representation of any others, as part of an argument"

 

Are you or are you not focusing on the fact that the murder rate is higher in specific parts of the U.S. than it is in wealthy European nations? What data do we have that correlates with murder in the U.S.? We have already demonstrated that there is little, no, or negative correlation between murder rate and measurements such as firearm ownership and gun control laws.

 

Are you or are you not interested in seeking the roots of the problem? I assumed so, and thus presented to you the only measurement I could find that shows unambiguously what is responsible for half of the modern U.S. murder rate.

 

But instead of discussing the data you actually objected to it, and further implied that my unwillingness to ignore certain data makes me a Bad Person.

 

 

"it's entirely reasonable to assume that the data set presented is one that you believe this data set is representative of the issue being discussed."

 

I can't extract any meaning from this. Would you care to rephrase?

 

 

"Again, if this wasn't your intent then you might want to give more consideration to both how you structure your points, and the specific sets of data you use to support them, going forward."

 

The specific sets of data I use to support them? To support what, exactly and precisely? You have trouble remembering that I didn't make a point, I only presented data. These points that you insist I made don't actually exist anywhere outside of your prejudicial pontifications. Is that not so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Are you or are you not interested in seeking the roots of the problem? I assumed so, and thus presented to you the only measurement I could find that shows unambiguously what is responsible for half of the modern U.S. murder rate

So you are saying ethnic minorities are the primary driving factor behind US murder then. One wonder why you were so indignant at your views bring characterised this way if you're going to subsequently affirm that as true, but I suppose you needed something to grasp at to stay in the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

Yes, sivispacem: I, like most people, am generally indignant when my views are characterized in any manner other than that in which I have presented them. In this case, I have presented no opinions on ethnic minorities whatever, as anyone can see. Your attempt to disparage my person in order to invalidate my speech is disgusting but typical. I can only imagine you hold the tactics of the Catholic church in great esteem.

 

Let me explain how transparent your behavior is to others: Even if I did express opinions that you find unreasonable or offensive, in no way does that prevent you from refuting my assertions. The point of open-mindedness is that nothing is "beyond the pale". An open-minded person does not refuse to discuss a thing on ideological grounds. That is what a close-minded person does: the ideologue, the religious zealot, the cultist.

 

There is literally no viewpoint you could express that would prevent me from conversing with you, because I consider myself to be open-minded. The more an argument departs from reality, the easier it is for me to respond to and refute it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Yes, sivispacem: I, like most people, am generally indignant when my views are characterized in any manner other than that in which I have presented them

But they're your words, not mine. You stated, verbatim, that the "only measurement...that shows unambiguously what is responsible for half of the modern U.S. murder rate" is the proportion African-Americans. No amount of mental gymnastics will undo that fact; no amount of accusation and no thinly veiled ad hominems will undo this fact. At this point, I'm not sure what's more laughable- the fact you seem unwilling to accept that this is what you've said, even though you've done so twice and I've quoted these comments in three separate posts now, or the fact you think my verbatim repetition of your own comments counts as a mischaracterisation.

 

 

Your attempt to disparage my person in order to invalidate my speech is disgusting but typical

I don't need to "disparage your person", because you entire argument thus-far has been a series of contradictions, misrepresentations and fallacies, and you've utterly failed to even acknowledge, much less respond to, the vast majority of the actual points that have been made. I've done nothing but refute your assertions yet this appears to be an exercise in futility, as you apparently find poisoning the well by attempting to twist my repetition of your own position into some kind of slur vastly more engrossing than actually having a discussion.

 

Until such a time as you respond to the myriad of unanswered rebuttals above (which I'm more than happy to quote for posterity) I have precisely zero interest in continuing to discuss the subject with you, as it is simply a waste of my time to construct coherent and reasonable counter-points only for you to ignore them and instead post what, to be quite frank, borders on utterly incoherent drivel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dryspace

@sivispacem

 

Not once have I refused to accept anything I have said.

 

You have repeatedly accused me of "blaming minorities"; of "blaming ethnic minorities for crime". You accused me of claiming that "ethnic minorities are the primary driving factor behind US murder". You actually assert that I "outright suggested that proportion of minorities was the explanation for violent crime rates".

 

I have never asserted anything about 'minorities'. You are the one who first mentioned 'minorities'. I posted a single fact regarding the massive correlation between black Americans and homicide. I posted this data in direct response to your erroneous assertion that "broadly the same" factors exist between wealthy European nations and the U.S., and that they have the same diversity of society.

 

The statistic I posted explains, very clearly, one reason for the difference in homicide rates, in contrast with the far, far smaller, contradictory, or nonexistent correlations involving firearms which have been argued. The statistic does not explain--nor did I in any way suggest it did--why homicide occurs in the first place. As you well know.

 

I gave no opinions and no views on the subject. I don't need to "be more careful" about how I present facts. Show me the evidence of your accusation. Show me where I blame 'minorities' for crime.

 

You stated: "I'm accusing you of being unprepared or unwilling to think much beyond blaming minorities because the only statistic correlation you decided to make with violence was proportion of ethnic minorities".

 

This is blatantly false, and not just because I posted no statistic regarding 'ethnic minorities'.

 

Among other things I began by positing fundamental societal change as a primary factor in the increase in homicide, which you ignored. I explored statistics regarding the relationship between homicide rate, and firearm presence and restriction. I put forth statistics regarding murder and open carry laws. I later stated my position that homicide is caused by envy, greed, and a lack of respect for human life. Each of these of course have their own causes to explore but, again, you were unwilling to pursue the subjects.

 

You can not expect one to put up with this, sivispacem. What do you think Socrates would have to say about your methods? Do you even care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Not once have I refused to accept anything I have said.

So, you're asserting that you didn't say that:

 

 

the only measurement I could find that shows unambiguously what is responsible for half of the modern U.S. murder rate [is the number of black citizens]

Can you please explain how the above statement isn't tantamount to saying "the proportion of ethnic minorities (in this case black people) is the direct causal fact (note use of word "responsible") for the elevated murder rate"? Because that's unequivocally blaming race for murder, and it's frankly idiotic for you to continue insisting it isn't.

 

 

I have never asserted anything about 'minorities'

You made an assertion about black people specifically, who are an ethnic minority in the United States. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, you are talking about minorities.

 

 

The statistic I posted explains, very clearly, one reason for the difference in homicide rates

So the "reason" for a circa fivefold average homicide rate in the US compared to other Western countries is black people?

 

 

Show me where I blame 'minorities' for crime.

Right here, as I've cited several times now:

 

the only measurement I could find that shows unambiguously what is responsible for half of the modern U.S. murder rate [is the number of black citizens]

 

You stated: "I'm accusing you of being unprepared or unwilling to think much beyond blaming minorities because the only statistic correlation you decided to make with violence was proportion of ethnic minorities".

 

This is blatantly false

No, this is categorical fact. You have stated the number of black people is unambiguously the only measure responsible for a full 50% (though where you've derived that figure I have no idea) of the US murder rate. I've literally quoted you saying so above. Either reconsider your wording, or accept that's what you've said, because trying to argue you haven't borders on the utterly ridiculous.

 

 

Among other things I began by positing fundamental societal change as a primary factor in the increase in homicide, which you ignored

Because it's meaningless, unquantifiable weasel words and you've posted no evidence to substantiate it.

The only evidence you've posted is a list of states by proportion of black citizens, which you've implied is the substantive driving factor.

Are you suggesting that the growing black population is the "fundamental societal change" you're referring to here, or is it something else you've not bothered to define?

Moreover, the assertions about an "increasing homicide rate" are patently ridiculous as current homicide rates are about where they were a century ago, or in the 1960s.

 

 

What do you think Socrates would have to say

He's probably say something along the lines of "stop dodging all attempts to engage in meaningful conversation, you fool". But in Attic Greek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trip
Posted (edited)

Remember the old days when a mod would step in and tell you two to take it to PM? ;)

 

 

Just joking. Keep it up for the 4 people(you 2 included in the count) reading the exchange.

Edited by trip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Star-Lord

Video games are the best entertament invention ever created hands down. Where fun and skill equals joy, healthy brain development and a departure from boredom and even depression and so forth. People will be people and we'll see some strange sh*t in this ball we call world - but games are not the culprit. Only stupidity is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.