Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

But you said above that "I perfectly willing to admit that statistics don't support my side, but I'm also unwilling to wait until statistics do support my side in order to take action.

Yes. This statement, in context, is discussing something very, very specific: How the introduction of high-capacity magazine limits would affect the homicide rate. Phaelix asks me to "provide a solid statistic that shows that any meaningful percent of gun homicides would be saved by a ban on high-capacity magazines."

I then respond, telling him I don't have that statistic. But in my mind, the lack of such a statistic does not render such legislation useless.

In reality, that statement is a perfect example of me accepting a shortcoming in my position, something other people seem incapable of doing.

Are you a science denier?

If you understood the context, which you clearly don't, you'd see that I was embracing science, and admitting my position, on that particular issue, is not supported by science.

That would make me a science-accept-er.

But if you want to get back on this topic, perhaps you could answer the question I asked of you, that you embarrassingly dodged.

True or false: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really. There's evidence that you think supports your position. That's the sticky difference between correlative and causative.

To be more precise, you take any evidence that purports to support a correlative relationship as if it's evidence that therefore supports a causative relationship.

I've never claimed causation in this thread. I've even went so far as to say that causation would be next to impossible to determine. I'm not sure what you're going on about here.

[PhaelixWW]

Maybe you should learn what a statistical correlation is, and how they compute coefficients. Because it would appear you lack the most basic knowledg on the subject. I linked it for you. Read up.

Both my link and your link say you're wrong. Which you'd know if you understood the subject matter even remotely. Which you don't.

Because in my link you didn't read, you'd see, in plain diction even the most unqualified minds could understand, that causation isn't required for an observed mathematical relationship.

Never said it did, champ. You're the one who's inferring causality. I'm the one telling you that it's wrong to infer causality.

My whole statement was that evidence of correlation is not the same as evidence of causation.

Try to keep up.

[Mayhem]

Discussing gun control in a generic sense is fine. Discussing it as it pertains to a specific region of the world where you can't experience it firsthand is irrelevant.

trying to understand other cultures = pointless ... aha

Like I said, you're never going to hear the word 'hypothesis' and think someone is talking about something non scientific. Adding the word 'scientific' is pointless and redundant.

pointless, redundant =/= wrong

I really can´t make it any simpler.

[lockedout]

True or false: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.

There is not enough evidence either way, answering either true or false would be a guess at best. So if you want to "believe" then you're truly the science denier here. Scientists never "believe" in their findings. That is just what the data available at the time depicts. Personally I don't think their is enough evidence to say yes it is caused by humans, however there is not enough evidence to say it isn't enhanced by human activities. Anyone with a different PoV is only hearing what they want to hear.

- - - Updated - - -

the one on the left

Now this was funny.

[Rukentuts]

Both my link and your link say you're wrong. Which you'd know if you understood the subject matter even remotely. Which you don't.



Never said it did, champ. You're the one who's inferring causality. I'm the one telling you that it's wrong to infer causality.

My whole statement was that evidence of correlation is not the same as evidence of causation.

Try to keep up.

Except I'm not inferring causality. Perhaps you'd like to actually try and explain, in your own words, how I'm wrong. Since you understand it so well and all.

[TZucchini]

There is not enough evidence either way, answering either true or false would be a guess at best.

Perhaps it would be a guess for someone that hasn't taken a single minute to review the evidence. 97% of climate scientists agree with that statement. If you'd like to disagree with their assessment, you'd better have a damn good reason (evidence). If you don't, then you need to accept that you are actively denying the science.

This is clearly off-topic, but I'm glad you cleared up your position, and made it abundantly clear to everyone in here where you stand on important scientific topics. That's the last I'll speak of it.

[lockedout]

Both my link and your link say you're wrong. Which you'd know if you understood the subject matter even remotely. Which you don't.
.

He would have to actually read it, which time and time again he has shown to only copy paste not actually read.

[Rukentuts]

I've never claimed causation in this thread. I've even went so far as to say that causation would be next to impossible to determine. I'm not sure what you're going on about here.

It's really sad that unqualified people think causation is necessary to 1) establish a relationship and 2) make reasonable adjustments to variable A to get the desired outcome to variable B, even if the intermediate steps are unknown. If this were the case, psychiatry would have ground to a halt long ago.

[lockedout]

Perhaps it would be a guess for someone that hasn't taken a single minute to review the evidence. 97% of climate scientists agree with that statement. If you'd like to disagree with their assessment, you'd better have a damn good reason (evidence). If you don't, then you need to accept that you are actively denying the science.

This is clearly off-topic, but I'm glad you cleared up your position, and made it abundantly clear to everyone in here where you stand on important scientific topics. That's the last I'll speak of it.

Glad we cleared that up phew! Now we better get that carbon tax going because it's not about money it's about "global warming." You believe in something that is a guess at best, truly believe in it when scientists don't but you can't grasp that.

- - - Updated - - -

It's really sad that unqualified people

Like everyone on these forums? Or does riding a bicycle make you qualified?

[Wildtree]

2059 pages....... and still the exact same people arguing....
Aren't you guys tired at some point to circle jerk around the same arguments over and over and over again?

Quite frankly, that doesn't appeal as a very intelligent way to go on about something.
Just agree that you don't agree and move on.

Reading the last 10 pages, it's nothing but a pissing contest at this point.

[Tinykong]

Reading the last 10 pages, it's nothing but a pissing contest at this point.

It's been this way for over a year. I don't even think this thread is moderated anymore, should have been closed a loooooooooong time ago.

[Mayhem]

2059 pages....... and still the exact same people arguing....
Aren't you guys tired at some point to circle jerk around the same arguments over and over and over again?

Quite frankly, that doesn't appeal as a very intelligent way to go on about something.
Just agree that you don't agree and move on.

Reading the last 10 pages, it's nothing but a pissing contest at this point.

isn´t this the premise of the OT-threads?

topics in the OT-forum are either reposted as a new thread every once in a while or become a repetive mega-thread

[Wildtree]

It's been this way for over a year. I don't even think this thread is moderated anymore, should have been closed a loooooooooong time ago.

I have to agree....
I mean it's okay to discuss it. But there's nothing left to say anymore.
And when it degenerates to more or less obvious insults being thrown back and forth.. Well, then yes time to close it.

- - - Updated - - -

isn´t this the premise of the OT-threads?

topics in the OT-forum are either reposted as a new thread every once in a while or become a repetive mega-thread

not entirely buddy lol
mega threads live cause they getting usually refilled with new impulses, and then grow again.
this thread was meaningful at some point.. it too was refilled, but that isn't the case anymore for a very long time.

[Mayhem]

i understand the idea behind a mega thread, though this and the ukranian one are the only two i recognize, don´t know how the other one is doing

[lockedout]

It's been this way for over a year. I don't even think this thread is moderated anymore, should have been closed a loooooooooong time ago.

It's the biggest thread IIRC so that's probably why it hasn't been closed. They just ban people when they get out of hand.

- - - Updated - - -

Reading the last 10 pages, it's nothing but a pissing contest at this point.

The last ten pages are the same two people always off topic trying to derail the thread.

[Tinykong]

It's the biggest thread IIRC so that's probably why it hasn't been closed. They just ban people when they get out of hand.

It's pretty inconsistent. People get infracted for stuff that really isn't against the rules, and other posters openly call people "slow" or "stupid" and nothing happens.

[lockedout]

It's pretty inconsistent. People get infracted for stuff that really isn't against the rules, and other posters openly call people "slow" or "stupid" and nothing happens.

That's because the mods share there views.

[Wildtree]

The last ten pages are the same two people always off topic trying to derail the thread.

I guess you know that I have a middle stance on this particular topic here.. And I see that the trend is caused by supporters of both sides.
Let's assume you're correct. It's the same 2 people.... it still needs more to tango.
Let me further assume you mean it's extreme gun rights supporters what you mean.. Then simply don't feed em ammo to continue...

Example:
I come here and post "All gun owners are murderers"

Now we got 2 options..
Everyone ignores my post, nothing further happens. I just made an idiot out of myself essentially. No higher punishment than getting ignored.
Or..... I can harvest a shit storm of replies counter attacking me.

The first option is the mature and intelligent one...
The second option is the default reaction going on here.
And over time the line is blurring, the thread comes to live and pro/contra posters start insulting each other again.

[TZucchini]

I mean it's okay to discuss it. But there's nothing left to say anymore.

I would disagree. There's new topics that pop up from time to time. New legislation that gets introduced from time to time. New shooting incidents occurring as well.

Sure. Some of the discussion gets re-hashed, but people can simply stop posting if they do not wish to discuss this further.

It's certainly better than a new relationship thread being posted every day. Or a new abortion thread. Racism thread. This entire forum is just a re-hash of daily topics.

- - - Updated - - -

That's because the mods share there views.

Conspiracy theories not allowed here.

[Wildtree]

I would disagree. There's new topics that pop up from time to time. New legislation that gets introduced from time to time. New shooting incidents occurring as well.

Sure. Some of the discussion gets re-hashed, but people can simply stop posting if they do not wish to discuss this further.

It's certainly better than a new relationship thread being posted every day. Or a new abortion thread. Racism thread. This entire forum is just a re-hash of daily topics.

There's truth to this too... that's fair enough also.