Sure you aren't.
Here's how the exchange would go (since you're pathetically predictable)
I'll pass.PRE911: Does the CDC use scienctific data processed by highly scientific processes?
Tiny: Sure.
PRE911: IT'S NOT HERPETHERTICAL! See, you didn't use the dictionary definition!
- - - Updated - - -
An appeal to authority is so much more logical.
The deflection here is yours. How about I source and rebut the post that you deleted?
What you probably realized, after you posted this and made a fool of yourself, was that the graphic refers to all firearm fatalities, not suicides. And the big piece of the pie for criminal justice costs don't apply to suicides.
Which, incidentally, leaves almost 90% of the remaining "cost" down to lost taxes.
So yes, a picture is worth 1000 words. Thanks, Ruk.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
So besides from your pathetic deflection attempts, you did admit you were wrong, and that there's further data points besides "lost tax revenue". Thanks Mr. Secretary.
Edit: I'm also mystified out of what rectal orifice you sourced that criminal justice isn't involved in any suicides. Or was that an assumption?
Last edited by Rukentuts; 2015-02-05 at 11:34 PM.
First of all I have first hand experience and it did not cost 1 million dollars to his family nor to society.
Secondly that's satire not a "conspiracy theory" it even says so in the post you linked but it's at the bottom and we all know you don't actually read what you post, just google copy paste as has been proven several times in the past.
About as many as are bought legally then sold by the original purchaser.
"But there will always be a black market!" is no excuse to not make laws and crack down on it.
Can you get pot online? Sure. But legalization of pot in certain states has made it much more popular. The only reason a lot people don't smoke it is because of law. Laws have more effect than you seem to believe.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
I'm not sure how that matters. Lost taxes goes into the equation. It's still a Governmental Cost. It's still a cost that can help cancel out the effects of subsidizing poor individuals. The point stands.
And it doesn't even take into the account the intangibles. Like grief, lost of productivity from family members, etc.
Eat yo vegetables
I never said there weren't any other data points beside lost taxes. That's just your hyperbole.
Is the legal system filled with suicide victims awaiting trial? Sentenced to prison? Didn't think so.
Oops, guess you won't be able to respond for a while. That's a shame.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
Here's why it matters: Your precious study is doing the exact same thing that entertainment industry analysts are doing when they claim that piracy costs the industry millions. They are making assumptions based on what they might have made if someone had actually bought their products instead of pirating them. As someone who has spent a portion of his life unemployed (and therefore not paying taxes), I can assure you that it's pretty stupid to assume X amount of tax revenue would be generated by a person if they hadn't been shot, and then factor that in to your 'societal costs' study to help get sympathy from people.Originally Posted by PRE 9-11
Yes, adjectives are used to describe nouns. The problem, however, is that adjectives are used to put emphasis on nouns, even when no emphasis is necessary. If I called my neighbor a 'fucking idiot,' instead of just an 'idiot,' you would believe he's somehow more of an idiot just because I tacked on the word 'fucking.' Even though he's just an idiot and the word 'fucking' really has nothing to do with it.Originally Posted by PRE 9-11
The same thing goes with your overuse of the word 'scientific.' A study is just a study regardless of how often you tack the word 'scientific' onto it. If you're going to use an adjective, just like any other word, it has to be useful. We use colors, sizes, shapes, and features to convey information not already implicit within the nouns we use. The way you're using them in this thread is arbitrary at best. Furthermore, you seem to be ignorant of the fact that anyone can publish a study and there is such a thing as bad science. There are parties out there who aren't even scientists who publish studies full of misinformation and garbage that isn't even close to scientific.
The fact that you just blindly link studies and believe them as factual is alarming at best. The hallmark of science is skepticism and disproving your own work. Not establishing a gospel that everyone just parrots all day long and believes without question.
My Gaming Rig: Intel Core 2 quad q9650|ASUS P5G41-T M|2x4GB Supertalent DDR3 1333Mhz|Samsung 840 Evo 250GB|Fractal Design Integra R2 500w Bronze|ASUS Strix GTX 960 4GB|2x AOC e2770s 27" (one portrait, one landscape)|Bitfeenix Phenom Micro ATX
Don't hate my rig, there's nothing quite like the classics.
http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the...re-that-works/
I don´t know who´s not having me on ignore though, i´ve asked someone to help me with my spelling/writing as it´s giving people headaches or makes the posts i write unreadable.The government and pro-gun groups argued, however, that the country’s existing laws regulating the sale, ownership and licensing of private guns, which includes a ban on carrying concealed weapons, are stringent enough. The law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons, which are banned. Semiautomatics, which have caused havoc in the U.S., can be legally purchased.
This term isn't far off, though it would need the word "scientific" in front of it. And even then it's still not completely accurate. In terms of a scientific hypothesis, the research has already been done, however, the experiment has not.
In the case of a scientific projection, the research has been done, and some of the experimental work (calculation) has been done as well.
I'd be careful about high-fiving someone that openly denies the science behind climate change, especially when he's commenting on scientific subjects. Just a caveat. Might make you look silly.
Eat yo vegetables
I don't have you on ignore....
And here's what I've got to say to this..
In every single case of people challenging your English, it was the person being an asshole, and not your English.
And if anyone has a point about the language, then it would be non-native English speakers that could mock it. Because there are heaps of natives that suck at their own language worse than most foreigners. There's not a day where I don't see it.
So forget the idiots.. fuck em..... aka report them..
Challenging others on the grounds of language is against the forum rules.
Your English is perfectly fine.
"The pen is mightier than the sword.. and considerably easier to write with."