1,987 Forum Posts by "WolvenBear"
At 4/20/11 12:32 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: Bush has digged the biggest shithole he could, and now Obama as to take the United States out of it... He isn't that bad, and the Republicans are fucking with him all the time. The Congress is just ruinning his chances of ever doing anything.
Ignoring the grammatical errors...
Obama has had a Democrat majority for most of his term. If he sucked...that's on him...
Oh, and here's a picture I really like :)
Even though it's foolish?
Who controlled Congress during those times? Democrats controlled Congress during the biggest hikes? And Republicans during the biggest drops? Well then...hmmm....
At 4/19/11 10:43 PM, Ranger2 wrote: No, I'm going back to the 1970s when The Quebec Liberation Front kidnapped Canadian government officials and prompted occupation of the province.
You mentioned the Russia/Chechnya conflict. Which was in the early 1900s.
Quit attacking my character simply because you don't have any facts to discredit me. And the Troubles were until the 1990s, when Britain attacked Northern Ireland because terrorists were threatening Britain's people.
There's no character attack. I attacked your argument. While I wasn't sure exactly what "the Troubles" were, I rechecked the Chechnya dates, and was just like "really? that's the argument?" If you don't understand the difference between attacking your argument and attacking you (and don't feel bad, most people don't), then perhaps you are too thin skinned for this. Moving on...
Northern Ireland was a province of the UK. The Free Quebec group was a separatist group acting more or less as a terrorist organization. Neither of these examples even remotely help your case. The ONLY example you provided of an external dispute was Russia/Chechnya...and that was in 1905. Was the UN supposed to stop that before it was even conceived?
I still fail to see the (lack of a ) point.
At 4/20/11 01:47 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: 1, its very relevant, 2 you must have misinterpreted what i originally wrote
Well 1. It's NOT relevant. It's cherry picked data. School shootings are such a worthless term of debate. Are school stabbings on the rise? Shootings in general? How about general crime? Focusing on school shootings as a sole criteria is as dishonest as only looking at Crest when discussing toothpaste, or only looking at Kleenex tissues when debating paper products in general. It's a tactic of ignoring all data that hurts your cause to advance a narrow perspective agenda. By nature it is dishonest. 2. I understood what you wrote perfectly. You claimed that there was a mass spate of kids bringing guns to school and accidently killing their classmates. Seeing as this never happens...your point was invalid. This then became..well school shootings are common.
They're not, but even if they were...so what? Crime is crime. Whether it happens at a school, a church, a parking lot or a Dennys it is crime. Why are we focusing on it specifically at schools?
I used quotes, yes there are accidental but more importantly the intentional like Columbine and Virginia Tech. why should mentally unstable/under age kids have so much access to guns?
Um, they don't. Virginia Tech was a 20 year old who legally passed muster to get his guns. Columbine kids broke more than 3 federal laws and multiple state laws to ILLEGALLY get their guns. Facts sure are pesky!
well her best chance is actually to just give the thug what ever he wants if she values her life, or run away into a public area.
Oh please. An old woman is going to outrun a dude in his twenties? Are you high? Retarded?
And how many people have complied with their attackers, only to die anyways? A substancial number hmmm? Well then...
yea, why should we let it happen again? there are a lot of people who should not be allowed to own guns. if anything, it should be harder to get a gun+permit than it is to get your drivers licence.
Why? Bad drivers kill more people every year than shooters do. Based on the numbers, we should absolutely make it easier to get a gun than a drivers license. After all, no one has ever stopped a robbery or a murder with a car, but they have with a gun.
fair enough, but why do i see people complaining that they can't own automatic weapons or sniper rifles?
The point is already addressed below. The better question is...why shouldn't they?
we have no reason to believe that we are going to be fighting a gorilla war against the British or our own prime minister any time soon, we are going to have to stick to sensible hand guns and rifles for now.
Well, the AMERICANS don't have a prime minister. Moreover, the idea wasn't to defend ourselves from invading armies, but our own government. Given stories like this:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/speakeasy/2006 /nov/28/latest_atlanta_police_killing_el
It's hard to pretend that such concerns are not warranted. The columbia raid on a supposed drug dealer who only had a smoked joint is also concerning. The police broke into his home...waiting until his family was there, and then began firing bullets into the family dogs (who were caged and of no threat) in front of the child. When the father raised all hell in the courts, the police claimed he endangered his daughter by exposing her to a swat raid. A curious claim to be sure.
Given the Waco Texas assault, in which the federal government brutally murdered about 75 men, women and children, the illegal Ruby Ridge Assault, and the rise in no knock warrants, which are not only blatantly unconstitutional, but endanger the lives of innocent people, the need for people to protect themselves from police and FBI officers is clearly real. Since the police repeatedly, and with no regard for the law, enter homes with military weaponry...why should the public not have the same right?
The case for owning weapons is strong. The case for banning them....virtually non-existent.
At 4/19/11 06:24 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: Why is it that fucktards always have to get in confrontations? I go to school you piece of shit, I study political science in University, and got an average of B through all the classes I've been through. So it seems that teachers with PhDs seem to believe I'm not that stupid, actually. I couldn't care less about what a guy like you thinks of me.
Here's a cookie.
I didn't ask, nor do I care about your life story. This actually has little, if anything to do with you. It's your argument, which is lacking. If you were the solid student you claim to be, you'd understand why I am underwhelmed with your personal achievements. You may build homes for orphans and regularly feed the homeless. Congrats. It has nothing to do with the fact that you are wrong.
Pardon me if I think that your shitty statistics are not proofs. Cause they aren't. You just can't claim that these are objective facts because of some kind of correlation between two elements.
Hmmm. So, for someone who is supposedly a solid B student and is a PoliSci major, you do understand my humor at you saying "Screw your arguments! I am a good person!" right?
My main argument will stay the same. I was net assaulted with a weapon in my life, nor was any of my family members or friends. I never felt that I could have used a gun to defend myself, ever. And having a weapon acts like a psychological influence to use it. If you feel threatened, no matter how wrong your judgement can be, you will use the weapon, possibly killing or injuring the other person badly.
You FEEL? Oh please. "Ignore all that evidence stuff! HeavenDuff FEELS something ladies and gentlemen! Don't use an objective standard of proof or anything...pay attention to the sensitive man!"
See... one mistake... ONE FUCKING ACCIDENT... is way too much for me... So if you want to use lame statistics and claim that accidental deaths linked to the use of a firearm are not very important, I'll tell you that one life, is far enough lost.
And here's where I DO call you an idiot. People die every day of needless, senseless accidents. If we banned everything that causes accidental death we wouldn't have: toys, painted walls, pools, cars, knives, heavy furniture, darts, tall buildings, or...well, pretty much anything.
The argument that something causes accidental deaths, and therefore should be banned...any evidence to the contrary be damned, is inherently stupid. There is simply nothing that cannot be dangerous in the right context.
Admittedly, this is parody, but it's about as good a reason to ban toothpaste as your crusade against guns.
I'll leave you with that picture... I say you are stuck somewhere in the lower three levels.
Hmmm, really? Because your debate style isn't even on the pyramid. "Rejects evidence in favor of feeling, makes argument about them, posts useless picture in lieu of debate" aren't listed. Ad hominim is definitely there, as is attacking the tone of the argument, but not the other three. Hmmm.
You're not even good enough to make the pyramid of bad arguments? Poor kid, you really are dumb. (Yes, fool, that is ad hominim, but considering I consistently hit the top level, I feel I'm allowed to make ad hominims on occasion.)
At 4/16/11 12:18 AM, Ranger2 wrote: You're right; I don't remember the international community condemning Great Britain during the Troubles. Or Russia while fighting Chechnya. Or Canada fighting the Free Quebec group.
So are we really going back to 1905 to discredit my view of today?
Are you stupid?
I mean, come on, that's a century ago. The world was different then. There was no UN, there was no EU. Using that to influence a discussion about current politics is ridiculous. Should I counter with..."Well, you know, during the Salem Witch Trials..."?
At 4/19/11 11:32 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 4/19/11 04:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote: So the question is...why should we treat this as anything other than a mental disease?Because it's not a disease.
Well, yes, it actually is.
It is a mental disorder that one is not who they are. It requires mutilating one's body. Much like people who feel they were only supposed to be born with one leg are sick...so are these guys.
At 4/19/11 05:19 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: You know what... if you are going to play the fucking smart-ass with me, I'm not reading your post. You are obviously biased, and I was merely just sharing my opinion on a matter I really don't know that much, and asking for questions.
You are not stating facts. You take stupid statistics, and as they raise or lower, you make bold assumptions, not considering anything else that could have went on during the years in your pathetic study.
So, you didn't read my post...but I stated no facts.
Pardon me if I don't take that criticism with anything but mockery. Idiot.
See, that's the same shit right here. I was merely just asking for explanations and different points of view, but you had to be a jerk.
Well, I wasn't being a jerk. But you're the halfwit who apparently scrolled down through a post of facts to claim I made no facts....because I agreed with you on that you had no idea what you were talking about. Whatever, I have little time for intellectual midgets.
At 4/19/11 04:14 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: basically I'm saying that you hear of way more school shootings in the United states (2nd amendment country) than anywhere else in the developed world
That's irrelevant. Nor is it what you originally claimed.
The idea of kids taking guns to school and accidently shooting their friends is horrifying! What terrible accidents! But it doesn't EVER happen.
A kid taking a gun to school to shoot his classmates is cold blooded murder and is common everywhere in the known world. It's not a point. It's a meaningless distinction.
you can't always attack from behind and call it self defense now can you? at the end of the day, whoever has the gun out first is pretty much in control in a 1v1 situation, usually meaning that the person who needs to defend himself is not going to be that person. Further more, is the old woman who has never been in a life and death situation before going to remain calm enough to aim her gun straight?
What ARE you talking about? If I attack you from behind, I'm obviously not going to call it self defense. Muggers, rapists, and cold blooded killers never even TRY to claim self defense.
But, in all fairness, perhaps I worded it poorly and you misunderstood?
Moving on. The old woman may not be able to beat her attacker, but it gives her a shot. In a fist fight, blade battle, whatever else...she has none. With a gun...she may not prevail, but that's the only way she has a chance.
and its not illegal for you to own a gun anyways, you just have to go through paper work, prove you are responsible, and take basic safety training. as it should be. should it all be free? the licence and registration should be, yes. I wouldn't want some moron leaving his loaded pistol on the table within his kids reach any more than i would want a former armed robber to have one.
False dilemma. People should have to jump through hoops because one dude let his kid get hurt? Pass.
further more: nobody needs anything stronger than a pistol for self defense, or a basic rifle for hunting.
A shotgun is actually highly effective for self defense. Not only is the sound scary, but the pellets disperse. If the guy is more than a few feet away, it is an effective, non-lethal method of defense.
and, of course, if the people are facing the government, the very reason the 2nd amendment was created, more than a pistol is very good.
So the question is...why should we treat this as anything other than a mental disease?
At 4/19/11 03:21 AM, HeavenDuff wrote: That's a flawed logic no matter how true your facts are...
Well, no, not really...
Making these weapons legal, will make the crime rate increase... or maybe just death by firearms increase... Even if most smuggled weapons are not found, at least if these weapons are illegal, when police officers find criminals with weapons, they can take them away from them before they can use it. But according to your logic, these people would be found with weapons, and if they don't have a criminal record, they won't get their weapons taken from them.
That's interesting. Because states that allowed C&C permits either remained stagnant or saw their crime rates drop. Muggings dropped even in Missouri, which saw all it's other crime rates stay about the same.
In England, however, crime ROSE, when guns were made illegal...including gun crime.
You're wrong. Sorry.
I know there are no bad intentions... I doubt all gun owners are violent... but how can you think that more guns will equal less deaths?
Because that's ALWAYS what happens? When A always, or almost always leads to B it is safe to assume that A leads to B.
I know your post is mainly about registration for weapons, but I think it's a good thing. What is the harm? I've read the stuff in that link you shared. And I really fail to understand how you can claim that the registration has not changed anything to the crime rate. Really, explain me how it works, cause I really fail to understand.
Obviously.
At 4/19/11 03:26 AM, JoS wrote:At 4/19/11 02:57 AM, WolvenBear wrote:Actually you would both end up getting cut more than likely.
Not really. Incidents of unarmed people disarming bladed combatants abound. Street punk attacks marine, loses horribly. Marine walks away without a scratch. Blade fighting requires skill. It's not only possible, but the most likely outcome that someone with experience with fighting with blades with severely injure an unexperienced opponent with a blade. More times than not that is the outcome. Hell, even in the movies, that's always what happens...even when the less experienced guy is the good guy.
And even if you do have a gun and he has a knife, in the time it takes you to draw your gun he can cross 21 feet and be stabbing you, and that is if you are good at drawing and have a good fitting holster that you can easily access. Read up on the Tueller Drill.
You mean the test that usually ends in the dude with a knife dying? The only test I can find to give the dude with a knife a fightng chance...he's fighting a dummy...already has his knife drawn...and THROWS it. Out over over 60 tests I've watched, the dude with a gun ALWAYS wins.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX8hIeevP lg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIZw5bx8-
Eo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08q6F-4l5 aM&feature=related
This test, if ANYTHING, proves that a gunowner can see an attacker coming...wait til LITERALLY the last second...and still prevail. What is your point?
Likewise for the situation of a woman defending herself from a man trying to rape him, how easily will she be able to access that gun when he rushes her from behind? Its gonna. be in her purse and have you ever seen a woman's purse, its amazing they can find anything.
What does that have to do with anything?
Can guns be used in self defence situations, yes. Are they practical to use for defence on the street, not particularly.
Except they are. And, as the Tueller Drill shows, they are exceptionally so. If you see your opponent coming, you WILL win.
At 4/13/11 08:08 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: The criticism is that the claim is presumptuous - i.e. that there is not sufficient ground to say the claim is true. Arguing that JordanD is right if the story is completely true just blows right by that. That's why I'm making such a big deal about the skepticism/belief distinction.
The criticism has some ground. Unfortunately, as I keep pointing out, I seem to be the only one who looked into it. It's not unfair to say that buying into a claim hook, line, and sinker makes you a sucker. Yet, nothing about my comments, from the first one, seems to indicate I've done this. But let's address:
We're going to correct a mistake here. Both Variation A and B of your examples are both tautologies/truisms. The conclusion is a restate of the premise. To a degree, this is fair. The claim that "If this is true, it is true" is a tauology. A tautology CAN be a logically fallacy, or it can be a statement of fact. If, for example, I claim that anything that is made of wool is made of wool...it is certainly a tautology, but it is correct nonetheless. So, both A and B under your variations are an attempt to deluge the reader with irrelevant data. Since C is all that matters, since it is the only potential claim you have....that should've been your avenue of debate, instead oftrying to be needlessly verbose and overwhelm the opponent with well....nonsense.
While a few points have been brought up that are interesting, there has been little honest criticism of the case. Most of that has been brought up in the last page or two. Even you, the most intelligent adversary on this, are trying to focus more on my logical shortcomings than the issues of the case. Not that that validates/invalidates the case itself, but let's not pretend like the arguments against my case have been compelling in any way, shape or form.
If we have a claim that A is never B, and then one example whereby A is alleged to be B, the example does not prove the original claim wrong.
It does actually. If A is never B, then one example where A is B makes that claim wrong. We can change it to A is not usually B. But the A is never B claim is wrong forever after that. Even if it never happens again.
No it wasn't nor isn't.
Well, actually it was.
Uhh...this person I'm replying to has yet to supply a peer reviewed article stating that cancer can be cured by willing it out of the body.
So yea, that was the claim I responded to. It went on repeatedly:
We can do anything as long as we have the proper amount of faith huh? Go cure cancer or AIDS then.
So, you're simply not correct here. Jordan didn't simply pull this out of his ass. People repeatedly goaded him and claimed it didn't happen long before he pulled this story out. You're wrong.
You know that's a fallacy.
It's not. Sorry.
I'm pretty sure I'm on your bad side by now again :P
No. There's logical fallacies and leaps of thinking abounding, but I'm enjoying the dismantling of your "arguments", such as they are.
Hasn't part of your case been that it can't ethically be taken to task?
No. I've been against the idea of peer review, which demands repeating the tests. THAT is horribly unethical. It doesn't mean that people cannot go over her records...she's given them to about 100 people so far. If there is a glaring problem it should be obvious. If the test was a mammogram, then bring that up. No further tests are needed. In and of itself, that is grounds to question this. If it was a biopsy...well, then there's less room for error.
Hopefully those answers enlighten you.
At 4/13/11 11:02 AM, The-universe wrote: But you never mentioned recreating the tests, you said recreating the results and since then you've been trying to wiggle your way out of it. They are not synonymous because one is a method and the other is an outcome of that method.
Um, no. I repeatedly mentioned recreating the tests. Dude, this isn't an in person debate. I can go back and link to my claims. Just like this:
At 4/1/11 06:34 AM, WolvenBear wrote: How do you peer review a single test?
Personally, even as a Christian, I'd be outraged if someone tried to peer-review this test. "You six have just been shot, we'll treat you...you six, go die in a corner." Of course, any three million people can review her case, but peer review tries to duplicate it.
That was my FIRST comment on peer review. So, even in my very first comment, I mentioned recreating the tests. Because as I have mentioned 40 times now it is impossible to recreate the results without recreating the tests.
Despite repeatedly asserting that we can recreate results without recreating tests...you have yet to explain how this works. Now, even though I have been consistent, you are claiming I now never made a claim I made more than a dozen times? Good God, you're an idiot.
Done with you. You have neither intelligence nor honesty.
At 4/18/11 09:39 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: no, but gun accessibility does. Ever hear of those incidents where kids bring their daddy's gun to school and shoot someone "by accident i didn't know it was loaded"?
Not really. Kids who are caught shooting other kids at school usually MEANT to do so. This accidental school shooting thing may happen once or twice a decade, but it's hardly a widespread phenomenon.
how many school shootings happen in America compared to everywhere else in the world, where guns are controlled?
Is that a standard to be matched? Or is it just a really weird question?
"not everyone can beat up thugs who are usually buff and young" not everyone can out shoot them either. if they pull the gun on you first, you aren't going to reach for yours in time to avoid getting shot yourself. Yes, most of the time they only have knives right now, thats because guns are controlled, can't out knife them? you probably can't out gun them either.
That's idiotic. If you and I get into a knife fight, I'll kill you. I'm pretty good with a blade. If you and I get into a gun fight...this isn't the Old West. If you have enough time to pull out your gun, I have a very real chance of dying, even if you suck with a gun. If I'm going to attack you from behind, this is a null issue.
There's simply no way to pretend that having a gun hurts you in anyway.
At 4/8/11 11:40 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: I thought we were having a discussion on a message board, not grading one another's papers for a class. Good show, man.
We were. You brought up nonsense. I called it nonsense. You're now trying to pretend you're correct despite losing those points. I mean, obviously, the grade is an F. But you didn't need the grade.
Play the victim much?
I'm getting the feeling the reason you try to pigeon hole Christianity is because you are in fact not a member of that religion. If these ideas made sense to you, you would be a different person.
Well, that's a fun theory. However, like everything else you have put forward, it is incorrect. I'm starting to think that, as you realize you are in over your head with someone who actually knows what they are talking about that you are getting desperate.
No mainstream Christian religion teaches this. None of the noteable heretical churches taught this. It's certainly not in the bible. You're clueless.
I mentioned this when I brought them up .That was my point. Man has no authority to declare a teaching heretical; this is why there are different sects of christianity.
Of course man has a right to declare heresy. What sort of foolishness is this? "No one can ever call another person a liar!" Um, pass.
Sunni and Shia completely differ in their interpretations of Sharia law as dictated by the Quran. They're both still Muslim groups. Christianity is an umbrella of different sects, not one specific doctrine.
Yet on theological issues where two sides disagree, only one is right. Argue it until the cows come home, but there it is. Both sides could be wrong, but both can't be right.
You mean the place that "No eye has seen, nor ear heard." that place?
Of course I haven't. You should be amazed my feeble mind is even capable of typing a response legible to your amazingly higher level intellect.
They haven't been legible so far. Don't give yourself that much credit. Considering I also picture myself as about average intelligence...and far from a genius...well, let's just say I don't think highly of you. But that's due mostly to you.
At 4/16/11 12:06 AM, Argenta wrote: It can also be argued that Islam is an easily weaponized religion which promotes violence and intolerance (again, Christianity is just as easily weaponized and promotes RAMPANT intolerance. Just trying to be fair).
Except, this is a really stupid argument. Christianity's worst period produced fewer deaths than 9/11...and it lasted for hundreds of years. You see few, if any, Christian murders, but hundreds of Islamic ones a day. This argument is pure nonsense.
While this is a valid argument however, I have to admit I find it offensive to blame Islam in general. There are a number of people (animals) who take the many beautiful and peaceful teachings of Islam (read the Quaran. A lot of it really is about peace), and use them to justify killing innocent people.
Islam is about violence. Sorry.
The prophet Muhammad killed women and geriatrics who insulted him. He organized warfare. For the first 5 centuries after Islam was founded, it had a nonstop violent expansion. To claim that Islam is "peaceful" is to claim that a lion is an herbivore.
:These people are not, in my experience, indicative of Islam as a religion. Blame the extremists, blame the radicals, blame the terrorists, blame mitigating socioeconomic factors such as idolization of the radical movement, but please don't blame Islam as a religion.
-- Argenta
Yes, don't blame the people who follow the religion to the letter, and quote the Quran extensively. Don't believe those who are more versed with the Quran than the non-believer, and use extensive quotes, not only from the Quran, but the Surra as well, to justify their actions. Belive the people who say "No, dudes! Islam is peace!"
Pass.
At 4/15/11 12:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If you're going to place no blame on the preacher at least place the blame on the proper people. Islam is not to blame. The extremists are.
Islamists around the Middle East are killing people. Condemnations are widespread.
This is unique to Islam.
I placed the blame where it belongs.
At 4/13/11 10:06 PM, Ranger2 wrote: This brings forth another idea. Is the idea of "land for peace" viable? I read in the Wall Street Journal an editorial saying that the idea should be "peace for land," that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas should promote peace before being given land.
Or maybe the idea should be that the Palestinian authority needs to go away.
If any other country repeatedly bombed their neighbors until they stole land, we'd eradicate them.
These savages...HUZZAH!
At 4/13/11 11:15 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Um, yes it was. Liek I said, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should do it, and in no way means it's right. If I went around espousing nasty racist things that would be wrong, but it is well within my rights.
The legality of the action is irrelevant. Burning your own property isn't wrong.
Ever.
Under any circumstances.
Yes he did. He intentionally insulted an entire people and called them all terrorists. If that's not wrong, I don't know what is.
And? Who cares?
People criticize my religion every day. I kill no one. People mock scientology all day long. No deaths.
The blame is with Islam, and no one else.
Just because you're free to offend someone doesn't take away the fact that you offended them. In our society, we view it as wrong to do certain acts. Religious discrimination and insults definitely belongs in that category. Just because it is legal doesn't make it right.
Yes, actually, it does. Questioning religion is an ESSENTIAL part of society. Just as questioning government is. If you don't get that....well, you're hopeless. We're done here.
At 4/11/11 07:17 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: We're not talking about your gunshot analogy. We're talking about: "IF (and I usually capitalize if too) it is true...then the claim is undeniable." And I'm referring to tautologies, not colloquialisms.
We ARE talking about my gunshot analogy. I'm sorry if I'm getting testy over this, but this is all logic 101 stuff. And I apologize if the annoyance of the idiocy of TU is carrying over here. But I guess I'll try and break it down a little simpler.
If the claim is that A=/=B, then the example of ONE case the the contrary proves this theory wrong.
So, the claim was that it was it was impossible to cure Cancer without therapy. Jordan provided a case to the contrary. IF he is right, that is game over. A single case disproves the theory. Could it be a fluke? Sure. Could it be a genetic anomoly? Sure. But, if it happened as said, and I STILL can't find anyone who claims it's a lie...then this proves Jordan's case. That's it.
First up. Skepticism vs belief, without ifs.
You have said that, "If a woman refused treatment, and got better, for lack of a better term, she DID will the cancer out of her body."
[ This itself raises the issue of how exactly that constitutes "willing the cancer out of her body," and the fact that this seems to be a shift from the contested claim. ]
This would indicate you believe, at the least, this one aspect of the story.
I see no way around it. If a woman has cancer, and gets better, without treatment....
Well, what the hell else is there? Did the tooth fairy cure it?
IF this story is completely legit....it proves Jordan's point.
... when being charged to have affirmed JordanD's story, you claim you are skeptical. However, it either follows from your skepticism that you are not a believer, or your case for skepticism is a red herring to charge bing made. You seem to have interpreted my argument as some kind of character assassination whereby I make you out to be a dupe. I could understand your emphasis on skepticism as a case against that, but that's not the case I'm making. I actually don't care how skeptical you are unless it dictates your position (as a matter of truth) on this story.
No, unfortunately I am just carrying my frustration over to you. And I do apologize for that. It's not your fault that I have gotten frustrated with other stupid objections. Moving on...
The case is interesting. I'd like to see SOMETHING that takes it to task. However, after over 200 yahoo results, I get bored. That even most skeptical sites are very muted in their criticism speaks to me.
If anyone has something to the contrary (which I asked for 4 pages ago), I'd love to see it. But instead of even trying, I just keep reading blatant distortions of what I said.
This is relevant on the assumption that you're not being a troll or playing devil's advocate.
Even ignoring that I am not the most civil debater...there is no reason to question my honesty here. I may get aggravated when someone is too stupid to know basic science...like, at a third grade level....but I speak what I believe, and stand by what I say.
At 4/11/11 09:09 AM, The-universe wrote: You do realise that there's a huge difference between duplicating the results and duplicating the tests, right?
At least you're being cohearant (ba dum tch).
You do realize there ISN'T a difference right? That without recreating the test, that there is no recreating the results? This is like saying, I didn't really check the problem, I just checked the answer.
This isn't grade school. The teacher doesn't have an advance copy of the answers. The question being studied is new. And the answer is new. As I have repeatedly pointed out, it is IMPOSSIBLE to recreate the results without recreating the test.
If you come up with a response to any of my 30 comments about how your demands are moronic, I'll listen. Until then, just shut the hell up, imbecile.
At 4/11/11 11:26 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Don't think, for a second, that I am advocating for this man to be punished or his act outlawed. What he did was wrong,
Well, no. It wasn't. It was freedom of speech. And me telling you you suck is not only a right, it is an ESSENTIAL part of being free. Whil you may not see it, what this man did was essential to us remaining a free society.
and all I ask is that people see what he did (for what it reeally was) and act as such. This guy has a social punishment in order, not a legal one.
Except he did nothing wrong. And therefore shouldn't be punished.
Like I have said numerous times before; just because something is legal doesn't mean that you should do it.
Yet there's no reason he SHOULDN'T do it.
Here's the problem. For this argument to work...something must be legal and objectively wrong. This was not objectively wrong. As such, the argument is null. If some dude came out and said "If anyone ever criticizes beating your wife again...I'll kill someone!"...would you be in favor of telling people NOT to criticize wife beating?
That's the case here too, boss.
There are tons of things people do that are horrific, offensive, and just plain bad, but my negative feelings for their acts doesn';t mean I want them judicially stopped.
If something is horrifying, and you don't want it stopped...there's something wrong with you. Offensive is ESSENTIAL to liberty. If I am not free to piss you off, I am not free period. And "plain bad" is so subjective and passive that it means nothing.
At 4/9/11 06:22 AM, The-universe wrote: Which I never disputed. You said "I take your results, and I duplicate them.", you don't take the results, you take the observations and tests, duplicate and analyse them to see if they MATCH the results.
Which means you duplicate the results. You recreate the test and see if you get the same outcome. If you can't, then the test is bunk,
You really don't know what the hell you're talking about.
But it's wonderfully nice to see you're still quote mining.
Telling you you're clueless and using entire quotes to do so is quote mining?
OK. Geez, I'll remember that in the future. Being right=quote mining.
Yes there is.
No, there isn't.
How are the samples gone? If he conducted a biopsy, X-Ray etc, those tests results, equipment and possibly the samples taken from the patient would still be there.
It's been a decade. If you're claiming the samples are around, or that we can scrape the equipment for residue...you're an imbecile. If they made a mistake, the test results will be screwed up because of the mistake.
Again, this is simple. That you don't get it, proves how little you know.
At 4/6/11 10:54 AM, SolInvictus wrote: ...despite the fact that these 20 dead people would be dead from the untreatable cancer anyways? telling people who have no hope of a cure that they should try to believe the cancer out of them would not increase the danger they were in and show us how hard you have to believe/ignore the cancer to be cured.
Hmmmm? Choosing people to test would all be guaranteed losers in the treatment game?
If humans can determine who will and won't get better, and we can't, then humans are damn near God now.
Better argument next time chief?
At 4/6/11 08:06 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: You need to be more specific.
No, I don't?
How is this not a truism? And if it is not a truism, how is it correct?
tru·ism (tro%u0305%u0335o%u0305'iz'%u0259m)
noun
a statement the truth of which is obvious or well known; commonplace
While I fail to see how this is a statement that is well known or obvious, the claim is still pretty simple. If the common belief is that one cannot survive a gunshot to the head...the first person who survives a gunshot to the head disproves the commonly believed claim. Maybe I'm using too much logic, but this is a pretty simply thing to me.
Have you concluded that there has been no substantial error? If so, what weight does skepticism have against a charge that you believe some particular thing?
I don't have access to her medical records. Do you have a better point?
Look, I'm sorry. I could scratch my ass or look at paint dry, or...well stare off into space as better uses of my time instead of answering hypotheticals that I have already hit on...most of which don't mean anything.
At 4/10/11 07:07 PM, MrPercie wrote: look, if we can save peoples lives just by not burning books for some shitty attempt to attack extremism and to show we have freedom which we already know we have but do it anyway to be an asshole, thats worth giving up.
Or, we can show that our rights mean something and not cave everytime someone threatens someone else thousands of miles outside of our country.
Standing up for our rights...what a thought.
The very reason we have freedom of speech is to protect "offensive" speech. The 1st Amendment guarantees the right to be an asshole. And civilized people have to deal with the fact that people disagree with them.
People who riot over being offended are not civilized. Therefore, we can't pretend that they will act logically, but that also doesn't mean that we wrap them in bubble wrap and walk on egg shells. They are still responsible for their own actions. Not the people who said what they disliked. These guys riot to silence dissent. We are only doing what they want if we silence ourselves.
At 4/7/11 06:23 PM, Warforger wrote: That isn't the argument, not all the cases have evidence of terrorists and even the IDF website hosted a news report where a man was phoned saying he had 24 hours to leave his home and he wasn't given any notice as to why and so he and many of his fellow Palestinians joined together on the roof of his home to protest the imminent rocket attack. You'd think the IDF would've given more insight as to why they did but last I checked they didn't. If this keeps occuring then it starts getting suspicious how much of the story is true.
Other than the fact that this means that the IDF cares SO much about human life that they give notice, perhaps negating the purpose of their airstrike, to avoid human casualties...I fail to see the point.
I certainly feel no sympathy for a moron who is told his house is going to be bombed and stays to "protest".
Oh, but bombing civilians with the most powerful atomic weapons is, annihilating a whole countries infrastructure and agriculture is and the almighty and brave tactic of using a Predator no pilot plane and firing a missile on the cowards on the ground with no weapons to fire back is also all acceptable? If it works it's fine because it's WAR, if you don't like it go write a letter to them how you don't like it but as it stands it's a tactic that even the Israeli's have been caught doing.
I'm sorry, what? If Israel was using nukes, this conflict would be over.
At 4/5/11 02:32 PM, MrFlopz wrote: Yes, that is the morality vs necessity dilemma. We've already established that. My argument is that striking back with full force against every Hamas attack might be counterproductive in the long run. If peace is ever going to be made, Israel needs to stop using methods that clearly portray them as the enemy to the Palestinian people. Your justification may make perfect sense, but try explaining that to a kid orphaned by an Israeli airstrike. He's going to want revenge. If the Palestinians are hostile, bombing them isn't going to change that.
But it's not a dilemma to ANYONE inside the conflict. The Palestinians certainly feel no moral qualms about using human shields. And, to Israel, if they don't fire at the human shield, more people will die.
The problem is that, Israel could roll over and submit, and they'd still be the enemy. Their very existence is an affront to Palestine. If you don't believe this, watch some Palestinian TV clips. For decades, Israel has made concessions to Palestine, and no peace has ever materialized. The bombings continue.
Perhaps we should blame the people who needlessly launch the missiles instead of those who respond to them. Hmmm?
At 4/9/11 07:24 PM, JoS wrote:At 4/8/11 05:07 PM, morefngdbs wrote: http://gunningforthetruth.wordpress.com/Perfect example of reductio ad absurdum. It does not prove your point, it makes you look silly and petty.
category/canadian-gun-laws/
No, it's actually an example of using the absurd to argue against the absurd.
It's not the most persuasive argument ever...but it makes its point, and is interesting. Far more interesting than any anti-gun thing I've ever read.
At 4/7/11 05:59 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: its always been legal to own knives, why not sharpen your skills with them and become a throwing knife master?
That's a great counter! Oh wait, no it isn't.
Women are weaker than men. Older people are weaker than young ones. This matters because thugs are usually young males, and their prey are usually the elderly and women. Asking everyone who isn't a brutal thug to become a ninja to overcome their physical deficiencies is...stupid. Whereas a gun can protect a weak person from a strong one, someone can't become a samurai master or a proficient knife thrower to protect themselves.
This counter is bizarre.
At 4/7/11 07:07 PM, JoS wrote: You cant get a carry and conceal permit here. And you can defend yourself without firearms.
Most people can't. Sorry. A rape victim will never outmatch her rapist.
You are 4.5 times more likely to get shot if you are carrying a gun then if you are unarmed.
Linky
Um, that study is ridiculous. As the study points out in it's own text:
"While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot"
Like gang members? Like people who pull guns on cops? Like home invaders? Like people who pull guns on other people to start a gun fight?
Do we start to see a problem? Of course a gang member (who is assuredly packing heat) is more likely to get shot than an average person. Is the gun the reason, or do they carry a gun because they are in a dangerous lifestyle that makes them want to be armed? The answer is obviously the latter. Did the study remove criminals from the equation? No? Well, then, it's bloody useless.
At 4/6/11 09:46 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Then how can you explain child abandonment rates so high christians had to invent foundling wheels?
You sir, seem quite silly.
Um, how?
No, seriously, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here. How does the foundation of a way to pawn off of children that would otherwise be killed or abandoned hurt my point? If anything, the fact that Christians CREATED a way to save children who would otherwise have died backs up my point. But whatever, next?
The first mistake you made was assuming the church has anything to do with God. It doesn't. The Bible teaches the church were the ones who sent the Romans to kill Christ. By definition, official church doctrine is never fully in line with the will of god. Otherwise, why would Christ have been sent in the firt place? They already had priests and a church that gave sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin.
That's a neat lecture. It has nothing to do with anything, and certainly addresses no error I (never) made.
I dislike strawman "look over there" tactics.
Christ taught that salvation meant that the saved person was spiritually in heaven while still alive. Paul taught that to be absent with the body is to be present with the Lord. Heaven is a spiritual place, not a physical one. The Hebrew word for "air" and for "spirit" are the same word. "Pearly Gates" and "Streets of Gold" refer to an earthly new Jerusalem, not heaven at all.
Christ NEVER taught that. Specifically, Christ rejected that.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Please explain Gnosticism, then. There are many conflicting sects of Christianity. This doesn't invalidate the truth in the philosophy, it just invalidates the competency of it's followers. God defines, the religion, not the church. Unless you're trying to claim that Protestants aren't christian, of course.
Gnostic Christians didn't really appear until late 3rd century BC. However, Gnostic Christians used Christian teaching to balance off pure Gnosticism, which was centuries old. I'm assuming this is news to you?
Gnostic teachings were also considered heresy. Another fun fact.
Keep in mind one of the primary teachings of christianity is the sin nature of man, and as such everything a man is capable of is flawed.
Um, ok.
you're using a secular definition of heaven here, not Christ's. Needless to say, of course the facts won't add up for you. There are no harps and wings in Christ's heaven. It is a place where the spirit rests while the body still lives, not a place the spirit goes after the body becomes uninhabitable.
No, I'm using the BIBLICAL definition of heaven.
Considering that you'v gotten nothing else right, this error doesn't surprise me.
At 4/7/11 01:25 PM, Earfetish wrote: So Muslims are hornets.
To say he has blood on his hands is disgusting. The murderers have blood on their hands.
If someone in Iran burnt a copy of the Bible, so a bunch of God-Hates-Fags types went round to the Iranian embassy and shot 8 people, what form would the subsequent moral debate take? Would we say the Iranian had blood on his hands?
If a bunch of gay activists got so pissed off that America allowed homophobic preachers that they started committing domestic terrorism, what form would the subsequent moral debate take?
To compare burning a Qu'ran to kicking a hornets nest / provoking a lion at the zoo, I think, displays elements of racism. Muslims aren't a lesser-species that can't be held responsible for their actions.
This is probably the best summary of the debate I have read.
That people get pissed does not excuse murder. I get pissed everyday and have yet to harm someone. And it's not even like they harmed Jones. They killed complete strangers who, for all we know, might've agreed with them.
