User Tag List

Page 47 of 51 FirstFirst ... 3744454647484950 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 705 of 756

Thread: 58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

  1. #691
    Over 5000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,278 Times in 1,031 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    278826
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    http://theologyonline.com/showthread...98#post5160998
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    So yes or no?
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Or, no, that would be an unconventional, poor, and misleading use of the term. Rather, I set out argument in parts, along with supportive data. I can declare anything, from fact to fiction. Argument doesn't really belong in the declared usage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    So yes or no?
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    And you can't just slide that quote around.
    Yes I can.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    If you tell me what you're unclear about I'll be happy to clarify.
    I'm clear. I want you to admit it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Other than that I'll tell you what I told Trad years ago, you can ask for an answer, you can ask for illustration, you can ask for context or clarification, but you can't tell me how to answer.
    Yes I can.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    One of the things you learn as a trial lawyer is that yes or no demands are almost always made when the person asking for them isn't served by a fuller rendering.
    An imaginative red herring.

    This is a convoluted way of saying "No comment." Since you raise "trial lawyer," I'd say your response is "pleading the fifth."

    Why not say No? Why not say Yes? Why instead this dreck about "a fuller rendering?" We know why you won't answer, even after me asking you not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times the same question. It's because if you say one answer, we all know you're lying, and if you say the other, then you're admitting your whole position you're advancing in this thread is wrong. That's why you say "No comment," and, "I plead the fifth," and that's exactly why.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  2. #692
    Over 5000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,278 Times in 1,031 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    278826
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Your camp talks about unfettered right, but none of you believe in it. You create your own artificial impediment to self arming, making a line for reasons that make sense to you or to prop up your present position. So Nihilo talks about the Court's holding on citizen soldiers and you talk about a weapon being discriminatory in its aiming (though in the hands of the untrained, a thing I think you'd balk at mandating, an AK might as well be a bazooka for all the discriminatory aiming that will go on as its used) but all both of you really accomplish with that is to support my contention that there is no unfettered and absolute right and that as with any we restrict it using reason and considering BOTH our collective and individual interests.
    Who has the right to possess nuclear powered destructive devices?
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    It won't serve you because anywhere we have universal and tough gun laws we have dramatically decreased levels of gun related violence and mass shooting.
    A correlation that doesn't prove causation, and upon only roughly close examination is clearly a coincidence. Our problem is one of murderers, and one of murderers only.

    Does a murderer have the right to possess nuclear weapons?
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    And it won't serve you because you're forced to do this sort of thing and most people aren't stupid. So when you have to try to make it about theft of property and some other evil people, instead of what it is actually about, you're going to raise a real red flag. It's about everything from limiting unintended harm (gun safety laws most of you resist) to registering weapons to make them easier to track and individual stock piling easier to note (ditto) to taking weapons capable of mass destruction out of the stream of commerce and as a result out of the hands of the sometimes mentally unstable, sometimes emotionally overcome, and sometimes simply willfully evil people who empirl the rest of us.
    What's "empirl" mean?

    This thread is about murderers, because that's who brought this thread into existence is the murderer Paddock.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    And what it doesn't do is end the right or stop anyone from defending their homes and person. It puts them, in point of fact, in a better position to defend themselves and their property than any citizen soldier had when the founders framed the right.
    Except in reality, which includes context. A Lexington Minuteman was as well armed as any British soldier outfitted with standard issue weaponry. Today, standard issue is selective fire carbines and rifles with 20-30 round easily swapped out magazines. That's what the civil right to keep and bear arms means in modernity, that shall not be infringed, and we all know why that right ought not be infringed, even though you won't answer my question to you; because we know why you won't answer; because we know that you know that having a selective fire carbine or rifle with easily changed 20-30 round magazines is a very excellent thing to have whenever you're life is "imperiled" by murderers like Paddock.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Actually, we know that countries with those universal gun laws have dramatically fewer incidences of gun related violence, and we see that even in states within our own nation.
    Gun laws have zero to do with who decides to become a murderer, or who decides to continue to be a murderer. Murderers are the problem in America, not guns.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    The rhetorical slight of hand
    sleight
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    you repeatedly attempt to use to counter that is to say that violence overall doesn't change when we manage those laws. The response is that mass shootings, horrific as they are, aren't anything like the rule, so they won't dramatically impact the overall arc of violence in this or any nation. Similarly, if I could cure Parkinson disease it wouldn't appreciably impact deaths from disease, but that's no argument against the cure absent a rational argument to leave off. And in the case of weapons that argument can't be, "Because the founders said I could have them." They also said you could have slaves. Else, supra.
    If your life, or the life of your child, is imperiled by a murderer, is it good to have a selective fire carbine or rifle with easily changed 20-30 round magazines, or not good to have such standard issue weaponry?
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    From the start I noted that we have had decades of evidence in testing out what every other Western democracy has (while differing to one extent or another) done to impact gun violence and all of them have been dramatically more successful than our own "more guns equals safer" nonsense.
    That's not true. Other countries had less violence to begin with, and it stayed that way. All they've proven is that infringing the RKBA doesn't increase violence, and nobody was asking that question in the first place. Other countries were blessed with less murderers than we have in the States (per capita), and taking away rights to own dumbed-down neutered military style semiautomatic rifles didn't increase or decrease the number of murderers, and why would it anyway, unless you think guns have magical powers over people and make them choose murder when they otherwise wouldn't?

    And in the US, we tested out what flooding the Union with civilian owned weaponry would do, and it did nothing, over the past 50 years, to the murder rate, it's exactly the same murder rate today as 50 years ago, and even though there are almost four times as many guns (twice as many per capita).
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    A reasonable person wouldn't characterize laws that would save lives as jumping off a cliff. And that's another problem you have.
    They would save lives. Until the murderers attempt murder (they never do that), and we're without standard issue weaponry, magazines, and ammunition, to protect ourselves and our families.

    And sometimes, the murderers are crazed, and they attempt murder all the while believing they're in the right, and they're defending themselves against you, without warrant or reason; except that in their own minds, we are their mortal enemies. Sometimes murder happens that way. And sometimes, when it does happen that way, sometimes a whole bunch of innocent people get murdered all at once or all together, and boy, wouldn't it be nice, if the next time a group of crazed murderers want to murder innocent people, that those innocent people had a decent supply of standard issue weaponry, magazines, and ammunition?

    There are massacres that have happened throughout history where not 58, but 580, 5,800, 58,000, and even more innocent people have been murdered. In almost all of those cases, the innocent victims were not outfitted with standard issue military service rifles and carbines with standard issue magazines and ammunition.

    And besides, the right to possess nuclear warheads is absolute and unfettered anyway.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  3. #693
    LIFETIME MEMBER Yorzhik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,907
    Thanks
    150
    Thanked 256 Times in 204 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    375395
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Since all these ideas have been applied in the past, and since they are ideas that have worked every time they've been tried, I'd say your objection is either poorly thought out or that you are an elitist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I don't believe a single thing in that is actually true.
    It's all true. And the data I've provided shows it's true.

    I'm not sure what you mean by elitist, so I hold out part of it could be true. Holding a doctorate, by way of example, puts me in an academic elite. If you mean that I believe society should be led by an elite, I'd say that's true. People of superior virtue and wisdom, by way of example, would make better leaders than people with less of either.
    To be sure, people of superior virtue and wisdom should lead. But we see that becoming more and more rare in the ranks of Phd and Masters holders.

    Consider that most academics think Keynesian economics is a good idea. It's not a deciding factor that someone is lacking wisdom and virtue, but it is a factor. And there are many others, which most Masters and PhD's fail.

    The reason they fail is the thought of any ideas right of center in all our schools of higher learning is anathema in most departments. This is another reason to cause you to pause about the wisdom and virtue of the elites if they cannot abide the existence of other reasonable ideas.

    John Mackey explains it to some extent."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rYPp4ofXAs"

    Well that's not true unless you confuse consideration with agreement. I've tackled any number of arguments contrary to my own from a number of people I've spoken to during the course of this thread. I'll do more of that in this post.
    Your idea of tackling an argument consists largely of waving it away. You should tackle the questions about why the county data runs counter to your narrative, but you simply wave your hand and say state and country data is better when the state and country data comes from higher resolution sources like county data. You should tackle why you mention poverty at all when you keep saying it doesn't enter the discussion. You should tackle why homicide rates are so low in areas where gun ownership rates are so high. You need to tackle what self defense is in reality, regardless what the law says. You need to tackle why most of the data says more guns equals less crime and why you cherry-pick the contrary. You need to tackle why you expect people to have no reaction to a government that takes their stuff because of someone else's evil actions when the benefit of the confiscation is not measurable.

    Rather, my data is objectively observable and repeatable. It's true for nations and states.
    As is my data. The rub is why good data seems contradictory. I've explained why, while you haven't.

    I think you can focus narrowly enough, cherry pick enough to support all sorts of contentions. But the fact remains that as with nations, so states. It's not an amazing coincidence. And it occurs even in different cultures that share the same sort of law.
    Cherry picking would be taking some counties and not others when considering my data. Or taking state data and ignoring more detailed data within states - oh, that's what you're doing.

    You're the one cherry picking data.

    Complete nonsense for any number of reasons offered prior including, to paraphrase, "We can't reasonably suggest that the foundation of law be scrapped for 3 guiding principles"
    Then you haven't been listening to what I've been saying. That's very elitist of you.

    And I've been reasonable with you. Answering your questions directly and being charitable with my assumptions about your statements.

    or when I noted your plan for smashing black markets (legalizing the illegal) was problematic on two fronts: first, much of black market transactions aren't really about producing illegal goods, but selling illegally procured but otherwise legal goods and, second, that beyond that the principle invites legalizing most vice to eliminate the profit of vice by a relatively small number of people. One could and I would argue that the greater harm would be found in the impact of that legalization.
    Sure. You don't legalize all black markets.

    But one doesn't have to look too hard at what to ban/regulate/restrict if one uses principled law instead of situational law.

    Those examples rebut both your premise above and your claim that I don't consider different opinions.
    Only if you take the most uncharitable stance, put words in my mouth, ignore what I've said, and don't consider the facts.

    And note, to the extent my ideas are implemented things get better. While your ideas, OTOH, don't accomplish anything until radical irreversible change has been implemented. Which means you can judge my ideas and reverse them with little trouble, while your ideas will cause ongoing pain and death if they don't work.

    My workable solutions, tried and produced without destroying any of the Western democracies that employ them (by which I mean all of them) dramatically less gun related violence and death.
    And your ideas increase other non-gun violence and death. The data is clear. You not seeing this as a problem for your solutions fit's neatly into an elitist mindset.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    We've been trying to fix these problems for a long time by doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over - chiefly money transfers
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic
    You said that before. I rebutted the presumption. I won't repeat the rebuttal
    Your rebuttal is trying to deny reality. Here are the real numbers:
    welfarevpoverty.png

    Your opinion of your ideas was never in question. My opinion of them is in print and in particular prior.
    It's not my opinion. Numbers are clear:
    singlemomrate.png

    I've spoken to the problems of concentrated populations, especially where there are concentrations of poor. I also noted New York state and city on the point in relation to law and effect.
    You aren't talking about "gun violence and mass shootings" anymore. Now you're talking about homicide and violence in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    And another thing to note, the firepower of guns hasn't changed a great deal in the last ~75 years. It's not the guns that changed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic
    That's a curious focus, given the founders wrote the right into our Constitution a smidge earlier and I've spoken to why and what has fundamentally changed since then.
    What you ignore, quite uncharitably, is that homicide and violence were very low when guns were no less deadly than today. And household gun ownership rates were very high (higher than they are now).
    ownershiprate.png

    Arguing against child labor laws doesn't really require a rebuttal. I just wanted you on the record.
    That's an emotional statement in view of the facts:


    In judging the issue of child labor also, Mr. Krugman is a pragmatist, asking what else is available. It often isn't education. In India, for example, destitute parents sometimes sell their children to Persian Gulf begging syndicates whose bosses mutilate them for a higher take, he says. ''If that is the alternative, it is not so easy to say that children should not be working in factories,'' Mr. Krugman said.



    Ironic that the facts are so powerful that a leftist like Paul Krugman has to admit that parents, in general, don't actually want to hurt there children.

    True of almost any alternative given public schools must take any student who is enrolled. The less selective your process the lower the mean. And if you have a hospital that refuses trauma victims you're going to have a much better survival rate, comparatively, to those who take them in.

    Anyone who believes that education harms someone is in need of additional education.
    Anyone who believes that government schools are teaching kids good character needs an education.

    But you also have to believe that somehow we have an exceptionally high lower mean. Especially when the population of the lower mean was so much smaller not too long ago. And you'd also have to believe that being the lower mean makes a child evil.

    I know I'm wasting my text on telling you that character is more important than academics, but it's the truth that might be better argued in another thread.

    You literally wrote: "For broken families, you've already identified that the problem is almost entirely single mothers."
    While the cause of a problem and naming a problem are 2 different things, I can understand that being an elitist means you need to take the most uncharitable approach.

    No, you misstated the present reality, a long vanquished tender years presumption in favor of the mother and suggested that same legal mistake should be vested in the fathers, which underscores your blaming mothers, by the way.
    I didn't misstate the present reality. Single motherhood happens in a divorce about 80% of the time despite any changes in the law for many decades, although in the last few years that rate seems to be going down. And the percentage of single mother lead households has held steady at about 30% overall since about the middle 80's.

    What I said before is consistent with the facts. And the solution is to have kids raised by their fathers, not their mothers, is for good reason. The best indicator of a delinquent is coming from a mother lead household while coming from a father lead household is not far below coming from a household with a mother and father.

    So, yes, the courts need to impose the reverse of what we have now. Not to make up for past injustice, but to do what is best for children. And if you need to know God's opinion on the matter, He said to pray for the fatherless, but not the motherless.

    On health and nutrition programs for poor children.

    It actually has worked. Every time. Providing proper nutrition and healthcare for poor children does precisely what it is aimed at doing. It isn't meant to do else.
    Our rate of poor, and less healthy - especially from poor diet, has not changed much for decades despite vast increases in welfare spending.

    Absent a compelling reason relating to the safety and well being of the child joint custody, which isn't rare at all, is a sensible solution.

    That's not true. The standard visitation order in most states, even without joint custody, is better than that. And most visitation is worked out between parties without court mandate at all, but I'll come back to that. Primary physical custodianship is in the child's best interest, providing a stable base and the standard order relating to visitation can be arranged as suits the parties, with an eye to respecting that stability, especially during school months. It works well when both parents cooperate and focus on the kids instead of themselves.

    Actually it varies, though mothers do tend to be the primary custodian more often than not. Overwhelmingly by choice and agreement of both parents. A Pew study in 2012 looked at it and found mothers spending twice as much time, prior to divorce, in direct roles with the children of divorce. That same study noted that a great many fathers don't use the time allotted them. And 27% have no contact with their children post divorce.

    DivorcePeers looked at the problem and noted that only around 9% of custody arrangements are actually imposed by the court system.
    Thanks for making my point. Most kids of divorce live, even primarily in a joint custody situation, with their moms. This is bad for children by any measure of delinquency. This isn't true for kids raised by a father only. If we loved our children in this country we would give custody to fathers by default.

    Your foundational assumptions are simply wrong. Your remedy is as wrong as reverse discrimination.
    Reverse discrimination is based on skin color. That's wrong.

    Children being raised by fathers in the event of divorce is a good idea based on tradition, common sense, and science to do what is best for the child.

    Sure they do. And most of that sort carry histories. By the time I was involved as a VAWA lawyer in the process the chances were good that I could find a laundry list of police involvement with the parties and frequently a litany of hospital visits. I always spoke with the police first, then a family doctor or admitting physician about the sorts of wounds inflicted and what they had witnessed or could reasonably, professionally infer. Most of the time it was clear enough.

    Sure. Because most women are just evil liars who beat themselves then call the cops so they can send the other person they moved in with or married to jail. That makes sense as a rule...if you're nuts. Or, as a rule, people who claim to have been beaten by someone and who have the marks to demonstrate it aren't crazy, lying, or attempting to manipulate the system. I've caught people trying to do that, but they were the exception to a sad, tragic rule.
    That was a lot of text not answering the question.

    The problem isn't that women get bruised, or that not all women manipulate the system. The problem is that any woman can, if she pleases, get a man put in jail at least immediately if not after court proceedings, simply based on her word of what happened.

    That's just not true, so I'll leave the reader to go back and read what I actually set out.

    I actually didn't, only noted that the enormous amount of indirect capital poured into the political realm by the NRA was substantive before you got to any of the industry players and other groups with a vested interest and their own direct and indirect contributions.
    I showed what the NRA was spending in specific years which was more than you stated as the average, and thus, it is entirely true that the NRA just doesn't have the money to put politicians into their pockets.

    You gave us a yearly average of about 7 million dollars when the yearly average of lobbyists overall is near 2.5 billion.

    Which apparently means to note facts contradicting your presumptions.
    Meaning you make declarative statements despite the facts presented.

    I noted two things. First, you don't appear to realize that most of the black market activity is about stolen goods and secondly that if you applied your logic on how to pull the teeth of criminal gain (by legalizing the activity) you'd end up with a worse problem.
    stolengoodsmarket.jpg
    First, I think your stolen goods market, which is about 10 billion a year, is nothing compared to even the drug market, which is just one part (the biggest part) of the black market for illegal goods
    The Organization of American States estimated that the revenue for cocaine sales in the U.S. was $34 billion in 2013. The Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates that $100 billion worth of illegal drugs were sold in the U.S. in 2013.[2]The Organization of American States estimated that the revenue for cocaine sales in the U.S. was $34 billion in 2013. The Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates that $100 billion worth of illegal drugs were sold in the U.S. in 2013.[2]



    And other parts are not small either. Black markets for plumbing, electrical, and construction services are huge, and that doesn't even include the rest of the illegal labor markets (it was noted that many of the illegal day labor markets doing cleanup work in Houston was a multimillion dollar black market).

    And the cost of even silly black markets is in lives, too. Eric Garner died because he was part of a black market.

    So, no, by any measure stolen goods is not "most" of the black market.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    Did you know that owning another person as a chattel slave would be wrong even it if were legal?
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic
    Sure. Doesn't impact the point even a little though.
    It impacts the point entirely. It means that the law doesn't make things right or wrong. So if the act of owning a gun that shoots more than one round, or selling single cigarettes in NY, is made illegal, it is still right. The law should be wiser and, in general, not say things that are right are illegal.

    Where did I write that again? By which I mean you should quote that one.
    "registration is only a barrier if you're illiterate"

    Eliminating public education would raise the literacy rate? Do tell.
    Because parents, in general, don't hate their children. Unschooled kids almost always learn to read for other things they want even before they get interested in academics-as-a-chore.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    To be sure, anytime one mentions what happened in Germany a lot of eyes roll. But that doesn't mean the lessons should be ignored.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic
    The lessons need to be applicable to the consideration. This one wasn't a decent parallel, as I noted long ago and in particular when it was first used by another poster before you tried to reform it.
    It's not only a lesson, it's an example of the very thing we are discussing. The tool used to keep Jews from getting guns was registration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik
    The mass killers will either procure guns, bombs, or use other methods. The stats won't change much.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic
    I'm guessing that you're playing again, because you understand mass shooters are a statistically small portion of homicides and that eliminating them entirely wouldn't greatly alter the statistical trend overall, even though it would have a great impact on the hundreds of victims, wounded and killed otherwise, and in terms of the ripples those deaths and maimings cause.

    No, I'm saying that where the discussion is gun violence and mass shootings, talking about deaths by other means is off topic.
    You already invited discussions beyond gun violence and mass shootings by mentioning that concentrated poor people factor into the statistics.

    Admit you want to keep the discussion about gun violence and mass shootings and explain the vast difference between big cities where guns are banned/restricted vs. rural areas where gun ownership rates are high and homicide (by any means) is close to other developed countries in those terms only.

    Of course you are. When you can't reject it, attempt to taint it, by inference where possible. I've looked at a number of sources, but I prefer using the Mass Shooter Tracker
    It just means that my solutions will work to reduce the deaths you claim I don't care about.

    I haven't said anything about counties beyond noting that the larger data pool is superior and that states with stronger gun laws (states which have rather large cities in them, like New York) have appreciably fewer deaths from gun violence than states with looser laws, something that we also observe in nations. I use states and nations because the greater populations are more reliable for statistical analysis.
    More specific data that is consistent in aggregate with larger-picture data is always better. And wonderfully for us, the county data "added together" is consistent with the state and country data. But then the data doesn't promote taking away everyone's guns, so you don't like it.

    What do you mean by security personnel? The police, certainly. A mall cop? No.
    Any security that needs a gun to do his job. Do mall cops need a gun to do their job?
    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

  4. #694
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,262
    Thanks
    3,038
    Thanked 6,629 Times in 3,878 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147806
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    I'm clear. I want you to admit it.
    This isn't about you. You asked for an answer. You got one. You don't get to dictate form (by which I mean I won't respect the request because I don't owe you that form, only an answer in full).

    Yes I can.
    Yeah, I wasn't being literal. I was letting you know I'm not going to have that dictated, supra.

    This is a convoluted way of saying "No comment."
    Only if you need to work on your reading comprehension.

    Since you raise "trial lawyer," I'd say your response is "pleading the fifth."
    And you'd be wrong, again.

    Why not say No?
    I told you why.

    Why not say Yes?
    I told you why.

    We know why you won't answer, even after me asking you not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times the same question.
    Except I did answer. You're just throwing a fit because I didn't fall into the goofy yes/no trap that would have misled people and not fully answered on the point.

    I get why you don't like it, but trying to sell it as something else is pointless and at best mistaken.

    It's because if you say one answer, we all know you're lying, and if you say the other, then you're admitting your whole position you're advancing in this thread is wrong.
    That's just literally a stupid thing to write.

    That's why you say "No comment," and, "I plead the fifth," and that's exactly why.
    Except that I never did. Not even once.
    Last edited by Town Heretic; January 9th, 2018 at 12:38 AM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Rusha (January 14th, 2018)

  6. #695
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,262
    Thanks
    3,038
    Thanked 6,629 Times in 3,878 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147806
    Quote Originally Posted by Yorzhik View Post
    To be sure, people of superior virtue and wisdom should lead. But we see that becoming more and more rare in the ranks of Phd and Masters holders.
    I believe you believer that.

    Consider that most academics think Keynesian economics is a good idea. It's not a deciding factor that someone is lacking wisdom and virtue, but it is a factor. And there are many others, which most Masters and PhD's fail.
    What authority has most academic being of a Keynesian bent? Citation?

    Your idea of tackling an argument consists largely of waving it away.
    Completely untrue.

    You should tackle the questions about why the county data runs counter to your narrative, but you simply wave your hand and say state and country data is better when the state and country data comes from higher resolution sources like county data.
    No, that's not what I wrote.

    You should tackle why you mention poverty at all when you keep saying it doesn't enter the discussion.
    That's not my position.

    You should tackle why homicide rates are so low in areas where gun ownership rates are so high.
    They aren't, universally. That's why the U.S. is the least safe place to live within the context of Western democracies and gun laws. Now you can tell me that your kitchen has a lot of guns and it's really safe. But your kitchen isn't as sound a source as a larger sampling. When you understand how samplings work in validating data you'll get my point.

    You need to tackle what self defense is in reality, regardless what the law says.
    You think people are confused about what defending themselves means? I don't.

    You need to tackle why most of the data says more guns equals less crime
    It doesn't, supra and prior.

    and why you cherry-pick the contrary.
    Irony noted.

    You need to tackle why you expect people to have no reaction to a government that takes their stuff because of someone else's evil actions when the benefit of the confiscation is not measurable.
    Answered in the point and on the rhetorical distortion you use to frame it.

    But one doesn't have to look too hard at what to ban/regulate/restrict if one uses principled law instead of situational law.
    Rebutted prior. When you wave goofy notions of upending the foundation of law you know or should know you're not really proposing anything meaningful. It can't and won't happen. So you might as well simply support the status quo.

    And your ideas increase other non-gun violence and death.
    No they don't. The opposite is observably true, both in our country and compared to every other Western democracy.


    Your rebuttal is trying to deny reality. Here are the real numbers

    It's not my opinion. Numbers are clear:
    Interesting charts. You should try tying them into something I wrote. Something you can quote and then say, "See, this rebuts that contention."

    You aren't talking about "gun violence and mass shootings" anymore. Now you're talking about homicide and violence in general.
    No, I'm still talking about gun violence and mass shootings.

    What you ignore, quite uncharitably, is that homicide and violence were very low when guns were no less deadly than today.
    We have never had a time when the types of guns we have today were affordably saturating the marketplace. The gun market has done a marvelous job of promoting and lowering the cost of ownership on increasingly deadly guns.

    And household gun ownership rates were very high (higher than they are now).
    I'm not trying to interfere with ownership rates. I never have.

    That's an emotional statement in view of the facts:
    There was literally nothing emotional about noting that anyone who is against child labor laws doesn't require a rebuttal on the point. It's on par with noting that I don't believe anyone arguing for segregation really needs to be rebutted, only noted.

    Anyone who believes that government schools are teaching kids good character needs an education.
    Who said you should send your kid to school to build their character? That's your job.

    But you also have to believe that somehow we have an exceptionally high lower mean. Especially when the population of the lower mean was so much smaller not too long ago. And you'd also have to believe that being the lower mean makes a child evil.
    Well, no. No, I don't. And if you're going to assert the point you have to demonstrate why that's true. You haven't.

    I can understand that being an elitist means you need to take the most uncharitable approach.
    Funny coming from someone who dismisses mass murder as statistically insignificant. But never let it be said a little irony or a want of introspection got in your way.

    I didn't misstate the present reality. Single motherhood happens in a divorce about 80% of the time despite any changes in the law for many decades, although in the last few years that rate seems to be going down.
    The statistic varies by year. That's the high end as I've witnessed the data. I've also noted prior that in most cases the physical custody of the children is overwhelmingly decided upon between the parents, and not by the courts.

    What I said before is consistent with the facts. And the solution is to have kids raised by their fathers, not their mothers, is for good reason. The best indicator of a delinquent is coming from a mother lead household while coming from a father lead household is not far below coming from a household with a mother and father.
    Citation to authority in support? And you realize that if the overwhelming majority of kids are in single mother homes then comparing the results can be a bit misleading.

    And if you need to know God's opinion on the matter, He said to pray for the fatherless, but not the motherless.
    Maybe God knew that most of the time a child wouldn't be without their mother. Maybe the problem is in your reading and your bias.

    Our rate of poor, and less healthy - especially from poor diet, has not changed much for decades despite vast increases in welfare spending.
    How many decades and compared to which? Citation to authority?

    That was a lot of text not answering the question.
    I think it's funny that you believe that.

    The problem isn't that women get bruised, or that not all women manipulate the system. The problem is that any woman can, if she pleases, get a man put in jail at least immediately if not after court proceedings, simply based on her word of what happened.
    It's not a woman's power. In fact, a man can level the same charge. And absent physical evidence you're going to have a hard time getting someone arrested. What you can get, woman or man, based on testimony, is a temporary restraining order and perhaps possession of a home or dwelling right, subject to a fairly quick hearing on merit. And that's a good idea.

    First, I think your stolen goods market, which is about 10 billion a year, is nothing compared to even the drug market
    It's huge and gaining ground around the edges in terms of legality.

    So, no, by any measure stolen goods is not "most" of the black market.
    If I said "most" I stand corrected. I wasn't considering the drug trade.

    So if the act of owning a gun that shoots more than one round, or selling single cigarettes in NY, is made illegal, it is still right. The law should be wiser and, in general, not say things that are right are illegal.
    I don't believe it is right for anyone to own weapons that made the Las Vegas mass murders possible. I favor weapons that more closely resemble what the founders thought reasonable, even if most of the reasons for possession of them have fallen by the wayside and no longer find a larger, societal good served by them.

    "registration is only a barrier if you're illiterate"
    Appreciated. And upon fuller consideration it doesn't even have to be then, does it. Problem solved.

    Because parents, in general, don't hate their children. Unschooled kids almost always learn to read for other things they want even before they get interested in academics-as-a-chore.
    Schooling makes a better citizen when coupled with the character we should invest in our children.

    The tool used to keep Jews from getting guns was registration.
    Actually they had a lot of guns, as I've noted before. The attempt was late in the day relative to the Nazi's move to create ghettos and camps. And I've spoken to the problematic nature of guns as instruments of revolution. And we're not talking about uneven penalization of a group within our society. At least I'm not.

    You already invited discussions beyond gun violence and mass shootings by mentioning that concentrated poor people factor into the statistics.
    Rather, I note that where you have concentrations of poor and poorly educated you have more crime and violence. It's part of the same conversation, in foundation.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  7. #696
    Over 5000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,278 Times in 1,031 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    278826
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You're just throwing a fit

    That's just literally a stupid thing to write.
    Why don't you tell me how you really feel, Town? Don't hold back or nuthin.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  8. #697
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,262
    Thanks
    3,038
    Thanked 6,629 Times in 3,878 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147806
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    Why don't you tell me how you really feel, Town? Don't hold back or nuthin.
    I told you what I thought, not what I felt. Now if I'd called you stupid, or a suggested something personal about your character you'd have a point that emotion appeared to rule the assertion. For instance...

    It's because if you say one answer, we all know you're lying, and if you say the other, then you're admitting your whole position you're advancing in this thread is wrong.
    No. I set out particulars on why I could not in good conscience answer the question honestly as asked with a simple yes or no. To respond to that effort as you did, to insist on an unsupported judgement contrary to that without offering any particular rebuttal or line of reason to sustain it reduced your effort to the description I gave it. That is, it remains contrary to good reason or examination by that light.

    And for those playing at home, it wasn't even a real division of meaningful parts, since by Nihilo's light I'd either be lying or lying, since I couldn't admit to a thing without knowing it to be true and the assertion is a resistance to answer because of that point.

    So yes, it's a stupid thing to write.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Rusha (January 14th, 2018)

  10. #698
    Over 5000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,278 Times in 1,031 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    278826
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    We know why you won't answer, even after me asking you not once, not twice, not thrice, but four times the same question. It's because if you say one answer, we all know you're lying, and if you say the other, then you're admitting your whole position you're advancing in this thread is wrong. That's why you say "No comment," and, "I plead the fifth," and that's exactly why.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I told you what I thought, not what I felt. Now if I'd called you stupid, or a suggested something personal about your character you'd have a point that emotion appeared to rule the assertion. For instance...


    No. I set out particulars on why I could not in good conscience answer the question honestly as asked with a simple yes or no. To respond to that effort as you did, to insist on an unsupported judgement contrary to that without offering any particular rebuttal or line of reason to sustain it reduced your effort to the description I gave it. That is, it remains contrary to good reason or examination by that light.

    And for those playing at home, it wasn't even a real division of meaningful parts, since by Nihilo's light I'd either be lying or lying, since I couldn't admit to a thing without knowing it to be true and the assertion is a resistance to answer because of that point.

    So yes, it's a stupid thing to write.
    That's what you have to think and to hold, unless you want to humble yourself and eat crow, because the two actual possibilities are that you're either lying, or you're the fool, and you've chosen to make up a third possibility instead, in order to protect your pride. It's really not surprising unfortunately.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  11. #699
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,262
    Thanks
    3,038
    Thanked 6,629 Times in 3,878 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147806
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    That's what you have to think and to hold,
    Rather, your insistence aside, what you believe to be the inescapable conclusions present in your alternatives aren't rational necessities supported by argument to make them so, which I suppose is why you don't support them beyond the declaration.

    unless you want to humble yourself and eat crow
    That's just a looser restatement of your second part and curious late attempt to make this about something other than argument.

    Now when I recognize that I might have something wrong I don't have any problem noting it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    If I said "most" I stand corrected. I wasn't considering the drug trade.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    because the two actual possibilities are that you're either lying, or you're the fool
    Well, no, but it does make a sort of point about emotionality and how it tends to direct attention. I'll leave off the ongoing mischaracterization that follows.

    Meanwhile, since Nihilo seems dedicated to defaming the messenger, he's off the conversation board until he cleans up his act.

    What we know so far...

    Yor believes that suggesting we wipe existing law off the books and retool our entire approach to justice is the way to go. Given that's about as feasible as personal monorails to ease traffic congestion, he's essentially a status quo supporter. He opposes mandatory gun safety courses, gun registration, and any attempt to limit the type of weapons commonly used in mass shootings.

    Nihilo believes that we should have a right to arm ourselves with the same weapons that soldiers use in their profession. He is also unwilling to allow mandatory safety courses or restrict the sorts of weapons used in mass shootings.

    My position is this: every Western democracy that institutes universal and tough gun laws has dramatically fewer gun violence victims and dramatically fewer incidents of mass shootings. The restrictions I advance can demonstrably, dramatically impact gun violence and mass shootings, while making those who choose to exercise the right safer in their use. Further, these laws would leave any citizen with the desire to bear arms an appreciably better weapon with which to accomplish that than was the rule when the Founders established the right's protection.
    Last edited by Town Heretic; January 14th, 2018 at 01:58 PM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (January 14th, 2018),Rusha (January 14th, 2018)

  13. #700
    Over 5000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,278 Times in 1,031 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    278826
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Rather, your insistence aside, what you believe to be the inescapable conclusions present in your alternatives aren't rational necessities supported by argument to make them so, which I suppose is why you don't support them beyond the declaration.
    Well that's just false Town. I do support them, utterly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    That's just a looser restatement of your second part and curious late attempt to make this about something other than argument.
    No, that's what you're doing right now, and have been, ever since you pretended to not know which question I was asking you, after you summoned me to your little "digest" blog thread over there in the woods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Now when I recognize that I might have something wrong I don't have any problem noting it.
    I haven't seen any evidence of that aside from this declaration of yours.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Well, no, but it does make a sort of point about emotionality and how it tends to direct attention. I'll leave off the ongoing mischaracterization that follows.
    What are you even talking about Town? Why did you quote yourself talking to Yorzhik as if that's what I was commenting on? Are you that dishonest that you'd steer poor Arthur and Rusha into thinking that I was responding to that comment, rather than the one I actually did comment on? You're either devilish, or you might want to look into the onset of dementia or something along those lines I'm afraid.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Meanwhile, since Nihilo seems dedicated to defaming the messenger, he's off the conversation board until he cleans up his act.
    Actually Town, you're the one who's urinating on my back and insisting that it's just a warm rain. Very capable gas lighting on your part. Expert display of it here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Nihilo believes that we should have a right to arm ourselves with the same weapons that soldiers use in their profession.
    Nihilo just believes that humans all already possess the right to keep and to bear arms, as how the Supreme Court has interpreted that civil right, that human right, that we all already believe we all already possess anyway, since nobody can tell me why anybody right now possesses nuclear weapons of mass destruction, or any other less-destructive but still destructive devices (those things that are already regulated by the old ATF, currently the BATFE, are at the most innocuous end of that destructive spectrum).

    Every single nation's military has concluded just exactly what Town himself knows to be true, and yet he won't cop to it---that when we are imperiled, when our life is in danger, having a standard issue selective fire rifle or carbine is just a much nicer thing to have in that moment than not to. That's exactly what the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" means, according to the Supreme Court.

    Town's view is the minority view. There are 50 countries in the Union of nations we call the United States. The US outnumbers the "western democracies" he keeps referencing, and our Supreme Court has said what I have said, and against what he's saying.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    He is also unwilling to allow mandatory safety courses or restrict the sorts of weapons used in mass shootings.
    On the first point, that's a lie, and on the second point, we already do that, against the Second Amendment's proscription of such infringements. I'm unwilling to further restrict what's already illegally restricted.

    I think you're just a liar Town. The more I type out this response, the less charity I can afford when interpreting your position. You're a liar.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    My position is this: every Western democracy that institutes universal and tough gun laws has dramatically fewer gun violence victims and dramatically fewer incidents of mass shootings.
    Really? Isn't that because you're comparing apples (all 50 of the United States) with oranges (the "Western democracies" you reference are each One state, not a collection of 50), again (it's a theme with you, drawing phony parallels and false analogies)? I think it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    The restrictions I advance can demonstrably, dramatically impact gun violence and mass shootings
    The supposedly comparable countries had far fewer murderers and murders than the US did per capita before their anti-RKBA laws, and the anti-RKBA laws didn't raise the level of murders and murderers (and why would they?), I think is what you meant to say.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Further, these laws would leave any citizen with the desire to bear arms an appreciably better weapon with which to accomplish that than was the rule when the Founders established the right's protection.
    Irrelevant, due to reasons I've set out prior.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

  14. #701
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,262
    Thanks
    3,038
    Thanked 6,629 Times in 3,878 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147806
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    Well that's just false Town. I do support them, utterly.
    I said you didn't support the rational necessity. You declared it. You didn't prove that either of your alternatives or the more insulting proffer after were the product of reason, let alone necessity. That you favor them, to use support as loosely as you attempted declaration, isn't surprising or compelling, only indicative.

    No, that's what you're doing right now, and have been, ever since you pretended to not know which question I was asking you, after you summoned me to your little "digest" blog thread over there in the woods.
    Every bit of that is nonsense, so there's no real answering it beyond the note. You're misrepresenting or misremembering my response and mischaracterizing the mechanics of this place regarding a thread you similary mischaracterize. So...

    I haven't seen any evidence of that aside from this declaration of yours.
    I'm comfortable with the reader making their own decision on it and your judgment in the matter isn't material to me given your last and the illustration of its nature in what follows.

    Nihilo just believes that humans all already possess the right to keep and to bear arms
    Not a point argued against, by anyone in any person, first, second, or third.

    Every single nation's military has concluded just exactly what Town himself knows to be true, and yet he won't cop to it---that when we are imperiled, when our life is in danger, having a standard issue selective fire rifle or carbine is just a much nicer thing to have in that moment than not to. That's exactly what the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms" means, according to the Supreme Court.
    Why you pretend I haven't dealt particularly with this is anyone's guess. And, again, I support the bearing of arms superior to those in production during the time when the Founders framed the right, with an eye toward raising an army and understanding the necessity of arms as everything from production of goods to frontier protection.

    Town's view is the minority view.
    Which view? Most people favor some of what I think is necessary. Many oppose other parts of my proffer.

    There are 50 countries in the Union of nations we call the United States.
    No. There are fifty states in what is The United States of America. Your parlance would constitute a significant departure from the norm.

    The US outnumbers the "western democracies" he keeps referencing, and our Supreme Court has said what I have said, and against what he's saying.
    Ah, so that's why you keep trying that, so you can claim a numerical superiority. Good grief. But then, again, those states within our singular nation that have stronger gun laws demonstrate an appreciably advanced degree of safety from gun violence, if not to the same extent that stronger measures of law in every other Western democracy produces.

    On the first point, that's a lie
    It's not. But it will frame your continued on the point. Here you go:

    I wrote, in post 155 (linked) that I favored:
    Registration
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    Disagreed.
    There are a lot of reasons why it makes sense and not a one against it that I've heard. It can make it easier to keep track of lost and stolen guns, among other things.

    A safety course in handling firearms.
    Disagreed.
    Great. Why? What's the rational objection to a safety course? To making people safer in the operation of the gun?
    The closest you came to a semblance of support was that you liked the notion and would consider it as a school program. So no lie at all. And I don't need to characterize you not remembering your own position as a lie or you as a liar to make the point. You owe me an apology, but I don't expect it given what follows and your apparent investment.

    and on the second point, we already do that, against the Second Amendment's proscription of such infringements. I'm unwilling to further restrict what's already illegally restricted.
    You're not actually addressing my second point with that.

    I think you're just a liar Town.
    And you're just as wrong as you were a moment ago.

    The more I type out this response, the less charity I can afford when interpreting your position. You're a liar.
    Charity? I'd settle for reasonable restraint, but that's life for you. All you really manage is to underscore which of us is overly steered by emotion here, Nihilo. I don't need to kill the messenger. Your message is problematic enough for you. You have to reshape our nation into 50, attempt to call a lie to a statement of fact, supra, and that's a sad waste of both our time and energy.

    Really? Isn't that because you're comparing apples (all 50 of the United States) with oranges (the "Western democracies" you reference are each One state, not a collection of 50), again (it's a theme with you, drawing phony parallels and false analogies)? I think it is.
    No. I'm comparing nations with our foundational approach to law and general guiding cultural markers in how we approach the problem of gun violence, how the differences impact the result and how uniform and predictable those results are, how they are reflected to a lessened extent in our own states that attempt to model more closely with their choices.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    Arthur Brain (January 15th, 2018)

  16. #702
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,262
    Thanks
    3,038
    Thanked 6,629 Times in 3,878 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147806
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilo View Post
    What are you even talking about Town? Why did you quote yourself talking to Yorzhik as if that's what I was commenting on?
    That isn't what I did. What I did was literally tell you that I don't have a problem noting when I get something wrong. That in your repeated if late attempt to assert an inability to back off a point because of some egot connection...I used the comment to Yor, whom I'm also disagreeing with on the larger point, to illustrate that isn't the case. Then I continued with our conversation.

    It's not convoluted. I made a contrary statement then provided evidence for the assertion. Simple as that.

    Are you that dishonest that you'd steer poor Arthur and Rusha into thinking that I was responding to that comment, rather than the one I actually did comment on?
    No one could read your next comment as a response to my illustration. The reason your name reappears is to keep anyone from being confused on by a quote box without title appearing underneath a quote of mine.

    You're either devilish, or you might want to look into the onset of dementia or something along those lines I'm afraid.
    No, you were out of balance at that point that you don't see what I suspect you'd recognize easily enough without that blood in your eye, Nihilo, the thing that had you calling liar repeatedly instead of really seeing what you were looking at.

    Actually Town, you're the one who's urinating on my back and insisting that it's just a warm rain.Very capable gas lighting on your part. Expert display of it here.
    I suppose I can't expect you to properly characterize what you aren't understanding, so I hope at some point you'll calm down, read it again and realize that's among a number of mistakes your temper led you into.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  17. #703
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    33,182
    Thanks
    17,760
    Thanked 16,469 Times in 12,936 Posts

    Blog Entries
    28
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    YouTube is filtering out stories on the Las Vegas shooting – Here's ..

    YouTube has changed its search algorithm to ensure that only sources it deems “authoritative” show up at the top of search results, but has not revealed how it determines which sources are considered authoritative and which aren’t.
    Why the change?

    In the days following the Las Vegas shooting, many videos appeared presenting “conspiracy theories” or misinformation. Some examples of suppressed videos are those that promote the idea that the shooting was staged by the government to promote gun control, that there was a second shooter, or that claim the shooter represented anti-fascist or anti-Trump or far-right groups or interests.

    Now, when you search “Las Vegas shooting” on YouTube, only mainstream media sources show up on the first pages. The so-called “conspiracy” videos are still on YouTube, but they can be much more difficult to find.


    No more free speech folks. No more questions, just believe what we tell you or else.

  18. #704
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    19,262
    Thanks
    3,038
    Thanked 6,629 Times in 3,878 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147806
    Or, it's appropriate to filter out misinformation and half-cocked nonsense when people are looking for actual information and authority.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  19. #705
    Over 5000 post club Nihilo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The North & the West
    Posts
    5,418
    Thanks
    666
    Thanked 1,278 Times in 1,031 Posts

    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    278826
    It's 1968. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his friends want to possess M14s* and carry them openly.

    What say you?

    I say, I said, Yes.


    * - At this time, the M14, a selective fire rifle, was standard issue weaponry for the Army, along with the new M16.
    THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS RISEN. Matthew 28:6 (KJV) Mark 16:6 (KJV) Luke 24:6 (KJV)

    Romans 10:9 (KJV) 1st Corinthians 15:14 (KJV)

    Trevor: "I know how to drive, man."
    Ricky: "You also know how to be stupid."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us