Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gregaquaman has a Right to talk about Rights, and it is my Privilege

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #76
    Originally posted by goodlun View Post
    You can extrapolate data to include the past. You understand that their is a left side of a number line right?
    Also anytime your not using explicit data your extrapolating..
    I stopped reading here.

    That happened after I accepted "You understand that their is a left side of a number line right?"

    Taking a step backwards, what does that even mean? Are you talking about the real number line?

    Last edited by W. Rabbit; 1/18/2020 5:45pm, .

    Comment


      #77
      Originally posted by W. Rabbit View Post
      I stopped reading here.

      That happened after I accepted "You understand that their is a left side of a number line right?"

      Taking a step backwards, what does that even mean?
      I care not, I was about done with you anyways
      Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
      –George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

      Comment


        #78
        Originally posted by goodlun View Post
        I care not, I was about done with you anyways
        You're like my blue belt. So close, yet so far away.

        Comment


          #79
          Originally posted by W. Rabbit View Post
          You're like my blue belt. So close, yet so far away.
          Based on your lack of understanding of lower body submissions that blue belt isn't likely close at all..........
          Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
          –George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

          Comment


            #80
            Originally posted by goodlun View Post
            The biggest problem with social sciences, is biasing is ever present expert or not.
            Heck we have a biasing problem even know in physical sciences as well, but the analysis of physical evidence does leave less wiggle room but I have seen arguments between post docs about how to model/analyse data that they both agree that was collected cleanly. So not arguing over the data itself but what it means. Data collection for physical science can have biasing but its typically easier to control for.

            Now you move over to Social Sciences you run into major issues of biasing in even how data is collected.
            Bearing in mind DrGonzo prioritized guns as an indication of freedom based on the fact he really likes guns.

            So I still might go with the real studies done in this case.
            Whitsunday Martial Arts Airlie Beach North Queensland.
            http://www.facebook.com/#!/WhitsundayMartialArts

            Comment


              #81
              Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
              Bearing in mind DrGonzo prioritized guns as an indication of freedom based on the fact he really likes guns.

              So I still might go with the real studies done in this case.
              Your missing the fact that it is a right to self defense, something that is disappearing and not too slowly in other countries.
              Or
              I should really say, its a right to EFFECTIVE self defense.

              Freedom is putting the power in your hands, not relying on the state for protection. Yes of course we would like the state to provide protection.
              However the ability to be self determinate is the ultimate in freedom.

              That is the part of the argument you keep on being willfully ignorant of.
              Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
              –George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

              Comment


                #82
                Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
                Bearing in mind DrGonzo prioritized guns as an indication of freedom based on the fact he really likes guns.

                So I still might go with the real studies done in this case.
                You are not going with real studies.

                You did not even read or understand the study links that you posted on firearms.

                All you are doing is posting links to studies that you think might support your own confirmation bias,

                without reading them, or understanding them.

                You have already acknowledged that the research regarding your position possibly being correct is inconclusive,

                when I read the summary published from the study link that you posted, but that you clearly did not read previously, back to you.

                Comment


                  #83
                  Originally posted by goodlun View Post
                  Your missing the fact that it is a right to self defense, something that is disappearing and not too slowly in other countries.
                  Or
                  I should really say, its a right to EFFECTIVE self defense.

                  Freedom is putting the power in your hands, not relying on the state for protection. Yes of course we would like the state to provide protection.
                  However the ability to be self determinate is the ultimate in freedom.

                  That is the part of the argument you keep on being willfully ignorant of.
                  I think the larger point being than Greg seems inconsistent.

                  He seems to think that Australians should not have firearms as a technology,

                  but should still have matches as a technology,

                  when much of Australia is currently ablaze from Australians being careless and naughty with matches technology.

                  I would add, I am not here to tell Australia what to do,

                  even though Australia is covered in flames and smoke,

                  but Greg thinks that he should tell Americans what they should do in the United States.

                  And he himself, is inconsistent in his own views regarding potentially dangerous technologies like matches, or firearms.
                  Last edited by Dr. Gonzo; 1/18/2020 6:20pm, .

                  Comment


                    #84
                    Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
                    You bring up cultists.

                    Then, in the statement below you state that even though you cannot produce conclusive research,

                    the reason you cannot produce conclusive research is the people you disagree with are conspiratorially blocking that research.

                    Any chance that you are simply a member of the "Guns Are Bad" cult,

                    and that your mind is made up,

                    based simply on your own opinion and confirmation bias?

                    And that you project and counter accuse others of being cultists,

                    because as a cultist, that is how you see others, through the lens of your own identity and ways of thinking?

                    Because that is certainly how you are presenting yourself.
                    Not at all. If there is a legitimate study that shows handing out guns like candy reduces gun violence then I can be influenced by that.

                    If I was part of the guns are bad cult why would I have promoted training, registration and research?
                    This does not effect a lot of the pro gun marketing of personal defense or freedom to own a gun or even the laughably unlikely scenario of defeating an oppressive government. All it does is removes entitlement and creates a bit of inconvenience.

                    It opens the door for people to complain why should they get standardised training when they shoot totally awesome allready. Why should they be refused service in a pub or be required to carry a gun in a holster and not in their trakie daks.

                    You are making an ideological argument. You have since you started. I have been making a research based argument.

                    When you make an ideological argument you take some statistics that confirms bias.(like anti vaxers) to create a conclusion that fits your narrative.

                    When I look at the problem objectively I look at the studies done by experts and pay attention to their conclusions. I mean for some reason training isn't included in gun studies so Mabye that is the least important of my concerns.

                    The conclusions might taste like shit. But they are the facts of the matter.

                    And better research would also create better conclusions.

                    But notice that nobody uses the research. Everyone just becomes their own Google expert.

                    So if you wanted to discuss bias. I would suggest you look in the mirror.
                    Whitsunday Martial Arts Airlie Beach North Queensland.
                    http://www.facebook.com/#!/WhitsundayMartialArts

                    Comment


                      #85
                      Originally posted by Dr. Gonzo View Post
                      I think the larger point being than Greg seems inconsistent.

                      He seems to think that Australians should not have firearms as a technology,

                      but should still have matches as a technology,

                      when much of Australia is currently ablaze from Australians being careless and naughty with matches technology.

                      I would add, I am not here to tell Australia what to do,

                      even though Australia is covered in flames and smoke,

                      but Greg thinks that he should tell Americans what they should do in the United States.

                      And he himself, is inconsistent in his own views regarding potentially dangerous technologies like matches, or firearms.
                      I mean they have already banned Novelty Cigarette lighters
                      https://www.productsafety.gov.au/ban...rette-lighters
                      Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
                      –George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

                      Comment


                        #86
                        Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
                        Not at all. If there is a legitimate study that shows handing out guns like candy reduces gun violence then I can be influenced by that.
                        Why does handing out guns have to reduce "gun violence" as opposed to "violence" also who the fuck is handing out guns, those fuckers are expensive.

                        Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
                        If I was part of the guns are bad cult why would I have promoted training, registration
                        Without documenting a need for those things.

                        Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
                        So if you wanted to discuss bias. I would suggest you look in the mirror.
                        You show a lot of bias by calling for things without showing a need for it.
                        Such as saying people need training but haven't provided anything that remotely comes close to statically significant in regards to problems coming up from a lack of training.
                        As far as registration you also haven't' done a due diligence to show that it would solve any problems.
                        California requires registration, can you show that it helps?
                        Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
                        –George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

                        Comment


                          #87
                          Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
                          Not at all. If there is a legitimate study that shows handing out guns like candy reduces gun violence then I can be influenced by that.
                          You are the only one making allusions to handing out guns as if handing out candy to kids.
                          Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
                          You are making an ideological argument. You have since you started.
                          No, I have made the argument that there is not any scientific reason to support further gun restrictions,

                          as violent crime and murder is correlated to poverty, population density, and proximity to the illegal drug trade activities,

                          and has not been shown to be reduced by increasing restrictions on firearm ownership by private citizens.
                          Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
                          I have been making a research based argument.

                          When you make an ideological argument you take some statistics that confirms bias.(like anti vaxers) to create a conclusion that fits your narrative.
                          You are doing exactly what you accuse anti-vaxxers of doing.

                          You do not read the studies of the links you post, we have already demonstrated that on this very thread.

                          Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
                          When I look at the problem objectively I look at the studies done by experts and pay attention to their conclusions.

                          But notice that nobody uses the research. Everyone just becomes their own Google expert.
                          On the contrary, I not only read and use "the research",

                          I am a government contractor that is paid by US government agencies to do research, and interpret research, and to implement risk management initiatives off of research - including regarding issues related to multiple municipal resiliency and risk management.

                          And I have a PhD and three masters degrees that are all directly relevant to being able to interpret the data and findings and limitations of this type of research.

                          So, one of us is paid to help their government read, interpret and operationalize research for a living, and has those related professional and academic credentials out the wahzoo.

                          Are you quite sure that you are not the armchair quarter back, Google Fu, Pseudo expert, here?

                          I only make this point because you keep claiming expertise with "the research", and that you rely on "Experts" and that others are "Google Experts".

                          But what I have said about what I do for a living and my credentials happens to be true.
                          Last edited by Dr. Gonzo; 1/18/2020 6:58pm, .

                          Comment


                            #88
                            Originally posted by goodlun View Post
                            I mean they have already banned Novelty Cigarette lighters
                            https://www.productsafety.gov.au/ban...rette-lighters
                            If Greg is not calling out for matches, lighters, and all forms of lit on fire products being banned from ownership by Australian private citizens,

                            when Australian citizens have used those matches and lighters to light a ridiculously large portion of his country on fire,

                            killing countless animals, thousands of homes, and caused human deaths,

                            but continues to project his unsolicited confirmation bias towards American private citizen firearm ownership restrictions,

                            he is not only a total hypocrite,

                            but he also has a huge smoking beam sticking out of his eye while butting in regarding other people's eyes across the ocean from him, that really, he cannot even see, and only googles about.

                            Comment


                              #89
                              Originally posted by goodlun View Post
                              Your missing the fact that it is a right to self defense, something that is disappearing and not too slowly in other countries.
                              Or
                              I should really say, its a right to EFFECTIVE self defense.

                              Freedom is putting the power in your hands, not relying on the state for protection. Yes of course we would like the state to provide protection.
                              However the ability to be self determinate is the ultimate in freedom.

                              That is the part of the argument you keep on being willfully ignorant of.
                              Nope bullshit.

                              And it is kind of why hippy communes didn't work.

                              If I take fifty guys and let them run buck wild. It will wind up that although they all have technically the same freedom it practically doesn't work out. Big guys will beat up little guys. Rich guys will beat up poor guys and so on. There is no system that protects the strong from the weak.

                              So guns are used as this ideological equalizer that creates self defense and freedom. Big guys now get shot by little guys. And so the balance of power evens out.

                              But it doesn't work that way either. Because you still don't have a fair society. There are not natural freedoms. And so if you get a gun to even the odds and they get two guys with guns. The odds are not even. The deck is still stacked against you.

                              So how do you even the odds then?

                              Well in Florida police shoot fifty more people a year than in Australia. You give your state more power and more equipment to oppress the public. Who have more power and more equipment to oppress each other.

                              You are not evening out the playing field the way you think you are.

                              Let's go back to training, registration and research.

                              That puts the balance of power on people who are held accountable for their actions. If you walk down the street with a gun. You have something to loose by misusing it. So suddenly the concept of responsibility is more than hopes and prayers.

                              If you get robbed. He shoots you it is illegal. You shoot him it isn't. Balance of power is in your favor.

                              If you have to use a gun. You should with training be less likely to be a dickhead. And theoretically more effective in stopping bad guys.

                              With real research instead of that whole hopefully this works statement. You adopt a fact based approach. You can't really argue for or against without testing it. That is silly.

                              And unfortunately registration makes the other systems work better. And I know that tastes like shit. But sorry some things do.

                              So no. You can't just make up completely unsubstantiated conclusions about what makes freedom based on a very flawed logic.
                              Whitsunday Martial Arts Airlie Beach North Queensland.
                              http://www.facebook.com/#!/WhitsundayMartialArts

                              Comment


                                #90
                                Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
                                Nope bullshit.
                                Holy fuck your dumb............................................

                                Originally posted by gregaquaman View Post
                                If I take fifty guys and let them run buck wild.
                                The right to self defense isn't equivalent to anarchy at all.
                                I am not sure as to why you think it.
                                Hence why I said holy fuck your dumb.
                                Of the single rapier fight between valiant men, having both skill, he that is the best wrestler, or if neither of them can wrestle, the strongest man most commonly kills the other, or leaves him at his mercy.
                                –George Silver, Paradoxes of Defence

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X