Democrats revealing the Assault Weapons Ban today.

myp · Feb 6, 2013

clax said:
no again, its something you are in desperate lacking of, common sense. no follow me here, I know your arrogance states that I'd someone that doesn't have a phd can't have common sense, but put your bigotry aside for a minuet and follow the simplest logic.

If nations that have many guns and nations that have no guns show the same results the obviously guns aren't a variable that is simple third grade science.

You don't even understand the basic cause and effect correlation.

All I am saying is before we butcher our constitution we look at cultural issues.

And social means having to do with society, invest in a dictionary.

You thinking such a complex issue is common sense IS EGOTISTICAL- pretty much by definition- you are saying you are above the data, so it is ANTI INTELLECTUAL too. ALL the nations with guns DO NOT show the same results and if they do you need to show HOW and that the data is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. But that requires SCIENCE and you just reject that. This isn't 1300 anymore- we have learned that our intuitions aren't that great. Stop thinking everything is common sense, maybe you'll learn a thing or two about the world

myp · Feb 6, 2013

Let me put it this way, calx. Our intuitions strongly tell us that time goes by at the same rate for everyone and everything (and that intuition is certainly more strong and universal than what YOUR intuition tells you about guns as with guns different people's intuitions tell them polar opposite things). But WE KNOW that time does not go at the same rate for everyone and that as you approach the speed of light, time actually goes much slower. We have even proved this empirically despite what our stupid intuitions might have once told us.

clax · Feb 6, 2013

myp said:
You thinking such a complex issue is common sense IS EGOTISTICAL- pretty much by definition- you are saying you are above the data, so it is ANTI INTELLECTUAL too. ALL the nations with guns DO NOT show the same results and if they do you need to show HOW and that the data is STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. But that requires SCIENCE and you just reject that. This isn't 1300 anymore- we have learned that our intuitions aren't that great. Stop thinking everything is common sense, maybe you'll learn a thing or two about the world

You have to have common sense in order to use it. I don't need a list of statistics and data to tell me its an issue with society. Really, I see it first hand I know, I am not disagreeing with you, you are simply wrong.

myp · Feb 6, 2013

clax said:
You have to have common sense in order to use it. I don't need a list of statistics and data to tell me its an issue with society. Really, I see it first hand I know, I am not disagreeing with you, you are simply wrong.

Lol, the guy on the other side of the fence who wants to ban ALL guns because it will stop all gun crime says the same thing, ironically. To him it is all common sense too. I suppose now you will tell me that your common sense is real common sense and his isn't. In reality both of you are in the same silly boat.

clax · Feb 6, 2013

myp said:
Let me put it this way, calx. Our intuitions strongly tell us that time goes by at the same rate for everyone and everything (and that intuition is certainly more strong and universal than what YOUR intuition tells you about guns as with guns different people's intuitions tell them polar opposite things). But WE KNOW that time does not go at the same rate for everyone and that as you approach the speed of light, time actually goes much slower. We have even proved this empirically despite what our stupid intuitions might have once told us.

Time? Speed of light? What in the hell are you ranting about.

I still stand by the same thing I have for 36 years, guns don't kill people, killers do. I don't need to involve time and space to explain something so utterly obvious a give year old can understand.

I think we as people should petition colleges to include a common sense class, because using relativity to attempt to explain that guns are dangerous if handled improperly its about the farthest thing from common sense I can think of.

Way to go myp you have out done yourself
:bounce:

myp · Feb 6, 2013

clax said:
Time? Speed of light? What in the hell are you ranting about.

I still stand by the same thing I have for 36 years, guns don't kill people, killers do. I don't need to involve time and space to explain something so utterly obvious a give year old can understand.

I think we as people should petition colleges to include a common sense class, because using relativity to attempt to explain that guns are dangerous if handled improperly its about the farthest thing from common sense I can think of.

Way to go myp you have out done yourself
:bounce:

That is your problem- you don't even understand methodology which is why the space-time continuum analogy went right past your head. To you it is all intuitive. If common sense is common sense, it can't be taught, right? Unless you decide to read a bit more and try to understand the real world, you will never see what is really there. But to you, that is probably more convenient anyway. Ironically, when it comes time to do something technical you will turn to people who use more rigorous methodologies to practice their trade and whose knowledge base was built on such, more rigorous methods- people like doctors.

clax · Feb 6, 2013

myp said:
Lol, the guy on the other side of the fence who wants to ban ALL guns because it will stop all gun crime says the same thing, ironically. To him it is all common sense too. I suppose now you will tell me that your common sense is real common sense and his isn't. In reality both of you are in the same silly boat.

No, this person that you created may have common sense, but that proposal is against the law, that second amendment kind of ruins his argument.

You are in the silly boat that the way a gun looks has an effect on its deadlyness, like painting a geo metro red makes it a Corvette. You can't understand common sense if you don't have any, sorry myp

myp · Feb 6, 2013

clax said:
No, this person that you created may have common sense, but that proposal is against the law, that second amendment kind of ruins his argument.

You are in the silly boat that the way a gun looks has an effect on its deadlyness, like painting a geo metro red makes it a Corvette. You can't understand common sense if you don't have any, sorry myp

Um... your argument a second ago was based on common sense and the moment you realize that has no substantial grounding, you switch to the Constitution? Lol.

And you misrepresent my position again in your second bit. Go look at all my posts- never said anything about how a gun looks...

clax · Feb 6, 2013

myp said:
That is your problem- you don't even understand methodology which is why the space-time continuum analogy went right past your head. To you it is all intuitive. If common sense is common sense, it can't be taught, right? Unless you decide to read a bit more and try to understand the real world, you will never see what is really there. But to you, that is probably more convenient anyway. Ironically, when it comes time to do something technical you will turn to people who use more rigorous methodologies to practice their trade and whose knowledge base was built on such, more rigorous methods- people like doctors.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, every time you talk about space time continuum in relation to gun control it makes me laugh.

If you had any common sense we wouldn't even be discussing fields you falsely call assault weapons in regard to gun crime being that they are involved in so little crime.

Your rhetoric has devastated your credibility. Sorry nothing you say is slightly intelligent.

clax · Feb 6, 2013

myp said:
Um... your argument a second ago was based on common sense and the moment you realize that has no substantial grounding, you switch to the Constitution? Lol.

And you misrepresent my position again in your second bit. Go look at all my posts- never said anything about how a gun looks...

Yeah, sometimes the law must be obeyed.

No I didn't misrepresent your position, a rifle falsely called an assault weapon is only classified as such based on looks only. Your bigotry has clouded your judgment, you are a political hack.

tecoyah · Feb 6, 2013

clax said:
Yeah, sometimes the law must be obeyed.

No I didn't misrepresent your position, a rifle falsely called an assault weapon is only classified as such based on looks only. Your bigotry has clouded your judgment, you are a political hack.

This Is The Last Warning You Will Receive....STOP THE CHILDISH NAME CALLING

misterveritis · Feb 6, 2013

myp said:
Lol, you naming names doesn't say anything and the fact that you name a few, including those "you have forgotten" is not conducive to what their work actually means.

I know enough. There were some who understood how significant a driving force liberty and freedom are (Adam Smith and Hayek, for example) and others who preferred the tyranny of centralization (Marx, Engels, Keynes). As far as your snide comment about the works I have forgotten, well, that is what happens when someone has been a lifelong learner for more than 50 years. When you have read your 2,000th book get back with me.

Your use of figures (attacking the person or building an argument based on the person) and talking points is the issue here, not the use of actual studies and data. Ironically all of the men you just mentioned (perhaps minus Marx and Engels, but I am not familiar enough with their work to say) would opt for the latter and not the former.

I suppose to some here the truth will always look like talking points.

Smith and Hayek developed their theories and their worked views based on their observations over a long period of time. Their books and what little I have read of M. Friedman have all influenced me positively.

On the other hand Marx, Engels and Keynes influenced me negatively. Marx was the worst, the most damaging over a long period of time. But Keynes has caused enormous misery and continues to do so.

misterveritis · Feb 6, 2013

myp said:
Also, and I repeat myself, Federal funding does not mean the studies are politically driven...

How do you know? Did you do a study? If the funding comes from a regulatory agency the funding buys a study to bolster the case for more of whatever that program provides. Occasionally, from time to time they might accidentally fund a study that is unbiased. But that is not the way to bet.

misterveritis · Feb 6, 2013

Relativistic versus human speeds.

clax said:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, every time you talk about space time continuum in relation to gun control it makes me laugh.

That was amusing. I suppose our intuition about such things as time dilation would be more apparent if we lived our lives at relativistic speeds. When guns and people begin moving at speeds approaching that of light myp will have a point.

He overstated his case that we cannot always depend upon our intuition to seek, to discover, to know the right answer to every problem. But he is wrong, in my opinion, to use the example he did to make the case that humans cannot intuit human behavior. We can make very good judgments because we have been immersed in our humanity and live at human speeds.

misterveritis · Feb 6, 2013

myp said:
You are very familiar with economics are you? Look at the literature. You are tremendously misinformed about the methodologies of economics (again going back to how science works) as well as popular theory.

Some people were right and some were wrong. I prefer the ones who were right. You prefer the ones who were wrong. I get it.

I will stick with Smith, Hayek and Friedman. You seem to be stuck on stu...er, on Keynes.

misterveritis · Feb 6, 2013

I wonder how that happened? I blinded them with science

myp said:
You don't understand science and are not trying to.

Then how did I end up being a senior engineer manager on a program worth more than a billion dollars? Clearly I am mystified. Engineers tend to have some familiarity with fundamental science, some fundamental math, and other useful things.

clax · Feb 6, 2013

misterveritis said:
That was amusing. I suppose our intuition about such things as time dilation would be more apparent if we lived our lives at relativistic speeds. When guns and people begin moving at speeds approaching that of light myp will have a point.

He overstated his case that we cannot always depend upon our intuition to seek, to discover, to know the right answer to every problem. But he is wrong, in my opinion, to use the example he did to make the case that humans cannot intuit human behavior. We can make very good judgments because we have been immersed in our humanity and live at human speeds.

Yeah, the way to debate liberals is simply corner them with logic.

If humans can't intuit human behavior, we have no business being humans. I am 12 credits shy of a masters in behavior psychology. I left school because I lost my Mensa grant, over a retarded fine arts credit, but I an thinking of returning and finishing, now that I have the money.

for classes is all I am lacking, I can get better pay from the department, I will not use the degree, I don't want the pay cut.

myp · Feb 6, 2013

misterveritis said:
How do you know? Did you do a study? If the funding comes from a regulatory agency the funding buys a study to bolster the case for more of whatever that program provides. Occasionally, from time to time they might accidentally fund a study that is unbiased. But that is not the way to bet.

Again and for the billionth time... basic research at the NIH- you know, the stuff that leads to drug development and clinical trials that produce drugs that extend and save millions of lives? That stuff.

myp · Feb 6, 2013

misterveritis said:
I know enough. There were some who understood how significant a driving force liberty and freedom are (Adam Smith and Hayek, for example) and others who preferred the tyranny of centralization (Marx, Engels, Keynes). As far as your snide comment about the works I have forgotten, well, that is what happens when someone has been a lifelong learner for more than 50 years. When you have read your 2,000th book get back with me.

I suppose to some here the truth will always look like talking points.

Smith and Hayek developed their theories and their worked views based on their observations over a long period of time. Their books and what little I have read of M. Friedman have all influenced me positively.

On the other hand Marx, Engels and Keynes influenced me negatively. Marx was the worst, the most damaging over a long period of time. But Keynes has caused enormous misery and continues to do so.

Thankfully great men like Hayek, Friedman, and Keynes rejected your simplest methodology and looked to more rigorous forms of experiment and thought- that is what made them great. None of them started with this "liberty vs. tyranny" or "black v. white" narrative.

myp · Feb 6, 2013

misterveritis said:
Then how did I end up being a senior engineer manager on a program worth more than a billion dollars? Clearly I am mystified. Engineers tend to have some familiarity with fundamental science, some fundamental math, and other useful things.

There are plenty of people in scientific fields who don't understand the thought basis of science. In your case, maybe you just haven't realized its application in various areas outside of engineering.

Democrats revealing the Assault Weapons Ban today.

Similar threads