The only numbers that matter in this are 242 and 47. That's the number of Republicans in the House and the Senate respectively. Bloomberg's idea will die the death that it deserves. It's good to know that our civil rights are protected for the moment.
I think you underestimate the number 99, as in 99%.
I think you also underestimate the impact that the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords had on the country.
The NCIS doesn't work, because states don't report the names of felons, drug convictions, and worst of all, those who are dangerously mentally ill.
Your civil rights are not protected by all the loopholes in the gun check; you are simply aiding and abetting criminals getting guns by opposing it.
And I don't think there are as many Republicans on board against this legislation as you think there are.
Republicans haven't done much other than posture and focus on their culture war issues; those numbers are going to change, and not in their favor, in 2012. The Republicans are at an all time low for approval ratings, and at an all time high for disapproval.
The results from voters earlier this week did not go unnoticed.
You Greg have a very distorted idea of what rights are and what rights you have. And clearly you haven't read this bill, this proposed legislation. You have a knee-jerk reaction against everything, but know practically nothing.
Not a good combination. But then the Republicans have been the Know-nothing party for a while now; they seem particularly anti-education, as well as anti-science.
Bloomberg's idea has legs, and those 600 mayors he mentioned? They are sure as heck not all Republicans, so you might want to think again about this whole partisan view you have.
much as i have real issues with monty bloomberg these days, after all, I still vote in NYC elections and I did vote for Mr. Burns...I will sign his petition. He's done so many good things for NYC and this is the rational human side of the man.
I'm not a Republican. I'm a Libertarian with some Green leanings. But with a Republican House and more than forty Republicans in the Senate, this bill has no chance.
With regard to the supposed 99%, allow me to observe that I've seen activists like the Occupy Wall Street types before. They're lots of talk, but when it comes to action, they fall apart, bickering amongst themselves.
The 2012 election will be decided on the economy, not guns. But I don't see the numbers changing all that much. In addition, the states individually have moved far in the direction that I want, and that's not going to change for a long time.
You said that I don't know anything about the proposal. Actually, I do know that its goal is to take away my opportunity to buy a gun from another private citizen at a show. I don't want to have to pay a fee just to make a deal with another gun owner. I don't see why the government gets to interfere in a transaction over a legal product, one that is specifically guaranteed by the Constitution.
I don't recall insulting you, and I'll thank you to return the same courtesy.
My political philosophy is to favor the individual over the group. If regulation achieves that, then so be it. If freedom achieves that, it's also good.
Do you really not see how someone could agree with one party on some subjects, while agreeing with another party on others? I don't know any party that is consistent in its philosophy.
Greg, if you really want to keep up the siully belief that being green and libertarian is compatible--look at the Koch Brother's record for environmentalism, as they are one of the biggest funders of the Libertarian philosophy. Likewise, look at how the Cato Institute fights environmentalism.
Geroege Monbiot has called Libertarians "the True Social Parasites" due to their attitudes.
FatWhiteMan said... I wonder how many of his "signatures" are from real live people. Bloomturd has used letters "signed" by long dead people in ads before.
Nothing that man does is honest. And I wonder how many armed bodyguards he will take to Washington with him?
November 11, 2011 2:29 AM
Umm, got some citations for that? Or is it just another catalog of the fucking lies that you hear from the reichwing talkingshitheads like Limbaugh, Hannity, Bek and Savage?
There's a reason that dogs don't get to vote. They see the world as black or white.
You didn't address my political principle--supporting the individual over the group.
I believe that individuals ought to be free to act whenever their actions do not harm others. My carrying of a handgun harms no one who isn't threatening my life. If, on the other hand, I burn coal by the ton, I'm spreading dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere. In that case, I'm infringing on the rights of others.
So:
I'm Libertarian on matters of owning weapons, having an abortion, using substances, running a small business (with some limits), choosing a religion, marrying whomever I want (presuming consenting adults--no children and no dogs), and so forth.
I'm Green when it comes to health care and the environment. Those are both cases in which the problems are bigger than one individual can handle. I'm also Green about corporations. I can deal on an equal basis with a small business, but a corporation requires the whole of society to control it.
Laci the Dog, try to be a little more complex in your understanding.
You are too stupid to understand what I was saying. But those who can't teach.
Green realises that the individual sometimes takes a backseat to society.
Your positions would not make you a libertarian if you knew what Libertarians actually thought.
The real issue is what you see as more important--the nonsensical belief in gun rights, which is as idiotic as the belief that I can dump toxic waste on my land, or the environment.
As I said,if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't go around saying stupid things.
Unfortunately, the future of the world is being shaped by people like you passing on their ignorance.
It's better to have people who can think rather than regurgitate "facts".
Greg also proves my point that libertarianism is basically fascism wearing a smiley face when he sez: There's a reason that dogs don't get to vote. They see the world as black or white.
But they allow ignorant bastards like you to vote.
Greg, you are confusing a belief in civil liberties with libertarianism. They are two different things.
Greg wrote: "My carrying of a handgun harms no one who isn't threatening my life. "
I'm sure that man who shot himself in the leg while in the process of returning his hand gun to his car thought that as well.
The reality is that his firearm WAS dangerous; in this case to him, but it could as easily have harmed someone else when it discharged as the gun owner.
You consistently underestimate the risk, while you over-estimate the dangers that you claim for a justification.
Neither makes you very credible in your arguments.
"Unfortunately, the future of the world is being shaped by people like you passing on their ignorance.
It's better to have people who can think rather than regurgitate "facts". "
he is addressing the difference between understanding the significance of facts, of thinking which is fact driven, not where the facts are twisted and contorted and cherry-picked to conform or support an ideology.
That would include repudiating most of what passes as intuitive ideas called 'common sense solutions' on the right. That is mislabeling ideas which are simplistic, where by simplistic I mean the second definition of the word, from dictionary.com, the World English Dictionary:
World English Dictionary simplistic (sɪmˈplɪstɪk) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide] —adj 2. oversimplifying complex problems; making unrealistically simple judgments or analyses
I know, both from what Laci writes here, and from conversation, that Laci and I both support the idea that facts should form and inform our ideas, opinions and conclusions. Good argument is not selectively looking for data which supports a point of view or position taken before acquiring the necessary knowledge base.
O.K., perhaps you can explain how a handgun is as dangerous as dumping toxic waste? Toxic waste has no legitimate use for a private individual. It is purely dangerous and can't be used or even left alone safely. A firearm, on the other hand, does have legitimate uses. I don't support the private ownership of nuclear weapons. A private person has no way to use such a device that won't harm others. I can use my firearms in ways that will not hurt anyone who isn't threatening my life. You keep pointing out accidents and crimes, while refusing to acknowledge the millions of gun owners who are responsible and legal with their weapons. Your argument is essentially that we should take away anything that is dangerous because someone might get hurt. You live in a false dream of a safe world. I say that we should hold people responsible for their actions, not their potentials. What you do matters a lot more than what you can do. I don't want to limit the range of action just because someone could make a bad choice.
Oh, and I know what a gun does and is for. I don't have a problem with that.
Dog Gone,
You overestimate the danger posed by a firearm to its owner or to others around that person. I understand the facts about accidents and crimes. My interpretation of those facts is that in comparison to the many dangers in this life, firearms pose an acceptable risk. People fall off ladders. Should we ban ladders or multistory buildings?
You and I know the same facts. You tell me that I'm not credible because I come to a different conclusion from yours, but in reality, we just disagree. Your statement shows you to be the kind of person who believes that anyone who disagrees with her must be stupid. That kind of authoritarian thinking is itself dangerous.
I have no problem punishing those who harm others without just cause. Why do you have a problem with leaving those of us who don't to do as we wish?
Wow, Greg, are you really as stupid as you come off in your comments?
A firearm besides being a weapon has a range of up to 2 miles in which it can cause damage.
Are you really a teacher--what do you teach special ed?
Do you say these stupid things to your students? Do you teach in a public school where you can't be fired? Do your students disrespect you as much as I do?
Greg, a dangerous item deserves respect and requires proper safety rules.
Greg, you are a total fuckwit in my opinion that you don't understand some very simple concepts.
Bloomturd used Freeland Borough, PA former Mayor Tim Martin's signature in an ad in USA today in October. http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/usa-today-10-20.pdf Martin signed a Bloomturd letter to the President in July. http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/letter_potus_07-08-11.pdf According to Bloomturd, Mayor Martin signed a letter to Congress two days before that. http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/letter_congress_tiahrt_070611.pdf He did it in May before that. http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/final_coalition_terror_gap_letter_112th_congress.pdf
Mayor Tom Martin died September of 2010. Of course now he at least is eligible to vote as a Democrat in Chicago.
You overestimate the danger posed by a firearm to its owner or to others around that person. I understand the facts about accidents and crimes. My interpretation of those facts is that in comparison to the many dangers in this life, firearms pose an acceptable risk.
Except that you are making an assessment which affects other people, taking away THEIR choice about that risk. You don't simply make the decision for yourself, and the number of acts of gun violence by previously law abiding people, particularly domestic abuse murder suicides as an example, PROVE that. At the same time, you fail to demonstrate that you are at a risk yourself from crime that would merit that level of being armed. You even object, so far as I can tell, to anyone suggesting that there SHOULD be a justifiable risk before putting others at risk from either bad judgment or accidental firing like the one at the stadium a few posts back.
O.K., since you insist on making this personal, please tell me how we're supposed to have a nation of educated workers without teachers? Those who can't, teach? Let me suggest that you take your arrogant ass into a classroom and see if you have the ability to get across important ideas. Given your dismissive attitude, I doubt that you could.
Your dismissal of the teaching profession sounds exactly like the Republicans that you criticize. Will you next ask me how many jobs I've created? You want a safe society? Imagine what our country would be like if we had no education. You think that we live in a dangerous world now. What if everyone in this country were uneducated?
You may tell me that I'm wrong. You may disagree with my interpretations. But I'll thank you not to demean my profession. If I recall correctly, you're a lawyer. Your own profession has been the recipient of many attacks, but not from me. I respect the role that lawyers play in our society. I also point out that it is because of the rule of law that I won't invite you to back up your insults. You see, I'm willing to respond in words.
As for the two mile range of a firearm, I'm aware of that. That's why I don't shoot a gun up into the air. I've never advocated disregarding the rules of safety when it comes to firearms. I follow them.
I understand your arguments, and I'm aware of the facts. I disagree. If you'd take your snout out of your asshole, you'd realize that disagreeing with you is not a mark of stupidity.
To everyone else,
I responded there in anger, and I hope that I haven't offended anyone too much in my choice of words.
Greg then wrote: "Your statement shows you to be the kind of person who believes that anyone who disagrees with her must be stupid. That kind of authoritarian thinking is itself dangerous."
Not at all; I am dissatisfied with what you present as critical thinking, and reject it for lacking both a factual basis or a clear line of logical reasoning. Your critical thinking is a failure. THAT is not making the assumption that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid, that is saying you aren't doing a good job of supporting an argument for what you have posited.
I am not an authoritarian,and I count myself very fortunate to have been raised to question authority, and to challenge bad reasoning and poor presentations of fact - including challenging the factual accuracy as well as conclusions of text books and teachers in my honors classes.
I've been reading at mid-college level or higher since I was in elementary school. I read quickly, with high comprehension and retention, so I tend to read a lot of content. I expect the same from you if you wish to be taken seriously; that is not the same as believing you to be stupid. I believe you lack critical thinking skills, and that you are not arguing from a good basis in fact.
"I have no problem punishing those who harm others without just cause."
Again, I find you simplistic in your reasoning, and lacking in an understanding of the subjects of criminal justice and punishment.
Please inform yourself about the differences between retributive justice and reparative justice. Then cross reference that with what works and doesn't work in the field of criminology.
"Why do you have a problem with leaving those of us who don't to do as we wish?"
Because what you propose DOES affect others, particularly in putting them at risk, and depriving them of choice. You incorrectly define this as an individual matter when it is not.
(So, Laci - have you found me to be either making an error in logic and critical thinking in any of these responses, or to be factually inaccurate?)
You speak proudly of your service, and in general, I honor those who served. In your case, though, since you demeaned by profession, do you really expect me to return honor for dishonor?
Dog Gone,
Where, exactly, do you find me failing at critical thinking? My values are different from yours--that's the source of our disagreement. It does not mean that I am failing to think critically.
I didn't demean your profession, Greg, I notice that you are not the most qualified to teach English.
Or are you a case of do as I say, not as I do?
Greg, you may be able to "correct" me, but you are not very experienced in the garden of wonders that is the English langauge.
Should I rip you for your typo?
You teach diction, yet are willing to be fuzzy in your expressing yourself.
Worse, you are not aware of John Donne's poem, which is in keeping with what dog gone said:
No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as a manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Where, exactly, do you find me failing at critical thinking?
You say a lot of stupid shit, Greg, but that one takes the biscuit!
You can't tell the difference between libertarian and democratic. You miss that these libertarian sites want people to believe they are libertarian, when they probably believe in civil liberties.
I'm not sure if you teach in a public school, Greg, but if you do and you're a libertarian, then you are truly a moron.
And as most greens will tell you, being a green libertarian is a joke.
And the libertarians will tell you being green is a joke--just look at the anti-enviormentalist shit put out byu the Cato institute.
And, as I said, I am being polite compared to what you would be getting in the military.
Greg, I am a dual national (US & UK) who has spent a good deal of time between the two countries.
The US has one of the poorest public educational systems in the world, The U.S. high school math and reading scores rank below those of most of the advanced economies in Europe and Asia.
I went to School in the UK and was reading at US University level when I was 12 (first form)! US University course are amazingly elementary. I look at my niece and nephew and their 12th grade projects look like ones we did when I was in first form!
The US has lost its industrial base due to libertarian policies destroying what little public education existed there.
As I said, you are a moron if you are truly libertarian.
But, you have no fucking idea of libertarians ACTUALLY believe?
And your comments about critical thinking are absolutely absurd. Critical thinking is questioning why someone might say something.
You're failure to understand what exactly libertarianism is is a clear demonstration of the fact you lack critical thinking skills.
And you claim to teach it--as I said, those who can't teach!
And calling someone "authoritarian" because they show you up for being an idiot is a joke, Greg.
Greg, Critical thinking using an example of the ideology of Libertarianism using the definition of "a political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives."
What does that mean? What is the implication of such a system? How would such a system effect society?
For example, one thing this would bring about would be the privatisation of most governmental functions, which is something you would have learned if you took the Libertarian Purity Test.
That means, if you are a public school teacher, that you would probably lose your job.
Next question, why would libertarians be so nebulous about what exactly this philosophy means?
Who are the major proponents of this theory?
Do you knwo who the Koch Brothers are, Greg? if not, you should learn who they are.
Of course you say that Dog Gone does a better job of reasoning than I do. She's on your side. Perhaps rather than merely asserting the statement, you'd like to offer examples?
I am aware of who the Koch brothers are, and I know about ALEC. I also know that no one buys my vote. But then, I tend to ignore political ads and do my own research.
If you don't like the label, Libertarian, how about classical liberal? You're correct to observe that terms for political positions are fuzzy.
My position is clear, as I've stated in these comments and elsewhere. I am for whatever strengthens individuals over groups. Sometimes, we as a society have to act together to make all of our lives better, but that's not contradictory to the principle that I just gave.
For those who agree with my principle, the debate then is what must we do to achieve that end.
The problem is that the 18th Century mind saw that citizenship not only protected rights, but cme with certain obligations to society.
Greg, you have made it clear that you believe in something that would be alien to even a Jefferson. Jefferson believed that citizenship had its obligation of service to the state.
So, you are hardly a "classical liberal". Even classical liberals believe in the necessity of government to regulate the affairs of society.
The problem is that the 18th Century mind saw that citizenship not only protected rights, but cme with certain obligations to society.
Greg lacks a correct understanding of the meaning of the political science terminology. Worse, he doesn't even know the scope of his own ignorance.
He can call himself anything he likes; but it is as meaningless as gibberish if he uses the word differently than the correct definition.
As to the utter lack of proportionality and critical thinking involved in getting into a gun fight over pocket money.....that is just a stupid choice, justified by bullshit hubris swagger not rational thought.
To quote from Shakespeare - bonus points if you recognize the quotation without looking it up, including play, character, act and scene.
"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;"
Greg wrote: Of course you say that Dog Gone does a better job of reasoning than I do. She's on your side
Laci and I agree on these recent posts, but we do not always agree. Even when we disagree,Laci still believes I am capable of quality critical thinking. What you posit is to accuse him of intellectual dishonesty. His assessment of my thought processes is not based on agreement, it is based on his knowledge and experience with logic and reasoning.
You simply do not engage in good critical reasoning - which is part of the basis why I distrust people who mean well with guns but who don't think rationally but rather react emotionally.
The only numbers that matter in this are 242 and 47. That's the number of Republicans in the House and the Senate respectively. Bloomberg's idea will die the death that it deserves. It's good to know that our civil rights are protected for the moment.
ReplyDeleteI think you underestimate the number 99, as in 99%.
ReplyDeleteI think you also underestimate the impact that the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords had on the country.
The NCIS doesn't work, because states don't report the names of felons, drug convictions, and worst of all, those who are dangerously mentally ill.
Your civil rights are not protected by all the loopholes in the gun check; you are simply aiding and abetting criminals getting guns by opposing it.
And I don't think there are as many Republicans on board against this legislation as you think there are.
Republicans haven't done much other than posture and focus on their culture war issues; those numbers are going to change, and not in their favor, in 2012. The Republicans are at an all time low for approval ratings, and at an all time high for disapproval.
The results from voters earlier this week did not go unnoticed.
You Greg have a very distorted idea of what rights are and what rights you have. And clearly you haven't read this bill, this proposed legislation. You have a knee-jerk reaction against everything, but know practically nothing.
Not a good combination. But then the Republicans have been the Know-nothing party for a while now; they seem particularly anti-education, as well as anti-science.
Bloomberg's idea has legs, and those 600 mayors he mentioned? They are sure as heck not all Republicans, so you might want to think again about this whole partisan view you have.
much as i have real issues with monty bloomberg these days, after all, I still vote in NYC elections and I did vote for Mr. Burns...I will sign his petition.
ReplyDeleteHe's done so many good things for NYC and this is the rational human side of the man.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteI'm not a Republican. I'm a Libertarian with some Green leanings. But with a Republican House and more than forty Republicans in the Senate, this bill has no chance.
With regard to the supposed 99%, allow me to observe that I've seen activists like the Occupy Wall Street types before. They're lots of talk, but when it comes to action, they fall apart, bickering amongst themselves.
The 2012 election will be decided on the economy, not guns. But I don't see the numbers changing all that much. In addition, the states individually have moved far in the direction that I want, and that's not going to change for a long time.
You said that I don't know anything about the proposal. Actually, I do know that its goal is to take away my opportunity to buy a gun from another private citizen at a show. I don't want to have to pay a fee just to make a deal with another gun owner. I don't see why the government gets to interfere in a transaction over a legal product, one that is specifically guaranteed by the Constitution.
We'll see, but you shouldn't be too hopeful.
I'm a Libertarian with some Green leanings.
ReplyDeleteThat means you're a moron, Greg, to trust industry to not pollute.
You can't be green and a libertarian unless you have no idea of what you are talking about. Green ideology implies regulation.
You may know grammar, but you seem to be pretty ignorant of other things.
I wonder how many of his "signatures" are from real live people. Bloomturd has used letters "signed" by long dead people in ads before.
ReplyDeleteNothing that man does is honest. And I wonder how many armed bodyguards he will take to Washington with him?
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI don't recall insulting you, and I'll thank you to return the same courtesy.
My political philosophy is to favor the individual over the group. If regulation achieves that, then so be it. If freedom achieves that, it's also good.
Do you really not see how someone could agree with one party on some subjects, while agreeing with another party on others? I don't know any party that is consistent in its philosophy.
OMG, FWM is about to launch a new career of repeating over and over again that the MAIG signatures include those of dead mayors.
ReplyDeleteGo on, I can take it.
No insult, Greg, it's the truth--you're an idiot if you think big business does anything for any reason other than the bottom line.
ReplyDeleteLibertarianism is a more moderate form of anarchy, but they both share the fact that no functional nation has experienced this form of government.
Straight up--you can't be green and a libertarian.
You're one or the other, or you're an idiot.
Greg, if you really want to keep up the siully belief that being green and libertarian is compatible--look at the Koch Brother's record for environmentalism, as they are one of the biggest funders of the Libertarian philosophy. Likewise, look at how the Cato Institute fights environmentalism.
ReplyDeleteGeroege Monbiot has called Libertarians "the True Social Parasites" due to their attitudes.
So, no insult, you're an idiot.
And that's my opinion.
November 11, 2011 12:15 AM
ReplyDeleteFatWhiteMan said...
I wonder how many of his "signatures" are from real live people. Bloomturd has used letters "signed" by long dead people in ads before.
Nothing that man does is honest. And I wonder how many armed bodyguards he will take to Washington with him?
November 11, 2011 2:29 AM
Umm, got some citations for that? Or is it just another catalog of the fucking lies that you hear from the reichwing talkingshitheads like Limbaugh, Hannity, Bek and Savage?
Green Libertarianism? Not on this planet.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteThere's a reason that dogs don't get to vote. They see the world as black or white.
You didn't address my political principle--supporting the individual over the group.
I believe that individuals ought to be free to act whenever their actions do not harm others. My carrying of a handgun harms no one who isn't threatening my life. If, on the other hand, I burn coal by the ton, I'm spreading dangerous chemicals into the atmosphere. In that case, I'm infringing on the rights of others.
So:
I'm Libertarian on matters of owning weapons, having an abortion, using substances, running a small business (with some limits), choosing a religion, marrying whomever I want (presuming consenting adults--no children and no dogs), and so forth.
I'm Green when it comes to health care and the environment. Those are both cases in which the problems are bigger than one individual can handle. I'm also Green about corporations. I can deal on an equal basis with a small business, but a corporation requires the whole of society to control it.
Laci the Dog, try to be a little more complex in your understanding.
I am complex in my understanding.
ReplyDeleteYou are too stupid to understand what I was saying. But those who can't teach.
Green realises that the individual sometimes takes a backseat to society.
Your positions would not make you a libertarian if you knew what Libertarians actually thought.
The real issue is what you see as more important--the nonsensical belief in gun rights, which is as idiotic as the belief that I can dump toxic waste on my land, or the environment.
As I said,if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't go around saying stupid things.
Unfortunately, the future of the world is being shaped by people like you passing on their ignorance.
It's better to have people who can think rather than regurgitate "facts".
Greg also proves my point that libertarianism is basically fascism wearing a smiley face when he sez:
ReplyDeleteThere's a reason that dogs don't get to vote. They see the world as black or white.
But they allow ignorant bastards like you to vote.
Greg, you are confusing a belief in civil liberties with libertarianism. They are two different things.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDelete"My carrying of a handgun harms no one who isn't threatening my life. "
I'm sure that man who shot himself in the leg while in the process of returning his hand gun to his car thought that as well.
The reality is that his firearm WAS dangerous; in this case to him, but it could as easily have harmed someone else when it discharged as the gun owner.
You consistently underestimate the risk, while you over-estimate the dangers that you claim for a justification.
Neither makes you very credible in your arguments.
Greg, a firearm is a weapon which is designed to injure or kill if used properly.
ReplyDeleteSaying anything else is idiotic.
Society has the obligation to control the circulation of dangerous objects.
When Laci writes:
ReplyDelete"Unfortunately, the future of the world is being shaped by people like you passing on their ignorance.
It's better to have people who can think rather than regurgitate "facts". "
he is addressing the difference between understanding the significance of facts, of thinking which is fact driven, not where the facts are twisted and contorted and cherry-picked to conform or support an ideology.
That would include repudiating most of what passes as intuitive ideas called 'common sense solutions' on the right. That is mislabeling ideas which are simplistic, where by simplistic I mean the second definition of the word, from dictionary.com, the World English Dictionary:
World English Dictionary
simplistic (sɪmˈplɪstɪk) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
—adj
2. oversimplifying complex problems; making unrealistically simple judgments or analyses
I know, both from what Laci writes here, and from conversation, that Laci and I both support the idea that facts should form and inform our ideas, opinions and conclusions. Good argument is not selectively looking for data which supports a point of view or position taken before acquiring the necessary knowledge base.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteSquirrel!
O.K., perhaps you can explain how a handgun is as dangerous as dumping toxic waste? Toxic waste has no legitimate use for a private individual. It is purely dangerous and can't be used or even left alone safely. A firearm, on the other hand, does have legitimate uses. I don't support the private ownership of nuclear weapons. A private person has no way to use such a device that won't harm others. I can use my firearms in ways that will not hurt anyone who isn't threatening my life. You keep pointing out accidents and crimes, while refusing to acknowledge the millions of gun owners who are responsible and legal with their weapons. Your argument is essentially that we should take away anything that is dangerous because someone might get hurt. You live in a false dream of a safe world. I say that we should hold people responsible for their actions, not their potentials. What you do matters a lot more than what you can do. I don't want to limit the range of action just because someone could make a bad choice.
Oh, and I know what a gun does and is for. I don't have a problem with that.
Dog Gone,
You overestimate the danger posed by a firearm to its owner or to others around that person. I understand the facts about accidents and crimes. My interpretation of those facts is that in comparison to the many dangers in this life, firearms pose an acceptable risk. People fall off ladders. Should we ban ladders or multistory buildings?
You and I know the same facts. You tell me that I'm not credible because I come to a different conclusion from yours, but in reality, we just disagree. Your statement shows you to be the kind of person who believes that anyone who disagrees with her must be stupid. That kind of authoritarian thinking is itself dangerous.
I have no problem punishing those who harm others without just cause. Why do you have a problem with leaving those of us who don't to do as we wish?
Wow, Greg, are you really as stupid as you come off in your comments?
ReplyDeleteA firearm besides being a weapon has a range of up to 2 miles in which it can cause damage.
Are you really a teacher--what do you teach special ed?
Do you say these stupid things to your students? Do you teach in a public school where you can't be fired? Do your students disrespect you as much as I do?
Greg, a dangerous item deserves respect and requires proper safety rules.
Greg, you are a total fuckwit in my opinion that you don't understand some very simple concepts.
And someone gave you the position of teacher.
Those who can't--teach.
And you are the perfect example of that.
Demo,
ReplyDeleteBloomturd used Freeland Borough, PA former Mayor Tim Martin's signature in an ad in USA today in October.
http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/usa-today-10-20.pdf
Martin signed a Bloomturd letter to the President in July.
http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/letter_potus_07-08-11.pdf
According to Bloomturd, Mayor Martin signed a letter to Congress two days before that.
http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/letter_congress_tiahrt_070611.pdf
He did it in May before that.
http://www.pagunblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/final_coalition_terror_gap_letter_112th_congress.pdf
Mayor Tom Martin died September of 2010. Of course now he at least is eligible to vote as a Democrat in Chicago.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDelete"Dog Gone,
You overestimate the danger posed by a firearm to its owner or to others around that person. I understand the facts about accidents and crimes. My interpretation of those facts is that in comparison to the many dangers in this life, firearms pose an acceptable risk.
Except that you are making an assessment which affects other people, taking away THEIR choice about that risk. You don't simply make the decision for yourself, and the number of acts of gun violence by previously law abiding people, particularly domestic abuse murder suicides as an example, PROVE that. At the same time, you fail to demonstrate that you are at a risk yourself from crime that would merit that level of being armed. You even object, so far as I can tell, to anyone suggesting that there SHOULD be a justifiable risk before putting others at risk from either bad judgment or accidental firing like the one at the stadium a few posts back.
BTW,Greg, I was in the military, and if someone made the comments you did.
ReplyDeleteWell,let's say I'm being polite in how I am handling you.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteO.K., since you insist on making this personal, please tell me how we're supposed to have a nation of educated workers without teachers? Those who can't, teach? Let me suggest that you take your arrogant ass into a classroom and see if you have the ability to get across important ideas. Given your dismissive attitude, I doubt that you could.
Your dismissal of the teaching profession sounds exactly like the Republicans that you criticize. Will you next ask me how many jobs I've created? You want a safe society? Imagine what our country would be like if we had no education. You think that we live in a dangerous world now. What if everyone in this country were uneducated?
You may tell me that I'm wrong. You may disagree with my interpretations. But I'll thank you not to demean my profession. If I recall correctly, you're a lawyer. Your own profession has been the recipient of many attacks, but not from me. I respect the role that lawyers play in our society. I also point out that it is because of the rule of law that I won't invite you to back up your insults. You see, I'm willing to respond in words.
As for the two mile range of a firearm, I'm aware of that. That's why I don't shoot a gun up into the air. I've never advocated disregarding the rules of safety when it comes to firearms. I follow them.
I understand your arguments, and I'm aware of the facts. I disagree. If you'd take your snout out of your asshole, you'd realize that disagreeing with you is not a mark of stupidity.
To everyone else,
I responded there in anger, and I hope that I haven't offended anyone too much in my choice of words.
Greg then wrote:
ReplyDelete"Your statement shows you to be the kind of person who believes that anyone who disagrees with her must be stupid. That kind of authoritarian thinking is itself dangerous."
Not at all; I am dissatisfied with what you present as critical thinking, and reject it for lacking both a factual basis or a clear line of logical reasoning. Your critical thinking is a failure. THAT is not making the assumption that anyone who disagrees with me is stupid, that is saying you aren't doing a good job of supporting an argument for what you have posited.
I am not an authoritarian,and I count myself very fortunate to have been raised to question authority, and to challenge bad reasoning and poor presentations of fact - including challenging the factual accuracy as well as conclusions of text books and teachers in my honors classes.
I've been reading at mid-college level or higher since I was in elementary school. I read quickly, with high comprehension and retention, so I tend to read a lot of content. I expect the same from you if you wish to be taken seriously; that is not the same as believing you to be stupid. I believe you lack critical thinking skills, and that you are not arguing from a good basis in fact.
Greg wrote:
ReplyDelete"I have no problem punishing those who harm others without just cause."
Again, I find you simplistic in your reasoning, and lacking in an understanding of the subjects of criminal justice and punishment.
Please inform yourself about the differences between retributive justice and reparative justice. Then cross reference that with what works and doesn't work in the field of criminology.
"Why do you have a problem with leaving those of us who don't to do as we wish?"
Because what you propose DOES affect others, particularly in putting them at risk, and depriving them of choice. You incorrectly define this as an individual matter when it is not.
(So, Laci - have you found me to be either making an error in logic and critical thinking in any of these responses, or to be factually inaccurate?)
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYou speak proudly of your service, and in general, I honor those who served. In your case, though, since you demeaned by profession, do you really expect me to return honor for dishonor?
Dog Gone,
Where, exactly, do you find me failing at critical thinking? My values are different from yours--that's the source of our disagreement. It does not mean that I am failing to think critically.
Greg, I find Laci's attacking style more amusing than offensive. Don't get thin-skinned on us, please.
ReplyDeleteWhat Dog Gone said is exactly right as far I'm concerned. Your individual choice affects everyone around you.
I didn't demean your profession, Greg, I notice that you are not the most qualified to teach English.
ReplyDeleteOr are you a case of do as I say, not as I do?
Greg, you may be able to "correct" me, but you are not very experienced in the garden of wonders that is the English langauge.
Should I rip you for your typo?
You teach diction, yet are willing to be fuzzy in your expressing yourself.
Worse, you are not aware of John Donne's poem, which is in keeping with what dog gone said:
No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Where, exactly, do you find me failing at critical thinking?
You say a lot of stupid shit, Greg, but that one takes the biscuit!
You can't tell the difference between libertarian and democratic. You miss that these libertarian sites want people to believe they are libertarian, when they probably believe in civil liberties.
I'm not sure if you teach in a public school, Greg, but if you do and you're a libertarian, then you are truly a moron.
And as most greens will tell you, being a green libertarian is a joke.
And the libertarians will tell you being green is a joke--just look at the anti-enviormentalist shit put out byu the Cato institute.
And, as I said, I am being polite compared to what you would be getting in the military.
Greg, I am a dual national (US & UK) who has spent a good deal of time between the two countries.
ReplyDeleteThe US has one of the poorest public educational systems in the world, The U.S. high school math and reading scores rank below those of most of the advanced economies in Europe and Asia.
I went to School in the UK and was reading at US University level when I was 12 (first form)! US University course are amazingly elementary. I look at my niece and nephew and their 12th grade projects look like ones we did when I was in first form!
The US has lost its industrial base due to libertarian policies destroying what little public education existed there.
As I said, you are a moron if you are truly libertarian.
But, you have no fucking idea of libertarians ACTUALLY believe?
And your comments about critical thinking are absolutely absurd. Critical thinking is questioning why someone might say something.
You're failure to understand what exactly libertarianism is is a clear demonstration of the fact you lack critical thinking skills.
And you claim to teach it--as I said, those who can't teach!
And calling someone "authoritarian" because they show you up for being an idiot is a joke, Greg.
Greg, Dog Gone does a far better job of critical thinking than you do, which is part of the reason she shows you up for being an idiot.
ReplyDeleteThe other reason is that she is better informed than you are.
You are clearly an ignorant person about politics and history, Greg, how can you teach?
Greg, Don Gone will be your worst nightmare if you can't get your facts straight.
ReplyDeleteGreg, Critical thinking using an example of the ideology of Libertarianism using the definition of "a political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives."
ReplyDeleteWhat does that mean?
What is the implication of such a system?
How would such a system effect society?
For example, one thing this would bring about would be the privatisation of most governmental functions, which is something you would have learned if you took the Libertarian Purity Test.
That means, if you are a public school teacher, that you would probably lose your job.
Next question, why would libertarians be so nebulous about what exactly this philosophy means?
Who are the major proponents of this theory?
Do you knwo who the Koch Brothers are, Greg? if not, you should learn who they are.
And toss in ALEC as well.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteOf course you say that Dog Gone does a better job of reasoning than I do. She's on your side. Perhaps rather than merely asserting the statement, you'd like to offer examples?
I am aware of who the Koch brothers are, and I know about ALEC. I also know that no one buys my vote. But then, I tend to ignore political ads and do my own research.
If you don't like the label, Libertarian, how about classical liberal? You're correct to observe that terms for political positions are fuzzy.
My position is clear, as I've stated in these comments and elsewhere. I am for whatever strengthens individuals over groups. Sometimes, we as a society have to act together to make all of our lives better, but that's not contradictory to the principle that I just gave.
For those who agree with my principle, the debate then is what must we do to achieve that end.
You are hardly a true classical liberal, Greg, see my latest post.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that the 18th Century mind saw that citizenship not only protected rights, but cme with certain obligations to society.
ReplyDeleteGreg, you have made it clear that you believe in something that would be alien to even a Jefferson. Jefferson believed that citizenship had its obligation of service to the state.
So, you are hardly a "classical liberal". Even classical liberals believe in the necessity of government to regulate the affairs of society.
Another problem with claiming to be a "classical liberal" is that you are using 19th Century ideas in the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteThat in and of itself is idiotic.
The problem is that the 18th Century mind saw that citizenship not only protected rights, but cme with certain obligations to society.
ReplyDeleteGreg lacks a correct understanding of the meaning of the political science terminology. Worse, he doesn't even know the scope of his own ignorance.
He can call himself anything he likes; but it is as meaningless as gibberish if he uses the word differently than the correct definition.
As to the utter lack of proportionality and critical thinking involved in getting into a gun fight over pocket money.....that is just a stupid choice, justified by bullshit hubris swagger not rational thought.
To quote from Shakespeare - bonus points if you recognize the quotation without looking it up, including play, character, act and scene.
"Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;"
Greg wrote:
ReplyDeleteOf course you say that Dog Gone does a better job of reasoning than I do. She's on your side
Laci and I agree on these recent posts, but we do not always agree. Even when we disagree,Laci still believes I am capable of quality critical thinking. What you posit is to accuse him of intellectual dishonesty. His assessment of my thought processes is not based on agreement, it is based on his knowledge and experience with logic and reasoning.
You simply do not engage in good critical reasoning - which is part of the basis why I distrust people who mean well with guns but who don't think rationally but rather react emotionally.
You appear to fall squarely in that category.