Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Poll: Curious how many will agree with a statement I found in an OP-ED
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Murph" data-source="post: 2109806" data-attributes="member: 8602"><p>Actually I have an ulterior motive for the poll. I've been spending a lot of time lately reading anti-centric blogs and op-ed's, I'm trying to build a database of counters for the 99% of pure nonsense anti's use to validated their assertions. I've noticed a trait in many of their articles, comments, and blogs. They are quite fond of massive linking, and if your response to their claim lacks a link, ostensibly validating your comment, most commenter's either blow you off, or attack your <em>non-sourced</em> opinion for being an opinion. </p><p>As counters I'm trying to find or create pages I can use as counter-links. And yes, I understand talking about this biases the poll, but after some of the krap I've seen lately, I just said bolt it. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't say which bugs me the most, the lies or the slimy manipulation. I guess manipulation probably more than lies. </p><p>Lies can be (theoretically) refuted with facts, the difficulty involved repairing the damage caused by the sabotage of 'critical thinking' skills takes the misdeed to a whole 'nother level.</p><p></p><p>Case in point (paraphrased for numbers, but the structure is the same). </p><p></p><p>Website puts up a page devoted to trashing defensive carry, and asserts that defensive carry is useless in stopping mass murderers. </p><p></p><p>As proof it presents a year long study of mass murder, which found 50 different mass murder incidents in the last 50 years that were not stopped by a private citizen engaged in defensive carry. </p><p></p><p>Their conclusion, based on their collected <em>data</em>, was that in all 50 cases of mass murder that <u>were not stopped by an armed citizen</u>, <em>an armed citizen failed to stop the mass murder</em></p><p></p><p>Therefore their study proves armed citizens are useless in preventing mass murders, because in 100% of the mass murders they included in their study, armed citizens failed to prevent the mass murder <strong>every single time</strong></p><p></p><p>Therefore defensive carry has been 'proven' to be useless, so lets ban assault rifles and handguns.</p><p></p><p><strong>AND PEOPLE ARE REFERENCING THE PAGE TO SUPPORT ARGUMENTS FOR BANNING GUNS</strong>!!!</p><p></p><p>So now, you not only have to make sure your assertions are honest and correct. You also have to worry about how much cognitive dissonance has <em>infected</em> the party(s) you are attempting to communicate with.</p><p></p><p>You not only have to find and present the truth, you have to defend the concept <u>that truth itself</u> is a valid metric for rational analyse and reasonable discourse!!!</p><p></p><p>So that is the story behind this poll=)</p><p>I'm thinking about a different poll question. Hopefully I'll get the process right this try=)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It has been pointed out that even here at the OSA forum, some readers may not understand what I mean by <u>truth</u>, or truth as predictive power.</p><p>If this describes you, I recommend this parable from Eliezer Yudkowsky.</p><p><a href="http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth" target="_blank">http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Murph, post: 2109806, member: 8602"] Actually I have an ulterior motive for the poll. I've been spending a lot of time lately reading anti-centric blogs and op-ed's, I'm trying to build a database of counters for the 99% of pure nonsense anti's use to validated their assertions. I've noticed a trait in many of their articles, comments, and blogs. They are quite fond of massive linking, and if your response to their claim lacks a link, ostensibly validating your comment, most commenter's either blow you off, or attack your [i]non-sourced[/i] opinion for being an opinion. As counters I'm trying to find or create pages I can use as counter-links. And yes, I understand talking about this biases the poll, but after some of the krap I've seen lately, I just said bolt it. I can't say which bugs me the most, the lies or the slimy manipulation. I guess manipulation probably more than lies. Lies can be (theoretically) refuted with facts, the difficulty involved repairing the damage caused by the sabotage of 'critical thinking' skills takes the misdeed to a whole 'nother level. Case in point (paraphrased for numbers, but the structure is the same). Website puts up a page devoted to trashing defensive carry, and asserts that defensive carry is useless in stopping mass murderers. As proof it presents a year long study of mass murder, which found 50 different mass murder incidents in the last 50 years that were not stopped by a private citizen engaged in defensive carry. Their conclusion, based on their collected [i]data[/i], was that in all 50 cases of mass murder that [U]were not stopped by an armed citizen[/U], [i]an armed citizen failed to stop the mass murder[/i] Therefore their study proves armed citizens are useless in preventing mass murders, because in 100% of the mass murders they included in their study, armed citizens failed to prevent the mass murder [b]every single time[/b] Therefore defensive carry has been 'proven' to be useless, so lets ban assault rifles and handguns. [B]AND PEOPLE ARE REFERENCING THE PAGE TO SUPPORT ARGUMENTS FOR BANNING GUNS[/B]!!! So now, you not only have to make sure your assertions are honest and correct. You also have to worry about how much cognitive dissonance has [i]infected[/i] the party(s) you are attempting to communicate with. You not only have to find and present the truth, you have to defend the concept [u]that truth itself[/u] is a valid metric for rational analyse and reasonable discourse!!! So that is the story behind this poll=) I'm thinking about a different poll question. Hopefully I'll get the process right this try=) It has been pointed out that even here at the OSA forum, some readers may not understand what I mean by [u]truth[/u], or truth as predictive power. If this describes you, I recommend this parable from Eliezer Yudkowsky. [url]http://yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Poll: Curious how many will agree with a statement I found in an OP-ED
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
