• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 12:42
CEST 18:42
KST 01:42
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting10[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
Chinese SC2 server to reopen; live all-star event in Hangzhou7Weekly Cups (Oct 13-19): Clem Goes for Four0BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET6Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO85.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)80
StarCraft 2
General
RotterdaM "Serral is the GOAT, and it's not close" DreamHack Open 2013 revealed The New Patch Killed Mech! Chinese SC2 server to reopen; live all-star event in Hangzhou Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy
Tourneys
SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 INu's Battles #13 - ByuN vs Zoun Tenacious Turtle Tussle Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $1,200 WardiTV October (Oct 21st-31st)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 496 Endless Infection Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers
Brood War
General
Is there anyway to get a private coach? The Lose More Card BW General Discussion BSL Season 21 OGN to release AI-upscaled StarLeague from Feb 24
Tourneys
300$ 3D!Community Brood War Super Cup #4 [ASL20] Semifinal B Azhi's Colosseum - Anonymous Tournament [Megathread] Daily Proleagues
Strategy
[I] TvZ Strategies and Builds [I] TvP Strategies and Build Roaring Currents ASL final Current Meta
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Dawn of War IV ZeroSpace Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Chess Thread US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Men's Fashion Thread
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Series you have seen recently... Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
MLB/Baseball 2023 2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
Certified Crazy
Hildegard
The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…
Peanutsc
Rocket League: Traits, Abili…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1180 users

If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 527 528 529 530 531 891 Next
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
kmillz
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1548 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-23 15:45:24
May 23 2013 15:45 GMT
#10561
On May 24 2013 00:40 Jormundr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 00:08 kmillz wrote:
On May 23 2013 23:42 Jormundr wrote:
On May 23 2013 23:39 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:53 KwarK wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government.


The reality is that rights are provided by the Government.


Maybe in your country, but not the U.S.

That's not how geography or humanity works. Either humans are born with inalienable rights or they're not. They're not born with inalienable rights within an area designated by the US government, if they are born with rights only in the area designated by the US government then the rights are being provided by the US government.


The rights are not provided by the U.S. Government, however the U.S. Government is obligated to defend those rights on behalf of its citizens. Rights provided by a government can be taken away by that government. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away. "Endowed by their Creator" means these rights came from a higher power than Government. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are rights not provided by the Government, although the Government is obligated to defend these rights of its citizens.

No, the rights are provided by the government. Without the government, you do not have those rights. The government can also take away those rights. Death penalty, prison, and prison come to mind.

No 'higher power' is going to come in and give ya some goddamn rights.
Ain't nobody got time for that.


Lol death pentalty, prison, and prison.

The reason the government has the power to take away those rights is because an individual could threaten another individuals rights. Such as a murderer. They have already deprived somebody of their right to life, therefore, they are a threat to kill more people. In this regard we have to decide if we are going to protect the criminals rights or his potential victims rights. I think we make the right decision in putting his victims before him and keep him from doing it again. This isn't depriving people of their rights, this is protecting innocent people from getting their rights deprived from a criminal.

The rights aren't inalienable? But I thought you just said they were natural rights given by a higher power?

Reality check: There is no such thing. It's a nice philosophical ideal, and a goal of morality, but it only exists in theory. Your government gave you those rights and they can take those rights away VERY quickly.


I never said anything about a higher power, quite the contrary I literally just mentioned that I don't believe in one a few posts back. I said I believe that we are born equal and with certain rights by virtue of the fact that we are equal.
Jormundr
Profile Joined July 2011
United States1678 Posts
May 23 2013 15:50 GMT
#10562
On May 24 2013 00:45 kmillz wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 00:40 Jormundr wrote:
On May 24 2013 00:08 kmillz wrote:
On May 23 2013 23:42 Jormundr wrote:
On May 23 2013 23:39 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:53 KwarK wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government.


The reality is that rights are provided by the Government.


Maybe in your country, but not the U.S.

That's not how geography or humanity works. Either humans are born with inalienable rights or they're not. They're not born with inalienable rights within an area designated by the US government, if they are born with rights only in the area designated by the US government then the rights are being provided by the US government.


The rights are not provided by the U.S. Government, however the U.S. Government is obligated to defend those rights on behalf of its citizens. Rights provided by a government can be taken away by that government. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away. "Endowed by their Creator" means these rights came from a higher power than Government. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are rights not provided by the Government, although the Government is obligated to defend these rights of its citizens.

No, the rights are provided by the government. Without the government, you do not have those rights. The government can also take away those rights. Death penalty, prison, and prison come to mind.

No 'higher power' is going to come in and give ya some goddamn rights.
Ain't nobody got time for that.


Lol death pentalty, prison, and prison.

The reason the government has the power to take away those rights is because an individual could threaten another individuals rights. Such as a murderer. They have already deprived somebody of their right to life, therefore, they are a threat to kill more people. In this regard we have to decide if we are going to protect the criminals rights or his potential victims rights. I think we make the right decision in putting his victims before him and keep him from doing it again. This isn't depriving people of their rights, this is protecting innocent people from getting their rights deprived from a criminal.

The rights aren't inalienable? But I thought you just said they were natural rights given by a higher power?

Reality check: There is no such thing. It's a nice philosophical ideal, and a goal of morality, but it only exists in theory. Your government gave you those rights and they can take those rights away VERY quickly.


I never said anything about a higher power, quite the contrary I literally just mentioned that I don't believe in one a few posts back. I said I believe that we are born equal and with certain rights by virtue of the fact that we are equal.

That's fuckin' cool. So why did you derail an argument about inalienable rights again?
Capitalism is beneficial for people who work harder than other people. Under capitalism the only way to make more money is to work harder then your competitors whether they be other companies or workers. ~ Vegetarian
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 23 2013 16:04 GMT
#10563
On May 24 2013 00:50 Jormundr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 00:45 kmillz wrote:
On May 24 2013 00:40 Jormundr wrote:
On May 24 2013 00:08 kmillz wrote:
On May 23 2013 23:42 Jormundr wrote:
On May 23 2013 23:39 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:53 KwarK wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government.


The reality is that rights are provided by the Government.


Maybe in your country, but not the U.S.

That's not how geography or humanity works. Either humans are born with inalienable rights or they're not. They're not born with inalienable rights within an area designated by the US government, if they are born with rights only in the area designated by the US government then the rights are being provided by the US government.


The rights are not provided by the U.S. Government, however the U.S. Government is obligated to defend those rights on behalf of its citizens. Rights provided by a government can be taken away by that government. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away. "Endowed by their Creator" means these rights came from a higher power than Government. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are rights not provided by the Government, although the Government is obligated to defend these rights of its citizens.

No, the rights are provided by the government. Without the government, you do not have those rights. The government can also take away those rights. Death penalty, prison, and prison come to mind.

No 'higher power' is going to come in and give ya some goddamn rights.
Ain't nobody got time for that.


Lol death pentalty, prison, and prison.

The reason the government has the power to take away those rights is because an individual could threaten another individuals rights. Such as a murderer. They have already deprived somebody of their right to life, therefore, they are a threat to kill more people. In this regard we have to decide if we are going to protect the criminals rights or his potential victims rights. I think we make the right decision in putting his victims before him and keep him from doing it again. This isn't depriving people of their rights, this is protecting innocent people from getting their rights deprived from a criminal.

The rights aren't inalienable? But I thought you just said they were natural rights given by a higher power?

Reality check: There is no such thing. It's a nice philosophical ideal, and a goal of morality, but it only exists in theory. Your government gave you those rights and they can take those rights away VERY quickly.


I never said anything about a higher power, quite the contrary I literally just mentioned that I don't believe in one a few posts back. I said I believe that we are born equal and with certain rights by virtue of the fact that we are equal.

That's fuckin' cool. So why did you derail an argument about inalienable rights again?


If I'm getting this right,

The government *has* to protect the rights of the people because those rights are inalienable or else we shoot the government with our second amendment guns.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Donger
Profile Joined October 2009
United States147 Posts
May 23 2013 18:11 GMT
#10564
On May 24 2013 01:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 00:50 Jormundr wrote:
On May 24 2013 00:45 kmillz wrote:
On May 24 2013 00:40 Jormundr wrote:
On May 24 2013 00:08 kmillz wrote:
On May 23 2013 23:42 Jormundr wrote:
On May 23 2013 23:39 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:53 KwarK wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:21 Talin wrote:
[quote]

The reality is that rights are provided by the Government.


Maybe in your country, but not the U.S.

That's not how geography or humanity works. Either humans are born with inalienable rights or they're not. They're not born with inalienable rights within an area designated by the US government, if they are born with rights only in the area designated by the US government then the rights are being provided by the US government.


The rights are not provided by the U.S. Government, however the U.S. Government is obligated to defend those rights on behalf of its citizens. Rights provided by a government can be taken away by that government. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away. "Endowed by their Creator" means these rights came from a higher power than Government. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are rights not provided by the Government, although the Government is obligated to defend these rights of its citizens.

No, the rights are provided by the government. Without the government, you do not have those rights. The government can also take away those rights. Death penalty, prison, and prison come to mind.

No 'higher power' is going to come in and give ya some goddamn rights.
Ain't nobody got time for that.


Lol death pentalty, prison, and prison.

The reason the government has the power to take away those rights is because an individual could threaten another individuals rights. Such as a murderer. They have already deprived somebody of their right to life, therefore, they are a threat to kill more people. In this regard we have to decide if we are going to protect the criminals rights or his potential victims rights. I think we make the right decision in putting his victims before him and keep him from doing it again. This isn't depriving people of their rights, this is protecting innocent people from getting their rights deprived from a criminal.

The rights aren't inalienable? But I thought you just said they were natural rights given by a higher power?

Reality check: There is no such thing. It's a nice philosophical ideal, and a goal of morality, but it only exists in theory. Your government gave you those rights and they can take those rights away VERY quickly.


I never said anything about a higher power, quite the contrary I literally just mentioned that I don't believe in one a few posts back. I said I believe that we are born equal and with certain rights by virtue of the fact that we are equal.

That's fuckin' cool. So why did you derail an argument about inalienable rights again?


If I'm getting this right,

The government *has* to protect the rights of the people because those rights are inalienable or else we shoot the government with our second amendment guns.

Sounds a lot like how we got our independence.
FallDownMarigold
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States3710 Posts
May 23 2013 18:22 GMT
#10565
On May 23 2013 17:57 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.


The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*

Show nested quote +
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies

When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim


Appeal to authority.


It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 23 2013 18:31 GMT
#10566
On May 24 2013 03:11 Donger wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 01:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 24 2013 00:50 Jormundr wrote:
On May 24 2013 00:45 kmillz wrote:
On May 24 2013 00:40 Jormundr wrote:
On May 24 2013 00:08 kmillz wrote:
On May 23 2013 23:42 Jormundr wrote:
On May 23 2013 23:39 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:53 KwarK wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:24 Kaitlin wrote:
[quote]

Maybe in your country, but not the U.S.

That's not how geography or humanity works. Either humans are born with inalienable rights or they're not. They're not born with inalienable rights within an area designated by the US government, if they are born with rights only in the area designated by the US government then the rights are being provided by the US government.


The rights are not provided by the U.S. Government, however the U.S. Government is obligated to defend those rights on behalf of its citizens. Rights provided by a government can be taken away by that government. "Inalienable" means they cannot be taken away. "Endowed by their Creator" means these rights came from a higher power than Government. "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are rights not provided by the Government, although the Government is obligated to defend these rights of its citizens.

No, the rights are provided by the government. Without the government, you do not have those rights. The government can also take away those rights. Death penalty, prison, and prison come to mind.

No 'higher power' is going to come in and give ya some goddamn rights.
Ain't nobody got time for that.


Lol death pentalty, prison, and prison.

The reason the government has the power to take away those rights is because an individual could threaten another individuals rights. Such as a murderer. They have already deprived somebody of their right to life, therefore, they are a threat to kill more people. In this regard we have to decide if we are going to protect the criminals rights or his potential victims rights. I think we make the right decision in putting his victims before him and keep him from doing it again. This isn't depriving people of their rights, this is protecting innocent people from getting their rights deprived from a criminal.

The rights aren't inalienable? But I thought you just said they were natural rights given by a higher power?

Reality check: There is no such thing. It's a nice philosophical ideal, and a goal of morality, but it only exists in theory. Your government gave you those rights and they can take those rights away VERY quickly.


I never said anything about a higher power, quite the contrary I literally just mentioned that I don't believe in one a few posts back. I said I believe that we are born equal and with certain rights by virtue of the fact that we are equal.

That's fuckin' cool. So why did you derail an argument about inalienable rights again?


If I'm getting this right,

The government *has* to protect the rights of the people because those rights are inalienable or else we shoot the government with our second amendment guns.

Sounds a lot like how we got our independence.


Technically, America got its freedom by shooting at british soldiers for lowering taxes.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
May 23 2013 19:45 GMT
#10567
On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 23 2013 17:57 sunprince wrote:
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.


The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*

On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies

When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim


Appeal to authority.


It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Thought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts.

So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument.
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
May 23 2013 20:58 GMT
#10568
On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On May 23 2013 17:57 sunprince wrote:
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.


The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*

On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies

When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim


Appeal to authority.


It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Thought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts.

So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument.


All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling.
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
May 23 2013 21:00 GMT
#10569
On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 23 2013 17:57 sunprince wrote:
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.


The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*

On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies

When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim


Appeal to authority.


It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.


You've got burden of proof upside down. You have yet to provide any data to substantiate your claims, so feel free to do so instead of merely the names of articles behind paywalls.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18835 Posts
May 23 2013 21:01 GMT
#10570
On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:
On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On May 23 2013 17:57 sunprince wrote:
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.


The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*

On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies

When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim


Appeal to authority.


It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Thought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts.

So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument.


All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling.

You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
May 23 2013 21:06 GMT
#10571
On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:
On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On May 23 2013 17:57 sunprince wrote:
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.


The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*

On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies

When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim


Appeal to authority.


It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Thought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts.

So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument.


All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling.

You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling.


You've got burden of proof backwards.

You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim.
farvacola
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States18835 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-23 21:09:21
May 23 2013 21:08 GMT
#10572
On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:
On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:
On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On May 23 2013 17:57 sunprince wrote:
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.


The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*

On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies

When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim


Appeal to authority.


It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Thought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts.

So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument.


All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling.

You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling.


You've got burden of proof backwards.

You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim.

You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided.
"when the Dead Kennedys found out they had skinhead fans, they literally wrote a song titled 'Nazi Punks Fuck Off'"
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
May 23 2013 21:27 GMT
#10573
On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:
On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:
On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On May 23 2013 17:57 sunprince wrote:
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.


The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*

On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies

When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim


Appeal to authority.


It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Thought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts.

So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument.


All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling.

You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling.


You've got burden of proof backwards.

You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim.

You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided.


You haven't provided the source material.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 23 2013 21:30 GMT
#10574
On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:
On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:
On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On May 23 2013 17:57 sunprince wrote:
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.


The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*

On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies

When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim


Appeal to authority.


It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Thought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts.

So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument.


All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling.

You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling.


You've got burden of proof backwards.

You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim.

You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided.


You haven't provided the source material.


I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
stuneedsfood
Profile Joined May 2013
45 Posts
May 23 2013 21:50 GMT
#10575
On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 23 2013 22:08 WTFZerg wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:01 Talin wrote:
On May 23 2013 14:02 Wegandi wrote:
In any event, the fact remains, human beings have the right to defend themselves, their property, and their community and an institution calling itself Government and/or philosophy calling itself majoritarianism (Democracy), has no authority to revoke such right. The Lieges and Lords loved when the peasants were unarmed - they make the best serfs and slaves (obedient, no threat, etc.). The people should have power (liberty) not the Government/State.


Human beings have no rights whatsoever.

The rights that human beings DO have in a society are those that are provided and guaranteed by the institutions human beings develop themselves to govern their own society. These institutions are given the authority and power to be able to carry out their duties and fulfill their purpose.

Government and its institutions are there because human beings put them there, and human beings put them there so that they can have things like human rights, laws, and overall structure to their society. As an individual, you have none of these things, as they are not inherent to our species, nor are they guaranteed by natural laws.


Everyone gets pissy when I say the same thing, but you're pretty much right.

Rights don't exist outside of the legal institutions that provide them to us.


The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government.


I'm curious what the slaves in the country thought about the line 'certain inalienable rights'.

It's not as cut and dry as you'd like it to be.
sunprince
Profile Joined January 2011
United States2258 Posts
May 23 2013 21:53 GMT
#10576
On May 24 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:
On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:
On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On May 23 2013 17:57 sunprince wrote:
On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
You explained what was wrong with the methodologies? Lol. Don't kid yourself. You asked for people to provide the methods and results detailed in the actual articles, and in the same breath you claimed to have refuted their findings based on flawed methodology, which actually contradicts you asking to see said methodologies. You came to your conclusion off reading the brief blurbs about each article, which aren't even abstracts, lol.


The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*

On May 23 2013 08:52 FallDownMarigold wrote:
All the while you forget that these papers have all passed the rigorous process of peer review and are published in a wide number of journals, suggesting that a massive number of experts would have to be wrong for this to have happened. It's sort of foolish of you to think you can just dismiss this stuff based on not understanding the studies

When studies are found by peers to have serious methodological flaws, they are discussed in follow up journal articles. Cite one that corroborates your accusations. You aren't authoritative, so provide authoritative support to your claim


Appeal to authority.


It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Thought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts.

So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument.


All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling.

You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling.


You've got burden of proof backwards.

You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim.

You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided.


You haven't provided the source material.


I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that.


If I tell you about pizzas at Papa John's, I haven't provided you with pizzas.

Similarly, naming studies behind paywalls is not providing them.
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 23 2013 21:54 GMT
#10577
On May 24 2013 06:50 stuneedsfood wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 23 2013 22:16 Kaitlin wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:08 WTFZerg wrote:
On May 23 2013 22:01 Talin wrote:
On May 23 2013 14:02 Wegandi wrote:
In any event, the fact remains, human beings have the right to defend themselves, their property, and their community and an institution calling itself Government and/or philosophy calling itself majoritarianism (Democracy), has no authority to revoke such right. The Lieges and Lords loved when the peasants were unarmed - they make the best serfs and slaves (obedient, no threat, etc.). The people should have power (liberty) not the Government/State.


Human beings have no rights whatsoever.

The rights that human beings DO have in a society are those that are provided and guaranteed by the institutions human beings develop themselves to govern their own society. These institutions are given the authority and power to be able to carry out their duties and fulfill their purpose.

Government and its institutions are there because human beings put them there, and human beings put them there so that they can have things like human rights, laws, and overall structure to their society. As an individual, you have none of these things, as they are not inherent to our species, nor are they guaranteed by natural laws.


Everyone gets pissy when I say the same thing, but you're pretty much right.

Rights don't exist outside of the legal institutions that provide them to us.


The line in the U.S. Constitution about "certain inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator" disagrees with you. It makes the explicit point that the government does not bestow these rights, and does not have the authority to take them away. Whether you believe in God or not, the point is that rights are not provided to Citizens by the Government.


I'm curious what the slaves in the country thought about the line 'certain inalienable rights'.

It's not as cut and dry as you'd like it to be.


You fail to understand.

It's only important to take the literal meaning of the constitution if it supports the NRA, but the abstract meaning of it if it is against the NRA.
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
Thieving Magpie
Profile Blog Joined December 2012
United States6752 Posts
May 23 2013 21:58 GMT
#10578
On May 24 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:
On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:
On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On May 23 2013 17:57 sunprince wrote:
[quote]

The blurbs which revealed that one of the key studies to your argument is based on a phone survey? Yeah, that totally doesn't give away a biased and flawed methodology. *rolls eyes*

[quote]

Appeal to authority.


It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Thought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts.

So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument.


All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling.

You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling.


You've got burden of proof backwards.

You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim.

You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided.


You haven't provided the source material.


I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that.


If I tell you about pizzas at Papa John's, I haven't provided you with pizzas.

Similarly, naming studies behind paywalls is not providing them.


telling me papa johns has pizzas and if I'm willing to buy them I can get them is exactly what a paywall is...

The reason I'm willing to pay money for a papa johns pizza is because I have faith that the message given to me that papa johns has pizza is true. Now, papa johns informs me by word of mouth and advertisements. Scientific research does it by peer reviews. If I'm willing to get pizza, I pay for it. If I'm willing to get the entire research I pay for it.

What is there to not understand?
Hark, what baseball through yonder window breaks?
micronesia
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States24718 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-23 22:24:40
May 23 2013 22:24 GMT
#10579
On May 24 2013 06:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Show nested quote +
On May 24 2013 06:53 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:27 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:08 farvacola wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:06 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 06:01 farvacola wrote:
On May 24 2013 05:58 sunprince wrote:
On May 24 2013 04:45 Shiori wrote:
On May 24 2013 03:22 FallDownMarigold wrote:
[quote]

It's actually pretty funny that you think you dismissed the validity of some ~20 independently peer reviewed papers without reading them, based on not liking the sound of the blurbs. You have yet to provide a shred of support for your misunderstood criticisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Thought I'd throw this in here. Just because it's an appeal to authority doesn't mean it's fallacious in every case. It's actually very relevant to consider the opinions of experts in this case, especially when peer review of a large number of articles establishes some sort of consensus among experts.

So basically, saying "appeal to authority" is technically correct, but it isn't a fallacious appeal so it doesn't matter. It's a totally valid inductive argument.


All of those "studies" were authored by the same two authors. And the main point I'm making is that the data doesn't show what he claims they do. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post the data here to prove me wrong. The fact that no one has done so (possibly because they realize the stupidity of biased methodologies like phone surveys) is telling.

You obviously can't read the studies. Anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to post direct citations here to prove me wrong. The fact that you continue to make surface level declarations with no textual evidence (possibly because you haven't even read the studies) is telling.


You've got burden of proof backwards.

You're the one making the claim that "gun availability increases suicide rates". Therefore, the burden is on you to provide the data (direct citations or otherwise) to support your claim.

You've got the burden of proof backwards. You're the one makin the claim that the methodologies or data manipulations invalidate the conclusions of the referenced studies. Until you can substantiate that claim, we can but assume that are unable or unwilling to actually look at the source material provided.


You haven't provided the source material.


I guess peer reviewed means making shit up without evidence. Huh, didn't know that.


If I tell you about pizzas at Papa John's, I haven't provided you with pizzas.

Similarly, naming studies behind paywalls is not providing them.


telling me papa johns has pizzas and if I'm willing to buy them I can get them is exactly what a paywall is...

The reason I'm willing to pay money for a papa johns pizza is because I have faith that the message given to me that papa johns has pizza is true. Now, papa johns informs me by word of mouth and advertisements. Scientific research does it by peer reviews. If I'm willing to get pizza, I pay for it. If I'm willing to get the entire research I pay for it.

What is there to not understand?

There is a peer reviewed paper that proves, beyond a doubt, that more guns = better, unilaterally. I will give you the name of the paper, the authors, and the website where you can order it. Unfortunately, it costs one million dollars to get a copy of it. However, you are just going to have to accept that I have provided proof of this claim unless you are willing to go through this source material I provided.

Obviously the difference between what really happened (from what I've gleamed) and my extreme example is that the cost of getting the papers that have actually been pointed to in this thread are not exorbitant. On the other hand, providing the name/location of a paper that you need to pay for in order to see is not really presenting evidence in a useful way. There's nothing wrong with offering such information, but it isn't really a good response when someone is asking for evidence pertinent to the current discussion (and that of course goes for each side of the debate).

edit: btw the papa john's example was pretty clear... I'm not sure why you were acting like it was confused somehow
ModeratorThere are animal crackers for people and there are people crackers for animals.
FallDownMarigold
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States3710 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-05-23 22:39:54
May 23 2013 22:34 GMT
#10580
It's also not a good response to outright dismiss a vast body of papers without reading any. It's one thing to have no opinion because you did not have access to the papers. It's another to disagree with them entirely without having read any of them. That's ludicrous. To say "I am skeptical, I would like to see the papers" is entirely different from "these papers are wrong because I say so based on my opinion and not based on peer reviewed critiques, and these papers are wrong because two authors appear on many of them" <-- two outrageous criticisms


The bias toward whom you address is quite clear even though you are attempting to seem neutral. It'd be nice if you'd call out some of the ridiculousness on the other side of things too.
Prev 1 527 528 529 530 531 891 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Wardi Open
14:30
October Qualifier #2
WardiTV1365
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
UpATreeSC 54
BRAT_OK 52
MindelVK 15
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 35544
Calm 4040
Rain 2096
Jaedong 1518
Bisu 912
Horang2 851
EffOrt 778
Mini 726
Soma 565
Larva 531
[ Show more ]
Light 439
firebathero 434
Shuttle 402
ZerO 255
Snow 240
actioN 214
Pusan 127
Soulkey 122
Rush 98
Free 96
Hyun 80
ggaemo 69
sSak 68
Shine 48
Killer 38
Terrorterran 33
sorry 29
Shinee 25
Movie 19
Sacsri 14
Bale 13
scan(afreeca) 12
HiyA 10
Aegong 9
Hm[arnc] 4
Noble 3
Mong 1
Dewaltoss 0
Dota 2
Gorgc6359
qojqva3467
Dendi1405
Fuzer 251
canceldota85
Counter-Strike
fl0m714
byalli367
FunKaTv 42
Other Games
singsing2330
FrodaN922
hiko787
ceh9613
Lowko434
Sick214
Hui .146
Skadoodle125
ArmadaUGS124
C9.Mang0101
KnowMe82
QueenE57
Trikslyr53
Mew2King51
ZerO(Twitch)17
Organizations
Counter-Strike
PGL406
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• Noizen28
League of Legends
• Jankos2988
• TFBlade785
Other Games
• Shiphtur70
Upcoming Events
PiGosaur Monday
7h 18m
Replay Cast
17h 18m
OSC
23h 18m
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
1d 6h
The PondCast
1d 17h
OSC
1d 19h
WardiTV Invitational
2 days
Online Event
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
Afreeca Starleague
4 days
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
CrankTV Team League
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Wardi Open
5 days
CrankTV Team League
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
WardiTV Invitational
6 days
CrankTV Team League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
CranK Gathers Season 2: SC II Pro Teams
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.