|
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. |
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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_authorityThought 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.
|
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.
|
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_authorityThought 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.
|
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_authorityThought 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.
|
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_authorityThought 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.
|
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_authorityThought 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.
|
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_authorityThought 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.
|
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.
|
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_authorityThought 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.
|
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.
|
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_authorityThought 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?
|
United States24718 Posts
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_authorityThought 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
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
