Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: NY newspaper publishes map of legal gun owners
  • Subject: NY newspaper publishes map of legal gun owners
Subject: NY newspaper publishes map of legal gun owners

Just dance 4- Lindsey Stirling

Dead-body-ologist at The U.S. Army 18th Medical Command

Interesting, but why did he exclude himself from that list?

  • 12.25.2012 11:48 PM PDT

Posted by: xODSTxDutch
Posted by: dazarobbo
Great.

Now we can see where abused women are five times more likely to be killed and the most severe abuse will likely take place.
And if you're under 5'5 you are more likely to be a sandwich and 5 times more likely to be eaten if youre under 5'0.
Oh, you don't believe me?

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.10 89

Our iterative model-building strategy also
allowed us to observe whether the effects of
more proximate risk factors mediate the effects
of more distal factors in a manner consistent
with theory. For example, the 8-fold increase
in intimate partner femicide risk
associated with abusers' access to firearms attenuated
to a 5-fold increase
when characteristics
of the abuse were considered, including
previous threats with a weapon on the part of
the abuser. This suggests that abusers who
possess guns tend to inflict the most severe
abuse
.

The whole paper is a pretty interesting read, especially this part.

However, consistent with other research,
3,23,15,24,25 gun availability still had substantial
independent effects that increased
homicide risks. As expected, these effects
were due to gun-owning abusers' much
greater likelihood of using a gun in the worst
incident of abuse, in some cases, the actual
femicide. The substantial increase in lethality
associated with using a firearm was consistent
with the findings of other research assessing
weapon lethality. A victim's access to a gun
could plausibly reduce her risk of being
killed, at least if she does not live with the
abuser. A small percentage (5%) of both case
and control women lived apart from the
abuser and owned a gun, however, and there
was no clear evidence of protective effects.

  • 12.25.2012 11:54 PM PDT

In memory of those fallen in the defense of Earth and her colonies.

March 3, 2553


Posted by: Godshatter
Boring.

  • 12.25.2012 11:56 PM PDT


Posted by: dazarobbo
Posted by: xODSTxDutch
Posted by: dazarobbo
Great.

Now we can see where abused women are five times more likely to be killed and the most severe abuse will likely take place.
And if you're under 5'5 you are more likely to be a sandwich and 5 times more likely to be eaten if youre under 5'0.
Oh, you don't believe me?

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.10 89

Our iterative model-building strategy also
allowed us to observe whether the effects of
more proximate risk factors mediate the effects
of more distal factors in a manner consistent
with theory. For example, the 8-fold increase
in intimate partner femicide risk
associated with abusers' access to firearms attenuated
to a 5-fold increase
when characteristics
of the abuse were considered, including
previous threats with a weapon on the part of
the abuser. This suggests that abusers who
possess guns tend to inflict the most severe
abuse
.

The whole paper is a pretty interesting read, especially this part.

However, consistent with other research,
3,23,15,24,25 gun availability still had substantial
independent effects that increased
homicide risks. As expected, these effects
were due to gun-owning abusers' much
greater likelihood of using a gun in the worst
incident of abuse, in some cases, the actual
femicide. The substantial increase in lethality
associated with using a firearm was consistent
with the findings of other research assessing
weapon lethality. A victim's access to a gun
could plausibly reduce her risk of being
killed, at least if she does not live with the
abuser. A small percentage (5%) of both case
and control women lived apart from the
abuser and owned a gun, however, and there
was no clear evidence of protective effects.
ROFLCOPTERS

  • 12.25.2012 11:57 PM PDT

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Here are the posts in question:
Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: xODSTxDutch
So everyone deserves the right to have the ability to take someones life?

Well I guess so, considering that we all own knives in our house. If you don't like the fact that you can take someone's life, why don't you go ahead and ban guns, knives, axes, spears, forks, saws, blades, maces, bow and arrows, pillows, cars, and hammers. Those can all kill people.

King Dutchy simply calls out a False equivalence (what he calls a equivalency fallacy). While it is true that a gun is a much more effective weapon, it doesn't take away from the point that was being made.
AgentCOP was in fact correct by stating that everything he listed can in fact kill people. He was responding to a question being made by ODST in which ODST was applying an appeal to emotion in that a gun can be used to take someones life, and questioning why people should have guns. AgentCop came back and says that there are many forms of weapons that are in fact used to kill people, but not in the same magnitude as firearms. If in fact no one deserved the right to take a life in any situation, then AgentCop is correct in stating that no one should then be allowed to own a weapon. Which is a valid response to ODST's question. He responds to ODST's uncomfortableness with gun ownership.

Simply Syllogism.
A weapon gives you the ability to take someone's life.
These are all weapons
Therefore these give you the ability to take someone's life.

That is a valid statement by syllogism.

A false equivalence does not apply to this situation as AgentCOP is not comparing the magnitude or the equality of the firearms ability to that of the rest of the listed items, he is showing their common trait that they all carry, which is the ability to take someones life.

Therefore, we've been arguing a point that should never have existed.
King Dutchy did invoke a fallacy fallacy though:
Posted by: King Dutchy
Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: King Dutchy
Dat equivalency fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy, assuming that someone's argument is rendered moot because of the use of a fallacy. Stahp
Well...it kinda does.


[Edited on 12.26.2012 12:16 AM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 12:12 AM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: Xplode441
Here are the posts in question:
Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: xODSTxDutch
So everyone deserves the right to have the ability to take someones life?

Well I guess so, considering that we all own knives in our house. If you don't like the fact that you can take someone's life, why don't you go ahead and ban guns, knives, axes, spears, forks, saws, blades, maces, bow and arrows, pillows, cars, and hammers. Those can all kill people.

King Dutchy simply calls out a False equivalence (what he calls a equivalency fallacy). While it is true that a gun is a much more effective weapon, it doesn't take away from the point that was being made.
AgentCOP was in fact correct by stating that everything he listed can in fact kill people. He was responding to a question being made by ODST in which ODST was applying an appeal to emotion in that a gun can be used to take someones life, and questioning why people should have guns. AgentCop came back and says that there are many forms of weapons that are in fact used to kill people, but not in the same magnitude as firearms. If in fact no one deserved the right to take a life in any situation, then AgentCop is correct in stating that no one should then be allowed to own a weapon. Which is a valid response to ODST's question. He responds to ODST's uncomfortableness with gun ownership.

Simply Syllogism.
A weapon gives you the ability to take someone's life.
These are all weapons
Therefore these give you the ability to take someone's life.

That is a valid statement by syllogism.

A false equivalence does not apply to this situation as AgentCOP is not comparing the magnitude or the equality of the firearms ability to that of the rest of the listed items, he is showing their common trait that they all carry, which is the ability to take someones life.

Therefore, we've been arguing a point that should never have existed.
King Dutchy did invoke a fallacy fallacy though:
Posted by: King Dutchy
Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: King Dutchy
Dat equivalency fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy, assuming that someone's argument is rendered moot because of the use of a fallacy. Stahp
Well...it kinda does.

Holy crap dude....

you are insanely smart.

  • 12.26.2012 12:26 AM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

Posted by: Xplode441
King Dutchy did invoke a fallacy fallacy though:
Posted by: King Dutchy
Posted by: Xplode441
Posted by: King Dutchy
Dat equivalency fallacy.
Fallacy fallacy, assuming that someone's argument is rendered moot because of the use of a fallacy. Stahp
Well...it kinda does.


'Moot': Subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision

That describes a fallacious argument pretty well.

I ignored the rest of your post because it was simply irrelevant, if you were wondering.

[Edited on 12.26.2012 12:29 AM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 12:29 AM PDT

Circle Jerkin' I got my wiener workin'

If I were a New Yorker who didn't own a gun I would be pissed. This shows all the houses for criminals to avoid and one's that are most likely unarmed.

  • 12.26.2012 12:29 AM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: Seggi31
I ignored the rest of your post because it was simply irrelevant, if you were wondering.

Irrelevant to what? That's the entire damn thing you guys were debating. You sir are making no sense.

  • 12.26.2012 12:35 AM PDT


Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Seggi31
I ignored the rest of your post because it was simply irrelevant, if you were wondering.

Irrelevant to what? That's the entire damn thing you guys were debating. You sir are making no sense.
For some odd reason, when i see your user name i think of This

  • 12.26.2012 12:38 AM PDT

"There's this theory that if there were an infinite number of monkeys pecking away at typewriters, they would eventually write the great works of Shakespeare, but thanks to the internet we now know that's not true." -Adam Savage

"Time is not made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round." -Caboose

NOTE: This is my new primary account. My old account was AgentCOPP1, and I changed it because it was linked to a gamertag that I no longer use.

Posted by: xODSTxDutch

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Posted by: Seggi31
I ignored the rest of your post because it was simply irrelevant, if you were wondering.

Irrelevant to what? That's the entire damn thing you guys were debating. You sir are making no sense.
For some odd reason, when i see your user name i think of This

What the hell lol. Where's the connection, might I ask?

  • 12.26.2012 12:39 AM PDT

In memory of those fallen in the defense of Earth and her colonies.

March 3, 2553

Typical America......

  • 12.26.2012 12:39 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

A criminal's thought process: "These are the houses to break into if you want to steal a gun, and these are the houses to break into if you don't want to get shot. Yay!"

Posted by: Frnksnbns
Funny that the 2nd Amendment advocates don't like it when someone uses the 1st Amendment.
I can disagree with something without wanting to make it illegal. I think it's a stupid idea and it would probably be a good idea for them to remove it.

[Edited on 12.26.2012 12:53 AM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 12:49 AM PDT

Average Joe

UCLA - Aerospace Engineering

Now we know where every unarmed citizen is also.

  • 12.26.2012 12:50 AM PDT

AgentCOP and DoctorBaby, I dont know why, but they sound so...alike

  • 12.26.2012 12:53 AM PDT

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Posted by: AgentCOP1
Holy crap dude....

you are insanely smart.
Not really, I just learned how to structure an argument in my favor. I loved debate.

Posted by: Seggi31
'Moot': Subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision

That describes a fallacious argument pretty well.

I ignored the rest of your post because it was simply irrelevant, if you were wondering.
Can I ask where you got that definition? I'm receiving these: 1.
open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2.
of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
I'm referring to the second definition when I say that the point was rendered moot, I mean that it has been stripped of value by the person.

And it's cool if you don't want to respond to my other bits. I have no qualms over that.

  • 12.26.2012 1:06 AM PDT

A competitive players main goal is to win.
A casuals main goal is to have fun regardless of whether that results in a win or loss.
It has nothing to do with individual skill or knowledge, it has to do with the reason you play.


Posted by: Frnksnbns
The gun nuts don't read newspapers. The paper will be fine.


Lmao.

  • 12.26.2012 1:10 AM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

Posted by: Xplode441
I'm referring to the second definition when I say that the point was rendered moot, I mean that it has been stripped of value by the person.


If you mean to say that it means it has no argumentative value, then that's true as well. A fallacious argument is unable to prove anything.

The point I'm making here is that the 'fallacy fallacy' describes the situation where an individual says that:

P implies Q
Not P
Therefore not Q

Where Dutchy did not say that. He stopped at 'Not P' when he said that the argument was invalid.

[Edited on 12.26.2012 1:38 AM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 1:35 AM PDT

Posted by: Great_Pretender
Case and point: don't worry about it. Girls start getting boobies pretty soon, and then you'll have plenty of other things to think about. Being an Inheritor is not a life goal.
-TGP-

Posted by: Seggi31
If you mean to say that it means it has no argumentative value, then that's true as well. A fallacious argument is unable to prove anything.

The point I'm making here is that the 'fallacy fallacy' describes the situation where an individual says that:

P implies Q
Not P
Therefore not Q

Where Dutchy did not say that. He stopped at 'Not P' when he said that the argument was invalid.
If you would have read my large wall of text up there, then you would understand that the post in question did hold argumentative value.

Also second part, false. (not your p implies q example, your reasoning) A fallacy fallacy is:
Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.
Therefore, C is false.

Argument A would the the argument made. Conclusion C is the conclusion that Dutchy derived from the argument (but if you read my wall of text, I argue against his conclusion) in which he believes that Agent was putting the gun on equal magnitude as a more simple weapon. Therefore he believes that is Conclusion C which would be false equivalence. He then declared the fallacy and did not counter the argument for belief that it was false. But, seeing as how Agent was not in the business of comparing the lethality of weapons, there was no equal comparisons being drawn, rendering the false equivalence a fallacy fallacy.

Maybe this will help you understand what I'm getting at:
Like anything else, the concept of logical fallacy can be misunderstood and misused, and can even become a source of fallacious reasoning. To say that an argument is fallacious is to claim that there is no sufficiently strong logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion. This says nothing about the truth-value of the conclusion, so it is unwarranted to conclude that a proposition is false simply because some argument for it is fallacious.

Of course, if you had read my wall of text up there, you would know that there was a logical connection between the premisses and the conclusion made by Agent.

[Edited on 12.26.2012 2:03 AM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 2:02 AM PDT

Posted by: Baph117
This is an incredible step forward to being able to cure Downss sybndonre mn humans bineg.s

Posted by: Xplode441
If you would have read my large wall of text up there, then you would understand that the post in question did hold argumentative value.


For the last time, that is not what I said.

Also second part, false. (not your p implies q example, your reasoning) A fallacy fallacy is:
Argument A for the conclusion C is fallacious.
Therefore, C is false.


For what I hope is the last time, that is what I said. 'Argument A' (or more explicitly, that 'Argument A' is sound) is P. 'Conclusion C' is Q.

Argument A would the the argument made. Conclusion C is the conclusion that Dutchy derived from the argument (but if you read my wall of text, I argue against his conclusion) in which he believes that Agent was putting the gun on equal magnitude as a more simple weapon. Therefore he believes that is Conclusion C which would be false equivalence. He then declared the fallacy and did not counter the argument for belief that it was false. But, seeing as how Agent was not in the business of comparing the lethality of weapons, there was no equal comparisons being drawn, rendering the false equivalence a fallacy fallacy.

No, that means that he incorrectly identified a fallacy. It does not mean that he used a fallacy. He didn't even put forward an argument, so it would be impossible for it to be fallacious.

[Edited on 12.26.2012 3:02 AM PST]

  • 12.26.2012 3:02 AM PDT

BTW Elites rule!

And I am probably just trolling you right now....especially if it is a controversial thread

Instead of making a new thread, I guess that I will place this here.
Well, the tables have been turned I guess

  • 12.28.2012 10:42 AM PDT