The bible doesn't say to kill people who get abortions, so that fallacy doesn't apply here. I think it's reasonable to denote "Christians" as those who base their beliefs on the Bible; otherwise, anyone could be one.
That's not at all reasonable. Most Christians don't believe in the literal truth of the bible. Most Christians are Catholic, and they are not literal truthers. Literal truth is amongst some of the protestant religions, notably those who call themselves Born Again.
Christians are those that believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God. That's it. They can believe in all sorts of other things, and commit all kinds of crimes, and still be Christian. If you say they're not Christians just because you disagree with some aspect of them, that is most certainly the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
So you are discounting what he and other researchers have been saying because he has an pseudo-ad on youtube to promote his book and seminars?
No, I'm discounting it not because of the existance of an ad for a book, but because of the contents of the ad. The guy has a bridge and a patent medicine to sell you, and you bought it.
Dumbest analogy I've ever witnessed on Slashdot. The Nuclear Bomb was a newly invented phenomena. Societies and populations have existed in a multitude of forms since before history began. And when we run out of historical examples, there's pre-history and other species to look at.
What is there to say to someone who doesn't believe in democracy? Well, rather a lot, but that's not the topic here. Meanwhile I have 10s of other gun nut comments to respond to.
Anti gun people seem to only look at gun crime statistics. I am talking about all violent crime statistics because it really does not matter to the victim what tool us used to terrorize and hurt or even kill them. Its still a violent crime.
The statistics show that violent crime does not rise just because guns become more controlled.
US citizens already have every single domestic military and NG base & armory surrounded, we have already thoroughly-infiltrated the military as we ARE the military, and all volunteers, so a significant percentage would refuse to follow orders to fire on their own people defending their Constitutional rights.
The point here is we can all find statics/studies to support our argument(s)
You didn't read my link did you. It was Snopes, the well known debunker of internet claptrap. It wasn't an alternate set of stats, it was pointing out that the entire method of argument is nonsense.
Right, so it's never happened in all of history. But a self proclaimed "futurologist", that's more of a self marketing man says it's going to happen soon, and you can profit from it, so it must be true.
Thanks for clarifying your strange viewpoint. I estimate that more than 99.9% don't agree with you that your naighbours should be allowed to make large bombs and not tell anyone about it.
They had the same period of time to develop guns the spanish did. They did not. Therefore...
The Spanish didn't develop guns, the Chinese did. The Spanish just had the luck that Europe was connected to Asia by landmass, thus allowing trade and knowledge to pass easier.
You highlighted part of a sentence and then answered that as if the context was not there. My post is an answer to someone who thought he had a right to commit suicide (with a gun). Not a right to keep a gun. Not the same thing.
Slashdot Mirror
The bible doesn't say to kill people who get abortions, so that fallacy doesn't apply here. I think it's reasonable to denote "Christians" as those who base their beliefs on the Bible; otherwise, anyone could be one.
That's not at all reasonable. Most Christians don't believe in the literal truth of the bible. Most Christians are Catholic, and they are not literal truthers. Literal truth is amongst some of the protestant religions, notably those who call themselves Born Again.
Christians are those that believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God. That's it. They can believe in all sorts of other things, and commit all kinds of crimes, and still be Christian. If you say they're not Christians just because you disagree with some aspect of them, that is most certainly the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
Does the government keep a register of those things? If no, then it's not a FOIA request.
So you are discounting what he and other researchers have been saying because he has an pseudo-ad on youtube to promote his book and seminars?
No, I'm discounting it not because of the existance of an ad for a book, but because of the contents of the ad. The guy has a bridge and a patent medicine to sell you, and you bought it.
Dumbest analogy I've ever witnessed on Slashdot. The Nuclear Bomb was a newly invented phenomena. Societies and populations have existed in a multitude of forms since before history began. And when we run out of historical examples, there's pre-history and other species to look at.
Anyone who thinks a population problem only exists in the near future, and has never happened before, is a crank.
But maybe you have research to show how civilizations that have sustained birth rates below the level to maintain the population continue to thrive.
Who ever said that a population sustains the same birth rate regardless of circumstances?
What is there to say to someone who doesn't believe in democracy? Well, rather a lot, but that's not the topic here. Meanwhile I have 10s of other gun nut comments to respond to.
Anti gun people seem to only look at gun crime statistics. I am talking about all violent crime statistics because it really does not matter to the victim what tool us used to terrorize and hurt or even kill them. Its still a violent crime.
The statistics show that violent crime does not rise just because guns become more controlled.
No, guns are the problem. You move.
Whoosh!
A gun nut that doesn't believe in democracy. How very stereotypical.
US citizens already have every single domestic military and NG base & armory surrounded, we have already thoroughly-infiltrated the military as we ARE the military, and all volunteers, so a significant percentage would refuse to follow orders to fire on their own people defending their Constitutional rights.
Keep on drinking the survivalist Koolaid.
The point here is we can all find statics/studies to support our argument(s)
You didn't read my link did you. It was Snopes, the well known debunker of internet claptrap. It wasn't an alternate set of stats, it was pointing out that the entire method of argument is nonsense.
That's the 0.1% left over.
You know what correlates very, very well with violent crime rates around the world? Wealth disparity.
I absolutely agree. But whilst waiting for wealth disparity in the US to be dealt with (don't hold your breath) removing the guns helps too.
Right, so it's never happened in all of history. But a self proclaimed "futurologist", that's more of a self marketing man says it's going to happen soon, and you can profit from it, so it must be true.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-h-CZjCl8M
No injuries were reported, and the house's sole occupant was unharmed.
You probably want to find a better example or a better analogy.
Thanks for clarifying your strange viewpoint. I estimate that more than 99.9% don't agree with you that your naighbours should be allowed to make large bombs and not tell anyone about it.
And it's a democracy.
They had the same period of time to develop guns the spanish did. They did not. Therefore...
The Spanish didn't develop guns, the Chinese did. The Spanish just had the luck that Europe was connected to Asia by landmass, thus allowing trade and knowledge to pass easier.
Do you have any historical examples?
Thanks for your opinion. It's one that would be expected for an anarchist gun-nut.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and doesn't ever make a worthwhile point. It's a passive aggressive habit.
You should have tried satire instead.
No, there is no other country with more guns per capita. The USA really is the worst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
over here in the USA, we have certain inner city subcultures that are violent.
So do other countries. The difference is the extent to which they have firearms.
FOIA pertains to information controlled by the government. This is.
You highlighted part of a sentence and then answered that as if the context was not there. My post is an answer to someone who thought he had a right to commit suicide (with a gun). Not a right to keep a gun. Not the same thing.