Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 14, 2013 - 3:41pm
aflanigan wrote:
But they allow you to comb through the thesis being presented, and the supposed evidence in support of it, much more readily than an energetically edited video. Footnotes and endnotes point to what is supposed to be evidence; you can scrutinize the documents cited to weigh their validity and to look for contrary evidence.
Bumpersticker slogans simply don't lend themselves very well to meaningful discussion of controversial issues. They mostly seem designed to offer those already convinced verbal ammo to toss about, or act as a provocation to nonbelievers.
I guess, as Gman points out, I am a sort of old-fashioned fellow. I miss the vanishing art that used to be called dialectic.
Yes they do offer citations to verify. But who is going to take the time to verify ? It's also easy to take a quote out of context, to prove a point opposite the source's intention.
Dialetics requires an education to play along. You and I agree on sloganism, yet it works, it turns heads, but it also in some cases begins dialogue rather than ends it. But in the end, without the ability to discern truths what difference does it make ?
Old fashioned ? Ha ! I bet I got you beat.
My cell phone doesn't take pictures. I still use a camera to do that.
I don't even text. I can still live my life without a cell phone. If I use it more than 30 minutes a month, I would be surprised. Its never on. I have it for emergencies. I have a landline, use the phonebook first to look up numbers and use maps for road trips. I even use long math on paper to divide and factor polynomials.
I think a written essay that is based on actual research is more likely to contain wisdom about gun violence than a video produced by a paid spokesman of a lobbying group such as Mr. Noir. I rarely see footnotes indicating sources in youtube videos.
Nano-wisdom. Doesn't need to include a shred of actual knowledge.
But they allow you to comb through the thesis being presented, and the supposed evidence in support of it, much more readily than an energetically edited video. Footnotes and endnotes point to what is supposed to be evidence; you can scrutinize the documents cited to weigh their validity and to look for contrary evidence.
Bumpersticker slogans simply don't lend themselves very well to meaningful discussion of controversial issues. They mostly seem designed to offer those already convinced verbal ammo to toss about, or act as a provocation to nonbelievers.
I guess, as Gman points out, I am a sort of old-fashioned fellow. I miss the vanishing art that used to be called dialectic.
Location: Downstairs at Downton Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 14, 2013 - 1:16pm
kurtster wrote:
You are somewhat correct in that thought but its a different world now. Here we are now, entertain us ...
Besides, any good wordsmith can embed a subtle bias that can be unnoticed yet very persuasive when citing sources that back up their assertions. Footnotes and research do not make observations any more valid than say George Carlin standing up and speaking for an hour.
But they allow you to comb through the thesis being presented, and the supposed evidence in support of it, much more readily than an energetically edited video. Footnotes and endnotes point to what is supposed to be evidence; you can scrutinize the documents cited to weigh their validity and to look for contrary evidence.
Bumpersticker slogans simply don't lend themselves very well to meaningful discussion of controversial issues. They mostly seem designed to offer those already convinced verbal ammo to toss about, or act as a provocation to nonbelievers.
I guess, as Gman points out, I am a sort of old-fashioned fellow. I miss the vanishing art that used to be called dialectic.
You are somewhat correct in that thought but its a different world now. Here we are now, entertain us ...
Besides, any good wordsmith can embed a subtle bias that can be unnoticed yet very persuasive when citing sources that back up their assertions. Footnotes and research do not make observations any more valid than say George Carlin standing up and speaking for an hour.
But George doesn't have a Doctorate. Does he?
Off-topic, but man, you gotta read The Third Reich in Power, by Richard Evans. Well, he does have more footnotes in his bibliography than snowflakes in a N'oreaster, but if you can deal with with some real serious grad-school type stuff, I don't think there's a better way to understand what is happening here now. Just an FYI. Don't mind me, I'm on my first cup at 530am trying to get some yard work done before its too effing hot.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 14, 2013 - 5:17am
aflanigan wrote:
I think a written essay that is based on actual research is more likely to contain wisdom about gun violence than a video produced by a paid spokesman of a lobbying group such as Mr. Noir. I rarely see footnotes indicating sources in youtube videos.
You are somewhat correct in that thought but its a different world now. Here we are now, entertain us ...
Besides, any good wordsmith can embed a subtle bias that can be unnoticed yet very persuasive when citing sources that back up their assertions. Footnotes and research do not make observations any more valid than say George Carlin standing up and speaking for an hour.
I think a written essay that is based on actual research is more likely to contain wisdom about gun violence than a video produced by a paid spokesman of a lobbying group such as Mr. Noir. I rarely see footnotes indicating sources in youtube videos.
You have a classical bent to your arguments, and presumably, to your education. I admire both. You unfortunately tend to stray from the discipline of logic rather handily, leading me to me believe that your ideological id has overtaken your more realistic ego.
On the other hand, who gives a flying fuck about Freud anymore?
Location: Downstairs at Downton Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 8, 2013 - 7:38am
Lazy8 wrote:
So would a written transcript be more likely to be true?
I think a written essay that is based on actual research is more likely to contain wisdom about gun violence than a video produced by a paid spokesman of a lobbying group such as Mr. Noir. I rarely see footnotes indicating sources in youtube videos.
Just watched Jon Stewart and he is right, unfortunately the usual suspects of the neo conservative whacko movement; Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Wayne Lapadumbass, Glenn Batasscrazy Beck and so forth have taken over as the voice of the gun control opposition movement totally destroying the reputation of the vast majority of responsible, rational gun owners with their whackaloon comments, irrational hyberbole and downright hypocrisy. What idiots!
When looking at the data presented, for the percentage of homicides to remain flat with an overall decrease would mean that the number of gun related homicides dropped as a whole by the same overall rate if the percentage remained the same.
Second ... it seems that you might be trying to infer that homicides are the only kind of gun violence.
1) Yes. The question is why. Red had posited the question of how it related to CCW permits. I think that if it was related to CCW permits that the percentage would have changed as well. Instead what I think we are seeing is simply a decline in overall violence, but the number of times a knive/bat/fist is used instead of a gun is remaining fairly constant. I'd suggest that many other factors have equal or greater influence vs. the number of CCWs issued - education rates, overall levels of prosperity, immigration concentrations,... lots of possibilities out there. CCW may be a factor as well, but I doubt it is *the* factor.
2) No, just trying to infer something from the data, and that was the data point on hand. Had the statistic been self inflicted wounds, or pistol whippings by entertainers at night clubs I probably would have used that.
Location: Back in Ohiya, for now ... Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 7, 2013 - 2:35pm
islander wrote:
From your link: However, the justice department study also suggested that the percentage of US homicides committed with a firearm had held steady at around 70% between 1993-2011.
This would imply to me that the rates for all homicides have fallen. The availability of guns did not have an impact on the percentage of times that they were used in violence, but perhaps in the frequency. I would argue that it's a much more complex mixing board, and there are thousands of knobs being turned to tune what we see going on around us. Suggesting that any one knob (no matter how big and red) is the sole factor in the outcome is probably not very realistic.
Two quick things ...
When looking at the data presented, for the percentage of homicides to remain flat with an overall decrease would mean that the number of gun related homicides dropped as a whole by the same overall rate if the percentage remained the same.
Second ... it seems that you might be trying to infer that homicides are the only kind of gun violence.
From your link: However, the justice department study also suggested that the percentage of US homicides committed with a firearm had held steady at around 70% between 1993-2011.
This would imply to me that the rates for all homicides have fallen. The availability of guns did not have an impact on the percentage of times that they were used in violence, but perhaps in the frequency. I would argue that it's a much more complex mixing board, and there are thousands of knobs being turned to tune what we see going on around us. Suggesting that any one knob (no matter how big and red) is the sole factor in the outcome is probably not very realistic.
