Location: Downstairs at Downton Gender: Zodiac: Chinese Yr:
Posted:
May 22, 2013 - 9:09am
miamizsun wrote:
versus debates channel on youtube
I do like the intelligence squared debate programs, and try to give them a listen whenever they are on the radio.
Some time I should try a Nixon/Kennedy type experiment and listen to a podcast audio, then see if I can find the same debate on video and see if my impression of how the debate turned out differs when you can see the body language and facial expressions of the debaters.
Peter Hitchins is the only one who really brought it. Make no mistake, this debate was for the rights of US citizens to even have guns......at all. Complete confiscation. Heck, one participant even alluded to the cessation of hunting. The willingness and complete capitulation of all power by the citizens to the state has its genesis from generations and generations of rule by monarchy and feudal kingdoms, the United States very existence is a rebellion against that unfair relationship. This is a deep argument indeed.
Location: I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816
Posted:
May 21, 2013 - 12:22pm
Lazy8 wrote:
ErikX wrote:
Looks like Adam (and—surprise—you) needs to educate himself on current firearms law.
You can't (legally) buy a fully-automatic anything (and that would include assault rifles) without a federal permit. This has been the case since 1934.
And anyone selling guns at a gun show is likely an FFL holder, so the law already requires a background check. The only exception is for private party sales, and they don't have to happen at a gun show—and generally don't.
Looks like Adam (and—surprise—you) needs to educate himself on current firearms law.
You can't (legally) buy a fully-automatic anything (and that would include assault rifles) without a federal permit. This has been the case since 1934.
And anyone selling guns at a gun show is likely an FFL holder, so the law already requires a background check. The only exception is for private party sales, and they don't have to happen at a gun show—and generally don't.
Absolutely no need, our government has been supplying the Mujahideen with weapons for years and we supply them with fully automatics, something unlike the erroneous quote above states, you cannot get at gun shows or legally anywhere else in the US. And besides, we all know this guy only wants whats best for us. I am sure he has laid awake many nights concerned for the welfare of our children because of lack of background checks at gun shows, probably consumes all of his thoughts. He probably has about as much credibility as you.
bokey
LIfe is but Haiku or Kobayashi Maru I just dunno crap
Gender:
Posted:
May 21, 2013 - 1:01am
ErikX wrote:
Who are you really working for?I guess whoever it is doesn't provide mental health insurance.Do they provide funds for "schools" in Iraq?
Location: I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country. -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816
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?
He probably has about as much credibility as you.
