I'm tired of being told that racism against me isn't really racism because I'm white, but everything I do is racist even when it isn't, again because I'm white...
...although somehow that only works if you're conservative and white...
Time for some more Heinlein:
"A fact doesn't have to be understood to be true. Sure, any reasonable mind wants explanations, but it's silly to reject facts that don't fit your philosophy."
Or that you don't like.
Good article. Thanks Kevin!
This is one of the things Ayn Rand got right in Atlas Shrugged. The looters play by a different set of rules than we do, and one of those rules is to use our own high view of morality against us. She even made it very clear that they would refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room, which was Megan's point.
Some people have argued that we need to just ditch our values to beat them. But I think that if we do so, we become just like them. IMHO, a better option is to simply call them on it and refuse to accept their abuse. Name the elephant and make them face it.
We've done that to Marky. I just did it on another blog. It may not change their mind, but it sure makes it obvious that we're not buying what they're pushing. Of course, they call us rude. Once again this reminds me of a truism I heard recently: The truth sounds like hate to those that hate the truth. Maybe if we were more direct about calling a spade a spade, more of the "lukewarm middle" would wake up to what the truth is and do the right thing. Who knows, we might even get more "progressives" to finally figure out just how regressive their ideas actually are.
There is another factor at work, and its as simple as the fact that people aren't socialized to any constructive, non pugnacious mode of disagreement.
People are taught (and mindlessly accept) that polite society is composed of people violently agreeing with each other, and to assess any variance with this model as a personal attack, thus allowing them to classify the person who disagrees and holds his or her ground as an aggressor. "No, you are objectively wrong" is therefore viewed as de-facto fighting words.
Ed, the old saw it reminds me of is:
"If you want to insult a conservative, lie to him. If you want to insult a liberal, tell him the truth."
...although somehow that only works if you're conservative and white...
Because if you are liberal and white, you have already infused yourself with guilt.
That's why they don't understand our mindset; attempting to understand would conflict with feeling guilty. You'll only wear a hairshirt if you believe you must do penance; and woe to the unrepentant.
It's called intellectual honesty.
Some people have it, some don't.
And it is does suck when your so-called friends show that they are not intellectually honest.
Geek,
That makes me wonder. Perhaps people learn how to argue within their own families or school. Arguing with parents is often tantamount to actual conflict (and an expression of perceived disloyalty), and arguing with teachers gets you stomped if your teacher is a tool.
To learn otherwise, you would have to have parents or teachers who a) frequently discuss intellectual topics that do not involve immediate power struggles in the family or classroom, and b) are mature enough to entertain opposing viewpoints civilly.
I suspect such people are quite rare. I am lucky that my father is one of them, and though we agree on a great deal, we can also discuss those points where we disagree without rancor. (Usually at about midnight, sitting around the coffee table. Good times…)
Hey thanks for the link, and the discussion, guys. It's good to see people who've been finding a way to cope with the same problem, especially when they're putting their heads together about what to do about it. It's pretty tough when the liberal-friend doesn't really want to argue politics, and doesn't know he doesn't want to. It's like being the bartender who's put in the position of having to say "I'm sorry, I think you've had enough." It's certainly not a perfect way of avoiding an argument! It's more like giving up one argument for a different one...
For those who care, we're doing our best to come up with some actual solutions...
I'm sure Mr. Freeberg has seen this one here and again, but lately it's almost the only one I run into: liberals being kind enough to explain the pathology of my arguments... the deep-seated emotional sickness that has caused me to jump to my aberrant conclusions.
Anyone remember the "study" that claimed to show conservatives were more prone to fear and mistrust? Actually all they showed was that most people who self-identify as conservative had more brain activity in response to stimuli involving dangerous situations (pictures of venomous snakes and pissed-off bears), compared to self-identified liberals.
Imagine if it had been the other way.
"Liberals more aware of the world around them, study shows."
I'm trying to remember the last time I saw any libs/progressives/ socialists/communists/fascists use facts in any of their arguments.
I am reminded of my most recent gun control "debate" with Mr. James Kelly of Scotland, wherein he complained:
The difference in this debate is that I have been arguing on the basis of what I believe to be true, and doing my best to explain why I believe it. Kevin, by way of contrast, claims to be able to literally ‘prove’ his case beyond any doubt whatsoever by recourse to detailed statistical data.
In other words, "No fair using data against my emotions!!"
For Mr. Kelly, the facts didn't matter, because it contradicted his beliefs.
I'm sorry, but if your argument boils down to "Well, I believe what I believe." then YOU LOSE THE ARGUMENT.
And you deserve a kick in the nuts.
And you deserve a kick in the nuts.
Another Idiocracy "fan"?
Quit asking questions Juris, I'm 'batin over here.
And, uh, your shit's all retarded...
Kevin, do you ever give it a rest, man? I pointed out to you a number of times that you resorted to emotion far more often than I did in our debate (your inverted commas were fully justified, by the way) - most notably with your cynical juxtaposition of a picture of a horrifically-injured woman with words to the effect of "this is what James Kelly regards as mere 'bumps and bruises'". You also resorted to anger (an emotion, I believe) when I pointed out the blindingly obvious fact that the mass-murderer Thomas Hamilton simply would not have been able to kill as many children as he did in the time he did with almost any other weapon or implement. Given the importance you attach to the distinction between 'data' and 'emotion', one can only conclude that you resorted to emotion on so many occasions because your 'data' (ie. voodoo statistics) simply wasn't strong enough.
I also on two separate occasions directed the readers of my blog to a website setting out a barrage of anti-gun facts and statistics that could go toe-to-toe with the contents of your epic dissertations any day of the week. I simply didn't need to replicate all of that, and I wasn't interested in that sort of discussion. There was nothing in your honeyed debate invitation to me that would have suggested you had any problem with that - indeed you told me "it's about the PHILOSOPHY, James". If it needs to be pointed out, there's quite a big distinction between philosophy and 'data'. Except, it seems, in the worlds of Kevin Baker and Karl Marx, who both believe(d) their philosophies are literally provable beyond any doubt. In which case, I stand by what I said - if you're the one claiming to deal in cast-iron 'facts', the burden of proof for you is that much higher.
I wish you luck in finding a willing 'bull' for your next gladiatorial encounter. I get the impression that for you it's like sex - there comes a point when it's just been too long.
Mr. Kelly,
As the author of the original piece, I find it fascinating you've led us all around full circle right back to the very social phenomenon that inspired my comments in the first place. Poor guy, Kevin just pummeled you into liquid form and then pummeled you some more. Meanwhile, it's a matter of record that the two of you engaged in quite an extended debate about ground rules for the exchange you were about to have, that this goes well beyond documenting mutual agreement that the exchange was to take place.
But Morgan, he pointed to a website! He therefore WON!
And I'm just a big meanie for using statistics and stuff.
"I pointed out to you a number of times that you resorted to emotion far more often than I did in our debate … - most notably with your cynical juxtaposition of a picture of a horrifically-injured woman with words to the effect of "this is what James Kelly regards as mere 'bumps and bruises'". "
I think you're confusing your emotional response to his use of data (in this specific case, it was anecdotal evidence which is backed up by data) with using emotion.
Would you care to explain how a true statement—even if neutral in tone—which makes the hearer angry is somehow no longer true?
Kevin:
And he didn't resort to EMOTION! Well other than his entire argument that he'd be afraid. And besides, look at us gunning down "innocent businessmen" who were merely smashing in the back door at 3am intending to rape the children ...
How dare you present him with the RESULT of his ideology? He's afraid, dammit, he's absolved from guilt! He's got a right NOT TO BE SCARED (from things he doesn't like, and if you're scared of things he has and likes, well, you need to fuckin' man up and grow the hell up.)
Poor guy, Kevin just pummeled you into liquid form and then pummeled you some more.
I may have to add that to the masthead . . .
But UJ, fear is not an emotion! It doesn't matter that every amateur and professional student of human psychology recognizes that it is! After all, Mr. Kelly is right, and everybody else is wrong!
But I gotta say that this phrase still shocks me:
"your 'data' (ie. voodoo statistics)"
There just ain't words…
Here's another resource I used recently:
Wikipedia's definition of Intellectual Dishonesty:
"Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
- the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
- the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
Rhetoric is used to advance an agenda or to reinforce one's deeply held beliefs in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.[1] If a person is aware of the evidence and agrees with the conclusion it portends, yet advocates a contradictory view, they commit intellectual dishonesty. If the person is unaware of the evidence, their position is ignorance, even if in agreement with the scientific conclusion. If the person is knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully fails to check, and then acts as though the position is confirmed, this is also intellectual dishonesty."
Hmmmmmmm…
Finally, Kevin did not really make a philosophical argument for gun rights. He focused on the data. On the other hand, I did. In fact, I used James' most basic assumptions as a starting point. Yet he ignored it completely. It sure looks like he doesn't even recognized what a philosophical argument is.
So what do you have when both the philosophical and data centric arguments agree with each other?
Ed, the philosophy would have come in a post or two, but James practiced Reasoned Discourse™ too quickly for me to get to that point. The data I presented was "preparing the ground" for upcoming points.
Morgan K Freenberg, I'm afraid I haven't read your original piece so I've no idea what it says. I found my way to this comments page because I was slightly surprised to notice a spike in traffic to my blog, which hasn't been updated for over a month. But if Kevin's idea of 'pummelling someone into liquid form' is to give that person free internet traffic in perpetuity, then that's entirely a matter for him.
"And besides, look at us gunning down 'innocent businessmen' who were merely smashing in the back door at 3am intending to rape the children ..."
Hmmm. For a group of people who supposedly pride themselves on their adherence to unanswerable facts (and shun the emotion-driven assertions of us lefties) I'm afraid the above assertion is just a touch problematical. It is...how can I put this, not strictly true. It's made up. Fabricated. A fantasy. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's a lie.
"And I'm just a big meanie for using statistics and stuff."
Kevin, once again by not addressing my point, and instead showing yourself to be more preoccupied with finding any form of words that'll make your devoted fans snigger in unison, you've demonstrated once again my suspicion that you're far more interested in the hero-worship of people who already agree with you, rather than your stated aim of persuading undecideds. But have another go. I dare you, address my point seriously. A man who claims to be able to prove something beyond any doubt whatsoever with statistical evidence has a stronger burden of proof on him than someone who does not make any such claim. Where am I going wrong here?
For the record (as you know perfectly well), I did not claim that directing to another website meant that I had 'won' the debate. Indeed, I said I was doing it it specifically to illustrate the point that both sides are capable of grinding each other to a pointless stalemate with equally impressive-sounding statistical evidence.
"Would you care to explain how a true statement—even if neutral in tone—which makes the hearer angry is somehow no longer true?"
I'm very glad you asked that question, because that's exactly the situation that arose when I pointed out that Thomas Hamilton couldn't have killed as many children if he hadn't possessed guns. That's an unanswerable fact, it made Kevin uncomfortable, and he responded with emotion. Anger. Not a piece of 'data' in sight.
By the way, Kevin, I've got one or two ideas for my own masthead as well. But I'm not sure I'd be that childish.
I did not claim that directing to another website meant that I had 'won' the debate.
You did, and just did again.
Furthermore, you were incapable of defending those "statistics".
Indeed, I said I was doing it it specifically to illustrate the point that both sides are capable of grinding each other to a pointless stalemate with equally impressive-sounding statistical evidence.
And if you're using made-up numbers to back your "statistics", you've made your point.
I pointed out that Thomas Hamilton couldn't have killed as many children if he hadn't possessed guns. That's an unanswerable fact
Hardly. The worst massacre of children in the US involved no guns whatsoever. So does the 2nd worst. There's never been a mass killing of more than 3 people in the US where guns are allowed - there were several attempted, all have been foiled.
Now that you've totally banned guns and self-defense, are you safer? That was your claim, to save the children, we must ban guns.
Are less children being killed? Oh.. More children are. And violence is skyrocketing everywhere. To remind you again of how we crossed paths - it was at Rachel Lucas, where a young father was beaten to death by drunken hoodlums who found it perfectly normal to bully their way down the street.
Odd, that. (Given your "facts".)
Not so odd here, and what we predicted would happen.
Your pathology continues with your concentration on "tone", with your false pointers, and with your underlying and admitted rationale which is ignorant fear, and disdain for anyone who points out your hypocrisy.
"That's an unanswerable fact"
It is a fact, though not "unanswerable". What we find irritating is that you hold on to that fact as if it is the only fact there is, while ignoring every other relevant fact. Thus Kevin's emotional response. In fact, why don't we take a look at Kevin's response?
"That is the kind of thing that really pisses me off. [Kevin is stating his emotional reponse. Now look at the rest.] No, James, it wasn't Thomas Hamilton's right to own a handgun that killed those children, it was Hamilton himself. Once again, you blame the weapon, not the man who loaded it, aimed it, and pulled its trigger. You place the blame on an inanimate object rather than on the perpetrator. Hamilton meant to kill kids. He could have done it any one of a thousand different ways, but because he chose handguns, that's what you focus on."
So after Kevin pointed out that your tunnel vision is irritating, he went right back to dealing with statements of fact. How does Kevin's irritation invalidate his statements of fact?
Care to take on the philosophical argument I made?
Of course he doesn't.
James Kelly: "Thomas Hamilton couldn't have killed as many children if he hadn't possessed guns."
Unix-Jedi: "The worst massacre of children in the US involved no guns whatsoever. So does the 2nd worst."
U-J, I can't seem to think of what those were. Could you point them out? Thanks.
U-J's post reminded me that while guns are more powerful than knives, fists, etc., they are not the most powerful weapons for mass murder. There are much more effective means available using materials that cannot be outlawed without causing severe problems. (Or simply cannot be outlawed, period.)
U-J may have been thinking of the Oklahoma City bombing as one of the mass murders. All that took was diesel fuel and fertilizer. Or suppose someone wanted to target children like Hamilton did, all you have to do is go to your local grocery store, buy some bleach and ammonia and figure out how to mix and deliver them. Simple, effective, and far more deadly on a wide scale than a gun.
The fact is that a gun was the tool Hamilton used to kill more children than he would have without it. We do not deny that. But to conclude that a gun is the most effective tool, or that guns cannot be used defensively—especially based on a single incident—is ludicrous.
Ed, the worst was in 1927 in Bath, Michigan. 45 dead, 58 wounded.
Ed:
OK City was of course the worst.
But there was prior to that the massacre in Bath MI. (Unlike OK City, it was aimed *at* children.)
At a time when full-automatic machine guns were free for the buying, he decided to use dynamite.
http://www.gendisasters.com/data...exp-
may1922.htm
So to claim that of COURSE Hamilton couldn't have POSSIBLY killed a lot of kids except for the gun is facetious, history proves otherwise.
More kids are killed in auto accidents - as was pointed out - and he announced that of course HIS need for convenience outweighs THEIR lives.
I spent 4 years getting an advanced chemistry degree - I promise that Mr. Kelly can't begin to think of the damage that could be done with college-level chemistry knowledge and easily available chemicals. But that's exactly the point. He's never thought about the damage possible, he merely hates the "gun" bugbear. Actually, you can stop it after "He's never thought" and it's correct.
James, James, James... Methinks you dost protest too much. I thought you were done arguing with us neanderthals who dared to use facts, figures, and statistics to support our viewpoints? Or are you just too much of a coward to do the debating on your own site, so you simply "moderate" out of existence any comments you do not have an appropriately emotional response to?
Anywise, the other commenters here have done a fairly decent job showing you for the fool you are, but I will still add my two cents to the mix.
...most notably with your cynical juxtaposition of a picture of a horrifically-injured woman with words to the effect of "this is what James Kelly regards as mere 'bumps and bruises'".
No, you moronic buffon - that is not "resorting to emotion", that is disproving your idiotic comments by showing the warm, bloody facts of the situation. You implied that the worst that could come out of an encounter with a criminal, if the criminal does not have a firearm, is "bumps and bruises", especially if one "gives the criminal what he wants". Kevin merely demonstrated what those "bumps and bruises" actually look like - cuts, gashes, and permanent scarring. You were the one who decided to marginalize the grievous injuries of crime victims in your country; acting all pissy when people call you out over it is rank immaturity.
You also resorted to anger (an emotion, I believe) when I pointed out the blindingly obvious fact that the mass-murderer Thomas Hamilton...
Provide specific examples, James. Because, in looking through Kevin's writings on Thomas Hamilton, I can find no sign of anger, other than the anger he adequately expressed over the deaths of the children Thomas murdered. I do see annoyance at your continued and erroneous use of a specious and fallacious argumentative tactic (namely blaming a criminal's actions on the tools he chose to use), but considering just how repetitive your idiocy in that regard, I can hardly blame him for expressing some dissatisfaction. Sure, Kevin went on to comment on how Thomas' killing spree was speciously used as leverage to disarm the law-abiding populace of England (which seems to have worked out so well for you all, by the way), and may have used bolding and underlining to make his point, but if you are attempting to equate editorial emphasis with anger, you are a bigger fool than we had originally thought.
...you resorted to emotion on so many occasions...
Thus far, James, your set of "so many occasions" is null, and it is likely to remain that way until you can provide specific examples, backed up by citational links. Or is asking you to back up any of your words with facts simply asking too much of you?
I also on two separate occasions directed the readers of my blog to a website ...
From a man who, on multiple occasions, refused to follow the links put forward by his debaters, the above phrase is ridiculously hypocritical.
If it needs to be pointed out, there's quite a big distinction between philosophy and 'data'.
You are absolutely right - a philosophy that is not supported by data (either as a basis or an outcome) is completely and utterly meaningless, except as an intellectual curiosity or potentially as an item of religious faith. Is that what you are trying to tell us, James? That your belief concerning firearms is a matter of religion to you? That would certainly explain your adamant belief that gun control works, despite obvious and copious evidence to the contrary...
...in the worlds of Kevin Baker and Karl Marx, who both believe(d) their philosophies are literally provable beyond any doubt.
False analogy. Furthermore, it is additionally hypocritical - while Kevin is attempting to factually demonstrate how his particuliar philosophy works, you are demanding that we accept your philosophy at face value, with no substantiation, and with significant evidence that your philosophy is full of gos-se. Sorry, but the world simply does not work that way.
Of course, it is no small irony that you would compare Kevin to one of the prime individuals of the "do it again, only harder" movement... especially considering that your entire debate basically comes down to that pithy phrase.
...if you're the one claiming to deal in cast-iron 'facts', the burden of proof for you is that much higher.
If you're the one wanting to abridge human's naturally granted and legally-protected rights on the basis of your own, personal belief, the burden of proof for you is equally high.
As Mr. Freeberg already pointed out, you are living, breathing proof that his comment was 100% correct - if you propose beliefs, substantiated by nothing, we are supposed to accept those beliefs as if they were inviolate, and surrender our rights if those beliefs require it. However, if we propose facts, evidence, and/or concrete information, we are immediately reviled, demonized, and ridiculed. I do not think Mr. Freeberg could have dreamed of a better proof of concept...
I dare you, address my point seriously.
He has already done so. Copiously. Some might even say "excessively". However, your refusal to acknowledge having your arse handed to you does not mean it never happened.
...I did not claim that directing to another website meant that I had 'won' the debate.
*sneeze*bullshit*sneeze*. Or, rather, I'm afraid the above assertion is just a touch problematical. It is...how can I put this, not strictly true. It's made up. Fabricated. A fantasy. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's a lie.
Oh, and James, I have been meaning to ask... how is the violent crime rate over in the merry old United Kingdom treating you? You know, the violent crime rate that is four times the violent crime rate here in the States? I thought it was us gun-crazy Yanks who had the problem with a violent, crime-ridden society?
I might have known. Ask Mr Baker a straight question, and what happens? Not a hint of a straight answer (it really shouldn't have been a hard one, Kev), and instead we get the usual acres of twaddle from Linoge and Unix-Jedi. Not a great consolation prize.
If upon further inspection I can discern any worthwhile points or questions amongst the sea of drivel, I might be tempted into a blog-post. Maybe. But in the meantime, I'll just point out the obvious - Kevin's repeated failure to address my point, in even a cursory way, speaks volumes.
"I might have known. Ask Mr Baker a straight question, and what happens? Not a hint of a straight answer (it really shouldn't have been a hard one, Kev), and instead we get the usual acres of twaddle from Linoge and Unix-Jedi. Not a great consolation prize."
I might have known. Ask Mr. Kelly three straight questions (as Linoge did in the comment just before his), and what happens? Not a hint of a straight answer (they really shouldn't have been hard ones, James), and instead we get the usual sniping twaddle from James. Not a great consolation prize.
"But in the meantime, I'll just point out the obvious - Kevin's repeated failure to address my point, in even a cursory way, speaks volumes."
But in the meantime, I'll just point out the obvious - James' repeated failure to conform his beliefs with observable, demonstrable reality, as if belief trumps reality, speaks volumes.
But, I digress.
Your point was (and correct me if I have mis-copied-and-pasted):
"... I pointed out the blindingly obvious fact that the mass-murderer Thomas Hamilton simply would not have been able to kill as many children as he did in the time he did with almost any other weapon or implement."
It appears to me that Kevin did address your point some time ago. His statement was:
"If you were arguing specifically that banning firearms would prevent some rampage shootings, you'd be correct."
Implicit in his response is an admission that, if Hamilton did not have a gun, then he could not have engaged in a rampage shooting.
Had you forgotten that, or did you not read it before?
Ask Mr. Kelly three straight questions (as Linoge did in the comment just before his)...
Not to quibble, but I actually managed to ask him eight questions in the course of my post. Granted, some of them were slightly redundant, but he completely avoided answering all of them.
Hypocrisy, thy name is James Kelly.
But three of them were posted in your final paragraph, right above his comment, hence my comment.
Mr. Kelly, you asked me two questions, to wit:
1) Kevin, do you ever give it a rest, man?
No, I'm a 'fanatic' as defined by "Won't change my mind, won't change the subject, and won't shut up."
You seem to be the reverse side of the same mold.
2) Where am I going wrong here?
By re-engaging? No, sorry, cheap shot. You asserted that I had a "a stronger burden of proof" to achieve than you. I invite you to read my most recent post for that reply, as the subject of that post apparently shares your worldview.
I further suggest that it is you who needs to supply proof, since what you believe flies directly in the face of what the rest of us call "reality" - defined as "what remains, even when we stop believing in it."
Like I said, DJ, not to quibble 
. In either case, James Kelly is a flaming hypocrite, there is certainly no way around that.
Oh, and in case anyone is willing to put up with a coward's commenting policy, it would appear as though our favorite hypocrite has a response up: http://scotgoespop.blogspot.com/...fers-
their.html .
He is even asking for an explanation of the "reasoned discourse" concept... I do not really understand why, considering that he is a walking, talking example.
Linoge:
And he's been linked to it at *least* 4 times that I recall.
... For me, the most shocking incident I can remember was of an Aberdonian businessman who knocked on the door of a house in Texas seeking help. The homeowner decided on rather flimsy evidence that his home was under attack by burglars, took a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ approach, and shot the entirely innocent businessman dead.
...
Which is just stunningly, unsurprisingly for James Kelly, dishonest. For someone who bitches about being called a liar so often, you'd think he'd be more careful and, stop, you know, lying.
Hey, James? You want us to believe you're interested in honest discussion?
Try being honest. There's no possible way you can describe that now as the case. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, which you still claim to want, even as you keep proving it was a waste of time.
As I was going purely from my own memory of news reports from some fifteen years ago, I did search for information on the incident on an internet search engine to refresh my memory. Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any trace
Then you're incompetent as well, it was trivially easy to Google.
So instead I related the story as I remembered it.
And you were soon linked to the news reports. Everybody - and I mean everyone - gave you the initial benefit of the doubt that you'd heard it wrong, or remembered it wrong. We thought that getting the facts of the situation would cause you to admit that maybe you'd remembered it wrong, it wasn't quite that open and shut.... you just kept right on with your original thought process, even when it was demonstrated to be missing important facts.
I was soon lambasted for leaving out details
As you still are now. Leaving out facts. And lamblasted, but it's not exactly getting you to stop leaving the facts out nor to describe the situation accurately.
– the incident had taken place in the early hours of the morning, and the businessman had jumped over a fence to knock on the back door, having received no response at the front.
And yet you're still leaving out the details, including that apparently he wasn't "knocking politely" or that knocking at the back door when someone won't answer the front isn't normal. Or that he'd been acting paranoid earlier and concede that it's entirely possible he was presenting a threat. Calling him a "businessman" is questionable, but about the least of your self-deceptions.
Of course, none of these details make any material difference
Only to you who refuses to read, look up facts, and insist that a mis-remembered situation is exactly the same when it turns out you remembered it wrongly... To us, they make all the difference in the world between a tragic shooting and a justified self-defense claim. Much as you say that you'd "Only get bumps and bruises" if you just submitted to the rapists and robbers, and are offended when we can easily demonstrate that those "bumps and bruises" are sometimes very nasty - or that as in the initial case at Rachel's, those "drunken innocent businessmen" might just *stomp you to death* in your gunless paradise. And then you tell us that we've got a problem with violence.
(ie. 'it's 4am, someone' pounding on my back door, therefore he quite simply must die').
What it does do, is take your "paranoid gun culture" comments, and make them irrational. It changes everything about what you said, and at one point even you admitted that.
and shot the entirely innocent businessman dead.
No longer, knowing that, can you insist, as you still are, that DeVries was innocent when you've admitted he was guilty of multiple felonies, unless you're not arguing honestly. You keep reciting things are demonstrably not true.
But the fact that I had 'conveniently omitted' these details was cited as evidence that I 'was not arguing in good faith'. This was endlessly repeated in various forms (another favourite was 'intellectual dishonesty')
No, James, you're lying again.
It was only AFTER we'd linked the news reports and only AFTER we'd explained several times and only AFTER we'd explained more that we said "Well, obviously, he's intellectually dishonest if he won't accept that DeVries was breaking the law and was a threat.
You know, like you're still doing. That's why we keep saying you're a lying, intellectually dishonest bigot.
ever-reliable 24-carat slab of walking, talking Pure Offensiveness that is the poster 'Unix-Jedi'.
Hey, you're losing your "Tone" points! Tsk Tsk!
What, you think someone's who I just proved beyond the shadow of a doubt is deliberately lying (At this point there can be no doubt) insults will bother me?
Or perhaps it was ‘Linoge’. One of those two, anyway.
.... Which gets right back to your idiocy and inability to pay attention, read, and follow links. There's a difference between us, and the fact that you can't even remember is telling volumes about your intellectual process.
"Yeah yeah, something something, but YOU GUYS ARE IDIOTS." "Uh, that's not the case, see here." "Well, I'm certainly NOT GOING TO READ THAT." ... "What the hell are you talking about?" "we linked to it, here it is again" "I'm not going to READ THAT... but what are they talking about again?"
You've been linked to "reasoned discourse" repeatedly, and again, if you were arguing in an honest fashion, you'd have already read the definition. The fact you haven't doesn't surprise anybody here.
I decided to post the following comment on his blog. I'm really curious to see how he responds.
--------------------
If you didn't have detailed statistics available, why didn't you focus on logical and philosophical arguments instead? In fact, you claim here that you were more interested in a philosophical debate than an evidence based debate. I can understand that.
Yet ironically, even though Kevin did not get to the philosophical case before you decided to leave the debate, I did. I even pointed you back to that philosophical argument twice in the recent thread. Yet you seem to be actively avoiding it.
If you are seriously interesting in just discussing the philosophy, not the data, then why won't you address an actual philosophical argument?
Because he knows he'd lose.
ETA: OK, he accepted Ed's comment - let's see if he actually engages. The evidence to date suggests avoidance, obfuscation, and ridicule rather than reason, logic, and philosophy, however.
"our favorite hypocrite"
That would be Markadelphia.
Mr. Kelly has allowed my comment. Let's see what happens now.
Ed: to paraphrase a old physics joke, that's a known equasion.
But good luck.
He engaged, same as usual. Response to come.
I suggest that if you guys choose to respond, keep a laser focus on the philosophical points so he can't claim being overwhelmed again.
Ed: There's no point.
He's not going to stay on point. That's the problem. He's going to do exactly what he's been doing.
Notice how he's describing my contribution? He won't even follow a link that's a direct reply to a request by him, and then claims to be ignorant, and due to his ignorance, that he should receive more consideration.
He's wedded to his bigotry, and reality shall not be dared to interfere with his brilliance. He thought to win with "facts" by citing a case (he now admits he didn't remember), when those actual facts showed otherwise, he got upset at our "tone" and now fails to concede that we didn't initially call him dishonest - only when he insisted that his initial story was 100% right and needed no correction. Even as he admits he didn't remember at the time. And he admitted at one point that according to the law, it was a legal shooting. No, it's somehow, in his mind, our fault, and we're unreasonable. He can't even see how self-refuting he is with his whining about being called a liar... Then demonstrates stunning dishonesty and self-contradiction.
He writes a lot to distract from how vacuous the thought process behind them is, he assails descriptions that show him in a negative light, as he continues to spread deliberate misinformation.
Soon, true to form, you'll step over some time he'll retroactively decide is too far, call you names, blame Kevin to boot, and shut it down.
I've been there, I've done that, I've extended to him far too much credit and tried to assume he came by his beliefs honestly - he's proven that my extensions were a waste of time and that however he came by his beliefs, he's not going to support them honestly.
Here's my response:
--------------------
Mr. Kelly,
I'm not going to respond to your first comment. The goal here is to focus on the logical philosophical argument, while your first comment is data focused.
Your second comment is more philosophical, but you still didn't address the central logic. Nonetheless, there are important philosophical issues in your second comment:
"Back to the 'handguns are equivalent to fire extinguishers, wedding cakes, event planners, etc. etc.' stuff."
Where did I say "wedding cakes" or "event planners"? I didn't. Implying that I made an argument which I did not make is known as a Straw man fallacy. In other words, it is well known to logical error. In order for a logical argument to succeed (i.e., be correct) it must be correct every step of the way. Throwing in a logical fallacy breaks the chain of logic, and thus invalidates the argument.
"The point is that fire extinguishers are genuinely defensive measures.
That's true. However, my argument was entirely about immediacy of need—nothing more, nothing less. My argument was about having the right tool for a time critical job at the point where it is needed. (Wedding cakes and event planners have absolutely nothing to do with emergencies, which makes your use of them a category error.)
Your argument seems to boil down to something like this: "Guns can be misused, therefore they cannot be used defensively." Is this accurate?
If so, I have a simple question for you. What is it about the ability to misuse an object—in this case we're discussing guns, but there are innumerable other examples—makes it impossible to use the object to fulfill a valid need?
While this is an interesting (and important) question, the answer does not have any real impact on the central philosophical argument which you still have not addressed. I'm reproducing it here for your convenience:
Predicate 1: Everyone has the right to not be murdered.
Predicate 2: Humans have a great deal of variability in their natural capabilities. These capabilities range from large, heavily muscled young men with excellent coordination to the bed-ridden.
Predicate 3: Some humans with criminal inclinations fall into the more powerful range of human capabilities, with almost every criminal capable of locating potential victims with far lower physical capabilities, and they will do so. Human history is littered with examples of the strong preying upon the weak.
Therefore, it is necessary for the weaker members of the human race to use tools to make themselves powerful enough to level the playing field so that the criminals do not have stronger capabilities.
Predicate 4: Guns are currently the most effective tool for equalizing the ability to project force between human beings. Through the effective use of a gun, a frail old lady with a broken hip can fend off the attack of a 270 pound weight lifter should it be necessary.
Predicate 5: Even if gun ownership is made illegal, the criminally minded generally have no compunctions about acquiring guns illegally in order to gain an additional advantage over their intended victims. Mr. Kelley made this point himself, therefore I presume I do not have to argue it further.
Therefore: Laws against gun ownership only disarm the law abiding, while not preventing the criminal class from acquiring guns. As a result, gun bans increase the ability for criminals to attack their victims, violating the right established in Predicate 1, and is therefore immoral.
Wedding cakes and event planners have absolutely nothing to do with emergencies
....
Says a man who apparently has never been to or around the planning for a wedding.
How does a wedding cake solve an emergency again? It's been 20 years since my own wedding, so maybe I'm fuzzy on the concept.
Well done, Ed.
Note that Mr. Kelley and his ilk often balk at Predicate 5. The assumption they make is that, when gun ownership is made illegal, those who are the problem will follow the script, obey the law, and thereby gun use by them will cease. History illustrates the utter fallacy of that assumption, in particular the history of his own country.
Any bets we'll see this error yet again?
In this case, it's extra easy because he had already admitted the truth of Predicate 5.
Except in the case of Mr. Kelly and "grungekitty," they both focus solely on "legal" gun owners who go on rampage shootings. Their position being that such "legal" gun owners would be disarmed by laws banning privately owned firearms, therefore they wouldn't later break the law by shooting up classrooms or shopping centers, thus decreasing the death-by-firearm statistics.
Except they ignore the fact that the death-by-firearm statistics keep going up where such bans are instated, and here in the U.S., the death-by-firearm statistics have been going down for more than a decade despite an ever-increasingly armed populace.
No, they're perfectly happy that there hasn't been another Dunblane or Port Arthur massacre. Doesn't matter a bit if more people get shot to death each year, so long as it isn't a one-in-a-million random event!
And he's been linked to it at *least* 4 times that I recall.
Yeah, well, you can show a man the facts, but you cannot make him admit to them.
Best of luck to those who are engaging James on his own turf... but rest assured - the second he realizes how badly he is losing, he will accuse you of doing all manner of unsavory argumentative tactics (like kicking his arse) and shut everything down. Again. His intellectual dishonesty is only surpassed by his intellectual cowardice.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
