Knife Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I will end with this, though: your accusation here was that I was making an argument from analogy. [/quote]
Actually, no

An analogy only, then I told you I would dance to your tune for a while[/quote]

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
You made an analogy, and an argument from it, in your own words[/quote]

You can call that “dancing to my tune,” but I call it you making a claim that you didn’t actually even understand (and possibly still don’t? It is unclear as of yet).

Is this how it works?

Whenever we’re beaten, we’re “dancing to somebody’s tune?” Humoring them? Playing their game for a while for lack of anything better to do?

Or is it more like: sometimes people put claims forward without having even an approximate understanding of the said claims or even a passable familiarity with principles of the genre under which the said claims fall, and then predictably get thumped, and then make excuses about dancing and tunes in the desperate hope that somebody falls for it, if only for just a moment?

Anyway, this has been kind of fun, in its own odd way. Until next time.

302

[quote]smh23 wrote:
You can toss around all of the “shucks, I don’t know formal logic” piffle that you desire, it isn’t going to change the fact that you very willingly entered a debate expressly about logic.
[/quote]
You changed the scope, all I did was notice (and point it out of course)

Calling it ‘piffle’ and all the rest is just for fun and confusion - again - fun and confusion are skills of yours probably more than you know. This is not me ‘resorting to piffle’, this is what I was on about in the first place - perhaps you misunderstood

303

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
You can toss around all of the “shucks, I don’t know formal logic” piffle that you desire, it isn’t going to change the fact that you very willingly entered a debate expressly about logic.
[/quote]
You changed the scope, all I did was notice (and point it out of course)

Calling it ‘piffle’ and all the rest is just for fun and confusion - again - fun and confusion are skills of yours probably more than you know. This is not me ‘resorting to piffle’, this is what I was on about in the first place - perhaps you misunderstood[/quote]

No, this is a discussion about logic. You entered it willingly and then you peppered the discussion with a few “Gee, I don’t know this formal logic stuff but I’ll play anyway” lines.

You also tossed this out there:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
You made an analogy, and an argument from it, in your own words[/quote]

Emphasis mine. That’s called a claim. It was soundly defeated. That sucks, but it’s over now.

Like I said before, the letters and squigglies I’ve been throwing at you, arranged each of them in a special way, have all had very discernible meaning. And all of these logical expressions are very, very testable. That’s the beauty of logic–it embodies a certainty that is unattainable in the course of everyday life. Right and Wrong exist in logic–and, I’m happy to report, in this particular discussion as well.

304

How do you people have time to keep up with this discussion?

305

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I see you continue with your campus/courtroom analogy which you insist you never made. "But, but, but, you’ve got to understand ‘magnitude’, dude!" Ummm…sure, pal.
[/quote]

Jesus Christ.

It is now clear to me that you need to start learning about what an analogy is and what an analogy isn’t, and I mean beginning with the very fundamentals of logic. I will explain this to you as soon as you do the following:

Tell me exactly what is the direct analogy I’ve drawn. Express it in the formal A is to B as C is to D.[/quote]

Joseph Smith.

It is now clear to me that you need to understand the following (repeated):

In any conceivably reasonable scenario a college campus can never “lock down” itself with metal detectors, X-ray equipment and such like a courtroom or airport can.

There are thousands of Amanda Collins type rape victims all over the 50 states every single year. None of them have been raped in courtrooms. Many of them have been raped on college campuses that have these “impressive” police departments with which all “non-paranoid” people should place their undying trust.
[/quote]

No no.

You’ve been attacking me for my “analogy” over the course of the past two pages.

Express this analogy to me in formal terms. A is to B as C is to D.

Let’s see it.[/quote]
court room attendies is to court rooms

as

college students is to college campuses

A is to B

as

C is to D

yeah, I think that works - could be wrong - but your response should be interesting…

An analogy or not doesn’t have jack to do with magnitude, a ‘direct’ analogy doesn’t even sound right in the first place…

What you did can be expressed in formal analogous expressions - now what?[/quote]

Quote for me the exact words of mine that set this analogy up. Do it in context–i.e., without cutting a word out of the post from which it came.[/quote]
Well, that would be disputable by nature - if you want to play that

You obviously didn’t say " ___ is to ___ as ___ is to ____" when making your analogous arguments - that’s not how humans usually talk. But I’ll see what I can do

By the way, you claiming to make an analogy was not the ‘charge’. The ‘charge’ was that you did make one while pretending not to. Be it on purpose or accident, I do not claim to know that either

I’m going to look toward the post where you originally claimed to not be making a ‘direct’ analogy, which would imply to me that you were making an ‘indirect’ one - and see what that finds. I think I’ll be finding an analogy that fits into the ABCD type ‘requirements’, but you’ll tell me that’s not what was intended or something.

:wink:

remember?

haha - maybe I should see what I find first…[/quote]
This was my second post in here towards you

We seem to be playing the same game by a different set of rules

My actual claims are not what you insist

This isn’t me backing down with ‘piffle’, I started on something you didn’t understand. I started like that and explained that to you in the beginning, but to show you I had to let you run some. That’s just how it is.

You chose to go toward something I didn’t understand, and then keep trying to put it above me like “you don’t even know the basics!!!1!!” in almost every damn post. I’m trying to [i]actually[/i] show you something, believe it or not

[quote]
By the way, you claiming to make an analogy was not the ‘charge’. The ‘charge’ was that you did make one while pretending not to. Be it on purpose or accident, I do not claim to know that either [/quote]

You’re right (surprise) that I didn’t know what ‘argument by analogy’ meant, but you were the one that brought that up - not me. You probably knowing full well the angle you were going to play… expecting that I didn’t *. But that’s not how it started, it’s all in text man - anyone can go back to it. I recommend that you do, because you really don’t know what you’re missing

  • You’ll mistake this for weakness and whining - but it’s not. If the fucked upedness of your tactics is that you set up an argument like that without the other guy knowing, and then holding them to it - that’s exactly the kinds of tricks I mean.

your right - I didn’t know ‘argument by analogy’ like you do - and that wouldn’t be much of a surprise from the hints I was throwing. You were banking on it, and I was e x p e c t i n g something [i]like[/i] that from you - but I didn’t know exactly how it would look. Think on that some, if you get anything from me at all

No weird looking squigglys from me, but there is meaning here too - believe it or not. I’m not as ignorant as you would like to portray. I never did deny that the squigglys had meaning. That’s not even my style

NOW we’re done

306

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
How do you people have time to keep up with this discussion?[/quote]
Not tomorrow, but today is easy…

How do you even feel smart by asking that?

307

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
How do you people have time to keep up with this discussion?[/quote]

I am pretty much constantly using TN as a way to put off writing the things that I actually have to write, although they are often related so this helps me.

However, today I have been especially procrastinatory. That isn’t a word though.

308

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
I’m not as ignorant as you would like to portray. [/quote]

I don’t believe you to be anything close to ignorant.

But with regard to the discussion we’ve been engaged in, your ignorance has been very much apparent. Whether we focus on “argument by analogy” or simple “analogy,” it is very clear that you did not stop to think through the fact that an analogy is necessarily predicated upon attributes common to the analogues and that two analogues cannot be set up as analogous to each other by virtue of a list of attributes that are not common among them. By common I don’t mean “smh thinks that college is closer in terms of degree of volatility to a court than to, say, your average corporate boardroom.” No no no–I mean A is C and B is C–exactly C, the precise opposite of ~C. Get it? This is not a “twist” or an opinion, but a very provable fact.

You also ignored again and again and again (because you could not disprove it, or perhaps were simply afraid to even approach it) the example of Hailey/Bobbitt. You should not have done that–it illustrated the kind of argument I had made here in this thread to a remarkably accurate degree, if I don’t say so myself. And if you’d taken the time to understand it, you probably would have given up and begun equivocating with the “well you don’t fight fair” lines much sooner. I simply can’t resist the urge to note that the fact that you didn’t touch that particular piece of my argument, despite the fact that I quoted and re-quoted it, is as telling as it was predictable.

In closing I’ll note that, despite the condescending nonsense about “opening my eyes,” and the barely-veiled aggression predicated on this caricature of me as a sinister, guileful Professor Moriarty of political debate, it’s been alright. Until next time.

309

Condescending maybe - but I figured you shouldn’t have the slightest problem with that

barely veiled aggression - not at all. No veil, I wouldn’t consider it aggression - but you might. I was very deliberate and clear, even in the beginning. Look again

sinister, guileful Professor Moriarty - I don’t know what that is, but I know you’re pulling slick moves that catch my eye quite often. Bottom of pg 4 is an example only

And yea I get that the squigglys mean ‘not’, took me a while, but I did eventually get it. If different magnitudes was all this is about - I did raise that in my first post, by the way. In other words, no need for all the searching and squigglys. AKA more sinister guile from you, heh. You absolutely DID run multiple layers of games here, but ok yea it was fun - no joke.

If there is a next time, try and pay attention when I try to point out any sinister guile. I didn’t actually say sinister (but it does sound cool) - I said it was most likely unnoticed by yourself, but that it is their even still (in other words an accident ~sinister). It is possible that a man do a thing without knowing it. If you act like that is not even possible, then where is the fun and confusion?

Peace out dawg

Oh! The Hailey Bobbit. yeah - I didn’t get it at first. The first one seemed stronger and I was in over my head, so it didn’t seem important at the time. It took me a while to even figure out that you wanted the weaker one… I can see why, but at first I thought you would go for neither. By instinct I probably attacked the first way because it was stronger and was also shown with variables and was easier to understand and translate (for me anyways)

310

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
Condescending maybe - but I figured you shouldn’t have the slightest problem with that

barely veiled aggression - not at all. No veil, I wouldn’t consider it aggression - but you might. I was very deliberate and clear, even in the beginning. Look again

sinister, guileful Professor Moriarty - I don’t know what that is, but I know you’re pulling slick moves that catch my eye quite often. Bottom of pg 4 is an example only

And yea I get that the squigglys mean ‘not’, took me a while, but I did eventually get it. If different magnitudes was all this is about - I did raise that in my first post, by the way. In other words, no need for all the searching and squigglys. AKA more sinister guile from you, heh. You absolutely DID run multiple layers of games here, but ok yea it was fun - no joke.

If there is a next time, try and pay attention when I try to point out any sinister guile. I didn’t actually say sinister (but it does sound cool) - I said it was most likely unnoticed by yourself, but that it is their even still (in other words an accident ~sinister). It is possible that a man do a thing without knowing it. If you act like that is not even possible, then where is the fun and confusion?

Peace out dawg

Oh! The Hailey Bobbit. yeah - I didn’t get it at first. The first one seemed stronger and I was in over my head, so it didn’t seem important at the time. It took me a while to even figure out that you wanted the weaker one… I can see why, but at first I thought you would go for neither. By instinct I probably attacked the first way because it was stronger and was also shown with variables and was easier to understand and translate (for me anyways)[/quote]

Not much has been said here, other than a few more “Oh trust me, you’re a slippery one” lines. And I’m not sure what you’re saying in that last paragraph, but whatever it is, I’ll reiterate that your failure to mention that Hailey/Bobbitt illustration–let alone attack or even think about disproving it–was telling.

But yeah, sure. Let’s leave it as it is. You believe you were right, and I certainly believe that I was. And by the way, I did not know that you hadn’t understood the meaning of the ~ symbol. I was just saying squigglies because it sounded funny.

311

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

How do you even feel smart by asking that?[/quote]

???

No offense big chief, but I’m not the one that’s been reciting my A-B-C’s and elementary arithmetic for the past 3 pages…

312

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
How do you people have time to keep up with this discussion?[/quote]

HAHAHA, I was hopeing to jump back in it today, but I’m not an English major so I doubt that’ll happen. I have no idea where the actual discussion ended.

I’ll say this; I disagree with both Push and Smh. I believe the right to carry should not be infringed on a college campus or in a court room. I say this because I don’t believe we need any more laws, especially those that infringe on our rights, just because a small % of people break our laws. If someone carries on a campus and shots the place up they should be punished for their actions to the full extent of the law. That would be murder, unlawful discharge of a firearm, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc…To me, and this is all just my opinion, making another law to prohibit carry does NOTHING to solve any problem. If a person is set in their mind to shoot up a campus it doesn’t matter what laws are on the book it is going to happen unless the shooters intentions are discovered BEFORE the incident. Instead it LIMITS the self defence capabilities of law abiding citizens.

I think, in this argument, one side has this idea that if concel or open carry were allowed everywhere America would revert back to the wild wild west. Why is that?

313

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
How do you people have time to keep up with this discussion?[/quote]

HAHAHA, I was hopeing to jump back in it today, but I’m not an English major so I doubt that’ll happen. I have no idea where the actual discussion ended.

I’ll say this; I disagree with both Push and Smh. I believe the right to carry should not be infringed on a college campus or in a court room. I say this because I don’t believe we need any more laws, especially those that infringe on our rights, just because a small % of people break our laws. If someone carries on a campus and shots the place up they should be punished for their actions to the full extent of the law. That would be murder, unlawful discharge of a firearm, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc…To me, and this is all just my opinion, making another law to prohibit carry does NOTHING to solve any problem. If a person is set in their mind to shoot up a campus it doesn’t matter what laws are on the book it is going to happen unless the shooters intentions are discovered BEFORE the incident. Instead it LIMITS the self defence capabilities of law abiding citizens.

I think, in this argument, one side has this idea that if concel or open carry were allowed everywhere America would revert back to the wild wild west. Why is that?

[/quote]

Good post. It’s time to stop trying to turn the U.S. into Minority Report through laws punishing actions that don’t negatively effect anyone.

314

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Good post. It’s time to stop trying to turn the U.S. into Minority Report through laws punishing actions that don’t negatively effect anyone.[/quote]

But, it’s for THE CHILDREN! Have you no heart!? Someone, somewhere, might do something BAD TO CHILDREN with a gun!

The only way to stop them is to disarm normal citizens and create a massive registry of all weapons! That way, we could fill out paperwork after the fact and blame someone! That will help . . . well that will help nothing, but lots of government people will get employed and the foundation for confiscation is created!

And we’ll FEEL BETTER about doing SOMETHING, no matter how harmful and ineffective to our stated goal!

315

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Good post. It’s time to stop trying to turn the U.S. into Minority Report through laws punishing actions that don’t negatively effect anyone.[/quote]

But, it’s for THE CHILDREN! Have you no heart!? Someone, somewhere, might do something BAD TO CHILDREN with a gun!

The only way to stop them is to disarm normal citizens and create a massive registry of all weapons! That way, we could fill out paperwork after the fact and blame someone! That will help . . . well that will help nothing, but lots of government people will get employed and the foundation for confiscation is created!

And we’ll FEEL BETTER about doing SOMETHING, no matter how harmful and ineffective to our stated goal![/quote]

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

316

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Good post. It’s time to stop trying to turn the U.S. into Minority Report through laws punishing actions that don’t negatively effect anyone.[/quote]

But, it’s for THE CHILDREN! Have you no heart!? Someone, somewhere, might do something BAD TO CHILDREN with a gun!

The only way to stop them is to disarm normal citizens and create a massive registry of all weapons! That way, we could fill out paperwork after the fact and blame someone! That will help . . . well that will help nothing, but lots of government people will get employed and the foundation for confiscation is created!

And we’ll FEEL BETTER about doing SOMETHING, no matter how harmful and ineffective to our stated goal![/quote]

Good point. Plus I haven’t been declared crazy or convicted of a felony, so why shouldn’t I support taking the rights of those who have? They would never come after ME.

317

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
Good post. It’s time to stop trying to turn the U.S. into Minority Report through laws punishing actions that don’t negatively effect anyone.[/quote]

But, it’s for THE CHILDREN! Have you no heart!? Someone, somewhere, might do something BAD TO CHILDREN with a gun!

The only way to stop them is to disarm normal citizens and create a massive registry of all weapons! That way, we could fill out paperwork after the fact and blame someone! That will help . . . well that will help nothing, but lots of government people will get employed and the foundation for confiscation is created!

And we’ll FEEL BETTER about doing SOMETHING, no matter how harmful and ineffective to our stated goal![/quote]

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
[/quote]

I am surprised that Libs haven’t put that ^ message on a poster yet.

318

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

Comparing military conscripts to the average American college student is almost as erroneous as the Schindler’s List picture you posted earlier.[/quote]

What is the difference between a conscripted 18 year old, and an un-conscripted one?[/quote]

The differences between a military base and a college campus–and the people who populate each-- are so many and so drastic that it really isn’t worth listing them. If I recall correctly, you went to college? I believe you know the answer to this question very well.

Setting philosophy and principle aside here, anybody who has spent a substantial amount of time at a university within the past decade knows just what the American college student is like.[/quote]

In all seriousness smh, I would like to ask how many people you are around on a daily basis that are enlisted in the army. Not a few times a month, I mean a daiily basis, or very close to it. I know this post is from a while ago and I haven’t caught up with the thread (bunch of stuff from people I wanted to reply to, but too busy), but… i believe you have an erroneously high view of our enlisted corp’s responsibility with comparison to college kids.

I am around literally hundreds of active duty enlisted men at least half my week for the past 4 years living in a college town with a very large base nearby. Almost half my best friends are officers or otherwise related to military life. I have seen shit from the low enlisted ranks that beats the everliving fuck out of college kids in terms of stupidity, drunkenness, pussy chasing, everything. If anything, I would say there is absolutely ZERO difference in maturity level. I have more problems with them when drunk by a factor of about 5.

Your argument rests on very flawed assumptions in my mind. We have over 20,000 soldiers about 15 minutes away, and we have 20,000+ students in this town. I see no difference whatsoever.

319

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

Comparing military conscripts to the average American college student is almost as erroneous as the Schindler’s List picture you posted earlier.[/quote]

What is the difference between a conscripted 18 year old, and an un-conscripted one?[/quote]

The differences between a military base and a college campus–and the people who populate each-- are so many and so drastic that it really isn’t worth listing them. If I recall correctly, you went to college? I believe you know the answer to this question very well.

Setting philosophy and principle aside here, anybody who has spent a substantial amount of time at a university within the past decade knows just what the American college student is like.[/quote]

In all seriousness smh, I would like to ask how many people you are around on a daily basis that are enlisted in the army. Not a few times a month, I mean a daiily basis, or very close to it. I know this post is from a while ago and I haven’t caught up with the thread (bunch of stuff from people I wanted to reply to, but too busy), but… i believe you have an erroneously high view of our enlisted corp’s responsibility with comparison to college kids.

I am around literally hundreds of active duty enlisted men at least half my week for the past 4 years living in a college town with a very large base nearby. Almost half my best friends are officers or otherwise related to military life. I have seen shit from the low enlisted ranks that beats the everliving fuck out of college kids in terms of stupidity, drunkenness, pussy chasing, everything. If anything, I would say there is absolutely ZERO difference in maturity level. I have more problems with them when drunk by a factor of about 5.

Your argument rests on very flawed assumptions in my mind. We have over 20,000 soldiers about 15 minutes away, and we have 20,000+ students in this town. I see no difference whatsoever.[/quote]

I lived just outside Rota in Spain for a while as a kid.

But don’t get me wrong, I know a good number of enlisted scumbags. In fact, most of the kids who joined out of my HS were real trash growing up.

But they are A] kept in serious check by their superiors and B] trained in firearm handling/safety.

I simply don’t see college kids handling the responsibility of owning and carrying a gun within the college setting in anything like an acceptable manner. Apparently that makes me basically a Nazi, but oh well.

320

^ Also, more importantly, I think it’s pretty obviously the university’s call. If the university wants to allow it, that’s fine. If not, that’s fine too.