Aetherous Posted April 30, 2017 *Facepalm* Why, When and How do not rule in Aetherous kingdom ? Only Aetherous rules. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CloudHands Posted April 30, 2017 Founder and President CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. If you want to read about "More guns, less crime" http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo6686900.html Do I have to comment ? You were talking about biases. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted April 30, 2017 Hang on this is the UK election thread! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) Founder and President CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. If you want to read about "More guns, less crime" http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo6686900.html Do I have to comment ? You were talking about biases. The problem with discussing these issues with Brian is that his sole purpose is not one of reasonable discourse, but one of creating doubt in his opponent's mind and therefore discrediting one's argument in this public venue. I was introduced to this little book when I was studying for my degree and it has remained useful when anyone attempts to wow me with statistical analysis. https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728 Edited April 30, 2017 by ralis 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted April 30, 2017 I seriously have no affinity with that article nor that whole website... sounds like they really trying to prove something... don't you think ? The reality of what is called terrorism is something that is constantly in evolution since today change every day. Of course war is not terrorism and casual family shooting is not mass public shooting. Certainly wouldn't want fact-based research to get in the way of your personal worldview, CloudHands. Better to simply reject the source because you don't have an affinity for what they reveal. Should you get bored, you might take a look, though. Your second paragraph makes you look profoundly uninformed and your last sentence is answered in detail. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted April 30, 2017 Founder and President CPRC was founded by Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., an economist and a world recognized expert on guns and crime. If you want to read about "More guns, less crime" http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo6686900.html Do I have to comment ? You were talking about biases. You should try reading that book, actually -- you might find it eye-opening. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted April 30, 2017 The problem with discussing these issues with Brian is that his sole purpose is not one of reasonable discourse, but one of creating doubt in his opponent's mind and therefore discrediting one's argument in this public venue.Did you read the study I linked to, ralis? Can you say why I referenced it in this thread when I did? Did you read Lott's back story or the work, "More Guns, Less Crime"? Kinda hard to have "reasonable discourse" with someone who rejects on principle sources and information which conflict with their own worldview. Personally, I prefer conversation with someone who drinks from a firehose... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted April 30, 2017 Did you read the study I linked to, ralis? Can you say why I referenced it in this thread when I did? Did you read Lott's back story or the work, "More Guns, Less Crime"? Kinda hard to have "reasonable discourse" with someone who rejects on principle sources and information which conflict with their own worldview. Personally, I prefer conversation with someone who drinks from a firehose... You just proved my point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted April 30, 2017 You just proved my point.Are you saying you would like to have a reasonable discourse with me on the content of the link I posted, ralis? Or the other work CloudHands mentioned, which was an analysis of FBI crime data? I would welcome either opportunity. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CloudHands Posted April 30, 2017 The problem with discussing these issues with Brian is that his sole purpose is not one of reasonable discourse, but one of creating doubt in his opponent's mind and therefore discrediting one's argument in this public venue. I was introduced to this little book when I was studying for my degree and it has remained useful when anyone attempts to wow me with statistical analysis. https://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728 You know sometimes doubt is welcome. But yeah I rather agree with your analysis and with no disrespect... how and why one behave tells more than anything else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CloudHands Posted April 30, 2017 Certainly wouldn't want fact-based research to get in the way of your personal worldview, CloudHands. Better to simply reject the source because you don't have an affinity for what they reveal. Should you get bored, you might take a look, though. Your second paragraph makes you look profoundly uninformed and your last sentence is answered in detail. Sometimes I'm under the impression you do anything you can to not understand. I'm certainly not the person that will extensively try to prove you wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted April 30, 2017 Sometimes I'm under the impression you do anything you can to not understand. I'm certainly not the person that will extensively try to prove you wrong.Perhaps you should consider trying to do exactly that, CloudHands. Smug surety of one's own unchallenged assumptions is an intellectual desert. Personally, my most paradigm-shifting discoveries have resulted from trying to prove someone wrong and proving myself wrong instead. This awareness is a large part, I think, of why I continue to ingest data and information from widely disparate viewpoints and sources -- I never know which elements of my current worldview will next turn out to be completely mistaken but I look forward to finding out. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CloudHands Posted April 30, 2017 (edited) Perhaps you should consider trying to do exactly that, CloudHands. Smug surety of one's own unchallenged assumptions is an intellectual desert. Personally, my most paradigm-shifting discoveries have resulted from trying to prove someone wrong and proving myself wrong instead. This awareness is a large part, I think, of why I continue to ingest data and information from widely disparate viewpoints and sources -- I never know which elements of my current worldview will next turn out to be completely mistaken but I look forward to finding out. To prove you wrong I'd need your english language mastery and try to master datas of a specific intellectual field. Even with that it would prove not that I grasp some truth but only that you are wrong. I'm not really aimed at intellectual knowledge... Thus it is my family's path it has been proved wrong by all of them. Note that their are not failures as functioning individuals, logical systems or loving humans but that is not my understanding of life not what I'm looking for and I can read them well enough to understand why. Maybe it's not true with you, I can't tell because I don't know/understand you. But... whatever the tons of knowledge one ingurgitate if you are honest with yourself you'll always know that you know nothing. So everything you do in that field is a megamix of boxes opening, role playing, side taking, puzzle/equations solving. There is for sure plenty to learn and many things that bring lights a living but ultimately there you stay. Intellectualism doesn't change much of a person's essence. I know you disagree. Have a nice evening Edit : still I'm curious... but curious is the word/world Edited April 30, 2017 by CloudHands 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted April 30, 2017 To prove you wrong I'd need your english language mastery and try to master datas of a specific intellectual field. Even with that it would prove not that I grasp some truth but only that you are wrong. I'm not really aimed at intellectual knowledge... Thus it is my family's path it has been proved wrong by all of them. Note that their are not failures as functioning individuals, logical systems or loving humans but that is not my understanding of life not what I'm looking for and I can read them well enough to understand why. Maybe it's not true with you, I can't tell because I don't know/understand you. But... whatever the tons of knowledge one ingurgitate if you are honest with yourself you'll always know that you know nothing. So everything you do in that field is a megamix of boxes opening, role playing, side taking, puzzle/equations solving. There is for sure plenty to learn and many things that bring lights a living but ultimately there you stay. Intellectualism doesn't change much of a person's essence. I know you disagree. Have a nice evening Edit : still I'm curious... but curious is the word/world Actually, I agree with you quite strongly. If I find something which someone I value (such as you) says that seems based on facts or personal experience AND it is greatly at odds with my current understanding, I often begin my own personal exploration. If I learn I was mistaken, this is a wonderful thing because I have grown in some aspect. If I learn the other person was mistaken -- "in real life" -- I tend to withhold that information because I have learned the hard way that most people aren't interested in growth but in the comfort which comes with an unchallenged belief system. When the topic reemerges, if the conditions seem right, I might float out the idea that they are mistaken to see if they seem receptive because this is an opportunity for me to help them grow. I've learned that relationships don't do well with this sort of information uninvited. Sometimes, I've already done the personal research as the result of some previous exploration. An Internet forum isn't the same as "real life" and I tend to be more direct. The purpose, though, isn't to prove someone wrong for the purpose of making myself feel important but to grow or help others grow. If someone shows me they aren't interested, I stop. I sometimes don't read those messages correctly in real life and I often need to be told in clear words over the Internet. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted April 30, 2017 Snore!!!!!!!!!!!!!This is not the sleeping section. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted April 30, 2017 This is not the sleeping section. No its the UK and French elections not your sodding gun control OK! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taomeow Posted May 1, 2017 (edited) . Edited May 1, 2017 by Taomeow Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dust Posted May 1, 2017 (edited) http://crimeresearch.org/2017/01/with-39-killed-in-tunisia-attack-the-top-three-mass-public-shootings-are-outside-the-united-states/ Assuming this is in response to the current 'Islam front for terror' conversation, I'm not really sure what this is supposed to prove? Yes, there are a lot of Muslims out there who want to kill people. Nobody's arguing against that, I don't think. It doesn't prove that all Muslims are terrorists (and I don't believe that you believe that they are either so I'm a little confused). The list contains a lot of examples of Boko Haram, but no mention of the LRA. Boko Haram since 2009 has killed over 20,000 and displaced 2.3 million from their homes; the LRA from 1987 to 2004 killed over 100,000 civilians, displaced 1.5 million civilians, and abducted over 20,000 children. This is not to mention the other horrific things both groups have done (rape, slavery, torture, etc) and that both continue to do, right now. It's an unfair comparison: the time scale for LRA is longer than BH so the death toll is likely to be higher. But both are still ongoing and both, when all is said and done, will have caused an incredible amount of suffering. Who's to say that the LRA won't have caused more suffering in the end? (considering their methods, which are terrifying in their cruelty) The reason for the comparison? The LRA is supposedly Christian, versus Boko Haram's supposed Islam. Are we to blame Christ and all Christians, including the precedents set by Christian warlords over the centuries, for the horrors of the LRA? Do we, knowing that Islamic scripture gives a little precedent for some of Boko Haram's action, then blame all Muslims for Boko Haram and insist that all Muslims must be terrorists? Heck no, neighborino! Another example of the site's apparent inclination to skew the truth by presenting a limited scope of information: Looking at the article comparing casualties from mass public shootings in the USA & France, we see tables showing around 30 shootings in the US from 2009 to 2016, and 6 in France from 2012 to 2015. We see that one shooting in France killed more than any other of the listed attacks (the Nov 13 2015 Paris attack, though I believe some of those casualties/deaths were caused by suicide bomb? Not going to quibble over that but worth noting) and also that in terms of deaths, the listed US attacks still come out in front. Yes, more people died in shootings in the US, and quite a few of these attacks were not perpetrated by Muslims (though the worst in terms of deaths and injuries were). Now, the comparison might not seem entirely fair, comparing 8 years in America to 4 in France, 30 attacks to 6, until we realize that France didn't have any mass shootings in 2009, only one (with one dead) in 2010, one in 2012 (7 dead), etc. So the comparison of 8 years to 4 was for effect: the totals would have been quite similar. More dead in the US, more overall casualties in France. But it seems even more compelling to compare a relatively short term in France to Obama's whole presidency. What has it proved? That Muslims have shot a lot of people? Yes. That US shootings are not so bad? Absolutely not. Edited May 1, 2017 by dust Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted May 1, 2017 Did you read the study I linked to, ralis? Can you say why I referenced it in this thread when I did? Did you read Lott's back story or the work, "More Guns, Less Crime"? Kinda hard to have "reasonable discourse" with someone who rejects on principle sources and information which conflict with their own worldview. Personally, I prefer conversation with someone who drinks from a firehose... Given your penchant to use political discourse as a means to inflate your ego at others expense, I will not be participating. Intellectual acrobatics are only the tip of the iceberg of a far greater human experience. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted May 1, 2017 Acrobatics on the tip of an iceberg is a slippery slope. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dust Posted May 2, 2017 The singling out happens from any rational human being who isn't mind controlled, because the problem is so readily apparent. No problems with Buddhism then? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/08/tibetan-lamas-buddhism http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176747/Buddhist-monk-repeatedly-raped-teen-years-impregnated-her.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/cambodia/3482192/Buddhist-monk-arrested-for-rape-of-British-tourist.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bhutan-women-abuse-idUSKCN0WP04E http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/rohingya-muslims-burma-government-rapes-massacres-government-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-rakhine-a7471636.html http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/ http://www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/ZenandWar.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted May 2, 2017 No problems with Buddhism then? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/oct/08/tibetan-lamas-buddhism http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176747/Buddhist-monk-repeatedly-raped-teen-years-impregnated-her.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/cambodia/3482192/Buddhist-monk-arrested-for-rape-of-British-tourist.html http://www.reuters.com/article/us-bhutan-women-abuse-idUSKCN0WP04E http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/rohingya-muslims-burma-government-rapes-massacres-government-genocide-ethnic-cleansing-rakhine-a7471636.html http://www.cbsnews.com/news/un-dozens-of-rohingya-muslims-massacred-by-buddhists-in-rakhine-burma/ http://www.inquiringmind.com/Articles/ZenandWar.html I haven't looked at any of these links, but Islamism is obviously a major world problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dust Posted May 3, 2017 I'll sum them up for you: rape of women and children by Buddhist monks of various sects in various countries; national commonplace (74%) domestic abuse in Bhutan; attempted genocide in Myanmar; some of the major backers of Japan's militarization and conquest (i.e. murder, rape, torture camps, etc) in the 1930s and '40s were Zen monks. That's just from a couple of quick Googles. Of course you could find many more examples about the atrocities perpetrated by Muslims (especially considering how many more Muslims there are)... but the point is that in judging a person by the savage acts committed by others of their religion, and suggesting that all members of said religion must be deported, one will have to deport all Buddhists, too. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted May 3, 2017 I'll sum them up for you: rape of women and children by Buddhist monks of various sects in various countries; national commonplace (74%) domestic abuse in Bhutan; attempted genocide in Myanmar; some of the major backers of Japan's militarization and conquest (i.e. murder, rape, torture camps, etc) in the 1930s and '40s were Zen monks. That's just from a couple of quick Googles. Of course you could find many more examples about the atrocities perpetrated by Muslims (especially considering how many more Muslims there are)... but the point is that in judging a person by the savage acts committed by others of their religion, and suggesting that all members of said religion must be deported, one will have to deport all Buddhists, too. It's very sobering to read the history of Buddhist countries - including Tibet. You realise very quickly that religion and state should be kept apart. I suppose the question is - which group or groups are proposing global theocracy/ or religious rule and working to implement it? 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
