- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
What happened in the Bruce Jenner threads when people said he's not a woman?
He listed several beliefs in the article on topics liberals love to believe in -- abortion, gender issues, gun control, government intervention to save the world from climate change, etc.
Let's take abortion, for example. Pro-choice people frequently say a fetus is just a "clump of cells" as if a fetus really doesn't have a completely separate body, DNA, lungs, arms, legs, eyes, brain, heart. They disbelieve scientific facts because they desperately want to believe that a fetus IS just a clump of cells.
Then gun control -- I'd say most liberals believe that strict gun control will reduce gun-related deaths. But the facts have shown that in places where there already IS strict gun control, gun-related deaths are out of control. But they still believe that gun control will work -- their beliefs aren't based on facts, but their desire for it to be true.
I found it:
EDIT: Found it thanks to Absent's quote up there:
There are numerous threads on the topic in which CC explains the science behind transgender. You can go look for yourself. But there is science behind it and I don't want to derail the thread in any case. Because the author doesn't agree with the research, doesn't mean it isn't so. Which is really his gripe.
It's been repeated through the thread, he disagrees with liberals using science to back up their positions, so it must be a religion.
The context is the US, current day. Stats prove stricter gun control does not reduce crime or gun related deaths, often the opposite. Statistics is a science.
Everyone knows guns are needed for gun violence. Stop acting like anyone doesn't. Dropping context and employing childish rhetoric does not constitute a counter-point.
No, they don't. Actually, when you compare the statistics, they overwhelmingly show the opposite. Look at the per capita firearm homicide rates in the UK, Australia, and US. And consider that a gun control law that isn't enforced at the border will be less effective (that'll take a little common sense so let the emotional response and motivated reasoning sit in the back seat for once).
First of all, firearm homicide rates don't tell the whole story. But you probably already know that. Second, the context is the US; stricter gun control does not correlate with lower gun crimes or violent crimes - it's usually the opposite.
Sure the data suggests exactly what you want it to when you throw out the overwhelming majority of available evidence by dishonestly restricting the context without any coherent explanation.
Josie was referring to the US. Stop doing the context-change dance.
He listed several beliefs in the article on topics liberals love to believe in -- abortion, gender issues, gun control, government intervention to save the world from climate change, etc.
...
Then gun control -- I'd say most liberals believe that strict gun control will reduce gun-related deaths. But the facts have shown that in places where there already IS strict gun control, gun-related deaths are out of control. But they still believe that gun control will work -- their beliefs aren't based on facts, but their desire for it to be true.
Your post is either a fantasy or dishonest. Here is the context:
No mention of the US. Notice what her argument is: science proves that gun control cannot possibly reduce gun-related deaths. No, it does NOT prove that, there is obviously data to support either side in terms of more specific policy. The more general "gun control" includes my hypothetical which unequivocally proved her terrible argument wrong in its infancy. You took issue with that so i took another approach.
If anything, the data overwhelmingly proves that it is absolutely possible for gun control to reduce gun-related deaths. In fact, the idea makes perfect sense. It is possible to produce a rather convincing argument that there were no gun-related deaths prior to the invention of the firearm, so we have very strong association between access to firearms and use of firearms, which should be no surprise.
There's only one context in which her claim is certainly true - the US. There's no reason to believe she's referring to outside the US.
Science (statistics) does prove her claim correct.
Good day.
Did you read the article?
He listed several beliefs in the article on topics liberals love to believe in -- abortion, gender issues, gun control, government intervention to save the world from climate change, etc.
Let's take abortion, for example. Pro-choice people frequently say a fetus is just a "clump of cells" as if a fetus really doesn't have a completely separate body, DNA, lungs, arms, legs, eyes, brain, heart. They disbelieve scientific facts because they desperately want to believe that a fetus IS just a clump of cells.
Then gun control -- I'd say most liberals believe that strict gun control will reduce gun-related deaths. But the facts have shown that in places where there already IS strict gun control, gun-related deaths are out of control. But they still believe that gun control will work -- their beliefs aren't based on facts, but their desire for it to be true.
No, it does not. You are confusing statistics regarding existing gun control polices with predictions regarding future gun control policies. Extrapolation and speculation might be involved in the development of science, but, alone, they go beyond the scope of scientific fact by definition.
Furthermore, there is no reason to believe she was only talking about the US.
There's only one context in which her claim is certainly true - the US. There's no reason to believe she's referring to outside the US.
Science (statistics) does prove her claim correct.
Good day.
I am going to tell you the truth about what "science" says about gun control, and none of you will like it:
Looking at other countries is a fail, as it does not isolate variables.
Context was US, obviously. Read Josie's post again. Gun related deaths are not "out of control" in Europe.
I would not call gun related deaths "out of control" anywhere in the civilized world, including the US. And the only places with "strict gun control" are out of the US.
Then gun control -- I'd say most liberals believe that strict gun control will reduce gun-related deaths. But the facts have shown that in places where there already IS strict gun control, gun-related deaths are out of control. But they still believe that gun control will work -- their beliefs aren't based on facts, but their desire for it to be true.
This is obviously referring to the US:
The bold is clearly not talking about Europe.
Can't be talking about the US either, since the 2nd amendment prevents strict gun control. Maybe Asia?
Big of you to admit your error.
This is obviously referring to the US:
The bold is clearly not talking about Europe.
No. Lowry is saying such folks support science to the extent that it supports their ideological beliefs.
You really don't listen to liberals, do you? Do you get all of your information about what liberals believe either from right wing websites who make silly claims about what liberals believe or from extremist liberals who have no credibility and don't speak for liberals in general? Pro-choice people DON'T frequently say what you claim. Pro-choice people who are on the FRINGE do. And we know that gun control where the CULTURE is not a gun culture like that in the US reduces gun-related deaths. In the US this doesn't work any better than prohibition did. One has to examine the culture of where one lives to assess gun control issues.
No, they don't. Actually, when you compare the statistics, they overwhelmingly show the opposite. Look at the per capita firearm homicide rates in the UK, Australia, and US. And consider that a gun control law that isn't enforced at the border will be less effective (that'll take a little common sense so let the emotional response and motivated reasoning sit in the back seat for once).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?