• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Science vs. Science™!

What happened in the Bruce Jenner threads when people said he's not a woman?

I remind those people that they are uneducated on the complexity of transsexuality and offer to explain to them why what they said is both accurate and inaccurate.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

No doubt there are such studies.
No doubt there are studies disputing aspects of the former.
Lowry's point is that often people who support the former because they ideological agree with it, will deny the latter is science.
 
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).
 
That was just partisan tripe. Essentially it comes down to "I don't like climate science, so I'm going to find a way to deride the whole of this in order to justify ignoring it".

I mean, I agree that video from Bill Nye's new show was really odd, but it has nothing to do with climate science. It was just a smear, a distraction used to attack the presenter as if it could then justify the dismissal of data from the whole.

Just ignorant, partisan hit piece, but I don't think anyone was actually thinking differently.
 
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.
 
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.

The reality is that areas that endure more of the collateral damage from our laughably lax federal gun laws, like dense urban city centers, tend to pass more gun control laws. What you are actually measuring is that the areas where gun violence is worse have more gun violence, which is trivially obvious.

Do you have anything honest or meaningful to say about this?
 
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.
 
Josie was referring to the US. Stop doing the context-change dance.

Your post is either a fantasy or dishonest. Here is the context:

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 

On Saturday, leftists around the nation took to the streets to sound off about their new religion: Science™! No, not testable hypotheses and well-constructed experiments. Science™! You know, like gay rights and abortion and global redistributionism and dying polar bears ’n’ stuff. Leading the charge was eminent scientific revolutionary Bill Nye the Science Guy, a mechanical-engineering-degree holder who got famous as a children’s television presenter. Nye was a keynoter at the March for Science, where he stated, “We are marching today to remind people everywhere, our lawmakers especially, of the significance of science for our health and prosperity.” What sort of science was Nye standing up to defend? Budget increases for the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institutes of Health, of course! He explained how all of this was scientific and not political: “Somewhere along the way, there has developed this idea that if you believe something hard enough, it’s as true as things discovered through the process of science. And I will say that’s objectively wrong.” Belief isn’t science. This is a good point.





Sounds like someone failing utterly because they are trying to snarkily call something stupid, while wearing their underwear on their head. The rest of that, erm, blog thing, reads like the author's fingernails spewed their own spittle.

This is something you call a source? It reads like a HuffPo post that's had its polarity reversed and was amplified by a few orders of magnitude at the least.
 
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. Other countries have other economic situations, other cultural situations, and on and on. This makes it impossible to tell with any type of reliability what effect actual gun bans have vs other factors in crime rates. On the other hand, since the US has a second amendment, and therefore no significant gun control laws, we have zero data what effect, long term, short term, medium term, banning or significantly restricting guns would have on crime rates. Sometimes, and this is one of those cases, the answer science provides is "**** if I know".

Josie, you inm particular should know better as an educator, and your making claims that are not accurate about what "science" shows is hilariously ironic.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

This is obviously referring to 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.

The bold is clearly not talking about Europe.
 
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?
 
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.
 

From the wiki on Shapiro:
"In an article in National Review, Shapiro wrote: "I’ve experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump’s candidacy than at any other time in my political career. Trump supporters have threatened me and other Jews who hold my viewpoint. They’ve blown up my e-mail inbox with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. They greeted the birth of my second child by calling for me, my wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber."[49]"
 
This is obviously referring to the US:



The bold is clearly not talking about Europe.

Your interpretation is laughably stupid. You are arguing that she obviously only intended to refer to data that was congruent with her premise. Either you're moving the goalposts yourself or you're accusing her of cherry picking. Your choice.
 
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.

I've been talking to pro-choice people for years. The people on the fringe are those who admit an unborn fetus is human and admit that an unborn fetus is their property to do with as they please. Most pro-choicers (young and old) I've spoken to try their damndest to pretend like a fetus isn't human at all and is just a "clump of cells".
 
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're talking about the US here. Strict gun control laws HERE --- like in Chicago --- don't help reduce gun-related deaths.
 
Back
Top Bottom