Which of these statements are true?

[Goobieman]

Test your reasoning skills!

 

[ashurbanipal]

My reasoning ability tells me that the referenced statements can be neither true nor false, since they don't apparently exist.

 

[niftydrifty]

Why not work on your own reasoning skills, Goobiema, rather than asking others to 'test' theirs?

Your poll is nothing more than a wacko strawman argument.

 

[Goobieman]

Why not work on your own reasoning skills, Goobiema, rather than asking others to 'test' theirs?
Your poll is nothing more than a wacko strawman argument.

I'm sorry -- I didnt see your poll response.
None of them are true?

 

[niftydrifty]

What is the point of this exercise? Please tell us, Goobie.

Are advocates of Gun Control in fact saying that "guns cause crime?" If so, please name some.

Or, are advocates of Gun Control saying that they want to make the tools used to make crimes more difficult to obtain? And are they wrong?

Answer the questions, Goobiema. Test your reasoning skills!

 

[Goobieman]

What is the point of this exercise? Please tell us, Goobie.

Are advocates of Gun Control in fact saying that "guns cause crime?" If so, please name some.

Or, are advocates of Gun Control saying that they want to make the tools used to make crimes more difficult to obtain? And are they wrong?

Answer the questions, Goobiema. Test your reasoning skills!

Well, since you havent responded that any of them are true, you must hold that none of them are.
Right?

 

[ashurbanipal]

All of them are true, depending on what you mean by "cause."

If you mean "cause" in the Aristotelian sense, then all of them could be taken to be material causes except for condoms causing promiscuity--but to Aristotle that would likely be an efficient cause.

If you are talking about Humean causation, then none of them are true.

 

[ARealConservative]

:rofl

I appreciate the spirit in which this thread was created.

Inanimate objects don't cause any of the poll questions to occur, but it is funny to see who actually voted that they do.

 

[Kelzie]

It's like you think all of us are really, really dense. :lol:

 

[Jerry]

Given that the inanimate objects are incapable of performing any action of their own, all of the statements are false.

Also, the cause of the actions which involve each respective object is the same: the person using the object.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Inanimate objects don't cause any of the poll questions to occur, but it is funny to see who actually voted that they do.

I voted that they all do, for the explanation given. Why is it funny?

 

[ARealConservative]

I voted that they all do, for the explanation given. Why is it funny?

It's funny because cause and facilitate have substantially different meanings.

 

[ashurbanipal]

What are those meanings?

Don't bother with recommending a dictionary; I know how to look up a word in Webster's or the OED. The issue is that people use words in different contexts and with different meanings. If you think it's funny, then tell me what you think the difference is. Specifically, what does it mean to cause something? It's no good to say "when something makes something else happen" because that's just a word-substitution game and it doesn't shed any light.

One example of a well thought out definition was given by David Hume, though he ultimately rejected the reality of causation. He said that where there are two events, A and B, and where B is never known to occur without A having first occurred, then A is taken to cause B. But this definition only applies to events (so, for instance, saying that people cause crime would be absurd to Hume--people can't cause anything. Better to say that some person's thinking something and taking such and such action caused a given crime; but even that Hume would have a problem with).

These aren't idle thoughts--my point is ultimately going to be that how we think of causation will influence how we answer those questions. If you begin by assuming that the material cause is not properly a cause, then of course you'll come to the conclusion you did. But why is excluding the material cause the proper thing to do?

 

[Goobieman]

But why is excluding the material cause the proper thing to do?

Because inaninimte objects cannot do anything - other than exist - without something or someone acting upon them.

"Can be used to" does not equate to "is the reason for".

 

[ashurbanipal]

Because inaninimte objects cannot do anything - other than exist - without something or someone acting upon them.

Just as, in most of those situations, the act could not take place without the inanimate object in question. I may wish to hack someone's server all day long, but without access to a computer of any kind, the server will remain forever unhacked, at least by me. And so on for most of the others. So why cherry pick--it seems clear that both are needed.

"Can be used to" does not equate to "is the reason for".

Not necessarily, but unless you've got a good answer to what I wrote above, the issue doesn't seem nearly as clear-cut as you'd like to make it.

 

[Goobieman]

Just as, in most of those situations, the act could not take place without the inanimate object in question.

Um...
You can eat with a spoon
You can slander with a typwriter
You can gamble with dice
(et cetera)
Thus, none of the things listed are necessary for the action they are attached to -- ecxept, maybe, the computer.

But even then -- how did the computer CAUSE the hacking?
Did it act on its own volition?

Not necessarily, but unless you've got a good answer to what I wrote above, the issue doesn't seem nearly as clear-cut as you'd like to make it.

You were saying...?
"Can be used to" does not equate to "is the reason for"

 

[niftydrifty]

Gee, when I google "guns cause crime," I only get a lot of right-wingers talking about how guns don't cause crime.

Are any advocates of Gun Control in fact saying that "guns cause crime?" If so, please name some.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Um...
You can eat with a spoon
You can slander with a typwriter
You can gamble with dice
(et cetera)
Thus, none of the things listed are necessary for the action they are attached to -- ecxept, maybe, the computer.

No one on the gun-control side of the issue is going to put forth the absurd notion that guns cause people to be stabbed/defrauded/arsonized or what-have-you. The concern is with crimes that involve guns.

So, while you may be able to gamble with things other than cards, you certainly can't play blackjack without them, and if cards were eliminated, blackjack would no longer be played. If the major concern is blackjack, then eliminating cards ought to be considered, even if for other reasons it is ultimately rejected. People might still gamble with dice, but if dice were in short supply, or if it turned out to be more difficult to cheat with dice, or for some reason people just didn't like the idea of gambling with dice as much, then your reply is really no reply at all--specific instances of gambling still occur with cards, and not with dice.

And so for guns (which is what I sense this thread is really supposed to be about). Crime existed before guns did, but guns allowed certain kinds of crime to become easier. One certainly can't commit the crime "armed robbery with a gun" without a gun. If "armed robbery with a gun" is a major issue, then eliminating guns is a possible solution.

But I would admit that if you eliminate forks, at best you're only going to eliminate table manners.

In short, your reply is an artful dodge--when you posted your questions, you certainly weren't thinking that "guns cause crime" was false because knives could cause crime. You were thinking that people cause crimes and guns by themselves do not; the other objects--pencils, forks, condoms, etc--were proxy categories for objects that perform similar tasks.

But even then -- how did the computer CAUSE the hacking?
Did it act on its own volition?

So long as your definition of causation depends on something acting of its own volition, then of course it did not (under that meaning) cause hacking. My point is that the definition is too narrow.

"Can be used to" does not equate to "is the reason for"

Back to you on this one.

 

[Hatuey]

No one on the gun-control side of the issue is going to put forth the absurd notion that guns cause people to be stabbed/defrauded/arsonized or what-have-you. The concern is with crimes that involve guns.

So, while you may be able to gamble with things other than cards, you certainly can't play blackjack without them, and if cards were eliminated, blackjack would no longer be played. If the major concern is blackjack, then eliminating cards ought to be considered, even if for other reasons it is ultimately rejected. People might still gamble with dice, but if dice were in short supply, or if it turned out to be more difficult to cheat with dice, or for some reason people just didn't like the idea of gambling with dice as much, then your reply is really no reply at all--specific instances of gambling still occur with cards, and not with dice.

And so for guns (which is what I sense this thread is really supposed to be about). Crime existed before guns did, but guns allowed certain kinds of crime to become easier. One certainly can't commit the crime "armed robbery with a gun" without a gun. If "armed robbery with a gun" is a major issue, then eliminating guns is a possible solution.

But I would admit that if you eliminate forks, at best you're only going to eliminate table manners.

In short, your reply is an artful dodge--when you posted your questions, you certainly weren't thinking that "guns cause crime" was false because knives could cause crime. You were thinking that people cause crimes and guns by themselves do not; the other objects--pencils, forks, condoms, etc--were proxy categories for objects that perform similar tasks.



So long as your definition of causation depends on something acting of its own volition, then of course it did not (under that meaning) cause hacking. My point is that the definition is too narrow.



Back to you on this one.

I swear these kids get smarter and smarter every year. Cheers homie.

 

[Goobieman]

In short, your reply is an artful dodge--when you posted your questions, you certainly weren't thinking that "guns cause crime" was false because knives could cause crime. You were thinking that people cause crimes and guns by themselves do not; the other objects--pencils, forks, condoms, etc--were proxy categories for objects that perform similar tasks.

The point is, of course, that guns cause crime like forks cause obesity -- that is, they don't.

So long as your definition of causation depends on something acting of its own volition, then of course it did not (under that meaning) cause hacking. My point is that the definition is too narrow.

How could it be anything else?
What definition of 'cause' could possibly allow for the idea that the gun, in and of itself, is the reason the crime happened?

 

[jallman]

The point is,

There was a point?

How could it be anything else?

I think that is really the point. Obviously, no one here believes that a fork jumps into a fat person's mouth and no one here believes that a gun pulls its own trigger.

This poll is just another waste of bandwidth.

 

[ARealConservative]

I think that is really the point. Obviously, no one here believes that a fork jumps into a fat person's mouth and no one here believes that a gun pulls its own trigger.

This poll is just another waste of bandwidth.

Didn't I read where The city of New York recently banned the use of all oil that contains trans fats in eateries?

And don't we still have rather silly limitations on the types of gun's that are too dangerous to use?

Point being people still do think this way unfortunately and as stated earlier, I appreciate the spirit from which this thread was intended.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Are advocates of Gun Control in fact saying that "guns cause crime?" If so, please name some.

What do you think the statement "guns kill" means. Guns don't kill, that is a verb, denoting an action, which an inanimate object cannot perform itself, hence the adjective, inanimate. The very statement "guns kill" is an assertion that guns are a reason that murders happen when in fact they are a tool like anything else and not the cause, it's called demonization, a method of creating negative perception based on image.

Or, are advocates of Gun Control saying that they want to make the tools used to make crimes more difficult to obtain? And are they wrong?

Fine, then let's ban, register, and license; axes, pencils, utensils, knives, hammers, cars, chainsaws, human bodies, electrical equipment........etc. ............. etc.
and yes, they are wrong.

 

[niftydrifty]

Are advocates of Gun Control in fact saying that "guns cause crime?" If so, please name some.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Are advocates of Gun Control in fact saying that "guns cause crime?" If so, please name some.

Fine, here.

Every Handgun is Aimed at You
Every Handgun is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns, by Violence Policy Center Executive Director Josh Sugarmann, covers a wide range of issues in 10 chapters demonstrating that banning handguns is the most effective way to reduce gun violence in America.

Encompassing topics ranging from crime to homicide to suicide to women and minorities, Every Handgun is Aimed at You uses statistics, easy-to-read charts, and first-person interviews to illustrate the true nature of America's epidemic of gun violence. It is an invaluable resource for all who are working to stop firearms death

Basically, it makes the arguments that if we just got rid of those guns, deaths like the ones listed in the summary would dissappear.