Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) Also, is Japan a jerk?

So, any concerns right-wingers? (Apparently none at all.) Also, is Japan a jerk? (Page 9)
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 11:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
stop using metaphors an just say it
Spicer is on team Priebus.

Team Priebus are the good guys of the administration.

I honestly didn't realize this idea is so ****ing complicated.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Spicer is on team Priebus.

Team Priebus are the good guys of the administration.
Why would you say Priebus is amongst the good guys here? I think that is rather simplistic, especially in view of the fact that he reportedly teamed up with Steve Bannon to fight against “the Democrats” in the White House. No, not the Democrats you are thinking of, the people associated to Kushner such as Gary Cohn and Dina Powell.

I am not saying Priebus is a “bad guy”, on par with Bannon, I'm saying that making such black-and-white judgements is way too simplistic a point of view. Spicer's performance, peddling lies, is certainly not a good thing, something he should be commended for.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 11:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Why would you say Priebus is amongst the good guys here? I think that is rather simplistic, especially in view of the fact that he reportedly teamed up with Steve Bannon to fight against “the Democrats” in the White House. No, not the Democrats you are thinking of, the people associated to Kushner such as Gary Cohn and Dina Powell.

I am not saying Priebus is a “bad guy”, on par with Bannon, I'm saying that making such black-and-white judgements is way too simplistic a point of view. Spicer's performance, peddling lies, is certainly not a good thing, something he should be commended for.
It's a relative thing.

Also, from what I hear Bannon and Priebus hate each other's ****ing guts.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 20, 2017, 11:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's a relative thing.
That's not what you wrote, you called Priebus one of the good guys. You seem to imply that Spicer is also a good guy, because he is what, mildly moderating the craziness in the White House? (I'm not even seeing any evidence that he does.) Spicer has directly contributed to an erosion of trust in the President's word, hardly something he should be celebrated for.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Also, from what I hear Bannon and Priebus hate each other's ****ing guts.
I think their relationship is very faceted, and it seems clear that they are allies on many things. Just look at the wealth of leaks from the White House, there are many in-fighting factions that lead to Game of Throne-esque coalitions between enemies.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2017, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That's not what you wrote
Hence the clarification. Yee-o-wow, this is a tough crowd tonight.

Priebus is trying to protect establishment interests. The establishment knows how thin the ice is, so Priebus' goal is to minimize Trump stomping around on it.

Priebus won't pull in someone who doesn't share the same goal. Priebus pulled in Spicer.

They both have impossible jobs.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2017, 09:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Spicer is on team Priebus.

Team Priebus are the good guys of the administration.

I honestly didn't realize this idea is so ****ing complicated.
I guess it's complicated because your premise makes no sense to me. Spicer being part of the Priebus establishment doesn't change a thing. His actions are equally scummy no matter where he comes from.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2017, 10:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Priebus won't pull in someone who doesn't share the same goal. Priebus pulled in Spicer.

They both have impossible jobs.
Nobody put a gun to their heads and told them to do it. Every time Spicer has the choice between keeping his integrity and peddling “alternative truths” that his President wants him to spread. I don't think there is any honor in it. It would be honorable and draw a line in the sand and stick to your ideals.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2017, 10:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I guess it's complicated because your premise makes no sense to me. Spicer being part of the Priebus establishment doesn't change a thing. His actions are equally scummy no matter where he comes from.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Nobody put a gun to their heads and told them to do it. Every time Spicer has the choice between keeping his integrity and peddling “alternative truths” that his President wants him to spread. I don't think there is any honor in it. It would be honorable and draw a line in the sand and stick to your ideals.
I could be completely wrong here. I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm correct. I was asked to explain why I feel sorry for Spicer, and I'm trying to explain it.

If I am correct, and what Priebus and Spicer want to do is keep Trump on a leash, they're kinda forced to be scummy. If they draw a line in the sand, they get fired.

I think Spicer would get replaced by a true believer rather than someone trying to play the game, and that wouldn't be a good thing.

Priebus is basically Trump's Congressional Whip. Losing him could go either way. Trump having less pull with Congress isn't necessarily bad, but then the dog's off the leash, which is necessarily bad.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2017, 10:58 AM
 
Ok here's my thing: How does a press secretary keep Trump on a leash? By definition even the good ones lie and spin. Spicer just has to do more of it, in the most egregious manner possible. His spin shields the president, not restrains him.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2017, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Ok here's my thing: How does a press secretary keep Trump on a leash? By definition even the good ones lie and spin. Spicer just has to do more of it, in the most egregious manner possible. His spin shields the president, not restrains him.
All he can do in the open is suck enough to keep people disliking Trump, but not suck so much he gets fired. Trust me, this is better than the alternative, which would be someone like Laura Ingraham.

Behind the scenes, he can leak whatever the hell he wants, and he's Priebus' spy.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2017, 10:14 AM
 
Let's just say you've dreamed up quite a scenario there. There's nothing to indicate Spicer is that good guy.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2017, 10:18 AM
 
So the real answer is, "I feel bad for Spicer because I made up a scenario in my mind where he's a double agent working for the side of good."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2017, 10:42 AM
 
I think Priebus brought on Spicer. I think it's safe to assume that means they have a relationship.

Spicer's history is with the establishment, and all previous indications are he isn't a psychopath, unless someone brings up Dippin' Dots.

Priebus is smart enough to realize things are kinda ****ed up, and wants to be (and remain) one of the voices of sanity. To that end, he will use the tools at his disposal, and one of those tools is Spicer.

As I said, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I was asked why I felt the way I did and offered my explanation. At this point it's completely **** me for playing.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2017, 11:55 AM
 
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2017, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think Priebus brought on Spicer. I think it's safe to assume that means they have a relationship.

Spicer's history is with the establishment, and all previous indications are he isn't a psychopath, unless someone brings up Dippin' Dots.

Priebus is smart enough to realize things are kinda ****ed up, and wants to be (and remain) one of the voices of sanity. To that end, he will use the tools at his disposal, and one of those tools is Spicer.

As I said, I'm not trying to convince anyone. I was asked why I felt the way I did and offered my explanation. At this point it's completely **** me for playing.
Well it's a rather... optimistic take. That seems to be the recurring theme between us.

Here's a cynical take of your take: Priebus isn't trying to limit fallout to the nation – he's merely trying to limit fallout to the GOP.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2017, 10:04 PM
 
Priebus thinks what's best for the party is what's best for the country. This is distinct from his boss.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2017, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Priebus thinks what's best for the party is what's best for the country. This is distinct from his boss.
Now I know you're pulling my leg. You're think this people are True Believers™? Give me a break.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 4, 2017, 10:35 PM
 
The guy used to chair the party. I think he has a firm belief in Republicanism.

I don't really feel too out on a limb.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2017, 05:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The guy used to chair the party. I think he has a firm belief in Republicanism.

I don't really feel too out on a limb.
You can support those things and still know they're not good for everyone. I mean, there is a significant portion of the party that says freedom is better than actual health insurance, but I don't think most of those people actually believe it. They just hate government or taxes and this is the best talking point they got.
     
Doc HM
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UKland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2017, 06:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I mean, there is a significant portion of the party that says freedom is better than actual health insurance, but I don't think most of those people actually believe.
I think people just generally tend to believe that people less fortunate than themselves brought it all upon themselves, and if they can afford health insurance...
This space for Hire! Reasonable rates. Reach an audience of literally dozens!
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2017, 07:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The guy used to chair the party. I think he has a firm belief in Republicanism.

I don't really feel too out on a limb.
subego, how about we put this behind us. I'll STFU and let it lie. You get the last word, of course.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2017, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
subego, how about we put this behind us. I'll STFU and let it lie. You get the last word, of course.
Then I'll say something provocative.


Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You can support those things and still know they're not good for everyone. I mean, there is a significant portion of the party that says freedom is better than actual health insurance, but I don't think most of those people actually believe it. They just hate government or taxes and this is the best talking point they got.
This is one of my huge beefs with Democrats. They think Republicans know the truth, but deny it in pursuit of their twisty-mustache schemes.

I hate big pharma, but can't overlook the part where we develop the best drugs in the world.

Our healthcare costs are astronomical, but I can't overlook the part where we developed treatments which wouldn't exist if there wasn't huge profits motivating them.

This goes down the line. We **** over our workers, and in return we make Apple, Google, Netflix, Microsoft, Tesla, and the MCU... not our enlightened allies.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 6, 2017, 12:34 PM
 
I'll pivot this to the truth part- it's not schemes they're after, it's usually money.

Two examples: climate change and gun control.

They used to believe in climate change until it became economically inconvenient. Further undermining them is how they now want defund studying it.

This is similar to gun control where if it's, at the very least, good to collect the info, but they block funding for studying gun violence and cripple the ATF by refusing to vote to confirm a director.

Hell, isn't internet privacy a good example as well? You really think Rinse Pubis thinks letting ISPs sell data is good for Americans?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 7, 2017, 07:53 PM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2017, 01:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'll pivot this to the truth part- it's not schemes they're after, it's usually money.

Two examples: climate change and gun control.

They used to believe in climate change until it became economically inconvenient. Further undermining them is how they now want defund studying it.

This is similar to gun control where if it's, at the very least, good to collect the info, but they block funding for studying gun violence and cripple the ATF by refusing to vote to confirm a director.

Hell, isn't internet privacy a good example as well? You really think Rinse Pubis thinks letting ISPs sell data is good for Americans?
So much for my last word.

I more or less stand behind the restrictions the Republicans placed on studying gun violence.

What's relevant is whether my opinion is honest. Does it reflect what I believe is best for the country as a whole, or more unsavory motives.

I won't bore you with the specifics, but I can make the following claims about my position.

I'm aggressively pro-gun, so my argument needs to address the obvious conflict of interest.

I belive a reasonable argument can be made for the exact opposite of what I'm arguing.

It's not about shying away from data. I take such a dim view of this, should I myself be guilty of it I deserve to be flogged.


Is it possible my position is based on what I think is honest reasoning, rather than ignoring the truth to suit my agenda?


Rinse Pubis? Seriously?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2017, 02:57 PM
 
If you take a dim view of shying away from data, how can you possibly be in favour of restricting studies on anything?

Or is it just that good old libertarian paranoia that whoever does the studies can't be trusted?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2017, 04:26 PM
 
The issue wasn't with the studies, it was the conclusions a specific agency drew from them, and how those conclusions were being used as justification to push an agenda.

You and I would push vastly different agendas with regards to gun violence, despite working with the exact same data. Neither of those agendas should be what the government pushes. In serving all the people, it should acknowledge the spread of opinions on the complex sociological question of gun violence, and set its agenda accordingly.

This agency (the CDC) didn't, and got cuffed for it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2017, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The issue wasn't with the studies, it was the conclusions a specific agency drew from them, and how those conclusions were being used as justification to push an agenda.
This.

Car accidents cause way more deaths than firearms, but you don't see calls for the CDC to study traffic patterns do you?

You and I would push vastly different agendas with regards to gun violence, despite working with the exact same data. Neither of those agendas should be what the government pushes. In serving all the people, it should acknowledge the spread of opinions on the complex sociological question of gun violence, and set its agenda accordingly.
It was politics, pure and simple.
This agency (the CDC) didn't, and got cuffed for it.
Rightfully so. Such studies would be far outside it's mandate and would only serve to politicize the CDC and ultimately detract from it's actual mandate.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2017, 10:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The issue wasn't with the studies, it was the conclusions a specific agency drew from them, and how those conclusions were being used as justification to push an agenda.
This is an argument not to do any studies on anything ever. Its complete madness.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
You and I would push vastly different agendas with regards to gun violence, despite working with the exact same data.
Would we draw different conclusions?

Originally Posted by subego View Post
Neither of those agendas should be what the government pushes. In serving all the people, it should acknowledge the spread of opinions on the complex sociological question of gun violence, and set its agenda accordingly.

This agency (the CDC) didn't, and got cuffed for it.
I'm not convinced they pushed an agenda. They drew a conclusion for sure. People didn't like it. Republicans have a well established pattern of not liking facts that disagree with their worldview. I wouldn't have expected you to stand for anything like that let alone join in.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 9, 2017, 10:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Car accidents cause way more deaths than firearms, but you don't see calls for the CDC to study traffic patterns do you?
Do I really have to point out how stupid this tired old argument is yet again?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2017, 04:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Would we draw different conclusions?
Haven't we already?

One of us thinks the sacrifice is justified, the other does not.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2017, 07:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Haven't we already?

One of us thinks the sacrifice is justified, the other does not.
If I recall correctly, you consider gun ownership too important a check on government to relinquish. No amount of gun crime data is going to influence that conclusion. So while we have drawn different conclusions about what should be done, we have in all likelihood drawn the same conclusion about the study, its just that you were always going to ignore it. I still don't see that as a reason to ban or ignore studies on gun crime other than you aren't going to change your mind and you're worried that enough studies might change other peoples and you will eventually lose the argument and the gun rights long term.
Thats perfectly logical on your part, but its unfairly stacking the deck in your favour. Thats the slipperiest of slopes.

Democracy is supposed to be about being having whatever opinions they might have, and the majority winning majority representation for their views. Its not supposed to be about getting your way at all costs. You're supposed to convince people they are wrong, not trick them, brainwash them, deceive and confuse them. We are living in a Pseudocracy.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2017, 08:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Do I really have to point out how stupid this tired old argument is yet again?
If you can point out the difference using a well-founded, well-supported and logical argument, yeah - I'd love to see it for the first time.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 10, 2017, 09:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If I recall correctly, you consider gun ownership too important a check on government to relinquish. No amount of gun crime data is going to influence that conclusion. So while we have drawn different conclusions about what should be done, we have in all likelihood drawn the same conclusion about the study, its just that you were always going to ignore it. I still don't see that as a reason to ban or ignore studies on gun crime other than you aren't going to change your mind and you're worried that enough studies might change other peoples and you will eventually lose the argument and the gun rights long term.
Thats perfectly logical on your part, but its unfairly stacking the deck in your favour. Thats the slipperiest of slopes.
I don't want to speak for subego here, but that's how you interpret his views? Wow.

Democracy is supposed to be about being having whatever opinions they might have, and the majority winning majority representation for their views.
Good thing we're a constitutional republic where the rule of law trumps mob opinion then.

Its not supposed to be about getting your way at all costs. You're supposed to convince people they are wrong, not trick them, brainwash them, deceive and confuse them. We are living in a Pseudocracy.
Exactly why the CDC should stick to it's wheel house, and be kept out of the highly politicized gun control debate. It's not a cost worth bearing when the politicization of the CDC would undermine it's very important role in our society.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 12:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The issue wasn't with the studies, it was the conclusions a specific agency drew from them, and how those conclusions were being used as justification to push an agenda.
No, what this no funding policy does, it leads to an artificial dearth of solid facts about a topic.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
You and I would push vastly different agendas with regards to gun violence, despite working with the exact same data. Neither of those agendas should be what the government pushes. In serving all the people, it should acknowledge the spread of opinions on the complex sociological question of gun violence, and set its agenda accordingly.
You equation opinions with facts: there are many people in the US who don't believe climate change exists and has an anthropogenic component. Their belief isn't the same as facts that are arrived at by scientific study. These facts should frame the discussion and prompt people to reconsider their positions if need be. Or not, I'm against a universal speed limit in Germany simply because I enjoy driving faster than 130 km/h. But I don't deny that introducing a universal speed limit would lower the number of traffic fatalities.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 01:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Car accidents cause way more deaths than firearms, but you don't see calls for the CDC to study traffic patterns do you?
The argument that A causes more deaths than B, so B shouldn't be investigated is a non sequitur. (Oh, and yes, the CDC does study motor vehicle safety.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 03:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The argument that A causes more deaths than B, so B shouldn't be investigated is a non sequitur. (Oh, and yes, the CDC does study motor vehicle safety.)
No, the argument is that if we're going to divest resources into saving lives, we should divest those resources into A instead of B since A is the bigger impact.

I'm all for the CDC posting up gun safety tips, information on how guns work, and how to safely handle them. That would be great! Just like how that link gives car and traffic safety tips.

As a matter of policy though, I do not believe their mandate to extend to the efficacy of constitutional rights. In other words, they're the wrong tool for the job.

"How to safely handle guns"
and
"the societal impact of guns"

are two distinct concepts. The former being well within the law for the CDC to provide, the latter having been specifically barred after a politicized CDC went too far.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 05:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
As a matter of policy though, I do not believe their mandate to extend to the efficacy of constitutional rights. In other words, they're the wrong tool for the job.
You clearly believe this to be true of any government organisation whatsoever. And a private one would be dismissed as partisan according to who paid for it. Either way you're still suppressing facts for the simple reason they don't support your POV. In fact you aren't dismissing them, you are forbidding them. This is what fascists do.
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Apr 11, 2017 at 05:49 AM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 05:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The argument that A causes more deaths than B, so B shouldn't be investigated is a non sequitur. (Oh, and yes, the CDC does study motor vehicle safety.)
And of course it doesn't cover the massive number of lives saved by the existence of motor vehicles. Police cars, ambulances, fire engines, military vehicles, blood deliveries, food & water & fuel supplies etc, etc. Not to mention to the other ways in which vehicles improve everyone's way of life.

To which the gun nuts will argue that "guns save lives too" but of course there is no reliable data to even begin to check this, because they've banned it. I think we all know it isn't going to compare to the positive impact of vehicles though, and of course how many of those guns would be saving lives if they weren't saving them from bad guys with guns?

Anyone who makes this argument with a straight face is kidding themselves. Its not about truth and data. There is a heavy cost to this government check and some people are willing to pay it whether they should be or not. I suspect the vast majority are utterly dishonest about their real reasons why this is the case. I think we all know this too.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 05:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I don't want to speak for subego here, but that's how you interpret his views? Wow.
I can't always keep track of who believes what let alone why. Subbed is typical pretty logical and the only possible logical reason for the American position on guns is as a check on government. And the jury is still out on that when you look at what facts are available.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Good thing we're a constitutional republic where the rule of law trumps mob opinion then.
Heaven forbid the voting public should be allowed to apply logical analysis of facts and changing circumstances to overrule a handful of guys who died two hundred years ago.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Exactly why the CDC should stick to it's wheel house, and be kept out of the highly politicized gun control debate. It's not a cost worth bearing when the politicization of the CDC would undermine it's very important role in our society.
Maybe the CDC thought their non-political status afforded them the unique position of being able to publish a study relevant to public health and mortality without being engulfed in the expected deceitful partisan bullshit. More fool them for giving the right so much credit.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 06:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
but of course there is no reliable data to even begin to check this, because they've banned it.
We've had dozens of arguments about gun violence, and all along you've been hamstrung by your ability to quote statistics at me? You never quoted our homicide rate? You've never quoted the increased rates of suicide? You've never quoted the chances you get shot by your own gun? You never quoted the chance a kid injures themselves with a gun in the house?

None of this data even exists? That's the argument?
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 09:16 AM
 
FACT. there will always be guns.
FACT. There will always be criminals.
FACT. Criminals not following the laws will not care if you write more laws.
FACT. Gun bans and gun free zones DO NOT WORK.

Come back when you actually think you have a solution.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
FACT. there will always be guns.
FACT. There will always be criminals.
FACT. Criminals not following the laws will not care if you write more laws.
FACT. Gun bans and gun free zones DO NOT WORK.

Come back when you actually think you have a solution.
Looks like the mainstream media has been leading you around by the nose.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 11:44 AM
 
But no actual 'solution' ?
Thought so.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 11:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
We've had dozens of arguments about gun violence, and all along you've been hamstrung by your ability to quote statistics at me? You never quoted our homicide rate? You've never quoted the increased rates of suicide? You've never quoted the chances you get shot by your own gun? You never quoted the chance a kid injures themselves with a gun in the house?

None of this data even exists? That's the argument?
No, the argument is that none of it matters to you beyond its potential to influence other people. The only reason you could argue to ban it is because you fear it will change the minds of enough voters or lawmakers that your rights might be revoked and you don't want that. Your motivation for banning the gathering of information can only be self-serving because you have either dismissed the sources, the conclusions or the sources right to draw any conclusions.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 12:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Your motivation for banning the gathering of information can only be self-serving because you have either dismissed the sources, the conclusions or the sources right to draw any conclusions.
I find it quite ironic you admonish me for being dismissive while insisting my motives are other than what I say they are.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 12:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
But no actual 'solution' ?
Thought so.
Who me? Plenty of other civilized, developed countries have somehow managed to have lower rates of gun violence than us. Solutions abound, you just don't want to hear them, because the mainstream media is leading you around by the nose and you're unable to have a single independent thought.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 01:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I find it quite ironic you admonish me for being dismissive while insisting my motives are other than what I say they are.
Did you re-state them in this thread? If you did I missed them, if you didn't I forgot them.

You have to admit its odd that anyone with any shred of libertarian tendencies would be against the free release of non-classified information.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 05:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So much for my last word.
You got the last word on the admin. I tried to refocus it into a generality.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
I more or less stand behind the restrictions the Republicans placed on studying gun violence.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The issue wasn't with the studies, it was the conclusions a specific agency drew from them, and how those conclusions were being used as justification to push an agenda.
Misusing data isn't a reason to bar it's research.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
What's relevant is whether my opinion is honest. Does it reflect what I believe is best for the country as a whole, or more unsavory motives.

I won't bore you with the specifics, but I can make the following claims about my position.

I'm aggressively pro-gun, so my argument needs to address the obvious conflict of interest.

I belive a reasonable argument can be made for the exact opposite of what I'm arguing.

It's not about shying away from data. I take such a dim view of this, should I myself be guilty of it I deserve to be flogged.


Is it possible my position is based on what I think is honest reasoning, rather than ignoring the truth to suit my agenda?
There's a world of difference between being against gun control because you believe its an important right, and being against it because "guns don't cause deaths." One is philosophical, the other is testable.


Originally Posted by subego View Post
Rinse Pubis? Seriously?
Oh have a sense of humor. I call him Reince most of the time.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
The issue wasn't with the studies, it was the conclusions a specific agency drew from them, and how those conclusions were being used as justification to push an agenda.
Agenda is a scare-word here. People think guns lead to deaths. They do studies to back up their claims. Use it to sway opinion.

Agenda makes it sound like they're purposely disarming everyone so they can do something shady.

Edit: You didn't address the climate change part.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 11, 2017, 10:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
We've had dozens of arguments about gun violence, and all along you've been hamstrung by your ability to quote statistics at me? You never quoted our homicide rate? You've never quoted the increased rates of suicide? [...] That's the argument?
No, that's not the argument. Having more and better information is preferable to the state we have now. Not being able to get funding means you are hamstringing yourself in the discussion, and this is solely motivated by politics. From my end it looks as if certain gun advocates are scared by the facts that are unearthed in these studies, so they prefer not to fund these studies in the first place. The same is being done with climate change at the moment: don't mention the word and it is discouraged to include it in considerations. If these studies existed, they could help us measure whether certain policies are effective, e. g. on gun control or gun violence.

Again, I think there is space to weigh the facts and decide differently based on your convictions just like in my speed limit example. Curbing scientific study is bad for everyone, because then people just quote strongly held beliefs instead of facts. Even if you are “aggressively pro gun”, I still see the same benefits when you start the discussion facts first. Ideally it should be organizations like the NRA that should be involved in designing effective and informed gun control measures, for example, because they know about guns and it allows for balancing the interests of gun owners with the rest of the population. Plus, there are instances where gun owners's interests may actually align with that of the rest. One example that comes to mind is the Trump Administration's decision to lift the ban on lead bullets. Some people have been talking about the environmental impact, but there is a very direct health hazard in many police departments's and private shooting ranges due to lead exposure.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:48 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,