Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Hollowway, Mar 23, 2018.
I don't care what you can do with or without. This thread isn't about your feelings.
You have proven time and time again with your little one liners that you have absolutley nothing to contribute other than riding on the backs of everyone else. "You"re merely a laugh but you"re really a cry" (i think that is the exact line)?
The only thing I take as holy scripture are other similar fairy tales like Star Wars and such but I guess it all comes down to how each person takes holy scriptures.
It's really hard to talk statistics with someone who doesn't understand statistics.
Yea, those ivory tower jerks with their "citation needed" attitudes. They completely deleted my table comparing gun crime statistics between various countries and Wyoming. It's like they don't care about the big picture.
If you can't hack the pace, I'm sure there are other parts of the internet with lower thresholds for sourcing and intellectual capacity.
Your not obligated to care, but it does knock you off my list of SSO members that I still wouldnt mind having a beer with even though we disagree.
The United States isn't even in the top 10 -- the number one spot belongs to Honduras (if I'm misunderstanding your point, my bad).
You mean stats that you disagree with, right? Because you had no problem bringing up stats previously, and I presume you wouldn't have used skewed or misleading stats to prove your own point?
There's "citing references" and then there's citing references. It seems like everyone except you has gone out of their way to avoid posting references that are biased, whether obviously or no. Throwing up an article that you have to page through (presumably to view the ads) to view the entire thing doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence (and as I type this, the website asked to send me push notifications...most citation-worthy references don't typically do that). The only thing to be taken with a grain of salt when citing actual sources is the methodology by which they arrived at the stats in question. It's like the wage gap argument; if you ignore all factors that might affect the result, you do indeed end up with a 20+% disparity....but it's a meaningless number because it doesn't account for anything.
Not trying to be an ass, but it's "a lot," not "alot." And I don't doubt you're correct that certain political sources do skew things one way or the other. I'd say those sources mentioned here by others aren't among them. Also, you just showed another way in which your bias is absolutely ridiculous. Wikipedia is always asking for money just to stay afloat based on the fact they operate a free and open-source compendium of information. You honestly think that "they" are paying people round the clock to continually edit articles that hide the truth from us about certain things?! I don't disagree that it's a possibility that there are probably people out there, hell, even funded networks of people, that could potentially be doing exactly what you claim, but to imply that it's Wiki themselves doing it, or that it's even being done on as trivial a platform as Wiki reveals how driven you seem to be to accept conspiracy theories most wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.
Again, I hate to have to correct you, but it's "you're," not "your." I think you've missed that several times in this thread now. And I don't see why you thought this was necessary to say, especially since I'd wager that most of the people who disagree with you would be perfectly willing to have a beer with you. The only reason we're getting salty with you is because you say something outlandish without much hard evidence and then evade when people press you on it, not to mention peppering in little snarky remarks like "I could do without your condescending attitude." It doesn't help your case, especially when you seem to be exhibiting that very behavior on occasion...
If you've got a better argument, let's hear it. If you're right in a way that's supported by objectively true evidence that came from a legitimate source, then you're right. So far, it's been a lot of "I believe this because I do," and not much "I believe this because the data provided by this organization, via an unbiased study conducted in this objective manner, supports my conclusion."
He probably meant to say first world country.
This last set of exchanges is hilarious. Getting angry at others because one doesn't understand the definitions of "average" and "per capita" certainly seems like an attempt to move the blame for that ignorance to the wrong target. What makes it better is the requirement that one willfully ignore the explanations helpfully given to eliminate the ignorance.
I've been watching an unexpected consequence of the Parkland movement: heavily Republican seniors, in Florida and elsewhere, breaking with Republican politicians' support of NRA talking points. Why? Because they look at the Parkland shooting survivors and see them as akin to their children and grandchildren.
That would clarify his position, though I suppose that also begs the question of what is the criteria to be considered "first world"? A certain level of GDP is reasonable, however Iceland and Jamaica have relatively comparable GDPs yet are worlds apart on gun-related deaths.
Just food for thought.
Well, let's try a more rational angle to the anti-regulation argument.
What are the regulations being proposed? How would we implement said regulations? In particular, how would owners of guns bought pre-implementation be effected, if at all?
Are the proposed regulations practical, or is it too late to try since so many people own guns as it is?
Hey @Crash Dandicoot , since you're pretty quick with the info, would that be true, that the US has the most gun-related deaths among the first-world countries? Let's call them "developed countries," or just look at a list ranking those per-capita deaths, and then figure out if the US is an outlier regarding such gun deaths among similar nations.
Ah... I just looked for myself, and found the figures.
Just food for thought.
First, second and third world country labelling is something from the cold war. For some reason people began to mistake it for categories of wealth.
First world =NATO
Second world =Warsaw Pact and Soviet allies
Third world =Neutral
If you go here and sort by homicides, USA is something like 18th, where all the preceding countries are mostly South American, classified as 3rd world countries:
So while the definition of 1st/2nd/3rd is largely political, it does correlate pretty well with other measures of success like GDP and general safety. That's where the US is quite the outlier -- a very 1st world GDP with a higher gun death rate per capita than many 3rd world countries.
That's cool, I had never thought about where those designations came from. I love learning new stuff like this.
Yeah I found out when I looked it up after wondering what a second world country is because all you ever hear is first or third.
There is no effective solution. We’re looking at a nation of VERY SPOILED people, (even the welfare class) in a world where social class is starting to divide in front of them. The lower class is just now starting to have to face their own decisions as evidenced by the sharp rise of substance abuse and homelessness. When entitlements come to an end, these spoiled people get PISSED!!...in different ways...A lady here in Portland threw her 6 yr old kid off the Astoria bridge because she didn’t get the amount of social program money she wanted -an extreme case, I know but more to the point that housing, food, healthcare, clothes, iphones and Air Jordan’s are an entitlement granted to the poorest of the poor in this country...now drugs, entertainment and even happiness and having an attractive sex partner is considered a “human right”, add some mental health problems, lack of education and a lot of jealousy...tack on an eager camera crew and reporters and it starts to at least make sense...I think overstimulation, lack of sense of purpose and becoming desensitized to happiness has really taken its toll on the mental health of people...especially “millennials”. The NRA is a goofy bunch, I agree but the number of members is relatively low...I think bronies outnumber them and honestly Congress could simply enact legislation with enough votes but the overwhelming votes just aren’t there. Our government doesn’t care about individual life value...they never have.