Victim disarmament zones

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's ok, I accept your apology.

What data should I be showing? The points I have made don't necessarily have data to show. Such as the fact that the soviets and chinese had/have strict gun laws. Should I come up with a bar graph that shows the number of gun laws in each case? The fact that you cannot fathom an argument based upon logic and reason is very telling. It's clear you bow down at the altar of muddled statistics. Statistics can ever only show correlation, which can help guide us in our search for truth, but cannot directly show us truth.

See, again you can't say anything without throwing in an insult.

A fact may include things outside of stats, such as gun laws in the soviet union. However, it is not logical to conclude that the soviets were against guns while allowing their own party members to have them. I have not read much about gun laws within the soviet union however. I have read Marx, and I do know he advocated violent revolution. Therefore, a communist along marxist lines would use violence and guns. I also made the point that neither Russia or China are actually communists, as is indicated by vast inequality and inconsistent policy relating to their political structuring and social statistics.

Yes, I remember you discussing correlation vs causation. However, most of the stats I was citing had more to do with constitution (not the document). Causal links are hard to verify, and can get caught up in chicken and egg problems such as retrocausality, but correlation while not definitive proof, is about as good as you're going to get when discussing social problems, because usually 1 factor does not cause 1 thing. That is why i focus on the constitution of a problem.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

See, again you can't say anything without throwing in an insult.

A fact may include things outside of stats, such as gun laws in the soviet union. However, it is not logical to conclude that the soviets were against guns while allowing their own party members to have them. I have not read much about gun laws within the soviet union however. I have read Marx, and I do know he advocated violent revolution. Therefore, a communist along marxist lines would use violence and guns. I also made the point that neither Russia or China are actually communists, as is indicated by vast inequality and inconsistent policy relating to their political structuring and social statistics.

Yes, I remember you discussing correlation vs causation. However, most of the stats I was citing had more to do with constitution (not the document). Causal links are hard to verify, and can get caught up in chicken and egg problems such as retrocausality, but correlation while not definitive proof, is about as good as you're going to get when discussing social problems, because usually 1 factor does not cause 1 thing. That is why i focus on the constitution of a problem.

First, retrocausality is bunk pseudoscience. Don't get distracted by it. If we see what is apparently effects preceding causes, it's really just that we don't understand the causes in the first place.

Correlation is only as good as you'll get when you confine yourself to statistical arguments. Logic and reason can give us a much deeper understanding. Correlation can be a good guidepost, but it becomes worse and worse the more complex the system. Once you are looking at statistics for societies as a whole, they become almost worthless. You repeatedly state statistics related to things like welfare spending vs quality of life, and yet societies are composed of millions of other factors. The notion that these two loosely correlated ideas are causally related is bordering on a kind of faith that even the most devout Muslim couldn't muster. And if you're going to show these two things are related in support of an argument to bolster welfare, then you are most certainly assuming causation. If there is no causation, then there would be no reason to believe action A will have effect B. Causation is most certainly at the heart of every utilitarian argument about how we structure our laws.

[Stinkum]

This thread is a lot better if you assume that Orruar is actually a parody forum account for that annoying Paultard on every college campus who thinks he's intelligent because he can paraphrase Milton Friedman.

[aowen]

I fuckin eat babies, especially american ones. And when I was watching the Spurs vs Heat last year, I thought to myself 'The only thing that could make this entertaining is Al Qaeda" #NSA

[JayN]

niga ball is boring as hell to watch i agree with your statements

[Orruar]

Tell ya what, here's some data that sums up the other thread:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Tell ya what, here's some data that sums up the other thread:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As I said before, the point is that social welfare programs started at the time you put me on there. Kind of like there were anti-drug laws before the war on drugs began. I don't feel like finding your statements, but you said poverty declined before the start of welfare programs during the time following WWII and Johnson, which is inaccurate.

[Ryba]

aowen is the only one in this thread that doesn't come off as a troll, a shameless redneck, a pedantic asshole or thoroughly discredited kagoturd. Forget about which side of the topic he is on, he is the only one bothering to substantiate claims. If I was new to this argument, I would immediately sympathize with the side that smelled less like self-righteousness, Skoal and unwashed asscrack.

lol at the whole "YOU SIGNED A SOCIAL CONTRACT!" argument. Like democracy isn't defined by being constantly in revision.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Ryba [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

lol at the whole "YOU SIGNED A SOCIAL CONTRACT!" argument. Like democracy isn't defined by being constantly in revision.

Ah, you missed the point then. My social contract trolling was in direct response to his "social contract" garbage in another thread. Essentially what you saw here was just his argument being applied back to him, in an attempt to show him how ridiculous it is. He managed to completely miss the obvious point that you have so quickly understood.

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ah, you missed the point then. My social contract trolling was in direct response to his "social contract" garbage in another thread. Essentially what you saw here was just his argument being applied back to him, in an attempt to show him how ridiculous it is. He managed to completely miss the obvious point that you have so quickly understood.

Yeah, I think he can see how retarded you are by himself. I like how you also still think from the other thread that you're right about when poverty alleviation began.