farenheit 9/11 (the "liberal media", other things relating to film maker Michael Moore)

Crash, I really like you, but on this subject you are wrong. I mean if you feel safer with "feel safe" legislation, that's fine. But the facts simply do not correspond to your argument. I agree with you that this is the point (regarding meth that is). It gives police more "reasons" to suspect someone and begin an investigation.Unfortunately it is a shortlived affair, and then we have to make something ELSE illegal. The police are better served looking for the source of drugs as they come into a community, rather than tracking precursors (you will see why shortly).And your argument fails for bullets. Why is a guy with 10,000 rounds in his car more likely a murderer than the guy with only 5 in a clip?I want to see something tangible on this. I get where amount comes in handy for meth production, I don't for murderer production. You missed my point. Amphetamines and Methamphetamines have been in existence for longer than sudafed was going over counters. They used other methods before and can use them again. The existence of mass quantities of ephedrine/p-ephedrine changed how meth labs operated, but they can change again just as quickly.If for some reason we clamped down on e/p-e so tight that no one could possibly be legally decongested, the meth labs will still be churning. The precursors will simply have changed and the price will have gone up. Since it appears you are NOT going to simply look it up yourself, here is a nice link that I can only assume you would trust.
{Fixed link (was a " in front of the http) - AM}(added in: for some reason the link does not work right thru the evcpage for some, here is the actual address: http://www.methamphetamineaddiction.com/...etamine_hist.html)Read it very carefully. In it you will see my own points being made...1) Meth existed before e/p-e.2) Meth can be made in MANY other ways, and the e/p-e method is a temporary one of choice... convenience.3) If e/p-e is stepped on, alternate methods will simply raise the price.I would also add...4) That Meth began to become popular with the advent of Prohibition. Drug wars only shift drug use of choice, sometimes to harder substances. You are mistaken... well technically anyway. It's a long story but I changed majors out of a Chemistry masters program, before completion. My undergrad was NOT chem, but to get into the masters program I completed an entire chem undergrad coursework. So knowledge wise I am just shy of a master's in Chem.But you are right that creating chemicals in bulk requires reagents and equipment. Equipment is pretty easy. I made my own specialized equipment in the master's program... more specialized than is necessary for meth.Reagents are the question. But I have already said, and the link explains that reagents are merely cost issues. If one becomes too high priced (or cut off) then you switch to another. Distillation and synthesis are really not that hard and allow one to make pretty much any organic or inorganic compound from another set of compounds. I hope narconon counts. I'll get more if you want. Well I am for limiting sales of ammo to people with valid gun licenses, and maybe even have limits based on what a person is able to safely store (so some sort of check on proper storage areas).But this says nothing about the argument that the more bought the more dangerous or nefarious the purpose of the purchaser.To this I would like to point out a major difference between sudafed and bullets. You were correct to point out that buying 30 boxes of sudafed, one may reasonably ask "how bad a cold do you have, and how long do you expect it to last?" There is only so much sudafed one can take personally in any space of time.This does not hold true with bullets. There is no "maximum dosage" limit to create a "reasonable expectation" of what a single person might buy. A single person can burn through quite a bit of ammo in a very short period of time. No, your position is greater scrutiny of things that IMPLY to YOU greater threats. Until you or Rrhain provide some sort of evidence that purchasing more bullets is associated with more nefarious use of those bullets, there is no "greater threat" from someone theoretically buying out a store of ammo.On the dangerous items part... I will agree that bullets are dangerous in and of themselves (they explode on impact and in heat). Thus I think purchasers should be licensed, and for large purchases, perhaps a proof of storage capability. I would be for making improper storage of ammo illegal and storage in general open for inspection.That would go along with any other safety regulation we have for buildings (including homes). I'm uncertain where I see black and white or hyperbolic thinking in that statement. There is no right/wrong or demonizing. Only exaggeration.Thankfully this was not my argument.My argument was that the specific methods suggested would require a greater bureacracy than needed and shift law enforcement resources to less worthwhile pursuits. In short I am condemning the specific solutions as being inefficient and in some cases contrary to solving or helping solve the problem being faced.And this points up part of the b/w and hyperbolic thinking from your side. If people like me criticize specific mechanisms, and even point out the flaws, we get labelled as wanting to throw our hands up in the air.I abhor violence, am ashamed of the level of violence in the US and the world. And I am also very concerned about people using firearms and explosives to kill others. I can even say that while I am against the Drug War, I think drug use is generally unhealthy and there are needs to help people escape addiction.What I don't see are realistic solutions. PROHIBITION HAS BEEN TRIED AND FAILED. VIOLENCE HAS BEEN PROVEN NOT TO BE TIED TO GUN OWNERSHIP. Now let's stop trying to fight wars (as if anything will ever be ended completely) and scapegoating, and actually look for reasonable ways to solve our problems.I think this is a much more realistic and nuanced position.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-13-2004 07:22 AMThis message has been edited by holmes, 07-13-2004 08:25 AMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-13-2004 10:13 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't know why it didn't work. I have added the full link URL back on my last post for those having problems.Check back to my last post and see if the URL itself works or not. Otherwise, just cut and paste it into your browser bar. Investigation is something wholly separate from legality and overregulation. I think a gun store owner would be the best judge of a suspicious purchase, and if only gun licensed individuals can buy ammo, then the owner can tip police if an investigation might be useful.In the case of a "dirty" store owners, who will sell to secondary sellers, I think we'd have to watch unusual spikes in requests by store owners, matching them to who they are selling.Selling bullets without a license is illegal as far as I know, so that is simply continuing and actually enforcing laws already on books. Hey that's me all over the place. This thread is on MM's docs, not one gun control. In the gun control thread I started trying to outline a method of defining arms for control/regulation.It didn't seem to catch much interest, and so I've stopped, but I'd rather be talking about what might work instead of what might not. I'm simply not going to pretend that EVERY IDEA is a VALID IDEA. Some just don't match the facts, or will cost too much for too little real results. This is one approach, though I am skeptical of its possibility (other than to prevent accidents).I'm working more from the other direction. Assuming people will always find a way to get something and fashion it into a weapon, my perfect world is one where very few people will ever find the reason or desire to actually kill or maim someone.That gets at root causes such as alleviating poverty, advancement of critical thinking, advancement of tolerance for actual diversity, mechanisms for dealing with scarce resources, and learning to deal with conflicts without resort to violence.By which of course I mean a Roddenberrian ideal.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well I guess it depends on how its being done. My gf did a great "tea-bag" scene... well scene is not the right word as it wasn't scripted or anything. She just loves oral and so that was really fun for her.If I remember the other thread right it was the Dirty Sanchez which was a real shame.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm replying to your last four posts in this one reply... That's funny because ignoring my point is exactly what YOU did in order to raise your own, and used clips from my post as if they were meant discuss the point you were making.Rational debate is constructed of people raising separate points, however that coincides with actually addressing the other person's points. Your method is actively destroying rational debate and replacing it with a monologue of your own, pretending people are discussing what you are. Are you seriously suggesting that any conservative who is the target of Moore's documentary is going to be affected/converted by his method of "personalization"? Some won't consider a position unless its inside a hardcore porn film, shall we add that to all docs just to make sure we get everyone?Reduction to the lowest common denominator does not benefit mankind. YES. I don't believe in your stock dilemma. It may have taken a bit longer, and it wouldn't have looked as interesting... in other words it wouldn't be entertaining... but there is no saying it would not have happened under different conditions. Then you are not watching TV, nor reading my posts. See this is what I am talking about. I started with my definition and was using it, and you were debating this OTHER definition that you had, and appear to feel it is right for you to hang on to it? Hey, I POSTED FIRST. If you are replying to me then stick with my definition. Uhm... which is different than Moore how? In amounts? Maybe if Moore had a daily news show he'd be caught telling more lies as well. But as it is Rrhain, I have already told you that up close and personal I have seen him making falsehoods. Sorry, but you can't explain away THAT personal experience. No. Heheheh. Oh WOW, Rrhain. You just opened my eyes. How stupid of me to not understand all of this SYMBOLISM! I mean you go into shit I wasn't even talking about and so it must mean I didn't understand it either!To say the segment on bullets was not suggesting it would help prevent tragedies such as Columbine is ridiculous.But then I guess maybe its just up to personal opinion. You got yours I got mine. Given how wrong all your other assessments regarding Moore's work is, I'll take your opinion with just a bit of salt. Uh, no. Who died and made you master of languages? There is a large difference between a literal cure-all and a figurative use of the phrase "cure-all".Your being a stickler for your own interpretation of language and definitions is preventing good communication. You need to relax a bit. No, it is NOT. At least not according to the Mirriam Webster definition. Look, I don't mind expanding my vocabulary, but a palliative is NOT what I was describing. If you think it is then that simply shows you don't know what I was saying. Ahhhhhhhhhhhh... through a deterrent effect, as tracing gets so good no one would dare. Of course that won't actually happen but it is the FEELING that come with such FEEL GOOD legislation. FIGURATIVE PANACEA. Agreed. And since prohibition has never stopped a market from existing in anything, and people can make and alter their own weapons and ammo, I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks making guns illegal, or bullet tracing will actually help stop gun violence, or actually track murderers.Or should I say, it COULD help track them, but not much better than regular forensic work, and for the cost of a much greater bureacracy. That adds up to not worth it. So instead of dealing with the issue of b/w thinking and hyperbole in dealing with issues, we will STIR UP a bunch of people so they can go and harass people on the fringe of a problem?Hey yeah that's a great idea. And if they don't comply with public will, maybe some of these "stirred up" people can kill a few execs to make a point, just like the anti-abortion crowd who also need "stirring up" to get them active.Appealing to the lowest common denominator is not worthy as communication. Addressing nonreal issues is not worth promoting as action.I want to see ANY evidence besides your hand waving that what K-Mart did, if enacted all over the nation, would actually help in any credible manner. ***looks around***Are you talking to me? You can't be talking to me as you are making my point and acting like it's yours.The above is why anyone focusing on guns and bullets is being ridiculous, as the actual points of Moore's film should have made... perhaps I should have added "to anyone who watched it, including you."As far as the doc itself goes, that is why the bullets and Heston scenes were so weak. While dealing with some perhaps peripheral issues of gun violence, his own actual points undercut their relevance to triviality. Which is why I DIDN'T LIKE THOSE SCENES. Please refrain from detailing the movie for me. I liked it overall and understood what it was saying. If you truly believe that that syllogism works with no hidden premises, then it is back to logic class for you.I'm not going to solve it for you, but I am going to wait until you present it in a real syllogism form before answering any more of YOUR POSTS on that topic, for if you can't get this logic right, there simply is no reason to discuss it with you.As a hint... What does bullets purchases mean to bullets existing? What does the number of bullets bought have to do with bullets filling a room? Oh my, what poor poor logic skills. You should even be clearer to solving your quandary by noticing the vast equivocation required to make the term "reducing bullets" look like "reducing the availability of bullets".And let's not forget how vague "people" and "whole bunch of other people" are. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but some of their bombs most certainly did go off. I believe the planted ones did not, but the ones they tossed did.I have seen video footage which clearly shows explosions and not just bullets being fired.And let's pretend all the bombs didn't go off, so what? People DO make bombs all the time which DO go off. My point remains the same and you have not addressed it with that anecdotal (if true) dodge. Knives. If a person buys a bunch of knives is there a greater danger. Anytime anyone buys anything that can kill someone, I consider what might be the purpose. More of it generally does not add any weight to that curiosity, unless mass amounts are what are required to actually do damage (like radioactive material or biological pathogens).One bullet will kill a person just as dead as a roomful of bullets. And there simply are no maximum amounts of realistic use of ammo. They don't have dates after which they go bad, so you can stock up in bulk.And indeed I am curious what a person buying up a whole store of ammo would be doing, if he was planning on a rampage. He is going to fire every kind of gun? Should can be used in different ways. Perhaps I should have emphasized SHOULD more so my meaning would have been more clear. I meant people were correct in being more concerned that less of something was being purchased than what was required for regular use. What's the norm in buying bullets? You have mentioned this "buying out the store phenomenon" yet have given no evidence that it even exists, or that such an action is more within the "norms" of a killer, versus being within the "norm" of someone stocking up for a big shoot (perhaps a competition).I keep asking for evidence but I only get innuendo. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.I use the term emotion-jerking and you say "no it's hyperbole?" You jackass, that is exactly what I was saying. YOU DO NOT GET TO USE YOUR DEFINITION WHEN I AM SPEAKING.But thanks for backing me up. And I'll repeat, part of Bowling was a condemnation of our b/w thinking and hyperbole when addressing real issues, instead of using substantive discussion... and he wraps up with resorting to hyperbole.Thanks again... jerk. What spin. Moore is not that highbrow, especially with that segment. Thanks for proving my point. While not impossible, it is pretty implausible that Heston is some heartless/mindless thug.But hey while were at it its not impossible that most gays are shrill, bedhopping, disease carrying, sluts, right?Yay for propaganda everywhere! Let me apologize to huffers everywhere. Apparently you can't get high on latex paint. So let's change it to thinner instead. So the more you buy the more likely it is to be used for huffing? What does this have to do with answering my question? People over 18 can get high just as much as kids.Although I suppose it does raise a new question. Since graffiti is rampant, should we limit sales of spraypaint? Does greater purchase of spraypaint suggest huffing or tagging (by those over 18) are the likely purpose?REMEMBER: before I will address any of your comments concerning the utility of limiting bullet sales, I REQUIRE:1) You complete the syllogism relating limitation of bullet sales to reduction of bullets being sprayed into rooms.2) Evidence that onetime large sales of bullets are linked to a higher probability they will be used in murders.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-14-2004 08:02 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Answering any of your posts normally leaves me feeling ill. You show about 0 ability to understand what I am actually saying, and certainly 0 willingness to try. Instead you seem more interested in engaging in some monologue, where you hatchet my post, at best quote mining in order to make it look like I am saying what you are addressing.In this case I am about mortified. This was one of your worst posts ever, with plenty of evidence of what little regard you have for actually having an honest debate. As I finished writing... I mean the very last period... my browser cut out. I lost everything (including the last two hours of my life).I just do not have the stomach to go back through it all. But I will briefly outline the important points...1) "Emotion-jerking" is not a real word. It took unbelievable balls to tell me my use of it was wrong. If it is in some dictionary that you have then I apologize, But it is in none of mine and as far as I knew I had made it up for this thread. I certainly defined it before you, and so had a right to use it as I defined it.You can have the word if you want ya jerk. I will now use "misleading emotional cueing" (aka MEC). Then you can continue to talk about EJ and I'll ignore you because that (as you defined it) wasn't what I was talking about.2) My use of "panacea" was appropriate, and should have been understandable to anyone whose lexicon has the capability of expanding to accomodate real communication. The way I used it was not "palliative" and yoru instance that that is what I was meaning just shows you didn't know what I was saying.As it stands I already suggested an even more appropriate word (placebo), which you have ignored in order to continue your asinine argument. If you cannot recognize that Panacea can be and has been used in speech (when figurative, and not literal) to mean placebo-like, then you are the one having the problems.That is something that feels good (like it is a cure all), even if it is not meant to be, and never would be.3) Bullet registration and limited sales are a placebo. Such laws make people feel good, like they have taken something that will help, but do not deliver the results necessary to justify the costs.4) You were correct that your argument was a propositional logical statement and NOT a syllogism. I was being lazy and figured you knew what I meant, since I had started it all with a joke describing Chris Rock's "philosophizing" as a "sillyogism". But to all those concerned, Rrhain did peg the correct philosophical terminology.5) Pegging correct Philosophical terminology does not mean one actually has skills in logic, and you have proven this with your argument (or in defending Moore's argument). I would argue getting logic down is a bit more important than the terminology.You were wrong to think that an argument stands as logically valid, until someone proves otherwise. It is valid or not all on its own. The only thing you can say is that it is not proven wrong in this particular debate... indeed, it doesn't even have the distinction of being challenged.You see I wasn't bothering to challenge it. It was so poorly put together that anyone with basic logic skills should be able to see the problems. Given my history of having no useful communication with you, I don't feel it is even worth my time to SHOW YOU what is wrong.Instead I am going to wait until you show me you have some skills in logic, or an interest in communicating, before discussing this argument any further WITH YOU.You can think this means I don't have the answers, and that you "won". But you would be wrong. What it means is I have no interest in talking to you.As it was I gave you some hints and instead of addressing them in context with your statement, you treated them (as always) out of that context and as things to debate. This continues to demonstrate your commitment to monologue instead of dialogue.Well here's another hint. One premise involves a vastly different scale or scope than the other. To connect them, by NECESSITY, you need more premises (the hidden premises). And this is where the problems begin.Ignore this or not. Until you can get this right, I will be ignoring YOU (on that subject).I mean what the hell do I care about talking with a guy that hijacks my phrases, pulls almost all of my statements out of context in order to talk to himself, and acts as if he has the "right" experiences, ON TOP of displaying poor logic skills?6) In addition, you have dodged your responsibility to provide evidence necessary to make your claim (or defend Moore's). I won't even begin to feel guilty about not solving your logic problems for everyone else, until you start coming up with the evidence I asked for long ago.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wow, now you're going to tell me where a term, which I made up for the purposes of this thread, and defined for use in this thread, came from?Granted I was thinking of using something similar to tear-jerking, but not as a direct descendent as it meant something different... which I defined.Until you show me where to find emotion-jerking you're not even going to get an apology out of me for accidentally using a real word (or phrase). And until then, I certainly did coin it (for what I thought would be "convenience" in this thread) and your pretending otherwise is just being a jerk.Ya jerk.At this point I am using MEC, just so jerks like you can't suddenly decide to pretend I am using some well known phrase that has this obvious definition (despite my having defined it). Uhmmmm, it can mean something other than a literal cure-all, and has been used that way. Maybe it's a regional thing like bubbler vs water fountain? All I know is that it has been used in this way where the context explains quite well it is not meant literally.You can continue pretending you are the definition police and so you were somehow "confused", but that is either a game or a mental defect. I refuse to play that game, and will point out your instance that I meant palliative which was wholly not what I was saying (figuratively or other), even after I explained what I was saying, means you have some issues in listening to others. Clap clap clap. And indeed things can simply be pushed (using emotional reasoning) to FEEL like a panacea, when it is actually a placebo.For example, Bush sold the Iraq War on the feeling that Iraq was somehow tied to 911. He knew it didn't, and he would repeat he never said that it was when called on it. Then seconds later he'd lace his language to make it FEEL it must have been and so attacking Iraq was somehow dealing with those behind 9-11.My entire argument was about making emotional arguments, specifically by tying incorrect emotions to a subject. Bullet registration is made to FEEL like a panacea. Holy shit, does this mean another definition scrap?I already detailed what I wanted. You need to fill out the argument with all premises, including hidden premises, in order to make it logically valid. As it stands now the "terms" are not "proper" as they do not connect logically. You go back to the drawing board and look it over. Or maybe you contact a friend who knows philosophy to break down your argument.Well, I ain't a friend (oh my god ain't ain't a word, are you lost at this point?), but here's another hint.If YOU don't have enough potatoes, YOU can't make a potato pancake.Limiting the (I might add "one time") sale of potatoes will reduce the supply of potatoes, therefore there will be fewer dining tables with potato pancakes served.What's funny is I think I would have caught that even before going into philosophy. There is such a major disconnect between the specific and the general "terms" that it just doesn't hold, and as it is there are presumptions (which I just pointed up with another hint) which must be dealt with. No. You simply made one with a correct looking structure (to you). You have already guessed correctly that some of the problem lies in A1=/=A2. And B2 is not directly implied by A2. You mean you just rolled with it (like I had also done). We knew what we were talking about so what's the difference, keep moving. That is communication. Exactly. You just didn't understand what I was saying. You said until I point out problems then it stands as logically valid. I was addressing that. It does not stand as logically valid, just because it has not been addressed. While it can be said that it has not been refuted, that is a MAJOR difference from being valid.Your statement IS wrong. I KNOW it is wrong. And it is the "terms" within, which logically necessitate more premises to link them (hidden premises), that are the source of your problem... not the fact that you managed to put the ones you did list in a form which looks like "if A then B, A therefore B".I think this will be the last help I give you. Sink or swim. You certainly have been given enough hints. If you can't figure it out, then get some help.Or can you admit when you need help? What a white wash. Hey bud, he gave no reason beyond emotional reasoning (and Chris Rock philosophizing) that it would have any effect. There is to my knowledge NO link between amount of bullets purchased at one time, and a higher criminal use.That is, at the very least, what should have been provided. Yet it falls when one looks at the argument being built up within the film.Not only was it wrong, but it was presented in an inappropriate way.In addition, since it seemed you were supporting such actions, I was asking YOU for some evidence. That would be necessary to tie that logical argument to the real world.Are you now saying you don't believe in this argument after all? Sheeeesh.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Actually your post was great in showing how you do NOT address what I was saying. That was in my longer (accidentally deleted) reply.You dismiss the possibilities WRITING and specifically WRITING IN A FORUM avail you in communicating.That is you can read an entire paragraph to know what one is speaking about before replying, or if one does reply to sentences at a time, one can go back and ERASE erroneous replies when the next sentence answers your oh so witty remark.Heheh, kind of you can't see the paragraph for the sentences.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, and there is no official definition of emotion-jerking.I never said no one had ever used those two words together before, just that it is not in any dictionary I have and I had never seen it used. Thus I created that term for use in this thread.In addition, I defined what I meant. That was just in case anyone might take it to mean something else.... maybe THEY had used it before. It doesn't seem so clever to put those words next to each other for any reason.So there was absolutely no call for pretending you had some "right" definition and I had some "wrong" definition... which is what you said by the way... there is NO standard or official definition.You ready to move on yet? I'm using MEC, and have been for two posts now. No. Before I first used it I did define it through description... that is in the context of the post it was introduced. It is true that I did not officially say something like "which I define as", until after I realized that you didn't seem to be addressing the same meaning. That was to help us move on, in case there was some confusion.Instead you pull out an argument that I don't get to use that definition, it is "wrong", and continue to act as if that meant ANY of your arguments made sense (much less addressed what I was saying).What I really love is that to support your bizarre claim that emotion-jerking is defined as X, you defy your own common practice of limiting all word usage to dictionary definitions and give anecdotal uses.And then after that, move on to your other argument to say that Panacea can't mean how I used it... because of the dictionary.Make up your mind pal. Dictionary or not? Accepting use as valid or not? Willing to communicate or NOT? It started as a question, that is why I said "REPEATED INSISTANCE". After your first suggestion, I said no, and then you kept coming back to it.Wow, is this really how far YOU need to go before YOU say "oops I made a mistake."?Or more importantly, as it is the only thing that was part of this thread, is this really how far YOU have to go before admitting that Moore is human and made some mistakes? From the context. If someone is obviously criticizing a policy which is being discussed as BEING PUSHED for being ineffective, when they use PANACEA, it means something different than a cure-all. Like I said, you seem to have an inability to see a paragraph (or argument) for the sentences... or even words.Context can mean so much. British humor must demolish you. Hahahahahahahaha... No, really, hahahahahahahahaha.Because you SAY so, I just must have. And look at all that PROOF. I said proper FORM, and since syllogism's have a FORM I must have meant that.Hahahahahahhahahaha.Okay, listen very carefully rrhain... I have a degree in Philosophy... indeed my main focus was on argumentation/logic. I know what a "proper" syllogism is and I know the proper terminology for all the rest (and for those I cannot remember, I can look up).Your attempt to try and play yourself as Al Franken to my O'Reilly (yeah I saw the video too) is simply foolish. I have no problem with admitting my mistakes, especially with use of terms. Sometimes I have a problem (when writing quickly) of using overly generic terms (pronouns), as well as just being lazy and sticking with something if I figure we both know what it means.I will REMIND YOU, that I started with the "sillyogism". I was just rolling with that and continued to use "syllogism" because I didn't think it was necessary to use absolutely precise philosophical terminology. I did not realize your mind would fall apart.IMMEDIATELY, after you mentioned the correct terminology I said that you were correct, explained my improper usage (admitting it was improper), and reinforced your point for any kiddies reading so they wouldn't make a mistake.I am so sick of your condescencion rrhain. You talk like you know it all, even when you are talking about what another person thinks and means. You continue to do so even when you have been shown to be wrong, and worse still when it no longer serves any purpose but to dodge real arguments.Is there a reason to continue talking with you rrhain? Is there? Or should I just let you continue building strawmen, and putting words in my mouth, so you can continue your monologue in peace? That's why I said proper, not formal. Proper form would have all premises showing, which is what I pretty clearly explained I wanted from you. You're right it didn't matter what word I used, that's why I didn't dig in my heels on anything. The very next post I said you were right about terminology. I explained why I had used it, and knocked you for bothering to make it such a big issue, but I totally admitted you were right and that I had made an error (calling myself lazy even).See the above garbage is what you've been doing. Pretending you are actually telling the truth... catching me in some lie... because that's about the only way you can make your position look good.You failed to defend Moore's case, both logically and with evidence. Now all you got is "liar liar pants on fire". Your BS machine is running hot and heavy today. How could you give me PRECISELY what I asked for, referring to the phrase "proper form", when everything around it had put that phrase in a more precise context. I said you had missing premises (hidden premises) and they had to be revealed.Where are they? If you gave me PRECISELY what I wanted, where are they?Oh yeah, because I used "proper form" which is so close to "formal form" you just couldn't understand anything else I said...Dry up and blow away. Hahahahahahaha. I already told you I don't have any responsibility to you, regarding your argument at all. It is a bad argument, and I am using your interest in actually correcting it yourself as a sign of whether you give a damn at all, or if you are really content to rest in any port in a storm.You see, you dig all over the place for those definitional thingies (which mean nothing), yet appear to have no interest in asking for help from someone on your logic.In addition you continue to lie and objuscate. You pretend I don't try and suggest what is wrong when I have in every single post. I think it's hilarious that you say this when in each of my posts I say "here's a hint".Man I am not only on the plate, I am not hesitating. I'm waiting for you to play ball. Once again, it is NOT my job. Sure it stands unrebutted. That is certainly true. Well someone else has now chimed in with a comment that you are missing something, but for sake of argument I'll say it stands unrebutted.But unrebutted is not "standing". It is sitting there as lame as it was when it was shat on the table.In my opinion it is so bad, and reveals such a desire on your part not to actually look at what you say, that I don't care WHAT YOU THINK.And given our history. my inclination to help you out (just to be nice), is nil.Oh I don't mind giving hints, but you'll have to clean up your own mess. Or get someone else to do so. Who is we? You are a plural now? There has already been one other post doubting the legitimacy of your logic.No, I'm not impressed with you and your "crowd" rrhain. A bunch of paper tigers are still the same to me.But if you do have some real people behind you, maybe you should ask them for some help. Or maybe you should ask them to post in defense of your position.If I really thought that most people believed that your position was valid, I would definitely say something. Yes, you now feel it necessary to remind me of my own posts. Well, not exactly as you don't seem to remember I was complaining about the segments on the bullet manufacturers and Heston.It was the segment on bullet manufacturers which brought us to an argument regarding bullets.And as a reminder, each of my previous posts included a hint regarding how to solve your logic problem. The potato pancake one should really have cracked it for you. Alas.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wow, not only is this untrue, but is ad hominem itself. Heheh... too late. No. Which just goes to show you don't bother to read, or fail to comprehend just about everything I write.My statement regarding my degree was not an attempt to say I know more than you, or am better than you. If you had actually read what I was saying, or understood it, then you would have known what I was saying is while you claim to know what I know and what I mean, you are wholly in error.Your claim was that I MUST have meant syllogism, and that some word usage "proved" to you that that is what I MUST have meant, and really thought I meant.But that is because you are a self-absorbed prick that pretends to knowledge he does not have, and when necessary alters what I say (usually through editing) or ignores what I say to continue his masturbatory monologues.In fact, I did know the difference between a syllogism and a propositional statement. As I noted in the very next post... after you pointed out that I had used a wrong term... it was wrong and that I had been lazy. I do not treat these forum writings like professional papers and specific terminology is one of the first things to slide. As long as tems are understood (and I am still at a loss as to why you couldn't understand what I meant) then that is good enough for debate.These are not dissertations nor presentations to societies of experts in any particular field, they are informal debates on topics which only require specific language on a case by case basis.This is what I was saying in that section on my having a degree in Philosophy... I know correct terminology, and YOU DO NOT KNOW what I know or what I meant to say.And what's amazing is that instead of simply accepting my statement that I was wrong, as well as my explanation of why, you decide to play like Ms. Fletcher (aka Angela Lansbury) and "discover clues" that this must NOT BE TRUE. Wooooooooo.For the third and last time, I was slipping Ms. Fletcher my degree as evidence that it was unlikely that the best explanation was that I did not know the proper terminology. Just as I would assume, now knowing you are a mathematician, if you said binomial instead of polynomial it was more likely an honest mistake, and not a lack of knowledge. Didn't say formal. Said proper. But either way, I don't have to answer jack... you do. No, this is wrong. I have no burden because I never said I was going to challenge it. It is wrong to be sure, but if you or anyone else want to think it is right (because I won't tear it apart explicitly) then be my guest. What it will do is mark how little you care about your own arguments and so how little I care yours. You said I never even pointed to where the problems are, which was (of course) a lie. Now you say hints aren't enough. Well my boy, that's all you're getting from me. I said to begin with it was incredibly flawed, and not worth my time answering. It stands much better UNANSWERED by me and as an indicator TO ME whether you can clean it up yourself. Once again Sybil, there are only one of you."We" are not waiting for me. Indeed, the only other person who has posted an opinion on this section of our thread was against you. That would make it "we" waiting for YOU.Before I will continue debating you on the issue of limiting bullet sales as an effective means for limiting gun violence, YOU carry the burden (to me) of having to clean up your argument.Where you could start is by making the terms of your statement explicit. For a mathematician, one would think that would be the first thing you'd do. That and my examples should help you realize where you have gone wrong (in that certain premises are missing).The second is a burden you have been carrying for longer than I have been asking you to clean up your logical argument. You have not presented any data (evidence) to support your position. I... no, wait... WE... hahahahaha... have been waiting for you to do this for some time.Nice try to dodge the blows, but it ain't working.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-21-2004 05:39 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I was not claiming, nor trying to claim, that most meth is made from scratch. Usually it involves precursors of some kind (that just makes things easier).What I was trying to show was that Sudafed (well lets say epinephrine/pseudo-epinephrine) is only one possible route to the manufacture of meth and even if fully cutoff as a source, others remain, or new ones can be found.Thus eliminating precursors does nothing more than alter production time, beginning material, and ultimately street value. I have yet to see any data which shows actual destruction or crippling of a drug racket, except when new alternative drugs become more popular COMBINED with a high price on an old drug.I'm not sure if there was really a question in your post, or something that I was expected to respond to, but I figured I should try and make my position clear.Unless you were actually asking me if Loratadine can be turned into something? I don't know off hand, but my guess is if it has a medicinal quality of some kind, it must have some possibility for conversion.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Cool, everything is crystal now. I hope it didn't seem like I was trying to debate you. I just wasn't sure by what you first said, if you got the impression I was making a stronger statement than I had intended.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

????? I didn't say there were no ad hominems at all, nor that I did not lace them throughout. What I said is it was UNTRUE that my post was NOTHING BUT AD HOMINEM (which was your claim). You used that statement as a way to dodge points I made... making your statement pure ad hominem.(*sigh*)People still wonder why you misquote so much. Now this is interesting. In the post where I first asked you to put your argument in proper form, I spent time describing what must be done.Then you feign like I said formal form (in order to support your bizarre tangent that I MUST have meant syllogism). Now you continue to feign ignorance as to what I was talking about.Again, your lexicon must become adaptable to situations, especially when people make explicit what they want.(*sigh*)But if it will help, I'll make it even more explicit...You must break down the argument so that terms are clear (not vague), and and hidden premises made clear. No. If I claim something is wrong then I have made a statement. It may be factual or it may be false, but it is just a statement.Only if I made such a claim in order to debate the point, do I have the burden of backing up my claim.If I made such a claim in order to exlain to you why I am going to ignore you, and supply you with enough clues to get you out of your hole, then I have no obligations at all.For example, if while discussing a certain math problem, some kid came up saying he had the solution because (in part) "2+2=5", one mathematician might say to him, "you have that wrong and it is not worth my time talking to you about this larger problem if your basic math skills are this bad."That does not make 2+2=5 correct, neither does it make the person saying "get lost kid you bother me" deficient in his duties. He was simply stating the kid was wrong and no further discussion would be had on the larger issue until the kid proved he could handle basic math skills.I hope this analogy finally helps you understand the situation.Oh yes, I should add that the kid can then prance around the room yelling how "right" he is and that the mathematician was "wrong" because he didn't bother showing "why" and shirked his duties and that "everyone" was against him. But the mathematician and the others actually discussing the issue can raise a collective (*sigh*) and ignore the brat. Are all these people as collectively stupid as you are? Can I ask when are they going to appear to back you up? Yes. I wish you were. You didn't do anything I required. Not even something simple like defining elements of your argument such as A and B.Hmmmmm... I wonder HOW obvious I can make this for you, and you will still pretend you don't get it?(CENSORED... whoops. I almost gave away the store. Hopefully no one... including you... saw part of my breaking down your argument before I removed it.

​

Look, it isn't worth discussing things with someone when you have to drag them through the basics, like the kid in the example above. If they at least give half an effort that would be somethin, but you don't.

​

There's nothing in it for me.

​

But maybe there COULD BE.

​

Answer this honestly Rrhain: Do you actually believe your argument is sound and that I do not have the ability to rebut it? That I am simply saying there is something wrong but do not know what is wrong with it?) How many times can you say this and have me rebut it, before it dawns on you that you are wrong.Who is we? Who? Right now I'm 2-1 against you. That makes me more of a we than you.Not only are WE WAITING... But WE ARE ALSO LAUGHING AT YOU.This really is a shameful performance Rrhain.This message has been edited by holmes, 07-23-2004 06:26 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Just to let you know, I agree with your assessment.I am still baffled at apologists for his actions, as if he could only panic people or sit stock still in that chair. Presidents have left public engagements quicker and for lesser reasons. All it takes is the comment "I'm sorry but something requires my attention right now", or "something important has come up", or "I just received a call I need to take", or etc etc.He could have even left an aide to make a nice excuse to the kids.Nothing had to be dire in his demeanour, but the situation was dire and so demanded a bit more of his attention to reality and less to a child's book.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wrong. I have already mentioned some terms which are too vague, and have said which terms are not the same (within the premises), or do not follow from the others and so require additional premises.I have simply not said explicitly why, or how to fix them.Interestingly enough someone did give one explicit critique and you have ignored it, indeed ignoring it to such an extent that you claim "we" are against me, when I at least have one other person posting on my side. BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!You have GOT to be kidding me. I don't know what planet you live on, but it isn't a real one. For PRACTICAL PURPOSES, one may ALWAYS choose not to deal with an annoyance, specifically a person who claims knowledge which within that claim shows he does not have it.And for PRACTICAL PURPOSES, a person can use a specific lack of knowledge (and the overcoming of that certain lack of knowledge) as the goal an opponent must meet before serious discussion can resume.This can be seen readily on EvC. For example, a creo may state that evo violates the 2nd law. There are plenty of times that evos simply state "that is not true, and stating this shows a lack of knowledge of both theories" and suggest the person go back and hit the books before debate resumes.Most certainly NO ONE must feel trapped to answer everyone who talks to them, or offers bad challenges. That would be absurd.Oh and by the way, if all the above is true, why did you never address the other poster who critiqued your argument? Funny how your rules only stick for others. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. You really think you're that smart and I'm that much a liar?It means nothing for me to help you with your failed argument in and of itself. I do not even care that you continually say "we" in order to boost your position without any other merit (and in contrast to the evidence that you are not "we").But if you really believe your argument is so flawless, and I am just pretending at knowing where it's flaws are, then there may be something.Are you willing and able to stick to the results of a bet? If so, I will answer your request IF you agree to a wager beforehand...If you say you have the honor and ability to stick to the results of a bet then I will open a new thread with my challenge.In addition, since you claim the status of "we", I will require a list of all of those standing beside you on this wager.Do you sir, have the GUTS and the HONOR to put your brassballs where your mouth is?This message has been edited by holmes, 07-25-2004 05:45 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I never said formal, I said proper. I also said what this was. Go back and look.If this is a semantic game to shift the goal posts to a discussion of purely formal logic, and not how your statement fails to have been properly detailed, then let me know.I am also uninterested in your opinion regarding whether I MUST answer you on your terms. I am NOT your teacher, and as I stated I am uninterested in "helping" or "debating" you on a subject GIVEN OUR HISTORY.You are right I said I didn't want to discuss anything with you anymore. I also asked you to leave me out of your replies. You are a dishonest opponent and your posts make me sick to my stomach.But you refuse to leave me alone. This is why I am seeing a reason to answer you on this point (where I'd rather just leave you dangling).Unfortunately it looks like you don't have the guts, just a big mouth.Hell, you even clipped my last post so you didn't have to answer why you didn't answer the other person who criticized your argument... so much for your statement that one MUST answer one's critics.You are such a hypocrite, and now a coward... on top of being wrong.Oh yeah, and still no proof that you have any friends backing you up. Unless you recently joined the borg?Anyhow, you let me know when you get the guts to take a risk on the so called "strength" of your own argument and I will open a thread putting my own balls on the line. Huh? What does this even mean? All I'm doing is upping the stakes of this debate so that it is worth my continuance in it.If you can't handle it, don't blame your fear over my penis.Dude, sorry about your lame argument.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)