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

Verzem writes:

quote:

---

So what if someone buys a large quantity of ammunition.

---

What is the point of buying a few thousand rounds?

quote:

---

No rational person can make the leap that the ammo will be used for negative purposes.

---

On the contrary. No rational person can claim that the situation is inherently innocent. When you buy something, you intend to use it.

quote:

---

The biggest civilian ammo users are people who shoot for sport. That is a given.

---

And who needs thousands upon thousands of rounds for sport shooting? That needs to be bought in one sitting?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What is the point of buying a few thousand rounds?

---

​

Several. Since a normal trip to the range might well use 200-500 rounds or more, buying by the block (usually 1000 rounds) is convenient.

---

No, that isn't what I asked. I said a few thousand rounds, not a few hundred.The point, and please let us not get bogged down in specific numbers, is that there is a difference between buying enough for what you're going to use that day or week and buying ten times that amount. Someone plunking down a hundred bucks for a thousand rounds is one thing. Someone plunking down a thousand bucks is something else.

quote:

---

quote:

---

When you buy something, you intend to use it.

---

​

I certainly hope to use it. What does that have to do with anything?

---

You mean it never occurred to you to wonder what it was going to be used for?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And who needs thousands upon thousands of rounds for sport shooting? That needs to be bought in one sitting?

---

​

As said above, that is often less than a weeks worth of ammo.

---

No, that isn't what I said. You're an order of magnitude off.Assuming every day, 500 rounds a day, that's still only 3,500 rounds.I'm talking about much more than that.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

Well, I can tell you that I've bought 5,000 rounds at a time.

---

Didn't I say that we shouldn't get bogged down on a specific number? Whether or not the "typical" number of 5 or 5,000, vastly exceeding the "typical" number is noticeable.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You mean it never occurred to you to wonder what it was going to be used for?

---

​

I assume that it being purchased to shoot.

---

Into what?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Verzem responds to me:

quote:

---

So yes, when you buy something, you certainly do intend to use it, but it isn't automatically going to be used for negative purposes

---

And it doesn't occur to you that the more of something that is inherently dangerous a person buys in one fell swoop, the more likely it is that someone might want it to be used for negative purposes?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Verzem responds to me:

quote:

---

Please tell me this: What possible purpose could anyone have for buying forty feet of heavy chain if not to dispose of a body in a lake somewhere?

---

Compared to the number of times a bullet is found in a person, how often does body disposal in the lake via chain happen?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

What you seem to have forgotten is that my point ...

---

​

Oh I see now. It was my mistake that you would be addressing the point that I was making instead of using my post to fashion your own, making it appear I was addressing yours.

---

Incorrect.Instead, it was your mistake in thinking that you get to determine all points raised in a discussion. You see, when people engage in a rational debate, one person will raise a point and the other person will respond by raising a point of his own. You do not get to ignore that point just because it wasn't yours.

quote:

---

If it is a minority of people that need the personalization then yes, we should forget about them.

---

And conservatives who are the target of Moore's documentary are a minority of people?

quote:

---

Second I do not believe that one has to jerk people's emotions in order to personalize a subject.

---

And I do. Some people will be unable to consider a position unless forced into it.

quote:

---

In this case Moore brought in kids shot at Columbine to emotion jerk (heheh blackmail if you will)

---

Precisely.Do you seriously think K-mart would have done anything if the cameras weren't on showing them with a kid in a wheelchair being filmed?

quote:

---

All I said is that as much as anyone criticize O'Reilly or Hannity for their use of such techniques

---

I don't see anybody criticizing O'Reilly or Hannity for using emotion-jerking.I see them being criticized for outright lying in an attempt to scare people.Perhaps I should define my terms. I call "emotion-jerking" to be an extreme form of shaming. The focus is upon the target to make them feel bad about themselves in an attempt to get them to change their behaviour.This is different from what the Right pundits do in that they put their focus on other people in an attempt to get the target to feel superior and in danger.There is a difference between "Shame on you, you evil person!" and "You're the chosen and there are evil people who are trying to take that away from you." The former tries to get the target to change his own behaviour. The latter tries to get the target to change somebody else's behaviour.

quote:

---

Hell even the truth may get in the way of people understanding an issue, so why not skimp on that too, right?

---

They already do. It's acceptable in the theatre because that's the point: Fiction is the lie that tells a truth and all that. But when you claim to be "fair and balanced" as Fox does, when you claim to tell only the truth as the Right does, saying things that aren't true and getting indignant when those falsehoods are pointed out is something quite different than "dramatic license."

quote:

---

quote:

---

It presumes that there was any sort of implication by Moore that it would have helped the Columbine situation. If nobody was making that claim, then the question makes no sense.

---

​

I want to get this straight, you are saying that in a movie called Bowling for Columbine, Moore encouraging a group of kids who had been shot to go hound a bullet manufacturer to put into place certain changes, milking the fact that they were victims and so this was some sort of solution, did not imply that such a solution would not have helped at Columbine (or Columbine style shootings... since obviously it wasn't going to retroactively do anything)?

---

Yes.Here's a hint: Bowling for Columbine wasn't just about Columbine. Moore went to a bank that had as their promotion a rifle with the opening of an account. As he asked, "Don't you think it's odd to give away guns at a bank?"In no way, shape, or form was Moore trying to say that this would have stopped Columbine. Harris and Klebold didn't get their guns from a bank promotion. You see, Columbine was simply a symbol for the larger issue of violence and American culture. The Right tried to make Columbine a symbol of atheism, completely ignoring the fact that the area is highly religious. There was even a book titled She Said Yes about Cassie Bernall and how she was supposedly asked if she believed in god, she said she did, and was promptly killed.But that isn't what happened. Instead, Valeen Schnurr was asked if she believed in god, she said she did, she was then asked why, she said she just did and that was the way she was raised...and she wasn't shot.Emily Wyant was with Bernall when she was shot and she claims Bernall was never asked about her faith. Instead, Bernall was crying, "Dear god, dear god, why is this happening to me? I want to go home." Klebold then pounded on the table where both Wyant and Bernall were hiding, shouted "Peekaboo," and promptly shot Bernall.Are you saying you completely missed the symbolism?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The world literally does not mean what you think it means.

---

​

No. It literally means what I think it means, that's why I later talked about its being used as a figurative expression.

---

Incorrect.Even as a figurative expression, "panacea" means "cure-all."So unless you were being sarcastic and claiming that people who are pushing for bullet tracing are thinking it will be a panacea, there is absolutely no way to interpret what you said in any logical manner. The word literally does not mean what you think it means...not even as a figure of speech.

quote:

---

It did mention something about tracking as an after the fact measure acting as a deterrent.

---

But that isn't a panacea. That's a palliative. If it were a panacea, then all you would need to do is bullet tracing and all gun crime would go away.Since the death penalty didn't seem to make a dent in violent crime, I find it hard to believe anybody thinks bullet tracing would do any better.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And a single vendor is going to have a major effect upon a national problem how?

---

​

And so that meant jack what?

---

It was meant to stir up the audience and get them to do something so that other vendors get on the wagon. "Think global, act local" and all that.

quote:

---

quote:

---

That there is an entire chain of events that are involved in a bullet being fired from a gun. To focus solely upon the gun and pay no attention to the bullets is ridiculous.

---

​

To focus on guns and bullets to any great extent is ridiculous, as the actual points of Moore's movie should have made.

---

He didn't. As he pointed out repeatedly, other cultures that share some similar aspects with American culture don't have these problems. Go to the UK where guns are extremely tightly controlled, and there simply isn't nearly the level of gun violence (though, of course, that's a tautology.) But go to Canada where there is just as much gun ownership, and there still isn't nearly as much gun violence.Don't you remember the scene where he walked up to a random house in Canada and simply walked in the front door because it wasn't locked?

quote:

---

Please break down this argument for me:

​

1) You cannot fill a room with bullets if you don't have the bullets.

​

Therefore...

​

2) Limited bullet purchase and bullet tracking will help with issues of gun violence in america.

​

That is the argument you will have to flesh out if you are going to address the issue seriously.

---

But that is the argument. If A, then B. A, therefore B.If you don't have the bullets, you cannot fill a room with bullets.Limiting bullet purchases will reduce the supply of bullets. Therefore there will be fewer rooms filled with bullets.Bullet tracking will not reduce gun violence in and of itself. Instead, it will help to track down those who commit it.

quote:

---

Obviously a person can't shoot 200 bullets if he only has 20.

---

So what is it you need explained? If reducing bullets reduces the ability of people to shoot a whole bunch of other people, what would reducing the availability of bullets do?

quote:

---

When the kids at Columbine were worried they wouldn't have enough ammo for their assault, they made bombs out of everyday items. Would it make you feel better if bombs were the weapon of choice?

---

Their bombs didn't go off.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And it doesn't occur to you that the more of something that is inherently dangerous a person buys in one fell swoop, the more likely it is that someone might want it to be used for negative purposes?

---

​

This has got to be one of the most illogical statements I have heard in some time.

​

There are many many items which are "inherently dangerous" yet available in mass quantities.

---

Where one of the specific and intended purposes is killing another person?Cars are dangerous and you can buy as many cars as you want, but cars aren't intended to be used to kill others. Nobody advertises cars as "skull crushing" the way bullets are advertised as "armor piercing."If somebody buys a huge amount of something that has as one of its multiple intentions the death of other people, it never occurs to you to consider the implications and whether or not that intention might be involved?

quote:

---

For example it should have been more disturbing that the 9-11 hijackers were getting small amounts of training in how to fly planes and in self-defense courses, rather than going overboard and training extensively.

---

It was.That's why the various FBI agents were reporting it to their superiors.

quote:

---

I would be highly suspicious of the guy who came in to buy 3 bullets

---

I would be, too. It's called "deviation from the norm." Deviation below the norm is just as curious as deviation above it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

jar responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Didn't I say that we shouldn't get bogged down on a specific number? Whether or not the "typical" number of 5 or 5,000, vastly exceeding the "typical" number is noticeable.

---

​

Yup, typical Rr statement. "Let's not get hung up on the number but exceeding the number is noticeable"

---

Maybe it's because I'm a mathematician.You see, I understand the concept of "deviation from the norm." It's an abstraction, I know, but the concept is that what the specific norm is isn't as important as the deviation from it.It's that mathematical attitude that leads to jokes like this:An engineer, a physicist, and a mathematician all check into an hotel and fortunately for this joke, a fire breaks out in each room.The engineer jumps up, grabs a piece of paper and a pencil, makes some observations and notations, finds the closest fire extinguisher, puts out the fire, and goes back to sleep in a dry bed.The physicist jumps up, grabs the telephone book and a crayon, makes some observations and notations, finds the furthest fire hose, douses the entire room, and goes back to sleep in a wet bed.The mathematician jumps up, grabs a piece of chalk and uses the wall, makes some observations and notations, declares a solution exists, and goes back to sleep in a dry bed.Sometimes, knowing that an answer is out there is more significant than knowing what that answer is. Merten's Conjecture, for example, will fail sometime before 10¹⁰⁷⁰ (that's a 1 followed by 10⁷⁰ zeroes.) I don't think anybody has calculated where it first fails, but it isn't really important. It's the fact that it fails that is important.What a normative number of bullets is isn't really important. It's the extreme deviation from that normative amount that is important.Somebody buying the store out is worrisome as is someone buying only three.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I assume that it being purchased to shoot.

---

​

Into what?

---

​

Sorry Rr but that is simple a silly question.

---

Why? If there is an object where one of its primary purposes is to kill somebody, are you seriously saying that we shouldn't consider why somebody would want a lot of it? I'm hardly saying that bullets are only for killing people, but it is disingenuous to downplay that intention.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

Moore's setting the photo of the same dead girl on Heston's curb was emotion-jerking.

---

No, it was hyperbole.

quote:

---

It had no relevance to the discussion

---

It had to do with Heston's inability to see how his statements might lead to certain consequences.

quote:

---

and essentially implied that if Heston wasn't a heartless (or mindless) thug

---

And it's impossible for Heston to be such a thing?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes writes:

quote:

---

If I came in and bought several gallons of paint, do I have a house, or am I huffing?

---

As crash pointed out, you can't huff latex paint.But in many areas of the country, if you're under 18 and you try to buy spray paint, you're probably a tagger. And thus, you need to be over 18 to buy it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You see, when people engage in a rational debate, one person will raise a point and the other person will respond by raising a point of his own. You do not get to ignore that point just because it wasn't yours.

---

​

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.

---

(*chuckle*)Just because you don't like the way I respond to your point doesn't mean I didn't respond to it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And conservatives who are the target of Moore's documentary are a minority of people?

---

​

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"?

---

Jeffords left the party, didn't he? He became ashamed of what the Republicans had come to be and do and stand for. And if their constituency can come to the opinion that their actions are shameful, perhaps they'll be voted out of office and they'll have some time to reconsider their actions.You need to think big picture.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And I do. Some people will be unable to consider a position unless forced into it.

---

​

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?

---

Who on earth is talking about "all documentaries"? If some people need porn to be their medium, then so be it...those seeking to get their message out might want to consider it. They might decide not to go down that route, but I'm a bit surprised to hear you of all people complaining about porn.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Do you seriously think K-mart would have done anything if the cameras weren't on showing them with a kid in a wheelchair being filmed?

---

​

YES.

---

Then I would say you are horrendously naive.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't see anybody criticizing O'Reilly or Hannity for using emotion-jerking.

---

​

Then you are not watching TV, nor reading my posts.

---

I am watching TV and I am reading your posts.The thing is, I claim that O'Reilly and Hannity aren't emotion-jerking. They're simply lying. As I said before, "emotion-jerking" in my book is an attempt at shaming the target in order to change the target's behaviour. What O'R and H are doing isn't "emotion-jerking." Instead, they are trying to scare the target in order to get the target to change someone else's behaviour.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Perhaps I should define my terms. I call "emotion-jerking" to be an extreme form of shaming. The focus is upon the target to make them feel bad about themselves in an attempt to get them to change their behaviour.

---

​

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.

---

What if your definition makes no sense? Like your claim that "panacea" means something other than "cure-all"?The actions of M cannot be compared to O'R and H because they do not have the same intent.

quote:

---

quote:

---

when you claim to tell only the truth as the Right does, saying things that aren't true and getting indignant when those falsehoods are pointed out is something quite different than "dramatic license."

---

​

Uhm... which is different than Moore how?

---

I understand that a documentary about Moore is coming up. I haven't heard any comments from Moore about it. Would you care to supply some?On the other hand, I got to watch the conference with O'Reilly and Franken and see just what a putz O'R is, constantly interrupting F to try and claim that he wasn't lying.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Here's a hint: Bowling for Columbine wasn't just about Columbine.

---

​

Oh WOW, Rrhain. You just opened my eyes.

---

Glad to be of service. Your arguments seemed to be fixated on the idea that Moore was trying to make a movie about how Columbine, specifically, could have been stopped. I got that impression when you started whining that Moore's stunt with K-Mart wouldn't have done anything to stop Columbine......as if there was any intent by any of the players involved that it would have.So since Moore knew his K-Mart stunt wasn't about stopping Columbine, why were you complaining that his stunt wouldn't have stopped Columbine?

quote:

---

I mean you go into shit I wasn't even talking about and so it must mean I didn't understand it either!

---

Consider the possibility that you didn't. Perhaps the problem is that you weren't talking about it and you should have...that your analysis was lacking a serious investigation of those things you ignored...that your point fails because it is contradicted by that which you ignored.

quote:

---

To say the segment on bullets was not suggesting it would help prevent tragedies such as Columbine is ridiculous.

---

But that's precisely the point: It was not suggesting it would have helped prevent Columbine.Have you considered the possibility that you simply screwed up? That you missed the point entirely?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Even as a figurative expression, "panacea" means "cure-all."

---

​

Uh, no.

---

Uh, yes.In your personal lexicon, it may mean something else, but I don't speak your lexicon.

quote:

---

Who died and made you master of languages?

---

I didn't have to die. I simply mastered the language. And I looked it up. And yes, I know that dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive, but dicitionaries do help us get an idea of how words are being used.I couldn't find anything that indicated that panacea could be used in a way akin to palliative. Panacea means "cure-all." It means that it solves everything. That's the point: Whatever ails you, this fixes it. Not softens it or takes the edge off or makes it tolerable: It cures it.

quote:

---

There is a large difference between a literal cure-all and a figurative use of the phrase "cure-all".

---

How does "cure-all" not mean "cure-all"? How does "cure-all" mean "no cure but reduces symptoms"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

That's a palliative.

---

​

No, it is NOT. At least not according to the Mirriam Webster definition.

---

(*sigh*)From Merriam-Webster: That's the entire entry. The word literally means "cure-all." Now tell me how "reduce," "cover," or "moderate" is equivalent to "remedy" or "cure."

quote:

---

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.

---

If you were talking about a reduction and not a cure, then you meant something other than "panacea." If you didn't mean palliative, then you meant something else.It's like arguing with riVeRraT over whether or not "like" is equivalent to "as" when used as a comparative adjective.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If it were a panacea, then all you would need to do is bullet tracing and all gun crime would go away.

---

​

Ahhhhhhhhhhhh... through a deterrent effect, as tracing gets so good no one would dare.

---

But nobody claims that. And that wasn't what you were arguing Message 183: Now, how could bullet tracking be a panacea if it doesn't end the need for finding those who have committed crime? That's what a "panacea" is! A cure-all!

quote:

---

Of course that won't actually happen but it is the FEELING that come with such FEEL GOOD legislation. FIGURATIVE PANACEA.

---

But if it were a panacea, then the only thing you would need to do is bullet tracking and nobody, not even you is suggesting that.So since you weren't suggesting that bullet tracking was the only thing we needed to do, how could it be a panacea of any kind, literal or figurative?Perhaps you meant to talk about the degree of effect bullet tracking would have?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Since the death penalty didn't seem to make a dent in violent crime, I find it hard to believe anybody thinks bullet tracing would do any better.

---

​

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.

---

Ah, so you've fallen for the creationist argument: Because it doesn't help everything, then it must not help anything. You're absolutely right that those who make their own ammo and file the barrels to screw up the rifling will get past the databases.Why does that mean we shouldn't maintain these databases to help us find those who don't?

quote:

---

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 you're arguing about cost, not concept.Why didn't you say that in the first place?

quote:

---

quote:

---

It was meant to stir up the audience and get them to do something so that other vendors get on the wagon.

---

​

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?

---

See, this is why I am of the opinion that you missed the entire point of the movie.

quote:

---

quote:

---

As he pointed out repeatedly, other cultures that share some similar aspects with American culture don't have these problems.

---

​

***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.

---

Have you considered that what you said and what you meant didn't coincide? You've already screwed up on the word "panacea." It's impossible that you screwed up something else?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Don't you remember the scene where he walked up to a random house in Canada and simply walked in the front door because it wasn't locked?

---

​

Please refrain from detailing the movie for me. I liked it overall and understood what it was saying.

---

Given your comments, apparently not. You got some of it but not all of it.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But that is the argument. If A, then B. A, therefore B.

​

If you don't have the bullets, you cannot fill a room with bullets.

​

Limiting bullet purchases will reduce the supply of bullets. Therefore there will be fewer rooms filled with bullets.

---

​

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,

---

You're going to have to. It's your burden of proof. I have provided a logically correct statement. If you wish to claim that it is false, then it is your responsibility to indicate where something has gone amiss. Perhaps what I think is A isn't really A. Perhaps what I think is B isn't really B. Perhaps B isn't logically implied from A. Until you actually indicate the problem, the syllogism stands as logically valid.

quote:

---

but I am going to wait until you present it in a real syllogism form

---

It isn't a syllogism. Syllogisms are logical statements containing three categorical propositions, two premises and one conclusion. The premises must be of one of the AEIO formats:A: All S are P
E: No S are P
I: Some S are P
O: Some S are not PDepending upon how the terms are combined, you may or may not have a truthful statement. For example, at least one of the premises must be affirmative (A or I). Another is that if you have a negative premise, you must have a negative conclusion. The classic syllogism is:All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.Instead, it is a propositional logical statement.If A, then B.
A, therefore B.Logical errors arising from such constructions are not syllogistic errors such as Illicit Minor/Major but rather propositional errors such as Affirming the Consequent or Denying the Antecedent.

quote:

---

As a hint... What does bullets purchases mean to bullets existing?

---

How many people out there make their own bullets? Let's try to keep this in the realm of the ordinary, shall we? I seem to recall a similar argument about sexual activity and having to point out that we shouldn't really be talking about the raped, the coerced, or the mentally ill. Instead, we should be talking about people who are acting under their own volition without coercion.

quote:

---

What does the number of bullets bought have to do with bullets filling a room?

---

What does the number of bullets available have to do with bullets filling a room?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If reducing bullets reduces the ability of people to shoot a whole bunch of other people, what would reducing the availability of bullets do?

---

​

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.

---

Oh, my, what poor, poor rhetorical skills. The attempt to avoid the issue by searching for the most oddball exceptions that aren't being discussed and will readily be admitted as outliers.Now please justify your claim of equivocation. That is, please explain how reducing availability of an object does not necessarily lead to a reduction in presence of that object? If a process can only be activated upon available items and a secondary process reduces the number of items available, doesn't that necessarily reduce the instances of the first process?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Their bombs didn't go off.

---

​

Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but some of their bombs most certainly did go off.

---

How many people did they kill with bombs and how many did they kill with guns? If the choice is between something that kills a lot of people or something that doesn't kill nearly as many, I think I'd go for the latter assuming I can't choose to select neither.

quote:

---

And let's pretend all the bombs didn't go off, so what? People DO make bombs all the time which DO go off.

---

How many people are killed each year from bombs?How many people are killed each year from bullets?

quote:

---

My point remains the same and you have not addressed it with that anecdotal (if true) dodge.

---

Incorrect. You simply missed the point. Given their dismal abilities at creating effective bombs, I would much rather they have tried to kill people with bombs.Fewer people would have died.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Where one of the specific and intended purposes is killing another person?

---

​

Knives.

---

...are not specifically intended to kill other people unless one gets into the combat knife.Most people don't have combat knives and I doubt Ginsu intended that you'd take that amazing cleaver and use your roommate to test how well it chops through bone.Let's try to keep this in the realm of the ordinary, shall we?

quote:

---

If a person buys a bunch of knives is there a greater danger.

---

Depending upon the number and type, yes.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If somebody buys a huge amount of something that has as one of its multiple intentions the death of other people, it never occurs to you to consider the implications and whether or not that intention might be involved?

---

​

Anytime anyone buys anything that can kill someone,

---

Stop right there.Not "can" kill someone. We're not talking about the possibility of maybe someone attempting to use the object to kill somebody. We're talking about the situation where one of the deliberate intentions is to kill somebody.You "can" kill someone with a baseball bat, but the manufacturers of baseball bats never intended for you to do it. A bullet, on the other hand, has as one of its many purposes the intent of being used to kill somebody.

quote:

---

One bullet will kill a person just as dead as a roomful of bullets.

---

Indeed, but it is much easier to kill a person by filling the room with bullets. Walk into a classroom with one bullet, and you'll be hard pressed to injure let alone kill even half the people in it. Do a roomful of bullets, and you'll have a much better shot at it.

quote:

---

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?

---

Why do you think the BATF wanted to talk to David Koresh?

quote:

---

quote:

---

I would be, too. It's called "deviation from the norm." Deviation below the norm is just as curious as deviation above it.

---

​

What's the norm in buying bullets?

---

For the purposes of this discussion, does it matter? Can we agree that it is something above a single bullet and something less than the entire store?

quote:

---

You have mentioned this "buying out the store phenomenon" yet have given no evidence that it even exists,

---

You mean ammunition shops routinely sell all of their ammunition of a certain caliber to a single customer? I didn't think I needed to justify the obvious.

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, it was hyperbole.

---

​

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

---

See...now you're starting to get it. Hyperbole is often used in humor.

quote:

---

I use the term emotion-jerking and you say "no it's hyperbole?"

---

Yep.You see, the two are different things. You might think they are the same thing, but you are wrong. The fact that you try to define them as the same thing doesn't mean you get to use it. In another thread, riVeRraT tried to claim that when making a comparison, "like" doesn't mean the same thing as "as." He's simply wrong. He can continue with that claim of his, but it is predicated upon an invalid premise and all of his statement made after that are unjustified because of it.

quote:

---

You jackass, that is exactly what I was saying.

---

But emotion-jerking isn't hyperbole.

quote:

---

YOU DO NOT GET TO USE YOUR DEFINITION WHEN I AM SPEAKING.

---

I do when your definition is wrong.If we have painted the walls such that they reflect light only of 700 nm, you can call it "blue" all you want, but you're wrong. "Blue" does not mean that. The word you were looking for is "red."

quote:

---

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.

---

And irony and sarcasm mean nothing to you?See, this is why I claim you missed the point of the movie.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

and essentially implied that if Heston wasn't a heartless (or mindless) thug

---

​

And it's impossible for Heston to be such a thing?

---

​

Thanks for proving my point.

---

Your point was that Heston is a heartless (or mindless) thug?

quote:

---

While not impossible, it is pretty implausible that Heston is some heartless/mindless thug.

---

Why? If he engenders a culture that leads to people feeling that they have to use a gun to stop "them," how is that not being a heartless/mindless thug?

quote:

---

So let's change it to thinner instead. So the more you buy the more likely it is to be used for huffing?

---

If you go well beyond the norm, one wonders what you're going to do with it. It's flammable, after all.

quote:

---

quote:

---

But in many areas of the country, if you're under 18 and you try to buy spray paint, you're probably a tagger. And thus, you need to be over 18 to buy it.

---

​

What does this have to do with answering my question?

---

That the circumstances surrounding what would otherwise be an innocuous activity can convert it into a suspicious activity.

quote:

---

People over 18 can get high just as much as kids.

---

Um, tagging has nothing to do with getting high in and of itself.

quote:

---

Although I suppose it does raise a new question. Since graffiti is rampant, should we limit sales of spraypaint?

---

That's what I just said: In some areas, tagging is rampant and limits have been imposed on the sale of spray paint.

quote:

---

Does greater purchase of spraypaint suggest huffing or tagging (by those over 18) are the likely purpose?

---

In the minds of those who passed the legislation, no. Or, more accurately, those under 18 are less likely to have any non-graffiti purpose for spray paint than those over 18. Those over 18 are much more likely to have a non-graffiti purpose for spray paint. You don't huff spray paint, either.

quote:

---

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.

---

Since it wasn't a syllogism, you're going to be waiting quite some time.For someone who was whining so much about my logic, your failure to recognize a propositional logic statement as distinguished from a syllogism is disheartening.

quote:

---

2) Evidence that onetime large sales of bullets are linked to a higher probability they will be used in murders.

---

That isn't my argument. Instead, I am defending Moore's presentation of that argument.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me....well, no, he doesn't. He seems to think that "ya jerk" is an actual response.

quote:

---

"Emotion-jerking" is not a real word.

---

It most certainly is. It's a direct descendant of "tear-jerking" which is a term describing a dramatic piece deliberately designed to elicit a sympathetic, emotional response of pathos filled with crying.Hate to break it to you, but you did not coin the phrase.

quote:

---

As it stands I already suggested an even more appropriate word (placebo),

---

Which is fine...except that you decided to latch onto the wounded victim role and rather than simply saying, "Oops, my mistake." you decided to go on and on and on about how "panacea" really did mean something other than "cure-all."

quote:

---

If you cannot recognize that Panacea can be and has been used in speech (when figurative, and not literal) to mean placebo-like

---

Then it means that I actually understand the language. The two are, essentially, opposites. A panacea effects a cure, a placebo does nothing. Now, something can be pushed as a panacea when it is actually a placebo, but the two cannot actually exist in the same object. Something cannot cure and do nothing at the same time.And if you bring up the placebo effect, it will only show that you're simply arguing for the sake of railing against me.

quote:

---

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

---

If you were being lazy, why did you demand that I put the argument in "proper terms" when I already had done so, Message 219: So now what?

quote:

---

But to all those concerned, Rrhain did peg the correct philosophical terminology.

---

So will you explain where it's going wrong?

quote:

---

I would argue getting logic down is a bit more important than the terminology.

---

But that's the point: I made a logically valid argument. Any argument of the form "If A, then B. A, therefore B" is true.If you don't have the bullets, you cannot fill a room with bullets.Limiting bullet purchases will reduce the supply of bullets. Therefore there will be fewer rooms filled with bullets.Where does the logic fail?

quote:

---

You were wrong to think that an argument stands as logically valid, until someone proves otherwise.

---

That isn't quite what I said. Here's what I actually said: And I admit right here that I screwed up and used "syllogism." You got me going and I fell for it. That said, let's look at the point of what I said.A statement of the form "If A, then B. A, therefore B" is always logically valid. The response to that is not, as you seem to think I said, to claim that the form could lead to a false conclusion. Instead, it is to show that the claims really aren't what they are claimed to be. That is, you don't assail the conglomeration but rather the pieces: If A, then B may be true, but the specific example is not an instance of A ("All squares are rectangles, true, but that's a circle you've got there, not a square.") Or the example isn't an instance of B ("All squares are rectangles, but you seem to be arguing that that square is behaving like a circle.") Or maybe A doesn't really imply B ("No, all rectangles are not squares.") You aren't arguing against the structure, you are arguing against the example.

quote:

---

In addition, you have dodged your responsibility to provide evidence necessary to make your claim (or defend Moore's).

---

But I am not defending his argument. I'm defending that the way he presented it was coherent and reasoned. That doesn't make it right. An argument can be wrong and still be presented in an appropriate way.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Adminnemooseus responds to me:

quote:

---

I wonder what message 227 would be like if it were not so chopped up by quotations, and quotations in quotations?

---

Like holmes' rant?Like something that is just begging a response of, "You're not even responding to my comments." You see, it's hard to realistically claim that a point wasn't addressed when you directly quoted it and then immediately responded to it.It's a habit I picked up from my old USENET days. Is this a warning?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It most certainly is. It's a direct descendant of "tear-jerking" which is a term describing a dramatic piece deliberately designed to elicit a sympathetic, emotional response of pathos filled with crying.

---

​

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?

---

Did you bother to do any research on this before you responded? You did not coin the term, holmes. A simple Google search for "emotion-jerking" returned 72 results. Only two of them are us. Are you seriously implying that they all read this forum and then used your term to refer to music? Hell, a lot of them are in reference to Farenheit 9/11...so it would seem that your opinion isn't unique.

quote:

---

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.

---

But only afterward. You used a term that I already understood to mean something having encountered it many other places.

quote:

---

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).

---

(*sigh*)No, I guess you didn't do any research at all. I hate having to do other people's homework. Fine:http://www.tosbbs2.com/mmc/reviews.php?contestid=32&songi... Review of Love Actually (***) by Marty Mapes - Movie Habit dvdangle.com

quote:

---

quote:

---

rather than simply saying, "Oops, my mistake." you decided to go on and on and on about how "panacea" really did mean something other than "cure-all."

---

​

Uhmmmm, it can mean something other than a literal cure-all, and has been used that way.

---

But only in the sense that all other worries are so minor and innocuous as to be insignificant. That's the point: It cures. It isn't a masking, a cover, or a reduction to a manageable problem. It is a CURE.Nobody was claiming that bullet tracing would cure violence or even reduce it in any significant way...other than you who is arguing against it. Instead, it was brought forth as a method to help find those who commit violence after they have committed it.

quote:

---

I refuse to play that game, and will point out your instance that I meant palliative

---

It was a question, remember? You used a word that didn't mean what you were trying to make it mean and I tried to find another word that seemed to mean what you were trying to say and had a related pronunciation and spelling.I apologize for missing your use of "placebo" (which doesn't mean "cure," either). It makes sense. But in the end, "panacea" and "placebo" are essentially antonyms. The first is a cure, the second is a fake.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Now, something can be pushed as a panacea when it is actually a placebo, but the two cannot actually exist in the same object.

---

​

Clap clap clap. And indeed things can simply be pushed (using emotional reasoning) to FEEL like a panacea, when it is actually a placebo.

---

But that isn't what you said. You didn't say or even imply that it was being pushed as a panacea. You said it was. Message 183: Where does one get the impression that you were talking about this being pushed as a panacea?

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you were being lazy, why did you demand that I put the argument in "proper terms"

---

​

Holy shit, does this mean another definition scrap?

---

Nope. It's a question of simple meaning.You said "syllogism." You meant "syllogism." You wouldn't have demanded that I put the argument in "proper form" (since syllogism are created in formal logic by using a specific form) if you didn't think you were talking about a "syllogism." You even decided to make a childish game out of it.The problem was it wasn't a syllogism. It was a propositional logic statement, and it had already been put in formal form. And instead of simply saying, "Oops, my mistake," you've decided to throw a fit.In the end, it really doesn't matter what word you used. The important aspect is that you got pissed that I called you up on it and rather than simply letting it go, you decided to dig in your heels. You've been doing it throughout this exchange.

quote:

---

I already detailed what I wanted.

---

And it had already been given to you in Message 219: What more "proper form" is there?

quote:

---

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.

---

No, that's your job. You're the one claiming that it isn't justified, therefore it is your burden of proof to show that it isn't. What has been overlooked? Be specific.

quote:

---

quote:

---

And I admit right here that I screwed up and used "syllogism." You got me going and I fell for it.

---

​

You mean you just rolled with it (like I had also done).

---

Incorrect. If you were "just rolling with it," then you wouldn't have dared me to put the argument in "proper form." Instead, you decided to play a childish game, refusing to simply say, "Oops, my mistake."

quote:

---

We knew what we were talking about so what's the difference, keep moving. That is communication.

---

But I did precisely what you had asked: Message 219: No matter what you called it, I had put the argument in "proper form" and had done so long before you asked me to. So if you're so up for this "communication" of yours (heaven forbid I should try to think you mean what is commonly meant by that word), then what on earth is the problem? I gave you precisely what you asked for and now you're whining that it didn't turn out the way you wanted it to be.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You aren't arguing against the structure, you are arguing against the example.

---

​

Exactly.

---

So argue already! You seem to be saying that I should be the one to find the fault in my own argument. If it's my argument, don't you think I would think it doesn't have a fault?That's your job, holmes. If you think my argument is wrong, you need to show why it is wrong. You don't need to provide the actual answer, but you do need to show that there is a problem. Step up to the plate! Why are you hesitating?

quote:

---

You said until I point out problems then it stands as logically valid.

---

And that's the way it works. The form is inherently logically valid as I pointed out in Message 219: Therefore, if you're going to argue against it, you're going to have to show where the problem is.But that is your job to do, holmes, not mine. If you cannot display where the problem is, then the argument necessarily stands because it is in an inherently logically correct format.

quote:

---

Your statement IS wrong. I KNOW it is wrong.

---

Then explain it. We're all waiting. The format was put forward for you, so please detail the specific problems.

quote:

---

And it is the "terms" within, which logically necessitate more premises to link them (hidden premises)

---

Such as....? What are these "hidden premises"? Be specific.We're waiting.

quote:

---

Are you now saying you don't believe in this argument after all? Sheeeesh.

---

No, I'm saying that whether or not I believe in the argument is irrelevant. The presentation of the argument, however, was perfectly legitimate.This started with you complaining about Moore's treatment of Heston.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

holmes responds to me:Well, no, he doesn't. Nothing but ad hominem commentary from beginning to end. I will sink to that level for only one comment:

quote:

---

Okay, listen very carefully rrhain... I have a degree in Philosophy...

---

Oh, you wanna play the credentialing game. Fine.I have a degree in Mathematics.When it comes to logic, I outrank you.Now, answer the question:Where does the specific example fail to fit the formal presentation? You are the one claiming that it doesn't. Therefore, it is your burden to justify it. No, not "hints." You need to actually spit it out.We're waiting.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!