Quote of the day—Linoge

If there is no proof, it is not “obvious”.

Alternatively, if it is so very “obvious”, present the proof.

Linoge
January 30, 2011
Comment to A problem with diversity
[This was in response to MikeB302000 who was attempting a proof by vigorous assertion. “It’s obvious” or “It’s just common sense” is not proof but some people just don’t get this. In this particular case MikeB302000 admits he doesn’t care about truth or falsity, causation or correlation so it really doesn’t matter what you say, the data you present, or the logic of your proof. All that matters is that you share his delusional view of the world.—Joe]

23 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Linoge

  1. The statement in question was, “gun violence is an inevitable part of there being guns in the society.”

    Joe, why don’t you tell us, using your superior intellect and ability to understand the difference between the true and the false, exactly what’s wrong with that statement.

    This is the one you quoted Linoge about. There’s something in that statement that requires “proof.” Is that what you’re saying?

  2. Mikey, are you saying that there are zero people shot in gun-controlled societies? If anything is “obvious,” I’d think that would be an obvious lie.

    If you are saying that it’s “obvious” that countries with many guns have more than zero violence, as do those with very few guns, then that saying is true, but utterly trivial.

    If you are saying that it’s “obvious” that countries with many guns have more violence than countries with few guns, then it is up to you to provide proof.

  3. I’m curious why the metric “Gun Violence” or “Gun Death” should have any relevance to a sane person’s day-to-day, any more than any other made-up metric, like say newton/grains!

  4. Weer’d Beard, because everyone would be better off if murder victims were all killed by being thrown out of windows or run over by buses.

  5. What makes gun violence different from the other kinds? Eradicating guns is kind of like eradicating tutti-frutti ice cream–if that ever happened, which is unlikely, we could still get vanilla or chocolate.

  6. Talking to Mikey is sort of like trying to have a discussion with a mentally-impaired six year-old. If it gets too complicated with facts, he soils himself and then runs away.

  7. I think what the communists are trying to say, without having the courage to come out and say it directly, is this;

    “Man cannot rule himself as America’s founders intended. The proof of this is found in the simple fact that there is crime (or poverty, disease, bad weather, accidents, etc., etc.). We are all either guilty, or potentially guilty, of being too evil and/or too stupid, and/or to destructive to make our own decisions, and so we should be treated as such by the smarter people. It only makes sense then, that wholesale, government-run coercion be the order of the day, no matter what. QED.”

    That is always the case they’re trying to make, no matter the subject at hand.

    Does that about sum it up, or have I missed something?

  8. Mike, let me make this as simple for you as I can: every statement of fact should have proof to substantiate it. This is even more important when the person making the statements has a known and provable history of lying his bigoted ass off…

  9. I don’t understand why 2nd Amendment/Gun Control issues often break down into philosophical exercises on this blog.

    When people talk “truth,” do they mean “relative truth” or “absolute truth”? Or do they mean “Objective truth” or “Subjective truth”? Mike’s “It’s obvious” points to relative truth. Absolute truth requires proof. (That’s the scientific method that these sciencey types seem to love so much — but it’s not the only method of proving “truth versus falsity.”)

    I could write the sentence “Blue is blue” but on my computer, I just wrote the word “Blue” and it appears in black print so in this case, “Blue is not blue, it’s black.” And that’s the truth. Since truth is dependent on language (which is subject to interpretation) truth can vary.

    Until we all agree, we have not reached the “Truth.”

  10. ubu, when Mike writes “Its obvious …” it is followed by a statement that is actuality nothing but an expression of his religious faith. Neither relative nor absolute truth.

  11. I just wrote the word “Blue” and it appears in black print so in this case, “Blue is not blue, it’s black.” And that’s the truth.

    Uh, no, it is not. Blue is still blue (where “blue” describes the visible light spectrum between 440 and 490 nanometers). However, had you written, “Blue is blue, but in this case, I typed the word ‘blue’ in a black font,” that would be the truth.

    But, then again, specificity was never UBU’s strong suit.

    And let me add, the more guns the more gun violence.

    False, and demonstrably so. I will keep repeating this, even though I know you will never understand it – there is a negative correlation between firearm ownership rates and firearm-related fatality rates, just like there is a negative correlation between firearm ownership rates and firearm-related crime rates. NEGATIVE. As in “as the number of firearms owned per person in America increases, the number of firearm-related fatalities/crimes per person in America decreases.”

    And by way of proof, I rely on the information provided by the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, the BATFE’s reports on the numbers of firearms produced in America on a yearly basis, the CDC’s WISQARS database, and other factual datasets and information sources. What do you rely on for your above statement, Mike?

    You say you want proof, Linoge. I say you’re just breaking balls.

    And you would be wrong. Again. If you cannot prove something, it does not exist. Period. Full stop. End of story. And, in your specific case, the only “proof” of this mystical tie between firearms and crimes solely exists in your warped and twisted mind, and you will have to forgive me for not permitting my rights to be infringed by a certifiable nutcase who would not be able to identify “reality” if it reached up and kicked him in the gonads.

    Now, if you want to start talking about faith, since “gun control” is obviously a cult for you and countless other anti-rights nuts, that is a separate matter entirely, but I think we all can agree that we do not want religions arbitrarily inflicting their faith-based requirements on our legislation either, regardless of their claimed ulterior motives.

    Publius is right – you are nothing more than a broken record, stuck on stupid, and you are only commenting here to stir up trouble and generate traffic back to your hateful, bigoted corner of the internet. How do I know this? Because you just keep repeating the same idiotic, disproven bullshit at every available opportunity, and you do not even make an effort to substantiate your claims. Oh, hey, look, I actually provided proof for my words. What a novel idea!

    *sigh* Y’know, as a troll, you were actually entertaining for a time… but then you just started getting repetitive, and now it almost seems like you are getting stupider. When all else fails, double down? Does not seem to be working out so well for you…

  12. mike, you really need to address why it is that you feel a need to assert “facts” that are counter to reality.

  13. “Blue is still blue (where “blue” describes the visible light spectrum between 440 and 490 nanometers).”

    You neglected to say that the “visible light spectrum” applies only to human eyes. You also didn’t deal with the fact that “Blue” is “Blue” in English but is “Bleu” in French and “Blu” in Italian and different words in a host of other languages.

    So, to say “Blue is Blue” is really a relative truth, not an absolute truth. “Blue” is not “Blue” to the French.

  14. You neglected to say that the “visible light spectrum” applies only to human eyes.

    Perhaps because it is not relevant to the discussion at hand? In short, it does not matter – the definition still holds, in that we are talking about light energies with a wavelength between X and Y. Tell me, UBU – have you ever taken a science course? Of any type?

    “Blue” is not “Blue” to the French.

    Uh, yes, yes it is. Translation does not change the meanings of the concepts in play, just the words used to describe them.

    Of course, this is from the same individual who firmly believes that just because the GOP webstore has a camouflage hat in their store, that means they endorse murderous whackjobs. This is from an individual who firmly believes that comparing making murder a criminal offense, and making not registering a gun a criminal offense, are in some way comparable and analogous.

    You really are stupider than you look.

  15. Lingoe: “If you cannot prove something, it does not exist. Period. Full stop. End of story.”

    Joe, what say you? Do you agree with that latest pomposity?

    Is Linoge’s smoke blowing around here going to be reciprocated? Or is this the sticking point, the point at which you have to part ways with your nastier and more prolix buddy?

  16. I remember the story of a mathematician who was in the middle of a lecture, and said that a certain claim was obvious. A student asked, “Are you sure?” and the professor stopped, thought about it for fifteen minutes, and then said, “Ah, yes! It is obvious!” and then continued his lecture.

    In mathematics, professors can get away with things like that, because their reasoning is based on axioms, definitions, and theorems logically deducted from those axioms.

    We are discussing societies, though, and in societies, we don’t get to do that, because societies are chaotic systems, and things like “axioms” are always in flux. Hedge funds can be managed fantastically using a small number of equations…until a single axiom changes subtly, and everything crashes down. The housing market grows at leaps and bounds! Until, that is, a law passed two years ago makes all those mortgages look worthless. And such things continue with taxes and regulations…all passed to “fix” things, but because the axioms that justify them either weren’t fully known, or change subtly over time, everything comes crashing down.

    Thus, you can’t take a statement that “more guns causes more gun deaths” and treat it as “obvious”. This is doubly so, because there are counter-examples. And in mathematics, once we have a single counter-example, the phrase is false. End of story.

    And it doesn’t matter one whit that you could find statistics that say otherwise, or discover societies that operate otherwise.

    And that is why, when you make such “obvious” claims, people demand proof.

    QED.

  17. And when pressed for proof, Mike’s response is as predictable as it is pathetic: ad hominem attacks, and the mother of all Internet copouts – TL;DR.

    “Broken record” indeed…

  18. Bill Whittle very succinctly explains why our gun rights should remain inviolate.

    And for any who don’t know it, MikeB302000 is a United Nations employee, working at their behest from Rome, Italy, to infiltrate and instigate on their behalf, and we know what they want.

    Don’t give the SOB the time of day. He’s not worth…well, you know.

  19. MikeB302000,

    Most of my response is here.

    I do agree with you the tone of some of the pro-gun people here is a little more hostile than I am comfortable with. I think claims of “stupid” are probably exaggerated and certainly non-productive.

  20. “ubu52” writes:
    ‘You neglected to say that the “visible light spectrum” applies only to human eyes. You also didn’t deal with the fact that “Blue” is “Blue” in English but is “Bleu” in French and “Blu” in Italian and different words in a host of other languages.’

    ‘So, to say “Blue is Blue” is really a relative truth, not an absolute truth. “Blue” is not “Blue” to the French.’

    Are you high? “Visible light spectrum” is a well-defined term; the definition includes to whom said light is visible.

    “Blue” is also well defined, describing light of a certain range of wavelengths. Doesn’t matter what language you use.

    It’s an absolute truth — which is the only kind there is. “Relative truth” is just another fool opinion, all dolled up and tryin’ to pass itself off as Truth.

    There is an objective reality, ubu52. You may not believe in it, but it is there nonetheless, waiting — as it does for us all – to smack you when your opinions differ too much from reality.

Comments are closed.