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]
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
“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.”
Exactly!
http://www.weerdworld.com/?cat=18
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.
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?
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…
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.”
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.
I repeat,Loading...