Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic DC gun ban revoked Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post iconoclast Posted at 7:58 am on June 26, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html A blow to those gun control idiots.

Replies marshmellowman Posted at 2:05 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 5:44 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:36 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 5:23 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:14 am on June 26, 2008 You relying on it to disregard my argument. No I didn't. All I said was simple "correlation =/= causation" That's a simple statement that I put out there, so to speak. I didn't disregard your argument because I made no mention of your argument whatsoever in my reply.   Is that because it's infallible? I understand. No. It was a joke. I know, and it wasn't funny, which is why I didn't play along with it. iconoclast Posted at 10:57 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 12:07 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 8:54 am on June 26, 2008 it certainly is true that correlation =/= causation though, but that might not apply here. or it might. but then again, the gun control idiots abuse the same fallacy to 'support' their arguments In accordance with my previous argument, it's not. She's just attempting make my argument seem like I Over-simplified. I'll admit, the Statistics seem unrelated to the cause, but they're a representation of action. An action that can be discouraged in the uncertainty of equal retaliation. Of course, she also seems to support the Right to bare Arms, if it's heavily regulated. The cause seems to be poverty, according to statistics.   Marshmellowman, I wasn't denying that you understood it's meaning, I was denying that you understood it was your only counter-argument to mine. And you couldn't actually apply it in a sentence, against my argument. Only that it was sometimes applied in similar cases, so you think it applies all the time. You relying on it to disregard my argument. yeah i know, it isn't 'proven' but it makes logical sense iconoclast Posted at 10:56 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 12:03 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 4:54 pm on June 26, 2008 it certainly is true that correlation =/= causation though, but that might not apply here. or it might. but then again, the gun control idiots abuse the same fallacy to 'support' their arguments That's a very good point. We don't know. Clearly our opinions on gun control differ, and I doubt we'll get the other to change their views. I pointed out that merely a statistic wouldn't prove that gun control does nothing. But in that same sense by saying that the crime is still rising even with gun control or if it was falling I could apply the same thing. the point is mostly that statistics are irrelevent to personal freedom Kokasion Posted at 9:45 am on June 26, 2008 How can you stand by your stance when according to you, it doesn't make a difference? Kokasion Posted at 9:44 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:36 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 5:23 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:14 am on June 26, 2008 You relying on it to disregard my argument. No I didn't. All I said was simple "correlation =/= causation" That's a simple statement that I put out there, so to speak. I didn't disregard your argument because I made no mention of your argument whatsoever in my reply.    Is that because it's infallible?    I understand. No. It was a joke. Kokasion Posted at 9:43 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:01 am on June 26, 2008 I know perfectly well exactly what that means. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. By the way. Thanks for that, I only understood it in english. But, to you, I'd argue Post Hoc, Ergo propter hoc. But we both know proper investigation would support both of our claims, and neither of us are "Jumping" to conclusions. Those "Illogical Fallacies" can't be applied in every instance you encounter them. Especially not when they're accompanied with an example other than statistics, to support it. Neither of us are stupid enough to rationalize that Guns aren't used to harm people. But neither of us can argue that guns aren't used to protect people. marshmellowman Posted at 9:36 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 5:23 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:14 am on June 26, 2008 You relying on it to disregard my argument. No I didn't. All I said was simple "correlation =/= causation" That's a simple statement that I put out there, so to speak. I didn't disregard your argument because I made no mention of your argument whatsoever in my reply. Is that because it's infallible? I understand. No. Kokasion Posted at 9:23 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:14 am on June 26, 2008 You relying on it to disregard my argument. No I didn't. All I said was simple "correlation =/= causation" That's a simple statement that I put out there, so to speak. I didn't disregard your argument because I made no mention of your argument whatsoever in my reply. Is that because it's infallible?    I understand. Kokasion Posted at 9:22 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:03 am on June 26, 2008 That's a very good point. We don't know. Clearly our opinions on gun control differ, and I doubt we'll get the other to change their views. I pointed out that merely a statistic wouldn't prove that gun control does nothing. But in that same sense by saying that the crime is still rising even with gun control or if it was falling I could apply the same thing. As I stated, originally. There will possibly be more incidents in which a licensed owner injures another individual. (Inevitable since guns are licensed to people now.) Ect ect. Though, it will probably be hard to gauge, since Gentrification is on-going. marshmellowman Posted at 9:14 am on June 26, 2008 You relying on it to disregard my argument. No I didn't. All I said was simple "correlation =/= causation" That's a simple statement that I put out there, so to speak. I didn't disregard your argument because I made no mention of your argument whatsoever in my reply. Kokasion Posted at 9:09 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 9:03 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 4:54 pm on June 26, 2008 it certainly is true that correlation =/= causation though, but that might not apply here. or it might. but then again, the gun control idiots abuse the same fallacy to 'support' their arguments That's a very good point. We don't know. Clearly our opinions on gun control differ, and I doubt we'll get the other to change their views. I pointed out that merely a statistic wouldn't prove that gun control does nothing. But in that same sense by saying that the crime is still rising even with gun control or if it was falling I could apply the same thing. In all fairness, It fell for a few years after the ban was enforced. But then it doubled it's previous high in '91 Kokasion Posted at 9:07 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 8:54 am on June 26, 2008 it certainly is true that correlation =/= causation though, but that might not apply here. or it might. but then again, the gun control idiots abuse the same fallacy to 'support' their arguments In accordance with my previous argument, it's not. She's just attempting make my argument seem like I Over-simplified. I'll admit, the Statistics seem unrelated to the cause, but they're a representation of action. An action that can be discouraged in the uncertainty of equal retaliation. Of course, she also seems to support the Right to bare Arms, if it's heavily regulated. The cause seems to be poverty, according to statistics. Marshmellowman, I wasn't denying that you understood it's meaning, I was denying that you understood it was your only counter-argument to mine. And you couldn't actually apply it in a sentence, against my argument. Only that it was sometimes applied in similar cases, so you think it applies all the time. You relying on it to disregard my argument. marshmellowman Posted at 9:03 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 4:54 pm on June 26, 2008 it certainly is true that correlation =/= causation though, but that might not apply here. or it might. but then again, the gun control idiots abuse the same fallacy to 'support' their arguments That's a very good point. We don't know. Clearly our opinions on gun control differ, and I doubt we'll get the other to change their views. I pointed out that merely a statistic wouldn't prove that gun control does nothing. But in that same sense by saying that the crime is still rising even with gun control or if it was falling I could apply the same thing. marshmellowman Posted at 9:01 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 4:49 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:44 am on June 26, 2008 Quote: from Kokasion at 4:24 pm on June 26, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 8:19 am on June 26, 2008 But statistics prove it doesn't make a difference. People aren't scared of everyone because they may have a gun. Arming everyone won't solve the problem, it will just make it worse.   If statistics don't make a difference, how would you explain the higher crime rate in DC over a large portion of cities all over the world? Disregarding Third-world-countries.    Correlation =/= Causation. I bet you can't rationalize that illogical statement with a paragraph. What? You don't believe I understand the meaning? Get over yourself. You're trying to attack my credibility and not even the argument anymore. I know perfectly well exactly what that means. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. iconoclast Posted at 8:54 am on June 26, 2008 it certainly is true that correlation =/= causation though, but that might not apply here. or it might. but then again, the gun control idiots abuse the same fallacy to 'support' their arguments Most recent 15 of 33 previous replies displayed.