Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9

 

2012-01-05 20:55:49
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5431|Sydney

Macbeth wrote:

Along with bows and arrows, swords, crossbows and other things people collect. The first and third of those thing are also used for hunting. IIRC, some hunters like to carry a back up pistol when bear hunting in case one gets too close. It's also pretty hard to use a hunting rifle for home defense.

It's not a straw man btw.
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
It's an analogy.
Right, so to reduce cancer deaths we ban cancer? Or do we give everyone cancer so they can defend themselves against it?

Analogies...
2012-01-05 20:56:47
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5838

Jaekus wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Along with bows and arrows, swords, crossbows and other things people collect. The first and third of those thing are also used for hunting. IIRC, some hunters like to carry a back up pistol when bear hunting in case one gets too close. It's also pretty hard to use a hunting rifle for home defense.

It's not a straw man btw.
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position
It's an analogy.
Right, so to reduce cancer deaths we ban cancer? Or do we give everyone cancer so they can defend themselves against it?

Analogies...
Do I really have to explain sarcasm to you? Is it not obvious I included cancer in that as sarcasm?

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-01-05 20:57:06)

2012-01-05 21:29:52
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6406|what

Macbeth wrote:

Do I really have to explain sarcasm to you?
Is this rhetorical?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2012-01-05 21:38:31
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6359|eXtreme to the maX
Oh yeah, like its rhetorical.
Fuck Israel
2012-01-05 22:31:10
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England

Winston_Churchill wrote:

youre making peoples deaths a statistic, which really isnt right.  anyone dying is a trajedy.  thats like saying we should only focus on specific medical problems and if people have something thats not "statistically significant" then we shouldnt try to fix it. 

by that standard nearly every type of cancer wouldnt be a problem, right? because most of them are below the ~40k/year in the US for firearm deaths.
Well, that's actually the precise way that money should be spent on research... there's no point putting any money into statistically insignificant medical problems. Hell, that's why most of the charities in America exist, to provide funding for the research into rare diseases that would otherwise get next to nothing.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-01-05 22:32:55
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England

Winston_Churchill wrote:

youre really either too worked up about this or completely blind.  i said that the statistics arent really what matter in this case, if there are a significant amount of deaths from anything then we should try to do something about it.
How about no? You can't pad the walls of the world. People will find ways to die regardless of your efforts to nanny them.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-01-05 22:47:11
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6927|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

youre making peoples deaths a statistic, which really isnt right.  anyone dying is a trajedy.  thats like saying we should only focus on specific medical problems and if people have something thats not "statistically significant" then we shouldnt try to fix it. 

by that standard nearly every type of cancer wouldnt be a problem, right? because most of them are below the ~40k/year in the US for firearm deaths.
Well, that's actually the precise way that money should be spent on research... there's no point putting any money into statistically insignificant medical problems. Hell, that's why most of the charities in America exist, to provide funding for the research into rare diseases that would otherwise get next to nothing.
nah jay is right on this. you have to be seriously brutal when it comes to medical research funding - have to make sure every dollar you spent is absolutely on-target because wasted money = wasted lives.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2012-01-06 00:02:48
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6992|Toronto | Canada

so we should stop funding for most types of cancer research? HIV/AIDS?
2012-01-06 00:09:00
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England

Winston_Churchill wrote:

so we should stop funding for most types of cancer research? HIV/AIDS?
How do you think research money should be doled out? A popularity contest based on who can invoke the most feelings of pity?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-01-06 00:10:32
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6992|Toronto | Canada

you didnt answer my question
2012-01-06 00:17:48
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6927|Canberra, AUS

Winston_Churchill wrote:

so we should stop funding for most types of cancer research? HIV/AIDS?
It's not an all/nothing deal.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2012-01-06 00:26:06
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6992|Toronto | Canada

Jay wrote:

there's no point putting any money into statistically insignificant medical problems
2012-01-06 02:22:34
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6927|Canberra, AUS
I'm pretty sure cancer research and HIV/AIDS don't fall into the category of statistically insignificant medical problems.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2012-01-06 02:24:00
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6927|Canberra, AUS
It's an exceptionally complex and difficult question though. You have to consider not only how virulent/dangerous a disease is now, but how much it may be in the future, the method of transmission, whether it may mutate into a new, deadlier strain, whether it was once a huge danger in the past (and hence worth eradicating completely) etc. etc. etc.

Definitely not a problem that you can adequately discuss on an internet forum IMO.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2012-01-06 05:58:15
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6967|US
It's insensitive to throw around death and injury statistics without recognizing that each number is someone's life, but in a world of scarce resources, every organization needs to prioritize how it spends its time and funds.  In the US, the biggest killers are cancer and heard disease.  Accident wise, it is automobile crashes.  Accidental gun deaths fall somewhere around drownings in pools, in order of magnitude.
2012-01-06 08:01:30
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6664|'Murka

2008 Top Ten Causes of Death, Worldwide (according to WHO):
(Cause/Amt (Mlns)/Pct)
  • Ischaemic heart disease                             7.25     12.8%
  • Stroke and other cerebrovascular disease  6.15     10.8%
  • Lower respiratory infections                        3.46     6.1%
  • Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease        3.28     5.8%
  • Diarrhoeal diseases                                  2.46     4.3%
  • HIV/AIDS                                               1.78     3.1%
  • Trachea, bronchus, lung cancers               1.39     2.4%
  • Tuberculosis                                            1.34     2.4%
  • Diabetes mellitus                                     1.26     2.2%
  • Road traffic accidents                               1.21     2.1%
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-01-06 08:12:16
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6992|Toronto | Canada

Spark wrote:

I'm pretty sure cancer research and HIV/AIDS don't fall into the category of statistically insignificant medical problems.
according to US statistics (which is what we've been looking at the entire time), there were only 2 (maybe 3) types of cancer that had higher death rates than firearms.  HIV/AIDS is far lower as well.  so, according to macbeth's and jay's theories, they're statistically insignificant
2012-01-06 08:15:52
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6664|'Murka

Cancer research has worldwide impact. US gun laws and car restrictions would not.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2012-01-06 08:20:18
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Spark wrote:

I'm pretty sure cancer research and HIV/AIDS don't fall into the category of statistically insignificant medical problems.
according to US statistics (which is what we've been looking at the entire time), there were only 2 (maybe 3) types of cancer that had higher death rates than firearms.  HIV/AIDS is far lower as well.  so, according to macbeth's and jay's theories, they're statistically insignificant
I don't know why you are rebelling against this to such a huge extent? Have you ever heard the expression 'pick your battles'? That's what researchers do. There's three factors when it comes to research:

1) The number of people the disease impacts. If it's statistically significant then it receives more weight. Also, the more people involved, the higher the chance that the researchers will be able to recoup the money spent on research via drug sales.
2) The ease with which the disease can be dealt with. Is it similar to a previous disease that has been dealt with? Is it completely new and difficult?
3) Where their funding is coming from. If it's from a private charity with very specific goals, they will work on that. If it's from a government grant, they'll more than likely be asked to work on something less narrow.

We're talking about science here. Your feelings are unimportant. Logic based on statistics is the only motivator that should come into play.

Why does this bother you?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-01-06 08:36:25
Winston_Churchill
Bazinga!
+521|6992|Toronto | Canada

nope, just showing that deaths due to firearms isnt statistically insignificant.
2012-01-06 08:43:14
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England

Winston_Churchill wrote:

nope, just showing that deaths due to firearms isnt statistically insignificant.
Yes, it is. Why do you feel that you can interfere with peoples lives? Make decisions for them? Are you smarter than the rest of us? You haven't even shown the ability to strip emotion from your judgement. Where do you attain that kind of arrogance?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-01-06 08:48:19
jord
Member
+2,382|6931|The North, beyond the wall.
In post 161 I replied to you jay but if you don't have the inclination to read it that's fine, just know for future reference that most europeans can own firearms.

that is all
2012-01-06 08:50:47
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England

jord wrote:

In post 161 I replied to you jay but if you don't have the inclination to read it that's fine, just know for future reference that most europeans can own firearms.

that is all
You can't own handguns, or really any weapon that is at all useful for defense. Can you even put an 18" barrel on a shotgun?

Last edited by Jay (2012-01-06 08:51:52)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2012-01-06 11:13:01
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6753|so randum
this just in, shotguns are bad for home defense
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2012-01-06 11:14:19
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5611|London, England

FatherTed wrote:

this just in, shotguns are bad for home defense
They're quite good actually. If you use a smaller shot they won't penetrate walls which keeps innocents safe.

That said, not everyone can use a shotgun. They're big, heavy, and bulky with a huge kick. My fiancee would probably get knocked down shooting one. A handgun would make a lot more sense for her when it comes to defending our home.

Last edited by Jay (2012-01-06 11:15:22)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard