lol, think again.JohnG@lt wrote:
Science is concrete.
That's not used very often in modern psychiatry. It does work for a few people though.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ok bud. Electroshock therapy did what exactly besides fucking up a lot of peoples lives?Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, you clearly don't know much about that topic either.JohnG@lt wrote:
Same boat.
Every science evolves. Psychiatry is one of the younger sciences that exists, but previous mistakes don't invalidate it anymore than they would astrophysics.
Psychiatry is a medical science.
Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-13 12:20:13)
That's one of the most incorrect things i've ever read.JohnG@lt wrote:
Science is concrete.
edit: the only thing not subjective is maths.
Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-01-13 12:24:05)
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
I'm sure that in some cases it does wonderful things to improve peoples lives. However, the common perception of them is of them addicting people to the couch and prescription drugs for 'disorders' that don't really exist. I'll be damned if I ever lay on someones couch and let them psychoanalyze me. I don't need anyone dredging up fake repressed memories of me being diddled as a child so I keep coming back. Even though my view is skewed, good luck getting me to change it. I believe the majority in this country feel much the same way.Turquoise wrote:
That's not used very often in modern psychiatry. It does work for a few people though.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ok bud. Electroshock therapy did what exactly besides fucking up a lot of peoples lives?Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, you clearly don't know much about that topic either.
Every science evolves. Psychiatry is one of the younger sciences that exists, but previous mistakes don't invalidate it anymore than it would astrophysics.
Psychiatry is a medical science.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
If I drop a ball will it not accelerate at 10m/s?presidentsheep wrote:
That's one of the most incorrect things i've ever read.JohnG@lt wrote:
Science is concrete.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
why? what would give it that much of an error margin?Turquoise wrote:
In order to have a statistically significant argument, you can't have a large margin for error. That is inevitably going to be the case with your proposal.Shahter wrote:
why not? that's as close as you could possibly get to real statistics, no?Turquoise wrote:
No, of course not. I didn't say that. I'm saying that your proposal wouldn't hold any weight in this debatepeople continuosly use those kinda statistics to prove their point, and in this very thread - that, or i'm getting something terribly wrong.and neither would that survey.
how exactly do you measure "practicality" without statistics?I would agree with you that people use meaningless surveys to back up their arguments. Personally, I avoid them. My defense of gun ownership is rooted more in practicality
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
no, it depends on so many different things.JohnG@lt wrote:
If I drop a ball will it not accelerate at 10m/s?presidentsheep wrote:
That's one of the most incorrect things i've ever read.JohnG@lt wrote:
Science is concrete.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
And the only reason they do is due to ignorance. It's the same with climate science.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'm sure that in some cases it does wonderful things to improve peoples lives. However, the common perception of them is of them addicting people to the couch and prescription drugs for 'disorders' that don't really exist. I'll be damned if I ever lay on someones couch and let them psychoanalyze me. I don't need anyone dredging up fake repressed memories of me being diddled as a child so I keep coming back. Even though my view is skewed, good luck getting me to change it. I believe the majority in this country feel much the same way.Turquoise wrote:
That's not used very often in modern psychiatry. It does work for a few people though.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ok bud. Electroshock therapy did what exactly besides fucking up a lot of peoples lives?
Every science evolves. Psychiatry is one of the younger sciences that exists, but previous mistakes don't invalidate it anymore than it would astrophysics.
Psychiatry is a medical science.
If you educate yourself on these things, you'll be less skewed and more rational.
That being said, I acknowledge that the pharmaceutical industry unfortunately does some unethical things that lead to doctors over-prescribing medications.
Right, it depends on wind, friction etc. which can all be accounted for. In a vacuum on earth that ball will accelerate at 9.81 m/s. That's concrete.presidentsheep wrote:
no, it depends on so many different things.JohnG@lt wrote:
If I drop a ball will it not accelerate at 10m/s?presidentsheep wrote:
That's one of the most incorrect things i've ever read.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
Not quite....JohnG@lt wrote:
If I drop a ball will it not accelerate at 10m/s?presidentsheep wrote:
That's one of the most incorrect things i've ever read.JohnG@lt wrote:
Science is concrete.
It's not concrete, there are too many variables to ever be accounted for.JohnG@lt wrote:
Right, it depends on wind, friction etc. which can all be accounted for. In a vacuum on earth that ball will accelerate at 9.81 m/s. That's concrete.presidentsheep wrote:
no, it depends on so many different things.JohnG@lt wrote:
If I drop a ball will it not accelerate at 10m/s?
edit: science is a constantly changing and adapting tool for dealing with problems, concrete is the last thing I would ever describe any respectable scientific subject as.
Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-01-13 12:29:29)
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
No isn't. I live in a State that is prone to hurricanes. Remember Katrina? Again -Your lack of imagination is my reality.Shahter wrote:
this "i need it to defend myself/family"-shit is extremely naive, imo (that's when it's not outright retarded). it takes lowing to be so sure in ones ability to pass judgement in a matter of seconds on just about anything. so, what i'd really like to see is some statistics about how the guns that are legally owned are being used. everything on guns i happen to google up comes extremely one-sided and generally biased (that's due to my horrible english no doubt). somebody cares to dig up some comparative statistics? - i you know, something like number of uses that have been confirmed and investigated (by the police or smthing) and then found justifiable against number of uses that haven't. anybody?
You want stats? Here ya go:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
1.9 million CWP's issued in the last 20+ years in Florida's history... Of those individuals issued permits on 168 fucker misused them. That's .00842%
Responsible gun ownership isn't the problem.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Your sampling method would be too inaccurate. Again, it comes back to what the government records and what it doesn't. It doesn't give us the full picture.Shahter wrote:
why? what would give it that much of an error margin?Turquoise wrote:
In order to have a statistically significant argument, you can't have a large margin for error. That is inevitably going to be the case with your proposal.Shahter wrote:
why not? that's as close as you could possibly get to real statistics, no?Turquoise wrote:
No, of course not. I didn't say that. I'm saying that your proposal wouldn't hold any weight in this debate
people continuosly use those kinda statistics to prove their point, and in this very thread - that, or i'm getting something terribly wrong.
Results. Some of the areas with the strictest gun control still have high amounts of gun crime -- D.C. and Baltimore come to mind.Shahter wrote:
how exactly do you measure "practicality" without statistics?I would agree with you that people use meaningless surveys to back up their arguments. Personally, I avoid them. My defense of gun ownership is rooted more in practicality
Now who's spouting off dumb shit?presidentsheep wrote:
It's not concrete, there are too many variables to ever be accounted for.JohnG@lt wrote:
Right, it depends on wind, friction etc. which can all be accounted for. In a vacuum on earth that ball will accelerate at 9.81 m/s. That's concrete.presidentsheep wrote:
no, it depends on so many different things.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
You? Seriously, do you have any education in physics?JohnG@lt wrote:
Now who's spouting off dumb shit?presidentsheep wrote:
It's not concrete, there are too many variables to ever be accounted for.JohnG@lt wrote:
Right, it depends on wind, friction etc. which can all be accounted for. In a vacuum on earth that ball will accelerate at 9.81 m/s. That's concrete.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
And I never meant that science didn't change, just that it is governed by laws that make it a rather concrete discipline. Gravity behaves in a certain way, light travels in a certain way etc. It's all empirical rather than subjective.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
In the dark ages science told us the earth was the centre of the universe, In the 1800s the smallest things that could exist were atoms. Science is always evolving and changing. Just because something is not fully explained does not make it not science.JohnG@lt wrote:
If I drop a ball will it not accelerate at 10m/s?presidentsheep wrote:
That's one of the most incorrect things i've ever read.JohnG@lt wrote:
Science is concrete.
Quite a bit more than you lad.presidentsheep wrote:
You? Seriously, do you have any education in physics?JohnG@lt wrote:
Now who's spouting off dumb shit?presidentsheep wrote:
It's not concrete, there are too many variables to ever be accounted for.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
The same is true regarding brain chemistry. Psychiatry is a medical science because it involves manipulating neurochemical responses through both therapy and drugs.JohnG@lt wrote:
And I never meant that science didn't change, just that it is governed by laws that make it a rather concrete discipline. Gravity behaves in a certain way, light travels in a certain way etc. It's all empirical rather than subjective.
It's as empirical as physics, although the methods of measurement are often very complex.
And how many were stolen and used in crime?DBBrinson1 wrote:
No isn't. I live in a State that is prone to hurricanes. Remember Katrina? Again -Your lack of imagination is my reality.Shahter wrote:
this "i need it to defend myself/family"-shit is extremely naive, imo (that's when it's not outright retarded). it takes lowing to be so sure in ones ability to pass judgement in a matter of seconds on just about anything. so, what i'd really like to see is some statistics about how the guns that are legally owned are being used. everything on guns i happen to google up comes extremely one-sided and generally biased (that's due to my horrible english no doubt). somebody cares to dig up some comparative statistics? - i you know, something like number of uses that have been confirmed and investigated (by the police or smthing) and then found justifiable against number of uses that haven't. anybody?
You want stats? Here ya go:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
1.9 million CWP's issued in the last 20+ years in Florida's history... Of those individuals issued permits on 168 fucker misused them. That's .00842%
Responsible gun ownership isn't the problem.
You haven't accounted for that. One of the main sources of guns illegally used by criminals in most countries is stealing them from responsible gun owners.
Neither light not gravity behave in a certain way, we can make rough models on their behaviour at best.JohnG@lt wrote:
And I never meant that science didn't change, just that it is governed by laws that make it a rather concrete discipline. Gravity behaves in a certain way, light travels in a certain way etc. It's all empirical rather than subjective.
Light is the best example, if you were right you'd be able to tell me if it were a wave or a particle.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Depends on what you mean by concrete. There are many things that are well studied and understood when it comes to harder, more mature sciences. Quite a bit of classical physics, E&M, chemistry, etc... are all highly predictable. Yes, there are things going on that we don't understand yet (or even know about!), but that doesn't instantly invalidate all of the knowledge mankind has gained so far. I'd agree with John, that by and large, observable, reproducible science is concrete. It changes, yes, but that's why the definition of 'concrete' must be specified.presidentsheep wrote:
It's not concrete, there are too many variables to ever be accounted for.JohnG@lt wrote:
Right, it depends on wind, friction etc. which can all be accounted for. In a vacuum on earth that ball will accelerate at 9.81 m/s. That's concrete.presidentsheep wrote:
no, it depends on so many different things.
edit: science is a constantly changing and adapting tool for dealing with problems, concrete is the last thing I would ever describe any respectable scientific subject as.
So you're saying that you are more knowledgeable than Newton and Einstein?presidentsheep wrote:
Neither light not gravity behave in a certain way, we can make rough models on their behaviour at best.JohnG@lt wrote:
And I never meant that science didn't change, just that it is governed by laws that make it a rather concrete discipline. Gravity behaves in a certain way, light travels in a certain way etc. It's all empirical rather than subjective.
Light is the best example, if you were right you'd be able to tell me if it were a wave or a particle.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2011-01-13 12:35:10)
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
I know what you mean. I understand that logic, but I believe gun ownership is different. I also believe that a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment renders it more relevant to militias than individuals.SenorToenails wrote:
I don't actually know what logic was used to push that through, but once you've paid your debt to society...why should your second amendment rights be denied? It's not a popular viewpoint, but criminals are society's whipping boys when it comes to restricting freedoms and perpetually shitting on people so we can all 'feel good'.Turquoise wrote:
Then why do we prevent felons from having guns?SenorToenails wrote:
You don't need to take a competency test to prove you are worthy of free speech, Turq. And you're free to go yell that--you just need to take responsibility for it. Much like libel and slander. Nothing stops you...but you can be held to what your actions cause.
Edit:
That said, one can make an argument that because someone broke the 'social contract' and inflicted some manner of harm on their fellow citizens, then they can have some rights abridged. I don't agree with it, but that's the way it is (offender registries, felon disenfranchisement, etc...). That does not constitute a test you have to take in order to actually exercise your right--it's something you have to do that would remove your right. In one case, you are trusted by default. In the other, you are not. See the difference?
In a practical sense, it doesn't make much sense to hand a paranoid schizophrenic person a gun even if they haven't committed a crime yet.
lowing, dear, nobody's saying anything like that about you. apart from obvious fact that in about 99.99% of cases you will not be able to pull your weapon out and get it ready to fire before you'll be shot full of holes, tell me - are you sure you can judge every situation correctly? because people have an unfortunate tendency to get shit dead wrong, and you are not so different from the rest of us here. you have the right to defend yourself with firearms - yeah, great, congrats - what i'm not sure is if you are fit to bear the responcibility that entails. that's why i'm asking for the statistics - care to find any?lowing wrote:
Not sure why you all confuse the ability and the preparedness in defending my hearth an home, with the "NEED" to gun down anyone that comes near me.Shahter wrote:
this "i need it to defend myself/family"-shit is extremely naive, imo (that's when it's not outright retarded). it takes lowing to be so sure in ones ability to pass judgement in a matter of seconds on just about anything. so, what i'd really like to see is some statistics about how the guns that are legally owned are being used. everything on guns i happen to google up comes extremely one-sided and generally biased (that's due to my horrible english no doubt). somebody cares to dig up some comparative statistics? - i you know, something like number of uses that have been confirmed and investigated (by the police or smthing) and then found justifiable against number of uses that haven't. anybody?
You all are trying to make your arguments for taking away our right to own a gun for self defense purposes by making us out to be paranoid, gun nuts hell bent on shooting up the city. I guess you do so because you can not accept the fact that we are normal people, not necessarily expecting to get into a gun fight but are prepared in case of a multitude of scenarios that can arise where self defense might need to be applied in our homes at night, or our cars when we are broken down in a bad part of town, or going down town to see a play, etc.
We do not want to kill anyone, we do not want any confrontations at all, and we will only draw a weapon if it is the last recourse. I was asked earlier what I would do if I found myself being confronted. My answer was try and leave the scene. Pulling my weapon only if I were cornered and felt my life was in danger. Of course after I answered the question, it was ignored by all you.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.