From: Tom Whore (tomwhore@inetarena.com)
Date: Tue Dec 19 2000 - 13:48:24 PST
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Matt Jensen wrote:
--]> Cell phones, guns, computers, skate boards, expression...where is your
--]> line?
--]
--]My line is right after "boards, ". I didn't mention free expression, I
--]mentioned public safety. I will trust you to be responsible enough to eat
--]healthy food, but I won't necessarily trust people to make up their own
--]public safety rules and be self-enforcing. Experience tells me there is a
--]certain percentage of people who can't be trusted with our safety to do
--]this. They *can* do whatever they want on their own, if it doesn't have
--]an impact on me. [Tom, are there any laws you approve of? If so, why
--]don't you trust people to be responsible on their own in those cases?]
--]
--]Regarding "cell phones, guns, computers, [and] skate boards", I might
--]support a law restricting people from using X while also engaging in B,
--]while in public. X = (cell phones | guns | computers), and Y = (driving |
--]skateboarding).
I got a better equation for you
Let F=Freedom such that U (the person) is able to hold a constant (c) of
doable things (K). Let Y be the social varialbles of your surounding and O
the Obect which you U are dealing with.
Formed in the right way the answer to :what is the response to controling
agencies on individual behaviors: becomes clear.
--]
--]Since it refers to the intent of the gun designer, it is an
--]interpretation, not a falsifiable claim. A statistical study, on the
--]other hand, is falsifiable.
Once again I would like you to PRODUCE thge INTENT Of the GUN DESINGER (am
i going to fast for you, I can type in smaller words if you want). I hold
that your laying claim to know the intent of the gun owner is based on
totaly anecdotal and seemingly fabricated information. PLease correct your
oversight with some actual gun desingers statements of intent.
--]
--]What? If every adult woke up on Christmas with a cell phone gun under the
--]tree, there might be some deterrence (although less than if you gave
--]everyone normal guns). But the reality is that after a small number of
--]these are sold, authorities would (and should) do something to control
--]them. Then, what deterrent incentive is there for a law-abiding citizen to
--]buy one of these illegal cell phone guns? None. But there's still an
--]incentive for criminals to get them (illegally).
Once agin you are implying your own personal anecdotal instances on the
thread. What does christmass or other holidays (many of which you
neglected to state). Have you interviewd the users of the cell phone gun?
If not how do you come to speak for them? Are you simply making this up???
I would be crestfallen to find that you are fabricating these instances
with wholesale falacy.
--]>I prupose a set of laws be enacted to require all posts to include not
--]>only factual sources but also goverment apporved documents for the
--]>asseratiaions and historic lineage there of.
--]
--]I argue that someone is making a fallacious argument, and that makes me an
--]autocrat? The only laws I was describing in that post are laws of
--]logic[1]. And they're a better way of countering bogus "government
--]approved documents" than anecdotes are.
You still have not redressed the topic of the thread I was responding to
and once again urled your way into a side tracked deabte of your own
making. This is nice, for some one less educated, but I would rather you
spend the time to addres the issues laid out.
--]Unless the government is arguing an absolute. If the Army says "there's
--]not a single case of illness due to defoliant X", then one good anecdote
--]contradicts that position. But if the Army says "95% of soldiers had no
--]problems with defoliant X", then showing them an anecdote doesn't
--]contradict their position. You need to attack that claim statistically.
--]Unless you *want* decisionmaking to be only emotional.
--]
Your attacks on the Army and its use of the specified chemical based
agents simply underscore your abuse of the threads base arguments in such
ways that not only call forth the reitteration of the said fore ideas but
in both theory and practice such that the origins there in are lessend of
meaning and content. I would contend that further argumenative statements
issued from your keybaord should at least make a pretense to calling in to
play the elements set out on the table.
--] Books are better than the Web on this.
--]
PLease supply a list of four (4) realted sources that back up this glib
and blatantly generalised statement. It is one of the baser phrases you
have issued from your mailer today and I for one find it to be both
offensivly vague as well as pointedly detremental to pursuing a
congnative discourse in this medium.
/"\ [---=== WSMF ----http://wsmf.doesntexist.com===---]
\ /
X ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/ \ Against HTML Mail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 19 2000 - 13:54:02 PST