+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: The truth ! (/showthread.php?tid=18186)
The truth ! - grayfox - 09-05-2019
Statistics was never my major... that being said in each of the cases there are several variables, and several potential variables. So in cases like these you have to do an analysis of co-variation (actually several analyses). It's usually at that stage where false correlations show up and drop out.
The truth ! - grayfox - 09-05-2019
stanc Wrote:The "argument" is neither hasty nor an assumption. From the article:
Why tie oneself down with trying to be accurate; after all the left has no desire for truth or accuracy... "we HAVE to do Something!!" So... in this spirit of we have to do something let's ban all the speech rights and movie rights of 2A-haters; confiscation of all their property if they break the law, and brand them as domestic terrorists. It's only a simple common-sense and reasonable limitation I'm sure they would be willing to allow. And if they don't see the reasonableness ... well take it away anyhow.
O, and btw, (just as the left is planning to do to us)... if or when this (1A) ban for those people doesn't work, they should agree to surrender away all of their rights... after all it is only a common sense thing to do, "we have to do something!!" and under their thinking, any right is only what the gubmint gives you anyway, so gubmint can take it away. You know, for their own safety.
Let's just apply their line of "reasoning" to their own rights... if it's so truthful then it should apply to their rights also...
The truth ! - stanc - 09-05-2019
grayfox Wrote:Why tie oneself down with trying to be accurate; after all the left has no desire for truth or accuracy... "we HAVE to do Something!!" So... in this spirit of we have to do something let's ban all the speech rights and movie rights of 2A-haters; confiscation of all their property if they break the law, and brand them as domestic terrorists. It's only a simple common-sense and reasonable limitation I'm sure they would be willing to allow. And if they don't see the reasonableness ... well take it away anyhow.Uh huh. Do you have any ideas that could actually be implemented?
The truth ! - grayfox - 09-05-2019
stanc Wrote:Uh huh. Do you have any ideas that could actually be implemented?
Not sure. It all starts with putting forth of an idea, and this therefore is a start.
If anyone else has ideas on how/what to launch a counter-offensive to protect the 2A, I'd love to see that also.
The truth ! - stanc - 09-05-2019
grayfox Wrote:Not sure. It all starts with putting forth of an idea, and this therefore is a start.If anybody had workable, effective ideas for such a "counter-offensive", we would have seen them long ago.
If anyone else has ideas on how/what to launch a counter-offensive to protect the 2A, I'd love to see that also.
The truth ! - Double Naught Spy - 09-05-2019
grayfox Wrote:Statistics was never my major... that being said in each of the cases there are several variables, and several potential variables. So in cases like these you have to do an analysis of co-variation (actually several analyses). It's usually at that stage where false correlations show up and drop out.
I wasn't either, but I had 6 undergrad hours of it and 6 graduate hours of it. I hated every moment of it.
Right on the co-variables, but nobody knows enough about the shooters to have the information to do a proper statistical study. Sure, many played video games. Many played shooting video games. We could look at all of the successful people and see how many of them played video games such as shooting video games and would find that a huge percentage did as well.
What the statistics won't tell us is if video games are causative or not. It is that the shooters are predisposed to being drawn to and playing such games and later turned out to be shooters, or were these folks peace loving individual who were changed due to their exposure to the games?
The same issues happen with the medications studies. Most of these shooters were on pyschoactive medications or had been taken off psychoactive medications. So are the pyschoactive medications what is driving them to become shooters or were these people already very mentally troubled (hence having been prescribed the psychoactive drugs)? Of course, there are millions of people in the US population that have been on psychoactive drugs of some sort during their lives and many who are on them as part of a daily regiment and they never do anything terrible.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Statistical analysis fails to tell us.
It is easy to find simple correlations of behavior with numbers. It is hard to find causations when it comes to behavior. That usually falls into the realm of interpretation.
The truth ! - stanc - 09-06-2019
Double Naught Spy Wrote:Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Statistical analysis fails to tell us.Evolutionary theory tells us that the egg came first.
Some critter that was not quite a chicken laid an egg that experienced a genetic mutation and developed into a chicken.
Unfortunately, evolutionary theory is no better than statistical analysis at determining the cause(s) of mass shootings...
Personally, I think it's a waste of time and energy to search for a cause, and blaming video games or movies is just silly.
When Charles Whitman shot 43 people at the University of Texas, "first-person shooter" video games did not even exist, and movies did not have the graphic violence seen in films today.
The truth ! - stanc - 09-06-2019
grayfox Wrote:O, and btw, (just as the left is planning to do to us)... if or when this (1A) ban for those people doesn't work, they should agree to surrender away all of their rights... after all it is only a common sense thing to do, "we have to do something!!" and under their thinking, any right is only what the gubmint gives you anyway, so gubmint can take it away.For all practical purposes, the left is actually right about that. The government determines and defines what our Constitutional and legal rights are.
With sufficient motivation and public support, the government could abolish the Second Amendment and take away the right to keep and bear arms.
The truth ! - grayfox - 09-06-2019
Seems to me that King George tried just that...
Russia or China, by invading, could also try it.
The truth ! - stanc - 09-06-2019
grayfox Wrote:Seems to me that King George tried just that...
Russia or China, by invading, could also try it.
We were talking about the US government, not what King George did before the Second Amendment even existed, let alone some imaginary invasion by Russia or China.
The truth ! - grayfox - 09-06-2019
I was simply agreeing that despotic tyrants, from whatever corner or source, could do/try this (just as they would for any or all of our constitutional rights). to me, this is part of the nexus behind the 2A being in the Constitution. I'd say that makes it harder to take them away, but definitely not impossible. So in that I do agree.
The truth ! - Kswhitetails - 09-13-2019
Liberty among men is always infringed. The ultimate result of this struggle, is as old as Cain and Abel. The bigger rock wins. This is why the ultimate result of man ruling man is war, chaos, and domination.
America was unique among founded nations of men. She was founded on the principles - as well as could be implemented - of liberty and individual sovereignty. Each individual unit of society was allowed the pursuit of it's own desire and design.
What failed, what fails more and more, is that the source of our individual sovereignty is being diluted away from something bigger than ourselves, as we become more and more selfish and self aggrandized. In the beginning there were principles that regulated the individual's behavior that did not come from gubment. They came from a place higher and more legitimate than any man. And these beliefs were by far the more popular and widely held beliefs.
No, it was not universal. But comparing the things that the original founders held sacred, to what is held sacred today, it's no wonder we've deteriorated. As a nation, we don't seem to believe in anything higher than ourselves anymore, and we're reaping the results of the lack of a super-human moral guide. More and more folks are of the mindset that government is the source of rights, the author of faith, and the ultimate word in right and wrong. And herein lies where America has gone astray.
Stan, evolutionary theory is nothing more than theory. It is an untested, non-repeatable, string of whims that has more holes than WWII supply ships on the Atlantic floor. For that matter, so does theory on the size and shape of the universe. As does the understanding of time, emotion, faith. In the end, when it really matters, we know very little indeed. How wise we are!
The minute we started thinking we'd control our own destinies, we began to fall. There are larger, more meaningful, more powerful, more eternal things and beings out there than we will ever be or know; and until we let go and start behaving as such, we will continue to suffer from the blind leading the blind. To what? Well, welcome to it.
It's almost as if our creator is saying, "you want it? You got it. Have fun figuring this out. I'll just step away, and enjoy the fire."
Statistics? Ha. Studies? Ha. Video games and movies? HAHAHA. We are lost folks, because there is no moral guide on Earth capable of bringing us back to peace. This is all going to end in conflict. One day, one side is going to say no, and it will start.
God help us all.
The truth ! - montana - 09-13-2019
Succinctly put Kswhitetails, well stated. The 7 deadly sins in a nut shell.
The truth ! - stanc - 09-13-2019
Kswhitetails Wrote:America was unique among founded nations of men. She was founded on the principles - as well as could be implemented - of liberty and individual sovereignty.No, this country was not founded on the principle of individual sovereignty. The idea that the individual is sovereign leads to autocracy or anarchy. This country was founded on the principles of division of power and rule of law.
Kswhitetails Wrote:What failed, what fails more and more, is that the source of our individual sovereignty is being diluted away from something bigger than ourselves, as we become more and more selfish and self aggrandized. In the beginning there were principles that regulated the individual's behavior that did not come from gubment. They came from a place higher and more legitimate than any man. And these beliefs were by far the more popular and widely held beliefs.Seeing as how those sacred beliefs of the Founders caused them to treat white women as second-class citizens; to treat black people as property instead of human beings with "God given" rights to life and liberty; to set the age of consent as low as seven years, it looks to me like we have improved considerably from the immoral, despicable behaviors that were legal and widely practiced by the Founders.
No, it was not universal. But comparing the things that the original founders held sacred, to what is held sacred today, it's no wonder we've deteriorated.
Kswhitetails Wrote:As a nation, we don't seem to believe in anything higher than ourselves anymore, and we're reaping the results of the lack of a super-human moral guide. More and more folks are of the mindset that government is the source of rights...Well, it is, after all, government that determines and defines Constitutional and legal rights. There is no proof that any other source exists.
Kswhitetails Wrote:Stan, evolutionary theory is nothing more than theory. It is an untested, non-repeatable, string of whims that has more holes than WWII supply ships on the Atlantic floor.And belief in God is nothing more than belief. Talk about having more holes than sunken WWII supply ships, there is not a shred of verifiable evidence -- let alone indisputable proof -- that God exists.
Kswhitetails Wrote:The minute we started thinking we'd control our own destinies, we began to fall.What a sad attitude. If the Founding Fathers had not decided to take control of their own destinies, we would still be British subjects, and singing "God save the Queen" at sporting events.
The truth ! - Kswhitetails - 09-16-2019
Alright, to clarify. What defines morality? If it's men, then you yourself see and point out clearly the folly of following man. The folly of following government, and letting government (man) define your roles in society. My point is that despite the sociological evolution, most of the moral principles the founders cornerstoned our country on were those that originated from a source that was greater than man. From a place most men thought of (some still do) as larger than themselves.
Here's the dirty little secret, we are a nation of man, founded by man, under the wisdom of man. We are reaping today the benefits of more and more folks believing that there is no higher power than government(man). After all, as you so eloquently point out, "it is,... Government that determines and defines Constitutional and legal rights." This was my point when I said that when we start believing in ourselves we start going astray.
Slavery was part of the world, as was child marriage - even forced marriage, as was the social standing of women. It wasn't the founders that just thought to themselves "hey, lets marry children, enslave people, and belittle women". That too is a false narrative lacking objective historical clarity. Those were societal factions of the time. I'm not saying they were right, but it wasn't unusual or new to America either. And, there were good men who fought all of those allowances from the beginning, because they believed morally that they were morally and socially wrong.
Stan, point out to me a place on earth founded by man that has led to more prosperity, more individual sovereignty, more liberty, more opportunity, more hope for mankind. The point is that it was the founders belief in God that led to most of the original intent in setting up a system of government that was the best that man could do to levy rules upon society in such a way as to maintain as much individual sovereignty as possible. And I fundamentally disagree with you. Your individual sovereignty makes you Lord and Master of your domain. Government be damned. That was a big part of what the founders tried to set up, but realized all too soon that man is inherently evil, and left to his own design, will corrupt any society. Power corrupts, et. al.
There must be limits of power. But how much is too much? Who decides? I am just glad that the majority of these original limits were decided and won by the men who thought "Love thy neighbor as thyself" was a worthy thing to believe in and practice. The genius of America is how much of the individuals sovereignty is protected. Unlike any other place in the world, unlike any other system of government among men. We are unique. We are astounding.
The truth ! - stanc - 09-16-2019
Kswhitetails Wrote:Alright, to clarify. What defines morality? If it's men, then you yourself see and point out clearly the folly of following man. The folly of following government, and letting government (man) define your roles in society. My point is that despite the sociological evolution, most of the moral principles the founders cornerstoned our country on were those that originated from a source that was greater than man.Um, I'm pretty sure that the source of those moral principles was the Bible, which was written by men.
Kswhitetails Wrote:Slavery was part of the world, as was child marriage - even forced marriage, as was the social standing of women. It wasn't the founders that just thought to themselves "hey, lets marry children, enslave people, and belittle women". That too is a false narrative lacking objective historical clarity. Those were societal factions of the time. I'm not saying they were right, but it wasn't unusual or new to America either.I realize that it wasn't unique to America. However, you were only talking about the supposedly high moral principles of the Founders, so that's what I addressed.
Kswhitetails Wrote:And, there were good men who fought all of those allowances from the beginning, because they believed morally that they were morally and socially wrong.Certainly. There are always some who oppose the status quo. But, that doesn't change or diminish the fact that American society as a whole was considerably more immoral than today.
Kswhitetails Wrote:Stan, point out to me a place on earth founded by man that has led to more prosperity, more individual sovereignty, more liberty, more opportunity, more hope for mankind.That was never a point of contention. I will note, though, that the main reason there is more liberty, prosperity, and opportunity for all Americans -- as opposed to only white males, as established by the Founders -- is because of the efforts of progressive activists and legislators.
Kswhitetails Wrote:And I fundamentally disagree with you. Your individual sovereignty makes you Lord and Master of your domain. Government be damned.If we actually were sovereign individuals, we would not have to pay taxes to the government, and the government could not forcibly take our property via eminent domain laws.
Kswhitetails Wrote:That was a big part of what the founders tried to set up, but realized all too soon that man is inherently evil..."Man is inherently evil." Such a self-loathing attitude is disturbing and dismaying. I do not consider myself or any of my family and friends to be "inherently evil."
Kswhitetails Wrote:There must be limits of power. But how much is too much? Who decides? I am just glad that the majority of these original limits were decided and won by the men who thought "Love thy neighbor as thyself" was a worthy thing to believe in and practice.Which takes us back to the fact that the Founders obviously did not believe in and practice that. What they actually believed in was white supremacy and male dominance. What they practiced was: what we now call pedophilia; the suppression of white women; the enslavement of black people; and the conquest and killing of indigenous people in order to take their land.
The truth ! - montana - 09-17-2019
stanc Wrote:Um, I'm pretty sure that the source of those moral principles was the Bible, which was written by men.
I realize that it wasn't unique to America. However, you were only talking about the supposedly high moral principles of the Founders, so that's what I addressed.
Certainly. There are always some who oppose the status quo. But, that doesn't change or diminish the fact that American society as a whole was considerably more immoral than today.
That was never a point of contention. I will note, though, that the main reason there is more liberty, prosperity, and opportunity for all Americans -- as opposed to only white males, as established by the Founders -- is because of the efforts of progressive activists and legislators.
If we actually were sovereign individuals, we would not have to pay taxes to the government, and the government could not forcibly take our property via eminent domain laws.
"Man is inherently evil." Such a self-loathing attitude is disturbing and dismaying. I do not consider myself or any of my family and friends to be "inherently evil."
Which takes us back to the fact that the Founders obviously did not believe in and practice that. What they actually believed in was white supremacy and male dominance. What they practiced was: what we now call pedophilia; the suppression of white women; the enslavement of black people; and the conquest and killing of indigenous people in order to take their land.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/what-democrats-dont-understand-about-the-history-of-slavery
n 1830, a total of 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves.
-Black historian Carter G.Woodson
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/1900-1924/votes-for-women/opposition-to-womens-suffrage/
http://allenwienerblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/david-crockett-defends-native-americans.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
The truth ! - stanc - 09-17-2019
montana Wrote:https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/what-democrats-dont-understand-about-the-history-of-slaveryAnd your point is, what? :confused:
n 1830, a total of 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves.
-Black historian Carter G.Woodson
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/1900-1924/votes-for-women/opposition-to-womens-suffrage/
http://allenwienerblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/david-crockett-defends-native-americans.html
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076
The truth ! - montana - 09-17-2019
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/04/yes-intelligent-design-is-detectable-by-science/
The point is Stan, if you can name a nation that has done more to improve the worlds standard of living and advancement of individual freedom, then please enlighten me. Name one other nation during that time period that had a higher standard of morals than the US. Everything was not black and white, especially when criticizing the US during it's time of founding. Blacks, whites and women supported the founding of this nation, not just white males. If you actually read those post, slavery, destruction of native people, and so called suppression of women, was a universal and common practice around the world, "by all people during that time period" as it still is in many nations today. Can we say muslim nations! Yet there have always been Americans champion for others rights, even at their own demise. Wounded knee was about gun confiscation. As far as there being no God, there is a growing community of scientist that can only explain life through intelligent design. Life is too complex to be random. What you or I believe is nothing compared to what is.
The truth ! - stanc - 09-17-2019
montana Wrote:If you actually read those post, slavery, destruction of native people, and so called suppression of women, was a universal and common practice around the world, "by all people during that time period"...Just because immoral behavior was common in the 1790s, does not make the Founders' behavior less immoral.
Or, as that eminent philosopher Stan Crist put it a quarter of a century ago, "Two Wongs don't make a Wright."