Happy Saturday AT P&N - Trump's Most Savage Moments.

[interchange]

I am reasonable, the overly left feelings before facts AT P&N is not.

I am still waiting for you to use facts to support your criticism of my post.

 

[Commodus]

I'm practical, a realist, and see you and the gang here see things in extremes that don't represent reality.

Says the guy who supports a President that tells obvious lies on a non-stop basis.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Realists don’t try to pretend that empirical evidence doesn’t count when it tells them things they don’t want to hear.

It’s very rare that people who think irrationally actually understand that they are irrational. You are a good example of this.

Your "empirical evidence" is at far too high of a level to matter on the case by case reality of all fire owners, and you continue to ignore the statistics (at a lower level) can vary widely from one household with a gun to another depending on a lot of factors. Your stratosphere high level stat that you are automatically less safe with a gun than without one is meaningless in any real world practical manner.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Says the guy who supports a President that tells obvious lies on a non-stop basis.

Was Hillary shot at by snipers in Bosnia? What were our options again?

 

[Jhhnn]

i've seen that clip, it was right after he said how they won with the highly educated too.

He was talking about a GOP primary win. The GOP lost control of that process with the emergence of the Teatards. It's not representative of the whole country. Not in the slightest. He won the general election largely with the votes of the poorly educated-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpdt7omPoa0

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/

 

[fskimospy]

Your "empirical evidence" is at far too high of a level to matter on the case by case reality of all fire owners, and you continue to ignore the statistics (at a lower level) can vary widely from one household with a gun to another depending on a lot of factors. Your stratosphere high level stat that you are automatically less safe with a gun than without one is meaningless in any real world practical manner.

This is once again showing a basic lack of understanding of both what the empirical evidence says and how statistics work. A person is not automatically less safe, but the average person is. Since we are talking about national policy, the important thing is that they average person is less safe. You get super defensive and irrational when this is pointed out to you.

Realists attempt to understand the basic means by which facts can be established. The fact that you still don’t understand the fundamental principles of statistics at this point shows that you are unable or unwilling.

 

[Commodus]

Was Hillary shot at by snipers in Bosnia? What were our options again?

It's hilarious how you harp on one lie, yet worship a man who lies virtually every time he opens his mouth.

 

[Jhhnn]

Was Hillary shot at by snipers in Bosnia? What were our options again?

That's just sad. Take a look at your own headset. That was 20 years ago & had nothing to do with policy or governance. Zip. Trump lied about policy, things that matter, only yesterday. And every day since he was sworn in. He's probably had enough time to tell a couple of whoppers today. You know it's true.

If you truly believe that MAGA can be built on lies then you're delusional.

 

[feralkid]

Abysmal approval, a walking affront to justice and American ideals, a mentally ill sexual predator with no real legislative wins...

You talking about Spidey?

 

[shortylickens]

Trump is not savage.
Trump is a savage.

 

[Sunburn74]

Trump is not savage.
Trump is a savage.

I think savages would be offended by that statement.

 

[umbrella39]

I don't know why anyone responds to Slow anymore. In the beginning it seemed like he may actually be reasonable, but it's beyond confirmed at this point that he's just a more articulate Taj. Troll, and, sadly nothing of substance.

It's sock puppet 101... Where did all the pre-election Trump socks go? SP33Demon / Legend Killer... Back to their sock drawer for more...

 

[SlowSpyder]

This is once again showing a basic lack of understanding of both what the empirical evidence says and how statistics work. A person is not automatically less safe, but the average person is. Since we are talking about national policy, the important thing is that they average person is less safe. You get super defensive and irrational when this is pointed out to you.

Realists attempt to understand the basic means by which facts can be established. The fact that you still don’t understand the fundamental principles of statistics at this point shows that you are unable or unwilling.

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Your statistic is such a high level average that it doesn't matter. It is like saying you are more likely to be harmed by owning a dog than not owning one. At a very, very high level that may be true, but it doesn't matter in any real world way, there are so many variables from one case to another that looking at it from the sky isn't meaningful.

 

[zinfamous]

What a beautiful morning, sip some coffee and watch a good leader crush it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCebOfRrnvI

wow. championing the pre-school rantings of a mentally disabled 5 year-old man-child as "crushing it" says more about you than you realize it does. So gaslighted.

 

[SlowSpyder]

That's just sad. Take a look at your own headset. That was 20 years ago & had nothing to do with policy or governance. Zip. Trump lied about policy, things that matter, only yesterday. And every day since he was sworn in. He's probably had enough time to tell a couple of whoppers today. You know it's true.

If you truly believe that MAGA can be built on lies then you're delusional.

She made that lie up during the campaign. I'm not excusing Trump and harping on Hillary, I'm pointing out that our only two options were two candidates with skeletons in their closet and known liars. You guys jump on Trump while ignoring Hillary's lies and scandals, how she's gutted the DNC. You see everything through blue lens partisan glasses.

 

[SlowSpyder]

wow. championing the pre-school rantings of a mentally disabled 5 year-old man-child as "crushing it" says more about you than you realize it does. So gaslighted.

You regularly add nothing and show you are the most butt hurt poster on AT P&N.

 

[fskimospy]

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Your statistic is such a high level average that it doesn't matter. It is like saying you are more likely to be harmed by owning a dog than not owning one. At a very, very high level that may be true, but it doesn't matter in any real world way, there are so many variables from one case to another that looking at it from the sky isn't meaningful.

Yes, I'm well aware of what you are talking about and as an argument it is both incredibly stupid and indicative of the fact that you have no understanding of statistics. Similarly you could make an argument against the fact that smoking cigarettes makes the average person more likely to die of cancer (as there are zillions of things that influence if you get cancer) but since you aren't emotionally invested in cigarettes I am quite confident you accept the link between smoking and cancer while rejecting the link between guns and death despite them being the exact same statistical argument. You've convinced yourself this doesn't matter in a real world way because accepting the research means accepting that gun ownership is foolish for most

That aside, considering that gun ownership increases your risk of homicide and suicide of all types after controlling for those 'so many variables', we once again come back to the fact that gun ownership for self defense purposes (the most commonly cited reason for gun ownership) is obviously irrational. Once again, because you are emotionally invested in this to the point at which you're unable to think about this topic rationally you've decided to convince yourself that the research doesn't count because it 'doesn't matter in a real world way' (itself a nonsensical statement).

You need to get less emotionally involved in these discussions and start looking at them like a rational adult. That means no more pretending inconvenient facts don't exist.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Yes, I'm well aware of what you are talking about and as an argument it is both incredibly stupid and indicative of the fact that you have no understanding of statistics. Similarly you could make an argument against the fact that smoking cigarettes makes the average person more likely to die of cancer (as there are zillions of things that influence if you get cancer) but since you aren't emotionally invested in cigarettes I am quite confident you accept the link between smoking and cancer while rejecting the link between guns and death despite them being the exact same statistical argument. You've convinced yourself this doesn't matter in a real world way because accepting the research means accepting that gun ownership is foolish for most

That aside, considering that gun ownership increases your risk of homicide and suicide of all types after controlling for those 'so many variables', we once again come back to the fact that gun ownership for self defense purposes (the most commonly cited reason for gun ownership) is obviously irrational. Once again, because you are emotionally invested in this to the point at which you're unable to think about this topic rationally you've decided to convince yourself that the research doesn't count because it 'doesn't matter in a real world way' (itself a nonsensical statement).

You need to get less emotionally involved in these discussions and start looking at them like a rational adult. That means no more pretending inconvenient facts don't exist.

Again, you try to push a sky high look onto every single case. I understand statistics, I get what your statistic is saying and don't even disagree with it. What I do disagree with is it having ANY meaning whatsoever for the average gun owner. When you put in all the variables and make it one large high level look, it may very well show one to be less safe with a gun than without. But that is meaningless in any real world way. That isn't an emotional argument, it is a practical look at it. You can harp on this stat all day, but it just doesn't matter. One is more likely to be harmed by a motorcycle if they own a motorcycle... so what? One is more likely to cut themselves if they own a knife. No one cares, it is meaningless.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, you try to push a sky high look onto every single case. I understand statistics, I get what your statistic is saying and don't even disagree with it. What I do disagree with is it having ANY meaning whatsoever for the average gun owner. When you put in all the variables and make it one large high level look, it may very well show one to be less safe with a gun than without. But that is meaningless in any real world way. That isn't an emotional argument, it is a practical look at it. You can harp on this stat all day, but it just doesn't matter. One is more likely to be harmed by a motorcycle if they own a motorcycle... so what? One is more likely to cut themselves if they own a knife. No one cares, it is meaningless.

If you are purchasing something for the purpose of it making you safer the fact that it makes you less safe on average is extremely meaningful as it means your purchase is irrational. This is not difficult to understand.

 

[SlowSpyder]

If you are purchasing something for the purpose of it making you safer the fact that it makes you less safe on average is extremely meaningful as it means your purchase is irrational. This is not difficult to understand.

Again, that statistic has no practical bearing on gun owners at the ground level. It is far too high level of a statistic to be meaningful in any practical way.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, that statistic has no practical bearing on gun owners at the ground level. It is far too high level of a statistic to be meaningful in any practical way.

Once again I feel compelled to tell you that means you have no understanding of statistics and are behaving irrationally. The exact same argument could be made that cigarettes giving you cancer is far too high level of a statistic in any meaningful or practical way and yet I'm confident you would not make that argument because you aren't emotionally invested in defending smoking. You are obviously emotionally invested in gun ownership.

If you think the fact that owning something for the purposes of protection actually makes you less safe is not meaningful then you are incapable of rationally evaluating your purchasing decisions. This is why it is so funny that you tried to claim you were a rational pragmatist in that other thread. If you actually believe that... jesus christ...talk about total self-delusion.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Once again I feel compelled to tell you that means you have no understanding of statistics and are behaving irrationally. The exact same argument could be made that cigarettes giving you cancer is far too high level of a statistic in any meaningful or practical way and yet I'm confident you would not make that argument because you aren't emotionally invested in defending smoking. You are obviously emotionally invested in gun ownership.

If you think the fact that owning something for the purposes of protection actually makes you less safe is not meaningful then you are incapable of rationally evaluating your purchasing decisions. This is why it is so funny that you tried to claim you were a rational pragmatist in that other thread. If you actually believe that... jesus christ...talk about total self-delusion.

I'm not sure where to go with this any more. There are some 100,000,000 gun owners in this country, what percentage of them do you think will use their gun to harm themselves or another person? Can you give me an actual percentage? Your statistic is meaningless to the vast majority, 99.999%+ of gun owners. Your statistic takes into account absolute garbage like firearms suicides (sorry, but someone putting a shotgun in their mouth is in a different category than someone that takes 12 Advil in their suicide attempt, but you miss that). So tell me how your statistic has any bearing on the vast majority of gun owners? May your stat on the whole be true? Certainly! But it means absolutely nothing in the vast majority of gun ownership and is at too high of a level to be meaningful in any real way. But this is the one and only argument you have, it is your religion, you are emotionally married to this stat being meaningful to your argument. But it simply isn't meaningful in any practical way. I know its a hard pill to swallow.

 

[interchange]

This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Your statistic is such a high level average that it doesn't matter. It is like saying you are more likely to be harmed by owning a dog than not owning one. At a very, very high level that may be true, but it doesn't matter in any real world way, there are so many variables from one case to another that looking at it from the sky isn't meaningful.

What do you mean not meaningful? For individual decisions, it's value is greatly diminished. For population-level decisions, this is the only data that's meaningful. The risk, for the population, is more than the benefit. America as a whole would be safer without guns than with, even though this is not necessarily true with an individual. The data on this is unequivocal.

However, I think guns add more value to gun owners than possibility for personal safety. They are a hobby, they enhance affiliation with a particular vision of America, they can be enjoyable to collect and operate, etc.

The question, w.r.t. generating policy is to what degree do you limit the enjoyment of gun ownership in order to prevent gun-related death and injury. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer, here. It depends on how a person individually values things. For me, I am mostly pro gun rights and anti gun ownership.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm not sure where to go with this any more. There are some 100,000,000 gun owners in this country, what percentage of them do you think will use their gun to harm themselves or another person? Can you give me an actual percentage? Your statistic is meaningless to the vast majority, 99.999%+ of gun owners. Your statistic takes into account absolute garbage like firearms suicides (sorry, but someone putting a shotgun in their mouth is in a different category than someone that takes 12 Advil in their suicide attempt, but you miss that). So tell me how your statistic has any bearing on the vast majority of gun owners? May your stat on the whole be true? Certainly! But it means absolutely nothing in the vast majority of gun ownership and is at too high of a level to be meaningful in any real way. But this is the one and only argument you have, it is your religion, you are emotionally married to this stat being meaningful to your argument. But it simply isn't meaningful in any practical way. I know its a hard pill to swallow.

The information you're looking for is already covered in the empirical research you declared didn't matter. As I already mentioned we are talking about NATIONAL level policy, which means the aggregate statistics aren't just meaningful, they are the only ones that matter. It's why anecdotal evidence is meaningless in cases like this. This is what I mean when I say you don't understand statistics. You think individual cases matter and aggregate data is irrelevant when it's actually individual cases that are irrelevant and aggregate data that's meaningful.

What's odd about this is that you have repeatedly claimed that we shouldn't do anything about gun violence until we tackle secondhand smoking, meaning that you accept the empirical research on smoking and health risks. It is very telling that you have repeatedly ignored the fact that an identical argument to yours could be made about smoking cigarettes. To a rational and objective person this makes no sense.

As for where to go with this, there's nowhere to go. You can either accept mountains of empirical evidence that shows owning a gun makes the average person less safe or you can continue to deny reality in service of your emotional attachments. I am very confident that you will choose deny reality because, well, you're not a realistic or pragmatic person despite your attempts to claim so. Wait, I have an idea on how to move forward! Either accept the overwhelming conclusions of scientific research into gun safety or stop trying to claim you're rational and pragmatic. That seems like a fair deal, no?

 

[vi edit]

I don't know why anyone responds to Slow anymore. In the beginning it seemed like he may actually be reasonable, but it's beyond confirmed at this point that he's just a more articulate Taj. Troll, and, sadly nothing of substance.

Pretty much. We've watched the full metamorphosis of a troll in the making.