Yup. I ended up taking far more philosophy courses (I could have declared THAT as my minor, if I'd needed another one...), and the other professors were excellent.

You hit the nail smack on about the "Multicultural" course. It was all about fluff. If anyone here has seen the Simpsons episode where Marge falls for the flaky professor, you will begin to understand what this prof was like. I believe she was cross-posted from the Womens Studies dept.

-Mark

Hey! I resemble that remark! The difference is, of course, that I alternated the heavy-lifting schooling with actual, real-world experience! (maybe too much experience )

Heh...still hasn't helped my wife. Music degree plus solid work history, and she's stuck in retail world.

Anybody need a mid-20s, college-educated, EXTREMELY detail-oriented office worker with good phone and computer skills? Please?

-Mark

Oh my, I can't believe this thread is still going.

This is a guy you will never get through to.

For starters, he dismisses arguments instead of refuting them. He incorrectly labels them to assist in his dismissal, but is foolish enough to define most of his labels in the same post, which shows he either is fully aware of his own B.S. or he is incapable of comprehending, and is simply cut-and-pasting.

He then creates non-existing rules regarding standard debate and logic, and demands we adhere to them, while not doing so himself.

As a writer he seems thrilled at overusing words and then restating his message.




Nevertheless, I shall respond to his opening post simply because someone other that the OP may someday view this thread.

First Issue

OP admits that through the 14th amendment the 2nd amendment is binding on states and local government. The OP then goes on to suggest legal infringement on the right to bear arms without addressing how this can be legal. As I see it, if you agree that the 14th amendment applies to the 2nd amendment, you are required to amend the constitution again to overcome them.

Second Issue

OP chaffs when a right protected by a different amendment is substitute in for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. His most common refrain is 'that is different, because this has to do with public safety'

I am unaware of ANY law that states the protections of the Constitution are null and void when public safety comes in.

Many people seem to be under the impression that Public Safety trumps freedom and law. It does not. Apparently, this is the basic thrust of the OP's argument.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Ben Franklin (a rephrase)

Third Issue

OP demands that laws on what establishments can disallow CCW be:

First I must note the language of 'informed' which to me sounds like as long as you read the report, you are then free to do what you want. But let's say for a minute that you are bound to give an empirical reason for whatever restriction is being placed on CCW.

There is a story about Congress having a hearing, and a scientist is chosen to testify as an expert in his field. The Scientist says 'On this hand we have a bunch of very well done studies that say X is not a problem...but on the other hand, we have a bunch of very well done studies that say X is a problem" A Congressman then says 'Can someone bring me a One-Handed Scientist!

There is a lot of junk science floating around, is it reasonable to expect our legislators at all levels to be as adept as true scientists well versed in that field to sniff it out? Second, beyond junk science, there are many instances of contradictory evidence. What prevents the lawmakers from dipping only into the side that supports their arguments? If there are contradicting data, does this mean the legislative body can do what it wants, or does it mean they can do nothing?

lets also take a look at three other factors.
#1 CCW holders are a self selecting group, and every study that targets them exclusively in comparison to the population at large comes up showing they are VERY different. How can you in good faith apply any studies done to the general population or subsections of it (such as college kids) to permit holders and label it 'empirical reason'? Answer? You cannot.
#2 Those committing crimes of violence are already apparently very willing to break the law. Numerous studies have shown that such groups are also very different from the population-at-large regarding the frequency of problems. In the same way as CCWs are self-selecting and don't show up much on the 'radar' of statistics, these "criminal-types" (for a lack of a better word) skew the data in the opposite direction. These are the same types who won't give a rip about whatever law is in place regarding CCW. Again, how can you in good faith apply any studies where this factor isn't corrected for? Answer? You cannot.
#3 Statistically Significant Data. The OP suggests analyzing bars and other 'hazardous' areas (including hospitals were gang-members might bump into opposition gang members) on a case-by-case or group-by-group basis. Before a conclusion can be reached scientifically, one must have more than a handful of data. I don't see how any of thees 'hazardous' areas can be examined in an empirical method unless we commit to extremely long term studies (20+ years) to gain enough information to be sure there is no temporary condition causing a bias. Answer? You cannot.

Truth is, as much as we like to cling to science, in many ways we are too much in the dark.


As always, please "fourgive eny spelinz ey dud rong"

I thought the 2nd Amendment WAS our 'Public Safety' clause...

I wouldn't have banned someone for saying someones remarks were disingenuous. Saying someones statements are disingenuous is a bit different than saying they're lying. I do realize he violated the rules previously though... It seems you've even violated the rules in calling Uncle Henry a troll (Even though he very well could have been).

I was hoping you would let him try and dig himself out of the hole he was already in. Banning him basically lets him off the hook, and lets him go away believing he was a martyr.

I am glad that gyrfalcon brought this up, I was more than a little confused as to why Uncle Harley was banned. In no way did I agree with Uncle Harley's opinions, and yes they were very long winded, but to ban him for disagreeing seems wrong to me. Was it because there are some that Uncle Harley got the better of and there was no way for them to recover, so the easy way out was to basically take the ball and bat and go home, i.e., ban Uncle Harley?
Yes, I understand who's house this is and we have to play by those rules, but it seems that there are some rules I do not understand and was hoping for some clarification.

That would have been wrong, indeed, had it happened. But it's pretty clearly not what happened. Harley was warned, repeatedly and by several moderators, to alter his behavior of repeated personal attacks. He didn't.

I'll remind you that several pro-gun folks have also been booted for failure to follow the same rule.



Yes, that's it. We were so helpless in the face of his superior intellect and impeccable reasoning that we had to remove him.


Thank you for your input. It will be given all the consideration it deserves.


Nah. Calling him a troll was stating a fact already in evidence. Trolling's against the rules, so once it was determined that it had occurred, pointing it out isn't an attack.

If he had been, it would have been. It wasn't, your confusion aside.No.Among the simplest of rules -- for those folks, like you, who have a lot more interest in rules-lawyering than I do -- is Rule Zero. A simple way to think of it is this: don't make yourself far more trouble and annoyance for the host than he thinks you're worth. If you do, you're gone. You can go some other place and complain, falsely, that you've been banned for disagreeing; the host doesn't care what you do some other place.

In terms of what's on the record of his postings, and responses: the guy was told to chill, or go. He didn't chill; he's gone. I don't even have to get into his bizarre emails -- before but mainly after he got his ass kicked out of here.

Again: simply irritating me, every now and then -- as you're doing right now, Cobb, for reasons that should be apparent in my responses above -- doesn't get somebody kicked out of here. And I really would like somebody to show up and argue the gun control position, as well as they can, and with whatever honesty, skill at argument, and factual bases that they can muster. It probably won't change a lot of minds, here, but that's okay; it's good exercise.

But the combination of flying under false colors, lying, trolling, and just plain worthlessness got this particular jerk booted. Other people who have shown that they add some value around here may have in the past, and may well in the future, push the line or step over it with far fewer sanctions -- you just did that -- without getting the Rule Zero boot. Dean's posted the ban list; it's really very short -- so let's not worry a lot about the few present a future kiddies who didn't like being shown the door. I know that I won't.

Honest: it's fine that there are other standards, and site owners and admins in other places that, for whatever reason, possibly like to and definitely choose to play endless rules games. Me, for here, I'd rather take out the trash and have it go over to day care and complain about me, as most of the other kicked out kiddies have, than hang around and distract folks here from things that are more fun, more intellectually challenging, and/or more important.

Yup; there are other places, with other standards. And I think I've got a specific situation -- well-documented; documents preserved -- to point to, shortly, to illustrate why some of those standards are just plain wrong and counterproductive, as it's clear to me that some often clueful people just didn't get that, and I think it's important that they be given the chance to get that.

Just as a quick hint and teaser: Part One of The Smoking Gun, is up at Windypundit and True North, as well as here and the Livejournal. That's not all the story I have to tell, because I've got a bunch of agendas I'm promoting in that, and I'll be going into some detail on how some of the issues pointed to there have more general and specific implications than just one corrupt city and one corrupt county, where unchecked governmental authority has led to a lot of folks' rights to equal protection under the law being used as toilet paper.

Short form: Truth, Justice, and the American Way. No shit.

Actually, I didn't. (at least I don't think I did) You gave me permission to post it, but I decided not to post it.

Ah. Okay; I will.

Perhaps this thread should be posted under the newbie section under the title "What not to do in your first week".

I believe this sums it up:

I note there's no study or statistics provided. It makes a good soundbite, but as far as MN experience goes, it's completely wrong.


So in order for people's rights not to be restricted, there needs to be proof; but restricting them apparently requires no evidence.


Proof that someone is wrong is proof that he's wrong. It isn't necessary to prove that every statement he ever made is wrong.

A chain is as strong as which link, again?



Should guns be banned in places where people of various ethnic groups are in preponderance, given at least as convincing statistics?


Of course, reality says that (in MN, at least) many of them could not have become permit holders because they weren't old enough. Others might have learned something from the class that caused them not to commit their crimes.

The lack of logic involved in the general idea is ridiculous anyway.

(Is it the percentage or number of college students that matters? What about towns with lots of young men who aren't in college? Why make college towns different?)

Um... guys... did you notice his avatar? It was a troll. Perhaps that was his little inside joke, and not a coincidence.

What puzzles me is how somebody would find the discussion he spawned... entertaining, at all, let alone entertaining enough to justify the huge amount of time it took him to generate his blather. He reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally needs to get a life.