NRA ad brings Obama kids into gun debate; White House fights back

[Statler Waldorf]

There are no other ways to interpret facts. Facts are facts. 2+2=4. An atom is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Crime and violence is directly correlated to poverty. There is no way to interpret this stuff other than for what it is. So when you get these numbskulls coming in here and make blanket statements like "history and reality don't support their blah blah wah wah", it's nothing more than someone who doesn't know what the **** they are talking about, can't convey what they want to say, or are just incapable of having an intelligent conversation trying to make themselves feel better. So yes, I find that funny. The predictability of it hilarious. These Neo-cons come and go, yet the same couple of techniques tend to stick around. GoFins isn't the first one to use that stupid history and reality line, and when he stops posting here in a few weeks/months/whatever, another one will show up and use it again. It's like clockwork...

I find your post and your dealings with GoFins a bit ironic considering it’s in the very thread where you complained about other people being “condescending” and “immature”. Be that as it may, I think it is clear that you do not understand the nature of facts and even the basics of epistemology for that matter. I never said that the facts themselves change (although they certainly can because they are merely observations and our observations are not infallible), I said that the interpretation of the facts depends on your belief system, which it does. For example, you and I are going to have very different interpretations for the fossil record and what it means in relation to the history of life on Earth; same fact, two very different conclusions.

[Locke]

I find your post and your dealings with GoFins a bit ironic considering it’s in the very thread where you complained about other people being “condescending” and “immature”. Be that as it may, I think it is clear that you do not understand the nature of facts and even the basics of epistemology for that matter. I never said that the facts themselves change (although they certainly can because they are merely observations and our observations are not infallible), I said that the interpretation of the facts depends on your belief system, which it does. For example, you and I are going to have very different interpretations for the fossil record and what it means in relation to the history of life on Earth; same fact, two very different conclusions.

Apparently your plethora of degrees didn't help your reading comprehension. My post mentions that everyone sound like that every once in a while. My issue is when someone sounds like that most of the time, such as yourself. Epistemology? Now you're bringing philosophy into a debate about facts. Philosophy is pretty much the opposite of fact, and here you are, trying to tie the two together. I think you don't understand what a fact is. Your last sentence highlights that. What's the fact? Interpretation of the fossil record and what it means for life on earth? wtf. This is why most of us don't bother talking with you. You twist meanings of basic concepts to fit the conclusion you want to come to, regardless of what the true meaning is. It's a disingenuous way to debate. No one takes you seriously. You're a running joke on this forum. We've made you into an adjective. You're obviously an intelligent person. I don't believe you have any degrees because any college educated person wouldn't deny basic scientific concepts like you do, but you're intelligent none-the-less. It takes an intelligent person to turn solid concepts into ambiguous amorphous blobs like you do...

[GoFins!]

If you're going to narrow down the conversation to just those two variables then whether crime causes poverty or poverty causes crime should be discussed.

What percentage of poor people do you believe regularly engage in criminal activity?

[Locke]

If you're going to narrow down the conversation to just those two variables then whether crime causes poverty or poverty causes crime should be discussed.

What percentage of poor people do you believe regularly engage in criminal activity?

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


It's an emphatic, unequivocal, empirically verified poverty causes crime. This is one of those instances where I'm going to sound condescending no matter how I say it, so I'll apologize for that now. You're trying to discuss a topic you obviously have no knowledge in. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of studies have been done by sociologists, psychologists, and criminologists on the topic. And it's been found, verified, and confirmed a hundred times over. Poverty causes crime. It's a stone-cold fact. This is why so many people talk about reducing the wealth gap in this country. As the wealthiest Americans take more and more of the wealth, that causes fewer people to live in the middle class and fall into poverty. As poverty increases, crime rates WILL go up. There is a legitimate reason so many people harp on these laws that allow a select few to gather all the wealth...

[Statler Waldorf]

Apparently your plethora of degrees didn't help your reading comprehension. My post mentions that everyone sound like that every once in a while. My issue is when someone sounds like that most of the time, such as yourself. Epistemology? Now you're bringing philosophy into a debate about facts. Philosophy is pretty much the opposite of fact, and here you are, trying to tie the two together. I think you don't understand what a fact is. Your last sentence highlights that. What's the fact? Interpretation of the fossil record and what it means for life on earth? wtf. This is why most of us don't bother talking with you. You twist meanings of basic concepts to fit the conclusion you want to come to, regardless of what the true meaning is. It's a disingenuous way to debate. No one takes you seriously. You're a running joke on this forum. We've made you into an adjective. You're obviously an intelligent person. I don't believe you have any degrees because any college educated person wouldn't deny basic scientific concepts like you do, but you're intelligent none-the-less. It takes an intelligent person to turn solid concepts into ambiguous amorphous blobs like you do...

It sure is a good thing you are never condescending considering you complain about me being condescending….:-P

I’ll dissect your post for you….here we go…

1. There’s nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, but there may be some issues with yours as I will point out later.
2. Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, so it is impossible to have a conversation about how facts relate to what we know without dealing with epistemology, but being a PhD candidate I am sure you already knew that.
3. Here’s where your reading comprehension clearly comes into question, I was very clear in my last sentence that the fossil record is the fact and how it relates to the history of life on Earth is the interpretation of that fact. I highly doubt anybody else missed that.
4. I certainly do have my degrees, and I am going to really press you on this issue because I think you are blowing smoke, which “scientific concepts” am I denying? Please be specific and back your claim up.
5. The fact you claim not to take me seriously doesn’t mean that “nobody takes me seriously”, I know that’s a way of trying to make yourself feel better, but that’s all it is.

If you're going to narrow down the conversation to just those two variables then whether crime causes poverty or poverty causes crime should be discussed.

What percentage of poor people do you believe regularly engage in criminal activity?

Not only your point above, but Locke either is ignorant of, or doesn’t believe in the correlation equals causation fallacy. There is a positive correlation between ice cream sales and crime, therefore I am sure he concludes that ice cream causes crime :-P

[Locke]

Not only your point above, but Locke either is ignorant of, or doesn’t believe in the correlation equals causation fallacy. There is a positive correlation between ice cream sales and crime, therefore I am sure he concludes that ice cream causes crime :-P

And now I know for sure you're a damn liar. No one with a degree in anything could be this stupid. Pretty sure Jesus doesn't look fondly upon liars...

[Statler Waldorf]

And now I know for sure you're a damn liar. No one with a degree in anything could be this stupid. Pretty sure Jesus doesn't look fondly upon liars...

Wow, it really bugs you that I have those degrees doesn’t it? Envy is a terrible thing.

Nothing I said was stupid, you were committing the correlation equals causation fallacy, you said that the most crime happens in places with the greatest poverty ergo poverty causes crime, that is totally logically fallacious. I merely called you out on it, don’t kill the messenger. Not only this but your facts seem to be completely false, Mississippi is the poorest state in the union and yet when it comes to crime there are 30 other states that have more crime per capita, compare that with Maryland which has the wealthiest residents in the nation and is in the top ten as far as crime rates per capita. You’re just not very good at backing up your positions.

[GoFins!]

It's an emphatic, unequivocal, empirically verified poverty causes crime.

So go ahead and answer the second question ... what percentage of poor people actively engage in criminal activity.

[Statler Waldorf]

So go ahead and answer the second question ... what percentage of poor people actively engage in criminal activity.

Careful, don't push him too hard or else he'll "bow out" of the debate :-P

[Locke]

So go ahead and answer the second question ... what percentage of poor people actively engage in criminal activity.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


It's adorable that you're feeling emboldened because your partner in ignorance is here by your side. It's like watching middle schoolers.

What difference does it make what percentage of poor people engage in criminal activity? Seriously, it's like talking to a middle schooler too. ****ing ridiculous. You tell me how this is relevant in any sense of the word, and I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you. I'm not going to be dragged off onto some little tangent just because you know jack **** about the topic, though...