July 1, 2012

"A firm voice usually does the trick, and when it doesn't, a little firmer always works."

That may well be the most naive post of all time, on any site!

You may be extremely lucky or skilled, or perhaps you live in an alternate reality. But it is simply not true that a little firmer voice always works, and I hope no one here is foolish enough to actually believe, based on your word, that a little firmer voice will be 100% effective in these situations.

Your post is an insult to all the people who have been severely beaten, raped, tortured, kidnapped and held for ransom or killed. What fools they were to suffer such abuse needlessly, when

Wow.

June 9, 2012

"Scientific Integrity"

Peer Review is Flawed



Be serious.

First of all, I don't recall reading you admitting anything about peer review other than possibly a mild admission that "it might not be perfect" or the like. That's equivalent to acknowledging that it is done by humans--a far cry from what the experts I quoted said. You have never, as far as I know, admitted anything approaching the quotes in the OP.

More than that, your caricature of my argument reveals more about you than about my case. The issue you are carefully ignoring is that the flaws with peer review are particularly matched to the subject at hand. It is obviously not acceptable to many researchers that guns are good or even neutral to society. That applies to Hemmenway, Rosenberg and many others. According to a legitimate authority on medical peer review--as opposed to a guy with an axe to grind who I am talking to on the internet, that is to say you--peer review is simply a crude way to determine acceptability. Well 2 + 2 still equals 4, whether you want to admit it or not. The question of whether an idea (like the idea that guns may be positive or neutral) is acceptable to researchers is crucial to whether or not their peer review is worthwhile.

That argument is a far cry from your simpllistic caricature of my argument.


I Disagree, Therefore I Am Unaware



I disagree with you, so I must be unaware?

I gave the example or mechanical engineers collaborating with cardiologists on hearts. The engineers bring expertise in materials, structures, fluid flow, etc. And that's perfectly fine. But someone better bring expertise in hearts. There is nothing at all wrong with "mathematicians applying coding theory to DNA sequences" as long as there is someone on board who thoroughly understands DNA!

The OP isn't about legitimate collaborations; can you understand that?


Peer Review is Flawed, the Sequel



It not simply that peer review is flawed. All human endeavors are flawed (with the possible near exception of certain branches of mathematics). Admissions that peer review is a human endeavor are worlds away from what real experts say. The point is not that it is flawed, it is HOW it is flawed and how those flaws fit the subject at hand. But keep pretending if it makes you feel better.



Yawn... There’s an anonymous anti-gun poster I’d like to introduce you to. He’s a character.


An Anti-Scientific War, Explained



Let's see. He announced that he wanted to start a campaign against guns. The idea was to use "science" to advance an anti-gun agenda. A little thought will show that this is anti-science. It starts with the goal and shoehorns the "science" into its service. Science doesn't work that way. And it is a war, because it is a calculated, preplanned attack on rights. Yes he did "announce an anti-scientific war" on gun rights. Your saying that he didn't cannot change reality.


“One Sentence”, “One Man”



Wow. Just wow.

1) A journalist interviewed a leader about a cause both leader and journalist believe in fervently.
2) The leader laid out a plan for advancing the cause they both believe in.
3) The journalist quoted a sentence to summarize the goal and the strategy of the leader.

Let's look at a parallel. Let's say Steve Jobs granted an interview to a reporter (while he was still alive) and revealed that he wanted to revolutionize the music industry. The journalist obviously supported Job’s goal. He laid out the strategy and goal he got from the interview and quoted Steve talking about his goal and how he intended to meet it.

Are you really so clueless that you would not regard that as high caliber evidence of Steve Job's intentions and plans? I think you're using special thinking that you wouldn't apply to any other subject.



This is very elementary, and I can't help but think you're feigning convenient ignorance. If I study X and find that its presence in the water causes children to die from a disease, then advocate against X, that is legitimate. If I plan a campaign against X and want to use "science" in the service of propaganda to advance an agenda of "dirty, deadly - and banned" that is illegitimate. It is a declaration of war against X. It is anti-scientific. Can you see the difference?! Let's not pretend that these are equivalent situations.



One person? One person?!!

When Obama said he wanted to kill terrorists, I didn't think he was planning on going through Seal training. When Steve Jobs said he wanted to revolutionize music distribution, I didn't picture him writing the code for the iTunes store and uploading the songs. If a leader a vision to the press, that means, almost without exception, that he has

1) Talked to other people above and below him about the advisability of the goal and the strategy
2) Put his finger to the wind and seen how popular his proposal is likely to be with the target audience
3) Ensured that he has the support of his bosses or is likely to be well received by customers

Of course, Rosenberg is the exception. He woke up that morning and thought, "I am going to try to make guns 'dirty, deadly - and banned', I think I'll go talk to a reporter about my new idea!"

He didn't know that he had the support of his superiors at the CDC and possibly the President for his propaganda campaign. He had no idea whether he had the sympathy and support of people like Hemmenway and others. He didn't know whether researchers would line up for CDC money, researchers who shared his vision and would reach the proper results. He had no idea if gun control was popular among medical professionals. He had no idea if his employees were likely to revolt against his anti-science approach.

And no, I am not saying that Rosenberg, Hemmenway and others got together in a dark basement and formed a formal, classic conspiracy. No, these guys think "guns are bad, let's use science to prove just how bad." They don't even consider the idea that guns are positive or neutral, just like most people don't consider the possibility that cannibalism, child porn and slavery are neutral or good.

Rosenberg thought he was stating obvious TRUTH. The reason for his unforced error was his conviction that the TRUTH that guns should be "dirty, deadly - and banned" was self-evident.

You will never convince me that slavery is good. We may disagree on precisely how bad it is, what its negative effects are and are not, and how best to eliminate it, but belief that slavery is good is beyond the pale. To Rosenberg and many like him, guns are bad. The idea that they are positive or even neutral is beyond the pale. Science is only useful to back up the obvious TRUTH.


A Crude Means of Discovering Acceptability



Are there plenty of people peer reviewing medical articles who "would like to see peer-reviewed studies showing that homeopathy works"? No, there are not.

Now think for a moment. What would happen to a young researcher who found an instance where it did work and tried to publish?

What would happen to a researcher who found evidence that smoking--once or twice a month for ceremonial purposes, let's say--actually tends to prevent certain diseases? I would not trust the medical establishment as far as I could throw it to evaluate such a claim. There are multiple layers of resistance. The idea that smoking, even very rarely, is positive is not acceptable to the medical community. Therefore, peer review by the medical community will reject that idea. Some reviewers
might even be able to see the reality, but will reject such papers for other reasons. What if children hear that smoking is healthy? What if people skip over the part about the tobacco being natural and only used bi-monthly? What effect will this have on anti-smoking campaigns that save lives? I oppose smoking in enclosed public places and around children in the home, but I can see that the medical establishment wouldn’t be a fair judge.


Scientific Integrity. And Irony.



This if funny. I "defend the NRA" because the facts support their position in this case. If you show me the right evidence, I will "support" my worst enemy. And your "IF" is telling. In the face of proof, you cannot bring yourself to concede that false, agenda-driven science was being pushed.

"We're right because we're us and they're wrong because they're them" is one of, if not the, most terrifying of human delusions. It lead to the worst atrocities of history.

The NRA is not wrong when it is the NRA, it is wrong when it deviates from correct principles.

The Republicans were right when they opposed slavery and fought for civil rights (including the individual RKBA). The Democrats were wrong when they supported slavery and Jim Crow.

Republicans are wrong today as they use racial division for political gain. Democrats are right to oppose it. See how the side that deserves to be "defended" is based in principle, and isn't based on the name of the group?



No person who even understands what science is could have honestly written that sentence. Science is about discovering truth, not ensuring that one is against the NRA. I defend the truth as I see it. Anyone who that happens to help gets the benefit. The scientific method does not consist, to the tiniest degree, in ensuring that one is opposing the NRA.

Unfortunately, your view is probably the prevalent one among too many gun researchers today. You would fit right in as a peer reviewer where scientific integrity = opposition to the NRA.

And you dare lecture me about scientific integrity--or integrity of any sort whatsoever? Wow.

March 9, 2012

There are, of course, lunatics--some of whom probably consider themselves Democrats--

who say "fucking disgusting", revoltingly misogynistic "rampant sophistry" like:

"I'm carrying his baby..."

"They had to do surgery on my baby at 6 months, but she was born healthy..."

"I lost my baby and miscarried due to complications..."

"My baby kicks during the night and wakes me up..."

and the like.

These woman hating right wing extremists don't seem to understand that that's not a baby until the last portion of its body exits the birth canal, at which instant it becomes a human being.

Anyone, anywhere who dares deny that that the pregnancy can be terminated up until the last millimeter of the fetus clears the birth canal and it is transformed into a human being is beyond the pale. Anyone who claims humanity for a fetus whose foot hasn't fully cleared the birth canal is a lunatic.

January 28, 2012

Your loyalty to violent felons is impressive

Yes, I guess that would be the analogy I presented--at least under the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field, where you live--and there is no craven sophistry, BS or bald-faced lying taking place when you make that statement. That's really sad. The Field has shown you no mercy.



Ok, I get it. If twins go out in a rough area--one with a skintight micro skirt and no panties the other in a nun's habit--they are equally likely to get raped. OK.

I am vaguely familiar with some feminist theory. Some of it--equal pay for equal work, equal rights and responsibilities--I believe in. Some of it--"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin), there is no relationship between provocative dress and the risk of rape--I don't buy. The twins in my example above, though equally women--down to the genetic level, even--are not equally likely to be be raped. And a loving man whose wife repeatedly asks him for sex is not engaging in a "pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt" when he makes love to her.

Forget that example, iverglas. What about a Jew who continues jogging every morning before work--even after the skinheads move into the neighborhood? Does your "principle" apply to him?



So the Jew, who refuses to knuckle under to fear and change his daily routine because some skinheads moved in, is a dangerous asshole?

Bullshit. He is perfectly entitled to jog when and where he pleases, and not to rearrange his life. Society should not rearrange itself to suit felonious thugs, racists, rapists, armed robbers, etc., nor is any person morally or legally obligated to rearrange his life. And if, while doing something that person has a perfect right to do--or being somewhere that person has a perfect right to be--they are obligated to use potentially deadly force in self-defense, they have a perfect right to do so.

And that is so, even if it leads to the death of every single violent racist, rapist, armed robber, violent religious extremist, kidnapper and murderer on earth. It is better that they all die that that one single person be obligated, morally or legally, to sacrifice his rights.

That is one of the great divides. Who should be repressed, forced into the shadows, and have the onus of yielding to the other--violent felons or law abiding people? I say felons. You disagree.

January 12, 2012

It is murder. Murder most foul.

Those men had the best of intentions. They were, we may be sure, only there for stuff.

In civilized society, we must assume that two men, armed with a rifle and invading a home, are model citizens. No one knows what would have happened had the homeowner not recklessly escalated the situation and resorted to violence. To assume ill intent on the part of armed home invaders is barbaric.

The gentlemen (we mustn't use derogatory terms like "goblin"--that's just dehumanizing) had probably just been hunting or target shooting and got confused trying to make it to a friend's house.

The homeowner, on the other hand, sounds like a lunatic. He lived in a "residential neighborhood" where "violent crime is rare"--so what was he doing with a gun?!!! It stinks of paranoia and right wing douchbaggery.

And if that's not suspicious enough, he "works at a laboratory" and "is pursuing a doctoral degree in biomedical engineering." He's one of those people who advertises falsely--the neighbors were surprised that he had a gun or that he was capable of handling one. That's entrapment--looking all geeky and intellectual, then dropping the hammer on those fine gentlemen!

To paranoia and entrapment, we must add cowardice and probably inadequacy--if you know what I mean. What was he compensating for with that shotgun? And why was he afraid to take on two armed men in hand to rifle combat? I've seen an 89 lb anorexic teenaged girl make two Navy Seals cry using just pressure points and some martial arts techniques she learned on the internet. And the Seals had full battle gear, including submachineguns. Whats wrong with this wimp?

Lastly, this guy was obviously bloodthirsty. Instead of a friendly greeting, or even a polite request that his guests leave, he jumps right to lethal force. He kills one gentlemen and forces the other one to resort to REAL, LEGITIMATE self-defense. The thing to do would have been to lay down his shotgun (or not have picked it up in the first place), ask the men to leave, ask for mercy, pray for the best, and if it came to it, beg for a quick and merciful death. That's how they do it in Canada and England--civilized.

I'm starting a legal fund to help the surviving home invader sue this bastard. Won't you make a donation? Dial 1 900 U R AN ASS to donate.

If we raise enough money, maybe the Brady Campaign, MMM, MAIG and VPC will join the cause. Someone has to stand up for civilization. Do it for the children!

January 9, 2012

So much BS, I actually didn't catch it all earlier.

Hmmm...

I guess it meshes like these beliefs do:









or even...



...which doesn't even involve a right.


Of course, all people with an adult understanding of rights (and even conveniences) realize that there are payoffs in terms of lives. I daresay that there is no freedom, and few if any conveniences, that do not cost lives.

According to your own logic, the mother and child in this this OP would be acceptable collateral damage. In fact by your logic you intend that the mother and child should have been at the mercy of the two thugs--or should I say "gentlemen" lest you spring to their defense?--who attacked her. (I show my work in post 28.)

The funny thing is that you agree with the basic principle yourself. You think it better that the odd child die rather than that you be subject to violations of your rights as you see them. It couldn't be any other way. In fact, I daresay that you would rather the odd child die than you be constrained to drive no faster than 15 mph (24 km/h), though driving over 15 mph is not a Canadian or fundamental human right. And we're talking LOTS of odd children.

So your horror at the idea that some must die so that people can have the means to protect themselves and their families is unique. It doesn't apply to any other comparable area of life. It doesn't even apply to speed limits, never mind to life saving technologies.

Without your premise--the RKBA is illegitimate, uncivilized and weird--your argument falls apart and it becomes impossible to prove your conclusion--the RKBA is illegitimate, uncivilized and weird.



Why don't you quote me? Quote me, in a thread that you hadn't participated in, linking to a post of yours. Or withdraw your false allegation, as you love to admonish others.



I bet you do. The Gun Control Reality Distortion Field has shown you no mercy.



Challenge it? Challenge it!!!

That's funny, iverglas. There's nothing to challenge. It's so simple-minded as to be self-refuting. But you read it as agreement if you must. Whatever the Field requires, I guess...

Depending on where and how you live, you bet your life on the performance of others thousands of times a day. You depend on the teams that designed equipment you use, the engineer who designed the bridge you drive across, the people who operate your public transit, the people driving the cars around you, the people who operate heavy equipment, the people who treat your water... and on and on. If any of them screw up, you could die or face serious bodily injury.

Some of them are highly educated and trained. Some are not. Some work for the government. Some don't. Some are licensed--like the testosterone-laden teenager who just became a legal driver. Some are not. A great many of them, including the teenager, operate equipment much more difficult to safely manage than a gun.

If you don't like betting your life and well being on these people, your only option is to get a cabin in the woods and live like the Unabomber. You certainly don't get to make them all stop doing the things that they are doing simply because they have the potential to endanger you.



Your contempt for America and her legal traditions notwithstanding, our right to keep and bear arms is way above your power to "dignify." There is a right to self-defense, in spite of your disagreement with the unanimous Supreme Court of the United States of America. And the right to the end is useless without the right to the means.

The sovereign nation of the United States of America has codified in the supreme law of the land the fact that its people have a right to keep and bear arms. We have not consulted Canada or Europe, nor will we.



*http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811017.pdf

January 5, 2012

I think I understand what Nuclear Unicorn is talking about, iverglas

In fact, to quote you, it's one "of those really simple obvious things."

First the premise:


iverglas
52. one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions

If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.

One of those really simple obvious things.

No one had alerted the authorities? To what?

There was an investigation relating to his mental status that was ongoing at the time in connection with a custody dispute.

I'll be happy to entertain proposals that people who are involved in custody disputes should have their eligibility to acquire and possess firearms withdrawn. Anybody want to start?

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11725687#post52

Now I think you will recall that the government of the District of Columbia (along with the Brady Campaign who gave them a higher gun control rating than any state in the nation and supported their laws, the law professors who supported their laws, and many anti-gun activists) were against people having any loaded gun in their homes. They wanted to ensure that guns were unloaded--or better yet, disassembled--and separated from ammunition.

DC defeated a defendant who raised the defense that while under attack a person could load a gun in spite of the law. DC had legal precedent that you could not load a gun even if you or your family was under lethal attack, being beaten, kidnapped, tortured or raped. Loading a gun in one's home was forbidden. Period.

If you have forgotten, I've posted on it before. Here's a link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=170607&mesg_id=170607

As I recall, you did not advocate any measures to prevent victims being disarmed in the face of violent criminal attack. Did I miss that post?



Your principle:

one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions

If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like him from acquiring firearms, one advocates him and them having firearms.

One of those really simple obvious things.


Your Principle Applied:

one intends the foreseeable consequences of one's actions

If one does not advocate measures to prevent this individual and people like her from being legally disarmed in the face of violent attack, one advocates her and them being left defenseless.

One of those really simple obvious things.



Of course, DC and those who supported its laws went far beyond not advocating measures to prevent this individual and people like her from being legally disarmed in the face of violent attack. They went so far as to actually advocate that she be disarmed, even if her baby was being harmed in front of her.

They, and their fellow gun control travelers in Canada and Europe should be especially harshly condemned by your principle. After all, they don't merely fail to advocate against the harm; they directly advocate for it!

I take it these things are only "really simple and obvious" when they support gun control, right?