Gun Control Discussion 2

[IamMe90]

4 minutes ago, r'hllor's redrum lobster said:

no true marksman fallacy

Explain? I'm not familiar with that fallacy (I am aware of the no true Scotsman fallacy but I don't necessarily see how it applies, and if I am ignorant of a different logical fallacy I would like to be educated).

[Mother Cocanuts]

On 10/25/2017 at 11:14 PM, dmc515 said:

Ok, I'll do this once based on the chance you do not realize how stupid it is to reduce all natural experiments used in social science to a post hoc fallacy.  Here's one of the most influential articles on priming effects in political behavior.  The analysis compares respondents' evaluations of Reagan before and after the Iran-Contra affair was first disclosed, particularly in regards to public approval of Reagan's aid to the Contras and involvement in Central America.  This is based on the radical assumption that the Iran-Contra affair is the mechanism that changed the public's attitudes on such issues.  Just as the natural experiments employed in gun control studies compare the gun violence in populations either before and after or are and are not exposed to gun control measures designed to curb gun violence - while attempting to control for any mitigating factors that may affect the DV.  In this way, no, natural experiments are decidedly not post-hoc fallacies when properly conducted.

The post hoc fallacy doesn't distinguish between an assumption and factual premise. The point of focus is the conclusion, i.e. making an inference based on a sequence of events and not causality. If you have a study that has mitigated and controlled (not just attempt) the factors outside of state measures which allows one to conclude that state measures are the likely cause, then I'd like to see it. If not, then regardless of the prospects of "natural experiments used in social science," it's still a post hoc fallacy despite how properly the study was conducted.

On 10/25/2017 at 11:14 PM, dmc515 said:

No, it would also be true if you asserted that regulations led to a null effect based on "post hoc" evidence, which is clearly what you're suggesting.

No I have not. I've asserted that there's insufficient evidence to suggest that increased/stringent regulations = fewer acts of violence.

On 10/25/2017 at 11:14 PM, dmc515 said:

Guy Kilmore is correct because I, and to my knowledge no one else, made that argument.  I'm merely pointing out now that even as you frantically shift standards, there's still evidence against your new standard of the day.

Franticallly? The tone arguments just don't stop. I have no issue shifting my standards because either way I can argue just as well. And if you maintain in any form the argument Guy Kilmore assumed I strawmanned, then I haven't strawmanned you. It's only a strawman if you don't maintain the position, whether you argued it or not.

On 10/25/2017 at 11:14 PM, dmc515 said:

How in the fuck is this sophistry?  Is this your SAT word of the month or something? First, of course it's not an argument.  Second, I'm recognizing that there may indeed be design and method flaws in those works, but you're both incapable and unwilling to engage with any form of nuance.  Third, the bolded statement about violating OLS assumptions is much more about acknowledging the fact older research often does so because developing methods to deal with such issues were still in their infancy (if existed at all).

This is the sophistry. I'm not responsible for your flawed references. YOU ARE. The fact that you did not scrutinize your evidence before submitting it to this forum's purview and passing it off as a legitimate counterpoint is an example of your sophistry. And now you're arguing that the fault is with my being "incapable and unwilling" to argue with nuance? Please.

On 10/25/2017 at 11:14 PM, dmc515 said:

Wow.  The point is that these are infantile "criticisms" with zero merit.  Are you deliberately being obtuse?

Because "infantile", "whining" are not criticisms of merit; they're criticisms of tone.

On 10/26/2017 at 0:49 AM, IamMe90 said:

No, it is not because gun control advocates have an arbitrary desire to curb gun violence at the expense of other forms of violence.

1) Quite frankly, even though I have reasons for supporting gun control beyond just wanting to prevent gun violence in and of itself, I don't see why it matters whether or not gun control decreased the overall level of violence in society. Preventing gun violence, and gun-related fatalities is on its face a desirable end, so long as doing so doesn't result in an uptick in other forms of violence, and it isn't an unreasonable restriction on peoples' rights.

Exactly, lamMe90. You've at least demonstrated the capacity to see that preventing gun-violence with no regard to upticks in other forms of violence is an arbitrary desire to curb gun-violence. And that's why overall violence is a significant context. Can we isolate gun violence and prevent it to a point where there are little to few upticks and substitutions in other forms of violence? Or at least a negative sum? The only significance in preventing gun-violence, in and of itself, without regard to violence in general is just to target guns.

 

On 10/26/2017 at 0:49 AM, IamMe90 said:

However, moving beyond that, gun control is one piece of an overall legislative picture that would help to curb overall violence. If we lived in an easier society, we would pass a single piece of legislation that would address all forms of societal violence, and it would be an extraordinarily complex piece of legislation. But that isn't how human society has ever worked. We should actively push for policy that we believe has a place in in the context of other such policies, even in the absence of such other policies at this moment in time.

This is what I assumed to be the case with the gun-control campaign; therefore it would be erroneous to conclude that I strawmanned it. (I'm not stating that you, lamMe90 accused me of this.) As for the legislative aspect, you can actually pass a piece of legislation that would address most if not all forms of violence. You can ban guns, knives, cars, bats, blunt objects, sharp objects, etc. You can also force people to wear mittens. This would never pass because there are utilities to these objects that don't involve violent use. You could also argue that most are responsible with these objects. Furthermore, most have a right to possess these objects if acquired through legal trade or gift because they're self-possessed individuals who are culpable for their actions. And I don't see how this changes when the object possessed is a gun.

On 10/26/2017 at 0:49 AM, IamMe90 said:

Let's extract the logic behind your criticism here: gun control, while it may have effects on gun violence, probably does not have a positive effect on net violence right now. Therefore, we should not pass gun control legislation. 

 

On 10/26/2017 at 0:49 AM, IamMe90 said:

Therefore, if a piece of legislation does not have a net positive effect on the combination of every possible iteration of the general phenomenon it is intended to address, it should not be passed. 

No, my argument is that there hasn't been sufficient evidence to suggest increasing regulations or imposing stringent controls results in fewer acts of (gun) violence. The antecedent to my conclusion that gun regulations should not be passed is that we have a right to bear arms.

On 10/26/2017 at 0:49 AM, IamMe90 said:

Let's go reductio ad absurdum. Assume that only a very minor proportion of the population suffers from Lou Gehrig's Disease. Furthermore, the rate at which people are newly diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's Disease is linear and extremely insignificant compared to that of other diseases. Furthermore, assume that the rate at which people are developing Type 2 Diabetes is exponentially increasing with each generation. 

 

On 10/26/2017 at 0:49 AM, IamMe90 said:

Now, is it your contention that we shouldn't fund research into curing Lou Gehrig's Disease, simply because were we even to have very promising research to suggest a cure, it would not have a net positive impact on the overall level of death by disease? Somehow, I highly, highly doubt it.

The problem with this reductio ad absurdum is that the arguments aren't really analagous. You can isolate Lou Gehrig's disease and remove it as a factor should you have promising research that can lead to a cure. That would have a positive impact in spite of how numerically insignificant it is. Can the same be done for guns? The second problem with this reductio ad absurdum is that the scenario you suggest neither comes at the expense of nor imposes culpability on those who don't have Lou Gehrig's.

On 10/26/2017 at 0:49 AM, IamMe90 said:

So why are you asserting an unrealistic standard that any legislation on gun violence must somehow reduce the overall level of violence, despite the fact that there are obviously many disparate forms of violence? I don't understand the principle behind this standard, and it is confusing in light of pretty much the entire history of the way we address societal problems.

It's not an unrealistic standard. It's a very logical one. If in fact the net-impact on violence is notwithstanding, then you must concede that gun control is targeting only the means of violence: guns. There's a factor peripheral to violence which governs the campaign. I have my suspicions as to what that is. This infers that the "societal problem" is not the violence per se; it's the gun. And to no demonstration has anyone actually substantiated that especially given the fact that most gun owners have not committed violent crimes.

On 10/26/2017 at 0:59 AM, Guy Kilmore said:

I agree, you original point was a straw-man.  Other people not recognizing that doesn't make it valid.  

Apparently two other posters have conveyed a contention. It doesn't matter if they made the argument; it matters whether my assumption was true--and it was.

On 10/26/2017 at 0:59 AM, Guy Kilmore said:

Your question is interesting, why do we have laws?

To protect rights and to resolve disputes.

On 10/26/2017 at 0:59 AM, Guy Kilmore said:

I did not make an assumption, I stated fact, read your proceeding statement.  

I appreciate your propensity for detail (I really do as I'm the same myself) but arguing that in my ignoring posts, that I'm ignoring facts, rational statements, and arguments is an assumption. As far as arguments go, I'll concede to that point. But have you confirmed or verified that the posts I've ignored consist of facts and rational statements?

 

On 10/26/2017 at 1:00 AM, IamMe90 said:

Explain? I'm not familiar with that fallacy (I am aware of the no true Scotsman fallacy but I don't necessarily see how it applies, and if I am ignorant of a different logical fallacy I would like to be educated).

I think it's merely meant to be a play on words since we're discussing gun control. I think it was motivated by the references to logical fallacies.

 

 

 

[Guy Kilmore]

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Apparently two other posters have conveyed a contention. It doesn't matter if they made the argument; it matters whether my assumption was true--and it was.

To protect rights and to resolve disputes.

I appreciate your propensity for detail (I really do as I'm the same myself) but arguing that in my ignoring posts, that I'm ignoring facts, rational statements, and arguments is an assumption. As far as arguments go, I'll concede to that point. But have you confirmed or verified that the posts I've ignored consist of facts and rational statements?

 

I think it's merely meant to be a play on words since we're discussing gun control. I think it was motivated by the references to logical fallacies.

 

 

 

You have not demonstrated your assumption as true.  You have not demonstrated causation, not even correlation between violence or gun violence to state your assumption is "true".  There is not really much to discuss on this topic unless you demonstrate causation or correlation and your previous decision to move on from it was the right one.

Yes to the bold.

ETA:  I will also say your insistence that Tone doesn't matter, well insults are part of "setting" tone and you are ignoring people who insult you, missing out on ideas and contributions.  I would say in their debate and attempts to communicate with you their "tone" absolutely mattered in achieving their objective.  Your own actions in ignoring them demonstrates that "tone" mattered.  So when you say it doesn't, you are being....very irrational.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Lulz.

[IamMe90]

snip

 

That was a good reply to my post. I'll have to mull it over for a while.

[Mother Cocanuts]

27 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

You have not demonstrated your assumption as true.  You have not demonstrated causation, not even correlation between violence or gun violence to state your assumption is "true".

First, I don't have to prove causation because I don't maintain that reducing gun-violence will reduce overall violence. I assumed it to be an argument of the gun control campaign. Second, the aforementioned assumption was indeed true as far as it concerned two members:

On 10/25/2017 at 11:14 PM, dmc515 said:

Guy Kilmore is correct because I, and to my knowledge no one else, made that argument.  I'm merely pointing out now that even as you frantically shift standards, there's still evidence against your new standard of the day.

 

On 10/26/2017 at 0:49 AM, IamMe90 said:

However, moving beyond that, gun control is one piece of an overall legislative picture that would help to curb overall violence.

 

33 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Yes to the bold.

Please point out which arguments I've ignored that bore rational statements and facts.

35 minutes ago, Guy Kilmore said:

ETA:  I will also say your insistence that Tone doesn't matter, well insults are part of "setting" tone and you are ignoring people who insult you, missing out on ideas and contributions.  I would say in their debate and attempts to communicate with you their "tone" absolutely mattered in achieving their objective.  Your own actions in ignoring them demonstrates that "tone" mattered.  So when you say it doesn't, you are being....very irrational.

Nice try. My insistence that "tone" didn't matter pertained to the mode of argumentation. Hence, my referring to your tone argument as logically fallacious. As far as the "rules of engagement" are concerned, there are no fallacies. As far as I'm concerned, you can choose to engage or ignore anyone for any reason you choose, even if said reason is "tone." However, when you attempt to make a logically sound argument, tone doesn't qualify.

And again, I don't deny that in my ignoring posts, I'm ignoring ideas and contributions. I'm just waiting for you to point out which facts and rational statements I've snubbed.

[Mother Cocanuts]

8 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

That was a good reply to my post. I'll have to mull it over for a while.

You did a great job (I had to really think about it, too.)  And, personally, let me just say thanks for addressing the content of my posts with rigor. These are the debates worth having.

[Darth Richard II]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Lulz.

I know.

[BigFatCoward]

Yay, he's back. 

[Darth Richard II]

20 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Yay, he's back. 

Sure, but he cant see us.

[BigFatCoward]

4 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Sure, but he cant see us.

Exactly, most of us are on ignore, so MC is happily typing away not realising that most of the thread is people laughing at them.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

It's not really all that different than having him directly reply to your posts to be honest.

[Kalbear]

The good news is that we can happily discuss the merits and effectiveness of gun control without getting dragged into discussions about dangling participles or things no one brought up. 

For instance, I think that anything that attempts to frame it as restriction of rights will fail. But framing it as keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists and irresponsible owners should work. Perhaps one way to do it is to give back the automatic weapon ban in exchange for longer waiting periods and registration. 

[DMC]

11 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

The post hoc fallacy doesn't distinguish between an assumption and factual premise. The point of focus is the conclusion, i.e. making an inference based on a sequence of events and not causality. If you have a study that has mitigated and controlled (not just attempt) the factors outside of state measures which allows one to conclude that state measures are the likely cause, then I'd like to see it. If not, then regardless of the prospects of "natural experiments used in social science," it's still a post hoc fallacy despite how properly the study was conducted.

Well then we don't have much to talk about.  You're negating a sizable portion of social science because your impossible standards are incapable of allowing for valid assumptions.  The most ludicrous aspect of it is you continue to bring up causality like you've cracked the code.  One could employ any type of advanced method - from Heckman Selection to GLLAMM to m-STAR models - and it's clear they would still be "insufficient" to your magic beans of causality.  It's funny, you mentioned - I think - the Rubin causal model earlier.  The closest application to that in political science (won't speak for other fields here) is propensity score matching.  I've done that, and no, it doesn't convince anybody you've achieved causality anymore than the models mentioned above.

The bolded reveals you have no idea what you're talking about.  No one can confidently say they've entirely mitigated or controlled for outside factors - known as the "u term" or residual - because there's no way to control for all unobservable factors in an uncontrolled environment.  But by all means, continue making a fool of yourself.

11 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

No I have not. I've asserted that there's insufficient evidence to suggest that increased/stringent regulations = fewer acts of violence.

Again, no.  For once you actually ventured out of the safe space of "insufficient evidence" and made an assertion that levels of violence after the fact - or "post hoc" - constituted counter-evidence.  In doing so, you employed the same logic to claim there was a null effect.  This is not debatable.

11 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

This is the sophistry. I'm not responsible for your flawed references. YOU ARE. The fact that you did not scrutinize your evidence before submitting it to this forum's purview and passing it off as a legitimate counterpoint is an example of your sophistry.

Again, please explain how recognizing older sources most likely violate OLS assumptions and your inability to engage in criticism beyond platitudes constitutes sophistry.  All it constitutes is an emphasis on your lack of ability, that's its only relation to any argument.

12 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Because "infantile", "whining" are not criticisms of merit; they're criticisms of tone.

So, you are being deliberately obtuse.  Don't end it like Warden Norton! 

[IamMe90]

FYI, while I don't think that ignoring users is good form, and there are some posts in which the tone bothers me a bit, I also think a lot of you guys are being both: 1) disproportionately uncharitable in your interpretations of Mother Cocanuts' posts; and 2) unusually hostile to him/her in a way that you normally wouldn't be if the poster agreed with your opinion about gun control. 

That's all I'm gonna say on that, but I do think it should be said. 

[Rippounet]

I don't think you've read all MC's posts. 

The hostility doesn't come from his views per se imo but from the fact that he pretty much never concedes a point and demands the discussion to be held along his -unfair- terms. 

[DMC]

39 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

1) disproportionately uncharitable in your interpretations of Mother Cocanuts' posts; and 2) unusually hostile to him/her in a way that you normally wouldn't be if the poster agreed with your opinion about gun control. 

Charitableness is a two-way street.  Generally, I respond in kind, and this is the "tone" that has been chosen.  Granted, when blackout I can be a raging dick, but I don't think I've done that with him (or her?).  It's been chock-full of smartass since the moment it responded to me.

And yeah, ignoring posters is weak sauce.  I get it on comment sections in which you may have someone on your ass incessantly before any mod can take care of it, but that's not the case here.

[Darth Richard II]

57 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

FYI, while I don't think that ignoring users is good form, and there are some posts in which the tone bothers me a bit, I also think a lot of you guys are being both: 1) disproportionately uncharitable in your interpretations of Mother Cocanuts' posts; and 2) unusually hostile to him/her in a way that you normally wouldn't be if the poster agreed with your opinion about gun control. 

That's all I'm gonna say on that, but I do think it should be said. 

You must have missed the posts where he made fun of us all for being virgins and bragged about how much action he got. Dude brought it on himself.

[BigFatCoward]

3 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

FYI, while I don't think that ignoring users is good form, and there are some posts in which the tone bothers me a bit, I also think a lot of you guys are being both: 1) disproportionately uncharitable in your interpretations of Mother Cocanuts' posts; and 2) unusually hostile to him/her in a way that you normally wouldn't be if the poster agreed with your opinion about gun control. 

That's all I'm gonna say on that, but I do think it should be said. 

The problem he has derailed every thread he has entered with his condescending tone.  I feel that he has far more leeway than he has deserved.  

If someone is going to just keep talking over everyone and cherry picking his responses, ignoring all the points that disprove the utter horseshit he is talking, then they deserve a bit of communal piss taking. 

[Mother Cocanuts]

5 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Well then we don't have much to talk about.  You're negating a sizable portion of social science because your impossible standards are incapable of allowing for valid assumptions.  The most ludicrous aspect of it is you continue to bring up causality like you've cracked the code.  One could employ any type of advanced method - from Heckman Selection to GLLAMM to m-STAR models - and it's clear they would still be "insufficient" to your magic beans of causality.  It's funny, you mentioned - I think - the Rubin causal model earlier.  The closest application to that in political science (won't speak for other fields here) is propensity score matching.  I've done that, and no, it doesn't convince anybody you've achieved causality anymore than the models mentioned above.

Then I guess we have nothing to talk about.

5 hours ago, dmc515 said:

The bolded reveals you have no idea what you're talking about.  No one can confidently say they've entirely mitigated or controlled for outside factors - known as the "u term" or residual - because there's no way to control for all unobservable factors in an uncontrolled environment.  But by all means, continue making a fool of yourself.

Is that what I said? You read only what you choose to read:

Quote

If you have a study that has mitigated and controlled (not just attempt) the factors outside of state measures which allows one to conclude that state measures are the likely cause, then I'd like to see it.

Obviously my statement doesn't proposition you to control for all factors, let alone factors which are not observable. 

5 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Again, no.  For once you actually ventured out of the safe space of "insufficient evidence" and made an assertion that levels of violence after the fact - or "post hoc" - constituted counter-evidence.  In doing so, you employed the same logic to claim there was a null effect.  This is not debatable.

No, I did not.  Results are inherently sequential. Observing a null result is not the same as a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Your argument is predicated on the assumption of my using the null effect as premise to the assertion, "violence appeared after the regulations; therefore, regulations don't work." I made no such argument. Nice try, though.

5 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Again, please explain how recognizing older sources most likely violate OLS assumptions and your inability to engage in criticism beyond platitudes constitutes sophistry.  All it constitutes is an emphasis on your lack of ability, that's its only relation to any argument.

I just did.

3 hours ago, IamMe90 said:

FYI, while I don't think that ignoring users is good form, and there are some posts in which the tone bothers me a bit, I also think a lot of you guys are being both: 1) disproportionately uncharitable in your interpretations of Mother Cocanuts' posts; and 2) unusually hostile to him/her in a way that you normally wouldn't be if the poster agreed with your opinion about gun control. 

That's all I'm gonna say on that, but I do think it should be said. 

About half of them followed me from the NBA thread and took issue with my statements about Lebron James; the other half, unprovoked, just started attempts to insult me, and I responded in kind. I gave them some latitude for a while, but then after seeing four or five straight posts for pages in their attempts to insult me, I just decided to completely ignore them. I know what they're trying to do. I may be new here, but I'm not new to forums. They can attempt to insult me all they want, it will fall on"blind eyes," so to speak.

3 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Charitableness is a two-way street.  Generally, I respond in kind, and this is the "tone" that has been chosen.  Granted, when blackout I can be a raging dick, but I don't think I've done that with him (or her?).  It's been chock-full of smartass since the moment it responded to me.

And yeah, ignoring posters is weak sauce.  I get it on comment sections in which you may have someone on your ass incessantly before any mod can take care of it, but that's not the case here.

First it is the case here. Like I said, half of them have incessantly been on my ass since my posts on the NBA Thread, which spans almost a month. The others have been on my ass since the previous gun control thread. (It's not the first time they've been called out on it.) Second, I have no particular issue with you outside of the argument. I don't ignore people for being "chock-full of smartass" or being a "blackout raging dick." And my issues with "tone" is all about the argument, i.e. using my alleged tone ("infantile" and "whining") to qualify my argument. This is known as a tone argument and it's logically fallacious. I couldn't care less about the other stuff.