Split from: Male/female brains

Duck and cover
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Fri Dec 25, 2015 10:08 pm

That is what Prof. Steven Pinker called the vigilante ethic. Anyone witha wee bit of smarts will see that vigilanteeism is stupid. Yet it is widely encouraged within American society. Hollywood pumps out vigilante hero movies and TV shows by the thousand. The minions of the gun makers, like the NRA, and a number of well bribed politicians, spread the message that shooting the bad guy dead is a good thing to do. Pinker said that this ethic, if anything, was an even stronger driver of the high murder rate. Combined with a high gun ownership, it spells disaster.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 25, 2015 11:10 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:That is what Prof. Steven Pinker called the vigilante ethic. Anyone witha wee bit of smarts will see that vigilanteeism is stupid. Yet it is widely encouraged within American society. Hollywood pumps out vigilante hero movies and TV shows by the thousand. The minions of the gun makers, like the NRA, and a number of well bribed politicians, spread the message that shooting the bad guy dead is a good thing to do. Pinker said that this ethic, if anything, was an even stronger driver of the high murder rate.

Those are all good points. I am totally against vigilantism, for a whole pile of reasons.

Nor do I promote the idea that shooting anyone is necessarily a "good" thing, although I can see how it might sometimes seem that way from some of my comments, especially given my lack of sympathy for bad guys (attackers).

So let me clarify.

In self defense, shooting the attacker is the lesser of two evils and is a tragic outcome to be avoided if possible. In my opinion, shooting the attacker can be considered "good" only in the sense that the alternative is less gooder.

Do you recall the incident I cited (elsewhere) about the 11-year old girl who successfully defended herself with a gun? She never fired a shot. It seems the mere sight of the gun persuaded the bad guy to run away.

Does any of that help clarify my position?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Fri Dec 25, 2015 11:53 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:Thanks for the constructive reply, Xouper.

It takes two to have a constructive conversation, so I am not entirely to blame here. ;)

ElectricMonk wrote:In the US, NRA and right-leaning media have strongly suggested that guns are the best way to defend yourself - which is just plain wrong.

That's a good point. Avoiding the attack is often the best defense.

ElectricMonk wrote: We have data showing that guns are almost never used in self-defense,

And we have data showing the opposite.

ElectricMonk wrote:and when they are they are far from effective in many cases.

I don't recall seeing that data, but perhaps that is just my failing memory.

I have cited data from the US government that shows that victims of assault who are armed are less likely to be injured than unarmed victims.

ElectricMonk wrote:Gun require proper and regular training,

That's good advice, agreed.

ElectricMonk wrote:and they come with a large threshold: you usually don't want to be the first to draw in order not to appear as the aggressor.

It is my understanding that the laws do not require the victim to "draw" second. If the situation is determined to be legal self defense, then it doesn't matter who drew first.

Disclaimer: I am not an attorney is that is not legal advice.

ElectricMonk wrote:If self-defense was the issue, irritation and incapacitation are the much better option: killing someone requires much more skill than hurting them in hard-to-ignore ways.

There is much data that shows guns are more effective than other weapons, including pepper spray. The police know this, which is why they still carry guns. Example: pepper spray is not so effective against someone wearing sunglasses.

ElectricMonk wrote:The key skill is to recognize dangerous situations and avoid them.

I agree completely.

ElectricMonk wrote:And if you have non-lethal ways of defense, you are much likelier and quicker to use them:

I haven't seen any data on that particular claim.

ElectricMonk wrote:a lawsuit for using pepper-stray on someone you thought wrongly was dangerous is quite unlikely to destroy your life - shooting someone harmless almost certainly will be.

That's a good point.

ElectricMonk wrote:But there is a strong narrative that guns provide safety -

Yes, that does seem to be the case. Ask anyone who has successfully used a gun for self defense. I posted a whole thread full of such examples.

I do not make the general claim that guns make people safer. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I simply do not have sufficient knowledge on that point. My position is that the people have the right to choose, regardless.

ElectricMonk wrote: statistics show that gun owners are not safer.

Those statistics are hotly disputed. And as I mentioned earlier, according to government data, armed victims of assault are less likely to get injured than unarmed victims.

ElectricMonk wrote:On top of that, the current 'good gun with gun' appeal suggests that gun owners have a duty to carry and use their weapons to stop terrorism and crime.

I agree that vigilantism is wrong. Personally, I do not argue that anyone has a duty to carry a gun or to use it. I have only argued that people should have the choice to carry if they want.

I have no problem with those who choose not to have a gun. They are entitled to make that decision and to be given the benefit of the doubt that they know what is appropriate for their situation.

ElectricMonk wrote:I am very concerned about the emphasis on 'stopping the bad guy' instead of 'getting yourself to safety'

Your concern does not seem unreasonable to me

ElectricMonk wrote:I am very concerned about the emphasis on 'stopping the bad guy' instead of 'getting yourself to safety' - it's a clear sign that punishing the attacker is more important than protecting the victim.

I can see why you might think that. However, I disagree with your conclusion.

In any case, I hope it is clear that my position is about self defense and not punishment.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 26, 2015 3:32 am

On DGU's

Let me repeat a point of evidence.
The claims of vast numbers of DGU's are almost certainly exaggerated, based on the fact that they come from surveys, and lots of people (especially young men) are full of braggadocio, and will claim DGU's which have not ever happened. However, there will a number (call it N) of DGU's every year in the USA. However, the question is what percentage of N consists of situations where the gun was actually needed?

The evidence that the percentage will be very low comes from the fact that for every American with a gun, there are two without. There is zero evidence that those without guns suffer any more harm from attackers. In fact, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, simply having a gun at home doubles your risk of being murdered. If not having a gun leaves you as safe, or safer than having a gun, then the DGU's are likely to be phoney. Phoney because they were fictitious, or phoney because there was no real threat and the gun was not needed.

Further evidence comes from all the other westernised developed nations where essentially no-one carries a gun and harm from attackers is lower than in the USA. My country has a quarter of the violent crime of the USA, and no-one carries a gun.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 26, 2015 5:03 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:On DGU's

Let me repeat a point of evidence.
The claims of vast numbers of DGU's are almost certainly exaggerated, based on the fact that they come from surveys, and lots of people (especially young men) are full of braggadocio, and will claim DGU's which have not ever happened. However, there will a number (call it N) of DGU's every year in the USA. However, the question is what percentage of N consists of situations where the gun was actually needed?

The evidence that the percentage will be very low comes from the fact that for every American with a gun, there are two without. There is zero evidence that those without guns suffer any more harm from attackers. In fact, according to the New England Journal of Medicine, simply having a gun at home doubles your risk of being murdered. If not having a gun leaves you as safe, or safer than having a gun, then the DGU's are likely to be phoney. Phoney because they were fictitious, or phoney because there was no real threat and the gun was not needed.

Further evidence comes from all the other westernised developed nations where essentially no-one carries a gun and harm from attackers is lower than in the USA. My country has a quarter of the violent crime of the USA, and no-one carries a gun.

That is merely a restatement of the same old faulty claims and factual errors without adding anything new. I have already explained why they are faulty, more than once. Those arguments were wrong the first time and they are still wrong now.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 26, 2015 7:19 am

Well, I think we have strong statistics showing that guns do not provide additional safety. When we read about tabloid stories of heroic gun uses, we read exactly about that one case - we don't know what happens to the gun owner afterwards, if they or their family later falls victim to their own weapon.

Xouper, I know think you you have good statistics on your side, so unless we can find some new data we will not come to any agreement.

But one trend is clear: the number of homicides has been going down, as has the number of gun owners - no positive correlation, though I would not say negative correlation either.
I think this whole debate will sooner rather than later go the way of gay marriage - stricter gun control will be uncontroversial for everyone except a small minority.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:06 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Well, I think we have strong statistics showing that guns do not provide additional safety. ... Xouper, I know think you you have good statistics on your side, so unless we can find some new data we will not come to any agreement.

I suspect you are correct. My primary purpose here is not to persuade you to change your mind, but rather, I want to explain why I do not accept your arguments. That's all. You explain your position and I explain mine, no agreement is reached and everyone goes away mad. ;)

ElectricMonk wrote:I think this whole debate will sooner rather than later go the way of gay marriage - stricter gun control will be uncontroversial for everyone except a small minority.

Maybe. Maybe not.

According to Pew, the trend is currently going the other way:

Image

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/8-12-2015-3-57-45-pm/

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sat Dec 26, 2015 7:16 pm

The problem in the USA is the absolutely massive propaganda campaign pro-gun coming from the gun makers and their minions. Common sense and the results of independent university researchers (like Harvard, Boston University, University of Chicago etc) show that guns are killing people unnecessarily and leading to a massive increase in gun based crime.

There is a similar situation in Australia right now with Big Tobacco. The Australian government, very wisely, decided to pass legislation forcing cigarette makers to remove brand name information off packets and replace it with horrendous photos and data on the harm done by cigarettes. A massive campaign followed with the tobacco companies trying to stop the initiative. So much for their interest in people's health! Fortunately, Australians are smart enough to see what is good and what is bad, unlike Americans.

The makers of guns are, I am certain, totally aware of the harm they are doing. But they are evil bastards, like the tobacco guys. So they maintain their campaigns of bribery and propaganda. And 100,000 American every year get shot!

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sat Dec 26, 2015 10:08 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:There is a similar situation in Australia right now with Big Tobacco. The Australian government, very wisely, decided to pass legislation forcing cigarette makers to remove brand name information off packets and replace it with horrendous photos and data on the harm done by cigarettes. A massive campaign followed with the tobacco companies trying to stop the initiative. So much for their interest in people's health! Fortunately, Australians are smart enough to see what is good and what is bad, unlike Americans.

It's fascinating* that the government is willing to violate Free Speech in order to "protect" the people from something you claim they already know is "bad".

Lance Kennedy wrote:The problem in the USA is the absolutely massive propaganda campaign pro-gun coming from the gun makers and their minions. Common sense and the results of independent university researchers (like Harvard, Boston University, University of Chicago etc) show that guns are killing people unnecessarily and leading to a massive increase in gun based crime.

... The makers of guns are, I am certain, totally aware of the harm they are doing. But they are evil bastards, like the tobacco guys. So they maintain their campaigns of bribery and propaganda. And 100,000 American every year get shot!

That is merely a restatement of the same old faulty claims and personal opinions without adding anything new. I have already explained why they are faulty, more than once. Those arguments were wrong the first time and they are still wrong now.



_______________________________________________
* Footnote: And by "fascinating" I mean "abhorent".

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:49 am

Come on, Xouper. What is it about cigarette labelling laws that violates free speech?

What is it that is OK about 100,000 Americans getting shot each year?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 27, 2015 3:10 am

In the rank order of things, "Commercial Speech" is only one step above False Speaking in its protection under Free Speech principles. "Time, Place, and Manner" restrictions are accepted almost without review. The opposite end?

Here:
Spoiler:
Of course, its Political Speech which ironically almost allows for False Speech under the label of "opinion." It can be a close question....you still see lawsuits over false political speech, but there are lots of hurdles with lots of public opinion against them.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 27, 2015 3:30 am

Lance (et al). We have gone around this issue a few times now. In the Developed Country with the most guns, there is the most deaths from guns because Xouper thinks guns save lives. I only find it odd that Xouper hasn't formed the opinion that everyone should be armed. Imagine how low the murder rate would be then? (sarc off).

I have recently seen two unrelated news reports of garden variety arguments that resulted in gun exchanges and deaths. Anecdotal---all included in the general statistics.

That "Vigilante Culture" Pinker talks about to me is just saying "Gun Culture" as most vigilantes don't use other weapons...... you know.... the one not designed specifically to kill other people. My neighbor 4 doors down likes to threaten the neighborhood with his guns and threats of death to neighbors who have too many cats. Police won't do anything: "he has rights." I'd love to have that nut case move into Xoupers neighborhood. Hey!===excellent idea for a gated community. Nuts on the inside, common sense on the outside.

It will come. One day..... maybe not before we get wiped out by AGW.... another issue that gets waylaid by Corporate advocates lining their own pockets.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:25 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Come on, Xouper. What is it about cigarette labelling laws that violates free speech?

Prohibiting the brand name, colours, and logos on the package is blatant censorship. Except for fraudulent claims, laws about what you cannot say on the label is blatant censorship.

Lance Kennedy wrote:What is it that is OK about 100,000 Americans getting shot each year?

What is it that is OK about 400,000 Americans getting injured by drunk drivers each year?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:37 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Lance (et al). We have gone around this issue a few times now. In the Developed Country with the most guns, there is the most deaths from guns

Correlation does not imply causation.

Example: Vermont has the most guns per person of any state and the fewest deaths from guns.

No one has yet provided any evidence that the number of guns is the primary cause of the homicide rate.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:because Xouper thinks guns save lives.

Fact: Guns have been used to save lives.

But I have never claimed that having a gun will guarantee your life will be saved.

I do not have sufficient data to say that more guns means a safer society. Maybe so, maybe not.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: I only find it odd that Xouper hasn't formed the opinion that everyone should be armed.

I have already explained why that is not my position. It is not my fault you cannot (or choose not to) remember what I said.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Dec 27, 2015 4:48 am

quick postscripts on natural laws:
Natural laws were designed to supersede national ones, precisely because they were supposed to be the basis for a new world with all nations united, to start with in spirit and later in fact.

It's much easier to convince self-centered countries to 'natural' laws everyone has to bow to, instead of 'copy and paste' the laws of a previous colonial power.
The whole concept is a slight-of-hand to make it easier for nations to swallow external meddling.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:06 am

ElectricMonk wrote:quick postscripts on natural laws:
Natural laws were designed to supersede national ones, precisely because they were supposed to be the basis for a new world with all nations united, to start with in spirit and later in fact.

It's much easier to convince self-centered countries to 'natural' laws everyone has to bow to, instead of 'copy and paste' the laws of a previous colonial power.
The whole concept is a slight-of-hand to make it easier for nations to swallow external meddling.

From that, can we infer you are against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

It's OK by me if that's your position. I am just asking.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:36 am

Last I recall Xouper, what you said was you hadn't considered the likely outcome of everyone being armed. More dead, less dead, the same dead. Who knows????...... and whatever would happen post hoc would never establish protor hoc, no matter what the correlation.

But you are right.... your stuck on why are cars legal has spent any interest in what you post: No credibility.

I post to kibitz.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3076
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: His Beatitude

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby ElectricMonk » Sun Dec 27, 2015 5:39 am

xouper wrote:From that, can we infer you are against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

It's OK by me if that's your position. I am just asking.


Xouper, you are very quick in assuming my opinion on matters, just because I can see the flaws.

just because something isn't true doesn't mean that is can not be useful. The UN has done great things just by virtue of existing - it's a platform for diplomacy.
But we must not kid ourselves by believing it is build on anything solid - it is only as strong as the belief we put into it.

The principles of Human Rights and the Westphalian Peace force a certain concept on how countries should behave on the rest of the world - and many don't want that.

So these concepts should be up for discussion, which they can not be if they are considered #natural#.
I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
Spoiler:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.
- Douglas Adams

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:30 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:From that, can we infer you are against the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

It's OK by me if that's your position. I am just asking.

Xouper, you are very quick in assuming my opinion on matters, just because I can see the flaws.

I did not assume anything. It was very clearly a question, not an assertion. I was asking you to clarify your position. I was very careful to avoid making any assumptions at all.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:25 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Last I recall Xouper, what you said was you hadn't considered the likely outcome of everyone being armed. More dead, less dead, the same dead. Who knows????...... and whatever would happen post hoc would never establish protor hoc, no matter what the correlation.

But you are right.... your stuck on why are cars legal has spent any interest in what you post: No credibility.

I post to kibitz.

I'd like to suggest that you need more practice comprehending what I actually wrote instead of what you mistakenly think I wrote.

If you want to kibitz with straw men, I suppose that might be a fine hobby for some people, but it doesn't serve to advance the conversation here.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9884
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 27, 2015 10:14 pm

I think I am about ready to give up. Xouper, you are an 'ostritch' with its head so buried in sand that you cannot see any light at all. I am sad for that, because in some other threads you have shown signs of intelligence. You appear to be so convinced by gun maker propaganda that solid logic and hard data cannot sway you.

Guns are, as I said, 400 times more lethal than stabbing knives, but you cannot see how that leads to more guns being a cause of more murders. I am always a bit depressed to see people who are so blinkered that they cannot perceive what is obvious to others. Anyway, I am leaving this thread. Bashing my head against a brick wall just leads to headache.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10277
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby xouper » Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:16 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:I think I am about ready to give up. Xouper, you are an 'ostritch' with its head so buried in sand that you cannot see any light at all. I am sad for that, because in some other threads you have shown signs of intelligence.

Indeed, you should give up. According to your own words, insulting me is a sign you have lost the argument. Well done, Lance.

Lance Kennedy wrote: You appear to be so convinced by gun maker propaganda that solid logic and hard data cannot sway you.

The so-called "data" and "logic" you presented are badly flawed and are contradicted by other data, as I have repeatedly shown, over and over and over.

Also, I have explained to you repeatedly that my position is not derived from anything the gun makers say, and yet you persist in lying about my position. Shame on you.

I make up my own mind based on my own assessment of the issues, just as I assume you do.

Lance Kennedy wrote:Guns are, as I said, 400 times more lethal than stabbing knives, but you cannot see how that leads to more guns being a cause of more murders.

I have explained repeatedly why your argument is flawed. If a person is intent on killing, a single stab is sufficient if done right. It does not take 400 times more effort to kill someone with a knife if the intent is to kill. Perhaps I am not the one who cannot see.

Lance Kennedy wrote: I am always a bit depressed to see people who are so blinkered that they cannot perceive what is obvious to others.

Right back at you, sport.

Lance Kennedy wrote: Anyway, I am leaving this thread.

Not a problem. You have stated your case, and I have stated mine, and there is nothing more to say, really. I harbor no ill will against you personally, despite your repeated disparagement of my character.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10228
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Split from: Male/female brains

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 28, 2015 7:44 am

Give everyone a gun...... and let the logic roll.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Guns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest