George Leppla > wrote:
Tommy Joe wrote:

> > * * *While these truths may be tragic, let's be honest: *if we were to
> > bring back every human who has ever been murdered through time, the
> > world would be more over-crowded than it already is.


> Thank you, Mr. Malthus.


No joke Geore, I don't know who Mr. Malthus is. I don't care if
your comment is negative or positive, I'd just like to know for the
sake of reference. Thank you.

TJ

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:36:33 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> George Leppla wrote:
>>
>> On 7/24/2011 12:11 PM, Janet wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 09:29:57 -0500, Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>>>> Nope, the data is flawed. You have to adjust the US statistics to remove
>>>>> the gang related murders which are concentrated in small areas of the US
>>>>> and have little effect on the vast majority of the US population. Once
>>>>> you do that, the actual murder rate that applies to the general
>>>>> population is vastly lower.
>>>>
>>>> bullshit. when you make those adjustments, 5.9 is going to be lower than
>>>> 1.3-1.6? cite, please, or shut the **** up.
>>>
>>> Surely you would also deduct all gang related murders in the other
>>> countries too?
>>> Janet
>>
>> I have to admit that taking a set of statistics and removing anything
>> that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion so you can claim the
>> results support your position is a novel way of discussing things.
>>
>> I think Pete C would be a good politician.
>>
>> George L
>
> You left wing kooks do by far the most distorting of statistics, such as
> absurdly trying to include 18-20 year old gang members in with children
> in order to claim that there are huge number of child gun deaths when
> the reality is there are exceedingly few.

surely it would be better to do as you do and post no stats whatsoever,
just opinions pulled out of your ass.

blake

On Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:44:02 -0500, Pete C. wrote:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> On 24/07/2011 9:36 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> I have to admit that taking a set of statistics and removing anything
>>>> that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion so you can claim the
>>>> results support your position is a novel way of discussing things.
>>>>
>>>> I think Pete C would be a good politician.
>>>>
>>>> George L
>>>
>>> You left wing kooks do by far the most distorting of statistics, such as
>>> absurdly trying to include 18-20 year old gang members in with children
>>> in order to claim that there are huge number of child gun deaths when
>>> the reality is there are exceedingly few.
>>
>> No, they have it right. You can't try to remove some demographics from
>> your appalling firearm homicide rate and then try to suggest that once
>> you knock off a large chunk of the incidents your rate is no worse than
>> others. According to the CDC, there were 12,632 firearms homicides in
>> the US, a rate of 4.2 per 100,000. Canada's rate is 0.3 per 100,000. The
>> US firearm homicide rates is 8.1 times higher than Canada. The handgun
>> homicide rate is 15/3 times higher than Canada's. Even the rate of no
>> firearm homicide is almost double Canada's.
>
> 18-20 year olds are *not* children, to try to count them as such is
> blatantly fraudulent.

what the **** are you talking about 'children'? the stats were for murder.

blake

On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 15:19:29 -0700 (PDT), Tommy Joe wrote:

> On Jul 24, 12:42*pm, blake murphy > wrote:
>
>>> * * * In less than 500 words, please tell me why. *Written history,
>>> particularly the military and political kind, is not to be trusted.
>>
>> you don't trust history, you don't trust science, you prefer what your gut
>> 'intuitively' tells you. *that makes you a ****ing idiot.
>
> Hey **** you man. First of all, I made it clear when I said I
> despised history that I was referring to political or military
> history. Everything that happens is history. For example, the
> history of man-made light, from fire to the electric bulb and beyond.
> Sure, the report could be tainted with bias for some obscure reason,
> but the chances of meddling with the truth in such a historical report
> is less likely than it would be in anything political or military.
>
> I also never said I don't trust science, and I challenge you to
> show me where I did. Yes, it's true, I think the reliance of science
> can sometimes be taken to the same extreme as those who rely
> exclusively on religion - but I respect achievements made through
> science.
>
> But yes, you are right, I trust my intuition on most issues more
> than the written word. That's because I'm an intuitive scientist.
> How can I possibly not trust science, as you say, when in fact I am
> not only an intuitive scientist, but one of the greatest who ever
> lived.
>
> Buzz off,
> TJ

you're one of the greatest fools who ever lived.

blake

On 7/25/2011 1:18 PM, Tommy Joe wrote:
>> Thank you, Mr. Malthus.
>
> No joke Geore, I don't know who Mr. Malthus is. I don't care if
> your comment is negative or positive, I'd just like to know for the
> sake of reference. Thank you.

<sigh> Robert Malthus was a philosopher who talked about war, disease
and famine as being necessary parts of the population cycle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus


George L

George Leppla wrote:
>
> On 7/24/2011 8:36 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >> > I have to admit that taking a set of statistics and removing anything
> >> > that doesn't fit into your pre-conceived opinion so you can claim the
> >> > results support your position is a novel way of discussing things.
> >> >
> >> > I think Pete C would be a good politician.
> >> >
> >> > George L
> > You left wing kooks do by far the most distorting of statistics, such as
> > absurdly trying to include 18-20 year old gang members in with children
> > in order to claim that there are huge number of child gun deaths when
> > the reality is there are exceedingly few.
>
> Tell that to 4 families in Indiana:
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0....html?ir=Crime
>
> Four kids, ages 2, 4, 4 and 6 dead in the past 4 weeks. Tell their
> parents how they can take comfort in your altered statistics.
>
> http://www.cjcj.org/post/public/poli...ids/shoot/back
>
> "The FBI reports that of the victims for whom the age of the offender
> could be determined, more than 6,000 U.S. children and youths under age
> 18 were murdered by adults over the last decade (more than the total
> murder victims of all ages killed by everyone in the United Kingdom in
> the same period). In contrast, just 1,200 victims under age 18 were
> murdered by other children or youths. Thus, six out of seven murders of
> children and youths are not cases of “children killing children” that we
> hear so much about, but of adults killing children—a large majority by
> guns."
>
> All of these kids dead... under the age of 18. So much for your
> gang-banger BS.
>
> George L

And now you try to distort yet again. You reference 4 accidental gun
incidents in a short period, three of which were negligent storage
cases, then jump to the period of a decade to try to inflate numbers,
and then use only murders, not gun related murders to further distort
the number.

blake murphy > wrote:
Tommy Joe wrote:

> > * * But yes, you are right, I trust my intuition on most issues more
> > than the written word. *That's because I'm an intuitive scientist.
> > How can I possibly not trust science, as you say, when in fact I am
> > not only an intuitive scientist, but one of the greatest who ever
> > lived.



> you're one of the greatest fools who ever lived.


Another compliment? Fantastic. You could have said I was a fool,
but you said I am one of the greatest, not only of present time, but
of all time - the greatest fool who has ever lived. Ok, not THE
greatest, but one of them, and that's a compliment for me, to be one
of the greatest who ever lived at anything. Thank you.

TJ

On Jul 25, 3:00*pm, George Leppla > wrote:

> <sigh> * *Robert Malthus was a philosopher who talked about war, disease
> and famine as being necessary parts of the population cycle.


Thanks for that. Ok, so I never heard of the guy, and that's
because I'm a philosopher myself. I don't need to read or hear Mr
Malthus talk on the subject you mention above, because I already
believe that anyway. In fact, I think that's the case with anyone
other than a fanatic in search of something to cling to - to be drawn
to something someone is saying because they sort of already know it.

I could never sit through an entire book of anyones philosophy,
not only because I'm very impatient, but because it should not take a
whole book to explain ones philosophy, or philosophies if you prefer.
I might read parts of something though, and I might even enjoy reading
something from Malthus, especially now that you hint that his
philosophy is sort of like mine. I do tend to agree with him on your
comment above. But even deeper, while I tend to believe it, I also
admit that I'm not certain of it. So really, of all my philosophies,
probably my main one, the one to which I have evolved over time, is
the philosophy of just saying "I don't know" - while preceding it with
a bunch of rhetoric first. You know, just for entertainment, because
I like to ramble.

On a level similar the old joke, "I wouldn't want to join any
club that would have me as a member", I would not want to spout my
philosophies if too many people started following them under my
banner. Some lunatic searching for a cause might join the movement
and assassinate me the way Chapman claimed to love John Lennon but
stalked him down and shot him to death. If my philosophies became too
popular I would begin to have some serious doubts about them.

Doubt is good,
TJ

On Jul 26, 3:29*pm, blake murphy > wrote:

> No joke Geore, I don't know who Mr. Malthus is.

*

> i *knew* it!


So what? Don't you think I could name known people you've
never heard of? There are plenty of famous people I've never heard
of. I never heard of Malthus. Does that mean I have to go to the
back of the class? Good. I like it back there.

TJ

On Jul 26, 3:31*pm, blake murphy > wrote:

> hey, tommy goes with his gut instinct intuition, no need for that
> book-learnin'. *


Nothing against book learning - not for myself or for others who
want it - when they want it - not when it's crammed down their
throat. I'm not against book learning. But yes, you are not too far
off when you say I prefer to go with what you call gut feeling, which
I prefer to call common sense. Certainly when it comes to politics or
military history I'm not going to believe everything I read in books.
In fact, I'm more likely to doubt it. So why read any of it? When I
put away the books, my head really cooks. My blazing brain begins to
steam as deep I go into a dream. A dream where truth within myself
keeps all the books upon the shelf.

TJ