SF declares NRA a terrorist organization

[Kowani]

See, the thing is, they’re not directly comparable. There’s this thing, it’s called peer review. You should try learning about it.

I truly enjoyed that peer reviewed study about rape culture of dogs in a dog park.

What?

No. I can like that other people play football. But unless I actually play football, I don’t like playing football.

I love eating shrimp.

I can't eat it, because I developed an allergy to it, so I don't eat it anymore, but it is delicious.

Sure, that’s technically a problem with the standardization of English. But there’s a difference between “I love an activity I used to do” and “I love this activity I don’t do.”

No. I can like that other people play football. But unless I actually play football, I don’t like playing football.

Other people who play football don't play football? You're pushing a point that doesn't exist.

No, you just didn’t understand the point.

[Galloism]

I truly enjoyed that peer reviewed study about rape culture of dogs in a dog park.

What?

https://reason.com/2018/06/11/dog-park- ... son-study/

Note the update.

Turned out if you make a study on dog on dog rape, examine the genitals of each dog, and use those observations to make statements regarding feminist and queer theory applicable to humans, you can sail right through peer review.

[Telconi]

I truly enjoyed that peer reviewed study about rape culture of dogs in a dog park.

What?

I love eating shrimp.

I can't eat it, because I developed an allergy to it, so I don't eat it anymore, but it is delicious.

Sure, that’s technically a problem with the standardization of English. But there’s a difference between “I love an activity I used to do” and “I love this activity I don’t do.”

Other people who play football don't play football? You're pushing a point that doesn't exist.

No, you just didn’t understand the point.

It isn't an actual point, it's you insisting that support for an activity is impossible unless someone engages in that activity. Which is preposterous.

[Kowani]

What?

https://reason.com/2018/06/11/dog-park- ... son-study/

Note the update.

Turned out if you make a study on dog on dog rape, examine the genitals of each dog, and use those observations to make statements regarding feminist and queer theory applicable to humans, you can sail right through peer review.

Except she got caught. Nobody expects (I hope) a perfect system. Science is, by nature, imperfect. But the general idea is that bad research will be weeded out over time.

[Galloism]

https://reason.com/2018/06/11/dog-park- ... son-study/

Note the update.

Turned out if you make a study on dog on dog rape, examine the genitals of each dog, and use those observations to make statements regarding feminist and queer theory applicable to humans, you can sail right through peer review.

Except she got caught. Nobody expects (I hope) a perfect system. Science is, by nature, imperfect. But the general idea is that bad research will be weeded out over time.

No, actually. She didn’t.

They published their findings and admitted what they’d done, publishing a study on the flaws of peer review in certain fields. Unsurprisingly, that one had trouble getting through peer review.

[Kowani]

It isn't an actual point, it's you insisting that support for an activity is impossible unless someone engages in that activity. Which is preposterous.

Because the claim wasn’t for support for an activity-the claim was for engaging in that activity.

Except she got caught. Nobody expects (I hope) a perfect system. Science is, by nature, imperfect. But the general idea is that bad research will be weeded out over time.

No, actually. She didn’t.

They published their findings and admitted what they’d done, publishing a study on the flaws of peer review in certain fields. Unsurprisingly, that one had trouble getting through peer review.

Ahh. Although, I would believe that the peer review at Stanford University is slightly more rigorous than a journal no one’s ever heard of.

[Galloism]

It isn't an actual point, it's you insisting that support for an activity is impossible unless someone engages in that activity. Which is preposterous.

Because the claim wasn’t for support for an activity-the claim was for engaging in that activity.

No, actually. She didn’t.

They published their findings and admitted what they’d done, publishing a study on the flaws of peer review in certain fields. Unsurprisingly, that one had trouble getting through peer review.

Ahh. Although, I would believe that the peer review at Stanford University is slightly more rigorous than a journal no one’s ever heard of.

You hope.

Some fields are better than others, but let’s not assume peer review is a panacea.

[Telconi]

It isn't an actual point, it's you insisting that support for an activity is impossible unless someone engages in that activity. Which is preposterous.

Because the claim wasn’t for support for an activity-the claim was for engaging in that activity.

No, actually. She didn’t.

They published their findings and admitted what they’d done, publishing a study on the flaws of peer review in certain fields. Unsurprisingly, that one had trouble getting through peer review.

Ahh. Although, I would believe that the peer review at Stanford University is slightly more rigorous than a journal no one’s ever heard of.

No, the claim was that people "like owning guns" your counter argument was that they didn't own guns, and thus couldn't like it.

[Kowani]

No, the claim was that people "like owning guns" your counter argument was that they didn't own guns, and thus couldn't like it.

Yeah. If you don’t own guns, you can’t like owning guns.

[Telconi]

No, the claim was that people "like owning guns" your counter argument was that they didn't own guns, and thus couldn't like it.

Yeah. If you don’t own guns, you can’t like owning guns.

And why not?

[The Grims]

No, the claim was that people "like owning guns" your counter argument was that they didn't own guns, and thus couldn't like it.

Yeah. If you don’t own guns, you can’t like owning guns.

You can if you owned them.in the past but were forced to hand them.in.

[Kowani]

Yeah. If you don’t own guns, you can’t like owning guns.

And why not?

The rules of language?

Yeah. If you don’t own guns, you can’t like owning guns.

You can if you owned them.in the past but were forced to hand them.in.

a)I addressed this earlier
b) I very much doubt 70% of the US population was forced to hand in their guns.

[Telconi]

And why not?

The rules of language?

You can if you owned them.in the past but were forced to hand them.in.

a)I addressed this earlier
b) I very much doubt 70% of the US population was forced to hand in their guns.

Seems more to me that you're just really opposed to admitting fault.

[Kowani]

The rules of language?


a)I addressed this earlier
b) I very much doubt 70% of the US population was forced to hand in their guns.

Seems more to me that you're just really opposed to admitting fault.

No, that’s your job.

[The Grims]

Seems more to me that you're just really opposed to admitting fault.

No, that’s your job.

Perhaps you should both hand in your guns and stick to something safer. Pillows are nice.

[Kowani]

No, that’s your job.

Perhaps you should both hand in your guns and stick to something safer. Pillows are nice.

I don’t own guns.

[Telconi]

Perhaps you should both hand in your guns and stick to something safer. Pillows are nice.

I don’t own guns.

Thank Christ.

[West Leas Oros 2]

To anyone who blames "the far-left" for gun control, let me give you this.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

― Karl Marx

[Hammer Britannia]

To anyone who blames "the far-left" for gun control, let me give you this.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

― Karl Marx

MaRx DiDn'T kNoW aBoUt AsSuLt RiFlEs

- Someone, probably

[West Leas Oros 2]

To anyone who blames "the far-left" for gun control, let me give you this.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

― Karl Marx

MaRx DiDn'T kNoW aBoUt AsSuLt RiFlEs

- Someone, probably

Technology changes, rights do not. Freedom of Press still applies to radio, even though free press predates it's invention.

[Diopolis]

And why not?

The rules of language?

You can if you owned them.in the past but were forced to hand them.in.

a)I addressed this earlier
b) I very much doubt 70% of the US population was forced to hand in their guns.

It’s not out of the question, living in American gun culture, that survey data could underestimate the percentage of gun owners massively.

[Pacomia]

I don't much like the NRA, but I don't think it deserves to be called a terrorist organisation. It's not.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia]

Canadians can be just as violent as Americans. It is human nature and economic conditions that determines violence, not nationality. What prevents them from being as violent is gun control.

Now, the war on drugs was an obvious failure, but once you try, say, "cocaine" you're hooked. You will look for any method to satisfy your craving. Guns aren't like that.

No, I think there's definitely a cultural difference between Americans and Canadians. One of the reason America will never institute a Scandinavia-style socialism/capitalism mix. The cultural background of the United States is so different from other countries. Certain policies are going to have very dissimilar results in different cultures.

Never say never. Come back to me in 30 years and tell me whether or not social democracy became a thing in America. Socdem policies, like the ones supported by Bernie Sanders, Warren et al are overwhelmingly popular in America, so much so that Missouri, commonly regarded as a "red state", overwhelmingly voted yes to raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour in spite of McCaskill losing to Josh Hawley, and in Ohio, a anti-union right-to-work law was decisively rejected.

[The Emerald Legion]

And why not?

The rules of language?

You can if you owned them.in the past but were forced to hand them.in.

a)I addressed this earlier
b) I very much doubt 70% of the US population was forced to hand in their guns.

You can like something you don't do. For example, if you want to own a gun but can't afford one. You still like owning guns.

[Caliphate of Harlem]

Gun control has become one of those pick your side of the fence type sectarian divides. Because of that I don't see any leeway on either side. To be anti-gun is to be liberal and progressive and the opposite is betrayal. However, leftists aren't a uniform bunch. The more far left types are usually the type to eschew the mainstream liberal line and brush it off as not really leftists, many of these left wingers are fanatically pro-gun but they don't have any love for the NRA. But if you mean the vast majority of people who call themselves liberal, no I don't think they'll react to the authoritarian bunch within them because in large part they tend to agree with authoritarian measures as long as it aligns with their social and moral views. Gun control is one of those debates, like abortion or capital punishment, that will never really be resolved in a healthy way because it's become so politicized by people on both sides of the conservative-liberal schism.