Hm. Perhaps I jumped the gun. But why, if it does come to about 70% of registered voters, do the numbers still don't seem to add up? How do they get more than double cards cast then?

You mean a huge expansion of government intervention into our lives. It gives you a somewhat one-sided choice of either paying out money for health insurance or paying out money to the government. It forces insurance companies to cover things that may be against their religion (the whole Birth Control debate, et al). It creates new "task forces" which monitor the program to see how they can cut wasteful spending. It creates several new agencies. Most of the plan is not in effect until 2014, fully effective in 2020, but meanwhile it's still legal for them to collect the tax.

Even if you like the plan or think it would be a good thing to implement, there is nothing at all "conservative" about this plan.

That's a rather bad interpretation of what they wrote. Geez, it's like we're reading two entirely different pieces. Here's a snippet that may help the situation.
The point is not "Conservatives do not compromise," and you seem to have missed it entirely. Are you not guilty of having steadfast ideology as well? Every time we debate, you always think your way is right, do you not? And if I offer a position counter to it, do you ALWAYS compromise between your position and mine? And if not, how do you differ from a Conservative such as how you describe above?

Or rather, might we say we are trying to conserve virtue, in a time where, just as an example, personal virtue is often cast aside to find a scapegoat for one's hardships?

Rather, I started working on it, but never got around to finish. Relevance aside, it is also extremely long. I suppose if I answer something here I can cut it from the other reply?

I really, seriously hope I am wrong on this one. I hope it does not happen. But, IF it does happen... will you still support Obama?

_________________

to be fair, isn't it rather typical for presidents to leave more radical changes 'til the fairly likely second term? because then they don't have to worry about re-election because it ain't happenin anyway

_________________

I'm NORML and I VOTE
Soul Silver Friend Code: 0260-2900-0828

What Grey said.

Plus Obama isn't going to go directly after guns. He'd go after the ammunition, raising taxes on them and the equipment needed to reload rounds.

_________________
Stufflikehearts - He is a Sith Lord. I love Blood Lord :3
Jeffffey - Blood, you look at the information someone says, look over what really happened, and reply in a way that makes them realize what they were really thinking.
Mythrrinthael - Blood Lord, our local expert in interpretation of The Grim Tales from Down Below!
Fievel - Numerous campaigns and conquests, countless bodies decaying after the abandonment of victorious battlefields. Such is the life of Blood Lord.
Dusk_Imp - Blood Lord is like a celebrity here. Everything he does is pure awesome. ALL HAIL BLOOD LORD
Doctress Who - Why couldn't there be a Blood Lord in every forum? It would make life so much easier.
Snafu's Mercypostle.

It's always been odd to me how these pro-gun people can rationalise and quantify the amount of "responsibility" they are permitted. For example, when it comes to weapons, in the most broad definition, there seems to be a bilateral agreement that it should be illegal for civilians to have the right to buy or possess nuclear weapons. Because clearly any device that can kill more than 1 000 000 people in one go is too dangerous to be trusted to civilians. Same issue with ballistic missiles, so even a device that can kill ~300 people in one go is illegal for civilians. Then the opinions become more varied as you go down to rocket launchers, RPGs, flame throwers, grenades, other explosives, and all the way down to assault rifles, mortars, multi-round shotguns, tripod/mounted chainguns/gatling guns. Then grenade launchers, sniper rifles, automatic and semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, semi-automatic pistols, incendiary ammo, hunting rifles, handguns and revolvers. Finally down to military knives, shivs, and other lethal white weapons.
I'd love it if all the people who support the right to bear arms, any arms, in any amounts, to define and specify their stance for me. How destructive and lethal does the weapon have to be before we no longer trust the public with handling it? Where's the tipping point? And why? I'd really love to know how everybody rationalises their stance on this one. Even though it seems a little bit off topic by now, I hope Val doesn't hurt me for this later. But I think it's an interesting question to raise, and I'd love to hear responses.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

All Gun Control:

We have gone too far down the path of free arms to go back now. If we outlaw guns, outlaws will have guns. Unfortunate truth.

Law Enforcement Gun Control:

I stand by them holding firearms with every fiber of my being. That said, members of authority and law enforcement should be cut of a finer cloth than normal people and should they ever fall to corruption or unnecessary brutality they should be punished harshly.

I honestly haven't dug into this issue enough to go any deeper than these incredibly vague umbrella terms. Sorry.

_________________
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid."

The Chronometal Wars, a fan-fiction taking place in the PPGD Universe. Catastrophe is the only certainty.

I should point out, that I would not advocate de-legalising firearms in the USA. It manufactures most of them (worldwide) and it would be technically impossible for them to enforce a proper gun ban. Illegal firearms would still be there and legal guns removed, leaving people with no ability to fend for themselves. And I fully realise that.

Then again, that leads us into the absolute failure of the law enforcement in the US. In a country where law enforcement works citizens don't feel threatened enough to go and buy guns to protect themselves. But that's not the issue we're talking about. I want you to justify why some weapons are legal and others aren't, if you agree with the current legality status quo, or which ones should be allowed and which should not, if you disagree with it.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

You seem to be throwing around a strawman argument here. It's not about which weapons are the "safe" ones. The right to bear arms is a right of a people to defend themselves and others. Now, what do I mean by that?

The right to bear arms doesn't mean you can go around shooting people in the leg or killing them and say "I have a right to do that." That's called "assault" or "murder," which is not a right. I know that sounds like a very absurd example, but you'd be surprised how many people throw out arguments like "so you're fine with people just shooting each other?" It personally bothers me that that idea is used against this topic. The right to bear arms is not to be misconstrued as a right to simply attack people. The same thing applies if you're carrying around a dangerous weapon in public, like the chain gun you mentioned before, for no reason. But if you're in a civilian militia and everyone knows you're there to prevent some kind of attack, then in that situation, something like that might be acceptable.

Suppose someone is trying to mug you at knife-point, and he's more than 5 feet away from you at the time you draw your weapon. The size and scope of the weapon should be enough to prevent or counter an attack on you, your family, or others that are in danger, if necessary. You wouldn't use an RPG to stop the guy with the knife. You would present a pistol, and more than likely the guy would run off before you fire any rounds, but it is not okay to shoot him as he is running away (with certain very specific exceptions that I won't cover here---you can ask me about them later if you like).

The same situation could apply if you are coming across a guy getting beat up in an alley. You could draw your pistol and shout "Hey! GET THE FUCK AWAY FROM HIM!" The moment they see your gun, they will either run away or run at you, and in the latter case you would be justified in opening fire, as it's obvious they intend to do harm to you.

If someone has an AK-47 and all you have is a double-barreled shotgun (arguably more powerful), you fall within justification of using it ONLY if that person could be reasonably expected to do harm to you or others, AND if you can stop the threat without causing any further casualties (for example, you don't fire at him if he's surrounded by a big crowd of people).

It's a matter of quelling the threat with the least amount of force possible. The Second Amendment is not intended as carte blanche to carry dangerous weaponry without just cause. Proponents aren't saying we should be able to carry RPGs or flamethrowers. We simply want people to have access to the right kind of weaponry that allows them to keep themselves safe. If this includes assault rifles, as long as it is completely justified, I'm okay with it. I wouldn't, for example, be okay with someone to have a auto-reloading rocket-launcher protecting their mansion from potential thieves or something.

Hope that helps.

_________________

I support reinstating the brady bill, I support gun safety training with a first purchase especially to clear up the rules as what qualifies as self defense and what doesn't and I really want to see straw purchasing laws tightened.

_________________
CAUTION: Would anyone tell me if I was getting stupider?

I'd agree to that.

_________________
Stufflikehearts - He is a Sith Lord. I love Blood Lord :3
Jeffffey - Blood, you look at the information someone says, look over what really happened, and reply in a way that makes them realize what they were really thinking.
Mythrrinthael - Blood Lord, our local expert in interpretation of The Grim Tales from Down Below!
Fievel - Numerous campaigns and conquests, countless bodies decaying after the abandonment of victorious battlefields. Such is the life of Blood Lord.
Dusk_Imp - Blood Lord is like a celebrity here. Everything he does is pure awesome. ALL HAIL BLOOD LORD
Doctress Who - Why couldn't there be a Blood Lord in every forum? It would make life so much easier.
Snafu's Mercypostle.

Now, that is a reasonable answer. But it kind of misses my point.

You're explaining to me what the levels of "justified violence" are, and in what named situations a person is allowed to possess and use a certain calibre of a weapon. But that's not what I asked.


Okay. But by saying that you're also saying that shotguns are okay weapons. My point is, I don't care where the limits of "justified use a weapon" come, Ruff. The thing is, once a weapon is in a man's possession, it can be both used justly and misused. That's a whole another issue here. The question I'm asking is, at which point is the possibility of "misuse" too severe to allow people to use it in justified ways.

Also, you speak about having to have reasons for owning a certain gun. There are many gun enthusiasts who own guns mainly because they can, and because they made it their hobby. Justified?
Now I don't care if you think in which situation the man is allowed to legally use his weapon for self defence, that's irrelevant here. The point is, what weapons can be considered self-defence weapons, and what weapons are not. What if I get jumped by a gang of men with guns, rifles, and knives? If I have the right to own a small nuclear device strapped to my chest I'd pull out the button and try to scare them off. What if it didn't work, and I had to detonate? This situation is absurd, you can see for yourself, but why is that? Because that kind of a weapon does not fit the "self-defence" role, even if it is used to defend yourself. But whether or not it is legal to blow yourself up is irrelevant in my argument, the point is, should the chance of letting someone blow himself up be considered unimportant enough to warrant allowing the possession of such explosives? This is my point.

You said owning a chain gun would be okay in some situations. But not in all then? What are you calling for then? Limiting the right to own different weapons based on some arbitrary level of threat the buying person may be exposed to? Who determines whether the guy should be allowed to have a rocket launcher or not? Does having mexican drug gangs smuggling firearms and drugs through the road next to his house count as sufficient to give him an RPG? Why would some weapons be okay but an armed predator drone would not? After all if the gangsters stop by and start firing at his house he could wipe them all out firing from the sky without having to leave the safety of his home. What about a tactical nuke then?
The concept of "defending yourself" is too broad and circumstantial to determine every case with the same legal precedent. But it is technically impossible to "check" whether the person wanting to buy an assault rifle really needs it for defence or not.


Again, as I said, whether they use those weapons "right" or "wrong" is irrelevant here. They will end up using them both ways, because that's how society works. There will be people who save others by shooting an armed criminal, and there will be people who will take their guns to a school and start shooting everybody for no reason. Both WILL always be possible. And hence, you allow rifles, but not a rocket launcher. Why? Why not? Both CAN be used for justified self-defence. And both can be misused. So why don't we allow everybody to purchase these kinds of weapons, on the off chance that they might be in a situation where they can use them legally without it being considered "excessive use of force"? Is it because the odds of that are much smaller than the odds of mentally disturbed people using such weapons to assault rather than defend? Where do you draw the line Ruff? At what point does a weapon become so lethal that even if you could imagine a situation where it's use would be justified you still agree that it should not be accessible to people?

See what I'm getting at now? I don't care where you draw the line between "justified self-defence" and "excessive use of force". There will be cases on both sides of the line either way. What I'm asking is at what point the possibility of the latter is so threatening that you ignore the odds of the first. Or is it something else that dictates the limit? Tell me what you think Ruff.

And don't reply again by explaining to me what situations a certain weapon can be used in a justified way. I'm not interested in that. There will be some situations where it may well be, but that's not the question. My question is, why are some weapons illegal. Is it that there is no imaginable situation where it would be justified to use them?
Again, "using or carrying the weapon" justly or unjustly has little to do with whether the weapon should be accessible to people or not. Pulling a handgun on a mugger with a knife should be just as effective as pulling a rocket launcher. Both have the fear factor in them. And if you don't use them to anything else but scarring criminals away, why allow one and not the other?

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

I see. Well, while I think I understand your argument, I can't really see where you're coming from on this. I mean a nuke is not really something you arm yourself with---not to mention the sheer difficulty in making one for "personal" use. But you said you're not interested in that kind of discussion, so I'll see if I can't answer your weapon question.

I think what you're trying to get at is weapons that are normally considered to be used almost exclusively for the purposes of war should be out of the hands of civilians, correct? I disagree. In addition to defending oneself from small personal attacks and so on, the 2nd Amendment was also intended to prevent the government from restricting the ability of a civilian population to defend itself from its own government. You know, because historically no government has ALWAYS had the best interest of its people. So, realistically, no conceivable weapon should really be completely outlawed, but at the same time I don't think we should just make them completely available to everyone for normal or casual use. There are a lot of grey areas, but the 2nd Amendment doesn't really specify what type of weapons the people are allowed to keep. The language is intentionally vague. If you make it illegal for people to have RPGs, how do people defend themselves if the government decides to use heavy artillery on them? I know this is kind of an extreme case, but it could happen.

So, I'm not sure if I fully answered your question. Let me know I guess.

_________________

I'm a mexican with second understanding of english, and even i know where QU's going towards to, and you keep biting on the (albeit tasty) dough while avoiding the main jelly filling of that crispy donut, ruff ruff. No, what he is trying to get at is a simple question, nowhere did he say weapons exclusive for war use should not be allowed to be carried by civvies, what QU is asking is how do you classify/who classifies whether one type of weapon should be allowed to be bought by civilians or whether it should not, if the main purpose of the weapon is the same in either case? Why are some weapons considered okay by said laws, and some weapons aren't, even if the one that's legal could do more damage than the illegal option? Or how is it decided that a weapon is ok to be sold while others are not, if the purpose of said weapons depend solely on who buys it?

I'm not sure if it's a valid example because i don't live there so i'm not sure how truth this is, but why is it legal to sell and own a minigun in some states, a high-class weapon that could mow down people like wheat, and it isn't legal to sell or buy a rifle or shotgun that is less than a certain barrel length?

_________________

Well, you did answer in a way that says "there's no way of telling or making a rule in my opinion". Which is fine, but it admits that there is no real boundary of what weapon could be considered self defence.

You say civilians should not have ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads. But the federal US government has plenty. And if there really was a war between, let's say Texas and the rest of the USA, what do you think would happen? Surely those rifles will help you against heavy artillery, those shotguns will surely shoot down predator drones, and military helicopters. (They won't). Not to mention you have no way of responding to the nuclear option without letting civilians have nukes too. This, I find, to be the fallacy of this approach.

No single state could try to fight the rest of the USA. No militia could compare, in terms of numbers, equipment, logistics, technology, weaponry, and training. So I consider that "defend our state from the evil government takeover" argument a secessionists' wet dream, and nothing more.

_________________
This post is intended for information only. Please do not reply to this message as responses cannot be read or acknowledged due to the stupidity of the user.

Final updates:

I saw a few reports of ballots being found, but none were over a thousand, and the other conditions weren't met. Also, there was apparently one riot with two arrests, so that's a no on that on too. Since it looks like no one wants to argue the South Park duck thing, it's staying as it is.

Results updated here. Looks like the site's take was 2,300,000,000,718 Internets, $1,000,000, 10 Stuffs, and 4 hostages, so hopefully we'll be able to update the code soon. Continue discussions if you want, but I'd like some feedback on whether or not this should be a recurring thing.

I like the idea of having these threads set up whenever something big is happening.

_________________
My realism workshop Updated April 24, 2013: Not the best

Yeah, I need more Internets. When I am in the triple digits when I started from a single internet I'll know I'm in good company.

_________________
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid."

The Chronometal Wars, a fan-fiction taking place in the PPGD Universe. Catastrophe is the only certainty.

Well if that's what he's asking, then it's really not something I can sufficiently answer. I mean, I don't make the gun laws, so I wouldn't really know what it is that makes a gun illegal in the eyes of a law-maker. I would imagine it's the threatening nature of the gun combined with the fear of what could happen if that gun fell into the wrong hands. Even so, often times the laws they try to pass are completely unreasonable and based largely in ignorance.

As evidence of the latter premise, I recall there was a woman in office (I have limited web-searching capabilities where I am now so I might have to provide a link later if you can't find one yourself) who was interviewed about a piece of legislation that would have banned barrel shrouds. When asked, she said that she wasn't sure what they were, but she said something along the lines of "I think it's a shoulder thing that goes up." Of course, she had never thought to do any research on it, she just lives in an intellectual bubble, is just staunchly anti-gun, and knows that barrel shrouds have something to do with guns, so that's good enough for her.

IMO, if they've never fired a gun or at the very least have done some research on the subject, they have no business writing or supporting laws to ban them. But, again, that's just my opinion.

_________________

But it's okay for our drug laws or our abortion laws to be drafted by those who have never tried drugs or had an abortion?

Also, you should look up the congresswoman who said and understand more about her life and the context in which she made that statement and the baiting of the guy who asked it.

_________________
CAUTION: Would anyone tell me if I was getting stupider?

I have some other replies to work on, but I'll say this for now: RD, you talked about some of your principles regarding weapon legality, and Q.U. asked you to translate your principles into policies applicable to the real world. If you can't do that, you shouldn't argue about weapon legality on ideological grounds.

They don't have to walk into Mordor to understand the dangers of doing so. As long as they've researched the topic thoroughly, or at least enough that they understand what they're trying to argue, I have no problem with them debating public policy.

I will when I have a moment. But is that really the excuse one should make for an elected representative? If you called out one of my favored representatives and I said "they baited him/her," is that really valid?

So, he wants me to define which weapons I would personally declare too deadly to allow non-government civilians to wield if I'm the guy in charge? I thought he just wanted an idea as to how I thought about the issue. Sure, I can do that. Though I wouldn't necessarily ban any weapon, here's the ones I would seriously consider implementing heavy restrictions.

Here's a(n in)complete list:
-Any hand-held weapon which fires ammunition that can reasonably be expected to kill more than 20 people per round
-Weapons for which no real measure of safety can be established for the user (something that could be reasonably expected to blow up/splash back onto the user, as in the fuel from a flamethrower, etc.)
-Weapons of mass destruction, such as high-payload bombs, nerve, mustard, sarin gas etc.
-Nuclear-based weaponry
-Antimatter weaponry (currently theoretical but arguably more powerful than nuclear)
-Sharks with laser beams attached to their heads

Okay, that last one was a joke, but I think that's a good general outline.

_________________

I'm sure could have ask any rep on either side of that legislation and most of them wouldn't have known what a barrel shroud was, her argument was for her bill was that it would ban high capacity magazines and other features that were restricted to military and SWAT applications only under the AWB, remind you that this was the day of the Virginia Tech shootings.

_________________
CAUTION: Would anyone tell me if I was getting stupider?

Video link for the above example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

_________________
Stufflikehearts - He is a Sith Lord. I love Blood Lord :3
Jeffffey - Blood, you look at the information someone says, look over what really happened, and reply in a way that makes them realize what they were really thinking.
Mythrrinthael - Blood Lord, our local expert in interpretation of The Grim Tales from Down Below!
Fievel - Numerous campaigns and conquests, countless bodies decaying after the abandonment of victorious battlefields. Such is the life of Blood Lord.
Dusk_Imp - Blood Lord is like a celebrity here. Everything he does is pure awesome. ALL HAIL BLOOD LORD
Doctress Who - Why couldn't there be a Blood Lord in every forum? It would make life so much easier.
Snafu's Mercypostle.

okay, see, ruffdraft, i'm going to talk to you on point, and one point only:

do you use the scientific method when you talk about ideology?

you complained earlier in the thread about Valhallen having a "bad interpretation". So there was clearly multiple ways to view whatever the fuck it is you two were talking about, I skimmed most of the posts because well my current days consist of a lot of shit.

Literally. An abnormally large amount of shit. And that's saying something, when I'm saying it.

The scientific method requires an understanding of formal logic: i.e. the rules that we use to observe and determine if patterns exist.

I am not trying to patronize you, btw, because I want everyone to get a grasp on this, because well, every time you say something REALLY FUCKING STUPID (in my humble opinion) it gets me extremely unhappy and unhealthy. I don't blame YOU at all. (weirdly enough, right?)So you don't have to feel guilty.

You and Valhallen's debates consist of citation VS citation. Noticeably more from Valhallen than yourself. You are relying more, on average, on what you might call common sense.

"Come on, everyone knows this."

If you don't believe me, I seriously will go through this thread and a few others if you feel like you're being treated unfairly in these debates between you and Val.

I think that you don't have a background in formal logic that is stronger than Valhallen's, and whenever I read a full exchange between you, you--on average--are more interested in the circumstances rather than the statistics.

Stats are more important than circumstance: stats are a large amount of circumstance by which we determine the Lowest Common Denominator.

If you honestly do not believe me, I will bring up the instances that I have seen in this thread, and you can link to any thread you want for an example in that thread. You can cherry-pick, I don't mind.

In doing this, I would remove all adjectives in an attempt to get the core beliefs of your and Valhallen's opinions based sheerly on scientific protocol:

Observation, Question, Hypothesis, Experiment, Conclusion, Result.

In formal logic, this protocol proceeds in rhetoric as well, only over longitudinal distances, because of the difficulty of obtaining as near to objective as you can be in your Observation for your argument.

The scientific method on anything typical is slow, but slow like shaping a bow, stringing it, fletching the arrow, sharpening its head to the desired wound outcome, pulling back, and letting the observation fly through the process easily to bullseye right down to the result.

In an argument, you have to construct half of a bow, and keep working with your partner to get the bow right, then both of you must measure the string, the fletching, the arrowhead, the aiming, the pullback, the release.

Because the point of an argument is to agree. I forget that sometimes. I think we all do. I try desperately to keep it on my mind, you know. But what with the literal lots of shit I have to deal with (and I simply do not want to talk about the metaphorical, allegorical, clerical, or even metaphysical and moral shit I tend to weave through in order to deliver to you all such freshly steamed posts that people will find. Well. Shitty.), ..., Iffin yull get my pointe.

Search for an answer together on the points by determining terminology, if anyone want to go about this in a way without suffering completely unwanted, rushed changes to your mental status--if you have, in whatever capacity, deemed this conversation too much or too little to indulge in--you must be prepared to compromise to agree upon terms, and from those terms derive a jointly-declared observation, with which you will then posit your questions from those circumstances.

Next, you diffuse the questions into rank and priority, going back on the definitions previously discussed, including terms of scale; all arguments must have scale applied. Sometimes in this process a question is weeded out. Next, based on your question, you both posit a hypothesis from this observation, offering more evidence in your observation, your agreed-upon terms observation. From here, you can proceed with experimenting with the nature of your hypotheses. Adjectives are bad in experiments (except for the experiments dealing directly with the nature of opinion and emotion, of course).

Your experiments are often merely establishing correlation to proceed with another round of observation in argument, and you have to re-agree the terms of your observation with the experimentation-phase's data.

Only once you have both agreed on experimental data do you come to the conclusion, inescapable at this point, and finally state the result: Positive or Negative.

I hope anybody read that, it's pretty good at working at improving your skills in rhetoric. Incidentally, it has a theatrical counterpart, of which I am a fan: improv. Improve your improv. Different methodologies, but the case could... arguably be made for the relationship. this would be my observation, potentially incorrect in its entirety, or the beginning to explore and discover the issues to pursue. But I am openly being anecdotal now, so you can ignore the joke. 8)

_________________
Bleedcomics Staff Writer/Editor, , and Keeper of the Jar Brain of Secret President. RIP Ku Ku Ku \(-^.^-)/ U Wuz A REAL N***A!!!!!!!
"We're quite aware of this. BR is no happy rainbow face man. He is simply our neighborhood best fucking poster." ~ Warbear
Puff Most Epic.

^^^^^^^^

_________________

Sure. Do you? Always? If not, then why not? How do you measure that your ideology is right? How do you run an experiment on it? How do you form your conclusions? Would you like to discuss it with me? Seems more often than not you discuss things at me; you tell me what's right and why I'm wrong to disagree. It gets irritating.

I presented an article that spoke about what it is to be Conservative; it talked, among other things, about the idea of compromise, and why Conservatives might not compromise on a particular issue. He read the article and interpreted the message of the article to be "Conservatives outright reject the idea of compromise." This was contrary to what was written, and I explained why.

Guilty? Why would I feel guilty? I'm kind of feeling offended, actually. As if your irritable bowel is my doing. Did I give you Crohn's? Am I actively sucking the life out of you? Or did I engage you in conversation? I'm not going to apologize for disagreeing with something you have to say. If we have a discussion, more often than not you reject the notion that my argument could have any merit at all---and without following the scientific method. And then you blow up at me. Personally I find it easier to I blame your illness than than to get angry at you in those cases. It causes you pain, pain causes emotional instability, and you become irrational. And yet your pain is something I caused, but shouldn't feel guilty about? I'm legitimately outraged by that.

So, for example, when I present evidence on something I have observed in the past (say, "grass is green,") and he asks for a citation ("prove that this is true"), and I provide ONLY observational facts behind it ("look at some grass, it is green"), that's me making a common sense argument, yes? Are you saying that's a bad thing? Always? If so, prove to me by the example I have just presented above that it is incorrect to use that method.

But then doesn't that mean that stats and circumstances are equally important? Can't have stats without circumstances. Furthermore, what about the conclusions one draws from the statistics?

For example: Let's say 100 kids below the age of 5 choke to death on solid objects in a given time period; and let's say that the statistics are as follows: 10% on miscellaneous objects, 15% on rubber balls or marbles, 25% on food, and 50% on toys. If the data indicates that kids are choking on toys more frequently than anything else, then is it right to conclude that toys should be regulated to improve their safety, as is often one's way of thinking? Perhaps a good idea, but doesn't that simply shift blame? Most of these children would probably not choke to death if they were being properly supervised by their parents. The most common sense conclusion is simply that parents do not adequately supervise their children. Is it wrong to conclude that?

And if you get anything wrong, the whole thing falls apart. The arrow flies crooked or doesn't sink into the target as accurately or deeply as you want it to, or the bow or string snaps with the slightest bit of tension.

I understand how logic works. But as it turns out, two people can logically analyze a set of data and logically come to completely opposite conclusions based off of their world view (for example, a historian might regard the policies implemented during the Great Depression one way and an economist might regard them another way altogether*). If you want to say that one trail of logic is wrong, you have to explain why that one is wrong and why the other one is truly correct. Using logic. Mind blown yet?
*I am not getting into a discussion about this. It's just an example, now drop it and move on

Sometimes that's true. Sometimes you can make a one-sided argument and still be completely correct. Do you think everyone who's ever made a good bow has always made one with a partner?

Hey, I'm not going to say I always remember that. In fact, sometimes when I'm faced with an argument I find so adverse to my beliefs I forget that believers believe their beliefs are just as valid as I believe my beliefs to be. But do you not also admit that sometimes people are simply not going to agree on things for any number of reasons? And that sometimes the reasons by which someone disagrees can be completely rational and correct?

But what you're arguing with me is that because a number of people on this site collectively agree with each other---common ideologies, principles, policies, etc., completely understandable to be sure---and I am usually the only vocal dissenting opinion, and because I exhibit what you refer to as a "common sense approach," or if I am not openly citing a piece of evidence to support my claim, that my logic on a particular issue you do not agree with must be flawed. And you see this as a completely sound logical argument. You make no room for dissenting arguments because you see the dissenting side as wrong without trying to understand it. And then you demand that the dissenting side agree. How is that logical?

_________________