Re: POLITICS:

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> I have repeatedly said that I am referring to the site that I posted,

> and what the quotes mentioned there represent...NOT the complete

> articles as referenced in links.

Then you are engaging in a copout of great proportion and a refusing

to do your homework.

[snip]

> It continues to impress me that you're going to such extraordinary

> lengths to support such a blatantly bigoted page.

As you dropped out of the last discussion on the grounds that it was a

waste of your time, which I think was much more interesting and much

more important than this one, I think I will stop going to such

lengths and drop out of this one, which I think is not only a waste of

time but a complete distraction from the far more important and

consequential question of whether there is indeed an internet version

of the Patriot Act awaiting an orchestrated internet disaster.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Aug 16, 2008, at 3:17 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

> Gene,

>

> > I have repeatedly said that I am referring to the site that I

> posted,

> > and what the quotes mentioned there represent...NOT the complete

> > articles as referenced in links.

>

> Then you are engaging in a copout of great proportion and a refusing

> to do your homework.

>

NO - the copout is YOURS, because you're simply not listening.

Not one bit. And you never do.

>

>

> [snip]

>

> > It continues to impress me that you're going to such extraordinary

> > lengths to support such a blatantly bigoted page.

>

> As you dropped out of the last discussion on the grounds that it was a

> waste of your time, which I think was much more interesting and much

> more important than this one, I think I will stop going to such

> lengths and drop out of this one, which I think is not only a waste of

> time but a complete distraction from the far more important and

> consequential question of whether there is indeed an internet version

> of the Patriot Act awaiting an orchestrated internet disaster.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

> > > I have never said that because holds certain abhorrent

> > > views, all of the articles posted on his site are false. Never even

> > > came close to implying this.

> >

> > Uh, sure. OK.

> >

>

> Hard to tell what degree of sarcasm to read into this, but there

> shouldn't be any.

The point is that the last few times some information from ' site or

radio show was posted here (most of it originating from other sources) you

simply attacked ' character as if implying that a) his character is

more important than the tyranny he is reporting on and that his info is

questionable because you consider him to be a " hateful bigot " and as you

further remarked " much of is nut job cultist conspiracy wacko garbage, mixed

with ultra conservative moralist nonsense. "

So, yeh, you made it pretty obvious that you don't trust his info. And of

course, I never said you said *all* of the articles on his site are false.

This is a red herring in a post full of irrelevant quibbling.

I repeat, I do not consider all of his info accurate and believe that

everyone should apply as much analytical rigor to his info as much as any

other source. You mentioned that there are other sources with the same info.

Well, by all means, post them! I've listened to several other talk radio

shows and looked at other sites but so far haven't found any as up-to-date

and comprehensive as ', warts and all. But I'm still looking for others

that deal with the very real and alarming state of tyranny here in the U.S.

and abroad.

Suze

[Guest guest]

On Aug 17, 2008, at 3:53 PM, Suze Fisher wrote:

>

>

> > > > I have never said that because holds certain

> abhorrent

> > > > views, all of the articles posted on his site are false. Never

> even

> > > > came close to implying this.

> > >

> > > Uh, sure. OK.

> > >

> >

> > Hard to tell what degree of sarcasm to read into this, but there

> > shouldn't be any.

>

> The point is that the last few times some information from '

> site or

> radio show was posted here (most of it originating from other

> sources) you

> simply attacked ' character as if implying that a) his

> character is

> more important than the tyranny he is reporting on and that his

> info is

> questionable because you consider him to be a " hateful bigot " and as

> you

> further remarked " much of is nut job cultist conspiracy wacko

> garbage, mixed

> with ultra conservative moralist nonsense. "

>

Well, I guess I might as well have you speak for me then, since you

obviously understand what I've been saying.

>

>

> So, yeh, you made it pretty obvious that you don't trust his info.

> And of

> course, I never said you said *all* of the articles on his site are

> false.

> This is a red herring in a post full of irrelevant quibbling.

>

> I repeat, I do not consider all of his info accurate and believe that

> everyone should apply as much analytical rigor to his info as much

> as any

> other source. You mentioned that there are other sources with the

> same info.

> Well, by all means, post them! I've listened to several other talk

> radio

> shows and looked at other sites but so far haven't found any as up-

> to-date

> and comprehensive as ', warts and all. But I'm still looking

> for others

> that deal with the very real and alarming state of tyranny here in

> the U.S.

> and abroad

>

? I don't post every single thread about the dishonesty/immorality/

tyrannical ambition of our government to ever forum and list that I " m

a member of. This isn't after all a political list.

What ' site lacks is intelligent analysis of these threads, and

it also contains enough wacko crap that you have to take much more of

it with a grain of salt.

Plus, I do think that he's a bit of a buffoon - and clearly thinks a

lot of himself. " Chomsky, I'm smarter than you with both hands tied

behind my back " , LOL. In any case, I think that one can gain much more

from reading a little Chomsky, than sifting through the paranoia on

' sites.

>

>

> Suze

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> Plus, I do think that he's a bit of a buffoon - and clearly thinks a

> lot of himself. " Chomsky, I'm smarter than you with both hands tied

> behind my back " , LOL. In any case, I think that one can gain much more

> from reading a little Chomsky, than sifting through the paranoia on

> ' sites.

The only place I can find this quote is on a page arguing that

was vindicated for his comments, which were made in mid-2001, because

successfully predicted 9/11:

http://www.rense.com/general82/chom.htm

I have yet to find a recording on youtube or elsewhere.

In any case, I agree that some information on ' site could be

taken to be unconfirmed paranoia, but you have posted information with

such a preposterous " everything is fine and there are no conspiracies "

angle that ' site appears infinitely more reasonable.

For example, you posted an article from ZNet, which is closely

connected with Chomsky, in which the author called Ron a

ridiculous conspiracy theoriest for believing the Council on Foreign

Relations is behind an effort to dissolve the US, Canada and Mexico

into a North American Union similar to the European Union:

/message/96484

I pointed out that this effort has been covered by mainstream sources

such as CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI

The fact is that one must go through serious effort to disconnect

oneself from reality and the last twenty years of US and European

history if one is blind to the fact of a probable conspiracy to create

a North American Union. The mere fact that the EU was formed out of

the European Economic Community, which corresponds to NAFTA, should

alone be enough to clue one in that a continental political body

superceding the national political bodies is the intended product of

the continental economic body, which itself already has the power to

override national legislation.

So, while Jone's site might be tainted with paranoia sometimes, that

offers a reasonable counterweight to other sites tainted by extreme

naivite and blindness to the machinations unfolding before the eyes of

anyone bothering to pay attention.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Aug 17, 2008, at 6:07 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

> Gene,

>

> > Plus, I do think that he's a bit of a buffoon - and clearly thinks a

> > lot of himself. " Chomsky, I'm smarter than you with both hands tied

> > behind my back " , LOL. In any case, I think that one can gain much

> more

> > from reading a little Chomsky, than sifting through the paranoia on

> > ' sites.

>

>

Jesus, - I personally don't care if you can't find it. I heard

it myself, which was on the broadcast of the Chomsky interview, after

Chomsky left the room.

> The only place I can find this quote is on a page arguing that

> was vindicated for his comments, which were made in mid-2001, because

> successfully predicted 9/11:

>

> http://www.rense.com/general82/chom.htm

>

> I have yet to find a recording on youtube or elsewhere.

>

I don't care. Either you're calling me a liar, which I totally resent,

or you're simply saying that you can't find it.

Bye.

>

>

> In any case, I agree that some information on ' site could be

> taken to be unconfirmed paranoia, but you have posted information with

> such a preposterous " everything is fine and there are no conspiracies "

> angle that ' site appears infinitely more reasonable.

>

> For example, you posted an article from ZNet, which is closely

> connected with Chomsky, in which the author called Ron a

> ridiculous conspiracy theoriest for believing the Council on Foreign

> Relations is behind an effort to dissolve the US, Canada and Mexico

> into a North American Union similar to the European Union:

>

> /message/96484

>

> I pointed out that this effort has been covered by mainstream sources

> such as CNN:

>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI

>

> The fact is that one must go through serious effort to disconnect

> oneself from reality and the last twenty years of US and European

> history if one is blind to the fact of a probable conspiracy to create

> a North American Union. The mere fact that the EU was formed out of

> the European Economic Community, which corresponds to NAFTA, should

> alone be enough to clue one in that a continental political body

> superceding the national political bodies is the intended product of

> the continental economic body, which itself already has the power to

> override national legislation.

>

> So, while Jone's site might be tainted with paranoia sometimes, that

> offers a reasonable counterweight to other sites tainted by extreme

> naivite and blindness to the machinations unfolding before the eyes of

> anyone bothering to pay attention.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Took me all of about 30 seconds to find this

* Chomsky, you're a New World Order shill, and I've got twice the

brain you've got with both arms tied behind my back. -- , May

25, 2001 [257]

at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky. Admittedly I remembered

the quote slightly wrong, but obviously the essence is there. I

imagine that the full interview with that quote wouldn't be hard to

find either.

> Gene,

>

> > Plus, I do think that he's a bit of a buffoon - and clearly thinks a

> > lot of himself. " Chomsky, I'm smarter than you with both hands tied

> > behind my back " , LOL. In any case, I think that one can gain much

> more

> > from reading a little Chomsky, than sifting through the paranoia on

> > ' sites.

>

> The only place I can find this quote is on a page arguing that

> was vindicated for his comments, which were made in mid-2001, because

> successfully predicted 9/11:

>

> http://www.rense.com/general82/chom.htm

>

> I have yet to find a recording on youtube or elsewhere.

>

> In any case, I agree that some information on ' site could be

> taken to be unconfirmed paranoia, but you have posted information with

> such a preposterous " everything is fine and there are no conspiracies "

> angle that ' site appears infinitely more reasonable.

>

> For example, you posted an article from ZNet, which is closely

> connected with Chomsky, in which the author called Ron a

> ridiculous conspiracy theoriest for believing the Council on Foreign

> Relations is behind an effort to dissolve the US, Canada and Mexico

> into a North American Union similar to the European Union:

>

> /message/96484

>

> I pointed out that this effort has been covered by mainstream sources

> such as CNN:

>

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI

>

> The fact is that one must go through serious effort to disconnect

> oneself from reality and the last twenty years of US and European

> history if one is blind to the fact of a probable conspiracy to create

> a North American Union. The mere fact that the EU was formed out of

> the European Economic Community, which corresponds to NAFTA, should

> alone be enough to clue one in that a continental political body

> superceding the national political bodies is the intended product of

> the continental economic body, which itself already has the power to

> override national legislation.

>

> So, while Jone's site might be tainted with paranoia sometimes, that

> offers a reasonable counterweight to other sites tainted by extreme

> naivite and blindness to the machinations unfolding before the eyes of

> anyone bothering to pay attention.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 8/17/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> I don't care. Either you're calling me a liar, which I totally resent,

> or you're simply saying that you can't find it.

I was saying that I couldn't find it, the implication being that I

have no way to evaluate the statement within its original context.

Naturally you address only the least salient point within my entire post.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Perhaps, but this is because, as I've already stated, I'm not reading

any more of your simply argumentative posts on this topic.

> On 8/17/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > I don't care. Either you're calling me a liar, which I totally

> resent,

> > or you're simply saying that you can't find it.

>

> I was saying that I couldn't find it, the implication being that I

> have no way to evaluate the statement within its original context.

>

> Naturally you address only the least salient point within my entire

> post.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

To assist you with your searching...

It's right there on youtube - Chomsky leaves in about the last minute

of part 4, and AJ continues his rant into part 5.

> On 8/17/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > I don't care. Either you're calling me a liar, which I totally

> resent,

> > or you're simply saying that you can't find it.

>

> I was saying that I couldn't find it, the implication being that I

> have no way to evaluate the statement within its original context.

>

> Naturally you address only the least salient point within my entire

> post.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

On 8/17/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> Took me all of about 30 seconds to find this

> * Chomsky, you're a New World Order shill, and I've got twice the

> brain you've got with both arms tied behind my back. -- , May

> 25, 2001 [257]

Thanks, Gene. I had found that page, but when I viewed it in cache to

see my keywords highlighted, I erroneously interpreted a statement at

the top to indicate the quote wasn't on the page.

Here is the original source:

http://www.sacredcow.com/media/source/alex/alex_chomsky3.mp3

calls Chomsky a New World Order shill at 13:10 and 14:24 and

asks him to say hi to Rockefeller for him.

The context was gun control. At 10:50, Chomsky falsely states that

handguns were not recently banned in England because they were always

banned in England. disputes him.

The plain facts are that Chomsky was wrong and was right.

==========

http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns

in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From

April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in

London rose 53 percent.

==========

Chomsky obviously doesn't have his facts straight regarding gun

control. showed excessive restraint of " paranoia " and

" conspiracy theory " for not pointing out the hard evidence that Gun

Control Act of 1968 was modeled on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

Chomsky showed excessive naivete in suggesting that gun control is in

the public interest, when it makes people less safe and when it was

seen by Adolf Hitler as a primary means of establishing tyrrany over a

populace.

Here is an article by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

showing that the Nazi law was the source of the American law:

=========

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

brief snippet:

Exhibit No. 62 (see reproduction) is fascinating. This letter -- dated

July 12, 1968 -- is to Subcommittee Chairman Dodd from C.

Coffin, Law Librarian at the Library of Congress. Coffin wrote:

" ... we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of

March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. Solyom-Fekete of [the European

Law Division -- ed.] as well as the Xerox of the original German text

which you supplied " (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added).

This letter makes it public knowledge that at the end of June 1968 --

4 months before GCA '68 was enacted -- Senator J. Dodd, now

deceased, personally owned a copy of the original German text of the

Nazi Weapons Law.

======

Here is a chart produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms

Ownership showing the connection between gun control laws and

subsequent genocidal campaigns:

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#dgc

So, I think ' paranoia wins out over Chomsky's naivete on this

particular issue.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Enough of you. Really. Whether Chomsky has his facts right or not,

I'm not going to spend my entire evening researching it because

whether Chomsky is occasionally wrong or not isn't the point. The

notion that he is a 'new order shill' is patently ridiculous. And of

course, the notion that the buffoon is smarter than Noam

Chomsky is a joke of the first order. What he's really jealous about

is that, in the 'real world', educated people actually respect Chomsky.

I believe in gun control btw. You're stating an opinion, not a fact,

that allowing ownership of guns makes us safer. You're welcome to it.

Is there anyone on this god forsaken corner of the universe who isn't

an occult, gun totin' conspiracist? Or are they all cowed into silence?

> On 8/17/08, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> > Took me all of about 30 seconds to find this

> > * Chomsky, you're a New World Order shill, and I've got twice the

> > brain you've got with both arms tied behind my back. -- ,

> May

> > 25, 2001 [257]

>

> Thanks, Gene. I had found that page, but when I viewed it in cache to

> see my keywords highlighted, I erroneously interpreted a statement at

> the top to indicate the quote wasn't on the page.

>

> Here is the original source:

>

> http://www.sacredcow.com/media/source/alex/alex_chomsky3.mp3

>

> calls Chomsky a New World Order shill at 13:10 and 14:24 and

> asks him to say hi to Rockefeller for him.

>

> The context was gun control. At 10:50, Chomsky falsely states that

> handguns were not recently banned in England because they were always

> banned in England. disputes him.

>

> The plain facts are that Chomsky was wrong and was right.

>

> ==========

> http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

>

> In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns

> in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From

> April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in

> London rose 53 percent.

> ==========

>

> Chomsky obviously doesn't have his facts straight regarding gun

> control. showed excessive restraint of " paranoia " and

> " conspiracy theory " for not pointing out the hard evidence that Gun

> Control Act of 1968 was modeled on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

> Chomsky showed excessive naivete in suggesting that gun control is in

> the public interest, when it makes people less safe and when it was

> seen by Adolf Hitler as a primary means of establishing tyrrany over a

> populace.

>

> Here is an article by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

> showing that the Nazi law was the source of the American law:

>

> =========

> http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

>

> brief snippet:

>

> Exhibit No. 62 (see reproduction) is fascinating. This letter -- dated

> July 12, 1968 -- is to Subcommittee Chairman Dodd from C.

> Coffin, Law Librarian at the Library of Congress. Coffin wrote:

>

> " ... we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of

> March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. Solyom-Fekete of [the European

> Law Division -- ed.] as well as the Xerox of the original German text

> which you supplied " (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added).

>

> This letter makes it public knowledge that at the end of June 1968 --

> 4 months before GCA '68 was enacted -- Senator J. Dodd, now

> deceased, personally owned a copy of the original German text of the

> Nazi Weapons Law.

> ======

>

> Here is a chart produced by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms

> Ownership showing the connection between gun control laws and

> subsequent genocidal campaigns:

>

> http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#dgc

>

> So, I think ' paranoia wins out over Chomsky's naivete on this

> particular issue.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> Enough of you. Really. Whether Chomsky has his facts right or not,

> I'm not going to spend my entire evening researching it because

> whether Chomsky is occasionally wrong or not isn't the point. The

> notion that he is a 'new order shill' is patently ridiculous. And of

> course, the notion that the buffoon is smarter than Noam

> Chomsky is a joke of the first order. What he's really jealous about

> is that, in the 'real world', educated people actually respect Chomsky.

Regardless of whether anyone respects or disrespects Chomsky, the fact

remains that this has been one of your most common criticisms of

, which you have brought up to discredit a) an article on

possible voter fraud in NH written by someone else posted on

prisonplanet.com; a description by Ron about the contents of

the housing bailout bill that the House had just signed, posted on

youtube and embedded in an infowars.com page; and c) information on

Stanford University law professor Larry Lessig's allegation that there

is an internet Patriot Act looming, which had made comments on.

Granted, before getting into his smarter-than-Chomsky quote in the

last case, you did point out ' hateful bigotry first, by posting

a compliation of links to articles written by other people that you

insisted you did not need to read in order to deduce that is a

hateful bigot, which of course does not require him hating anyone in

your definition.

So, what it boils down to, is that regardless of whether all these

things are factually correct, the mere fact that they can in some

indirect way be tied to , who, despite being factually

correct, is less respected by " educated " people than Chomsky is, makes

them highly suspect and a distraction from serious issues like

anti-feminism and homophobia. Much more serious than voter fraud,

corporate welfare, the rise of the surveillance state, and the

potentially imminent loss of the internet as a medium of free

exchange.

> I believe in gun control btw. You're stating an opinion, not a fact,

> that allowing ownership of guns makes us safer. You're welcome to it.

It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is true

that I have not offered a comprehensive list of facts supporting the

statement, but whether gun control makes society safer or less

dangerous is a matter of fact and can be measured and data can be

presented. I did offer data showing that the rate of gun crime went

up dramatically in England after the banning of handguns, which is,

quite clearly, not an opinion.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Aug 17, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Masterjohn wrote:

> Gene,

>

> > Enough of you. Really. Whether Chomsky has his facts right or not,

> > I'm not going to spend my entire evening researching it because

> > whether Chomsky is occasionally wrong or not isn't the point. The

> > notion that he is a 'new order shill' is patently ridiculous. And of

> > course, the notion that the buffoon is smarter than Noam

> > Chomsky is a joke of the first order. What he's really jealous about

> > is that, in the 'real world', educated people actually respect

> Chomsky.

>

> Regardless of whether anyone respects or disrespects Chomsky, the fact

> remains that this has been one of your most common criticisms of

> , which you have brought up to discredit a) an article on

> possible voter fraud in NH written by someone else posted on

> prisonplanet.com; a description by Ron about the contents of

> the housing bailout bill that the House had just signed, posted on

> youtube and embedded in an infowars.com page; and c) information on

> Stanford University law professor Larry Lessig's allegation that there

> is an internet Patriot Act looming, which had made comments on.

>

uh - that what exactly has been one of my most common criticisms? I'm

absolutely dumfounded that you have kept track of my posts to this

degree. I'd have to spend hours researching these old threads and what

I said, exactly.

btw, apparently these crime figures aren't agreed upon unanimously. I

did find what seemed to be unanimous agreement on libertarian sites,

but I'm simply not convinced that Chomsky is wrong. IN any case, I

don't recall making the argument that is never right? So I

really don't know wtf you are talking about, and how it's relevant.

>

>

> Granted, before getting into his smarter-than-Chomsky quote in the

> last case, you did point out ' hateful bigotry first, by posting

> a compliation of links to articles written by other people that you

> insisted you did not need to read in order to deduce that is a

> hateful bigot, which of course does not require him hating anyone in

> your definition.

>

I think that I made my argument pretty clear. Again, you choose to

oversimplify it. I really hope that your science is better than your

argumentation in general, because frankly I see no substance to it.

>

>

> So, what it boils down to, is that regardless of whether all these

> things are factually correct, the mere fact that they can in some

> indirect way be tied to , who, despite being factually

> correct, is less respected by " educated " people than Chomsky is, makes

> them highly suspect and a distraction from serious issues like

> anti-feminism and homophobia. Much more serious than voter fraud,

> corporate welfare, the rise of the surveillance state, and the

> potentially imminent loss of the internet as a medium of free

> exchange.

>

> > I believe in gun control btw. You're stating an opinion, not a fact,

> > that allowing ownership of guns makes us safer. You're welcome to

> it.

>

> It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is true

> that I have not offered a comprehensive list of facts supporting the

> statement, but whether gun control makes society safer or less

> dangerous is a matter of fact and can be measured and data can be

> presented. I did offer data showing that the rate of gun crime went

> up dramatically in England after the banning of handguns, which is,

> quite clearly, not an opinion.

>

>

Ok. Chris. You have declared that it is FACT that people are less safe

with gun control. I bow down before you. I wouldn't claim that it is

FACT that gun control makes people safer - I think that there is some

dispute on the issue, but Masterjohn obviously knows what the

facts are, and all of the many people, far more educated than hem, who

disbelieve what he says, are obviously ignorant and unaware of these

FACTS.

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Chomsky obviously doesn't have his facts straight regarding gun

> control. showed excessive restraint of " paranoia " and

> " conspiracy theory " for not pointing out the hard evidence that Gun

> Control Act of 1968 was modeled on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

> Chomsky showed excessive naivete in suggesting that gun control is in

> the public interest, when it makes people less safe and when it was

> seen by Adolf Hitler as a primary means of establishing tyrrany over a

> populace.

Although I'm a proponent of the right to keep and bear arms, it's a

little bit excessive to simply state it as a matter of faith that gun

control makes people less safe. The reality is that the question is

extremely complex and probably can't be answered satisfactorily. And

citing an attitude of Hitler's simply doesn't pass the smell test when

it comes to logical rigor.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Of all people, you should know that correlation does not equal

causation.

-

> > I believe in gun control btw. You're stating an opinion, not a fact,

> > that allowing ownership of guns makes us safer. You're welcome to

> it.

>

> It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is true

> that I have not offered a comprehensive list of facts supporting the

> statement, but whether gun control makes society safer or less

> dangerous is a matter of fact and can be measured and data can be

> presented. I did offer data showing that the rate of gun crime went

> up dramatically in England after the banning of handguns, which is,

> quite clearly, not an opinion.

[Guest guest]

THANK YOU for this and your last post.

> Chris-

>

> Of all people, you should know that correlation does not equal

> causation.

>

> -

>

> > > I believe in gun control btw. You're stating an opinion, not a

> fact,

> > > that allowing ownership of guns makes us safer. You're welcome to

> > it.

> >

> > It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is true

> > that I have not offered a comprehensive list of facts supporting the

> > statement, but whether gun control makes society safer or less

> > dangerous is a matter of fact and can be measured and data can be

> > presented. I did offer data showing that the rate of gun crime went

> > up dramatically in England after the banning of handguns, which is,

> > quite clearly, not an opinion.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> uh - that what exactly has been one of my most common criticisms? I'm

> absolutely dumfounded that you have kept track of my posts to this

> degree. I'd have to spend hours researching these old threads and what

> I said, exactly.

Not, really. Until this recent thread (which you started a few days

ago apparently in response to the thread about Stanford University's

Larry Lessig alleging the internet Patriot Act) there were only one or

two dozen posts that turned up for " " in the archives.

The first of them was when you cast doubt on an article on voter fraud

not written by him but posted on one of his sites because he was a

crackpot conspiracy nut who thought he was smarter than Chomsky:

/message/96326

> btw, apparently these crime figures aren't agreed upon unanimously. I

> did find what seemed to be unanimous agreement on libertarian sites,

> but I'm simply not convinced that Chomsky is wrong.

Chomsky said that guns were never allowed in Britain, and that Britain

did not recently ban them. While people may disagree about how to

splice the violent crime stats, I doubt people disagree that handguns

were banned in 1997.

> IN any case, I

> don't recall making the argument that is never right? So I

> really don't know wtf you are talking about, and how it's relevant.

Well no, you didn't argue he is never right. But it is somewhat

ironic that you keep using this quote about being smarter than Chomsky

over and over again to show how much of a nutcase he is, when in that

example, he happened to be right in the argument that led up to the

comment.

So, I'm sure Chomsky would beat on an IQ test and he has

certainly climbed up the academic ladder further and gotten more

respect from " educated " people (I think Chomsky might point out that

" educated " means " indoctrinated " ), but if keeps all his facts

straight (at least in this instance) and wants to call that being

" smart " I think I'd cut him a little slack.

>> It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is true

>> that I have not offered a comprehensive list of facts supporting the

>> statement, but whether gun control makes society safer or less

>> dangerous is a matter of fact and can be measured and data can be

>> presented. I did offer data showing that the rate of gun crime went

>> up dramatically in England after the banning of handguns, which is,

>> quite clearly, not an opinion.

> Ok. Chris. You have declared that it is FACT that people are less safe

> with gun control. I bow down before you. I wouldn't claim that it is

> FACT that gun control makes people safer - I think that there is some

> dispute on the issue, but Masterjohn obviously knows what the

> facts are, and all of the many people, far more educated than hem, who

> disbelieve what he says, are obviously ignorant and unaware of these

> FACTS.

Well I suppose we all have our opinions about what we think the facts

might be, but it is still a matter of fact. Whether we should ban

guns or regulate them is an opinion, whether they are cool, or vile,

is an opinion, whether chocolate ice cream is the best flavor is an

opinion, but it is a matter of measurable fact whether gun control

produces increases, decreases, or no meaningful changes in the rate of

violent crime.

I did not say " I have presented a fact, now accept my argument and bow

down before me, " but simply " this issue is a matter of fact, not

opinion. " That is different than saying all the facts are in, or that

they have all been presented here.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Chomsky said that guns were never allowed in Britain, and that Britain

> did not recently ban them. While people may disagree about how to

> splice the violent crime stats, I doubt people disagree that handguns

> were banned in 1997.

I have no idea how Chomsky phrased his statement, and maybe he was in

fact flat-out wrong, but while it's true that the 1997 legislation

further curtailed gun ownership in Britain, it had already been

difficult and extremely limited even beforehand. Here's how Wikipedia

describes the impact.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom>

>> A measure of the extent of legal firearms ownership in Great

>> Britain (post-Dunblane legislation did not extend to Northern

>> Ireland) is that the handgun bans affected an estimated 57,000

>> people - 0.1% of the population, or 1 in every 960 persons.[15] At

>> the time, the renewal cycle for FACs was five years, meaning that

>> it would take six years for the full reduction of valid

>> certificates to be seen for both large calibre or .22 handguns bans

>> (i.e. because certificates would remain in force, even if the

>> holder had disposed of all their weapons). On 31 December 1996,

>> prior to the large calibre handgun ban, there were 133,600 FACs on

>> issue in England and Wales; by 31 December 1997 it had fallen to

>> 131,900. The following year, after the .22 handgun ban, the number

>> stood at 131,900. On 31 December 2001, five years after the large

>> calibre ban, the number had fallen to 119,600 and 117,700 the

>> following year.[16] This represents a net drop of 24,200

>> certificates. Comparable figures for Scotland show a net drop of

>> 5,841 from 32,053 to 26,212 certificates,[17] making a GB total net

>> drop of 30,041. However, while the number of certificates in

>> England and Wales rose each year after 2002 to stand at 126,400 at

>> 31 March 2005 (due to a change in reporting period), those in

>> Scotland remained relatively static, standing at 26,538 at 31

>> December 2005.

Note that over the course of five years, the ban reduced the number of

licenses by all of 24,200 across all of England and Wales, countries

with an aggregate population at the time of somewhere around 50 million.

-

[Guest guest]

,

> I have no idea how Chomsky phrased his statement, and maybe he was in

> fact flat-out wrong, but while it's true that the 1997 legislation

> further curtailed gun ownership in Britain, it had already been

> difficult and extremely limited even beforehand. Here's how Wikipedia

> describes the impact.

Here is the interview (third part):

http://www.sacredcow.com/media/source/alex/alex_chomsky3.mp3

At 10:50, Chomsky states that hand guns were always banned in England.

The facts you posted are of course very relevant but it seems that

Chomsky was just wrong in this case.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> > Ok. Chris. You have declared that it is FACT that people are less

> safe

> > with gun control. I bow down before you. I wouldn't claim that it is

> > FACT that gun control makes people safer - I think that there is

> some

> > dispute on the issue, but Masterjohn obviously knows what the

> > facts are, and all of the many people, far more educated than hem,

> who

> > disbelieve what he says, are obviously ignorant and unaware of these

> > FACTS.

>

> Well I suppose we all have our opinions about what we think the facts

> might be, but it is still a matter of fact. Whether we should ban

> guns or regulate them is an opinion, whether they are cool, or vile,

> is an opinion, whether chocolate ice cream is the best flavor is an

> opinion, but it is a matter of measurable fact whether gun control

> produces increases, decreases, or no meaningful changes in the rate of

> violent crime.

>

> I did not say " I have presented a fact, now accept my argument and bow

> down before me, " but simply " this issue is a matter of fact, not

> opinion. " That is different than saying all the facts are in, or that

> they have all been presented here.

You could definitely argue that the question of whether gun control

increases or decreases public safety is factual, but my counter-

argument would be that the question is far too coarse to be a true

matter of fact. Control of what types of guns? What types of control?

Where? When? How strict? And so on. Conditions and circumstances will

undoubtedly influence the effects of gun control, and thus there

almost surely will be no single answer to the larger umbrella

question. More to the point, though, since we only have

epidemiological data, it's not actually possible to ANSWER the

questions of fact and determine what the facts really ARE. In order to

conclusively settle the question of whether gun control makes us safer

or less safe, we'd have to launch a large number of rigorously

controlled prospective studies, and that's obviously impossible. And

even if we somehow were magically able to conduct such studies, we'd

still only be able to measure certain limited types of safety, e.g.

from violent crime. Trying to definitively quantify the impact of

civilian gun ownership on the development of repressive government

would simply be a fool's errand. Again, you of all people should

understand this, because you're so frequently forced to fight the

correlation-causation fallacy in the domains of nutrition, health and

medicine.

Bear in mind, I say all this as a proponent of the right to keep and

bear arms. I think it's a vital civil liberty and, yes, an important

deterrent, but allowing the debate to be framed around the question of

safety is a tragic error. That's how all our civil liberties get

chiseled away.

-

[Guest guest]

Suze-

> Enjoy your police state and tyrannical government while we waste our

> time

> here discussing ' views on homosexuality

To paraphrase from the poem commonly attributed to Pastor

Niemöller, first they came for the faggots, and I didn't speak up

because I wasn't a faggot. My point being that it's impossible to

preserve freedom by playing the " whose freedom is more important? " game.

-

[Guest guest]

On Aug 18, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Masterjohn wrote:

> Gene,

>

> > uh - that what exactly has been one of my most common criticisms?

> I'm

> > absolutely dumfounded that you have kept track of my posts to this

> > degree. I'd have to spend hours researching these old threads and

> what

> > I said, exactly.

>

> Not, really. Until this recent thread (which you started a few days

> ago apparently in response to the thread about Stanford University's

> Larry Lessig alleging the internet Patriot Act) there were only one or

> two dozen posts that turned up for " " in the archives.

>

Sorry, but however long it takes, I've said already that I have no

wish to put in a huge amount of energy arguing with you when you seem

to have no desire to argue the case with some intellectual integrity.

>

>

snip

> > IN any case, I

> > don't recall making the argument that is never right?

> So I

> > really don't know wtf you are talking about, and how it's relevant.

>

> Well no, you didn't argue he is never right. But it is somewhat

> ironic that you keep using this quote about being smarter than Chomsky

> over and over again to show how much of a nutcase he is, when in that

> example, he happened to be right in the argument that led up to the

> comment.

>

" somewhat ironic " . LOL. First of all, I'm not convinced that

is right and Chomsky is wrong, and that you've researched the

matter thoroughly. As I've said, I don't think that this is the point.

>

>

> So, I'm sure Chomsky would beat on an IQ test and he has

> certainly climbed up the academic ladder further and gotten more

> respect from " educated " people (I think Chomsky might point out that

> " educated " means " indoctrinated " ), but if keeps all his facts

> straight (at least in this instance) and wants to call that being

> " smart " I think I'd cut him a little slack.

>

So, then, you agree that Chomsky is a " shill of the new world order " .

Amazing. You are simply amazing, Chris. You simply have no shame. Done

reading.

>

>

> >> It is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. It is true

> >> that I have not offered a comprehensive list of facts supporting

> the

> >> statement, but whether gun control makes society safer or less

> >> dangerous is a matter of fact and can be measured and data can be

> >> presented. I did offer data showing that the rate of gun crime went

> >> up dramatically in England after the banning of handguns, which is,

> >> quite clearly, not an opinion.

>

> > Ok. Chris. You have declared that it is FACT that people are less

> safe

> > with gun control. I bow down before you. I wouldn't claim that it is

> > FACT that gun control makes people safer - I think that there is

> some

> > dispute on the issue, but Masterjohn obviously knows what the

> > facts are, and all of the many people, far more educated than hem,

> who

> > disbelieve what he says, are obviously ignorant and unaware of these

> > FACTS.

>

> Well I suppose we all have our opinions about what we think the facts

> might be, but it is still a matter of fact. Whether we should ban

> guns or regulate them is an opinion, whether they are cool, or vile,

> is an opinion, whether chocolate ice cream is the best flavor is an

> opinion, but it is a matter of measurable fact whether gun control

> produces increases, decreases, or no meaningful changes in the rate of

> violent crime.

>

> I did not say " I have presented a fact, now accept my argument and bow

> down before me, " but simply " this issue is a matter of fact, not

> opinion. " That is different than saying all the facts are in, or that

> they have all been presented here.

>

> Chris

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

> To paraphrase from the poem commonly attributed to Pastor

> Niemöller, first they came for the faggots, and I didn't speak up

> because I wasn't a faggot. My point being that it's impossible to

> preserve freedom by playing the " whose freedom is more important? " game.

I agree with you so completely but I think you have the future

scenario backwards. The article was about large corporations

manipulating the moral beliefs of its employees. We should certainly

support the liberties of homosexuals (which means supporting the

liberties of people, since I think the idea that homosexuals are some

individual class of people is an ideological assumption).

However, we should defend the rights of people to personally abhor

homosexuality for the same reason as the slipper slope argument you

present. First they came for the people who thought homosexuality was

immoral, and I didn't speak up. Then they came for the people who

thought taxes were immoral, and I didn't speak up. Then they came for

the people who thought war was immoral, and I didn't speak up. Then

they came for the people who thought other people should be able to

criticize the government, and I didn't speak up. Then they came for

me, and there was no one left to speak up for me.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Gene-

> " somewhat ironic " . LOL. First of all, I'm not convinced that

> is right and Chomsky is wrong, and that you've researched the

> matter thoroughly. As I've said, I don't think that this is the point.

To a degree it's a matter of semantics, as my understanding is that

even before the 1997 ban, handgun ownership was EXTREMELY restricted

(demonstrated by the stats in my post of earlier this morning) but on

balance, I think it's fair to say was more correct than Chomsky

even though the 1997 ban wasn't entirely a complete one itself.

>> So, I'm sure Chomsky would beat on an IQ test and he has

>> certainly climbed up the academic ladder further and gotten more

>> respect from " educated " people (I think Chomsky might point out that

>> " educated " means " indoctrinated " ), but if keeps all his facts

>> straight (at least in this instance) and wants to call that being

>> " smart " I think I'd cut him a little slack.

>

> So, then, you agree that Chomsky is a " shill of the new world order " .

> Amazing. You are simply amazing, Chris. You simply have no shame. Done

> reading.

I have no idea how you interpret Chris's statement to betoken

agreement that Chomsky is a shill of the new world order. As far as I

can see, your conclusion is logically insupportable.

-