The Irrationalism of David Hogg Media Sensation

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"Hogg isn't yet that conscious."

Post by henry quirk » Fri Apr 06, 2018 3:59 pm

He's a friggin' embryo...he ain't 'conscious' of diddly outside of his own lil passions.

And: he and all the other kidlets are just the 'flavor of the day'...next year, this time: no one will remember them or give a sparrow's fart what they're doin'.

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: The Irrationalism of David Hogg Media Sensation

Post by Science Fan » Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:00 pm

I really detest the fact that Hogg claims to represent all of the shooting victims. How so? After all, the shooter was a neo-Nazi and he shot and killed something like 6 Jews, which is a disproportionate number of Jews having been killed in the attack. That's not surprising, since the shooter was a neo-Nazi who regularly posted anti-Semitic comments. He specifically targeted Jews in the attack. Hogg is not Jewish. The left-wing gun control advocates do not represent Jews either. Basically, their logic is Orwellian: "Hey, Jews, because you were gunned down by a neo-Nazi, we are going to take away your access to guns." It's so Orwellian, that even the left does not want anyone to reduce their arguments to this level of absurdity; however, that is exactly what they are arguing.

uwot
Posts: 4311
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: The Irrationalism of David Hogg Media Sensation

Post by uwot » Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:10 pm

Science Fan wrote:
Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:00 pm
Basically, their logic is Orwellian: "Hey, Jews, because you were gunned down by a neo-Nazi, we are going to take away your access to guns."
So would it be a good idea to take away neo-Nazis' access to guns?

Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: The Irrationalism of David Hogg Media Sensation

Post by Science Fan » Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:22 pm

No. It would, however, be a good idea to take away people's access to guns who go around threatening to harm people. However, it would be a violation of freedom of speech to take away guns from those holding fascist political views. He actually was writing about killing Jews on social media forums. That type of mental instability should not be allowed to own a gun.

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: The Irrationalism of David Hogg Media Sensation

Post by fooloso4 » Sun Apr 08, 2018 2:10 pm

Science Fan:
I have yet to see, however, anyone in the media mention the most obvious point in all this ---- David Hogg is not an expert on gun control simply because he is a victim of gun violence.

Yet, journalists seem to think so and present him as such in the mass media, which is a sure sign that journalists lack basic critical-thinking skills, and are certainly not philosophers.
David Hogg speaks as a witness to something that most of us have been fortunate enough to stand at a safe distance from. How this is spun for entertainment purposes has nothing to do with journalism and is certainly not an indication that journalists lack critical thinking skills. Journalists are still found mostly working with the written word and many of those who write editorials have as much claim to the title “philosopher” as anyone here.

As to experts on gun control, those on every side of the issue support their opinions with data, but the data is inconclusive. No studies have shown a causal relationship either way. In the United States the NRA backed (mostly) Republican politicians have effectively blocked the kind of critical research necessary in order for the title of “expert on gun control” to have significant meaning.

The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.
The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of “putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,” said Mr. Cox [the NRA’s chief lobbist], who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.
Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

“It’s really simple with me,” Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.”

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26 ... d=all&_r=0)
Clearly, as far as NRA based lawmakers are concerned, facts and evidence must take a backseat to political ideology. As part of a political agenda backed by the NRA, scientific research is to be twarted because facts and evidence are alleged to reflect a political agenda.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:06 pm

"David Hogg speaks as a witness"

But he ain't the only one, and some of the other 'witnesses' are sayin' different things, things that stand in opposition to what Hogg is sayin'.

meh

As I say up-thread: I don't give a flip what Hogg has to say...he's a kid bein' used as tool, a mouthpiece.

And, no, I don't give a flip what the other opposing 'witnesses' have to say either.

Here's reality: I own a shotgun...I've committed no crime with my coach gun...I won't be penalized cuz of the bad acts of others.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8059
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Irrationalism of David Hogg Media Sensation

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:07 pm

I'm sure no one wants to take away ur widdle gunnywunny.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:27 pm

Wrong, veg, wrong.

A number of municipalities are movin' to implement regs that hobble gun ownership.

Thing is: the only folks who'll be affected are law abiders.

Nutjobs and criminals won't abide the new regs, and folks like me (current law abiders) will be turned into criminals.

Any one sayin' there's no move to disarm folks is poorly informed or just plain lyin'.

Which are you, veg: ignorant or dishonest?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8059
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re:

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:04 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 7:27 pm

Which are you, veg: ignorant or dishonest?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
You are more than welcome to your guns, so stop fretting. Eventually Americans will get fed up with their children getting murdered, and social evolution will take care of it.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:09 pm

Ignorant (willfully so).

Just as bad as bein' a lowdown liar.

Corrosive either way.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8059
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re:

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Apr 08, 2018 9:39 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Sun Apr 08, 2018 8:09 pm
Ignorant (willfully so).

Just as bad as bein' a lowdown liar.

Corrosive either way.
In what way? Change is inevitable--in everything. You must know that. It doesn't give a flying fuck about politics.
If they clamp down on ownership of assault rifles that won't affect you anyway. You will still be able to have your shotgun. I really don't see where you are coming from.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:52 am

"If they clamp down on ownership of assault rifles that won't affect you anyway. You will still be able to have your shotgun. I really don't see where you are coming from."

Today the AR-15; tomorrow or the day after, the coach gun.

These gun controllers want them all gone, you better believe it.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8059
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re:

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Mon Apr 09, 2018 4:00 am

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:52 am
"If they clamp down on ownership of assault rifles that won't affect you anyway. You will still be able to have your shotgun. I really don't see where you are coming from."

Today the AR-15; tomorrow or the day after, the coach gun.

These gun controllers want them all gone, you better believe it.
It's just not rational to think that. You would have a revolution before that happened. An assault rifle is hardly a necessity.

Walker
Posts: 6679
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: The Irrationalism of David Hogg Media Sensation

Post by Walker » Mon Apr 09, 2018 6:14 am

Won’t be long before London is confiscating knives, but there probably won’t be a revolution over it.

Gives new meaning to chewing the fat.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:07 am

"It's just not rational to think that."

When folks tell you they wanna take away X how is it not rational to take 'em at their word?

#

"You would have a revolution before that happened."

Probably....that possibility doesn't seem to bother the gun controllers.

#

"An assault rifle is hardly a necessity."

Not the point.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests