Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Of Guns and Skeptics

OK. Despite the specifics of the title, this is going to be a fairly wide ranging and rambling post (no sniggering at the back). I've been talking over at Bronze Dog's place about gun control and a couple of things struck me. That and my responses were about to exceed the Blogger comment limit and I thought "Hey if only I had a neglected and half-arsed space on the Internet where people could see my thoughts manifested as text on a computer screen." So I decided to do a blog post instead.

I apologise (especially to Bronze Dog) for initiating a game of blog tag.

And for those who have read my posts in the past, be warned. I treat unsupported or poorly presented gun control arguments with the same contempt I have for woo arguments. Just saying.


About me and guns

In order to preempt the inevitable future accusations of being some gun hating liberal let me first dismiss the 'gun hating' part. I like guns. Guns are cool. In the right hands.

I shot .22 inch and 5.56 mm target rifles at paper targets regularly between the ages of 13 and 18, after some pretty comprehensive training. Before 13 I was also into archery. After university I qualified as a marksmanship coach through the ATC/RAF - I was trained by a police marksman, people who had represented the UK at pistol target shooting and a serving member of the RAF Regiment. I was the shooting officer for my ATC squadron and during this time my cadets became the best L98 shooting team in Trent Wing, ATC. I was a pretty good shooting coach and was thinking about going for my range certificate so that I could be a Range Conducting Officer. I trained other people how to use guns and how to shoot them properly and accurately. I was incredibly anal about safety, I lost count of the number of times I threatened to throw people off my firing point because they were not concentrating. I still tell my kids when they aim a water pistol at me that the first rule of weapon safety is "Never point a weapon at anybody whether loaded or unloaded."

I say this just to establish the fact that I have no problem with guns themselves and that I know a thing or two about them, people using them, what they can do and what people need to know about them. This does not make my views the authoritative views on the subject though - like I said, I'm just preempting the inevitable.

And I just remembered that when I was still doing the shooting stuff we all hated people who called them guns.

Why 'Of Skeptics'

And here is where I'll start to piss people off.

I've found in my travels through the skeptical blogosphere that critical thinking often stops when people get to a personal political or social viewpoint. Just look at the number of skeptics and atheists who also happen to be Libertarians as well. Don't tell me that someone who thinks unregulated companies can do better than governments at protecting individual interests and liberties is a critical thinker.

Gun control is one of those issues, I have found. On quite a few occasions already in the brief discussion over at the Bronze Blog I have found skeptics making inconsistent and unsupported arguments; arguments not supported by the facts; guesses and statements based on nothing but inaccurate or uninformed opinions. At times logic even seems to be taking a vacation.

And yet these are people who when arguing about religion or pseudo-science are careful to make well crafted, well researched and well supported posts. These are people whose opinions I've admired from a blogging point of view as well presented and argued. I'll go into the specifics later, but is this the case that Shermer makes for why smart people believe weird things in action?

So anyway, as well as looking at the arguments presented so far in the Bronze Blog thread, I'm going to be looking at this: what seems to me to be the suspension of critical thinking in relation to personally held views.

My experience with anti-gun control arguments

I've had a few arguments about gun control in the past. Hell I used to be anti-gun control and I did, in the past, use some of the arguments I'm about to list.

Anyway, I have noticed that the same arguments come up again and again. Some good, some bad. Some terrible.
  1. It's in the Constitution.
  2. It's a liberty the government can't take away or has to justify taking away.
  3. You can't/shouldn't ban gun ownership because people like shooting/owning guns.
  4. Target shooting is a sport.
  5. Hunting.
  6. They can be used for self defence.
  7. Banning guns doesn't stop gun crime.
  8. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
  9. X and Y massacres were committed with illegal guns so banning guns wouldn't have stopped them.
  10. Massacres are rare so why ban guns or how do you know banning guns stops them.
  11. Civilian guns are different to military guns so don't need to be banned.
  12. You're just a gun hating liberal.
  13. So what if guns are made to kill, that doesn't mean they are wrong or should be banned.
  14. Swimming pools/cars kill more people than guns, should we ban them?
  15. You just don't understand where I'm coming from and that's why you don't get it.
  16. EDITED 27/8 to add this after Techskeptic reminded me: Citizens need to be armed to defend themselves from tyranny and government oppression.
That's not a comprehensive list I'm sure, but these are ones I hear often (or variations of them), or have just recently heard in this latest discussion. I'm not going to be looking at all of these, because not all of them came up this time. And there's another reason - I don't intend to put down my complete argument about gun control.

Why not?

Here's where I am really going to piss people off - I see many similarities between anti-gun control arguments and the way they are phrased and presented and the way many proponents of woo and religion phrase and present their arguments.

In particular I am talking about creationists or the proponents of 'Big Pharma bad, alternative medicine good' arguments. The creationist tactic is to attack Evolution (the argument of their opponents) but to ignore calls for them to explain their position and the evidence for it. The same is true of those pushing alternative medicine and attacking Big Pharma, they like to attack incidences of 'allopathic' medicine killing people etc and don't think they need to examine their own arguments.

So, I'm not going to present my arguments (at least not yet) because I don't want my opponents (those against gun control) to focus on that rather than explaining and defending their own position first. Unfortunately, at least one of them admits they feel they don't have to do so.

So, how are these skeptics like those others?

Does the notion of someone claiming they don't have to defend their position when you do sound familiar to anyone of a skeptical bent? It should if you spend any time in the skeptical blogosphere.

When a religious believer says there is a god and they don't need to prove it because the person saying there isn't one is the one making the claim, how do skeptics respond?

So why do some skeptics say they don't have to defend the freedom to own guns, it just is a liberty they should have; and the person saying it isn't is the one who is making a claim they need to defend?

Why has the burden of proof shifted from the person making the positive claim to the person assuming the negative until presented with evidence showing otherwise?

How many times as a skeptic have you heard this:

You don't understand why [insert alternative medicine] works because you have a different mindset/paradigm/set of axioms to the Oriental/Traditional medicine one?
Well, how is that different to:

You don't understand why gun ownership is a liberty I don't need to defend because you have a different mindset/paradigm/set of axioms that says it is OK to take away liberties?
Regardless of what I might or might not believe, someone should be able to defend the reasoning and evidence behind their belief. The reasoning and evidence speak for themselves. I thought that is what skeptics and critical thinkers believed.

The argument

OK, so on to specifics.

Early on, Dunc wrote:

Whilst I think we may have gone a bit too far here in the UK (what with banning all handguns)
This prompted me to respond:

Why does your average citizen need access to firearms?

Until someone can satisfactorily explain why gun ownership is a necessary right, why is there any debate?

For instance, why do you say that a ban on all handguns is going too far Dunc? Why is it? Why should people be allowed ownership of something whose sole intended purpose is to kill?
And so it began.

Dunc responded:

I regard target shooting as a perfectly legitimate pass-time - it's an Olympic sport, after all. Next you'll be asking me why I've got a takedown recurve bow under my bed... It's certainly not for shooting anything live - I've only got target points.
Which is arguments 3 and 4 from the list above with a hint of number 12 thrown in.

People liking shooting is not a justifiable reason for allowing it - it's an argument from personal preferences. I listed some other things that people like to do that are also banned or illegal. Liking something is no good reason to assume it is right or justified. This could be argued to be a form of the Appeal to Popularity, or more accurately the Appeal to Common Practice.

James K then added this:

Many people held to the belief that it is up to the government to justify taking away a liberty, rather than it being up to you to justify keeping it.
This is argument number 2 from the list. I responded that I am not the government. I wanted him to explain to me, not the government, why this liberty was one that shouldn't be taken away. This was a chance for an anti-gun control proponent to explain his position.

I had also earlier in the discussion asked why private citizens had a right to own something that is designed with the purpose of killing. Almost all guns don't have another purpose, they are designed to kill. As I later pointed out, even the ones that aren't designed specifically to kill can still be used very easily to do so and without any modification.

James K responded:

As for the "designed to kill" part. This is the Genetic Fallacy, it doesn't matter what its designed to do, all that matters are the costs and benefits.
Here's the Genetic Fallacy. What I wrote is not the Genetic Fallacy.

I responded that my question is not an example of the Genetic Fallacy, I made no claim that guns are wrong or true or false because they are designed to kill or that gun ownership is wrong or true or false because guns are designed to kill. I asked why it is a liberty to own something designed to do this.

Note that I understand perfectly well that some firearms are designed just for target shooting, but they are highly specialised and the overwhelming majority of gun owners do not own this type of firearm.

James K further wrote:

In Freakonomics, Levitt notes that swimming pools kill more children than guns, so should swimming pools be illegal? People don't need pools after all.
This is argument 14 from the list, although I more commonly hear it as cars rather than swimming pools.

The problem with this is that it does not compare like with like - swimming pools are not designed to kill. If anything, this is evidence that things that can kill should be more tightly controlled or supervised. Which, lo and behold, is actually an argument for gun control.

Dunc then posted:

Well, I simply don't think that a total ban is either justified or necessary.
What someone thinks is irrelevant isn't it? Would you accept a creationist argument because it is what they think? He highlights that gun control in the UK was very strict anyway before firearms were banned outright and that he thinks this goes too far. I happen to agree - but Dunc does not explain why it goes too far other than to reiterate that some people who used to target shoot before the ban now can't.

So what? Why is that a reasonable and sound argument for relaxing the gun control laws? Some people like to stone adulterers, should we all adopt Sharia law?

Dunc then raises a good point, that handgun crime does not appear to have fallen since the ban, by linking to this 2001 article. This 2008 article shows that gun crime continued to rise until 2006, and then started to fall. All this at a time when crime in general was also rising it must be noted. Was the fall down to the firearms act, or are there other factors at work? Was the rise evidence that the laws didn't work or evidence of other factors? It certainly seems that the British laws were a failure if they were intended to reduce gun crime, but again was that down to bad law or other factors? The raw numbers don't tell us.

But then, were the laws a failure? They apparently didn't reduce gun crime - but there have been no Hungerfords or Dunblanes since then at a time when they seem to be increasingly frequent around the world. Of course, this involves playing 'what ifs' and 'what might have beens' - as Dunc notes those incidents were so shocking because they were so rare anyway.

But what of deaths from firearms not related to crime - something the strict firearms laws certainly do help prevent? This article gives compelling evidence. In the year 2001 (when gun crime was rising in the UK) the USA suffered 5.92 firearms suicides and 0.36 deaths from accidents per 100,000 people. In England and Wales it was 0.2 and 0.03 respectively, for Scotland 0.2 and 0.02. This page highlights that in 2006 55% of gun related deaths in the US were suicides. It highlights that handguns, whilst only making up one third of the firearms owned in the US account for two thirds of the firearm related deaths. It highlights that a gun in the home is 11 times more likely to be used to commit suicide than to be used in self defence. It highlights that a gun in the home increases the risk of homicide by a family member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.

This article then also points to the rise of the use of imitation firearms in gun crime - which as far as I can tell were not affected by stricter controls until 2004.

This also suggests that the increase between 1998/99 and 2001/2 may be down to certain police forces also introducing new crime reporting standards.

This (in section 3) also makes the point that firearms used in reported offences are often assumed to be real firearms because it is often impossible to tell if they are real or imitation in many cases. How much of the rise can be attributed to the use of more available imitation weapons rather than the heavily controlled real weapons? In the same section the point is made again that reporting of firearms offences changed on April 1 1998.

The same report includes gun crime trends since 1968 - the trend is generally up with some dips. The sharpest rises occur after 1998. The use of handguns in crime has fallen in five of the 6 years from 2001 to the time of the report.

Look at this and tell me strict gun control doesn't reduce, very significantly, gun related crime (in this case firearms homicides per 100,000 people). England and Wales have the second lowest rate. Japan is the only country with a lower rate, and the laws there are similar in severity to the UK.

The truth is that it is not as simple as Dunc implies. Gun crime figures are not even half of the story.

I also find that this is somewhat of a strawman - where did I say that gun control was just about reducing gun crime? Where did I say that gun control succeeds or fails based solely on the effect it has on the incidence of gun related crime? Or is gun crime simply the easiest thing to look at and rest your case on for the anti gun control argument?

Again I am forced to ask - where was the skeptical and critical thinking? Where was the diligence often given to many other arguments elsewhere?

Dunc later writes:

Common-or-garden shootings, on the other hand, have become much more common.
Which is not strictly true - firearms related offences have increased, not simply shootings (and here I am really being a pedant). He then writes:

I'm generally in favour of the presumption of positive liberty: things should be legal unless there is a good for them not to be.
How much of a good reason do you need? Many of the figures given above suggest a good reason, do they not? What sort of threshold do you set? What is the justification for this threshold? Furthermore, your presumption is inconsistent. Why allow semi-automatic handguns for example, but not semi-automatic assault rifles? If you allow semi-automatic, why not fully automatic? Why allow rifles but not machine guns? If machine guns why not rocket propelled grenade launchers?

Any of the arguments that can be raised in favour of handguns can be used in favour of machine guns, should we allow machine guns under this presumption of positive liberty? If not, why not? What is the difference? What is your justification for this difference?

Dunc continues:

I'm not convinced that a complete ban is either necessary or even useful - I think the previous regulatory regime was sufficient. (I'm pretty sure that the weapons used for both Hungerford and Dunblane were illegally held.)
This latter part is wrong, both Michael Ryan and Thomas Hamilton were legal gun owners using legally owned weapons. The previous regime was not sufficient for the people they killed. What is the threshold?

And here is another example of what I was talking about earlier. I've seen Dunc make long posts filled with citations about things as relatively trivial as GM crops elsewhere. Yet here, on a topic as important as gun control, "I'm pretty sure" is good enough for him to claim something. It took me less than 3 minutes to use Google to find out that Ryan and Hamilton used legally owned weapons - why didn't Dunc? If accuracy is important for debates about GM crops, why not gun control? If an alternative medicine proponent wrote "I'm pretty sure that homeopathy works." would it be acceptable to skeptics? Then, in a classic piece of woo like behaviour, Dunc seems to have ignored the fact that I pointed out this was wrong. In this debate it is important that you acknowledge what you get factually wrong - people don't remember the corrections but the original claim. That's what creationists rely on.

Dunc finishes that post with:

Fox hunting (with hounds) is a different matter, because that's an animal cruelty issue. That's a perfectly good reason to ban it, IMHO.
Here I find it hard not to be snide - there's the famous British obsession with animal welfare.

Why are the deaths of animals good reason to ban something, but not the deaths of human beings?

James K returned:

The reason I cite the genetic fallacy is that you assume that the fact that guns are designed to kill is in any way relevant. The intention with which an object was created is wholly irrelevant to evaluating that object.
I did not say that the intention with which an object was created was relevant to the evaluation of the object. I was asking why the intention with which the object was created is apparently not relevant to the right of someone to possess it as part of their individual liberties.

Berlzebub then posted:

As others have pointed out, the original firearms were developed for battlefield use. However, they now have civilian versions that have the "sole purpose" of target shooting (too heavy to carry around), and hunting. Of course, they can be retasked to take the life of a person, but that's an action on the part of the individual not the firearm.
I responded by asking what was the difference between a civilian weapon and a military one. I should have made the point clearer by asking, what is the difference between a civilian owned semi-automatic assault rifle (which my father in law has) and a military semi-automatic assault rifle?

What exactly makes something that can shoot a paper target different to something that can shoot a real person?

I have fired target shooting 'versions' of military weapons - they are not too heavy to carry around, that's simply complete nonsense with no factual basis. Tell me, how could one shoot a rifle that was too heavy to carry around?

What makes a hunting rifle unable to kill a person? How many people need a hunting rifle for something other than sport (if you count blasting an unsuspecting animal from 200 yards with a high powered rifle using a telescopic sight a sport)? What do you need to specifically do to a civilian target rifle to retask it to shoot people? I'll give a hint to people who have never shot a firearm before - bugger all.

The important thing to note here is that most privately owned weapons are useless for target shooting as a sport or hobby, and most people don't use them for this anyway - I'm not even sure if my father in law has actually fired his AK-47 yet - a weapon that is useless for target shooting, hunting and self defence at close quarters in the home anyway. If the weapon is useless for its supposed purposes then why is it necessary to be allowed to have one?

Furthermore, as I pointed out over there, even a .22 air rifle can kill. As a young boy's family found out in the UK yesterday. Take a good long look at the picture of that boy and tell me you really can't think of a good reason for banning all private firearms, without sounding like an uncaring shitbag.

At least we don't hunt foxes anymore. Look how civilised and free we are.

James K then came back with more of argument 2 from my list. He also added this:
Gun death follow a classic Pareto Principle pattern, the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by a small fraction of gun owners, specifically gang members. Gang members are experts at accessing illegal goods, after all they do sell drugs. The way to stop these deaths is end the "War on Drugs", not by piling bad laws on top of other bad laws.
No citations, no supporting evidence. Just simple assertions. Would this be acceptable from a creationist or pseudo-scientist? Why did a skeptic think it was OK here then? I called James K on this after doing my own research, and he admitted he could not find the source he thought had claimed this and withdrew the claim. But that isn't what people will remember is it? Who remembers newspaper retractions?
I found that the figures flatly contradict the claims he made. For instance, this page shows that homicides by a family member, friend or acquaintance with a gun are far more common than homicides by a stranger with a gun. This page shows a similar trend - there are far more gun deaths through circumstances other than gangs than those related to gangs. In 2005, in the US, 71% of homicides were committed with a firearm.
If I could find this out, why couldn't James K before he made the claims? Why did he feel he didn't have to? Why did he basically abandon his critical thinking skills and skepticism?
James K then reverts back to argument by swimming pool:
Guns do more than kill, the provide pleasure (target shooters and hunters), food (hunters), peace of mind (self defence weapons). These are real benefits that are lost if guns are banned. Once again I use swimming pools as an analogy. They also provide intangible gains like pleasure, and they kill a lot of people every year. Do you support banning swimming pools? If not, why not?
First, as I already mentioned, you are not even close to comparing like with like. Swimming pools are not weapons designed to kill. Second, your use of swimming pools is helping to prove the gun control point - things that can be dangerous require close supervision and control. Third, you are twisting and basically ignoring the facts.
How many swimming pools are used in homicides compared to firearms?
How many swimming pools are used in suicides compared to firearms?
How many swimming pools are used in muggings compared to firearms?
How many swimming pools are used in armed robberies compared to firearms?
How many swimming pools are used in sexual assaults compared to firearms?
How many swimming pools are used in kidnappings compared to firearms?
How many swimming pools are used in gang fights compared to firearms?
How many swimming pools have been used in school shootings compared to firearms?
Do you really need me to go on in order to demonstrate how utterly ridiculous this attempted comparison is?
Fine, I will anyway. In the US in 2006 there were 30,896 deaths from firearms. In the same year there were 4,279 deaths from drowning. Note that is drowning in total and NOT just deaths related to swimming pools. 1,139 of those deaths come in the age group 0-19 years of age. 688 of those are in the age group of 0-9 years of age. Could it be that the swimming pool argument is not as simple as James K is making out?
How about the other version of this argument, cars? Well, in 2006 in the US there were 45,509 motor vehicle related deaths. Why, that's more than firearms. However the figures on motor vehicle deaths can mislead. In 2004 there were 243,023,485 registered vehicles on the road. There were 136,430,651 passenger vehicles. According to this page, in 1994 there were 192,000,000 guns in the US owned by just 44,000,000 Americans. Many more people are exposed to motor vehicles than guns.
Again, the cars argument simply works in favour of gun control anyway - it just shows that closer and stricter supervision of things that can be dangerous is needed because of the number of deaths involved. Have you seen how badly people drive in this country?
Then we had some of argument number 15. Which is basically just a version of the woo argument about 'western science versus eastern mysticism/ traditionalism'. Do skeptics ever accept this argument? So why should I now with this debate?
James K wrote:
That's what I mean about different premises. I don't think anything you just said addresses any of my points, and its clear you feel the same about what I said. We're just talking past each other.
He used another classic woo tactic here by also claiming I had not really addressed any of his points even though I had specifically addressed them, and then he has the cheek to get upset when I point this out!
James K then goes on to write:
Bringing pleasure is the best reason for anything, what is life for, but to find pleasure in it? If there are large offsetting harms in an action, then there may be space for controls on those things, but only if the harm is clearly established and the control proposal can be demonstrated to work.
Which is more of argument 3. Enjoyment of something is not a sound or justifiable reason for something to be legal or a liberty. I also asked how the harms are judged, how is the harm clearly established in relation to the pleasure that is gained? Why is it that if there is large offsetting harm James K only considers there 'may' be space for controls? I also asked for James K to define how he is using pleasure. In his next response, he answered none of my questions.
Ignoring difficult questions is also another favoured tactic of creationists and woos.
The Null Hypothesis
Here's where things got really interesting for me. Here's a brief explanation of the null hypothesis.
I stated that in gun control arguments I believe that the null hypothesis is that it is not a necessary freedom to own a gun. Dunc and James K are arguing that it is a liberty ot own a gun They have made the claim that gun ownership should be allowed - the null hypothesis is therefore that it shouldn't be. It is not up to anyone to demonstrate the null hypothesis.
Remember the argument started with me asking why Dunc thought something was the case, and what good arguments for gun control were. That means anyone who answered is making the claim that needs to be supported. The negation of their claim is the null hypothesis.
Dunc and James K simply responded by redefining the null hypothesis.
Dunc wrote:
Well, that's where we differ. I view the null position as "everything is permitted". If you think something should not be permitted, the burden of justification lies on you.
In other words, Dunc is saying that the null hypothesis is the claim that gun ownership is a liberty that should be freely available and gun control is the claim that needs to disprove the null hypothesis. Or he is saying the null hypothesis is "This is the case until someone can show otherwise". Anyone happy with that?
Apply that logic to God and suddenly it is atheists who have to disprove God because the null hypothesis is that God exists (everything is permitted). Anyone happy with that? So why should we accept that as a skeptical argument against gun control?
The null hypothesis is surely "This is not the case until someone shows otherwise". Applied to gun control this is "gun ownership is not a liberty that requires no justification."
But look closer at what Dunc says after this:
Is the default "everything is permitted", or "nothing is permitted"? I take the former, you take the latter.
His default position is that 'everything is permitted'. Forgetting gun control for now, is anyone comfortable with that in regards to other areas? Do I really have to prove that a persons liberty to have sex with children should be taken away and until then it is OK, and it continues to be OK if I can't find a good reason for it not to be? Are we really happy to argue that the only reason the freedom to murder someone is not a liberty is because currently the state has a good defensible argument to make it illegal? If someone can find a good justification should the liberty to murder become legal?
James K responds with semantics.
"Do people have aright [sic] to won [sic] guns?" is an ought question, not an is question. The rules about null hypotheses apply only to is questions.
Really? Well I am asking "Is gun ownership a fundamental and/or necessary liberty and can someone explain why?" So, luckily for me, the null hypothesis applies then. Isn't it fun what you can do when you play semantics?
Then he writes:
Scepticism, reason and evidence are all useful, but things are always more complicated when dealing with human questions.
Which is basically an admission that he thinks critical thinking counts when it does, but doesn't when it doesn't. Which is the point I am trying to make about skepticism suddenly being abandoned when a personal view is in question.
Then James K finishes with this:
To have a proper hypothesis, let alone a null hypothesis you have to have a factual question. "Does gun control significantly reduce violent deaths?" is a factual question, the null hypothesis is no.
Which is handy. I've quite easily and clearly proved the negation of this null hypothesis with the statistics included above. Yes, gun control significantly reduces violent deaths AND injuries. Next.
To finish up
It's been a long post and no doubt some people by this point are going to be pissed off - tough, I make no apologies for the arguments presented. Like I said at the start a poorly presented and supported argument deserves strong responses no matter who it is from - and should probably get a harsher response if the proponent is supposed to be a critical thinker or skeptic - we should hold ourselves to higher standards.
Higher standards doesn't include inconsistencies, bad analogies, lazy fact checking, guessing, factual inaccuracies, ignoring difficult questions, ignoring what we get wrong, re-writing the rules to suit you, adopting debate tactics you would condemn in others and using logical fallacies.
I've looked at anti-gun control arguments from skeptics and find them sorely wanting.
My opinion remains unchanged.

120 comments:

  1. Sometimes you just gotta set a threshold and see how it goes. For example in plastics there are things called phthaltes, which soften plastics. Bad stuff that leech out of plastics when kiddies suck on them (worse than the dreaded BPA) and was unregulated. There was no toxicity level established, but there was a clear sense that there was a txic level. So they proposed a limit, that was completely not based on anything. It just seemed small. That was faster than waiting on figuring out what the perfect level was that still softened th plastic but didn't leech out enough to hurt kiddies, a process that could have taken decades. So sometimes the threashold doesnt need to be set precisely with loads of data to back it up. If automatic weapons seems like the right level to start banning, then set that threshold and see if the law accomplishes the goal.

    Its that last part where politicians fail, almost always. they never set a goal as to why the law is in place. If they did then they could monitor progress and tune the law accordingly.

    Personally I dont have a problem with suicide. If guns are used in suicide and are an efficient method to do that, I'm not really having a problem.

    Enjoyment of something is not a sound or justifiable reason for something to be legal or a liberty.

    No, but it is a good reason to have it be the default position, which I presume is the reason that pro-gun people don't feel like they have to defend their position.

    I have to agree with James K on about the way you were trying to use the null hypothesis. It wasn't right. It got better when you were talking about cause and effect with respect to violent deaths, but after that there is still an emotional question: is it enough? Is whatever that number of violent deaths is, does that meet a threshold that most americans agree is too much? Does putting in controls, bring it down enough that its worth it to lose this freedom?


    After all this, to be clear: Im pro gun control. If you have a gun, I want assurance that you know how to use it, are decent at using it, and know a set of rules associated with the use of it and safety. Further, if someone is involved in a crime, and have an unlicensed gun, then I want more years add to their sentence due to that infraction. I want that unlicensed gun to be one more thing that someone can be convicted for if they get off on another part. I don't know if that happens, but I want the ability to be there.

    But murdering someone with a gun and a baseball bat, to me, are exactly the same crime that deserves the same severity of punishment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. oh shit. the first part of my comment got zapped!

    Well I mentioned an idea not on your list: The most compelling argument I have ever heard from a gun nut is the following.

    Guns should be legal because the citizens should have the ability to rise up against a tyrannical government. Guns provide that ability.

    I understand and even sympathize with this opinion. however its idiotic in this day and age. It justifies the ownership of nukes, tanks and chemical weapons. Its just a bad idea.

    I wish I remembered what else I said. Crap.

    ReplyDelete
  3. [i]Which is basically an admission that he thinks critical thinking counts when it does, but doesn't when it doesn't. Which is the point I am trying to make about skepticism suddenly being abandoned when a personal view is in question.[/i]

    This I think is one of our central differences in opinion so I'm going to focus on it, although is only tangentially related to the question of guns. In fact its practically the only reason I started arguing you in the first place, believe it or not I don't care all that much about gun control.

    Your position overlooks a fundamental differences between moral and empirical questions, or to put it another way questions of opinion and questions of fact.

    Factual questions are questions about the state of the universe. They can be resolved through observation and deductive logic. They have an objectively right answer because they postulate that the universe is a certain way. Either the universe is that way or it's not. "Does God exist?" is such a question, provided "God" is properly defined. Either the universe has God in it or it doesn't. "Is homeopathy an effective cure for cancer?" is another such question, the universe is either structured to support the Law of Opposites or its not. By collecting observations one can answer these questions. We could each cite numerous observations to answer either of the questions in the negative, I'm not going to bother because I don't think we disagree that the best answer to both of these questions is no.

    Now let's try another question "Do people have a moral right to possess firearms?"

    Now what counts as an observation here? What does a moral right look like? If you created two otherwise identical copies of our observable universe one in which people objectively had a moral right to own guns; and one in which they didn't, how would you tell them apart? Try this with homeopathy and I could answer easily, the results of certain clinical trials would be different. Its harder for God questions, but I should be able to observe certain arbitrary suspensions of the otherwise regular laws of physics.

    By contrast, the right to own guns example seems nonsensical, that's because it is. Morals are not baked into the universe, they cannot be observed because they do not exist as such. They are evaluative criteria applied to states of the universe but are not contingent on states of the universe.

    So you see, you can't just say "People don't have a right to own guns, prove me wrong". Unlike woos, there is no observable facts in your proposition, it is neither right nor wrong.

    If you want to convince me that some kind of gun control will improve the observable universe in some way you need to:
    1) Demonstrate the control will prevent some harm.
    2) Demonstrate that the expected harm prevented will exceed the expected pleasure prevented by the control. This involves reconciling very different kinds of thing, the utility of please and the disutility of injury and death. NB: We may have different basic rates of trade-off on these things, in which case agreement will likely be impossible.

    In the policy business this is called Benefit-Cost Analysis, and it is entirely lacking in your post. You merely assume that your moral code is fact about the universe instead of a fact about you and then accuse anyone with a different code of being irrational.

    I hope you can understand why there is a very real difference between taking issue with your moral framework and arguing that homeopathy can cure disease.

    Incidentally, you have not demonstrated that gun control would prevent a significant number of deaths and / or injuries. To do that you would need to look at crime rates in multiple individual policy areas (be they countries or states) immediately before and after some gun control you want to introduce and see what happened to crime rates. Then follow up to see what happened in the longer term. this is complicated, careful research, but it's what you have to do when you can't run a controlled experiment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ok, help me out here Jimmy. We've previously established that you don't have a problem with my owning a recurve bow. Why is that freedom "necessary", in your view? I'm not even sure how you would begin to go about constructing such an argument...

    You're quite right to point out that I was wrong abuot the legal status of the guns used in Hugnerford and Dunblane, and that I should have checked. And indeed, that piece of information could well require me to re-evaluate my position.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, and I'm not in favour of allowing handguns to be kept in the home. I think they should be kept under lock and key at a licensed shooting club. (Actually, two separate locks and keys - one for the club staff, one for the gun owner.)

    And we do still hunt foxes - but with guns, not dogs. And up here in Scotland, the annual deer cull is an essential task, since we eliminated all their other predators.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Techskeptic:

    I can't believe I forgot the old armed uprising of the populace argument. Doh! I'll go back and add it.

    I don't think your analogy with thresholds for plastics works - with plastics we can scientifically establish the point where the toxic level is a problem and logically, rationlly and empirically establish the threshold (that doesn't mean that is what happened).

    With firearms the arguments that can be used to support single shot weapons can be used to support automatic weapons - there is no logical reason for supposing one is bad and the other isn't if you take the anti gun control position that owning a firearm is a right. So if a handgun is a right, why not a grenade launcher? There is an arbitrary distinction being made which makes a mockery of any claims that owning a firearm is a liberty/right/freedom.

    As to enjoyment being a good reason for assuming the default position: Some people enjoy raping others. Should their right to rape be the default position merely because it gives them enjoyment? I could go on and on with this kind of example.

    In what way do you think my use of the null hypothesis was wrong?

    Is whatever that number of violent deaths is, does that meet a threshold that most americans agree is too much? Does putting in controls, bring it down enough that its worth it to lose this freedom?

    That's why I was asking what threshold the anti gun control people set. Tens of thousands a year is apparently not enough, so how many?

    James K:

    No-one has yet proven or shown that gun ownership is a moral right, that has been my point all along. Hence my talk about the null hypothesis in gun control arguments.

    I understand that the moral right to own a firearm is not a physical question in the sense of 'does the earth orbit the sun' - but if a person claims something just is a liberty they should have they still have to explain why it is. You don't get to simply claim something is a right you should have. If that is the case, you should be able to demonstrate and explain why. You and Dunc have simply assumed that firearms ownership is a moral right. You are making the claim, you need to demonstrate the reasons for your claim, no-one has to disprove your assumptions.

    So you see, you can't just say "People don't have a right to own guns, prove me wrong".

    How is this any different to you saying, "People do have a right to own guns, prove me wrong"?

    Do you see my point yet?

    If you want to convince me that some kind of gun control will improve the observable universe in some way you need to:
    1) Demonstrate the control will prevent some harm.
    2) Demonstrate that the expected harm prevented will exceed the expected pleasure prevented by the control.


    The figures I gave above clearly demonstrate that harm is prevented by gun control, and I believe that these figures answer 2 as well - the question is, as I say, where is your threshold?

    In the policy business this is called Benefit-Cost Analysis, and it is entirely lacking in your post. You merely assume that your moral code is fact about the universe instead of a fact about you and then accuse anyone with a different code of being irrational.

    I have assumed nothing of the sort and I filled my post with figures on the cost of gun ownership. It merely suits your argument to assume that is what I have done.

    Incidentally, you have not demonstrated that gun control would prevent a significant number of deaths and / or injuries.

    I am sorry but I have, you seem to be ignoring this however.

    To do that you would need to look at crime rates ... and see what happened to crime rates.

    Why just crime rates? Why are you (as Dunc also did) focusing only on crime rates? What about the other statistics I provided? Why is your measure of the effects of gun control focused solely on crime rates?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Stupid blogger comment length limit....

    Dunc:

    I don't think you have a necessary right to own a bow or that it is a necessary freedom - where did I say that? What I did was ask why you assumed I was going to be a gun hating liberal and then start to erect a strawman around it.

    I would agree with your provisions for handgun ownership as well (with the addition of strict auditing of every weapon at close of the club and the immediate notification of law enforcement if any are missing), but that also removes some of the reasons given in favour of owning firearms (self defence, hunting, protection from tyranny etc).

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't think your analogy with thresholds for plastics works - with plastics we can scientifically establish the point where the toxic level is a problem and logically, rationlly and empirically establish the threshold (that doesn't mean that is what happened).

    I think you missed my point, yes we can deterine the toxicity level of phthaltes, but we do not have a scientificallly derived one right now as that would take decades to wrok out long term exposure limits. right now its based purely on a guess: 0 is the best, and 10 ppm causes serious problems. So 0.1ppm was chosen as a safe bet. It was not science, it was a shot. If this shot kil san industry, or contnues to poison babies, then it will be modified.

    Same with any threshold regarding gun control, could be done. What is important is to ask what we are trying to solve with gun control, if its not crime rates, or harm from gun related crime, or something along those lines...what is it? then we use that metric or those metrics to decide if gun control is working or needs mods.

    As to enjoyment being a good reason for assuming the default position: Some people enjoy raping others.
    I think you are unintentionally provbing my point. OK fine some people like to rape others. For a very long time rape was acceptable as the default position (apparently in some circumstances in the bahamas it still is). But we have found enough reasons to ban that practice so that it is not legal anymore.

    That is why there is a default position on guns, and they do not need to defend their liberty as you are asking them to.

    Tens of thousands a year is apparently not enough, so how many?
    I dont know the answer. Nor is that number an absolute. If you take away guns, how much does that number drop and how many of those fatalaties/injuries simply get replaced by illegal guns/poison/pills/baseball bats?

    ReplyDelete
  9. No-one has yet proven or shown that gun ownership is a moral right, that has been my point all along.

    That is why i take issue with your presumed use of the null hypothesis here. A moral right is not quatifiable. You can't do a test when you assume the negative (its not a right) and then try to disprove that (how would you do that?)

    A moral right is something decided upon by the populace. That is why things get moralized, like smoking, or carbon emissions, or local food. Its a moral right becuase most of this population agrees that it is, and thats the end of it. its not empirical

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jimmy Blue:

    Forgive me my density, but where have you shown that gun control would prevent a significant number of deaths or injuries? You have clearly shown that guns cause harm, but you haven't shown efficacy of gun control. Pointing to two dissimilar countries and saying one has gun control and fewer deaths is not sufficient. Countries are not controlled experiments, there are more confounding factors than I can name that could screw with the result. You need to make an effort to control for these confounding factors by using a methodology like the one I outlined in my last post.

    So you see, you can't just say "People don't have a right to own guns, prove me wrong".

    How is this any different to you saying, "People do have a right to own guns, prove me wrong"?

    Do you see my point yet?


    It's not, that's my point. The two statements are equally supportable and equally useless. Mine cancels out yours (and vice versa), that's all I was saying. That's why I'd rather discuss specific policy proposals rather than have us waste energy arguing about rights.

    What is your policy proposal?

    Are you arguing that all guns should be removed from the US? That would stop all the gun deaths you mention (except the suicides, I suspect those people would find other ways of killing themselves). But I can't imagine what policy could accomplish this.

    Are you arguing that specific guns should be banned? If so, you would need to specify which guns, why you think they would prevent much of the harm associated with guns (preferably while preventing as little of the benefits as possible) and how you plan to get rid of these guns and stop more of them sneaking across the border.

    Are you suggesting banning certain people from having guns? if so, demonstrate those people caused much of the harm associated with guns, and propose how you will stop them getting guns.

    This last one strikes me as perfectly reasonable by the way. According to this article:
    www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/Gun-control-restricts-those-least-likely-to-commit-violent-crimes--42507652.html
    Essentially all murders in the US are committed by criminals, juveniles or the mentally unbalanced. If you want to stop those people getting guns, then that's fine by me (so long as it doesn't impose overly large burdens on other folks of course). They do the vast majority of the damage, and the rights of criminals, children and crazy people are already restricted in many ways.

    So Jimmy Blue, you have voiced you opposition to unrestricted gun ownership. You have shown that guns do cause some harm, so there is at least room for justification in restricting their use. So I ask: what is your policy proposal? Once you have that we can get down to brass tacks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't think you have a necessary right to own a bow or that it is a necessary freedom - where did I say that? What I did was ask why you assumed I was going to be a gun hating liberal and then start to erect a strawman around it.

    OK, I must have misinterpreted. Lets try something less controversial... I like to play guitar, but I can't think of any good reason why it is necessary. Or pick any other liberty you like (say, the liberty to post pseudonymously on the internet) - I'm just interested in what you think an argument for the necessity of any given liberty could look like.

    I would agree with your provisions for handgun ownership as well (with the addition of strict auditing of every weapon at close of the club and the immediate notification of law enforcement if any are missing), but that also removes some of the reasons given in favour of owning firearms (self defence, hunting, protection from tyranny etc).

    Well, I personally think the "self-defence" and "protection from tyranny" arguments are bullshit, and you won't hear me advancing them. (In fact, in other locations on the internet, you might encounter me arguing quite vociferously against them.) Hunting is valid IMHO (and indeed, culling is sometimes ecologically or economically necessary), but then you're talking about a different class of firearms, which pose different risks and require different regulatory approaches. As I'm sure you recall, the initial remark which prompted this was about the total ban on handguns in the UK. I'm very much in favour of very tight gun control - I'm just not convinced that it needs to go quite as far as a total ban when it comes to handguns suitable for target shooting. I believe the desired regulatory outcomes may be achievable without going that far.

    Anyway, I'm far more interested in the meta-argument at the minute... Are you seriously arguing that we should change the fundamental basis of our legal system, so that rather than passing laws which restrict specific liberties, we would pass laws which permit them? And if not, why not? That seems to be the necessary logical implication of your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Before we start here's some information on suicide trends in the UK.

    Here are some statistics on suicide rates per 100,000 people.

    Here's some trends in the US.

    Techskeptic:

    OK, say for instance, we are trying to prevent deaths and injuries from firearms, either accidental, criminal or suicidal. If this is the threshold then a ban on machine guns makes even less sense from the point of view of the argument being advanced by Dunc and James K - handguns are the firearms that cause most harm as I pointed out in the post, even though rifles and shotguns are equally available. Handguns are the biggest problem, yet they aren't the ones being banned (in the US at least). So, how do Dunc and James K explain this from the point of view of their argument? Taken from the good must outweigh the harm argument, then the machine gun ban makes no sense at all and is not even an educated guess in the sense you are outlining in your plastics analogy - its more a randomly selected pin in the paper that ignores the facts.

    I think you are unintentionally provbing my point. OK fine some people like to rape others. For a very long time rape was acceptable as the default position (apparently in some circumstances in the bahamas it still is). But we have found enough reasons to ban that practice so that it is not legal anymore.

    I disagree that I am proving your point but I can see why you think that - it isn't just that people like to rape, it is do they have a moral right to rape because they enjoy it? If I said yes, I have to argue the case for why. It isn't up to you to disprove the case for the moral right to rape because people enjoy it. However Dunc ("everything is permitted") and James K ("pursuit of pleasure is reason for anything") are arguing that they do have the right to rape and that this can only be taken away if the state comes up with a good reason to take it away. Currently the state has, so would we accept the right to rape as still a moral right and reinstate it if someone comes up with a good defence of it? If it is a moral right then according to the three of you they don't have to come up with a defence of it - it just is.

    But it has been banned, so then you have to ask, what is the threshold here for pleasure versus harm that James K refers to that means it is OK to ban rape?

    That is why there is a default position on guns, and they do not need to defend their liberty as you are asking them to.

    So is the default position that there is a moral right to rape, and it is only banned because the state so far has the best argument, but really rapists don't have to defend their liberty to do what they do or the claim that rape is a moral right?

    I dont know the answer. Nor is that number an absolute. If you take away guns, how much does that number drop and how many of those fatalaties/injuries simply get replaced by illegal guns/poison/pills/baseball bats?

    I did give statistics in the original post about the increased risk of suicide and murder simply if their is a gun in the home compared to those homes without a gun - this clearly suggests that the gun isn't simply replaced by another instrument given the availabilty of all those things in the average home. The figures given above also lend some weigt to this.

    Firearms make up 55% of suicide deaths in the USA. You are more likely to commit suicide if their is a gun in your home even when the other things are available to a home without a gun and a home with - you do the math.

    Be honest guys - how many of you actually examine the sites I link to and their statistics? Because you don't seem to be taking it in.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Techskeptic:

    That is why i take issue with your presumed use of the null hypothesis here. A moral right is not quatifiable. You can't do a test when you assume the negative (its not a right) and then try to disprove that (how would you do that?)

    Perhaps a moral right is not quantifiable, but if you simply assert a claim based on your own assumptions it is not up to anyone else to disprove it, it is up to you to prove it. No-one has yet been able to show that firearms ownership IS a moral right. If you can't show it, stop claiming it. Because no-one has been able to show it, I assume the null hypothesis.

    By replying "It just is unless you can show otherwise." to my repeated questions for you guys to prove it you are behaving exactly like a religious believer who responds "He just does." to the question "How do you know God exists?" That is simply not acceptable if you still believe you are a skeptic and critical thinker.

    Which, to point out again, was the entire point of this post!

    ReplyDelete
  14. James K:

    Forgive me my density, but where have you shown that gun control would prevent a significant number of deaths or injuries?

    I have to ask again, did you not examine the links I gave above? Did you really read the information and the parts I reposted? This strikes me as the kind of fingers in your ears response that creationists give to evolutionary evidence.

    Perhaps this will help:

    Firearms and suicide research data

    Yes there are many factors that help affect rates of firearms homicides across countries (and I posted the data for countries, not just two) but the overriding one is access to firearms. You don't get to simply ignore the numbers completely, especially when they run into a body of evidence rather than one strand and one strand only.

    The numbers speak for themselves - where access to firearms is limited deaths and injuries from firearms are significantly lower. You don't get to dismiss this simply because "Oh that's another country so it doesn't count."

    You have clearly shown that guns cause harm, but you haven't shown efficacy of gun control.

    Wait, now you are shifting the goalposts. I thought that to justify removing a liberty it was enough to demonstrate the harm it caused, now this isn't enough?

    Take the figures for the UK, since pre 1996 figures the overall trend has been down in the number of firearms injuries or deaths - some years show an increase but as I quoted in the original post and as is pointed out in the link above the figures appear inflated because of a change in reporting methods - no figures reach the levels prior to 1996.

    You need to make an effort to control for these confounding factors by using a methodology like the one I outlined in my last post.

    Or, as Techskeptic points to in his analogy, you could set a threshold that seems a good idea and go from there because this isn't simply a nice exercise in statistics and methodology but people dying.

    It's not, that's my point. The two statements are equally supportable and equally useless. Mine cancels out yours (and vice versa), that's all I was saying.

    Yes, but this leaves you with no viable argument for owning a firearm then, and I have all the evidence that shows firearms do cause significant harm. If you have no reason for owning one, and owning one is dangerous, and owning one conflicts with my right not to be endangered by you owning a firearm - then what reason do you have for owning one?

    That's why I'd rather discuss specific policy proposals rather than have us waste energy arguing about rights.

    If you can't support the right to bear arms, then what is there to argue? Guns cause harm, you have no real reason to own one, so ...?

    You claimed that gun onwership is a moral right the state cannot take away without justification. You refused to support this assertion. Now you say the assertion is meaningless. So what reason is there left for private gun ownership since even you admit that I have demonstrated the harm caused by it?

    Essentially all murders in the US are committed by criminals,

    Well, that would be self evident wouldn't it? Murder would, by definition, make you a criminal - I gave statistics above that showed homicides with firearms are most likely to be between family members, acquintances or friends, not just people already involved in crime.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dunc:

    I'm just interested in what you think an argument for the necessity of any given liberty could look like.

    This was what I was hoping to get to.

    I don't know - but I am not the one simply asserting and assuming that something is a liberty and that trumps everything else. My aim was to demonstrate that people simply repeat the mantra that owning firearms is a right or liberty - but the same people have almost certainly never thought about the hows or whys of this.

    In something as important as this though, you don't get to win the argument simply by saying "But its a right so there, prove otherwise." That, as I have pointed out, is the same as simply saying "He just does" when asked how you know God exists.

    If you can't defend your assertions or assumptions, then as a skeptic or critical thinker you should know what value they are in an argument.

    "That is just the case" is never good enough.

    If you can't defend your assertion that it is a liberty, you don't get to keep repeating it like a mantra that overrides everything else. If you can't defend a liberty then, philosophically at least, you have no right to it because you have no concept of the consequences, rights and responsibilities that come with it.

    As I'm sure you recall, the initial remark which prompted this was about the total ban on handguns in the UK. I'm very much in favour of very tight gun control - I'm just not convinced that it needs to go quite as far as a total ban when it comes to handguns suitable for target shooting.

    I almost agree - the problem is how you define a handgun suitable for target shooting.

    Are you seriously arguing that we should change the fundamental basis of our legal system, so that rather than passing laws which restrict specific liberties, we would pass laws which permit them?

    Absolutely not - I am getting at the point that people use 'liberty' as an argument when it is probable they don't know what they are actually saying or implying by doing so. For instance, I have the right not to be endangered by your right to own a firearm. So where does that really leave us?

    Just saying the word 'liberty' and expecting others to disprove you isn't enough.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Part 1:
    Jimmy Blue:
    The numbers speak for themselves - where access to firearms is limited deaths and injuries from firearms are significantly lower. You don't get to dismiss this simply because "Oh that's another country so it doesn't count."

    Two things: One - Wrong data. Of course gun death will be lower with fewer guns, but what about other deaths? Like I said before, suicidal people will find other ways of killing themselves. Guns aren't exactly indispensible as murder weapons either, a knife can kill with one stroke. If banning guns pushes up knife or defenestration murders and/or suicide by bus then you haven't really gotten anywhere have you?

    Two - No Controls. I absolutely can ignore the simple international comparisons you cited because they aren't properly controlled. It's like all the studies homeopaths cite showing how their treatments "work". Improper control = no evidentiary value. A large sample is good, but if you're going to use a cross-sectional comparison I'll need to see some effort on your part to consider and control for possible causes of crime in each country before I take your evidence seriously. A large sample size doesn't help you. See omitted variable bias:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omitted-variable-bias

    Even then, we'd still probably end up arguing about endogeneity and omitted variables so like I said before the best way to test is to look at a bunch of countries or states before and after they implemented some gun control measure you approve of and see what happened. Show me that, and we'll talk.

    Or, as Techskeptic points to in his analogy, you could set a threshold that seems a good idea and go from there because this isn't simply a nice exercise in statistics and methodology but people dying.

    Now you sound like one of those quack cancer clinics "we can't stop to do tests on our treatment, we're too busy saving lives!". A study like the one I propose would take a couple of months to do, tops and requires no more expertise than a grad student. It will take far longer than that to get anything through the legislature (and that's if you can do it with a law, if it takes a Constitutional Amendment, that would take longer). And that's assuming there isn't a study like this already available.

    Wait, now you are shifting the goalposts. I thought that to justify removing a liberty it was enough to demonstrate the harm it caused, now this isn't enough?

    Am not. Read the first post I put on your blog. I require evidence of harm from guns and efficacy of your proposed control before I will grant that it is a good idea. I'm sorry if my insistence that policies should actually work is cramping your style.

    Take the figures for the UK, since pre 1996 figures the overall trend has been down in the number of firearms injuries or deaths

    Not good enough, in fact if anything it works against you proposition. A constant downward trend is more likely to be the result of a continuous process rather than a single event like the imposition of gun control. At the very least you'd need to explain why gun control would cause a drop-off in gun death at that particular rate, say by correlating it with gun possession and statistically controlling for other social trends.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Part 2:
    If you can't support the right to bear arms, then what is there to argue? Guns cause harm, you have no real reason to own one.

    But there are reasons to own one. As I have stated before guns bring pleasure. You pointed out that this isn't a slam-dunk justification and you are right, but you still have to account for it. This is how benefit-cost analysis.

    Guns have benefits: they bring pleasure
    Guns have costs: they cause injury and death

    The next step is to propose a policy. I'm going to assume your policy is total gun ban, punishable by a significant jail term. Law enforcement and the military will still be permitted to carry guns while on duty. If this is not the proposal you are advocating please correct me, the appropriate counter-arguments change depending on the policy proposal.

    This policy would make it nearly impossible for an otherwise law-abiding person to own a gun. As such, effectively all the benefits of guns would be eliminated. Some of the costs would be eliminated too, accidental gun deaths would go down. Gun suicides would go down too, but as I stated before, I don't think total suicides would so that's probably a wash.

    The interesting question is how much would gun murders drop? As I noted in my previous post 90% of gun murders are by people who already have criminal records. These people are willing to break laws against murder so why are you so sure they won't break laws against gun control? Distribution channels of guns would be restricted, but not stopped. Black markets exist for many goods. Cocaine is illegal, but people can still get it. And if guns are still being manufactured / imported for cops and soldiers the potential exists for smugglers to piggyback off those distribution channels. Criminals will still be able to get guns, maybe not as many, but they'll have them. And criminals are mostly young men, so they're stronger and fitter than the average person. That means a lot of gun murderers could probably switch to knives without too much loss of efficiency. A 25 year-old man doesn't need a gun to kill the average 25 year old woman, or 50 year old man. Guns are most useful when the person you are trying to kill also has a gun. If they don't have one your need for one goes down.

    Well, that would be self evident wouldn't it? Murder would, by definition, make you a criminal - I gave statistics above that showed homicides with firearms are most likely to be between family members, acquintances or friends, not just people already involved in crime.

    Read the article again. It says the murderers had convictions before they murdered. And your data doesn't contradict mine, criminals have friends and family too.

    Look Jimmy, it's very clear that you are an intelligent and informed sceptic, but it's also clear that most of our disagreements stem from your unfamiliarity with the fundamentals of social science research. Social science data is much noisier than physical science data and experimental control is often impossible so additional techniques need to be employed to try and filter the noise out. And people don't react to laws as we might hope. Total gun control is likely to eliminate legitimate gun use, while having little impact on the harm guns cause.

    Once again, if I have mischaracterised your position, please correct me. Many of the counter-arguments I just employed are inapplicable to less radical forms of gun control.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I long ago gave up arguing about gun control publicly. It raised my blood pressure too much.

    And I know for a fact that of the seven people i work with regularly, five have a concealed carry permit. And one of these can't work the GPS unit in his new car. Scares the crap out of me.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jimmy:

    You make some good arguments for gun control, but I think your argument goes wrong here:

    In other words, Dunc is saying that the null hypothesis is the claim that gun ownership is a liberty that should be freely available and gun control is the claim that needs to disprove the null hypothesis. Or he is saying the null hypothesis is "This is the case until someone can show otherwise". Anyone happy with that?

    Apply that logic to God and suddenly it is atheists who have to disprove God because the null hypothesis is that God exists (everything is permitted). Anyone happy with that? So why should we accept that as a skeptical argument against gun control?

    The null hypothesis is surely "This is not the case until someone shows otherwise". Applied to gun control this is "gun ownership is not a liberty that requires no justification."

    I think you’re confusing a truth statement (where the null hypothesis would be “X is false until shown to be true”, where for example X could be “homeopathy works”) with questions about what rights you should have. With rights, there is no agreement before we start on which statement is the true one and which the false. For example, I could just as easily phrase the hypothesis as “all guns should be banned” – and according to the null, that statement would be false until you prove it true, which is the opposite of what you are claiming.

    I think this will be clearer if we look at other rights. For example, the right to free speech. Applying your reasoning, free speech would not be a right except in cases where I can prove it is. To paraphrase your words on gun ownership, "free speech is not a liberty that requires no justification." Would you be OK with that? Clearly free speech is a right, and it is taken away only in cases where it can be shown to be bad (eg inciting murder).

    Do I really have to prove that a persons liberty to have sex with children should be taken away and until then it is OK, and it continues to be OK if I can't find a good reason for it not to be?

    According to that logic I should not have the liberty to have gay sex (adult / consensual) unless I can show why I should be allowed so to do. Or the right to have pre-marital sex. But the right is (or should be, IMO) for adults to have sex with whomever they want and however they want – the exceptions being where one party does not consent (which would include minors). So yes, you do have to show why the exceptions are wrong. Fortunately that is easy enough to do with rape and with minors. With guns, the same thing should apply – can you show why guns should be banned (or controlled, or whatever). And ironically, you begin to make a case for those controls (or bans). But you don’t get to do that by declaring you’re right before we start, and that it’s only the proponents of allowing guns who have to prove their position.

    if a person claims something just is a liberty they should have they still have to explain why it is. You don't get to simply claim something is a right you should have. If that is the case, you should be able to demonstrate and explain why.

    Then according to you, I should have to explain to you why I should be allowed to own a dog, or listen to rap music, or wear a green sweater. Sorry Jimmy, but I think I have to explain or demonstrate to anyone why I want to do those things or anything else for that matter. Cases where my exercise of a liberty directly hurts someone else, are the only cases where my liberties should be curtailed.

    ReplyDelete
  20. One more thing. You start off with a list of 16 arguments used to support gun ownership, and at points in your post you seem to be rebutting arguments presented by saying “Which is arguments 3 and 4 from the list..” or similar. Before you can do that you really need to say why these 16 arguments are not valid arguments, you can’t just list arguments you imply are no good and then just say, you’re relying on argument #3, or whatever, as though you have rebutted what someone is saying. You’ve first got to show what that argument was no good.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sorry, the penultimate sentence of the longer comment should have read:

    I DON'T think I have to explain or demonstrate to anyone why I want to do those things or anything else for that matter.

    A "don't" really changes the meanning.

    ReplyDelete
  22. James K:

    Wrong data. Of course gun death will be lower with fewer guns, but what about other deaths? Like I said before, suicidal people will find other ways of killing themselves.

    Actually here you are misreading some of the data I highlighted. One of the websites I linked to mentions a study in the NEJM that shows a gun in the home increases the likelihood of suicide by 5 times compared to a home with no gun - that isn't that people are more likely to use a gun in a suicide attempt when one is present in the home, but that they are more likely to actually attempt suicide. These people are not likely to turn to other methods enmass because they no longer have access to a gun, they are not likely to attempt suicide at all if no gun is present.

    I absolutely can ignore the simple international comparisons you cited because they aren't properly controlled.

    You haven't shown that you have carefully studied the data I provided, never mind studied it enough to determine whether or not they were properly controlled - it seems to me that you are merely stating that they were not properly controlled. This may very well be the case, but on what grounds do you make this assertion?

    like I said before the best way to test is to look at a bunch of countries or states before and after they implemented some gun control measure you approve of and see what happened. Show me that, and we'll talk.

    I have repeatedly referred to the figures for the UK. You dismissed them because you said countries are not controlled experiments. So which is it?

    Now you sound like one of those quack cancer clinics "we can't stop to do tests on our treatment, we're too busy saving lives!".

    Oh don't be silly. I was making the same point that Techskeptic was with his plastics analogy, just with more hyperbole. Where issues of public safety are concerned, when "people are dying" for instance, governments act all the time without first running some carefully controlled experiments in order to determine their course of action. I was making the same point about thresholds that Techskeptic did. I don't see you accusing him of sounding like a woo. Sour grapes perhaps?

    Of course, your accusation really fails because I have provided mountains of data for my position and the woos don't, they ignore this requirement when they say "too busy for data, saving lives."

    ReplyDelete
  23. Continuing:

    A study like the one I propose would take a couple of months to do, tops and requires no more expertise than a grad student.

    Sorry, but this is pure fantasy.

    You rejected countries as not controlled experiments so how do you propose an area to be studied is selected and the study done in as controlled a manner as you wish?

    Let's say somewhere in the USA since that is the easiest target. Do you choose a state, a city, a county? Why? How do you choose whichever entity? Rural, urban or a mixture of both? How do you account for the overriding politics of the area? Do you pick one that falls 50/50 in votes for one or other party? Does party politics matter? Do you pick an area with above average crime, below average crime or on the national average? What population level are you looking at? What about ethnicity?

    Once you've chosen your area how do you enforce the gun control measure with no force of law behind it? Do you confiscate people's guns? Ask them nicely to make sure they leave them at home? Do you search random people on the streets? Do you search random houses? Do you ask people to voluntarily turn over their guns? Do you promise to return them? How do voluntary measures stop criminals possessing firearms?

    Once people learn there is a study going on in a particular area of the US, what do you think might happen to that area? Will you provide extra parking and housing for all the gun nuts who show up to ruin the study? Will you quarantine the area to prevent people getting in? Will you simply exclude rednecks, Republicans and Hummer drivers?

    As for your timeline, that is the real fantasy. In the UK a month long amnesty in 2003 resulted in just over 20,000 guns being handed in. An amnesty in 1996 after the Dunblane shootings resulted in 23,000 being handed in. In the US there are some 200 million legally owned firearms and some 44 million owners (and those figures are from several years ago). 44 million is two thirds of the population of the UK, as a comparison. I make that roughly 725 years just to collect the total number of legal US firearms at the UK amnesty rate of voluntary hand-ins. Do you think people would so easily hand in their firearms in the US?

    But you propose a study run over a couple of months by a grad student before any laws are introduced. This would barely scratch the surface and be unenforceable. Any study into the effectiveness of gun control would take anywhere between 10 and 20 years in my opinion. Interestingly enough, the UK has had a total ban for 12 years now. I seem to recall however that you mentioned somewhere that years was too long. So what do you propose then?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Still more:

    If you look at the figures I have been linking to for the UK you will see an overall downward trend in gun crime. I have to make a correction however, I think I said somewhere that violent crime has been going up whilst firearms offences down and this is not true - violent crime has also fallen 49% since 1995. This report gives the details.

    It notes with regards to firearms that weapons are used in one in five violent crimes and this figure has remained stable for a decade. Knives are used in 7% of violent incidents, glasses or bottles 5%, hitting implements 4% and firearms in 1%. For the last year the use of firearms, knives, glasses or bottles has remained stable and the use of hitting implements has increased according to the BCS interviews. The number of police recorded offences involving firearms fell 17% between 2007/8 and 2008/9. It has also decreased by 26% since its peak in 2005/6 (remember that there was a peak in figures also because of changes to the way these things were reported in 2002). The number of firearms injuries has fallen 46% since 2007/8. Part of this is explained by the large fall in the use of imitation firearms (down 41%). There has been a small rise in the use of shotguns and handguns (2%).

    I already suggested, and cited figures, that some of the spikes in the UK firearms offences data may have been caused by criminals switching to more easily available imitation weapons since real firearms were now harder to get hold off - now look what the figures show once stricter controls on imitation firearms start to take effect as well.

    I've given figures that show a slight (but not statistically significant I think) drop in the use of firearms for suicide in the UK at a time when suicides were going up overall.

    I've suggested that for the UK, pre-ban figures may be higher than they are shown to be because of the change in reporting standards, so the downward trend may be sharper and more significant than it seems.

    The UK is an isolated community, the figures collected in a controlled manner.

    This article makes several interesting points as well. There have been 11 massacres in Europe since Dunblane, none in the UK. Gun control is not as strict on the continent and gun ownership rates far higher. In the US there are 88.8 guns for every 100 people, in Germany 30.3, in the UK 6.5.

    But here is a line that I think really sums up the differing viewpoints here:

    Unlike the U.S., whose courts recognize a constitutional right to bear arms, European nations tend to view gun ownership as a responsibility that must be both justified and earned.

    That would appear to be the real sticking point, and I am going to get on to that in my reply to Skeptico.

    So if not crime as you and Dunc have referenced again and again, then what are your indicators that gun control is working? Remember, crime alone was never my sole indicator, but I want to know what yours are.

    I just don't see how you can so offhandedly dismiss this massive body of evidence as not controlled but give no explanation why this is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Mark:

    And I know for a fact that of the seven people i work with regularly, five have a concealed carry permit. And one of these can't work the GPS unit in his new car. Scares the crap out of me.

    That is one of my biggest problems with gun ownership - most of the people who have them don't know how to use them properly or safely. We allow people to carry a lethal loaded weapon around under their jacket in public but don't require them to pass any sort of serious and comprehensive weapon handling or safety tests first. That's not a civil right or liberty and example of good democracy, its plain old fucking stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Skeptico:

    I think you’re confusing a truth statement (where the null hypothesis would be “X is false until shown to be true”, where for example X could be “homeopathy works”) with questions about what rights you should have.

    Here is where the quote from the Time article I mentioned above comes in to scope. I think there is a fundamental difference between the way I see gun ownership and the way others do - I do not see it as a simple right you should have in the same manner as freedom of speech.

    More importantly though, I don't think that at any point so far in the discussion anyone has actually defined what it means to say gun ownership is a liberty/right. That is a point I've been making from the start.

    What is a right/liberty? Is it:

    1. A property of the Universe or reality that just is, like gravity?
    2. An idea that has been explained, justified, supported, defined and accepted by the majority of a given society as a necessity for a 'free' life?
    3. Something else entirely?

    James K seems to reject the idea that it is 1, and it seems that you do as well Skeptico. I would have to say that I certainly do. So questioning a right is certainly not the same as questioning some other observable phenomenon.

    If it is 2, and I think it is, then I think my point stands but I may have made a mistake by calling my position the null hypothesis, since doing so has caused so much confusion. If a right is a philosophical idea that has been suitably justified and supported to be accepted by society then it should be no problem to explain this when I ask "Why is gun ownership a right?" or "Is gun ownership a right?" No one has. Since no one has there is no reason for me to accept that it is one. If it can't be defended as a right, then there is no reason to accept it as one.

    To put this into your free speech comparison - free speech has already been shown to be a right. It has been explained, justified, defined, defended, supported and accepted by most societies. This was not always the case though, a simple read through of history shows that, as I don't need to point out. So, before free speech first took shape as an idea, was it a right? If it was, doesn't that suggest it is more than an idea and actually a property of reality? If so, that would make it an actual true or false question, where the null hypothesis really does come into play and my point stands only without the confusion over terminology.

    But rights are an idea, and ideas have no force without their justifications. Without those justifications, there is no need to accept the idea. Hence, what I call the null hypothesis in this discussion - that until someone justifies the reasons for assuming so, gun ownership need not be accepted as a right.

    What I think is missing here is the historical perspective - what we take for granted now as rights have not always been so. In the past people developed the idea and justified them and they became accepted by society as rights - they did not just exist since the dawn of time. Rights didn't spring into being with the Big Bang.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Continuing with Skeptico:

    Applying your reasoning, free speech would not be a right except in cases where I can prove it is.

    Actually, throughout history that has always been the case with the development of human rights. Free speech is an accepted right now, no-one has to prove it because many others in the past have justified the existence of free speech as a right. I see people claiming that gun ownership is a right, like free speech, but I see no-one who justifies this claim or proves it. They merely claim it. If no-one can prove it, why should I accept that it is, indeed, a right? Remember, the second amendment provides no justification for the right to bear arms, it merely declares it is a right.

    To paraphrase your words on gun ownership, "free speech is not a liberty that requires no justification." Would you be OK with that?

    Not now, but 800 years ago who knows? Since then the justifications for the liberty of free speech have been given and we all accept and were brought up on the idea that it is a right. The idea that there could be somewhere without this same view is alien to us because we have never been without the view of free speech as a right. We are looking at that question (and my original one) through cultural and historical bias.

    Clearly free speech is a right, and it is taken away only in cases where it can be shown to be bad (eg inciting murder).

    Free speech is accepted and understood by most to be a right now. This was not always the case, and unless you are arguing that rights are either 1 or 3 from the choices above, it could never have always been the case. At some point someone (actually some many not one) developed the idea and justified it to society and society accepted it as a right over time. I think saying "clearly free speech is a right" vastly oversimplifies how we got to this point with free speech - it wasn't clear to people for thousands of years that this was the case, that free speech was a right.

    Equally, it isn't clear to me that gun ownership is a right and no-one has been able to justify or explain why it is when I've asked - people have merely replied with their own assumption that it is a right just like free speech. I do not have to disprove that assumption. Hence I assume the 'null hypothesis' (does someone have a less confusing term?)

    As to our comments on the rights of sex, I think you may have misunderstood my point.

    Is there a seperate and specific right for adults to have sex with children that exists because it has been developed as an idea and justified to society but that has been suspended because, for now, we have good arguments against it? Or is it really the case that there is the right (not currently accepted by the whole of society I might add) for adults to engage in whatever type of consensual sex they want, and this excludes sex with children because that isn't consensual?

    If rights are not ideas but something else, then why would there not exist a right to have sex with children? Are you comfortable with that idea? I sure as hell am not.

    With guns, the same thing should apply – can you show why guns should be banned (or controlled, or whatever).

    It should apply only if first someone has made the case that has been accepted by society that gun ownership actually IS a right. So far as I can tell no-one has made that case, but many have simply assumed it is the case and that has propogated throughout history thanks to the second amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  28. And finally:

    But you don’t get to do that by declaring you’re right before we start, and that it’s only the proponents of allowing guns who have to prove their position.

    If I have given that impression I absolutely did not mean to - I do not know that I am correct. On the other hand, since no-one has bothered to justify the claim that gun ownership is a right I do not know if that position is correct either. That has been my point since my first post on Bronze Dog's Gun Control blog post!

    Sorry Jimmy, but I don't [I knew what you meant - Jimmy Blue] think I have to explain or demonstrate to anyone why I want to do those things or anything else for that matter. Cases where my exercise of a liberty directly hurts someone else, are the only cases where my liberties should be curtailed.

    So do you think rights just are? Does that make them a property of the Universe or something else? Or, are the rights you take for granted now simply ideas that other people in the past have justified to the point that society accepts them and takes them for granted? For instance, to use one of your examples, would listening to rap have been obvious as a right in 1930, or would censorship and societal norms have prevented it? How about womens rights or civil rights - have they always existed or were they developed, defined, justified and defended?

    And what of cases where liberties might influence another persons liberties? For instance, as I asked Dunc, does your right to own a firearm outweigh my right not to be endangered by the potential accidental discharge of your firearm?

    One more thing. You start off with a list of 16 arguments used to support gun ownership,...

    Point taken, and actually I wasn't meaning to imply that the arguments were simply rebutted just because, just that I was seeing nothing new from skeptics who really should know better - but you have prompted me to write a post actually rebutting those arguments now.

    I must be a sucker for punishment....

    ReplyDelete
  29. Here is where the quote from the Time article I mentioned above comes in to scope. I think there is a fundamental difference between the way I see gun ownership and the way others do - I do not see it as a simple right you should have in the same manner as freedom of speech.

    Yes, it's clear that's what you think. You feel rights should be restricted to disallow things you dislike, without you having to provide reasons for them to be disallowed. I disagree. I don't see why I should be disallowed to do the things that Jimmy Blue disapproves of, without him having to show why. I think you have to show why I can't do something. I think any adult should have the right to do anything that doesn't hurt others. It's then up to you to show that it does hurt others and so should be banned. Your way, I'm sorry to say, is a totalitarian view of how we should live.

    What is a right/liberty? Is it:

    1. A property of the Universe or reality that just is, like gravity?
    2. An idea that has been explained, justified, supported, defined and accepted by the majority of a given society as a necessity for a 'free' life?
    3. Something else entirely?

    James K seems to reject the idea that it is 1, and it seems that you do as well Skeptico. I would have to say that I certainly do. So questioning a right is certainly not the same as questioning some other observable phenomenon.


    Agreed. Which is why the null hypothesis format of arguing doesn't really work.

    If it is 2, and I think it is, then I think my point stands but I may have made a mistake by calling my position the null hypothesis, since doing so has caused so much confusion. If a right is a philosophical idea that has been suitably justified and supported to be accepted by society then it should be no problem to explain this when I ask "Why is gun ownership a right?" or "Is gun ownership a right?" No one has.

    I think I already have - because you should have the right to do anything that doesn't hurt others. In a free country, the default position should always be "yes you can", until someone can show why not. You are saying that something (gun ownership in this case) should not be a right under any circumstances, and that you don't have to show a reason.

    To put this into your free speech comparison - free speech has already been shown to be a right. It has been explained, justified, defined, defended, supported and accepted by most societies. This was not always the case though, a simple read through of history shows that, as I don't need to point out. So, before free speech first took shape as an idea, was it a right? If it was, doesn't that suggest it is more than an idea and actually a property of reality? If so, that would make it an actual true or false question, where the null hypothesis really does come into play and my point stands only without the confusion over terminology.

    Free speech is a basic human right - period. Just because they didn't recognize this fact years ago doesn't mean it was OK to ban free speech then. They just didn't know any better. They has slaves too. That doesn't mean it wasn't actually wrong.

    But rights are an idea, and ideas have no force without their justifications. Without those justifications, there is no need to accept the idea.

    The justification is we live in a free society, not one ruled by the dictator Jimmy Blue.

    Hence, what I call the null hypothesis in this discussion - that until someone justifies the reasons for assuming so, gun ownership need not be accepted as a right.

    Which is the null hypothesis:

    1) Gun ownership should be allowed
    2) Gun ownership should be banned

    Showing your work.

    ReplyDelete
  30. To paraphrase your words on gun ownership, "free speech is not a liberty that requires no justification." Would you be OK with that?

    Not now, but 800 years ago who knows?


    But we're not living 800 years ago. I don't want to go back to those days. Do you?

    Is there a seperate and specific right for adults to have sex with children that exists because it has been developed as an idea and justified to society but that has been suspended because, for now, we have good arguments against it? Or is it really the case that there is the right (not currently accepted by the whole of society I might add) for adults to engage in whatever type of consensual sex they want, and this excludes sex with children because that isn't consensual?

    The latter, obviously.

    If rights are not ideas but something else, then why would there not exist a right to have sex with children? Are you comfortable with that idea? I sure as hell am not.

    No, because it violates the rights of the children involved (see point above). Why is this so hard to understand?

    Sorry Jimmy, but I don't [I knew what you meant - Jimmy Blue] think I have to explain or demonstrate to anyone why I want to do those things or anything else for that matter. Cases where my exercise of a liberty directly hurts someone else, are the only cases where my liberties should be curtailed.

    So do you think rights just are?


    I'll say again, I don't think I have to explain or demonstrate to anyone why I want to do those things or anything else for that matter. Cases where my exercise of a liberty directly hurts someone else, are the only cases where my liberties should be curtailed. It's a fairly easy position to understand. What I can't understand is why you think you can rule out certain things as rights based on no reason at all. Do you think I should have a right to own a dog? To drink alcohol? To gamble? To be out after 10pm at night. To have sex doggy style? To wear white after Labor Day? Yes or no? If you answer no, then this discussion is over because you are proposing a totalitarian society that I would not want to live in. It's really that basic. If you answer yes, then why is the answer "no" for guns? And by "answer no", I mean "no" as the starting point, as the default position without any reason having to be given. If it's "no" because you can show violence goes up, or gun accidents go up etc, then that's a different thing. Why do you think it's "no" as the default position without any reason being given? Because you haven't actually shown why that should be so.

    And what of cases where liberties might influence another persons liberties? For instance, as I asked Dunc, does your right to own a firearm outweigh my right not to be endangered by the potential accidental discharge of your firearm?

    Well in that case, we are into you presenting evidence for why this right should be taken away, which I don't have a problem with. Those are interesting questions - do the rights of a potential person being shot trump the rights of the gun owner? I'm honestly not sure what the answer is. But this is not what you were arguing. You are arguing that the rights of the gun owner should be taken away without having to show that, if they are not, someone else's rights are infringed upon. And you haven't shown why that should be so.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sorry Skeptico, but I don't think you are understanding what I am saying, particularly about the historical and cultural origins of the idea of human rights.

    You feel rights should be restricted to disallow things you dislike, without you having to provide reasons for them to be disallowed.

    I have absolutely not said that at any point - At the risk of incurring the wrath of Skeptico I'd have to say that this is in fact a strawman.

    I don't see why I should be disallowed to do the things that Jimmy Blue disapproves of, without him having to show why.

    This is merely repeating the same strawman - I do not believe that rights should be restricted simply because of things I dislike, in particular in this case because I clearly made the point at the beginning of my post that I enjoy shooting and have enjoyed teaching others how to!

    Your way, I'm sorry to say, is a totalitarian view of how we should live.

    It would be, if I was in fact arguing what you claim, but I am not.

    Agreed. Which is why the null hypothesis format of arguing doesn't really work.

    I don't think you do agree though, as I hope to show. It seems to me from some of your later comments that you are in fact arguing that rights are more likely like point 1 - some property of the Universe or reality that just are. I do now think you are right that my use of the null hypothesis is not working in this context.

    I think I already have - because you should have the right to do anything that doesn't hurt others.

    That being the case, if you think gun ownership falls under this broad definition of a right, I think I have quite comprehensively demonstrated with the many citations I have given that gun ownership does harm others.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You are saying that something (gun ownership in this case) should not be a right under any circumstances, and that you don't have to show a reason.

    Actually, this is the exact opposite of what I've been saying, or at least trying to say and failing it seems. I think that if you can show it should be a right it most definitely should be, and that is what has happened with everything else we call rights. Someone or some many had to demonstrate that something was a right. I am not sure why but you seemed to have skimmed over this part of what I wrote. You are missing the historical and cultural context - what we enjoy as rights exist because people defined, justified, fought for, developed, supported, nurtured them. They didn't just pop into being. They haven't simply always existed waiting for us to come along and enjoy them.

    You already agreed that rights are ideas given weight by their arguments (at least, I think you did, please correct me if I am wrong) - ideas cannot exist outside of the thoughts and words that form and sustain them. If there were no humans, would there still be human rights? Of course not, but are you going to argue that rights just popped into existence with the first Anatomically Modern Humans, because that would be equally silly?

    Free speech is a basic human right - period.

    Yes it is, now. Since free speech hasn't always existed as a concept though, the idea that free speech as a right has always existed is nonsensical. To argue that free speech just is, is arguing that rights are just a property of reality - that's option 1 that I gave, which you said you didn't agree with (Again, if I am wrong in this interpretation of what you wrote, please correct me).

    As an example of how rights are not just a universal idea, take free health care. Most western Europeans accept the right to free health care as a basic human right. But how is that right viewed here in the USA? I say it is a right though. Do you merely accept that, or should I explain why before you accept it (that is, if you don't already)? If you accept it as a right, why don't so many other Americans if it is a universal right, no-one is harmed by it after all?

    Just because they didn't recognize this fact years ago doesn't mean it was OK to ban free speech then.

    But that is a view taken out of its cultural context - you are viewing it through your lens here in the 21st century where it is obvious to us that free speech is a basic human right - that wasn't always the case, and that is my point. I find it equally hard to understand why people don't seem to understand this point.

    They has slaves too. That doesn't mean it wasn't actually wrong.

    I agree, but people had to actually fight and die to make people understand this. People had to justify, explain, defend the notion that keeping slaves was a violation of some basic human right that people had not originally thought existed - the same is true of womens rights and civil rights.

    Which is the null hypothesis:

    OK, I hereby retract my use of the term 'null hypothesis' in this discussion since it appears to be causing too much confusion over what I mean.

    But we're not living 800 years ago. I don't want to go back to those days. Do you?

    Oh hell no I don't. But that wasn't the point. My point was that free speech as a right did not generally exist as a concept back then - so the right to free speech has not always existed unless you are arguing that rights just exist as a property of reality. At the moment your argument seems to be falling somewhere between this and rights as ideas, which I think is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The latter, obviously.

    But it isn't, unfortunately, obvious. And that is my point - there are still plenty of people who don't accept or understand that any form of consensual sex is a basic right.

    No, because it violates the rights of the children involved (see point above). Why is this so hard to understand?

    It isn't, to you and I at least. There are plenty of others who don't get it though so doesn't this call into question the idea that there are just rights - period?

    I'll say again, I don't think I have to explain or demonstrate to anyone why I want to do those things or anything else for that matter.

    This doesn't answer the question I asked - I asked if you thought rights just are. Do you? If the answer is yes, then you are arguing that rights exist outside of ideas and that in itself is a position difficult to maintain or justify.

    Cases where my exercise of a liberty directly hurts someone else, are the only cases where my liberties should be curtailed.

    I couldn't agree more, and it just so happens that I think there is enough evidence to show that gun ownership is one of those cases.

    What I can't understand is why you think you can rule out certain things as rights based on no reason at all.

    Sorry, but this is not what I have been saying at all. You don't merely get to proclaim something is a right and that is that, end of argument. Which is what happens with gun ownership, and has even happened in this discussion since it began on the Bronze Blog.

    If you answer yes, then why is the answer "no" for guns?

    The answer isn't automatically no. I don't think I ever said that though it is possible I worded something clumsily and gave that impression. My position has always been I don't understand why people proclaim gun ownership is a right, can someone explain why it is. The response so far has merely been 'It just is.' That shouldn't be a satisfactory response for anyone, pro or anti gun control. Unfortunately, it appears it is.

    If it's "no" because you can show violence goes up, or gun accidents go up etc, then that's a different thing.

    I think I have shown that, James K disagrees.

    Why do you think it's "no" as the default position without any reason being given?

    My default position is "I don't know if it is a right, so shouldn't we think about it first? What are the arguments for it being a right and do they outweigh these things that I've found out whilst doing some research?"

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well in that case, we are into you presenting evidence for why this right should be taken away, which I don't have a problem with.

    Which I hope I have been doing, fairly comprehensively (its taken bloody ages to find some of the sources I've cited).

    But this is not what you were arguing. You are arguing that the rights of the gun owner should be taken away without having to show that, if they are not, someone else's rights are infringed upon.

    I am genuinely unsure how you have gotten this impression from what I have written, and apologise if that does sound like what I am arguing - but my position is that maybe we need to examine this a little more thoroughly than we have before simply declaring that gun ownership is a basic human right like free speech. Europeans don't generally accept this position just as Americans don't generally accept free health care is a basic right - so maybe there is something else going on here when people declare gun ownership is a human right. By asking why people think gun ownership is a right, that is what I hoped to discover.

    To sum up. I don't think rights just exist period - they are ideas we have come to accept as self evident over time because of the weight of arguments behind them. I don't think that gun ownership has the same weight of arguments behind it as free speech does, so I want to know why people still declare it is a right like free speech is. From a historical point of view, rights have certainly not always existed - it is impossible for a right to exist before the concept of it does. If the arguments for gun control as a right are strong enough and outweigh those against it then we should accept gun ownership as a right and move on to how to make gun owners more responsible and to find ways to combat the illegal uses of firearms.

    Finally I'd like to ask, how do you think the concept of human rights were developed? Do you think they have always existed? If so, in what sense do you agree that rights are ideas as I outlined in point 2 above? If you don't agree, then what do you think rights are and where do you think they came from?

    ReplyDelete
  35. James K:

    I forgot to add this earlier - I looked at your article from the San Fransisco Examiner and stopped taking it seriously when the author criticised people for not providing supporting references whilst he provided no references and started by citing other newspaper reports instead.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Jimmy Blue:
    I am going to try and explain how you perform a social science study. Running an experiment like the one you outlined would be ideal, but impractical for all the reasons you cite.

    But the simple international comparisons you cited are no good, there are any number of reason why different countries have different crime rates, and if any of these factors are correlated with gun ownership or gun laws your results will be invalid due to omitted variable bias.

    The way you work this out is to use an event study. You look at a bunch of states / countries that had implemented a form of gun control you are interested in and compare each state's murder rate immediately before and immediately after the control is implemented (if your theory of gun control requires lags, it is possible to incorporate this). Because you are comparing each country with itself over a short space of time, the confounding factors tend to cancel out.

    The only piece of data I have seen in this debate that looked like that was Techscpetic's piece which showed no drop in gun crime after England tightened gun control.

    You've asked what my criterion is. It is a drop in violent crimes. I'm not interested in suicides. The data you show relating gun control to suicide is interesting but inconclusive. People with a predisposition to killing themselves may be more likely to seek out gun ownership. I any case, I don't think self-inflicted injury or death is policy-relevant, I'm worried about gun owners being a danger to others, not themselves. If they think owing a gun is worth the risk, why should I argue with them?

    BTW: Even if you can demonstrate gun control meets my criterion, that's only step 1. Step 2 is looking at different types of gun control, since I'm pretty sure you could capture most of the benefits (if any) of gun control, while eliminating most of the costs by focusing gun control measures on people most likely to commit gun crimes (convicted criminals and the mentally unbalanced).

    ReplyDelete
  37. I'm just interested in what you think an argument for the necessity of any given liberty could look like.

    This was what I was hoping to get to.

    I don't know...


    Well, I would suggest that you really need to think quite carefully about that before you go asserting that people need to justify their liberties.

    I'm not about to try and defend the basic principles of liberal social contract theory in blog comments. Far better men than I have written many weighty volumes on the subject... From Hobbes and Locke through to Rawls and Gauthier, there's far too much to be said for me to have any hope of doing it justice here, even if I were a hundreds times better a philosopher than I am.

    Without agreement on the basic principles (and I don't think we're going to reach it here), any further discussion as to specifics is pointless.

    Just to be perfectly clear before I bow out, I am certainly not arguing in favour of an unlimited right to own guns. I believe that there are perfectly good arguments for extremely tight regulation of gun ownership (and use), which I regard as essential. However, I am not yet convinced that, in the specific case of handguns in the UK, a total ban is needed.

    I do not regard gun ownership as a fundamental human right, in the same sense as the right to bodily integrity or free speech. It is a liberty, which can be constrained in all sorts of ways and to very high degrees, up to and including its complete removal. However, I still believe that the basic presumption must always be in favour of positive liberty, and that any restrictions of it should require justification.

    It is perfectly possible for men of reason to disagree in good faith when it comes to the precise trade-offs between different social goods. The question of how many lives any given freedom is worth is not a straightforward one.

    ReplyDelete
  38. S: You feel rights should be restricted to disallow things you dislike, without you having to provide reasons for them to be disallowed.

    JB: I have absolutely not said that at any point


    Well perhaps “things you dislike” was incorrect, but I don’t see how the gist of what I wrote was a straw man.

    You wrote, "gun ownership is not a liberty that requires no justification."  Without the double negative, that would be "gun ownership is a liberty that requires justification."  IOW, unless I can demonstrate to you why I need a gun, gun ownership is not a liberty (ie a gun is not something I should not be allowed to own).  Clearly that also means that you don’t have to explain why, since you have placed the burden on the proponents of ownership.

    And you have also limited the reasons people can give to allow things.  According to you, just liking something – just wanting to do something because you merely want to do it – is not enough justification. You wrote, “People liking shooting is not a justifiable reason for allowing it […] Liking something is no good reason to assume it is right or justified.”  So not only is the burden of proof upon the person wanting the right (not on you to show why it should be disallowed), I have to show some actual need.  Not just a want. A need.  And presumably you are the judge as to whether that person needs the thing or not (since you wrote, “I wanted him to explain to me, not the government, why this liberty was one that shouldn't be taken away.”) I’m glad I don’t have to go through this process to justify to you why I like to drink beer.  Other than that I like it, I can’t think of any good reason.

    You also wrote, “Until someone can satisfactorily explain why gun ownership is a necessary right, why is there any debate?” That sure sounds to me like “guns should be disallowed, and I don’t have to show why.”

    Your position to me sounds like: gun ownership is not a right, unless someone can demonstrate to you why it should be. So, if gun ownership is not a right, then “guns are banned” must be the default position, you don’t have to demonstrate why it is the default position.  Ergo, guns should be banned until someone can show you a need to own them.  And “need” does not include “because I just like guns” (or similar). How are your words not saying that?

    Or perhaps you’d like to clarify your position. 



    That being the case, if you think if anyone thinks gun ownership falls under this broad definition of a right, I think I have quite comprehensively demonstrated with the many citations I have given that gun ownership does harm others.

    Good for you. Then you may be on your way to demonstrating that gun ownership is one of those rights that have to be restricted or removed altogether. You haven’t shown that gun ownership was not a right to start with or that the default position is “guns are banned until I can prove they shouldn’t be.”





    ….and that is what has happened with everything else we call rights. Someone or some many had to demonstrate that something was a right.

    Exactly – they had to demonstrate that something was a right.  Not “make it a right”, or “decide it was going to be a right from now on.”  But “demonstrate that something was a right” all along.  In your own response you come so close to getting my point, but somehow it still got by you.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think that if you can show it should be a right it most definitely should be, and that is what has happened with everything else we call rights. Someone or some many had to demonstrate that something was a right.

    Bullshit. Obviously, someone most certainly did not have to demonstrate individually that “everything else” was a right. Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own an SUV?  Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own a dog?  Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own a blue shirt?  Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own a computer?  Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own small airplane?  Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own…. perhaps you get the point. No one demonstrated I have these rights because in a free society I just have the rights to own these things. I don’t have to demonstrate a “need” to own an SUV, if I want one I can just go and buy one “just because,” and (unlike how you view guns) liking something IS a good enough reason to assume it is right or justified. Why are guns different?

    I think that if you can show it should be a right it most definitely should be, and that is what has happened with everything else we call rights. Someone or some many had to demonstrate that something was a right.

    Bullshit. Obviously, someone most certainly did not have to demonstrate individually that “everything else” was a right. Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own an SUV?  Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own a dog?  Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own a blue shirt?  Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own a computer?  Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own small airplane?  Where did anyone demonstrate that I have a right to own…. perhaps you get the point. No one demonstrated I have these rights because in a free society I just have the rights to own these things. I don’t have to demonstrate a “need” to own an SUV, if I want one I can just go and buy one “just because,” and (unlike how you view guns) liking something IS a good enough reason to assume it is right or justified. Why are guns different?

    You are missing the historical and cultural context - what we enjoy as rights exist because people defined, justified, fought for, developed, supported, nurtured them.

    No I’m not. I know those rights weren’t recognized – people in power took them away. That doesn’t mean they weren't actual rights.

    They didn't just pop into being. They haven't simply always existed waiting for us to come along and enjoy them.

    Yes they have. Strictly speaking, they always existed, waiting for us to take them back from the douche bags who took them away.

    As an example of how rights are not just a universal idea, take free health care.

    Different thing.  The right to do what you want is not something anyone can give you, it is only something that can be taken away. That’s why it is a basic right in a free society.  Health care is not a right in the same way – the right has to be defined (how much health care, how much waiting, how much freedom to see your own doctor, what cutting edge treatments should be used etc), and then provided by someone. Until it is, it is not a right.

    S: They has slaves too. That doesn't mean it wasn't actually wrong.

    JB: I agree, but people had to actually fight and die to make people understand this.


    Yes, and again you nearly got it. They had to fight to make people understand that it was already a right.  Your own words - “to make people understand.”   Not to ‘make it a right.”  It already was a right, they had to make people understand that it was a right.

    ReplyDelete
  40. S: The latter, obviously.

    JB: But it isn't, unfortunately, obvious. And that is my point - there are still plenty of people who don't accept or understand that any form of consensual sex is a basic right.


    Yet again, you almost get it. You state “consensual sex is a basic right,” and that “there are still plenty of people who don't accept or understand” that it’s a right. So the problem is that people don’t see that it’s a right, not that it isn’t a right until someone makes it one. So why are guns different?

    S: Cases where my exercise of a liberty directly hurts someone else, are the only cases where my liberties should be curtailed.

    JB: I couldn't agree more, and it just so happens that I think there is enough evidence to show that gun ownership is one of those cases.


    One more time - then you may be on your way to demonstrating that gun ownership is one of those rights that have to be restricted or removed altogether. You haven’t shown that gun ownership was not a right to start with or that the default position is “guns are banned until I can prove they shouldn’t be.”

    You don't merely get to proclaim something is a right and that is that, end of argument.

    But you’re proclaiming something is NOT a right and that is that, end of argument.


    My default position is "I don't know if it is a right, so shouldn't we think about it first? What are the arguments for it being a right and do they outweigh these things that I've found out whilst doing some research?"

    That’s not really what you started out saying. Regardless, I think it’s still wrong.  My default position is “it is a right, but we should consider the arguments for when the right should be restricted or taken away.”  That places the burden back on those who want to control or ban guns – which is where it should be. And as I have written before, ironically, you have actually started to present some arguments for the restriction or removal or this right.  So why do you say that the burden is on proponents of gun ownership to show why it should be allowed?

    ReplyDelete
  41. For the record, blogger's comment facility, especially its character limit, sucks. I guess you get what you pay for. ;-)

    Anyway, some duplication above, due to multiple attempts to split up one comment into small enough ones.

    ReplyDelete
  42. James K:

    Running an experiment like the one you outlined would be ideal, but impractical for all the reasons you cite.

    Hey, you were the one calling for this type of experiment, not me.

    Because you are comparing each country with itself over a short space of time, the confounding factors tend to cancel out.

    A short space of time will tell you nothing of value at all for the reasons I cited above. It is hard enough to remove legal weapons in large numbers from circulation nevermind illegal ones - looking at a small period of time before and after will tell you nothing of the effect of gun control.

    The only piece of data I have seen in this debate that looked like that was Techscpetic's piece which showed no drop in gun crime after England tightened gun control.

    So, do you just not look at the dozens of citations I have now given for crime and other figures in the UK?

    It is a drop in violent crimes. I'm not interested in suicides.

    Why not? Why is the data I gave inconclusive? Why aren't accidental injuries included in your indicators? Why aren't accidental deaths included in your indicators? Are random massacres included under your violent crimes indicator or seperate?

    People with a predisposition to killing themselves may be more likely to seek out gun ownership.

    Do you have any evidence for this?

    If they think owing a gun is worth the risk, why should I argue with them?

    So do you believe we should have seat belt laws and helmet laws for motorcycles and that they should be enforced?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dunc:

    Well, I would suggest that you really need to think quite carefully about that before you go asserting that people need to justify their liberties.

    Yes because heaven forbid we hold skeptics to the same standards we hold woos. Why would we possibly expect skeptics to defend their claims about social theory and politics when we expect them to over science and religion?

    I started out by asking why citizens needed guns, the responses quickly turned to "because it is a liberty." I asked why people regarded this as a liberty and the answer was essentially "It just is one, duh". I asked why people believed this was the case and the answer was "If you don't it's up to you to show otherwise." I asked "Wait, why is it up to me? You're the one making the claim. Why should I assume you are right if you can't explain why? Shouldn't I assume you aren't right until you can show why you are?" And judging by subsequent responses this apparently means I am some kind of illiberal fascist out to undermine life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (OK I exaggerate. A little).

    I do not regard gun ownership as a fundamental human right, in the same sense as the right to bodily integrity or free speech.

    In which case it seems you would agree with me on this point at least and disagree with Skeptico - I think this may be down to a cultural divide, amongst other things.

    I am also beginning to wonder how much of the contentious nature of this has been over the imprecise use of the words 'right' and 'liberty' - I know I have been guilty of using them interchangeably and should be held at fault for doing so.

    However, I still believe that the basic presumption must always be in favour of positive liberty, and that any restrictions of it should require justification.

    I almost agree with this, but where you say "everything is permitted" I am actually more inclined to say "most things are permitted". Merely assuming everything is OK until someone can find an argument against it creates all sorts of ambiguous possibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Correction to my response to James K.

    In this:

    So, do you just not look at the dozens of citations I have now given for crime and other figures in the UK?

    Clearly dozens is an exaggeration in reference to the figures I've given for just the UK.

    Curse my hurried typing and failure to throughly proof read.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Well, I would suggest that you really need to think quite carefully about that before you go asserting that people need to justify their liberties.

    Yes because heaven forbid we hold skeptics to the same standards we hold woos. Why would we possibly expect skeptics to defend their claims about social theory and politics when we expect them to over science and religion?


    My point is that your position (or at least, the position I think you're arguing, but which you now seem to be trying to back away from without anyone noticing) is fundamentally absurd, because unless you can successfully construct an argument for the necessity of any liberty, then your argument collapses to "nobody is allowed to do anything, ever." If you haven't even attempted to construct such an argument, then you haven't even begun to test your assertion that such an argument is necessary before we can assert the existence of a liberty.

    I am also beginning to wonder how much of the contentious nature of this has been over the imprecise use of the words 'right' and 'liberty' - I know I have been guilty of using them interchangeably and should be held at fault for doing so.

    They're quite distinct. If you're not clear on the distinction, I would suggest you have some homework to do before you can even begin to engage debates such as this in a meaningful fashion. Get back to us when you're up to speed on the basic principles and terms in question.

    I almost agree with this, but where you say "everything is permitted" I am actually more inclined to say "most things are permitted". Merely assuming everything is OK until someone can find an argument against it creates all sorts of ambiguous possibilities.

    So how do you decide which things are permitted and which are not, if not by making arguments about why they shouldn't be? Are there something which are simply assumed to be "bad", a priori? Where does this assumption come from? Does it have any rational basis?

    And yes, moral philosophy is ambiguous - very ambiguous. It's not anything like physics. If you can't handle ambiguity, you're going to be horribly disappointed.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The only piece of data I have seen in this debate that looked like that was Techscpetic's piece which showed no drop in gun crime after England tightened gun control.

    So, do you just not look at the dozens of citations I have now given for crime and other figures in the UK?


    umm, just so we are all on the same page. I didnt post any links about gun control statistics. I dont mind taking credit for being a smarty pants but honesty always gets the better of me. Looks like James K read a Jimmy Blue link.

    just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
  47. Dunc:

    Exactly what do you think I am trying to back away from?

    If you haven't even attempted to construct such an argument, then you haven't even begun to test your assertion that such an argument is necessary before we can assert the existence of a liberty.

    You said that gun ownership is a liberty but not a human right like free speech. Skeptico is saying that gun ownership is a right like free speech. Which of you has to prove their claim? Do you have to prove that it is not, or does Skeptico have to prove it is?

    If you do not have to prove it, why not? If Skeptico does, why?

    If you think Skeptico has to prove his claim, how is that different to what I have been saying all along?

    Or are people using terms inconsistently?

    They're quite distinct. If you're not clear on the distinction, I would suggest you have some homework to do before you can even begin to engage debates such as this in a meaningful fashion. Get back to us when you're up to speed on the basic principles and terms in question.

    That being the case, I am not the only one.

    Go back and start with the Bronze Blog and see how many times the terms have been used interchangeably, and not just by me. I asked about rights and James K responded about liberties and moved on to freedoms. I asked about the rights of gun ownership, you responded with talk about the presumption of positive liberty. I asked James K about necessary freedoms You said there are none of those and resumed talk about liberties.

    I am not the only one with homework too do I suppose. Or maybe I was saying that I recognise there is a difference and we need to be more careful using the terms and maybe that has been part of the problem here.

    So how do you decide which things are permitted and which are not, if not by making arguments about why they shouldn't be? Are there something which are simply assumed to be "bad", a priori? Where does this assumption come from? Does it have any rational basis?

    This is what I was talking about with some of the examples I gave in response to your claim that "everything is permitted" as the default position - does this mean that I have the liberty to murder, but that currently the arguments against it are better so it is restricted? Or do you mean that actually not everything is permitted, but most things are? You never answered.

    And yes, moral philosophy is ambiguous - very ambiguous. It's not anything like physics.

    Gosh no, really?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Techskeptic:

    Thanks for pointing that out, but actually I think James K is referring to an article highlighted by Dunc, which I talked about in my blog post and have talked about since then.

    Skeptico:

    I am working on your replies, been sick for the last few days so it is taking a while to get through everything!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Exactly what do you think I am trying to back away from?

    Your assertion that we should not start with the assumption of positive liberty, but that instead a liberty must be shown to be "necessary". That's been the essence of my entire disagreement with you. I have repeatedly asked you to clarify exactly what your thinking on this point is, and you've dodged me every time.

    Which of you has to prove their claim?

    "Proof" is even less appropriate in the realm of moral philosophy than it is in the physical sciences. As you correctly observed up-thread, "rights" are social constructs, so to ask whether gun ownership is a right is kind of like asking which side of the road you should drive on - it depends where you are. Personally, I regard the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the minimum baseline for participation in civilised society, but it's not exclusive or exhaustive - you can add additional rights as your culture sees fit.

    Go back and start with the Bronze Blog and see how many times the terms have been used interchangeably, and not just by me. I asked about rights and James K responded about liberties and moved on to freedoms. I asked about the rights of gun ownership, you responded with talk about the presumption of positive liberty. I asked James K about necessary freedoms You said there are none of those and resumed talk about liberties.

    Well, then you've been barking up the wrong tree all along where I'm concerned. I've never asserted a right to gun ownership, merely a doubt about the necessity of one specific limitation on the extent of the liberty to own guns. Personally, I've been pretty careful not to conflate the two in my own comments - I just hadn't really noticed that you were confusing liberties and rights until now. I guess I need to read more closely and be more careful of your equivocation between the two.

    I'm not here to defend anybody else's arguments. I'm sure the other guys can look after themselves.

    Part II in a moment...

    ReplyDelete
  50. Part II, thanks to blogger's comment limitations:

    This is what I was talking about with some of the examples I gave in response to your claim that "everything is permitted" as the default position - does this mean that I have the liberty to murder, but that currently the arguments against it are better so it is restricted? Or do you mean that actually not everything is permitted, but most things are? You never answered.

    Yes, that (the former) is exactly what I mean. It's perfectly simple, and I've been very explicit about that all along - you just seem to have trouble believing that I mean it. Anything is permitted, unless you can provide a good reason for it not to be. "Good reasons" for restricting liberties typically involve adverse consequences for the rights of other people. We then try to asses the cost / benefit trade-off of various regulatory solutions, with a view to maximising benefits and minimising costs.

    You do not have the liberty to murder because to do so necessarily infringes the right of others not to be murdered. You do not have the liberty to rape because to do so necessarily infringes the right of others to bodily autonomy. However, I cannot see any argument that the mere ownership of a gun necessarily infringes anyone else's rights whatsoever.

    Now, that in itself is not sufficient to demonstrate that there is no case to be made for banning guns - there may be all sorts of secondary and tertiary effects from the ownership of guns which need to be taken into account. However, it does establish that it is not an obvious slam-dunk. Therefore, if you want to restrict the liberty of gun ownership, you need to actually make a case for those restrictions. We've already established that I think that a very good case can be made for very tight restrictions of various sorts - licensing, training, secure storage, psychological assessment, the works. The only point of contention between us is whether the case for a total ban is good enough. I'm not convinced that it is, although I remain open to persuasion.

    ReplyDelete

  51. Anything is permitted, unless you can provide a good reason for it not to be....

    ...You do not have the liberty to murder because to do so necessarily infringes the right of others not to be murdered. You do not have the liberty to rape because to do so necessarily infringes the right of others to bodily autonomy. However, I cannot see any argument that the mere ownership of a gun necessarily infringes anyone else's rights whatsoever.


    Yes, this is also what I was trying to say. I think this is as well phrased as possible.

    Whats strange is that the statistic of increased suicide with gun ownership is made completely irrelevant by this view. Which I also mentioned previously was OK by my book. I realize I am being a bit callous, and I certainly would be sad if a friend or a relative killed themselves, while I am not emotional about it right now and clear headed, and I realize it may not be a choice but a mental condition, It seems to me its their choice that doesn't affect someone else physically.

    Also, as dunc said, its not the ownership that bothers me, its the use and responsibility. that is why I am all for gun control laws.

    ReplyDelete
  52. On the suicide front, I think trying to reduce it through gun control is ridiculous. If you're concerned about suicide rates, it makes much more sense to focus on mental health issues, wuch as the availability of mental health services and the cultural attitudes towards accessing such services. I would like to see suicide rates reduced - but all suicides, not just gun suicides. It's far better to try and help people avoid wanting to kill themselves in the first place than to wait until they do and then try to prevent them from pulling it off. Depression is a terrible thing in and of itself, and something society should make an effort to reduce.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Good gravy I hope I've been precise and clear enough this time....

    Skeptico:

    Well perhaps “things you dislike” was incorrect, but I don’t see how the gist of what I wrote was a straw man.

    The gist of what you wrote is that I think things should be disallowed simply because I dislike them – that is indeed a strawman. Take the ‘I dislike’ out of it and the meaning is very different.

    You wrote, "gun ownership is not a liberty that requires no justification."

    Sorry, but I think you have taken this out of context although I also accept my language is not clear enough here. This line comes from the section of my blog post where I try to explain what I was talking about when I brought up the null hypothesis. This whole section is about the fact that when I asked why people should have guns the response was “It’s a liberty.” I asked why people considered it a liberty and the response was “You have to prove it isn’t.” That’s nonsense or we could just declare whatever we want as a liberty and expect people to have to disprove it (and yes, that would include claiming I have the liberty to murder and expecting you to disprove it otherwise I do, even if this one is easily disproven). I am referring to the claim that gun ownership is a liberty. Or do you think that merely claiming something is a liberty is enough to actually make it a liberty, or that somehow people would only claim something to be a liberty if it actually already was one?

    Dunc claimed gun ownership was a liberty and that it was up to me to disprove this – why is it up to me to disprove his claim about the nature of something? This was referring to the claim that gun ownership is a liberty. I do not mean that liberties themselves need to be justified (although historically this is what happened, philosophers wrote volumes about this), but that when people claim something is a liberty this claim needs to be justified.

    Let me try and be clearer – I think the claim that something is a liberty needs justification before anyone should accept that the thing in question is in fact a liberty. It is not enough to just say it is one and expect everyone to accept that. That much is obvious with something like gun control because clearly not everyone accepts it is a liberty.

    Let me be even clearer on this – both yourself and eventually Dunc provided justifications of why you thought gun ownership is a liberty – and I find them pretty compelling, it was exactly the thing I was asking for right from my very first post on the Bronze Blog thread. Since I accept your argument that explains why gun ownership is a liberty it is absolutely up to me to find compelling reasons to curtail the liberty. You’ve established it is a liberty, you do not have to justify it any further than that.

    It seems though that the problem is different perceptions of liberties, what they are and how they come to be. Dunc thinks everything is a liberty to begin with – and I will deal with this separately. I am unsure what you feel about liberties and rights because you didn’t answer the questions I asked.

    IOW, unless I can demonstrate to you why I need a gun, gun ownership is not a liberty (ie a gun is not something I should not be allowed to own).

    Actually no, this is not what I meant at all. I meant that unless you can demonstrate that owning a gun is in fact a liberty, there is no reason why I should accept your claim that it is in fact a liberty and not something else. This is a point I have stuck too right from the start. Certainly, you could show gun ownership is a liberty without having to show why you need a gun and needing to own a gun or not is not necessary for demonstrating that gun ownership is a liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Skeptico:

    Clearly that also means that you don’t have to explain why, since you have placed the burden on the proponents of ownership.

    I am not the one claiming gun ownership is a liberty (and I reiterate that since people finally got round to explaining why they thought it was I accept that it is – I just wanted an explanation because I honestly did not know why people considered it a liberty). In every other case where someone makes a claim we expect them to support the claim before we accept it – why should this case be any different?

    You wrote, “People liking shooting is not a justifiable reason for allowing it […] Liking something is no good reason to assume it is right or justified.” So not only is the burden of proof upon the person wanting the right (not on you to show why it should be disallowed), I have to show some actual need.

    So are you saying that someone simply liking something is enough reason for it to be allowed? Despite the things I have listed that people like to do that we, I think, would all agree most definitely should not be allowed? And I am not saying that liking something should be ruled out completely, but that liking something is not reason enough on its own. Also, what you missed out when quoting this section is important, the point I was making is that personal preferences are not valid reasons for determining things like liberties and rights – that is self evident since people’s personal preferences are different and often conflicting. I also highlighted how using liking something as an excuse for its validity comes close to at least one and probably two logical fallacies.

    And presumably you are the judge as to whether that person needs the thing or not (since you wrote, “I wanted him to explain to me, not the government, why this liberty was one that shouldn't be taken away.”)

    Don’t be silly, this quote is taken out of context. I was responding to James K saying he shouldn’t have to justify his rights/liberties to the government – I was pointing out that I am not the government and this discussion centres on showing that something either is or is not a liberty. Since I do not have the power to take anything away and this was merely a discussion, why was he so afraid of explaining to me the claim that something was a liberty? That was my point.

    I’m glad I don’t have to go through this process to justify to you why I like to drink beer. Other than that I like it, I can’t think of any good reason.

    I wouldn’t expect you to because I already understood why people consider drinking a beer a liberty – I did not understand why people thought gun ownership was and that is why I was asking – that people chose to react semi hysterically like I was some sort of illiberal fascist demanding their liberties be taken away rather than answer the questions told me plenty, and that’s why I wrote my blog post.

    You also wrote, “Until someone can satisfactorily explain why gun ownership is a necessary right, why is there any debate?” That sure sounds to me like “guns should be disallowed, and I don’t have to show why.”

    Well then with all due respect it seems you have made up your mind about what I wrote without actually reading what I wrote, because again this is taken out of context. The point was made in order to invite people to say why they think gun ownership is a necessary right, I even went on to specifically invite Dunc to make some responses about certain things. It was a question, you’ve altered it into an assertion that I wasn’t making so you can say “There, you are saying what I say you are.”

    I am not going to defend something I didn’t say.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Skeptico:

    Your position to me sounds like: gun ownership is not a right, unless someone can demonstrate to you why it should be.

    Yes and no, my position was always – I don’t know why people think gun ownership is a right, could someone explain the claim that it is and until someone does then shouldn’t we assume that it isn’t given the nature of firearms? Why should we accept someone’s claim that something is a right if they aren’t prepared to say why they think that is the case? I was making that point in the first post I made on the subject, I made it in my blog entry, and I am still making it now, only now someone actually has bothered to explain why they think gun ownership is a liberty and I accept that explanation.

    Or perhaps you’d like to clarify your position.

    Hopefully I have. Something tells me it still won’t be good enough because people have already made up their minds that I said something else, or that I am trying to alter my position now from what it was.

    Exactly – they had to demonstrate that something was a right. Not “make it a right”, or “decide it was going to be a right from now on.” But “demonstrate that something was a right” all along. In your own response you come so close to getting my point, but somehow it still got by you.

    But my point all along has been that I wanted someone to demonstrate to me that gun ownership was a right! I believe I do understand what your point is – you are saying that rights have always existed and that it just took people to demonstrate that to everyone. I think that idea is nonsensical however because you would have to be arguing that rights and liberties are just some property of existence, the Universe or reality. Otherwise, how can they always have existed?

    Like I said, how does the right to free speech exist before the concept of free speech exists? When did these rights or liberties begin to exist? The Big Bang? The first humans? The original ancestor of humans? I have to ask again before we go further with this:

    How do you think the concept of human rights were developed? Do you think they have always existed? If so, in what sense do you agree that rights are ideas as I outlined in point 2 above? If you don't agree, then what do you think rights are and where do you think they came from?

    Bullshit. Obviously, someone most certainly did not have to demonstrate individually that “everything else” was a right.

    You know, it is pretty frustrating how one minute you are reinterpreting my words to make them say what you want, and then the next you take them absolutely literally. Yes, clearly someone didn’t enumerate every single liberty and right we have now – but the whole of social contract philosophy is about justifying the liberties a citizen in a civil society should have.

    No one demonstrated I have these rights because in a free society I just have the rights to own these things.

    You have these rights because of the volumes of work done on social contract theory and its acceptance by civil societies.

    liking something IS a good enough reason to assume it is right or justified.

    Allow me to interpret your words literally. So, if someone likes to rape their liking this act is good enough reason to assume it is right or justified. Don’t reply by referring to how it infringes on others rights – your assertion here is that merely liking something is reason to assume it is right or justified. Some people like to rape. Therefore, according to you, there is good reason to assume rape is right or justified.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Skeptico:

    No I’m not. I know those rights weren’t recognized – people in power took them away. That doesn’t mean they weren't actual rights.

    Sorry but you’re missing my point – these rights did not always exist, unless you can show that somehow rights and liberties exist as properties of existence, the Universe or reality rather than philosophical ideas and concepts whose arguments have given them weight in society. Looking back now, since we understand the concepts, we think that people should have always had the rights we enjoy but didn’t. Your claim though is that these rights always existed and people were just denied them, your looking at history through the eyes of the twenty first century, which is the wrong way to do history.

    Yes they have. Strictly speaking, they always existed, waiting for us to take them back from the douche bags who took them away.

    This is totally nonsensical and ignores the history completely. Since when have they always existed? Did human rights exist before humans did? Are you arguing that rights and liberties just are? How do you prove this? If they are properties of existence shouldn’t we be able to prove them empirically? When did rights and liberties begin to exist?

    Different thing.

    That was my point. What some people call a right, others might not. So, if someone claims something is a right ….

    Yes, and again you nearly got it.

    Oh I am pretty sure I get what you are saying, I am not sure you understand the implications of what you are saying however.

    So the problem is that people don’t see that it’s a right, not that it isn’t a right until someone makes it one. So why are guns different?

    I was asking people to help me understand why they thought gun ownership was a right, just like other people had to make yet others understand that not being a slave was a right.

    You haven’t shown that gun ownership was not a right to start with or that the default position is “guns are banned until I can prove they shouldn’t be.”

    I wasn’t trying to do that. I was asking why people thought it was a right. I was saying that until people could explain why it was a right shouldn’t I assume it isn’t because of the nature of guns?

    But you’re proclaiming something is NOT a right and that is that, end of argument.

    No, I most definitely am not. I am saying, why should I accept something is a right just because someone else says it is? Shouldn’t I have them explain why it is before I make up my mind?

    That’s not really what you started out saying.

    I’m sorry but I disagree, that is what I started out saying. In fact, it is the second thing I said, just not as well worded.

    My default position is “it is a right, but we should consider the arguments for when the right should be restricted or taken away.”

    And I have no problem with that, all I wanted all along was for someone to explain why they thought gun ownership was a right. If no one was going to do this, I saw no reason why I should simply accept that it is. Hence the stuff about the null hypothesis. That I really don’t want to go into again since clearly all it has done is confuse people.

    That places the burden back on those who want to control or ban guns – which is where it should be.

    Yes, once it is established that something is a liberty the burden of proof lies with those who want to take it away. Absolutely.

    So why do you say that the burden is on proponents of gun ownership to show why it should be allowed?

    I was saying that when someone claims a particular thing actually is a liberty, the burden lies with them to show it is one otherwise you could claim anything was and expect people to have to accept that. I honestly do not understand why this is so controversial or why people think they know what I was saying better than me. I was not saying that the burden is on someone to show why they are allowed to keep a particular liberty that has already been accepted as one.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Your assertion that we should not start with the assumption of positive liberty, but that instead a liberty must be shown to be "necessary".

    Where do I make this assertion? After re-reading my comments repeatedly over the last two days I am not sure where you think I make that assertion without taking something out of context.

    "Proof" is even less appropriate in the realm of moral philosophy than it is in the physical sciences.

    And you have the cheek to say I have been dodging you! You say that gun ownership is a liberty not a right like free speech, Skeptico says it is a right like free speech – you can’t both be correct. So who has to do the explanatory leg work?

    As you correctly observed up-thread, "rights" are social constructs

    But not everyone agrees this is the case.

    so to ask whether gun ownership is a right is kind of like asking which side of the road you should drive on - it depends where you are.

    I couldn’t agree more, that is a point I have made to Skeptico. But, since liberties and or rights can be so varied then when someone tells me that something is a right or liberty shouldn’t I expect them to be able to say why they think this is the case? Since people view rights and liberties so differently should I just take someone’s word for it when they claim something is a right or liberty? Or, in fact, would it be perfectly reasonable to ask, why do you think that? I wonder who may have done that….

    you can add additional rights as your culture sees fit.

    And in order for people to accept those additions as rights surely it is up to you to justify why they should be considered rights? Now you’re making my point for me, although I’m sure you will vehemently deny that this was my point and that you’re making it for me.

    Well, then you've been barking up the wrong tree all along where I'm concerned.

    Oh now you’re pissing me off. You don’t get to be a patronizing arse and then get away with it when you do the same thing. I asked about rights, you responded with talk about liberties. Whilst your argument might be consistent, you started mixing the terms, not me. Now you’re trying to make it sound like I am the only one who has at times possibly mixed the terms. You made the mistake that you told me to go and do my homework over, it doesn’t matter if you consistently made the mistake, you still made it. Why would I not think you meant the same thing I did? I just hadn't really noticed that you were confusing liberties and rights until earlier. I guess I need to read more closely and be more careful of your equivocation between the two.

    I just hadn't really noticed that you were confusing liberties and rights until now.

    Oh nice try – it was you who responded with talk about liberties when I asked about rights. You don’t get to pretend you were right all along when you were the one who first started mixing the terms in the discussion.

    I guess I need to read more closely and be more careful of your equivocation between the two.

    Yes, you should be careful that you don’t make the mistake of talking about liberties when I was talking about rights again.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dunc:

    Yes, that (the former) is exactly what I mean. It's perfectly simple, and I've been very explicit about that all along - you just seem to have trouble believing that I mean it.

    Actually what I am having trouble with is what definition of ‘everything’ you seem to be using. Do you mean the traditional definition of ‘everything’ which means ‘every thing’ or do you mean the definition you then equivocate ‘everything’ to. That is, ‘anything is permitted unless you can find a good reason for it not to be.’ If some things are not permitted, then in what rational sense can you sit there and tell me I am the one at fault for doubting you mean ‘everything’?

    You do not have the liberty to murder because to do so necessarily infringes the right of others not to be murdered.

    So, not everything is permitted then? Of course I agree, but doesn’t this make a nonsense of your claim that everything is permitted? If even one thing is not permitted, then not everything is permitted. In fact, it would be more accurate to say ‘most things’ are permitted. Which is what I said. The way this could be determined is on the same basis you determined that murder is not a liberty – with some version of natural laws and rights.

    I wanted to return to this as well, because it suddenly struck me what a curious and inconsistent attitude it demonstrates:

    The question of how many lives any given freedom is worth is not a straightforward one.

    So, you don’t know how many human lives need to be lost in order to take away any given freedom, but tens of thousands isn’t it. But a few foxes dying is enough to take away the freedom to hunt foxes with hounds. If you can make the one determination, why not the other?

    Moving on to what you say about suicide:

    On the suicide front, I think trying to reduce it through gun control is ridiculous.

    Good job that wasn’t solely what I was talking about then.

    If you're concerned about suicide rates, it makes much more sense to focus on mental health issues, wuch as the availability of mental health services and the cultural attitudes towards accessing such services.

    Yes it does. Of course, this has fuck all to do with why I brought the figures about suicide into this discussion. Or are you saying that since strict gun control could only reduce suicide rates and not completely eliminate suicide then that can’t or shouldn’t be taken into consideration when thinking of the benefits of gun control?

    I would like to see suicide rates reduced - but all suicides, not just gun suicides.

    So would I. Of course, this thread isn’t about pill control, or rope control, or jumping from a bridge control.

    It's far better to try and help people avoid wanting to kill themselves in the first place than to wait until they do and then try to prevent them from pulling it off.

    Of course it is – but why not also reduce the chances of them pulling it off or having the opportunity to do so in the first place? Or do you think that since something only helps a little we shouldn’t do it at all?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Techskeptic:

    Whats strange is that the statistic of increased suicide with gun ownership is made completely irrelevant by this view.

    Nonsense – when considering the benefits of gun control then reducing the likelihood of suicide when firearms are present is clearly still relevant. Reducing the chance of suicide is still a benefit of introducing gun control whether suicide harms someone else or not (and of course it does harm others, just not physically.)

    Which I also mentioned previously was OK by my book. I realize I am being a bit callous

    A bit callous?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Let the hysterical shit storm commence...

    ReplyDelete
  61. Ah poop.

    I forgot to highlight where I started responding to Dunc and not Skeptico - my first response to Dunc has a timestamp of 3:06 pm and begins with my asking where he thinks I made a particular assertion, sorry for any confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Your assertion that we should not start with the assumption of positive liberty, but that instead a liberty must be shown to be "necessary".

    Where do I make this assertion?


    Right here, in the OP:

    "So why do some skeptics say they don't have to defend the freedom to own guns, it just is a liberty they should have; and the person saying it isn't is the one who is making a claim they need to defend?

    Why has the burden of proof shifted from the person making the positive claim to the person assuming the negative until presented with evidence showing otherwise?"

    So, not everything is permitted then? Of course I agree, but doesn’t this make a nonsense of your claim that everything is permitted? If even one thing is not permitted, then not everything is permitted. In fact, it would be more accurate to say ‘most things’ are permitted. Which is what I said. The way this could be determined is on the same basis you determined that murder is not a liberty – with some version of natural laws and rights.

    Oh for fuck's sake. From the thread at BD's:

    "I'm generally in favour of the presumption of positive liberty: things should be legal unless there is a good for them not to be."

    And:

    "Is the default "everything is permitted", or "nothing is permitted"? I take the former, you take the latter."

    [My emphasis]

    I don't really see how I could make that any clearer.

    So, you don’t know how many human lives need to be lost in order to take away any given freedom, but tens of thousands isn’t it.

    There aren't "tens of thousands" of people being killed with handguns in the UK, and there never have been. If you want to argue about the wider gun control issues in the US, that's got absolutely nothing to do with the specific argument I'm having with you.

    Oh, and finally:

    But a few foxes dying is enough to take away the freedom to hunt foxes with hounds. If you can make the one determination, why not the other?

    The fox-hunting debate has got sod-all to do with the number of deaths, it's about the manner of their deaths. If you're going to control pests, it should be done in the most efficient and humane manner possible. A good gamekeeper will shoot more foxes in a single night than a riding hunt will take in an entire season. I've got no problem at all with people killing foxes.

    I'm totally bored of this now. We're just going round in pointless circles, and I'm starting to get the impression that you're wilfully misinterpreting everything I say. Have a nice life.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dunc:

    I'm starting to get the impression that you're wilfully misinterpreting everything I say.

    Funny, that's what I was thinking about you.

    I specifically asked where I made that assertion without you taking something out of context. Why would you leave that part out of the quote? If you read the section you quote in context I am talking about the claim that gun ownership is a liberty.

    In fact, the section right before what you quote reads:

    When a religious believer says there is a god and they don't need to prove it because the person saying there isn't one is the one making the claim [emphasis added].

    Then just after the section you quote, I wrote:

    Regardless of what I might or might not believe, someone should be able to defend the reasoning and evidence behind their belief.

    And what was the belief? That gun ownership is a liberty. No-one has to accept your belief that something is a liberty unless you can explain why, which you eventually did.

    As for 'everything is permitted':

    "I'm generally in favour of the presumption of positive liberty: things should be legal unless there is a good for them not to be."

    And:

    "Is the default "everything is permitted", or "nothing is permitted"? I take the former, you take the latter."

    I don't really see how I could make that any clearer.


    Oh perfectly clear - we should assume everything is permitted, except that which can be considered illegal with good reason and therefore isn't permitted, but everything (and you mean everything) is permitted. Why would there be any confusion? Especailly when I say wouldn't it be more accurate to say most things are permitted (since even you are saying some things aren't) and you say no.

    Clear as the nose on my face.

    The fox-hunting debate has got sod-all to do with the number of deaths, it's about the manner of their deaths.

    So, cruelty to animals is enough to take away a liberty, but the deaths of people still isn't?

    Yeah, I think we're done here. Suddenly I understand what Mark was talking about up thread.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Jimmy, it seems there are two questions here:

    1) Should we have the right to do anything we want that does not directly infringe someone else’s rights?

    2) Assuming the answer to question #1 is “yes,” then what arguments exist to remove the rights to do specific things.

    Question 1 is about rights in general – ie it applies to our rights to do anything – own a dog, own a blue shirt, own guns – you name it.  The arguments will be the same no matter what is being discussed.  If the answer to Q1 is “yes,” then it is yes for guns, yes for owning a dog, yes for owning a blue shirt, yes for everything.  In this case, the burden is obviously then upon those wanting to invoke the “does not directly infringe someone else’s rights” clause.

    If the answer to Q1 is “no,” then it is no for everything, and the burden is upon those wanting to do something to show in each case show why every individual thing I want to do, should be a liberty, before it is one.   

    Question 2 is about removing the rights for a specific thing – and the arguments will be different in each case.  Restrictions in the rights to do one thing may be different from restrictions in the rights to do another thing.  So the rights for one thing (to own a blue shirt, for example) might be unrestricted, while the rights for other things (eg to own a gun) might be curtailed.

    I’m not interested in question #2 at this point – whether the rights (to own a gun, in this case) should be restricted or even removed. Well, I may be superficially interested, but I don’t know what the answer is and I certainly don’t have any attachment to either a “yes” or a “no.”  I’m interested in question #1, because in a free society I believe the answer to #1 should always be “yes.” That is, the burden should be upon those who say the answer is “no.” (If the answer to #1 is “no,” then #2 is moot – we don’t have the right do do anything unless we can a priori demonstrate that they should be allowed.  In this case, the burden would always be upon those who think we should be allowed to do something, to show in each individual case that anything should be allowed.)  

    So back to question 1.

    The “…that does not directly infringe someone else’s rights” clause clearly covers why we don’t allow murder, rape etc, that you keep bringing into the argument. The burden is still upon those who want to answer Question #1 with a “no.”  It’s just that the burden is an easy one to prove when the question is about rape, etc.  So easy, we don’t even need to “prove” it in any formal sense – it’s just a no brainer. But technically, the burden is still on those saying “no.”

    That said, I’m at a loss to understand why you think the answer to Q1 should be “no.”  And in case you’re going to claim this is a straw man, and that you’re not saying this, I’ll quote what you wrote above:

    Let me try and be clearer – I think the claim that something is a liberty needs justification before anyone should accept that the thing in question is in fact a liberty. It is not enough to just say it is one and expect everyone to accept that. That much is obvious with something like gun control because clearly not everyone accepts it is a liberty.

    You’re saying the answer to Q1 is “no” unless I can justify why it should be yes. Why? You are making the claim that all liberties need justification before anyone should accept that the thing in question is in fact a liberty. Your words.  Your claim.  Why?  Why should I have to?  Do I have to demonstrate why owning a dog is a liberty? Why drinking beer is a liberty? Why owning a green shirt is a liberty?

    ReplyDelete
  65. I get even more confused by what you wrote next:

    Let me be even clearer on this – both yourself and eventually Dunc provided justifications of why you thought gun ownership is a liberty – and I find them pretty compelling…

    I find that statement astonishing.  I’m not aware that I provided any reasons why gun ownership should be a liberty except for the argument that we should have the right to do anything we want that does not directly infringe someone else’s rights (ie the answer to Q1 is “yes”). What arguments did I (or Dunc) provide apart from the above?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Skeptico:

    Why won't you answer my questions about when and where you think liberties and rights come from and whether you think they are more than just ideas?

    It’s just that the burden is an easy one to prove when the question is about rape, etc. So easy, we don’t even need to “prove” it in any formal sense – it’s just a no brainer.

    Not so easy, since you claim that liking something is enough reason to consider it right or justified. Some people like to rape, so is it right or justified?

    But technically, the burden is still on those saying “no.”

    So, are you arguing that rape is a liberty that has been restricted, or that it was not a liberty to start with because it infringes on others rights? Would this mean that if someone came up with a clever argument that overruled current objections to rape that rape should be re-allowed as a liberty?

    That said, I’m at a loss to understand why you think the answer to Q1 should be “no.”

    So apparently I was still not clear enough, and the quote you give still contains the point I was making and it is not what you think - it is not a 'no' answer to your question 1.

    The keywords in the quote are:

    I think the claim that something is a liberty needs justification before anyone should accept that the thing in question is in fact a liberty.

    The claim that someone makes about something being a liberty is what needs justification - liberties do not. This is the point I have made from the start.

    Or do you think in a discussion when someone makes a claim of the nature "X is Y and this is true unless you can disprove me." is correct? In fact I know you don't because you wouldn't accept this about woo or religious claims and haven't in the past - so why do you expect me to accept it over this social/political discussion?

    I asked why people thought gun ownership was a necessary right. People responded with "It's a liberty and you have to disprove that it isn't." Then they initially even refused to explain why they thought it was a liberty, which is what prompted me to write this post. Eventually both you and Dunc explained that you think everything is a liberty by default.

    The claim was made, "X is Y, disprove me or it is." Do you think that is acceptable in a discussion, yes or no?

    Then, with the second part of that quote of mine I am not sure how you you draw the conclusion I am answering 'no' to your question, because I am specifically making the point that some people do not agree with your position that gun ownership would be a liberty because everything is.

    This goes directly to the questions I have asked and that you have not answered about what you think liberties are and where you think they come from.

    You are making the claim that all liberties need justification before anyone should accept that the thing in question is in fact a liberty. Your words. Your claim. Why?

    You almost get what I am saying. Do you think someone who claims "X is Y, disprove me or that is true." is correct in a discussion? I am saying that if someone says X is a liberty, they do have to explain why they think that is the case before I should accept their claim that it is in fact a liberty.

    Do I have to demonstrate why owning a dog is a liberty? Why drinking beer is a liberty? Why owning a green shirt is a liberty?

    No, for the same reason you say that rape is not a liberty - it's a no-brainer. More importantly though, technically yes - it is just that this work has been done in the past by the early social contract theorists. Claiming that owning a lethal weapon whose sole purpose is to kill is a liberty by default is not so clear cut as the examples you cite, as evidenced by the fact that not everyone accepts gun ownership is a liberty by default.

    So if in a discussion you are making a claim whose truth is not clear or accepted by everyone, is it up to someone else to disprove your claim or for you to prove it? Or should everyone merely accept what you say at face value?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Skeptico:

    I find that statement astonishing. I’m not aware that I provided any reasons why gun ownership should be a liberty except for the argument that we should have the right to do anything we want that does not directly infringe someone else’s rights (ie the answer to Q1 is “yes”). What arguments did I (or Dunc) provide apart from the above?

    Er, that's it. I didn't think what I said was that unclear. You and Dunc think liberties are all permitted by default, therefore you think gun ownership is a liberty by default. If you are arguing that everything is a liberty by default, you're providing justification for why gun ownership is a liberty.

    I'm baffled at your astonishment; that you would think that by arguing that the answer to question 1 is 'yes' you would not be providing justification for why gun ownership is a liberty.

    Regardless, yes I was referring to your arguments about everything as a liberty by default here.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Well I don't know about Skeptico, but

    So, are you arguing that rape is a liberty that has been restricted, ...? Would this mean that if someone came up with a clever argument that overruled current objections to rape that rape should be re-allowed as a liberty?

    Yes, I have been arguing,that rape is a right that has been taken off the table by other rights that we as a society have deemed more important. In fact in the social order of the roman times, rape was a tool. I think I already pointed to the article about bermuda where some religious folk think its OK to rape your wife (or more precisely, that sex with your wife is never rape, even if she doesnt want it).

    We have a pretty good set of moral rules, even endorsed by the supreme court in this country that the right to swing my fist ends at where someone else's nose begins.

    Note, OUR rules, by which we live and think are right, and think should be shared by everyone are NOT in fact shared by all societies as we see every day from the middle east (and even in this country with child marriage in some religious sects).

    Yes, if you came up with a compelling reason that the banning of rape would be off the table, it could be off the table. I can think of a number of individual circumstance where this may be true, but I can't think of any societal ones.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Techskeptic:

    Yes, I have been arguing,that rape is a right that has been taken off the table by other rights that we as a society have deemed more important.

    Careful, you'll have Dunc demanding you need to do your homework - do you mean right or liberty? I asked if it was a liberty, not a right. That people do think you have the right to rape and it is merely temporarily superceded by other rights is frightening and certainly explains a lot of attitudes to rape. Are we really talking about the potential freedom to perform the act, rather than it being a right or liberty?

    In fact in the social order of the roman times, rape was a tool.

    That has nothing to do with whether or not it is a right or liberty.

    I think I already pointed to the article about bermuda where some religious folk think its OK to rape your wife (or more precisely, that sex with your wife is never rape, even if she doesnt want it).

    Once again, the fact that people do it does not mean it is a right or liberty. It just means they do it.

    We have a pretty good set of moral rules, even endorsed by the supreme court in this country that the right to swing my fist ends at where someone else's nose begins.

    So I'd ask you the same questions I've asked Skeptico - what do you think rights and liberties are and where do they come from?

    ?Note, OUR rules, by which we live and think are right, and think should be shared by everyone are NOT in fact shared by all societies as we see every day from the middle east (and even in this country with child marriage in some religious sects).

    I quite agree, and I have made the point myself in this discussion - what we consider rights and liberties others don't. That's why people need to explain themselves when they do claim something is a right or liberty.

    Yes, if you came up with a compelling reason that the banning of rape would be off the table, it could be off the table. I can think of a number of individual circumstance where this may be true, but I can't think of any societal ones.

    This attitude I find extemely disturbing. See if your female friends and family members agree that lifting the ban on rape could ever be acceptable. But I'll bite, what are these circumstances you are thinking of?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Why won't you answer my questions about when and where you think liberties and rights come from and whether you think they are more than just ideas?

    Because the question makes no sense. Where do rights come from? Fucked if I know. Why does it matter? We should have the right to be free to do what we want as long as we are not hurting someone else – in a free country. Because if we don’t then we live in constant fear of the knock at the door, the police coming to arrest us for something they don’t like us doing, and it’s always up to us to prove we do have a right to do something. A basic principle in a free country is that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution – upon those wishing to lock us up, upon those saying we can’t do something, upon those saying we did something wrong. Do you disagree with this? Have you lived in a country where the opposite is true, where you would have to prove to authorities that you are innocent? I have, and I can tell you it’s frightening. That’s not how it should be in a free country. Where does that right come from? Who cares? I’m not saying we should have the right to do anything. I’m saying that the burden of proof is upon those saying you can’t do something, to show why you can’t do that thing. And many things have been banned by this method. But the burden should always be upon those doing the banning, to show why. Any other way and we’re not free.

    And are rights more than ideas? What does that even mean? A right is more than an idea, obviously. What the hell is the point of this line of questioning?

    Not so easy, since you claim that liking something is enough reason to consider it right or justified. Some people like to rape, so is it right or justified?

    You know Jimmy, you are really beginning to piss me off with these cheap appeals to emotion. I have said a million fucking times RAPE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. And I explained why – it infringes upon someone else’s rights, and this reasoning was a fundamental part of my argument right from the beginning. And furthermore, you know this. This is getting old. No, rape is not justified. Discussed. Answered. Included fully in my argument. Give it up.

    So, are you arguing that rape is a liberty that has been restricted, or that it was not a liberty to start with because it infringes on others rights?

    Question 1 – “…that does not directly infringe someone else’s rights.” That’s it. It is not a liberty because it infringes someone else’s rights.

    Would this mean that if someone came up with a clever argument that overruled current objections to rape that rape should be re-allowed as a liberty?

    Another appeal to emotion. Have you stopped beating your wife, Jimmy?

    So apparently I was still not clear enough, and the quote you give still contains the point I was making and it is not what you think - it is not a 'no' answer to your question 1.

    Then it must be a “yes.” So everything should be a right unless it can be shown it directly infringes someone else’s rights? Well good, because that’s my only point. Unfortunately it directly contradicts what you wrote lower down, namely:

    “Claiming that owning a lethal weapon whose sole purpose is to kill is a liberty by default is not so clear cut.”

    - which, I’m sorry to tell you, is a “no.”

    Either everything starts off as a right (except where it can be shown it directly infringes someone else’s rights) as the default, OR some rights are not so clear cut, and so therefore are not allowed as the default position. Which is it? It can’t be both.

    Or do you think in a discussion when someone makes a claim of the nature X is Y and this is true unless you can disprove me. is correct?

    You mean a claim like this: the liberty to own a gun is limited and this is true unless you can disprove me ? Clearly, no, I do not think that is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Skeptico: Do I have to demonstrate why owning a dog is a liberty? Why drinking beer is a liberty? Why owning a green shirt is a liberty?

    [Snip]

    JimmyBlue: …technically yes - it is just that this work has been done in the past by the early social contract theorists.

    Really? Please show me where the rights to own a dog, drink beer, own a green shirt, own an SUV, wear my baseball cap backwards, wear my baseball cap sideways… are liberties. Show me in each case where the work was done, where each thing was argued and accepted as a liberty. Because according to your argument, if I am wearing my baseball cap sideways, someone can come up to me and say “by what right are you wearing your baseball cap sideways” and unless I can show where this has been justified before, then the burden of proof is upon me right now to show why I can go on my way without being arrested. So, if it’s been done, show me where, for each case.

    Claiming that owning a lethal weapon whose sole purpose is to kill is a liberty by default is not so clear cut as the examples you cite, as evidenced by the fact that not everyone accepts gun ownership is a liberty by default.

    Oh no you didn’t. An appeal to popularity? That’s evidence?

    So if in a discussion you are making a claim whose truth is not clear or accepted by everyone, is it up to someone else to disprove your claim or for you to prove it? Or should everyone merely accept what you say at face value?

    You are the one arguing that certain things just are not liberties, and then expecting everyone disprove your claim or to merely accept what you say at face value.

    Er, that's it. I didn't think what I said was that unclear. You and Dunc think liberties are all permitted by default, therefore you think gun ownership is a liberty by default. If you are arguing that everything is a liberty by default, you're providing justification for why gun ownership is a liberty.

    You wrote: “Let me be even clearer on this – both yourself and eventually Dunc provided justifications of why you thought gun ownership is a liberty – and I find them pretty compelling…”

    - but my only argument was, that liberties are all permitted by default. And you say you find this “pretty compelling”? So why are you still arguing that they are not? Why are you making these arguments:

    1) “Claiming that owning a lethal weapon whose sole purpose is to kill is a liberty by default is not so clear cut.”

    How can it be compelling but not clear cut?

    2)“…if someone says X is a liberty, they do have to explain why they think that is the case before I should accept their claim that it is in fact a liberty”?

    Why do have to explain why X is a liberty, if you agree that liberties are all permitted by default? You’re making no sense.

    And unless you do actually think liberties are all permitted by default (ie the answer to Q 1 is “yes” as you said at one point, although you later contradicted yourself), then please explain where the following liberties were argued for, justified and adopted:

    - own a dog,

    - drink beer,

    - own a green shirt,

    - own an SUV,

    - wear a baseball cal backwards,

    - wear a baseball cap sideways,

    - scratch my arm,

    - scratch my ass,

    - pick my nose…

    (I could go on.)

    Or do you think they are not liberties, and that he burden of proof lies with the people doing those things?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Skeptico:

    Because the question makes no sense. Where do rights come from?

    Either they are social constructs or they are some inherent property of reality. If they are a social construct, then there are associated supporting arguments for them. Dunc agreed this is what rights are and this is what I think rights and liberties are - ideas whose arguments give them real weight in society. If you don't know what rights are, where they came from, then how can you claim we should just have them and how do you know what counts as a right or a liberty?

    Fucked if I know. Why does it matter?

    Because it is really at the heart of this. Did the right to free speech exist before the concept of free speech did? If you are saying it did, then you are saying that rights are more than ideas but actual properties of the universe or reality, and you are making truth claims when you say something is a right. If you are making a claim of that nature it is up to you to explain it.

    And are rights more than ideas? What does that even mean? A right is more than an idea, obviously.

    So what is a right? Is it a property of reality? Is it something you can prove?

    Up thread you agreed that rights are not some property of the universe, but then went on to argue that rights have just always been - period.

    That latter claim is nonsense unless you are saying they are some property of reality or the universe - that is why the question matters, because if they were we could be asking questions about them like other observable phenomena - yet you already agreed that they are not like this.

    On the one hand you seem to be agreeing with me that rights and liberties are ideas that have been explained, justified, supported, defined and accepted by the majority of a given society as a necessity for a 'free' life, but then you go back to arguing that these things have always existed even before people came up with the idea of them. It can't be both.

    I have said a million fucking times RAPE IS NOT JUSTIFIED.

    Yes, I know you have. That means that when you say that liking something is good reason to consider something justified you are contradicting yourself. Of course I don't think you feel rape is justified - but you have also said that liking something is good enough reason to consider it right or justified. You wrote:

    liking something IS a good enough reason to assume it is right or justified.

    Do you now disagree with this? It's easy to agree with this when you are talking about beer of course, but what about when something unpleasant is thrown in? You dismiss it as an appeal to emotion because then you can ignore the contradiction without addressing it.

    Is liking something reason to assume it is right or justified, or not?

    And I explained why – it infringes upon someone else’s rights, and this reasoning was a fundamental part of my argument right from the beginning.

    And I agree with you, but then you threw in the 'liking something' and introduced that contradiction and then Techskeptic comes along and says that, "Hey, it might be feasible that rape becomes a right/liberty in the future because yes that is how it started out and we just took it off the table for now."

    This has been my point right from the start - people disagree on what even is a right or liberty so claiming that something is one might take some explaining in an argument about the right to do X or Y.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Skeptico:

    This is getting old. No, rape is not justified.

    And yet some people do think it is a right (just one currently restricted) and you did say that liking something is good enough reason to assume it is right or justified. There is a contradiction there whether you want to admit it or not. Here is also the point that people see rights and liberties very differently - something you seem unwilling to acknowledge and which is part of the reason this is getting so acrimonious. I am trying to stress that people see rights and liberties differently yet you are basically stating your version as the version that is.

    It is not a liberty because it infringes someone else’s rights.

    I have no problem with that. But then we have those sociopaths who do like doing it. Dunc was, whatever he thought, unclear on this and Techskeptic says it is a right, just one we've restricted but that could be re-introduced one day. And they are just the people siding with you on this.

    People view rights and liberties differently, whether you like it or not.

    Another appeal to emotion. Have you stopped beating your wife, Jimmy?

    No, not an appeal to emotion, nor a leading question like asking me if I've stopped beating my wife. Regardless, Techskeptic says yes it could be back on the table as a right if someone comes up with a good enough argument. So clearly there are differences with how rights and liberties are viewed.

    Then it must be a “yes.”

    False dilemma. What about 'Maybe...'.

    - which, I’m sorry to tell you, is a “no.”

    No, it's a maybe. This isn't just black and white, no matter how much you think or claim it is. Even Dunc admitted there was ambiguity here.

    Either everything starts off as a right (except where it can be shown it directly infringes someone else’s rights) as the default, OR some rights are not so clear cut, and so therefore are not allowed as the default position. Which is it?

    Phrased that way, I have to say the latter. Some cases are not clear cut. Some cases are a maybe. And then Techskeptic even seems to be saying that even where a right can directly infringe someone else's rights that might not be enough to exclude it as a right. It is not clear cut.

    You mean a claim like this: the liberty to own a gun is limited and this is true unless you can disprove me ? Clearly, no, I do not think that is correct.

    But presumably you think this: 'gun ownership is a liberty, this is true unless you can disprove me' is acceptable. So you do think that someone claiming 'X is Y and this is true unless you can disprove me' is correct. My point from the original post and since then has been - why is this version OK to you but not the version you chose to cite?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Skeptico:

    Really? Please show me where the rights to own a dog, drink beer, own a green shirt, own an SUV...

    We went through this earlier. I did not mean that someone has enumerated every single right that every individual thinks they have. My point was I was asking why someone thought gun ownership was a liberty because I did not understand why people thought owning a lethal weapon was a liberty. I understand why people have the right to buy beer etc, and the reasons why civil societies enjoy these liberties and why they are important has been set down in general and over time since people started thinking about rights in the days of Ashoka.

    Because according to your argument, if I am wearing my baseball cap sideways, someone can come up to me and say “by what right are you wearing your baseball cap sideways” and unless I can show where this has been justified before, then the burden of proof is upon me right now to show why I can go on my way without being arrested

    Actually, this is just bullshit. My argument has only ever been "You claim this is a liberty, can you explain why and if not then why should I just take your word for it?" If you can find somewhere that I say you should be arrested for not being able to do so then feel free to quote it.

    Oh no you didn’t. An appeal to popularity? That’s evidence?

    Oh please. Not even close. Where did I say that I was right because most people believe what I do? Oh that's right, I didn't. What I said was that not everyone agrees with what Skeptico proclaims about rights because, shock horror, not everyone agrees with Skeptico. If not everyone agrees with your point of view, then maybe it isn't as clear cut as you imply. Not even close to the logical fallacy you claim.

    You are the one arguing that certain things just are not liberties, and then expecting everyone disprove your claim or to merely accept what you say at face value.

    Really? Where did I say that? Please be sure to keep the quote in context.

    but my only argument was, that liberties are all permitted by default. And you say you find this “pretty compelling”? So why are you still arguing that they are not?

    I said compelling, not divinely inspired and irrefutable.

    How can it be compelling but not clear cut?

    Your arguments carry plenty of persuasive force and I find on the whole I agree, but I think there are still questions to be asked and answered. It's not as clear cut as you think.

    Why do have to explain why X is a liberty, if you agree that liberties are all permitted by default?

    Because we are having a discussion. In discussions people usually explain their viewpoint and position when they make a claim about something. Skeptics and critical thinkers in particular are supposed to put great weight in this. My point was why should I consider gun ownership a liberty - not it is a liberty but you have to justify why you have it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. But I'll bite, what are these circumstances you are thinking of?

    Well, they are all along the lines of someone is holding a gun to my daughters head and telling me to rape someone. As I said, an individual circumstance that I could think of.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Just a quick note:

    Jimmy, this is quote mining...

    you have also said that liking something is good enough reason to consider it right or justified. You wrote:

    liking something IS a good enough reason to assume it is right or justified.

    Do you now disagree with this?


    Skeptico, me and others, have mentioned a number of times something like this part that you keep leaving out..

    [unless] it infringes upon someone else’s rights

    No one is saying that something is a right just because people like it. We are for the most part saying that something is assumed to be a right unless it infringes on someone else's rights.

    That is why both gun ownership and gay marriage (and any of skeptico's scenarios) should be assumed to be a right in the first place. Then if we show that owning too many green shirts is affecting global climate,we can talk about limiting that right.

    Certainly there may have been a time that free speech wasn't an idea, but lets assume it came to be one day as a concept. The default position should be that it is a right. OK, now we see that yelling fire in a movie theater causes undue suffering for those that get trampled, so we limit part of that right.

    There was a time that MDMA did not exist. Then it was invented, it was legal to own, use and distribute because it was not illegal to own, use and distribute. Then people started getting hurt, or put themselves in conditions where they could hurt other people. I may not agree with this rule, but now we have limited the right to own, distribute or use X.

    I'm honestly not really seeing what is not to get here. Perhaps I am being dense.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Skeptico: I have said a million fucking times RAPE IS NOT JUSTIFIED.

    Jimmy Blue: Yes, I know you have. That means that when you say that liking something is good reason to consider something justified you are contradicting yourself.


    BULL. FUCKING. SHIT.

    Your point doesn’t really need rebutting, it’s so obviously wrong. I will anyway. If I say something should be allowed except______ (and then state the exceptions), when I later say _______ is not allowed, I am obviously not contradicting myself. Techskeptic rightly pointed out you were quote mining. This is so obvious I’m at a loss as to why you stubbornly keep parroting out such garbage. I can only assume it’s because you don’t have any actual arguments to support your position and you find the “rape” argument to be a handy emotional tool. Just like the way you asked another leading question about rape, and then jumped down Techskeptic’s throat exactly as I knew you would, when he tried to answer it honestly.

    Skeptico: Either everything starts off as a right (except where it can be shown it directly infringes someone else’s rights) as the default, OR some rights are not so clear cut, and so therefore are not allowed as the default position. Which is it?

    Jimmy Blue: Phrased that way, I have to say the latter. Some cases are not clear cut. Some cases are a maybe.


    Who gets to determine which items are “not so clear cut”? And why? Which side decides the issue? Why is it not the side who is saying “maybe”, who has to make the case?

    We went through this earlier. I did not mean that someone has enumerated every single right that every individual thinks they have.

    Then how do I know if I have the right to do something?

    My point was I was asking why someone thought gun ownership was a liberty because I did not understand why people thought owning a lethal weapon was a liberty. I understand why people have the right to buy beer etc, and the reasons why civil societies enjoy these liberties and why they are important has been set down in general and over time since people started thinking about rights in the days of Ashoka.

    So the rights to wear a baseball cap backwards was set down in general and over time since people started thinking about rights in the days of Ashoka? Don’t be stupid.

    This whole discussion is about where the burden of proof lies when we’re deciding if something is a right. I think (and if I’m understanding them, Techskeptic and Dunc do too) that it should be with the ones saying “no, that’s not a right.” You’re saying it’s not always the case. OK, so answer my questions this time:

    1) If I walk down the street wearing my baseball cap backwards, who has the burden of proof in deciding if I have that right or not – is it with me or with the person saying “put it on forwards”? And why?

    2) What if next year, the style is to wear baseball caps inside out – where does the burden of proof lie then? And why?

    If these things really have been set down in over time as you claim, it should be easy for you to answer those questions.

    Actually, this is just bullshit. My argument has only ever been "You claim this is a liberty, can you explain why and if not then why should I just take your word for it?" If you can find somewhere that I say you should be arrested for not being able to do so then feel free to quote it.

    Funny, I thought if something was not a liberty, that meant you would be arrested for doing it. Please explain how I can do something that is not a liberty, and not get arrested for it. (Apart from not being seen, running away etc.) What thing, that is not a liberty to do, can I freely do with a police officer right in front of me?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Oh please. Not even close. Where did I say that I was right because most people believe what I do?

    You wrote: “…as evidenced by the fact that not everyone accepts…” When the only evidence is that a number of people agree with your position, that is an appeal to popularity. And it doesn’t have to be “most people” as you leadingly phrased it – if you’re saying it must be true because many people do it, then that’s an appeal to popularity fallacy. You know, it’s pretty funny that you started this post about how skeptics are not skeptical when it comes to guns, and yet here you are, quote mining, drawing ridiculous conclusions by ignoring the obvious rider in my words, appealing to popularity. IOW, you’re arguing like a woo. Answer my questions.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Techskeptic:

    Well, they are all along the lines of someone is holding a gun to my daughters head and telling me to rape someone. As I said, an individual circumstance that I could think of.

    So, are you saying that in this case you have the right to rape someone? We are not talking about you being forced to do something against your wishes, but whether you have the right to do it and whether or not rape could be 'back on the table' if someone had a good enough reason for it to be. Being forced to do something against your wishes is not the same as lifting the ban on something on either an individual or social level. I would say that in the circumstance you give you still do not have the right to rape, but you are being forced to anyway. A massive difference. If you say in this circumstance you have the right to rape, then would you say that I just have to accept that you have the right to rape, or do you need to explain why you think you have this new right? Or do you think this new right just pops in and out of existence and everyone knows when it is around?

    You started out by saying that yes rape is a right, just one taken off the table because it infringes on other rights, but then go on to say yes it could be re-introduced as a right - yet I do not see how you think your example means rape could be a right. Are you also saying that whether or not something is a right depends on circumstance?

    Going back to an earlier statement you made about rape:

    I have been arguing,that rape is a right that has been taken off the table by other rights that we as a society have deemed more important.

    If you think you have the right to rape but that has been removed because it infringes on others’ right not to be raped then whose right has precedence and how was this decided? Doesn’t everyone’s right not to be raped infringe on your right to rape? Or do you mean that rape was never a right to start with because it infringes on the right not to be raped? In what order are rights assessed?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Techskeptic:

    Jimmy, this is quote mining...

    snip...

    Skeptico, me and others, have mentioned a number of times something like this part that you keep leaving out..

    [unless] it infringes upon someone else’s rights


    Then there has been a misunderstanding on everyone’s part (not that anyone else is going to be willing to admit that now, I’m confident of that).

    The reason I have been referring to rape is precisely because when James K said that pleasure was the reason for anything I thought that actually, liking something is not enough in itself because there are plenty of other factors to take into account, like making sure it doesn't hurt others as well or conflict with some right or liberty of theirs. That is why I said that simply liking something is not enough reason to assume it is a right or to allow it - you have to take into account what that thing is - hence I used rape as an example of something which some people like but which clearly shouldn't be assumed to be a right simply for that reason, since it does harm others.

    Skeptico then said that liking something IS (his emphasis) reason to assume it is right or justified. Given the point he was replying to and the emphasis, I thought this meant Skeptico believed that liking something on its own without other considerations could be the reason to assume something is a right. With this in mind, when Skeptico goes on to say that we have the right to do something unless it infringes someone’s rights and that is why rape is not a right, that appeared to me to be a contradiction.

    I chose rape as the example not because it was emotive as Skeptico keeps saying, but precisely because it was an action that illustrated the point I wanted to make, that liking something cannot be the only consideration for something to be identified as a right. I still don’t even think there is any consensus on whether or not everyone here thinks rape is not a right – Skeptico says no by definition because it infringes on other rights and I agree with him, but you seem to be saying yes it is a right but our society has decided it should be restricted for now, and Dunc’s ‘everything is permitted but not everything is permitted’ made it no clearer.

    No one is saying that something is a right just because people like it.

    Sorry, but that is precisely the impression that was being given at times.

    We are for the most part saying that something is assumed to be a right unless it infringes on someone else's rights.

    Why 'for the most part'? In which cases is someone saying something else? If you are not even sure that is what everyone is saying in all cases, why would you expect me to be and instead assume I was quote mining?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Techskeptic:

    Certainly there may have been a time that free speech wasn't an idea, but lets assume it came to be one day as a concept. The default position should be that it is a right.

    Yes, once free speech came to be identified and thought of as a right it should have been a right by default.

    That has been part of my point from the start - first it had to be identified and thought of as a right. I was asking if someone could do that with gun ownership.

    In the past, people had to explain what free speech was and that it was a right everyone should have. Everyone else had to accept that it was and why it made absolute sense that it was by default a right, in order for free speech to become a right in society. Free speech as a right didn't just poof into existence one day.

    Since rights and liberties are social constructs (that's the whole point of social contract theory), if no-one accepted free speech was a right it wouldn't be one in society unless you believe that rights are some innate property of the Universe or reality that just are. If they are like this, then we can make truth statements about them and yes, in these circumstances, if you say something is a right you do have to explain why you think so because you are making a claim about the state of the Universe or reality.

    If you don't think this has been my position, then with respect you have misunderstood everything I have written from the original post to here.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Skeptico:

    I can only assume it’s because you don’t have any actual arguments to support your position and you find the “rape” argument to be a handy emotional tool.

    You should probably ease up on the assumptions then. Explained this to Techskeptic above.

    Just like the way you asked another leading question about rape, and then jumped down Techskeptic’s throat exactly as I knew you would, when he tried to answer it honestly.

    What leading question? If you think I jumped down Techskeptic’s throat (and I most certainly did not) when he answered, how would you characterize your tone? Does jumping down someone’s throat now mean asking polite questions and agreeing with them on at least one point?

    Who gets to determine which items are “not so clear cut”?

    Society. That is something Techskeptic and I agree on here, it appears.

    So the rights to wear a baseball cap backwards was set down in general and over time since people started thinking about rights in the days of Ashoka? Don’t be stupid.

    [sigh]

    No. Once again, clearly not. That's why I specifically said has been set down in general. For the sake of brevity, I haven’t planned on citing every single piece ever written on liberties and rights since the invention of writing. Of course, the right to wear what you want how you want has not always been available, some people had to come along and explain and demonstrate and justify that it was a right for everyone to accept it as one.

    Indeed, it is interesting that this is one of your examples. Many societies still don’t accept that wearing what you want and how you want to is a right. How might we persuade them that it is I wonder? Well if we work it according to your position, there would be a problem because nobody ever has to explain rights, they just are. So I guess the best way to have a society acknowledge rights is to have people try to explain why these rights they don’t know about yet aren’t actually rights, because nobody ever has to explain rights, they just are and the burden is on those saying they aren’t. Even when people don’t know about them.

    1) If I walk down the street wearing my baseball cap backwards, who has the burden of proof in deciding if I have that right or not – is it with me or with the person saying “put it on forwards”? And why?

    It's with the person saying you should wear it forwards, because our society now accepts you have the right to wear what you want how you want (even then still, at times, only within socially accepted levels).

    2) What if next year, the style is to wear baseball caps inside out – where does the burden of proof lie then? And why?

    Still with anyone who says no. But then, those cases are pretty clear cut aren't they? They are nice and safe, which is why you chose them.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Skeptico:

    Funny, I thought if something was not a liberty, that meant you would be arrested for doing it. Please explain how I can do something that is not a liberty, and not get arrested for it. (Apart from not being seen, running away etc.) What thing, that is not a liberty to do, can I freely do with a police officer right in front of me?

    You misunderstood the passage you quoted. I asked you to show me where I said that “if you couldn't explain why you thought something was a right to me then why should I accept that it is one, and that if you couldn't do so you should be arrested”. I didn't say anything about being arrested for doing something that wasn't a liberty.

    When the only evidence is that a number of people agree with your position, that is an appeal to popularity.

    Appeal to popularity.

    I do not claim that most people agree with me, or even that a large number of people agree with me. Nor is the fact that people agree with me the only evidence for the point I was making. I was pointing out not everyone agrees with you. I said only that not everyone agrees that gun ownership is a right, so maybe the issue isn’t clear cut. I wonder what might indicate that there is still debate on an issue? Maybe something like not having total agreement on it, perhaps? Clearly the phrase "evidenced by the fact" caused you to jump all over this, I could have just as easily have said "since not everyone..."

    The point I was making is that you've chosen some deliberately simple examples to make it seem that every right is a no-brainer. But clearly there is still much contention over the nature of gun ownership. What might be evidence of contention over whether gun ownership is a right or not? Maybe, perhaps, that not everyone agrees on it? Just a thought.

    And it doesn’t have to be “most people” as you leadingly phrased it

    I was using the wording of the Nizkor definition. You should let them know they are wording it in a leading manner.

    Answer my questions.

    I did, I notice you ignored mine.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Why 'for the most part'? In which cases is someone saying something else?

    I said "for the most part" because some people have brought up stuff not directly related to whether or not something is assumed to be a right. I didn't mean it that some people sometimes said something in contradiction to this.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Me:

    Yes, if you came up with a compelling reason that the banning of rape would be off the table, it could be off the table. I can think of a number of individual circumstance where this may be true, but I can't think of any societal ones.

    you:

    are you saying that in this case you have the right to rape someone

    My example was in response to this:

    See if your female friends and family members agree that lifting the ban on rape could ever be acceptable.

    I think that in my example, my friends and family would find my action acceptable. Even with a gun to my daughters head, I still have a choice to do something or not, even though you are calling this being forced. I would certainly choose to infringe on someone else's right to not be raped, to preserve the right of my daughter to live.

    Specifically I was pointing out that sure, if there was some compelling rationale that someone came up with, rape could be back "on the table" as discussion. I can't think of any, nor can you. So its pretty ridiculous to pontificate about it. Right now Rape is not a right. But perhaps there will be a time in the future where humans speciate, and in order to save your particular species rape may be required. who knows? There may actually be a compelling reason in the future for rape to be a right under certain circumstances, just like murder is opened up as a right in certain circumstances now (self defense, war)

    I only pointed out that there ARE in fact times when it may be deemed "acceptable" (as opposed to a fundamental right), which is what you were asking about. I also pointed out, on purpose that none of them are societal justifications, just individual.

    I'm sorry that this example got us off all over the place, it doesnt really change the idea that as a societal right, rape, has historically been a gray area, still is in some circles. As time has gone on however, the limitations on the right to rape have certainly increased to the point that in most cultures, it is no longer a right.

    None of this changes the idea that guns, murder, rape, t-shirts, mdma, are all rights first that we have boxed in, and limited as needed.

    ReplyDelete
  86. If you think you have the right to rape but that has been removed because it infringes on others’ right not to be raped then whose right has precedence and how was this decided?

    I dont know the specific history of how laws about rape have evolved throughout the history of man. Rape used to be a tool of war, it no longer is (or is not supposed to be). It used to be OK to screw your wife whenever you wanted, this is no longer the case. The right to rape has been diminished enough that the right no longer exists. the exact same thing may happen with smoking, or emitting carbon, who knows? It depends on how we, as a society moralize one topic or another.

    ReplyDelete

  87. Skeptico then said that liking something IS (his emphasis) reason to assume it is right or justified. Given the point he was replying to and the emphasis, I thought this meant Skeptico believed that liking something on its own without other considerations could be the reason to assume something is a right. With this in mind, when Skeptico goes on to say that we have the right to do something unless it infringes someone’s rights and that is why rape is not a right, that appeared to me to be a contradiction.


    I dont see the contradiction. When you quote mine one part of what someone says you may very well come to understand something completely different than what that person intended with the entire text. that is why quote mining is bad. I know I dont have to tell you.

    the reason the backwards base ball cap is a good example, is because there are no other considerations. for rape and guns, there certainly are. I think you are trying to make black and white an issue that is fundamentally gray, that is exactly what right wingers do when they talk about guns and healthcare and socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Skeptico says no by definition because it infringes on other rights and I agree with him, but you seem to be saying yes it is a right but our society has decided it should be restricted for now...

    Ok me and Skeptico have different definitions of how a present day right became a right. so what? I agree with both of you, my slant on it is that the recognition of something infringing on other people's right is an evolutionary process. Maybe wearing an inside out baseball hat will be offensive to a huge tract of the population one day, its likely that the right to wear one like that will be removed. Who knows? Making bomb jokes in airports used to be just looked upon with disdain, now you no longer have the right to do it, it's illegal.

    I dont like skeptico's definition because we allow lots of things that infringe on other people rights. Smoking outside, infringes on my right to breath clean air. Car horns infringe on my right to peace and quiet. You are infringing on my right to keep my 3 remaining hairs.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Jimmy Blue wrote:

    ...liking something cannot be the only consideration for something to be identified as a right.

    Of course it can. What other reason need there be for me wanting to wear a green shirt? Why do I have to give another reason?

    This ridiculous point of yours goes to the heart of what is wrong with your argument - you actually expect people to have to justify why they should have the right to do something. I want to IS reason enough, subject of course to the exclusions I have mentioned several times (and yes Jimmy, that would exclude rape and no Jimmy, that is not a contradiction). Also subject to arguments being presented to remove some rights. So I want to drive an SUV IS good enough reason - just because I want to. Period. I don't have to give any other reason. The right to drive it at 100mph on the public roads, OTOH, has been removed (in most places, anyway).

    S: Who gets to determine which items are “not so clear cut”?



    JB: Society.



    LOL. No citations, no supporting evidence. Just simple assertions. Would this be acceptable from a creationist or pseudo-scientist? Why did a skeptic think it was OK here then?

    (Quick quiz for those playing at home: who originally wrote those last three sentences. Hint: look in the original post.)

    More to the point, Jimmy didn't answer the question. Here is my question in full:

    *** Then who gets to determine which items are “not so clear cut”? And why? Which side decides the issue? Why is it not the side who is saying “maybe”, who has to make the case?

    Jimmy - please answer the full question, not just the easy bit. Which side decides the issue? Why is it not the side who is saying “maybe”, who has to make the case?

    Then you avoided a question. Here it is again. To your statement that someone has not enumerated every single right that every individual thinks they have, I asked:

    *** Then how do I know if I have the right to do something?

    These are key questions that I believe show the weakness in your argument. Or they would if you would answer them.

    My next question:

    S: 1) If I walk down the street wearing my baseball cap backwards, who has the burden of proof in deciding if I have that right or not – is it with me or with the person saying “put it on forwards”? And why?



    JB: It's with the person saying you should wear it forwards, because our society now accepts you have the right to wear what you want how you want (even then still, at times, only within socially accepted levels).

    *** What is the right that society has agreed upon here, exactly? Is it the right to:

    1) Wear my baseball cap backwards

    2) Wear headgear in any way I like

    3) Wear clothes any way I like

    4) Do anything I want that does not directly harm anyone else (note for Jimmy Blue - this would rule out rape)

    5) Do anything I want that does not directly harm anyone else (again, note for Jimmy Blue - this would rule out rape), and also excluding owning lethal weapons

    Those are just examples - not trying to force a false dilemma - feel free to explain exactly what right you think society has decided I have, that allows me to do the things I mentioned. And then please show where and how this happened.

    Still with anyone who says no. But then, those cases are pretty clear cut aren't they? They are nice and safe, which is why you chose them.

    Obviously not so clear cut, since you haven't fully answered them yet.

    ReplyDelete
  90. You misunderstood the passage you quoted. I asked you to show me where I said that “if you couldn't explain why you thought something was a right to me then why should I accept that it is one, and that if you couldn't do so you should be arrested”. I didn't say anything about being arrested for doing something that wasn't a liberty.

    It must have taken quite an effort to rephrase that the way you just did - careful not to injure yourself with these mental gymnastics, Jimmy. I'll remind you what I actually wrote:

    Because according to your argument, if I am wearing my baseball cap sideways, someone can come up to me and say “by what right are you wearing your baseball cap sideways” and unless I can show where this has been justified before, then the burden of proof is upon me right now to show why I can go on my way without being arrested

    That is because, if the burden of proof is upon me, unless I can show I am doing something that is a liberty, I can be arrested. If you really feel that I should be able to do something that is not a liberty without being arrested, then you must think I should be able to rape someone without being arrested. Jimmy, this attitude I find extremely disturbing. See if your female friends and family members agree that saying rapists should not be arrested, could ever be acceptable.

    Appeal to popularity (Nizcor link)

    LOL - we're on to cherry picking now. What about this one:

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

    An argumentum ad populum (Latin: appeal to the people), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges, If many believe so, it is so. [My bold.]

    Many does not have to be a majority, or even a particularly large percentage of the total.

    The definition you can find for something on the internet is not necessarily a complete definition that covers all cases. If you have any understanding of the issue, you'll know that the fallacy is in saying something is true because a number of people believe it is true. Seriously Jimmy, how could that make sense - and why would it have to be a majority or even a large number?

    *** Why is it a fallacy to say X is false because most people think it is but it's not a fallacy to say X is false because not everyone thinks it's true? Why is it more valid, logically, if FEWER people support your position?

    I do not claim that most people agree with me, or even that a large number of people agree with me. Nor is the fact that people agree with me the only evidence for the point I was making.

    Well, you have offered no other evidence. You just expect those claiming something is a right to be the ones to have to make that case. You wrote:

    Claiming that owning a lethal weapon whose sole purpose is to kill is a liberty by default is not so clear cut as the examples you cite, as evidenced by the fact that not everyone accepts gun ownership is a liberty by default.

    I see no other evidence offered there Jimmy. And yet again, Jimmy made this post about skeptics who aren't really skeptics when the subject is guns - their logic goes out the window apparently because (presumably) they are emotionally tied to this subject. But here you are, as soon as the subject is guns (lethal weapons), your logic goes out the window, with appealing to popularity, and then claiming you're not. Would you accept this from a woo?

    *** Tell me Jimmy, if you were arguing with a woo about homeopathy, would you think it was a valid argument it the woo said:

    Homeopathy is real because not everyone agrees that it's just a placebo?

    The point I was making is that you've chosen some deliberately simple examples to make it seem that every right is a no-brainer.

    Not so simple, as it turned out. You missed the difficult bits. To help you in not missing any this time, I prefaced all questions above with ***. I make it five questions. Although some have more than one part.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Techskeptic wrote:

    I dont like skeptico's definition because we allow lots of things that infringe on other people rights. Smoking outside, infringes on my right to breath clean air…

    Actually Tech, you raise an interesting point. In my view, the default position should be that people can smoke – ie they should be allowed to, and don’t have to provide any reason why, other than that they just want to. That's just the starting position though. After that, along come people (such as yourself) who disagree, and they present their case that smoking interferes with their rights. OK fair enough. At that point, it then goes back to the smokers to justify why their rights are more important than non-smokers’ rights. Both sides then present their case, and eventually (we hope) some agreement is made. Perhaps we can smoke but only outside, or outside but at least 50 feet from a doorway, or not near a school. Or perhaps it is decided that smoking should be banned completely. For the purpose of this discussion, I’m not interested in what the outcome is – just that the smokers have to start justifying their position only after someone shows that smoking hurts someone else’s rights. IOW, the burden should be first upon those to show why something should be restricted.

    Now, Jimmy would have you believe the opposite. He thinks the starting point in this issue is that smokers (gun owners) need to justify why they should be allowed to smoke (own guns) - and “because I like it” isn’t an acceptable reason, remember. Jimmy thinks that the anti gun owners can just sit back and don’t have to do anything until the gun proponents come forward and justify their positive right. He even called it the null hypothesis – the thing that we have to accept until someone can prove it wrong. Go back and check the original post – he thinks anti-gun people don’t have to do anything; they can just sit back until gun proponents prove his position wrong. Now, Jimmy did withdraw the actual “null hypothesis” wording, but he has equivocated about how far he has withdrawn from the actual meaning. To try for clarity, I introduced my question 1 and question 2. After some prompting, Jimmy said his answer to Q1 (Should we have the right to do anything we want that does not directly infringe someone else’s rights?) " it is not a 'no'" Clear as mud, since he meant (but didn’t say) it wasn’t a “yes” either. In my view, if the answer “isn’t no” then it is “yes”, because “maybe” actually means “no” until the proponents (smokers / gun owners / baseball-cap-backwards-wearers) demonstrate that it is “yes”. When the answer is "maybe" then the burden is upon those wanting to do something to show why they should be allowed to do so, and we're already on question 2. I think this position is absurd, in a free country. I have tried to show this with questions about wearing a baseball cap, owning a dog, owning a green shirt, owning an SUV etc etc, (and now smoking) exactly why this is absurd in a free country.

    One more thing: if the burden is upon the smokers / gun owners / baseball-cap-backwards-wearers etc, then they have to prove a universal negative - that no one else's rights have been restricted by the thing they want to do. And we skeptics know what we think about proving a universal negative - it's impossible. The burden should be upon those wanting to restrict the smoking (etc), to show that it does harm someone. They just have to show one thing that infringes one person's right - easy enough to do if it does - and once they have, then we can decide how much restriction we will place on the thing under discussion. But we shouldn't start at that point.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Agreed. peace, you captured the mechanism of the evolution of a right as I intended.

    Jimmy? are we together here? are you in agreement with the way skeptico and I have presented how a right becomes a right?

    [runs and hides]

    ReplyDelete
  93. Techskeptic:

    I think that in my example, my friends and family would find my action acceptable.

    OK, I understand where you were coming from now. My confusion (which I think you note with later comments) comes actually from me poorly wording what I was aiming for. What I wanted to get at was whether your female friends and family would accept that rape could become a fundamental right again. I worded it very poorly though, my apologies.

    Your later comments (before we get on to the stuff about smoking at least) about the evolution of rights I have no problem with, and I have actually been trying to get this point across myself. Rights don’t just pop into existence as we know them today and they haven’t always existed since the beginning of time and they will change in the future. This is precisely why I have a problem with someone saying “X is a right.” And expecting that to end an argument without them saying why we should consider X a right.

    If what can be considered a right can (and does) change, why should anyone simply accept at face value anyone else’s claim that something is a right?

    Even with a gun to my daughters head, I still have a choice to do something or not, even though you are calling this being forced.

    What I meant by forced here is that you and I both know it isn’t really a choice, although technically there is one to be made. But being faced with unpalatable choices through external threat of violence doesn’t mean the choice you make becomes a right. It just means there could be some level of social justification for whichever choice you make and that the social punishments for infringing someone else's rights may be put aside in this case.

    it doesnt really change the idea that as a societal right, rape, has historically been a gray area, still is in some circles.

    So, what you are saying is that some rights are not necessarily clear cut and might not be considered as rights by everybody in a society? So, if someone claims something is a right might we then be justified in asking them to explain why they think so before we accept that it is?

    None of this changes the idea that guns, murder, rape, t-shirts, mdma, are all rights first that we have boxed in, and limited as needed.

    I think that in some of the examples you give this depends on where you stand on the idea of natural rights – as in, that in his natural state man living alone has the right to do anything and only gives some up to live in society. I have problems with this idea myself, not the least of which is when has there ever been a case where man was alone?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Techskeptic:

    I dont know the specific history of how laws about rape have evolved throughout the history of man.

    That wasn’t the specific point I was getting at. If we have the right to do anything so long as it does not infringe someone else’s rights then where rights conflict how is the precedence of which outweighs which determined if neither side has to justify their claim that they have the right in the first place?

    It depends on how we, as a society moralize one topic or another.

    A point I have been repeatedly trying to make – rights are social constructs.

    the reason the backwards base ball cap is a good example, is because there are no other considerations.

    Actually there are other considerations, they just seem so obviously and blatantly trivial that we don’t give them any thought, and as I pointed out wearing what you want how you want has not always been considered a right. That’s why I said it was an overly simplified example.

    I think you are trying to make black and white an issue that is fundamentally gray,

    Actually I couldn’t disagree more strongly, it is not me that thinks rights are a black and white issue. The fact that I think rights are not black and white is exactly why I want someone who claims something to be a right to explain why they think so before I accept their claim. It is precisely because there is so much grey involved that I think we shouldn't simply accept someone's assertion that they have a right, end of discussion.

    I dont like skeptico's definition because we allow lots of things that infringe on other people rights. Smoking outside, infringes on my right to breath clean air. Car horns infringe on my right to peace and quiet. You are infringing on my right to keep my 3 remaining hairs.

    I actually agree with your point here – and that is precisely why I have been arguing that if someone claims that something is a right we should not simply take their word for it – they need to support the claim, they need to explain why they think it is a right. Explaining the right itself is just the starting point for a society to consider whether it should be accepted as one or not. I will expand on this point later.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Skeptico:

    Me: ...liking something cannot be the only consideration for something to be identified as a right.

    Skeptico: Of course it can. What other reason need there be for me wanting to wear a green shirt? Why do I have to give another reason?


    Wow. Just wow. No, I can’t possibly fathom why there may be a misunderstanding over your position here. Clearly it is simply down to quote mining.

    What exactly does your liking to wear a green shirt and wanting to wear a green shirt have to do with wearing a green shirt actually being a right? Of course liking something can be the only reason for wanting to wear it and I have never said otherwise. Liking something can also be the only reason for actually doing something. That still doesn’t mean you have the right to do it. Yet another strawman. Or a red herring. Take your pick depending on how charitable you feel dear reader.

    Your personal preference thankfully has bugger all to do with whether societies consider something a right or not, and with good reason.

    I was making the point that liking something is not the only consideration for identifying something as a right - a point you’ve actually been at great pains to stress funnily enough – you are after all the one who keeps arguing that you also have to consider whether or not someone else’s rights are being infringed, aren’t you? And indeed that is what you go on to mention again in the next paragraph. And that, as I explained to Techskeptic, was why I brought rape up in the first place. So if you have to consider more than one thing, that would mean that liking something isn’t the only consideration, wouldn’t it? Which is what I said.

    Please do make up your mind – can liking something be the only consideration for something to be a right (not just for wanting to do it, which is something else entirely), or do you also have to consider other things, not the least of which is whether or not someone else’s rights are infringed at the same time?

    Of course, you have been saying the latter but I am just curious why when you say it then it is apparently so obviously right, but when I say it then it seems to be wrong, according to you.

    LOL. No citations, no supporting evidence. Just simple assertions. Would this be acceptable from a creationist or pseudo-scientist? Why did a skeptic think it was OK here then?

    (Quick quiz for those playing at home: who originally wrote those last three sentences. Hint: look in the original post.)


    And you have the cheek to bitch about me quote mining? This is pretty pathetic Skeptico.

    I was responding to James K making a factual assertion that he provided no supporting evidence for – one he later retracted because he couldn’t find any evidence to back his claim up I might add. How exactly does one provide citations for a personal opinion that was never claimed to be a factual assertion? Where are your citations for your definition of what a right is? Your supporting evidence?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Skeptico:

    *** Then who gets to determine which items are “not so clear cut”? And why? Which side decides the issue? Why is it not the side who is saying “maybe”, who has to make the case?

    Society. Because rights are social constructs. Neither side decides the issue, society as a whole does. Both sides have to make their case, why should one get a free pass?

    *** Then how do I know if I have the right to do something?

    That would depend on how the society you lived in has passed this down and represented it in its civil and criminal laws. If I am unsure of whether something is legal or not, I ask someone who might know or I look it up. But that is just me. Do you just assume it is until someone says otherwise? Apparently so it appears.

    *** What is the right that society has agreed upon here, exactly?

    I answered this in the paragraph which prompted you to ask this question, which you would have seen if you were paying attention to what I actually wrote.

    And then please show where and how this happened.

    Gradually over time and across many societies, and certainly without one identifiable and defining moment. Hell, people are still claiming that women don’t have the right to wear trousers – or were you under the impression that every person in every society has always had the right to wear whatever they want how they want and when they want and that this right has always existed? Shit, we don’t even have the right to wear what we want how we want now, in certain circumstances. I did make this point in the paragraph you pretended to read, incidentally.

    LOL - we're on to cherry picking now.

    Oh don’t be so fucking ridiculous. Seriously, this is what you are reduced to?

    What would you say specifically going out to look for a different wording than the one I gave is then, if not cherry picking? Wouldn’t the very definition of cherry picking be deliberately seeking out a definition that suited you and ignoring others? And since when would only posting a link to one definition count as cherry picking?

    Tell me Skeptico, when you post a link to one logical fallacy in a comment on your blog how many links do you use, on average? Are you cherry picking if you only provide one or is that something that only applies to someone you are arguing with? This hypocrisy is not the best bit though. If you really want to know why I used the Nizkor definition then take a look at the sidebar over there on the right and see which site I link to under the heading “Logical Fallacies”. I’ve known about and used the Nizkor definitions for longer than I’ve known about your blog – that is why I used it.

    Of course, it gets better though. Let’s take a closer look at your Wikipedia definition shall we? What does it say under ‘Exceptions’? Well, it says:

    Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists.

    And what was the point I was making? Oh that’s right – that the belief that guns are not a right by default exists (that not everyone agrees with you) and this shows that the issue isn’t as simple as the easy examples you cited that no-one would really take issue with.

    By ignoring this exception, were you cherry picking from the definition you provided Skeptico?

    But I’ll go even further. What was the overall point I was making? Why that in this philosophical discussion the conclusions are not as clear cut and simple as Skeptico wants everyone to believe. Now, what might be evidence that a philosophical issue isn’t clear cut? That not everyone agrees on it perhaps? And what might be evidence that not everyone agrees on an issue? Why, the simple fact that not everyone agrees of course. Astounding. And not an argument from popularity.

    To everyone else who might be reading this, note that we are not talking about deciding an empirical fact based on the popularity of a particular belief concerning it – we are talking about whether or not everyone agrees on a complex philosophical issue.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Skeptico:

    *** Why is it a fallacy to say X is false because most people think it is but it's not a fallacy to say X is false because not everyone thinks it's true? Why is it more valid, logically, if FEWER people support your position?

    It isn’t and it isn’t. Not for the first time you misunderstood the point I was making even after I spelt it out and then tried to take me to task based on that misunderstanding.

    *** Tell me Jimmy, if you were arguing with a woo about homeopathy, would you think it was a valid argument it the woo said:

    Homeopathy is real because not everyone agrees that it's just a placebo?


    No. But then the question of whether or not homeopathy works is a question about empirical fact. In other words, it’s a truth statement. Truth statements or empirical facts aren’t decided by popularity. Shall I remind everyone what you said about rights and whether or not they are a truth statement? Oh, why not. Conveniently, you even use homeopathy to illustrate your point:

    I think you’re confusing a truth statement (where the null hypothesis would be “X is false until shown to be true”, where for example X could be “homeopathy works”) with questions about what rights you should have. With rights, there is no agreement before we start on which statement is the true one and which the false.

    Do you want to revise your position now? Are you saying that questions about homeopathy and questions about rights are both truth statements after all? Because that would really change things, wouldn’t it? Or did your attempted comparison here simply blow up in your face?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Skeptico:

    I have to say I see little point in carrying on this argument and so these will probably be my final comments on the matter unless I feel I can’t let something pass without further reply. This does not mean I concede to any of your arguments, that I’ve left questions unanswered because I can’t answer them or that if I don’t respond in future it is because I can’t. I'll also add that because of the length of time passed, people shouldn't assume no answers from anyone else constitutes conceding the argument.

    I am simply not going to agree that there are circumstances in any discussion where one of the participants is allowed to make an unsupported and unargued claim or bald assertion that everyone else involved must simply accept as an accurate fact or self evident truth until it can be disproven. ‘X is a right and I don’t have to show this, you have to disprove it.” is just such an assertion.

    The fact that you think this assertion is valid and continue to argue so is just a case of special pleading. Ordinarily skeptics accept that if someone proposes a positive claim or makes an assertion then it is up to them to support it and until they do no-one need accept it as correct – I’ve seen you argue this very point countless times as a matter of principle and a basis for critical thinking. Yet in this one case you claim a special dispensation, the principle is reversed and now it is up to your opponent to disprove your claim and until then it is true.

    I’m also getting tired of the John Best like behaviour of having you demand I answer your questions whilst you continue to avoid answering mine. Classic woo: “I won’t answer yours but you have to answer mine and the fact that you won’t answer mine clearly indicates you can’t. Although obviously the reverse isn’t true.”

    Here’s why the questions I asked are important: First you claimed that rights are not the same as truth statements and you agreed that they are not properties of the Universe or reality, but then you claimed that rights have always existed and just weren’t recognized; that rights have always existed and were just taken away and that rights are more than ideas. Then you say that you don’t know where rights come from/came from. Then you made a comparison between claims about rights with claims about the effectiveness of homeopathy. You really don’t see any inconsistencies here?

    You’ve also piled on the logical fallacies whilst claiming I am:

    You accuse me of appeals to emotion which were nothing of the sort yet threw about terms like ‘constant fear’, ‘frightening’, ‘dictator’.

    You complain about quote mining yet I have repeatedly had to point out that you have taken something out of context or missed out important qualifiers. Go ahead, go back and count how many times this has happened.

    You’ve attempted some strawmen.

    The claim that gun ownership is a right because everything is a right could probably be argued to be begging the question (the premise that everything is a right includes the conclusion that gun ownership is a right).

    You’ve fallen prey to the ad hominem tu quoque fallacy. Even if you are right that I have acted like a woo, that doesn’t disprove the point I was making in the original post as you seem to think.

    The whole argument, as I mentioned earlier, is basically special pleading.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Skeptico:

    As for your version of the evolution of rights:

    In my view, the default position should be that people can smoke – ie they should be allowed to, and don’t have to provide any reason why, other than that they just want to. That's just the starting position though. After that, along come people (such as yourself) who disagree, and they present their case that smoking interferes with their rights.

    In my view, the default position should be that people have the right to breathe air that does not contain cigarette smoke – i.e. they should be allowed to, and don’t have to provide any reason why, other than that they just want to. That’s just the starting position though. After that, along come people who disagree, and they present their case that not being allowed to smoke interferes with their rights.

    Given these two positions, whose rights are being interfered with here? How is that proven? Who gets precedence and why? Do you assume rights are determined in complete isolation from each other? How is that achieved? Why, in your version, are the smokers’ rights given precedence?

    if the burden is upon the smokers / gun owners / baseball-cap-backwards-wearers etc, then they have to prove a universal negative - that no one else's rights have been restricted by the thing they want to do. And we skeptics know what we think about proving a universal negative - it's impossible.

    Your definition of rights is that you only have the right to do something if it does not infringe on someone else’s rights. Yes? The more I think about it the more I think this definition is not that good after all, certainly in the way you appear to be applying it.

    When you claim you have the right to do something (like smoke) by default, how have you determined this has not infringed on anyone else’s rights? Did you check with everyone? Or do you by default assume that no rights anywhere are being interfered with? How do you justify the assumption that until someone says otherwise no rights have been infringed?

    Of course, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to come up with and claim rights for yourself that would in effect restrict other people’s rights (given enough time and the will to be a dick about it at least) and since, according to you, you wouldn’t have to justify or explain why you think you have that right, where does that leave us? The truth is that it is not me who is claiming you have to prove the universal negative – it is you, with your definition of what a right is.

    Your own definition of a right makes it clear that until you have shown that it infringes no one else’s rights (in other words, until you as the person claiming you have the right to do X have proven the universal negative), you can’t claim you have the right to do it. Until you’ve proven whether or not it is the case, you don’t know whether someone’s rights have been infringed, so you don’t know if you have the right you are claiming or not. And since no-one has to justify or explain their rights, according to you, then you have to prove a universal negative.

    Now, I’m guessing that in order to get around this you simply assume that you have the right because you assume, until told otherwise, that no rights are infringed. Yes? In other words, you assume that the universal negative has already been proven when you assume your right by default. But you already correctly said that proving a universal negative is impossible. Interesting. And that is not the least of the problems with this. Tell me, throughout history, how has one group assuming they have a right to do something by default and assuming it interferes with no other groups’ rights worked out?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Skeptico:

    You have repeatedly claimed or implied that what I am arguing leads to tyranny or at least is not the way for a free society – but the truth is that throughout history it has been your way of determining or defining rights that has consistently led to tyranny and oppression. What was slavery if not one group assuming they had the right to own other people and that the slaves had no rights that were being infringed? White Europeans and Americans even assumed that Africans did not have any rights (or at least not the same or as many rights as they did) that could be infringed. So they assumed that they had the right to own slaves and that the slaves had no rights that were being infringed.

    Now, one of your objections to this will almost certainly be that slavers and slave owners didn’t actually have those rights under your definition because the slaves’ rights were clearly being infringed. The problem with this is that the slavers and slave owners assumed they did and your entire definition of rights is based on just that, assuming you have a right until shown otherwise. What can you claim and perpetrate until shown you don’t have the right to do it? Perhaps a king assuming he has the right to tax some colonists without their input because they don’t have the rights he does? For instance.

    Your smoking example makes it clear that you think you can have a right by default until shown otherwise by someone (in your example, the non-smokers who feel their rights are infringed by smokers actually smoking) – which itself comes with inherent problems. First, we have the problem with getting away with something until shown it is an infringement of another right (assuming you don’t think you have to universally prove that no right is infringed first). The second is more damning though – what of people who don’t know their rights are being infringed- children, the mentally disabled, the uneducated, people ignorant of the idea of human rights, people who aren’t aware that your claimed right infringes a right of theirs? How do these people tell you that you are infringing their rights as you require in your smoking example?

    But no, you object, your definition says you don’t have a right if it infringes on someone else’s rights. Which brings you back to the problem you claim I would create – if you haven’t proven that no rights anywhere have been infringed, you can’t justify assuming you have a right by default without completely ignoring your own definition of what a right is.

    In other words, it is you who has to prove the universal negative before claiming you have a right or you assume the role of a tyrant assigning rights to yourself and others as you see fit too based on your own personal assumptions.

    According to your own definition of a right:

    Either you know you have a right because you’ve proven the universal negative that no other right of anyone anywhere has been infringed by the one you claim, or you are assuming on the behalf of others that you have infringed no right of theirs and can continue as you please until otherwise informed, if those others are in a position to inform you.

    And you called me a dictator?!

    The truly pathetic thing though is that in your smoking example you have the non-smokers having to explain and justify their rights to the smokers. What was it you said about people not having to explain or justify their rights to anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  101. That was mostly an exercise in missing the point and I'm not going to deconstruct it paragraph by paragraph, but I just have to quote this:

    I am simply not going to agree that there are circumstances in any discussion where one of the participants is allowed to make an unsupported and unargued claim or bald assertion that everyone else involved must simply accept as an accurate fact or self evident truth until it can be disproven.

    My mind is, frankly, boggling at the lack of self awareness that must be required for you to write that. You are precisely describing yourself. You are the one who made the unsupported bald claim that you don't have to lift a finger to justify why gun ownership should not be allowed, and that everyone else involved must simply accept that as an accurate fact or self evident truth until it can be disproven. And you haven't justified your claim, anywhere in the thousands of words you have written in your original post and in comments. We've had plenty of rhetorical tricks - where do rights come from? / that must mean you support rape / fake outrage - that must mean you support rape again (and again) - but nothing to support your actual position.

    I've tried to point out the absurdity of your position. I asked you:

    *** What is the right that society has agreed upon here, exactly? Is it the right to:

    1) Wear my baseball cap backwards

    2) Wear headgear in any way I like

    3) Wear clothes any way I like

    4) Do anything I want that does not directly harm anyone else (note for Jimmy Blue - this would rule out rape)

    5) Do anything I want that does not directly harm anyone else (again, note for Jimmy Blue - this would rule out rape), and also excluding owning lethal weapons.

    Or, something else.

    You replied:

    Gradually over time and across many societies, and certainly without one identifiable and defining moment.

    Sorry, not good enough. As usual you avoid the issue, because if you faced it you would realize your position is absurd.

    I'll try a different approach. Regarding the right to wear my baseball cap backwards. We are talking about what we think should be rights, and how rights should be determined (eg: should gun ownership be allowed. We know it is in the US but not in the UK, for example. But should it be?) What justification should there have been to allow me to wear my baseball cap backwards? Remember, it can't be any variation on "because I want to and it doesn't harm anyone else", because that would include guns too. So what justification should there be for this right?

    Then do likewise for my desire to own a dog. Own an SUV. Listen to Rap. Have gay sex. Have straight sex (other than for the purpose of procreation). What possible justification should there be for these things?

    Alternatively, answer my original question and tell me in each case how it was actually done.

    And then support your claim that opponents of gun ownership have to do nothing and that all the work must be done by those who think that gun ownership should be allowed.

    And for anyone who hasn't read this whole thread, or for whom this is not clear - I'm not saying that gun ownership should necessarily remain a right - there may well be reasons to remove that right or restrict it. I'm saying that opponents of gun ownership shouldn't get a free pass - they shouldn't get to say it's not a right until someone can show why it should be. And I'm saying this because if you apply that rule to everything then we have absurd situation where we have to justify why we should be allowed to do every little thing you can think of.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Well, as it happens there are some things I can't let pass.

    That was mostly an exercise in missing the point and I'm not going to deconstruct it paragraph by paragraph

    Yes, I'm sure that's the reason.

    You are the one who made the unsupported bald claim that you don't have to lift a finger to justify why gun ownership should not be allowed, and that everyone else involved must simply accept that as an accurate fact or self evident truth until it can be disproven.

    Where did I say this exactly, without you quote mining or taking something out of context?

    We've had plenty of rhetorical tricks - where do rights come from?

    So let me get this straight. In a discussion on the nature of rights you think a question that hopes to elicit someone's views on the nature of rights is a rhetorical trick? Really, this is what you're reduced to? Don't be so ridiculous.

    but nothing to support your actual position.

    Oh, I've had plenty to say about my actual position. Just not the one you claim I have.

    You replied:

    Gradually over time and across many societies, and certainly without one identifiable and defining moment.

    Sorry, not good enough. As usual you avoid the issue, because if you faced it you would realize your position is absurd.


    Have you no shame? What you quote from me here is not in answer to the question you claim it was. Who was it screaming quote mining? Quoting an answer to one question to make it look like the answer to an entirely different one is a pretty basic and extremely dishonest creationist tactic. Bravo.

    I also figured you'd cry not good enough, but history isn't always exact (and I'm fairly sure I can guess the nonsense you'll spew about this too) and you're not going to get an exact answer on the question I was actually responding to with that quote. I haven't avoided the issue at all, that's just pathetic wishful thinking on your part and now everyone can see that.

    In short, your response is a lame attempt to pretend I haven't addressed any of your issues and that you could address mine but just won't because they aren't worth it.

    Pure woo. Like I said, no point continuing when this is the rubbish you have turned to. Although I reserve the right to respond to any more nonsense obviously.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Well, as it happens there are some things I can't let pass.

    Funny. That's exactly how I feel.

    So let me get this straight. In a discussion on the nature of rights you think a question that hopes to elicit someone's views on the nature of rights is a rhetorical trick?

    Asking where do rights "come from" is just rhetorical, since as I explained I don't think right "come from" anywhere. More to the point, I note you avoid my reference to your many "so you must think rape is acceptable" type arguments, and your blatant loaded question "what if a clever argument could be made" allowing rape, and your totally predictable fake outrage attack on Techskeptic because he was dumb enough (sorry Tech, no offence) to think you actually wanted an intellectually honest discussion, and hadn't actually planned the scumbag move that you did, in fact, enact as soon as Tech had written his reply.

    But we're getting to the best bit:

    Where did I say this exactly, without you quote mining or taking something out of context?

    You have got to be kidding. From your opening post:

    I stated that in gun control arguments I believe that the null hypothesis is that it is not a necessary freedom to own a gun. [...] It is not up to anyone to demonstrate the null hypothesis.

    And

    The null hypothesis is surely "This is not the case until someone shows otherwise". Applied to gun control this is "gun ownership is not a liberty that requires no justification."

    I know you backed away from the specific "null hypothesis" words, but your argument didn't change. In fact, later on you wrote in a comment in reply to me:

    ...it should be no problem to explain this when I ask "Why is gun ownership a right?" or "Is gun ownership a right?" No one has. Since no one has there is no reason for me to accept that it is one.

    Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that this was not your position? Are you fucking kidding me? This is the only position I have been arguing against for the last six or seven weeks - and you're now saying, oh, that wasn't my position. Give me a break.

    Perhaps you'd like to explain the huge differences between the actual quotes of yours that I reproduced above and my claim about your argument, which was:

    You are the one who made the unsupported bald claim that you don't have to lift a finger to justify why gun ownership should not be allowed, and that everyone else involved must simply accept that as an accurate fact or self evident truth until it can be disproven.

    I can't wait.

    Or alternatively, perhaps you'd like to explain what your position now actually is, and how and why it differs from what you wrote in your original post and in comments.

    ReplyDelete
  104. And the award for “Flogging a dead horse” goes to…. Skeptico.

    Asking where do rights "come from" is just rhetorical, since as I explained I don't think right "come from" anywhere.

    This is just nonsense, and still doesn’t answer the whole of the original question, it ignores the part about what you think rights are.

    How exactly do we have rights if they don’t ‘come from’ anywhere? How can something which doesn’t ‘come from’ anywhere exist? Did they just poof into existence from nowhere and nothing? You’ve already agreed that rights are not properties of the Universe or reality. You obviously reject the idea that rights are social constructs by this answer (and thereby completely dismiss the history of rights as if it didn’t exist and ignore the whole philosophy of social contract theory). You then claim that rights have always existed and we had to take them back from people who took them away, which is just pseudo-historical bullshit. Then you say that of course rights are more than ideas, but don’t explain what you mean by this.

    How does something come from nowhere and nothing but always exist and all without being a property of the Universe or reality? That leaves you with one option really: arguing that rights are supernatural. Bravo. How do we have rights that have come from nowhere, have always existed (since when? Show your working) and that are not social constructs or properties of the Universe or reality? Show how your answer is more than mere faith in your own belief and doesn’t imply something supernatural.

    Clearly asking these questions for clarity is just a rhetorical trick. There’s clearly nothing wrong with your answer and earlier statements, I can’t see anything contradictory in them. Rights just are and always have been, Skeptico says so. Nope, nothing woo-like in that, a very model of critical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  105. More to the point, I note you avoid my reference to your many "so you must think rape is acceptable" type arguments

    I ignored it because I’ve already dealt with it in previous posts. So either you didn’t read the posts carefully, didn’t understand why earlier answers were relevant, or you are playing (shock horror) rhetorical games yourself. Repeatedly implying that I haven’t answered something doesn’t mean I haven’t, does it. I mean, that is what you were getting at yourself, wasn’t it? You were saying that I was playing rhetorical tricks because I was repeatedly asking something you claim you had already answered, right? Obviously it is just different when you do it. Because clearly I haven’t repeatedly explained why I was using rape in those arguments. Nope. Not once.

    And speaking of ignoring things, why did you ignore the point I made that you blatantly lied about an answer I gave, portraying it as an answer to a different question and then attacking it on that basis? I note you avoid my reference to that lie of yours Skeptico.

    and your blatant loaded question "what if a clever argument could be made" allowing rape, and your totally predictable fake outrage attack on Techskeptic

    Oh, repeating another debunked claim already dealt with are we? How original. Where, precisely, was my ‘fake outrage’? I said I found an answer disturbing – how does that qualify? If you think that is fake outrage clearly you aren’t as good at this as you think you are. Incidentally, not that I was even actually outraged, but how would you know if it was fake or not? Does the great Skeptico apparently know the minds of commenters on the Internet better than they do now? And where, precisely, did I attack Techskeptic? Do you mean the several follow up questions about the subject at hand that I asked? That’s an attack on Techskeptic? How about the apology I gave to Techskeptic because I had phrased my question badly? Was that part of my attack on him? Do I really have to point out the difference between arguing with the position and attacking the proponent, or do you want to withdraw this demonstrably false statement?

    to think you actually wanted an intellectually honest discussion, and hadn't actually planned the scumbag move that you did, in fact, enact as soon as Tech had written his reply.

    More of your vaunted power to read minds I see. And some more logical fallacies thrown in for good measure. You’re making my point for me now.

    ReplyDelete
  106. But we're getting to the best bit

    Indeed we are, but not for the reasons you think. You said:

    You are the one who made the unsupported bald claim that you don't have to lift a finger to justify why gun ownership should not be allowed, and that everyone else involved must simply accept that as an accurate fact or self evident truth until it can be disproven.

    There are two claims you make about my position here. (1) That I made an unsupported claim which was that I don’t have to justify why gun ownership should not be allowed and (2) that I claimed everyone else should accept my position as a fact or self evident truth until it can be disproven.

    I asked you to show where I make these claims and asked for evidence that did not involve quoting out of context or quote mining. And your response is to quote three passages that don’t support either of the two claims you made and are taken out of context and subject to quote mining. Perfect.

    You could say that you also make a third claim, that my position is unsupported. Of course, since I made the entire original post and every comment since to support my position, saying it is unsupported would make you look like a complete tool. Since my position isn’t the one you say it is though, then the claim you mention is indeed unsupported. The problem for you is, of course, that I didn’t make that claim.

    Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that this was not your position?

    I expect people to believe the position that is stated in those three passages when shown in context. None of those three passages actually support the two claims you make about my position, and fortunately others can and have made up their minds on this (note I am not making an argument from popularity here since I don’t say that my position is right because some other people think it is) and they understand that my position is not the one you claim. My position has always been, and still is, why do I have to disprove the claim that something is a right when no-one has proven that thing is a right in the first place? To put that in the language you use, my position is “why do I have to lift a finger to justify why gun ownership should not be allowed when no-one has lifted a finger to show it should be?” And guess what? That is what those three passages are getting at.

    And, unfortunately for you, I even went on to say in a comment:

    Since I accept your argument that explains why gun ownership is a liberty it is absolutely up to me to find compelling reasons to curtail the liberty. You’ve established it is a liberty, you do not have to justify it any further than that.

    To put that into your language, that is me saying “It is up to me to lift a finger to justify why gun ownership should not be allowed once someone has lifted a finger to show why they think it should be.

    Of course, now I’ve thought some more about it I find I no longer agree with your reasons for saying gun ownership is a right (the discussion of which you have conveniently and not surprisingly ignored), but I clearly do feel that once something is established as a right it is up to me to provide justification for why it (gun ownership in this case) should not be allowed. And I specifically said so. Clear as day. In a response addressed to you. Which you now conveniently ignore in order to go on pretending that a point that has been debunked has not actually been. A typical creationist or anti-vaxxer tactic, and pathetically dishonest.

    How many more times would you like your strawman to be debunked? I have repeatedly pointed this out in the comments. I have repeatedly clarified and re-clarified this. Why would you keep pretending that I haven’t? You wouldn’t be playing rhetorical games, would you?

    ReplyDelete
  107. This is the last time I am going to write this, if you choose to ignore it yet again and continue to repeat your strawman, well that basically proves the point of my original post; that skeptics often abandon their critical thinking when it comes to personally held political or social views.

    My position is and always has been right from the original post that you keep quoting out of context and quote mining, that I don’t have to disprove the claim that X is a right if no-one has bothered to try to prove the claim that X is a right in the first place. When this conversation began on the Bronze Blog, no one had bothered to prove that gun ownership was indeed a right, they just claimed it was and asserted that I needed to disprove their claim. Someone merely claiming something is the case is not a reason to accept it as a proven fact. Hence, I saw no reason to accept the claim that gun ownership was a right. Hence, I did not feel I was the one who needed to prove or disprove anything. Hence I asked for people to explain why they thought gun ownership was a right. Hence I argued, if someone cannot show that something they claim to be a right is in fact a right, why should anyone accept their claim that it is? If someone could show that gun ownership was a right, it would then be up to me to justify reasons for curtailing it.

    No, this isn’t a rewrite of what I originally wrote intended to give it a new meaning. No, I am not backing away from my original position. Yes, this is the position I have held from the start. Yes, this is the position I have explained repeatedly to you, and yes this is the position you have repeatedly ignored in favour of your strawman. Don’t believe me? Then go back and re-read my posts because you clearly have not read them carefully enough.

    But that still only disproves your first claim about what I have said. Unfortunately for you though, those three quotes you give don’t support the assertion that I claim everyone should accept my position as a self evident truth either. Where exactly in those three quotes do I say that everyone must accept my position as a self evident truth?

    This is the only position I have been arguing against for the last six or seven weeks - and you're now saying, oh, that wasn't my position. Give me a break.

    Oh I know, and you have been arguing against a strawman for the whole time. As I have repeatedly pointed out whenever you have characterized my position in this way. You didn’t need to point it out to me, but thank you for finally admitting it.

    Unless you have something to say that isn’t a strawman, an already debunked point, a logical fallacy or an outright lie you can piss off now because repeating the same refutations of the same arguments is getting tiresome, especially given the fact that you have ignored so much of what I have written in regards to your own position and claims. Fortunately, everyone can see just what you have ignored and the pathetic excuses you’ve given for doing so, and as long as you reply I will continue to point out that it seems all you have left are repeats and half arsed attempts to deflect attention away from your own failings.

    ReplyDelete
  108. And as usual, something else occurs to me after I've finished:

    This is the only position I have been arguing against for the last six or seven weeks - and you're now saying, oh, that wasn't my position. Give me a break.

    Yes, because if you were arguing it then it couldn't possibly be wrong then, could it? If Skeptico is saying this is the point you were arguing and puts forth his counter arguments, then it simply must be the case that you were arguing what he was saying you were, because he couldn't possibly be wrong.

    Beg the question, much?

    And after a little casual reading I also found we can add the appeal to fear to your list of logical fallacies used.

    But you just know that you're right, don't you?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Oh, repeating another debunked claim already dealt with are we? How original. Where, precisely, was my ‘fake outrage’? I said I found an answer disturbing...

    You’re really going to argue that you didn’t plan and implement a scumbag move involving the emotional topic of rape? Really?

    Jimmy Blue: So, are you arguing that rape is a liberty that has been restricted, or that it was not a liberty to start with because it infringes on others rights? Would this mean that if someone came up with a clever argument that overruled current objections to rape that rape should be re-allowed as a liberty?

    This is a loaded question with a false premise. It is a loaded question because you designed it so that there is no way of answering it that does not make the answerer “wrong.”

    If I answer “no,” then you say something like, “You’re inconsistent. You just said that rape is not allowed because it interferes with the rights of others. But you now say that if even these objections could be overcome (ie there is some form of rape does not interfere with the rights of others), then you still wouldn’t allow it. You’ve just proven that the reasons you gave for not allowing rape are not your real reasons, and so your whole argument falls.” That’s what you would have argued, and you would have been right.

    Alternatively, if I answer “yes,” then you react with fake outrage saying something like “oh you support rape then.*”

    [* not exact wording.]

    Techskeptic accepted your false premise, and answered “yes.”

    Techskeptic: Yes, if you came up with a compelling reason that the banning of rape would be off the table, it could be off the table.

    Your response was exactly what I knew it would be:

    Jimmy Blue: This attitude I find extemely disturbing. See if your female friends and family members agree that lifting the ban on rape could ever be acceptable.

    Well, not exactly. I hadn’t predicted you would bring his female friends and family members into the argument. That was a nice touch, I must say. You must have been proud of yourself.

    Of course, the only sensible way of answering the question would be to do what I did and refuse to answer it on the basis that I don’t accept the premise.

    Are you seriously going to claim the above was not what you planned, that you had really just asked a question out of honest curiosity (I wonder what he would say if a clever argument could be made….), and you were just shocked, shocked I tell you at the totally unexpected answer? Are you really going to claim that? Go on, claim that it was a totally honest and not loaded at all question with a false premise.

    And even if I accept the premise, your response is flawed as it relies on equivocation. You are positing a new version of rape that we all agree is OK. For the sake of clarity I’ll call this rape#2. (I’ll refer to the current version of rape – one we all agree is not acceptable – as rape#1)And of course for Techskeptic (say) to agree that it was OK, presumably he would first consult his female family members, and they would also agree that rape#2 is OK. (Otherwise Techskeptic would not agree that rape#2 was OK, would he?)

    Skeptico and Techskeptic argue that rape#1 is not allowed, is not a right. Here’s roughly* how the exchange goes:

    Jimmyblue: But what about rape#2?

    Techskeptic: Yes, rape #2 would be allowed.

    Jimmyblue: Boooo Booooo you just said rape#1 is allowed (fake outrage). See if your female friends and family members agree that rape#1 should be allowed (fake outrage).

    [* not exact wording]

    Congratulations Jimmy, you just equivocated between rape#1 and rape#2 – standard woo debating trick.

    As I said –a scumbag move, however you analyze it. I’ll respond to your other absurd points later in the week.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Wow, you really like that poisoning the well move, don’t you?

    And then the rest of your post is filled with more of what I’ve come to expect:

    You answer a question with something that appears to answer it but doesn’t.

    You poison the well by implying once again that if I answer a certain way I must be lying, an actual scumbag move that you have pulled repeatedly.

    You once again miss the point of something I’ve said.

    You misrepresent people’s responses to questions.

    You simply reassert with no proof the same assertion that was being questioned, as if it were true.

    And then something new: You make up a story that didn’t occur (and wouldn’t have) and then go on to pretend that the fiction you invented proves your point as if it had actually occurred.

    And then you finish with some more attempted poisoning of the well.

    Bravo.

    I would just say there is nothing worth responding to and leave it there, but since you are providing the rope anyway I’ll bite.

    I asked: Where, precisely, was my ‘fake outrage’?

    And you answered:

    You’re really going to argue that you didn’t plan and implement a scumbag move involving the emotional topic of rape? Really?

    Which doesn’t answer either the question you quoted or the follow up one you have conveniently left out – where was this fake outrage you talk about and how, if there was outrage, do you know it was fake?

    None of the rest of your post answers either question – but you hoped that your red herring would make readers think you had answered it. You didn’t, because you can’t answer it unless you can read minds. Are you going to argue that you know the minds of people who post on the Internet better than they do?

    It is a loaded question because you designed it so that there is no way of answering it that does not make the answerer “wrong.”

    Ah yes, because it couldn’t possibly be that the position being questioned left itself open to a question that may highlight the position’s absurdity or contradictions etc. No, if Skeptico is trapped by a question about his position, then clearly there must be something wrong with the question, because it couldn’t possibly be his position. You really do think you are always right, don’t you?

    Alternatively, if I answer “yes,” then you react with fake outrage saying something like “oh you support rape then.*”

    And back to simply reasserting with no proof. And this time with your powers to see into the future as well.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Well, not exactly. I hadn’t predicted you would bring his female friends and family members into the argument. That was a nice touch, I must say. You must have been proud of yourself.

    Not particularly proud of myself no, what a strange thing to say. Of course, you missed the point. The reason that I brought female friends and family members into the conversation was to highlight the point, that I have made several times, that people view rights very differently. Techskeptic views that particular thing one way, a female perspective would no doubt have been very different. This goes to the root of rights being social constructs.

    Techskeptic also wasn’t just, as you imply, foolishly accepting the premise that rape could somehow one day be deemed a right and therefore falling into some cunningly wrought trap of mine – he was saying that was actually part of his position - that rape was a right that had been taken off the table by other rights and that this was not necessarily irreversible in a society. Why would a relevant question not be: so you think rape could be back on the table at some point? Lo and behold that is what I had asked you and others and what he responded to.

    Clearly with this in mind, asking if rape could ever be back on the table is a scumbag move. Clearly pointing out that there are elements in society who would no doubt strongly disagree with this view adds particular underhanded venom to this scumbag move.

    The premise was not mine, but was actually suggested earlier by Techskeptic’s and Dunc’s and even eventually your arguments. I merely picked up on it and questioned it.

    Are you seriously going to claim the above was not what you planned, that you had really just asked a question out of honest curiosity

    Yes. Don’t worry though, we know from your behaviour here that you have issues with honesty, so it isn’t surprising you would be suspicious of it.

    and you were just shocked, shocked I tell you at the totally unexpected answer?

    Not shocked, no. And it wasn’t unexpected either, I have bothered to try and read everyone’s actual comments you see, not just what I want to read into them.

    You really like trying to poison the well don’t you?

    You are positing a new version of rape that we all agree is OK.

    Let me just stop you right there so there’s no need to discuss why something you made up doesn’t prove any of your points: I wasn’t positing it, it was a position suggested by what Techskeptic and Dunc were arguing and it does not require a ‘new version of rape’ – just that rape could be a right.

    I’ll respond to your other absurd points later in the week.

    And yet more attempted poisoning of the well. At least you’re consistent.

    Let me sum up what is undoubtedly coming then and indulge in a little poisoning myself:

    You’ll quote some things out of context.
    You’ll avoid some awkward questions or points as if they didn’t exist.
    You’ll repeat some already refuted points since enough time has passed since the last time you mentioned them that everyone might have forgotten.
    You’ll lie if you need to.
    You’ll attack a strawman.
    You’ll throw in some logical fallacies.
    You’ll keep banging on at some points that have been repeatedly refuted but that you still haven’t dropped.
    You’ll make a bunch of assertions for which you have no proof and expect everyone to merely accept them.
    You’ll avoid providing any sort of proof or evidence for assertions you have previously made and been called out on.

    That should just about cover it.

    ReplyDelete
  112. And the award for “Flogging a dead horse” goes to…. Skeptico.

    As defending champion you must be quite disappointed.

    How exactly do we have rights if they don’t ‘come from’ anywhere? How can something which doesn’t ‘come from’ anywhere exist? Did they just poof into existence from nowhere and nothing?

    You are confusing what rights actually are, with what we think they should be. Rights that actually exist come from somewhere – society, law, government… But we are not debating what rights actually are, but what we think they should be. (I’ll admit that, reading back, I have worded my arguments so as to confuse these two myself, a couple of times.) What rights should be don’t “come from” anywhere, that I can think of.

    As I have explained numerous times, I believe that in a free country we should have the right to do anything we want that does not hurt someone else. Otherwise, I would have to explain to you why I should be allowed to own a dog, or listen to rap music, or wear a green sweater or do any other little thing you can think of. The problems with this should be obvious.

    This has been explained to you numerous times. I have tried to get you to think about this by asking how you think how certain rights (eg baseball cap backwards wearing) came about. (Which is not confusing “is” with “should be”, but is an attempt to get you to recognize the absurdity of expecting all rights to be individually justified.) You continue to evade these attempts behind “where do rights come from” types of arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Regarding rape:

    I ignored it because I’ve already dealt with it in previous posts. So either you didn’t read the posts carefully, didn’t understand why earlier answers were relevant, or you are playing (shock horror) rhetorical games yourself.

    Or you willfully took my words out of context, ignored my actual position, ignored the numerous rebuttals to your points again and again, and never acknowledged these facts all while claiming to be the One True Skeptic keeping all the other skeptics honest.

    This is how the discussion went (with dates and times – presumably in PST).

    Background – Jimmy initiated a discussion about whether people should have the right to rape. There was some discussion involving Jimmy, Techskeptic and me – with both Tech and me saying that no, rape should not be a right. In that context, I wrote:

    Skeptico:

    …you should have the right to do anything that doesn't hurt others. In a free country, the default position should always be " yes you can ", until someone can show why not. You are saying that something (gun ownership in this case) should not be a right under any circumstances, and that you don't have to show a reason. [Added bold] Aug 30 8.53 pm

    Remember how Jimmy Blue always cries “out of context” when I quote back at him his actual words to show that he did say the exact things that he denied saying? Well remember that and remember the above quote by me. The first bold is of the words “that doesn't hurt others” that Jimmy will repeatedly ignore. The second bold (starting “You are saying”) is the only part of the above that Jimmy quotes when he replies to me with:

    Jimmy Blue (Refuting my mistaken “should not be a right under any circumstances” wording.):

    I think that if you can show [gun ownership] should be a right it most definitely should be…Aug 30 11.15pm

    I replied

    Skeptico:

    I don’t have to demonstrate a “need” to own an SUV, if I want one I can just go and buy one “just because,” and (unlike how you view guns) liking something IS a good enough reason to assume it is right or justified. Why are guns different? Aug 31 1.56pm

    Remember the context of that reply – the “that doesn't hurt others” wording that Jimmy didn’t quote.

    Dunc gets it, and has a go:

    Dunc:

    You do not have the liberty to murder because to do so necessarily infringes the right of others not to be murdered. You do not have the liberty to rape because to do so necessarily infringes the right of others to bodily autonomy. Sept 1 9.59 am

    Techskeptic quotes Dunc’s words and says he agrees. The not hurting others context has thus been drilled home three times now. But Jimmy ignores it all:

    Jimmy Blue:

    Allow me to interpret your words literally. So, if someone likes to rape their liking this act is good enough reason to assume it is right or justified. Don’t reply by referring to how it infringes on others rights – your assertion here is that merely liking something is reason to assume it is right or justified. Some people like to rape. Therefore, according to you, there is good reason to assume rape is right or justified. Sep 3 1.45pm

    Of course, interpreting my words “literally” you would have to include the words “that doesn't hurt others” thus rendering Jimmy’s whole argument invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Skeptico:

    The “…that does not directly infringe someone else’s rights” clause clearly covers why we don’t allow murder, rape etc, that you keep bringing into the argument. The burden is still upon those who want to answer Question #1 with a “no.” It’s just that the burden is an easy one to prove when the question is about rape, etc. Sept 6 1.00pm

    Jimmy Blue:

    Not so easy, since you claim that liking something is enough reason to consider it right or justified. Some people like to rape, so is it right or justified? Sep 10 11.33am

    Jimmy ignored my “that doesn’t hurt others” wording AGAIN because his “you support rape” [not exact wording] argument won’t work if he considers what I actually fucking wrote. As you can tell, I’m starting to get irritated with Jimmy Blue’s antics:

    Skeptico:

    You know Jimmy, you are really beginning to piss me off with these cheap appeals to emotion. I have said a million fucking times RAPE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. And I explained why – it infringes upon someone else’s rights, and this reasoning was a fundamental part of my argument right from the beginning. And furthermore, you know this. This is getting old. No, rape is not justified. Discussed. Answered. Included fully in my argument. Give it up. [Added bold.] Sep 13 11.11am

    You would think that with this obviously pissed off response, stating that the rape exclusion was a fundamental part of my argument right from the beginning, an intellectually honest skeptic would reexamine his arguments. But no, not Jimmy Blue. Jimmy Blue ignores all the rebuttals and goes with:

    Jimmy Blue:

    Yes, I know you have. That means that when you say that liking something is good reason to consider something justified you are contradicting yourself. Sep 13 3.29pm

    Of course I wasn’t contradicting myself because the context was that I has started out by saying, “you should have the right to do anything that doesn't hurt others.”And I had repeated this point numerous times subsequently. But Jimmy is still determined to ignore what I am actually saying. Note how yet again he ignored the “that doesn't hurt others” wording that was in my original post that started this whole thing off. And he still hasn’t finished.

    Jimmy Blue:

    And yet some people do think [rape] is a right (just one currently restricted) and you did say that liking something is good enough reason to assume it is right or justified. There is a contradiction there whether you want to admit it or not. Sep 13 3.31.pm

    By now, Jimmy has ignored the context of my initial post on this in his initial reply as well as in his three subsequent replies.That’s four times including the initial discussion, with rebuttal each time from me plus some from Tech and Dunc. Now, the first one I can understand (anyone can miss a nuance from someone’s argument). Even the second. But the third is starting to piss me off and the fourth has to be a willful. See my reply on Sep 14 9.23pm beginning “BULL. FUCKING. SHIT.” where I explain again where Jimmy is ignoring my arguments. Note also the “have you stopped beating your wife” type loaded question that Jimmy Blue asked in addition (see above – I explained that in detail on Oct 29.)

    Jimmy wants to claim he wasn’t playing rhetorical tricks with these antics. Really? I ask anyone who is still following this to examine the above exchange and ask themselves if this claim is even remotely credible.

    ReplyDelete
  115. And speaking of ignoring things, why did you ignore the point I made that you blatantly lied about an answer I gave, portraying it as an answer to a different question and then attacking it on that basis? I note you avoid my reference to that lie of yours Skeptico.

    Well now that I look back, I realize that I did accidentally quote the wrong reply to the question I quoted. I apologize – it was a mistake.

    That said, you are making something out of virtually nothing. My point was that you didn’t answer the question. The piece I quoted was an actual reply to one of my questions, and your “reply” just avoided the issue. So yes, I did accidentally quote the wrong bit, and clearly I shouldn’t do that and I apologize. But seriously, grow up.

    More of your vaunted power to read minds I see. And some more logical fallacies thrown in for good measure. You’re making my point for me now.

    I don’t need to read minds when I can read your actual words. And I note you can’t show what logical fallacies I used.

    There are two claims you make about my position here. (1) That I made an unsupported claim which was that I don’t have to justify why gun ownership should not be allowed and (2) that I claimed everyone else should accept my position as a fact or self evident truth until it can be disproven.

    I asked you to show where I make these claims and asked for evidence that did not involve quoting out of context or quote mining. And your response is to quote three passages that don’t support either of the two claims you made and are taken out of context and subject to quote mining. Perfect.

    Ignoring the blatant hypocrisy (see above for Jimmy Blue’s quoting out of context and quote mining), it was clearly not quoting out of context or quote mining. (Hint Jimmy – if you want to claim “out of context” you have to actually show that it was out of context (as I did in the “rape” exchange above), not just claim it. Also, the quotes showed you saying exactly what I claimed your position was. For example:

    I stated that in gun control arguments I believe that the null hypothesis is that it is not a necessary freedom to own a gun. [...] It is not up to anyone to demonstrate the null hypothesis.

    That’s an unsupported bald claim that you don't have to lift a finger to justify why gun ownership should not be allowed - “it is not a necessary freedom to own a gun” and “It is not up to anyone to demonstrate” this. No one has to demonstrate why (“lift a finger”) it’s not a necessary freedom to own a gun. That doesn’t support my claim? Bullshit.

    You could say that you also make a third claim, that my position is unsupported.

    You have yet to show why we should not have the rights to do things until each right is positively justified, so yes, your position is unsupported. It’s also absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  116. And, unfortunately for you, I even went on to say in a comment:

    Since I accept your argument that explains why gun ownership is a liberty it is absolutely up to me to find compelling reasons to curtail the liberty. You’ve established it is a liberty, you do not have to justify it any further than that.


    To put that into your language, that is me saying “It is up to me to lift a finger to justify why gun ownership should not be allowed once someone has lifted a finger to show why they think it should be.

    Yes I know that is your position. But those words support 100% what I have said about your position, not your denial of what your position actually is. To prove that, I will quote again my own words that you object to – the words that you claim are nothing like your actual position although your own actual words show they are your actual position – but this time with just one word in uppercase and bold for emphasis:

    You are the one who made the unsupported bald claim that you don't have to lift a finger to justify why gun ownership should not be allowed, and that everyone else involved must simply accept that as an accurate fact or self evident truth UNTIL it can be disproven.

    Read it again. Notice the “UNTIL”? I wrote you think you don’t have to present any arguments UNTIL someone has first made the case that gun ownership should be allowed. You just wrote above, in your own words, that you now accept that it is up to you to find reasons to curtail because someone made the case that it should be allowed as a liberty. You didn’t agree that gun ownership should be a liberty as the starting point UNTIL someone made the case that it should. Your position is exactly as I wrote.

    Note, my position is not that you could never be persuaded that gun ownership should be accepted as a right (looking back, I did write something like that initially, but that was careless writing that I later dropped). My position is not that that no argument could ever persuade you, or that you hadn’t actually been persuaded, or that you thought guns should never be allowed. I wrote that your position was that gun ownership should not be allowed UNTIL someone made the case that it should be. You just wrote that you now accept the burden is now with you, because someone made the case. But you didn’t accept that UNTIL someone made the case.

    How many more times would you like your strawman to be debunked?

    As I’ve just proven, it’s not a strawman.

    My position is and always has been right from the original post that you keep quoting out of context and quote mining, that I don’t have to disprove the claim that X is a right if no-one has bothered to try to prove the claim that X is a right in the first place.

    OK. Let’s say I want to do two things: (1) own a gun and (2) wear my baseball cap backwards. The arguments are the same for both. These should be a right in the first place because I want to and it doesn’t hurt anyone else.

    Over to you to show why these rights should be curtailed. Which is as it should be.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Yes, because if you were arguing it then it couldn't possibly be wrong then, could it?

    No, that wasn’t my point. My point was that I was arguing against this position, but it is only after six weeks of this that you suddenly say, oh no that wasn’t my position at all. More to the point, I have just demonstrated (with your own words) that this was your actual position all along.

    And after a little casual reading I also found we can add the appeal to fear to your list of logical fallacies used.

    WTF are you babbling about now? You’re just adding names of random logical fallacies at this point.

    But you just know that you're right, don't you?

    Projection, again.

    You know, all this wouldn’t have mattered so much (and I wouldn’t still be debating) if Jimmy Blue hadn’t set himself up as the One True Skeptic [not a quote] who was going to hold other skeptics up to the standards that Jimmy thinks they should be held to. As Jimmy wrote in his post:

    …a poorly presented and supported argument deserves strong responses no matter who it is from - and should probably get a harsher response if the proponent is supposed to be a critical thinker or skeptic - we should hold ourselves to higher standards.

    Breathtaking arrogance from someone who has not justified his claim that a right shouldn’t exist until someone positively demonstrates that it is one, and followed this up with repeated disgraceful appeals to “so rape would be justified” type arguments, followed by denial about what his position actually is. Although I’ll admit he did capture the “harsher response” aspect quite effectively. And I’ve just read your recent response today, which proves, if I needed proof, that it’s just not worth even trying to have a discussion with you. What a moron you are – you deny the entire “acceptable rape” discussion, and ignore the clear equivocation between the two versions of rape. Your list of things you say I’m doing at the end – all exactly what you have done and continue to do. I’m done now. Already spent too much time on this stupid argument of yours. I’m quite happy for anyone else to read the above exchange and decide for themselves which one of us is quoting out of context, repeating refuted points, avoiding backing up his assertions etc etc. So go on, reply all you want, write how all my quotes are “out of context” or are “lies” or whatever bullshit you want to pull to cover the fact that you failed miserably in your arrogant claim to be the real skeptic holding the other skeptics to account. Go ahead, write what crap you want. I don’t care. I won’t be reading it.

    ReplyDelete
  118. The first of my responses to the posts Skeptico made on the 2nd November can now be found here.

    ReplyDelete
  119. I could list incident after incident, but since this one happened only a few miles from where my kids go to school I'm going to point this out:

    Colorado school shooting

    One of those pesky legally owned (as far as I can tell) Berlzebub designated 'non-civilian shooting' hunting only rifles. Well, the guy did seem to be hunting anyway.

    No you are all absolutely right, firearm ownership clearly needs no further thought to it than "Its a right, so there, prove otherwise or you must be a moron."

    ReplyDelete
  120. Damn those legally owned 'non-civilian shooting' shotguns and .22 rifles:

    Mass shooting in Cumbria

    Why, since they are different to their military counterparts and legally owned they couldn't possibly have killed 12 people and injured 11 more.

    Could they?

    Gun ownership is obviously a right and clearly I'm a moron for calling that assumption into question.

    Police have confirmed that the weapons were legally owned and that the killer had held a firearms license responsibly for 20 years. And there was me thinking that these factors prevented this kind of thing...

    I really do need to get around to finishing my replies to Skeptico.

    ReplyDelete