“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#581629 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Drippydick? HA!
You ARE good at name calling, Christina. I'll give ya that much
Touché
Thanks, I know I am when the need calls and in your obnoxious posts the need does sometimes call

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#581630 Jan 3, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
And we can tell how likely it is that the hypothesis is correct by statistical analysis. We call the value that represents this the p-value, and it tells us what the likelihood is that the apparent correlation is due to an actual relationship between guns in the home and gun death, also called rejecting the null hypothesis. Statistical significance is said to occur when confidence levels are above 95% or 99%, depending on the need to be correct, which is notated as p < 0.05 and p < 0.01 respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value
<quoted text>
That's decided by the relative number of deaths. For example, let us say that the two groups suffered the same number of gun deaths, maybe 10,000 each. Let's also say that in the group with guns, half of the deaths were due to accidents, suicide, and family members murdering one another, with the other 5000 being due to murders caused by intruders, while in the second group, there were only 1000 such internally caused deaths, all caused by people going out and finding a gun, and 9000 caused by intruders.
It would be apparent from such statistics that the guns saved 4000 lives in the homes that had them relative to the ones that didn't. It would also be apparent that having those guns at home also cost 4000 lives compared to the homes where somebody had to go out and find a gun. In such a case, we would call it a wash. The benefit of gun ownership exactly equaled the cost.
The actual statistics show many more deaths in the gun homes. It doesn't really matter why, does it? If the gun homes suffer say 3000 more deaths, does it matter if the 3000 extra deaths break down as 1000 lives saved and 4000 lives lost by those guns vs. 2000 lives saved and 5000 lives lost by them?
Not that i'm a contarian but I see you cozying up as it were with particular posters in here who ridicule other posters who use wikipedia as a source. That being said am I justified to ask if there is a double standard lol?Additionally I include ccw in my model not just guns in the home. Thats the problem with statistics.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#581631 Jan 3, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean because of a crazy man with access to an assault weapon, don't you? Remember, guns don't kill people. People with guns do.
How many such crazy men do you suppose there are in America right now? Thirty-one? Eleven? Fourteen?
How many will have easy access to assault weapons the hour that they crack?
Define "assault weapon". I don't agree with the 1990s version since my shotgun qualified.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581632 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
She didn't die because of a gun, she died because of a deranged, godless man who would've killed her with anything - a gun just happened to be handy.
Your indifference to the damage that these guns do is glaringly apparent here, as you try to deflect. Did you forget that the young man killed 25 other people after killing his mother with her gun? Do you think that anything else handy could accomplish that, like a chainsaw perhaps? Get real. This is all about easy access to an assault weapon.

Adam Lanza and his mother were Christians. My first clue is that he was home schooled for two years. Then I found this:

"An overflow crowd of more than 800 people attended the 9 a.m. service at the church, where eight children will be buried later this week. The gunman, Adam Lanza, and his mother also attended church here. Spokesman Brian Wallace said the diocese has yet to be asked to provide funerals for either."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/fr...

Do you know how despicable it is for you to try to deflect this away from guns and Christianity over to godlessness? As I just demonstrated, growing irreligiousity is positively correlated with falling murder rates.

Your whole gun and bible culture does huge societal damage.And here you are trying to evade it all.

You can be outraged again at being called on this if you like. Give me a few more "f_ck you"s. But the charges are obviously valid: You are willfully blind to the contribution that easy access to guns played in this and to American gun crime statistics in general.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581633 Jan 3, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
You are evil.
You are bitter and unlikeable.

Is that OK with you? You make no effort to be viewed any other way.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581634 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You really took that "f_ck you" to heart, huh?
I know what the expression means, and I took you at your word.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581635 Jan 3, 2013
Mylan wrote:
The statistics disprove that. He was living with her ALL of his life and she didn't die. It wasn't until she brought guns into the house that she died. Imagine that.
Good point.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581636 Jan 3, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>And yet, you claim there is no such thing as a pre-born/unborn child. Go crawl back up IANS' ass, you brainless worm.
Like I said, bitter and unlikeable.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#581637 Jan 3, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
You are bitter and unlikeable.
Is that OK with you? You make no effort to be viewed any other way.
It thinks it can change reality just by wishing ... but that never works, that's why Nano is like that, it just faces disappointment every day.

Since: Feb 12

Ramstein-miesenbach, Germany

#581638 Jan 3, 2013
Lets see so she died the very first day that she brought guns into the house?

That is the only way it would have any relevence to this discussion. If the guns had been there for a few years or evenb a few months or a few weeks then evidently it was not the guns but a person that caused her death.

Since: Feb 12

Ramstein-miesenbach, Germany

#581639 Jan 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It thinks it can change reality just by wishing ... but that never works, that's why Nano is like that, it just faces disappointment every day.
So now you have lowered yourself to the point of not even calling people human anymore? refering to another poster as an, "IT" is the worst kind of hatred.

For someone that claims to be soo openminded and intelligent this really is below you.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#581640 Jan 3, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I do understand WHY they may not want to carry their attacker's baby to term.
No you don’t, unless you have been there you have no bloody idea. You can of course claim christian incredulity as so many of you do but that is not understanding.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581641 Jan 3, 2013
boooots wrote:
Nano, He is not evil. He has been here a long time and is well known to not be an evil man.
Thank's boooots.

Nano likes to be insulted. She deliberately provokes verbal abuse. I think that's what she's up to now with "evil" and the up-his-ass remark. Wilderide alluded to her high rate of gratuitous insults twice lately.

I give her a pinch of sugar now and again as a mercy slap - something like a reference to her Depends, or to penicillin, or something with the word "skank" in it. She likes anything that draws attention to her muff.

But my heart isn't into it like it used to be.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#581642 Jan 3, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
So now you have lowered yourself to the point of not even calling people human anymore? refering to another poster as an, "IT" is the worst kind of hatred.
For someone that claims to be soo openminded and intelligent this really is below you.
Nano is a proven liar, therefore we cannot take any of it's claims as fact, thus even claims to gender cannot be taken as fact, this "it" is the appropriate pronoun until proven otherwise.

Why do you take it as inherently offensive? Are you so insecure about who and what you are that you think anything else is offensive?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#581643 Jan 3, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Good point.
Simplistic point. The mental state of the perpetrator is THE issue.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581644 Jan 3, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
How about "postnatal fetus" for a child? Would "former parasite" be pushing it?
Aura Mytha wrote:
How about Quack Dr.?
So, you take this personally as well, do you? Sorry. My opinions on guns and fetuses were never intended as personal attacks on you.

Since: Feb 12

Ramstein-miesenbach, Germany

#581645 Jan 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nano is a proven liar, therefore we cannot take any of it's claims as fact, thus even claims to gender cannot be taken as fact, this "it" is the appropriate pronoun until proven otherwise.
Why do you take it as inherently offensive? Are you so insecure about who and what you are that you think anything else is offensive?
Why do ylou find it not offensive?

Are you soo insecure that you have to attempt to denegrate other people to nake yourself feel better?

No you are the person that is being insecure here. When you can not even have the courage to not remove the humanity from someone simply because you disagree with that persons position.

I am sure you would not appreciate being dehumanized because your opinions are seen as not agreeing with anotherv poster.

If you can not understand this then possibly it is you that should be referred to as an IT.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#581646 Jan 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Hook it up, bro!
Why does that not surprise me.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#581647 Jan 3, 2013
UR BS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do ylou find it not offensive?
Are you soo insecure that you have to attempt to denegrate other people to nake yourself feel better?
No you are the person that is being insecure here. When you can not even have the courage to not remove the humanity from someone simply because you disagree with that persons position.
I am sure you would not appreciate being dehumanized because your opinions are seen as not agreeing with anotherv poster.
If you can not understand this then possibly it is you that should be referred to as an IT.
Why would I find it offensive? It's simply another label people use. However, your assertion that it "dehumanizes" is a bold one, where is your evidence for such an assertion? I did not intend it as an insult, if you find it insulting that is your insecurity speaking, not mine.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#581648 Jan 3, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
I don't know what "a God" means, but if it means Jehovah-Jesus, I have to disagree. That would be very bad - nearly the worst thing that could be true. I think we can agree that it would be better for mankind if we all went to sleep after death than for the overwhelming majority of us to suffer eternal torment.

So do you accept the claim that a god exists?

Maybe. Do you accept the claim that a god exists?

Let me ask you this: Do you accept any of the god claims?

That answers the second question. Do you know whether you accept any god claims?
UR BS wrote:
I told you what my belief system was. I will not play your foolish little game of you rewording every question until you get the answer you want.

Don't like how I answered your initial inquiries then to bad.
Try your game on someone that doesn't understand exactly what you are doing.
There is no secret to what I was doing. I suspected that you were a theist calling himself an agnostic. That's why I asked you four times if you believed in a god, and made an obviously true comment about Jehovah-Jesus that only a Christian would not agree with.

Do you still think that you didn't answer my question?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why is Pakistan a world superpower (Dec '08) 7 min Hamad 36
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 8 min onemale 270,040
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 min Liam 578,913
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 10 min LAWEST100 609,821
News China to help build 2 Pakistan nuclear plants (Oct '08) 16 min Hamad 251
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 20 min Seentheotherside 1,960
Pakistan sending plane to evacuate those strand... 24 min Hamad 1
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 1 hr MUQ2 39,952
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr Roberta G 176,202
More from around the web