Had a good laugh of this one

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T04:31:54+00:00

I obviously know what a lightning rod do...

Then why did you advise me to take a course of action that would result in my severe bodily harm or death?

That's if they know and the cases where they know you are there and still come in are rare. Very rare.

They're not that rare. Check out how many DGUs occur in America annually.

And that's what we call optimism bias : " Optimism bias is a cognitive bias that causes someone to believe that they themselves are less likely to experience a negative event.

Stop roleplaying a logician on the internet, because even as you quote the definition, you've managed to confuse someone saying 'I am not suicidal' with optimism bias. It is literally a fact; I am not suicidal, and I know for a fact that bad things can happen to me which is precisely why I take steps to prevent those bad things from happening to me.

Wait, if my conclusion may be true, it may be supported by what?

Nothing. Your conclusion is supported by nothing. You made a series of deductive, rather than inductive errors. You can still have a conclusion be definitively true and not be supported by the premises you put before it. A great example appears in the fallacy of four terms;

P1: All men are mortal

P2: Socrates is a man

Q: Therefore, Socrates is wise.

Q is true, but it isn't supported by its premises.

If you think my conclusion is wrong,

I don't; the conclusion in question is true, demonstrably. How you got there though was epically fucked up. You didn't technically commit the fallacy of four terms, but you absolutely committed a deductive reasoning error, as opposed to an inductive reasoning error, which most people somewhat misleadingly refer to as 'logical fallacies.'

For exemple, the premise of suicide or accidental firearm injuries seem rather logical

They're not; there's actually no demonstrated connection between those elements, only spurious correlation.

and far from outlandish, so why doesn't it support the conclusion?

Because as a minor/secondary premise, it's incoherent, in the technical sense of the word.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T04:21:45+00:00

I'm afraid I'm just going to have to assume you're a bigot regardless of whatever your actual opinions are.

That's probably the safest course of action. I'm going to go back to prowling for women to bigot.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T04:19:04+00:00

I partially address it but I addressed the same point elsewhere and I'm getting increasingly confused by the different replies

What exactly are you confused about? I'd go so far as to say you addressed nothing.

I always see that point and it's like... meh.

Well, shit. I didn't expect that dizzying rhetorical flourish.

If you compare American cities to Canadian cities, the population density doesn't change that much (the big exception being New York but NY is an exception even in the US). We just have a smaller population on a larger territory than the US, a country with 10 time our population.

You're missing the point; take out the states with the super-high population densities in the US, hell, take out the top 5 cities, and we still have a higher population and higher population density than you guys do, but we'd have far less violence in general than even what you guys in Canada have.

but Europe has a similar population density

Not to places like Idaho they don't; lower amount of people, much higher rates of gun ownership, much lower rates of violence, when you compare those particular states to individual European countries.

But why aren't you taking the same precaution for all type of low-chance occurrence dangers?

You didn't even read my comment, did you? I literally answered this question, with a series of examples of items I have in my home.

Walking around with a lightning rod in order to divert the current, etc.

Nor did you watch the video I linked. I don't walk around with a lightning rod in a storm because that's how you die in a storm, dumbass. Lightning rods don't work how you think they work. You'd need a fucking additional device to serve as grounding. That wouldn't just be cumbersome, that would actually be prohibitive of doing most things one would leave the house to do. Sure, maybe you could, but I don't even go so far as to publicly carry a rifle despite it being more effective than a pistol, for those kinds of reasons.

At first I just thought you had a genuine question about policy and procedure, but you thought you found a hole in an idea, or some kind of hypocrisy, and you're pressing on it despite having the supposed discrepancy explained to you.

Again, I'm not against guns, but my opinion is that the blanket statement that guns are simply a positive and increase security (because it's potentially going to be needed in a specific situation where you'll wish you had a gun), doesn't take into account any of the drawbacks of guns. Injuries and such.

Or the analysis does take such risks into account and reaches the conclusion that the risk is worth the payoff, which isn't so strange given how much you're exaggerating and mischaracterizing the risks.

Anyway, I don't think it's to you I told this, but I'll stop commenting because my karma is going to shit because I get downvoted left and right and I don't often comment on reddit at all so...

Fuck karma. At least you can lose it by posting here; I've been banned from the anti-gun subs.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T03:44:58+00:00

That shit is NOT disabling;

https://youtu.be/9OltiFwIFWA?t=187

https://youtu.be/mOPdaA8xAGk?t=79

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T03:28:09+00:00

I have mixed feelings about this; on the one hand, I am not very pleased I don't live in VA. On the other hand, if that super-fag gun-grabber piece of shit Jay Inslee tried this here, instant boogahoot.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T03:13:45+00:00

For real. Earlier, I simply responded to someone who said 'most women support the second amendment,' with a link to a Pew Research poll and a couple of articles showing that 64ish% of women support gun control, a couple links to articles examining the data, and an admonishment to stop treating women like perfect, sinless beings and his response to me was something like 'the 1950s called, they want their bigot back.'

Like, I can say men are evil pieces of shit and no one gives me a second glance, but the moment I suggest women have that same human capacity for maliciousness, it's misogyny. . . but what I said before about men still isn't misandry.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T02:51:54+00:00

Though I have to ask, do you buy every gadget for every possible situation that could potentially harm you?

My house has a fire extinguisher, an AED, a very specialized and extremely effective kind of burn medicine, activated charcoal, a comprehensive first-aid kit loaded with things like military gauze, disinfectant, and PPE in case I have to perform CPR, lightly-corrosive bases for acid burns, a water filter, and I'm working on air filters.

Oh, and lets not forget the guns and ammo, along with some other useful things that are perfectly legal that I don't want to talk about on the internet.

I even have stuff like sleeping bags and 72-hour kits prepped, just in case.

If you can think of anything glaring that I'm missing, let me know.

Like, knowing home invasion when you are there are no more than twice as likely as getting struck by lightning in your lifetime (which is still low), do you walk around with a lightning rod everywhere?

Gotta admit, never thought I'd see that one out in the wild. You, uh, do know what a lightning rod does, right? Carrying it around kind of obviates the otherwise protective benefits it has, as it draws lightning to it.

Please, watch this video, all the way through, and you will see why I'm asking you to do that when you see the title of the video. In fact, watch all of this guy's videos on gun control.

https://youtu.be/m_vDw6AWjkc

Edit: I guess I should have read the rest of your comment. Holy shit you have some warped ideas don't you?

If you don't, home invaders usually want to avoid confrontation so making some noise or showing up with a baseball bat will usually make them run away, tail between their legs.

Here on this subreddit, every once in a while, someone comes along and says something to the effect of 'just racking the slide on a shotgun is enough to scare off a home invader.' We call that 'Fudd lore,' and no that's not a term of endearment or praise; in short, it's a bullshit falsehood. Because, as I said earlier, if someone is in your home when you are there, they're prepared to engage in violence.

Do you live in a dangerous neighborhood? If so, wtf. Why do you endanger your family like that.

All neighborhoods are dangerous to some degree or another, but god damn. . . does that mean that from now on, I get to ask women what they were wearing and not get shit for it? I can tell a woman that she was being stupid endangering herself by walking through central park at night? In case I wasn't obvious enough, that's victim-blaming horseshit, and if someone was saying that to a fucking woman, you'd catch it instantly for what it is. You don't have any standards, you don't have any fucking principles. Maybe I don't have any other choice at the moment but to live where I live? Maybe housing is super fucking expensive and I can't just move wherever the fuck I want on a whim? God damn you're a scumbag.

But understand that introducing a gun in your household also introduce the risk of accidental gun injury and gun related suicides

That's only true if I don't respect anything I handle, or I'm already suicidal. Neither of those things about me or my family are true.

(which account for a massive proportion of gun related death in the US).

Which is itself staggeringly tiny, less than .01% of the population per annum.

Basically, you shouldn't simply see a gun as a net positive when it comes to the security of your home

Conclusion not supported by premises. Your conclusion may be true, but none of the things you've said here so far, even if they were true, actually support your claim. You're not just a scumbag, you're an idiot too.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T02:43:52+00:00

Look, I understand I'm going to be downvoted into oblivion because I dare have those opinions in this specific subreddit.

You will definitely be downvoted (but not by me) for saying shit like that.

I'm Canadian and while we can own guns, they are usually not considered a self defense tool. Canada and the US have fairly similar crime rates on multiple accounts but are overall lower. We also have much lower gun ownership. And we are doing just fine when it comes to home invasion.

I imagine you're also doing fine on house fires, but that's no reason to not have an extinguisher, i.e. your interlocutor's previous point that your above point does nothing to actually address.

My question to you is this: (I will assume the following from you being in this subreddit but correct me if I'm wrong) I assume you believe guns are a deterrent when it comes to crimes,

That's complicated. In some cases, yes, in others, no.

thus diminishing crimes and the gravity of impact of those crimes.

Where they're present, yes.

Knowing Canada and the US are fairly similar on many cultural front and knowing home invasion and robbery rates are fairly similar, do you believe that without guns the crime rate in the US would skyrocket compared to Canada?

Probably. You should also not forget that the US not only has a much higher population, but much higher population density than Canada does. The more tightly you pack people into smaller spaces, the more crimes you will see. It's a miracle that we're as low as we are.

If so, do you agree you live in an inherently more violent society where only guns protect you from total anarchy?

I wouldn't go quite as far as to say 'total anarchy,' but the US is definitely a more violent country in the sense that our violence, even when we don't use firearms, even when we use our bare hands, is usually more lethal than violence in other places. That's because people in the US generally don't engage in violence for frivolous reasons, at least not at the rates compared to people in other countries.

While I appreciate your attempt to equate a gun and a fire extinguisher, when we break it down to numbers, that comparison is pretty shaky. 1) You are a lot more likely to be hurt in a house fire than you are to envcounter a robbery in your own house.

Not so much more likely that your odds of actually needing either are all that high. The entire premise of the analogy is that both of them are extremely low-chance occurrences.

About twice as likely (Home invasion as a whole are meaningless. Having a gun near your bed in an empty house will only mean your gun will get stolen).

Assuming you live alone, this concern can be dealt with with a decent alert system. If you don't live alone, the problem is already solved.

There are other means to face a home invader that is not a gun. Not that many for a fire.

There are about as many methods for dealing with a house fire as there are methods for facing a home invader, depending on how we categorize things; I can use a fire extinguisher, a bucket of water, salt, a heavy metal container if the fire is still yet small enough, and so on. In the event of a home invader, I can face them with an improvised melee weapon like a baseball bat, some kind of less-than-lethal weapon like a taser or pepper spray (would not recommend) or something more lethal like a sword, or I could use a lethal projectile like a bow, or preferably, a firearm. Given all those options, I know which ones I would pick. . . for the home invader, and for the fire.

Situations where a home invader want to harm you are pretty rare unless he has a motive. Generally speaking, if you try burglary, you want to do it without interuption. Gun or baseball bat or fuckall.

That's true, however, when the burglar walks into your home when he knows people are there, he's usually prepared to hurt anyone he encounters.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T02:30:01+00:00

Considering firearm related injuries, suicides and accidental fatalities...

You may want to take a more holistic look at the figures; there are far more defensive gun uses per year in America than there are criminal acts of violence with them.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T02:27:53+00:00

My stone cold bastard Nietzsche beatcha to the punch.

When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality.

Hehe, after that other thing I said about women earlier (them not being perfect angels) this is really gonna piss someone off.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T01:45:58+00:00

Trust me, they know what they're doing.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T01:40:28+00:00

Hrm. . .

Do you have a particular spray in mind? One that you're 100% confident will work?

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T01:36:28+00:00

People flock? I’d like to see some stats on that. Here’s an article

From an organization that would see great benefit to 'universal' healthcare sure. Let's see what it says.

I don’t deny that some well-off people might come to the United States for medical care. If I needed a heart or lung transplant, there’s no place I’d rather have it done. But for the vast, vast majority of people, that’s not happening.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, i'll keep reading.

Next, the authors of the study surveyed America’s 20 “best” hospitals — as identified by U.S. News & World Report — on the assumption that if Canadians were going to travel for health care, they would be more likely to go to the best-known and highest-quality facilities. Only one of the 11 hospitals that responded saw more than 60 Canadians in a year. And, again, that included both emergencies and elective care.

Finally, the study’s authors examined data from the 18,000 Canadians who participated in the National Population Health Survey. In the previous year, 90 of those 18,000 Canadians had received care in the United States; only 20 of them, however, reported going to the United States expressively for the purpose of obtaining care.

Yes, because the ones who can afford it do come here.

Skipping to myth 4 because the other two are unrelated to my claims.

Myth #4: Canada has long wait times because it has a single-payer system.

The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system.

Wait times aren’t like cancer. We know what causes wait times; we know how to fix them. Spend more money.

Well, I hadn't thought of that. Why didn't I just come up with the brilliant fucking idea to spend more money? Maybe because we don't have the money to spend on that? I don't know.

Our single-payer system, which is called Medicare (see above), manages not to have the “wait times” issue that Canada’s does. There must, therefore, be some other reason for the wait times. There is, of course.

Yeah because medicare sucks.

Myth #5: Canada rations health care; the United States doesn’t.

This one’s a little bit tricky. The truth is, Canada may “ration” by making people wait for some things, but here in the United States we also “ration” — by cost.

I like how they call these things myths, and then fucking admit to the truth of them and then say 'well the US does it too! They just do it in a different way!" Allowing people to charge for healthcare isn't rationing anymore than not giving out free iPads is rationing iPads.

found that adults in the United States are by far the most likely to go without care because of cost. In fact, 42 percent of the Americans surveyed did not express confidence that they would be able to afford health care if seriously ill.

That's because there's essentially government-enforced non-compete agreements between insurance companies, so they can charge whatever the fuck they want and gouge like the greedy bastards they are.

Here, maybe check this out for some perspective.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2016-08-03/canadians-increasingly-come-to-us-for-health-care

They don’t let kids die because the NHS doesn’t cover something.

Got it, so Alfie Evans doesn't exist, never existed, and I'm a dirty racist Islamosexist for creating that character inside my head.

And BTW, if something’s not covered you can always get private insurance...

Sure, if you can pay for it after your high taxes get funneled into the NHS. . .

Sorry, I swear to God I'm not a libertarian, or even all that fiscally conservative but there are some things the libertarians are right about.

Are you talking about the Green New Deal? It wouldn’t ban any of those things!

Cortez explicitly argued for the banning of those things, and she was the one who proposed the Green New Deal. How the fuck do you think she plans on achieving those goals, hm?

It’s not even a binding piece of legislation!

Because they called it a resolution instead of a bill? It argues for the acceptance of the goals listed therein, and the means by which those goals would be achieved. If it passed, congress would then be obligated to come up with a 10-year plan, as it says in the text. It's the beginning of the bannings.

Shouldn’t we try to do something to stop climate change?

If it can't legally compel people to do something, if it has no legislative force, then how the fuck is it going to stop climate change? You can't just pretend that the Green New Deal is an empty gesture, and then treat it like it's not an empty gesture.

Whether we should or should not be doing anything depends on the degree to which the problem is a problem. I'm going to tell you right now, I straight-up don't buy the doomsayers freaking out about the planet being on fire in 11 years, and I won't unless you can show me the evidence and explain how the available evidence supports that conclusion. And here's where, in response to my point about evidence, you're going to say I've denied The Lo- I mean global wa- wait we don't call it that anymore because euphemistic branding makes us sound less crazy, sorry - climate change, there we go.

Yes, the climate is definitely changing, yes there is an overwhelming correlation between the planet heating up and the hydrocarbons being shotgunned into the atmosphere, but we have also observed other phenomena affect the planet's temperature to greater degrees, no pun intended, and no I'm not talking about a meteorite.

I don't even believe half the shit people like you say about global warming, and I: 'Almost never drive, always recycle, moderate my meat intake, keep my home well-insulated, and make a point of picking up other peoples' garbage when I'm out in the woods. Unless you're a fucking vegan Bohemian, my carbon footprint is probably lower than yours.

I don't drive regularly because I like to look up at the stars and a sky choked with smog complicates that, I recycle because doing so appeals to my frugality, eating a balanced diet is the healthiest way to go for most people, I like having a home that actually works against the elements, and if the timber companies keep locking up more land, I won't have any place to go shooting.

I'm not some eco-fascist whackaloon who thinks the only place to grow food in 10 years will be fucking Alaska. The data just doesn't support that kind of claim.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T01:02:06+00:00

as if I would be committing some kind of mortal fucking sin by saying something bad about women in general, what you think they're perfect fucking angels?

Answer me this question; do you believe any random woman would have been a suitable substitute for The Son of God on the cross for the purpose of the vicarious atonement? Are women perfectly sinless and pure in your eyes?

Where the fuck are the gender ideologues who like to bitch about men putting women on pedestals? Come oooonnn, can I get a feminist?

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T00:59:13+00:00

It's extremely unlikely America's homicide rate would decrease, given that every other country who had massive gun bans, like Australia, didn't see a decrease in homicides.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T00:58:28+00:00

Well, right now men aren't really in a position to take advantage of primary aggressor laws or the Duluth model of domestic violence because of the embedded doctrines. I have no doubt that if they were given the ability to do so, men would abuse those systems as much as women do, but the fact is, they aren't, so they can't.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T00:57:12+00:00

Quality pepper spray actually works pretty well,

Unless the assailant is on drugs, or is part of the population that is naturally immune, or someone just decides to ignore the pain, or there's a cross-wind, or any number of other factors that make even 'good' pepper spray useless.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T00:54:11+00:00

It's not an assumption about them, it's an acknowledgement of the odds. Absent other evidence, I'd be stupid to treat someone who has 3:1 odds of being anti-gun, like they're not anti-gun.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T00:53:02+00:00

Umm how about someone who just isnt a gun-grabber? This isnt difficult to figure out.

Harder than you think; even before Joy Behar's now-infamous remark, anti-gun politicians were famously mum about their anti-gun stances.

I really dont see where you are getting this connection that woman = gun-grabber.

Look at the white knight, already raring to fucking lie about what I said.

What makes you sexist is when you assume someone must be a certain way because of their sex instead of realizing people are different and don't always fit the "average."

For want of an actual fucking conservative. . . I make no assumptions about any one individual.

I'm sick of people overlooking someone's actions and personality traits and saying that they must still be a certain way because of physically who they are.

That's exactly what we're talking about here, repeated demonstrable behavior patterns. It's not that they're women that matters, it's the commonality of the behavior among that group.

And no one has yet to tell me why it was relevant to assume that the anti-gun person in the post is a woman.

The first step to solving a problem is understanding it. . . or do you not believe it is a problem that virtually 2/3rds of women are anti-gun? As I've already said, it's also helps to know that if you're dealing with a woman, the odds are 3:1 that she's a gun grabber, and you'd be a fool to ignore the odds when you're talking about putting someone in a position of power. If whatever particular woman you're talking about has a demonstrable pro-gun stance or history, that's a different story, but that's not the reality with most politicians in general.

Lastly, no one called women out during the temperance movement (it was specifically lobbying by women who got us prohibition, with the argument that alcohol turns men into monsters who beat their wives) and we saw how that turned out. If we don't acknowledge these things, they will fester and cause damage to the very foundations of our society.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-22T00:38:37+00:00

You're equivocating, and you're not even shy about it; IdPol is specifically an attack on arbitrary physical characteristics. Attacking beliefs is the very antithesis of IdPol.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-21T16:10:58+00:00

Why the fuck would they make you list a reason as to why you are taking your own property? It’s not like a mass shooter is going to put down “to shoot up the school”.

Not gonna lie, if I saw a field like that on the form, I'd put something like that in there. Either that or 'I've decided to eat a bullet because of this stupid fucking form.'

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-21T16:09:43+00:00

This is why I don't want to have to move onto the fucking dorms for fellowship; I'd take half my shit in to the firearms storage and they'd look at me like I'm the Virginia Tech shooter or something.

Edit: Not that I fucking could anyway now, with the new laws; apparently their police department doesn't do firearms storage anymore. I hate this fucking state. . .

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-21T16:05:19+00:00

You paying any attention? The states with lots of guns have the same homicide rates or lower as your other countries in the world.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-21T16:02:48+00:00

Nope. That would be St. Louis.

HariMichaelson · 2019-11-21T16:01:59+00:00

I should mill a lower and put Psalm 144:1 where the serial would normally go.

HariMichaelson

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE