(May 28, 2023 at 6:17 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The Bernie Bro only got one?  Shame.

If you don’t know what a terrorist is and can’t -immediately- think of at least one example where ws militias went on the attack….then you probably don’t have any business commenting on either thing.

I’d normally tell you to let wonder lead you to knowledge, but it’s clear that wonder never leads you anywhere but a reich wing gutter.

So you're down with El Salvador's way of solving crime? Just suspend the constitution and mass arrest or kill if necessary everyone who looks like they might be in a gang? Crime has gone way down there, despite the world decrying the mass human rights abuses. You down for that in America? The millions of whites who don't like immigration? Kill list? All young black people and latinos who look like they might be in a gang? Kill list, or lock them all up. People who misgender people? Kill list. People who are caught going past the speed limit? Obviously since these people contribute to way more death than white nationalists, to be consistent, we have to kill all speeders on site. Wow, maybe we can solve every problem in society with your way of thinking, Nudge. Why hadn't I thought of this sooner. Just kill everyone and problems solved.

I see you have still yet to give me a definition for terrorist.

Is El Salvador's way of solving crime™ killing terrorist self admitted terrorists? Then yes. A thousand times yes.

Why don't you stop trying to concern troll me and just speak your unfiltered mind? What weighs so heavily? You keep pretending that theres no definition for a terrorists, as if I have to personally supply you with one. I do not. Are you a terrorist? What have you done?

Of course, murder is okay. Especially, when dealing with getting rid of toxic ideology as well as political oppression and tyranny. A concept I learned in writing my latest novel.

As we say here in Texas, "he needed killin'." Killing a terrorist to stop his terrorist act seems sensible to me. Arguing that this equates to wanting to kill anyone who "looks like they might be in a gang", not so much.

(May 30, 2023 at 10:01 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: As we say here in Texas, "he needed killin'." Killing a terrorist to stop his terrorist act seems sensible to me. Arguing that this equates to wanting to kill anyone who "looks like they might be in a gang", not so much.

The first time I heard "he needed killin" was in one of my classes for my Criminal Justice degree and it was taught by a prosecuting attorney from Collin County.  I nearly choked when he said that.

(May 19, 2023 at 4:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 19, 2023 at 8:36 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: You can argue that leads to a 30% overestimate, but you can not claim that leads to a 90% overestimate (which would be necessary for guns to kill more people than they save).

THERE IS NO 'ESTIMATE'!!  The whole thing is a farce, as I've explained to you before.

Boru

Well, like I've explained multiple times, I am having a hard time explaining why the Gary Kleck's study would be pseudoscience without implying that not only my latest paper is pseudoscience, but that my entire field is pseudoscience.

That works.

(May 30, 2023 at 12:07 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(May 19, 2023 at 4:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: THERE IS NO 'ESTIMATE'!!  The whole thing is a farce, as I've explained to you before.

Boru

Well, like I've explained multiple times, I am having a hard time explaining why the Gary Kleck's study would be pseudoscience without implying that not only my latest paper is pseudoscience, but that my entire field is pseudoscience.

Your latest paper has fuck all to do with the topic.

And stop linking to it before you get banned again - your recent time out was intended to get you to stop all the self-aggrandizing bullshit.

Boru

(May 30, 2023 at 12:36 pm)Angrboda Wrote: That works.

What do you mean?

(May 30, 2023 at 12:44 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(May 30, 2023 at 12:07 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote: Well, like I've explained multiple times, I am having a hard time explaining why the Gary Kleck's study would be pseudoscience without implying that not only my latest paper is pseudoscience, but that my entire field is pseudoscience.

Your latest paper has fuck all to do with the topic.

And stop linking to it before you get banned again - your recent time out was intended to get you to stop all the self-aggrandizing bullshit.

Boru

The conclusions and premises of my paper have nothing to do with the topic, but the methodology of my paper is an example of good social science methodology. And the fact that you have never published a paper in social sciences and will readily claim entire fields (not papers, fields) of social sciences are pseudoscience tells us more about you than about Gary Kleck's study.