Manhunt On for Road Rage Shooter

[Pogo]

All of us humans have biases, nothing ironic about it. All us humans utilize availability heuristics and confirmation bias to differing degrees, the real trick is recognizing it in ourselves and fighting it as best as possible something the vast majority will never do. It takes real strength of character to even look for it let alone confront it and even those of us who do don't always succeed, we're still human. As for highly emotive issues unless one can separate the emotive from the logic then one will always be influenced by the emotive (even unconsciously) but again we are emotive creatures and not purely logical "Vulcans" so emulating Spock is nearly impossible for us. However that said it doesn't mean we can't recognize and separate the emotive if we choose to and by doing so minimize the need for rationalization though again most will never do that which is plainly obvious on this board daily.

Ringel05 you are correct.

And it is because all of us are brainwashed differently by our parents, teachers, ministers, schools, governments, and employers.

Each of these various brainwashers has a stated interest in brainwashing us for their own purposes.

At some point we can erase the brainwashing and become unbiased but only if we study Philosophy intensely.

And few people study Philosophy at all.

I would iterate Philosophy in context of social/cultural norms/taboos (sociology & cultural anthropology), human psychology and history (history is the window of events to those differing social/cultural norms/taboos and their manifestations).

You guys are now taking this where I always thought it most productive --- philosophy, ethics and sociology. That's my point and always has been. Zero to do with "politics".

Frankly when politicians get involved in this I think they're pandering and posturing into "look at me, I'm doing something about it". Well ---- no, you're not. You're just pandering.

That's actually where I thought we were the whole time.

That's hard to follow then since you chided me at the beginning of the thread for making it "political", which I never suggested.

Fatter o' mact when I put this thread up it was under "Current Events" which it was, and certainly doesn't imply "current political events". It's since been moved to "Law and Justice" which is bizzaro and inexplicable but if I had to locate it elsewhere other than Current Events I prolly would have chosen "Religion and Ethics".

 

[Ringel05]

Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack

You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Exactly what degree of "perception" is required to inject rhetoric into a commentary that clearly contains none of that rhetoric, expressed or implied? Again, Costas' commentary never makes mention of any individual liberties at all. Never mentions any laws, regulations, Amendments, background checks, Constitutions --- nothing. Not even implied. It's entirely about the popular social view of firearms and what their purpose is.

And my point being --- exactly why do all these people want to inject exactly that content that isn't there? Aye, there's the rub. The only possible answer I can come up with is that the content that actually *is* there, scares the shit out of them. And that is, the observation and admission that we have a gun fetish culture. And that's a resistance I've seen way before I came to this site. Even got thrown off another board for suggesting it, that's how taboo the suggestion is. It's terrifying. Clearly I have struck a nerve.

If I suddenly tried to veer this convo off to the subject of rhubarb, which you never mentioned in any way, you'd be justified in assuming I couldn't handle what the topic actually is and was desperate to change the subject.

Now you're grasping (I'll be nice.....) at straws, never even remotely implied that's what you were doing, just because others have doesn't mean I was, you just committed a fallacy.......
And you're finally seeing it, fear and repetitive attacks over time can drive perspective and fallacy as you just did with me (not the fear, the repetitive attacks).
How many times to I have to repeat myself, you're taking it all literally at face value and not looking any deeper. Bias confirmation? That's what I'm seeing.

 

[Ringel05]

All of us humans have biases, nothing ironic about it. All us humans utilize availability heuristics and confirmation bias to differing degrees, the real trick is recognizing it in ourselves and fighting it as best as possible something the vast majority will never do. It takes real strength of character to even look for it let alone confront it and even those of us who do don't always succeed, we're still human. As for highly emotive issues unless one can separate the emotive from the logic then one will always be influenced by the emotive (even unconsciously) but again we are emotive creatures and not purely logical "Vulcans" so emulating Spock is nearly impossible for us. However that said it doesn't mean we can't recognize and separate the emotive if we choose to and by doing so minimize the need for rationalization though again most will never do that which is plainly obvious on this board daily.

Ringel05 you are correct.

And it is because all of us are brainwashed differently by our parents, teachers, ministers, schools, governments, and employers.

Each of these various brainwashers has a stated interest in brainwashing us for their own purposes.

At some point we can erase the brainwashing and become unbiased but only if we study Philosophy intensely.

And few people study Philosophy at all.

I would iterate Philosophy in context of social/cultural norms/taboos (sociology & cultural anthropology), human psychology and history (history is the window of events to those differing social/cultural norms/taboos and their manifestations).

You guys are now taking this where I always thought it most productive --- philosophy, ethics and sociology. That's my point and always has been. Zero to do with "politics".

Frankly when politicians get involved in this I think they're pandering and posturing into "look at me, I'm doing something about it". Well ---- no, you're not. You're just pandering.

That's actually where I thought we were the whole time.

That's hard to follow then since you chided me at the beginning of the thread for making it "political", which I never suggested.

Fatter o' mact when I put this thread up it was under "Current Events" which it was, and certainly doesn't imply "current political events". It's since been moved to "Law and Justice" which is bizzaro and inexplicable but if I had to locate it elsewhere other than Current Events I prolly would have chosen "Religion and Ethics".

That's hard to follow then since you chided me at the beginning of the thread for making it "political", which I never suggested.

Which I apologized for when I realized I made a mistake. Did you forget or simply miss it?

 

[Eloy]

Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack

You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Dead children have no perception.

Okay, is it even possible for you to separate your emotive from the logical realities and actually join the conversation in an adult and intelligent manner?

A human without emotion is dangerous to the rest of us.

 

[Ringel05]

Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack

You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Dead children have no perception.

Okay, is it even possible for you to separate your emotive from the logical realities and actually join the conversation in an adult and intelligent manner?

A human without emotion is dangerous to the rest of us.

Spoken like a true emotive driven human. We're having a learned interaction here that is neither pro or anti gun, maybe if you had gone to college for more than one semester you'd be able to figure that out. Just because we attempt to remove the emotive from the discussion doesn't mean it's not there on some level.
Besides "dead children" is a classic emotive appeal, it puts an end to rational discourse.

 

[Pogo]

Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack

You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Exactly what degree of "perception" is required to inject rhetoric into a commentary that clearly contains none of that rhetoric, expressed or implied? Again, Costas' commentary never makes mention of any individual liberties at all. Never mentions any laws, regulations, Amendments, background checks, Constitutions --- nothing. Not even implied. It's entirely about the popular social view of firearms and what their purpose is.

And my point being --- exactly why do all these people want to inject exactly that content that isn't there? Aye, there's the rub. The only possible answer I can come up with is that the content that actually *is* there, scares the shit out of them. And that is, the observation and admission that we have a gun fetish culture. And that's a resistance I've seen way before I came to this site. Even got thrown off another board for suggesting it, that's how taboo the suggestion is. It's terrifying. Clearly I have struck a nerve.

If I suddenly tried to veer this convo off to the subject of rhubarb, which you never mentioned in any way, you'd be justified in assuming I couldn't handle what the topic actually is and was desperate to change the subject.

Now you're grasping (I'll be nice.....) at straws, never even remotely implied that's what you were doing, just because others have doesn't mean I was, you just committed a fallacy.......
And you're finally seeing it, fear and repetitive attacks over time can drive perspective and fallacy as you just did with me (not the fear, the repetitive attacks).
How many times to I have to repeat myself, you're taking it all literally at face value and not looking any deeper. Bias confirmation? That's what I'm seeing.

That's (bold) an example of deflecting an inconvenient topic that one wished not to address, using myself as the guilty deflector in the example. There's no way that's a statement on what you were doing. I'm portraying myself in an example of the same red herring that wants to change the Costas commentary into "gun control" that he never brought up.

I don't know why this isn't communicating. It's like the board is translating posts into Bulgarian.

Again -- not rocket surgery ----

(1) commentary is aired on the social values of firearms;
(2) everybody in the audience --- literally everybody -- chooses to change the commentary to the topic of "gun control" instead, despite the fact that:
(3) the commentary, entire script, makes no mention anywhere of any kind of any "gun control" whatsoever.

(3) is immutable. No one anywhere gets to change the script after the fact into what they wish it had been.

How is Costas "wrong" for not talking about what they falsely claim he was talking about? How does it give him a "confirmation bias"?

The script is quantifiable. It's an either/or question as to whether it's about "gun control" (or rhubarb, or green Studebakers). The topic is either in there, or it is not. None of these are in there. Period. Therefore the deliberate mischaracterization into "gun control" is erroneous. That's the only thing it can be.

We're teetering on the edge of denial of basic reality here. There is no universe where we get to deny a fact just because we don't like it or because we wish it were otherwise.

 

[yiostheoy]

So none of this has anything to do with the hunt for the road rage shooter ... .

 

[Pogo]

Ringel05 you are correct.

And it is because all of us are brainwashed differently by our parents, teachers, ministers, schools, governments, and employers.

Each of these various brainwashers has a stated interest in brainwashing us for their own purposes.

At some point we can erase the brainwashing and become unbiased but only if we study Philosophy intensely.

And few people study Philosophy at all.

I would iterate Philosophy in context of social/cultural norms/taboos (sociology & cultural anthropology), human psychology and history (history is the window of events to those differing social/cultural norms/taboos and their manifestations).

You guys are now taking this where I always thought it most productive --- philosophy, ethics and sociology. That's my point and always has been. Zero to do with "politics".

Frankly when politicians get involved in this I think they're pandering and posturing into "look at me, I'm doing something about it". Well ---- no, you're not. You're just pandering.

That's actually where I thought we were the whole time.

That's hard to follow then since you chided me at the beginning of the thread for making it "political", which I never suggested.

Fatter o' mact when I put this thread up it was under "Current Events" which it was, and certainly doesn't imply "current political events". It's since been moved to "Law and Justice" which is bizzaro and inexplicable but if I had to locate it elsewhere other than Current Events I prolly would have chosen "Religion and Ethics".

That's hard to follow then since you chided me at the beginning of the thread for making it "political", which I never suggested.

Which I apologized for when I realized I made a mistake. Did you forget or simply miss it?

I saw it, and thanks I require no apology. Just saying it contradicts "the whole time" above. There would seem to have been a time when you didn't think that's where we were. Glad we got that out of the way at least.

 

[Pogo]

So none of this has anything to do with the hunt for the road rage shooter ... .

Nope --- he's in custody now. When I started the thread that wasn't the case. We've moved on to what makes him (and his ilk) tick.

 

[yiostheoy]

So none of this has anything to do with the hunt for the road rage shooter ... .

Nope --- he's in custody now. When I started the thread that wasn't the case. We've moved on to what makes him (and his ilk) tick.

Road rage is like any uncontrollable psycho or sociopathic break down.

There are also passive aggressive versions of it with tailgating or cutting off others.

At any given place there are always 10% sociopaths and 1% psychopaths.

The USA also has about 50 serial killers on the loose at any given time. So the propensity of that syndrome is 50/321,400,000 or 0.000016% .

 

[Pogo]

Road rage is like any uncontrollable psycho or sociopathic break down.

There are also passive aggressive versions of it with tailgating or cutting off others.

There are indeed and they're not hard to find on the road. It's commonplace. I saw this story as more about the concept of gun-as-resolution than one specifically about road rage.

As regards the idea of shooting things I've strongly suggested it derives from a masculinity issue. It's not a stretch to conclude the same about road rage, although one does see the occasional female in the latter. Rarely.

I snipped the part about serial killers as I suspect that's a whole 'nother mentality and certainly need not involve guns. But maybe it's also related to the same masculinity/power issue.

 

[Ringel05]

Incorrect, as I stated before it shows nothing more than a misplaced defense mechanism against a perceived attack

You mistakenly apply those responses to some nebulous 'gun culture' when the real fear for most is what they perceive as a degradation of the Bill of Rights, a violation of the rights (as they see them) handed down from our forefathers.

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Exactly what degree of "perception" is required to inject rhetoric into a commentary that clearly contains none of that rhetoric, expressed or implied? Again, Costas' commentary never makes mention of any individual liberties at all. Never mentions any laws, regulations, Amendments, background checks, Constitutions --- nothing. Not even implied. It's entirely about the popular social view of firearms and what their purpose is.

And my point being --- exactly why do all these people want to inject exactly that content that isn't there? Aye, there's the rub. The only possible answer I can come up with is that the content that actually *is* there, scares the shit out of them. And that is, the observation and admission that we have a gun fetish culture. And that's a resistance I've seen way before I came to this site. Even got thrown off another board for suggesting it, that's how taboo the suggestion is. It's terrifying. Clearly I have struck a nerve.

If I suddenly tried to veer this convo off to the subject of rhubarb, which you never mentioned in any way, you'd be justified in assuming I couldn't handle what the topic actually is and was desperate to change the subject.

Now you're grasping (I'll be nice.....) at straws, never even remotely implied that's what you were doing, just because others have doesn't mean I was, you just committed a fallacy.......
And you're finally seeing it, fear and repetitive attacks over time can drive perspective and fallacy as you just did with me (not the fear, the repetitive attacks).
How many times to I have to repeat myself, you're taking it all literally at face value and not looking any deeper. Bias confirmation? That's what I'm seeing.

That's (bold) an example of deflecting an inconvenient topic that one wished not to address, using myself as the guilty deflector in the example. There's no way that's a statement on what you were doing. I'm portraying myself in an example of the same red herring that wants to change the Costas commentary into "gun control" that he never brought up.

I don't know why this isn't communicating. It's like the board is translating posts into Bulgarian.

Again -- not rocket surgery ----

(1) commentary is aired on the social values of firearms;
(2) everybody in the audience --- literally everybody -- chooses to change the commentary to the topic of "gun control" instead, despite the fact that:
(3) the commentary, entire script, makes no mention anywhere of any kind of any "gun control" whatsoever.

(3) is immutable. No one anywhere gets to change the script after the fact into what they wish it had been.

How is Costas "wrong" for not talking about what they falsely claim he was talking about? How does it give him a "confirmation bias"?

The script is quantifiable. It's an either/or question as to whether it's about "gun control" (or rhubarb, or green Studebakers). The topic is either in there, or it is not. None of these are in there. Period. Therefore the deliberate mischaracterization into "gun control" is erroneous. That's the only thing it can be.

We're teetering on the edge of denial of basic reality here. There is no universe where we get to deny a fact just because we don't like it or because we wish it were otherwise.

You're either completely misunderstanding everything I said or intentionally misrepresenting it, given that it's you and not someone else I'll go with the former not the latter. I never said Costas was indulging in confirmation bias, I said your were (based solely on your gun culture claim and attempted rationale) as well as those who railed against Costas and you.
I simply pointed out the obvious psychological and emotive factors involved and that they have nothing to do with some nebulous, all encompassing gun culture. I thought I was being quite clear but obviously I ether wasn't, you couldn't grasp what I was saying (for whatever reason) or a little of both.

 

[Ringel05]

I would iterate Philosophy in context of social/cultural norms/taboos (sociology & cultural anthropology), human psychology and history (history is the window of events to those differing social/cultural norms/taboos and their manifestations).

You guys are now taking this where I always thought it most productive --- philosophy, ethics and sociology. That's my point and always has been. Zero to do with "politics".

Frankly when politicians get involved in this I think they're pandering and posturing into "look at me, I'm doing something about it". Well ---- no, you're not. You're just pandering.

That's actually where I thought we were the whole time.

That's hard to follow then since you chided me at the beginning of the thread for making it "political", which I never suggested.

Fatter o' mact when I put this thread up it was under "Current Events" which it was, and certainly doesn't imply "current political events". It's since been moved to "Law and Justice" which is bizzaro and inexplicable but if I had to locate it elsewhere other than Current Events I prolly would have chosen "Religion and Ethics".

That's hard to follow then since you chided me at the beginning of the thread for making it "political", which I never suggested.

Which I apologized for when I realized I made a mistake. Did you forget or simply miss it?

I saw it, and thanks I require no apology. Just saying it contradicts "the whole time" above. There would seem to have been a time when you didn't think that's where we were. Glad we got that out of the way at least.

Then why bring it up? It appeared to be a deflection based on an already settled issue.

 

[Eloy]

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Dead children have no perception.

Okay, is it even possible for you to separate your emotive from the logical realities and actually join the conversation in an adult and intelligent manner?

A human without emotion is dangerous to the rest of us.

Spoken like a true emotive driven human. We're having a learned interaction here that is neither pro or anti gun, maybe if you had gone to college for more than one semester you'd be able to figure that out. Just because we attempt to remove the emotive from the discussion doesn't mean it's not there on some level.
Besides "dead children" is a classic emotive appeal, it puts an end to rational discourse.

I make no apology for not being an android. Without emotional outrage at the stupidity of trying to have a civilized country when it is awash with guns, the argument is lost.

 

[Ringel05]

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Dead children have no perception.

Okay, is it even possible for you to separate your emotive from the logical realities and actually join the conversation in an adult and intelligent manner?

A human without emotion is dangerous to the rest of us.

Spoken like a true emotive driven human. We're having a learned interaction here that is neither pro or anti gun, maybe if you had gone to college for more than one semester you'd be able to figure that out. Just because we attempt to remove the emotive from the discussion doesn't mean it's not there on some level.
Besides "dead children" is a classic emotive appeal, it puts an end to rational discourse.

I make no apology for not being an android. Without emotional outrage at the stupidity of trying to have a civilized country when it is awash with guns, the argument is lost.

More emotive rationalization...... Color me shocked......

 

[Pogo]

I think you're way behind me. Here's the point ---

---- Yes it absolutely is a defence against a perceived attack. No difference of opinion there at all. My question then is --- whence comes this perception of attack, given the fact that it literally does not exist anywhere in the commentary?

Whence indeed. It can only come from within. And that opens the psyhological window. And the fact that it's universal (try to find any upload of this video that does not call it a "gun control" rant) -- simply demonstrates the penetration of that very psychology and how deeply ingrained it is.

In other words by their attempt at deflection they prove its whole point.

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Exactly what degree of "perception" is required to inject rhetoric into a commentary that clearly contains none of that rhetoric, expressed or implied? Again, Costas' commentary never makes mention of any individual liberties at all. Never mentions any laws, regulations, Amendments, background checks, Constitutions --- nothing. Not even implied. It's entirely about the popular social view of firearms and what their purpose is.

And my point being --- exactly why do all these people want to inject exactly that content that isn't there? Aye, there's the rub. The only possible answer I can come up with is that the content that actually *is* there, scares the shit out of them. And that is, the observation and admission that we have a gun fetish culture. And that's a resistance I've seen way before I came to this site. Even got thrown off another board for suggesting it, that's how taboo the suggestion is. It's terrifying. Clearly I have struck a nerve.

If I suddenly tried to veer this convo off to the subject of rhubarb, which you never mentioned in any way, you'd be justified in assuming I couldn't handle what the topic actually is and was desperate to change the subject.

Now you're grasping (I'll be nice.....) at straws, never even remotely implied that's what you were doing, just because others have doesn't mean I was, you just committed a fallacy.......
And you're finally seeing it, fear and repetitive attacks over time can drive perspective and fallacy as you just did with me (not the fear, the repetitive attacks).
How many times to I have to repeat myself, you're taking it all literally at face value and not looking any deeper. Bias confirmation? That's what I'm seeing.

That's (bold) an example of deflecting an inconvenient topic that one wished not to address, using myself as the guilty deflector in the example. There's no way that's a statement on what you were doing. I'm portraying myself in an example of the same red herring that wants to change the Costas commentary into "gun control" that he never brought up.

I don't know why this isn't communicating. It's like the board is translating posts into Bulgarian.

Again -- not rocket surgery ----

(1) commentary is aired on the social values of firearms;
(2) everybody in the audience --- literally everybody -- chooses to change the commentary to the topic of "gun control" instead, despite the fact that:
(3) the commentary, entire script, makes no mention anywhere of any kind of any "gun control" whatsoever.

(3) is immutable. No one anywhere gets to change the script after the fact into what they wish it had been.

How is Costas "wrong" for not talking about what they falsely claim he was talking about? How does it give him a "confirmation bias"?

The script is quantifiable. It's an either/or question as to whether it's about "gun control" (or rhubarb, or green Studebakers). The topic is either in there, or it is not. None of these are in there. Period. Therefore the deliberate mischaracterization into "gun control" is erroneous. That's the only thing it can be.

We're teetering on the edge of denial of basic reality here. There is no universe where we get to deny a fact just because we don't like it or because we wish it were otherwise.

You're either completely misunderstanding everything I said or intentionally misrepresenting it, given that it's you and not someone else I'll go with the former not the latter. I never said Costas was indulging in confirmation bias, I said your were (based solely on your gun culture claim and attempted rationale) as well as those who railed against Costas and you.
I simply pointed out the obvious psychological and emotive factors involved and that they have nothing to do with some nebulous, all encompassing gun culture. I thought I was being quite clear but obviously I ether wasn't, you couldn't grasp what I was saying (for whatever reason) or a little of both.

Oh I can readily confirm I had no idea where you were going with that. Still don't, TBH.

The commentary was about "gun culture" -- regardless whether one agrees with it, regardless whether one agrees it exists or what it means, that's what the commentator intended. There's no "confirmation" needed for that, it's his actual point.

And yet, to return yet one more time to my observation, however futilely, every one of these YouTube posters wants to change his point FROM that TO "gun control", a topic which does not exist in the commentary at all.

I'd better leave it at that simple stage rather than go into implications of why they do that. But that is also quantifiable, and not a matter of opinion that needs a "confirmation".

 

[Pogo]

Not that there's some sort of massive gun culture but that there's a perceived attack on individual liberties, that's all it proves. Remember, perception is everything...........

Exactly what degree of "perception" is required to inject rhetoric into a commentary that clearly contains none of that rhetoric, expressed or implied? Again, Costas' commentary never makes mention of any individual liberties at all. Never mentions any laws, regulations, Amendments, background checks, Constitutions --- nothing. Not even implied. It's entirely about the popular social view of firearms and what their purpose is.

And my point being --- exactly why do all these people want to inject exactly that content that isn't there? Aye, there's the rub. The only possible answer I can come up with is that the content that actually *is* there, scares the shit out of them. And that is, the observation and admission that we have a gun fetish culture. And that's a resistance I've seen way before I came to this site. Even got thrown off another board for suggesting it, that's how taboo the suggestion is. It's terrifying. Clearly I have struck a nerve.

If I suddenly tried to veer this convo off to the subject of rhubarb, which you never mentioned in any way, you'd be justified in assuming I couldn't handle what the topic actually is and was desperate to change the subject.

Now you're grasping (I'll be nice.....) at straws, never even remotely implied that's what you were doing, just because others have doesn't mean I was, you just committed a fallacy.......
And you're finally seeing it, fear and repetitive attacks over time can drive perspective and fallacy as you just did with me (not the fear, the repetitive attacks).
How many times to I have to repeat myself, you're taking it all literally at face value and not looking any deeper. Bias confirmation? That's what I'm seeing.

That's (bold) an example of deflecting an inconvenient topic that one wished not to address, using myself as the guilty deflector in the example. There's no way that's a statement on what you were doing. I'm portraying myself in an example of the same red herring that wants to change the Costas commentary into "gun control" that he never brought up.

I don't know why this isn't communicating. It's like the board is translating posts into Bulgarian.

Again -- not rocket surgery ----

(1) commentary is aired on the social values of firearms;
(2) everybody in the audience --- literally everybody -- chooses to change the commentary to the topic of "gun control" instead, despite the fact that:
(3) the commentary, entire script, makes no mention anywhere of any kind of any "gun control" whatsoever.

(3) is immutable. No one anywhere gets to change the script after the fact into what they wish it had been.

How is Costas "wrong" for not talking about what they falsely claim he was talking about? How does it give him a "confirmation bias"?

The script is quantifiable. It's an either/or question as to whether it's about "gun control" (or rhubarb, or green Studebakers). The topic is either in there, or it is not. None of these are in there. Period. Therefore the deliberate mischaracterization into "gun control" is erroneous. That's the only thing it can be.

We're teetering on the edge of denial of basic reality here. There is no universe where we get to deny a fact just because we don't like it or because we wish it were otherwise.

You're either completely misunderstanding everything I said or intentionally misrepresenting it, given that it's you and not someone else I'll go with the former not the latter. I never said Costas was indulging in confirmation bias, I said your were (based solely on your gun culture claim and attempted rationale) as well as those who railed against Costas and you.
I simply pointed out the obvious psychological and emotive factors involved and that they have nothing to do with some nebulous, all encompassing gun culture. I thought I was being quite clear but obviously I ether wasn't, you couldn't grasp what I was saying (for whatever reason) or a little of both.

Oh I can readily confirm I had no idea where you were going with that. Still don't, TBH.

The commentary was about "gun culture" -- regardless whether one agrees with it, regardless whether one agrees it exists or what it means, that's what the commentator intended. There's no "confirmation" needed for that, it's his actual point.

And yet, to return yet one more time to my observation, however futilely, every one of these YouTube posters wants to change his point FROM that TO "gun control", a topic which does not exist in the commentary at all.

I'd better leave it at that simple stage rather than go into implications of why they do that. But that is also quantifiable, and not a matter of opinion that needs a "confirmation".

Put very simply to the most fundamental level: on one hand Costas is saying "we depend too much on guns/violence to solve our personal problems" and his critics are saying "he's calling for gun control". That's completely a non sequitur, but more interesting to me is that said non sequitur was so universal. They were also saying, fairly universally as well, that he should be "fired" for bringing it up at all. The commentary btw is/was a regular feature of Monday Night Football, not a special occasion. This was simply the topic of the time.

It's that reaction I find illuminating. And shortly after this and Sandy Hook, back when I joined USMB, gun violence was a front and center topic and another similar and revealing pattern reared its head about the other commentators who addressed the same hot topic. The rhetoric from USMB reactionaries was:

"Bob Costas should be fired".....
"Piers Morgan should be deported"....
"David Gregory should be arrested"....​

I remember it vividly, noted it at the time, with other examples. All of them for having the temerity to question the Gun Culture. To me that's a pattern and a consistent one, of making the topic itself taboo. Whether the topic is eliminated from discourse by trying to twist it into something the speaker never said, or whether it's eliminating the speaker himself through loss of employment or sending him out of the country or to jail, all achieves the goal of shutting down the discourse. As already mentioned I've experienced exactly the same thing. Can't talk about that.

That assclown who keeps trying to bring up "multiple children from different fathers living on welfare" as a causation also played the "you're calling for gun control" card on me. I challenged him to find any instance anywhere, any time, of such an advocacy from any of my posts. He can't do it, we both know he can't do it since it doesn't exist, and yet he goes on with it. Complete self-delusion, and typical of the same pattern.

If the premise is that firearms are an American fetish, this pattern is doing everything it can to confirm that premise.

 

[Ringel05]

Exactly what degree of "perception" is required to inject rhetoric into a commentary that clearly contains none of that rhetoric, expressed or implied? Again, Costas' commentary never makes mention of any individual liberties at all. Never mentions any laws, regulations, Amendments, background checks, Constitutions --- nothing. Not even implied. It's entirely about the popular social view of firearms and what their purpose is.

And my point being --- exactly why do all these people want to inject exactly that content that isn't there? Aye, there's the rub. The only possible answer I can come up with is that the content that actually *is* there, scares the shit out of them. And that is, the observation and admission that we have a gun fetish culture. And that's a resistance I've seen way before I came to this site. Even got thrown off another board for suggesting it, that's how taboo the suggestion is. It's terrifying. Clearly I have struck a nerve.

If I suddenly tried to veer this convo off to the subject of rhubarb, which you never mentioned in any way, you'd be justified in assuming I couldn't handle what the topic actually is and was desperate to change the subject.

Now you're grasping (I'll be nice.....) at straws, never even remotely implied that's what you were doing, just because others have doesn't mean I was, you just committed a fallacy.......
And you're finally seeing it, fear and repetitive attacks over time can drive perspective and fallacy as you just did with me (not the fear, the repetitive attacks).
How many times to I have to repeat myself, you're taking it all literally at face value and not looking any deeper. Bias confirmation? That's what I'm seeing.

That's (bold) an example of deflecting an inconvenient topic that one wished not to address, using myself as the guilty deflector in the example. There's no way that's a statement on what you were doing. I'm portraying myself in an example of the same red herring that wants to change the Costas commentary into "gun control" that he never brought up.

I don't know why this isn't communicating. It's like the board is translating posts into Bulgarian.

Again -- not rocket surgery ----

(1) commentary is aired on the social values of firearms;
(2) everybody in the audience --- literally everybody -- chooses to change the commentary to the topic of "gun control" instead, despite the fact that:
(3) the commentary, entire script, makes no mention anywhere of any kind of any "gun control" whatsoever.

(3) is immutable. No one anywhere gets to change the script after the fact into what they wish it had been.

How is Costas "wrong" for not talking about what they falsely claim he was talking about? How does it give him a "confirmation bias"?

The script is quantifiable. It's an either/or question as to whether it's about "gun control" (or rhubarb, or green Studebakers). The topic is either in there, or it is not. None of these are in there. Period. Therefore the deliberate mischaracterization into "gun control" is erroneous. That's the only thing it can be.

We're teetering on the edge of denial of basic reality here. There is no universe where we get to deny a fact just because we don't like it or because we wish it were otherwise.

You're either completely misunderstanding everything I said or intentionally misrepresenting it, given that it's you and not someone else I'll go with the former not the latter. I never said Costas was indulging in confirmation bias, I said your were (based solely on your gun culture claim and attempted rationale) as well as those who railed against Costas and you.
I simply pointed out the obvious psychological and emotive factors involved and that they have nothing to do with some nebulous, all encompassing gun culture. I thought I was being quite clear but obviously I ether wasn't, you couldn't grasp what I was saying (for whatever reason) or a little of both.

Oh I can readily confirm I had no idea where you were going with that. Still don't, TBH.

The commentary was about "gun culture" -- regardless whether one agrees with it, regardless whether one agrees it exists or what it means, that's what the commentator intended. There's no "confirmation" needed for that, it's his actual point.

And yet, to return yet one more time to my observation, however futilely, every one of these YouTube posters wants to change his point FROM that TO "gun control", a topic which does not exist in the commentary at all.

I'd better leave it at that simple stage rather than go into implications of why they do that. But that is also quantifiable, and not a matter of opinion that needs a "confirmation".

Put very simply to the most fundamental level: on one hand Costas is saying "we depend too much on guns/violence to solve our personal problems" and his critics are saying "he's calling for gun control". That's completely a non sequitur, but more interesting to me is that said non sequitur was so universal. They were also saying, fairly universally as well, that he should be "fired" for bringing it up at all. The commentary btw is/was a regular feature of Monday Night Football, not a special occasion. This was simply the topic of the time.

It's that reaction I find illuminating. And shortly after this and Sandy Hook, back when I joined USMB, gun violence was a front and center topic and another similar and revealing pattern reared its head about the other commentators who addressed the same hot topic. The rhetoric from USMB reactionaries was:

"Bob Costas should be fired".....
"Piers Morgan should be deported"....
"David Gregory should be arrested"....​

I remember it vividly, noted it at the time, with other examples. All of them for having the temerity to question the Gun Culture. To me that's a pattern and a consistent one, of making the topic itself taboo. Whether the topic is eliminated from discourse by trying to twist it into something the speaker never said, or whether it's eliminating the speaker himself through loss of employment or sending him out of the country or to jail, all achieves the goal of shutting down the discourse. As already mentioned I've experienced exactly the same thing. Can't talk about that.

That assclown who keeps trying to bring up "multiple children from different fathers living on welfare" as a causation also played the "you're calling for gun control" card on me. I challenged him to find any instance anywhere, any time, of such an advocacy from any of my posts. He can't do it, we both know he can't do it since it doesn't exist, and yet he goes on with it. Complete self-delusion, and typical of the same pattern.

If the premise is that firearms are an American fetish, this pattern is doing everything it can to confirm that premise.

Then I also misunderstood you for I was under the impression you were calling it a gun culture and defending that claim. As for Costas I didn't listen to him the first time it aired and I didn't watch the You Tube video so I had no idea he said that.

 

[sakinago]

oldlady i dont think any terms are generally acceptable cause of a few,reasons:

1) the media never gets the gun type correct. more often than not they call every scary looking gun "assault" which USED to have a specific meaning. fully automatic being their favorite
2) odds of any person using fully automatic is very rare, very hard to even own fully automatic.
3) the term assault rifle changes as the left needs it to. sound familiar? you tell me when does a gun become "assault"? what characteristics are,needed? when those characteristics go beyond ar15 the left tends to get mad n say "you know what i mean" and how could i when they dont?

not diminishing gun voilence but so far mass murders in the last year have been done with knives, guns, vehicles, and so much more.

but the left tends to see GUN PROBLEM while,the right sees VIOLENCE PROBLEM.

why do we not cry out for banning all things used to kill?

Definitions of words change with common usage and understanding is my only point. When writing legislation, it is important to define your terms carefully. When a tv broadcaster uses the term "assault rifle" we know he is talking about a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, and we know that is a gun which has been designed to fire multiple, loads of, bullets in a minute. If they were aimed at you, I believe you would rightly term it an assault.
Yes?

you are a teacher, correct? is the terminology used in the teaching world specific to things? it has been at times when i was a part of it. mechanics use a specific terminology, pest control, police - all "sub-cultures" do.

to go in and start changing the words around cause you don't like them - how would you take it coming your way? no attempt to understand, just say "that's wrong - change it".

and when a tv announcer uses "assault rifle" i assume he's stupid as shit and doesn't know what he's talking about. again - define the word and the guns by characteristics that fall under this term?

"long rifle" is now coming into popularity and at least it's more correct and tries to define things.

when ANY journalist says "automatic weapons used" my first thought is they looked at the gun and made stupid assumptions. yes the AR15 looks like the M4. but go ahead and run out to cabelas and ask to buy an automatic weapons. pawn shop. gun show. hell, go anywhere that sells guns and ask to buy an automatic weapon and tell me your results.

highly illegal for the average persona and requires specific licensing to own one and the FBI pretty much puts you on their WATCH FOREVER list. so the odds of the average person getting a fully automatic weapon is awfully remote but it sure does pump up the drama of the shooting now doesn't it?

for grins, go look at all mass shootings in the last 20 years. now tell me how many of them actually used an "automatic" weapon?

i'll tell you 0 now to save you the time but feel free to check my facts.

as for writing legislation yes you have to use terms correctly which is why people who are gun-ignorant should NOT be writing these laws. period. end of story. when they don't know a magazine is reusable and think banning high capacity ones will get rid of them after they're used - they need to sit down, shut up, and stop showing off stupidity. colorado, google it. quite funny actually.

so while your understanding of the terms is to change as you understand the topic at hand, again, do you work to understand how it is FIRST or say "i disagree and your terminology sucks, THIS is what that really is"? and expect to be taken seriously?

the terms change for the most part because the gun-grabbling liberals don't understand what they're grabbing and don't want to. they just want them gone so call them whatever it takes to achieve that goal.

see it daily on most of what they do actually.

now again - define the characteristics of an assault rifle? when do we go from "rifle" to "assault"?

and by the definition you just gave me for what you consider an assault rifle, these qualify also:

and oddly enough:

all those qualify. care to redefine?

What in the wide wide world of fuck frickin' DIFFERENCE does it make what kind of firearm is involved?

If you're hit by a drunk driver are you gonna stand around arguing over whether the drunk was driving a Silverado or an S10? Does that somehow heal your injuries?

I'd argue over wether they got drunk by tequila or bourbon.

 

[Pogo]

oldlady i dont think any terms are generally acceptable cause of a few,reasons:

1) the media never gets the gun type correct. more often than not they call every scary looking gun "assault" which USED to have a specific meaning. fully automatic being their favorite
2) odds of any person using fully automatic is very rare, very hard to even own fully automatic.
3) the term assault rifle changes as the left needs it to. sound familiar? you tell me when does a gun become "assault"? what characteristics are,needed? when those characteristics go beyond ar15 the left tends to get mad n say "you know what i mean" and how could i when they dont?

not diminishing gun voilence but so far mass murders in the last year have been done with knives, guns, vehicles, and so much more.

but the left tends to see GUN PROBLEM while,the right sees VIOLENCE PROBLEM.

why do we not cry out for banning all things used to kill?

Definitions of words change with common usage and understanding is my only point. When writing legislation, it is important to define your terms carefully. When a tv broadcaster uses the term "assault rifle" we know he is talking about a semi-automatic or automatic weapon, and we know that is a gun which has been designed to fire multiple, loads of, bullets in a minute. If they were aimed at you, I believe you would rightly term it an assault.
Yes?

you are a teacher, correct? is the terminology used in the teaching world specific to things? it has been at times when i was a part of it. mechanics use a specific terminology, pest control, police - all "sub-cultures" do.

to go in and start changing the words around cause you don't like them - how would you take it coming your way? no attempt to understand, just say "that's wrong - change it".

and when a tv announcer uses "assault rifle" i assume he's stupid as shit and doesn't know what he's talking about. again - define the word and the guns by characteristics that fall under this term?

"long rifle" is now coming into popularity and at least it's more correct and tries to define things.

when ANY journalist says "automatic weapons used" my first thought is they looked at the gun and made stupid assumptions. yes the AR15 looks like the M4. but go ahead and run out to cabelas and ask to buy an automatic weapons. pawn shop. gun show. hell, go anywhere that sells guns and ask to buy an automatic weapon and tell me your results.

highly illegal for the average persona and requires specific licensing to own one and the FBI pretty much puts you on their WATCH FOREVER list. so the odds of the average person getting a fully automatic weapon is awfully remote but it sure does pump up the drama of the shooting now doesn't it?

for grins, go look at all mass shootings in the last 20 years. now tell me how many of them actually used an "automatic" weapon?

i'll tell you 0 now to save you the time but feel free to check my facts.

as for writing legislation yes you have to use terms correctly which is why people who are gun-ignorant should NOT be writing these laws. period. end of story. when they don't know a magazine is reusable and think banning high capacity ones will get rid of them after they're used - they need to sit down, shut up, and stop showing off stupidity. colorado, google it. quite funny actually.

so while your understanding of the terms is to change as you understand the topic at hand, again, do you work to understand how it is FIRST or say "i disagree and your terminology sucks, THIS is what that really is"? and expect to be taken seriously?

the terms change for the most part because the gun-grabbling liberals don't understand what they're grabbing and don't want to. they just want them gone so call them whatever it takes to achieve that goal.

see it daily on most of what they do actually.

now again - define the characteristics of an assault rifle? when do we go from "rifle" to "assault"?

and by the definition you just gave me for what you consider an assault rifle, these qualify also:

and oddly enough:

all those qualify. care to redefine?

What in the wide wide world of fuck frickin' DIFFERENCE does it make what kind of firearm is involved?

If you're hit by a drunk driver are you gonna stand around arguing over whether the drunk was driving a Silverado or an S10? Does that somehow heal your injuries?

I'd argue over wether they got drunk by tequila or bourbon.

Fair point

Ultimately that's what we're all here for isn't it. Still, the art comes in finding some legitimate position from which TO argue. Some cats just waltz in without a plan.