|
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "BCITORGB" wrote in message oups.com... rick says: ================ Nice strawman there fool. =================== I thought rick had been cured of the "strawman" habit. For your next exercise, try spotting logical fallacies. Try a red herring. But please, leave the strawman alone, eh? frtzw906 LOL. He likes to throw that one around, and also "jingoistic." ================ Because, fool, that is exactly what your chest-thumping lies are. Too bad you're too stupid to understnad, eh? I can only guess he took some sort of combined first year psych and first year social studies course and those are the only two terms he remembers. ================== At least I can remember my own quotes from a week ago, liar. |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , KMAN at wrote on 2/28/05 12:59 AM: snippage... "I agree, that you claim, that he made the claim, and failed to support it. No mystery here after watching this squabble for the last week!" ...I missed out on the weasel words you threw in there. I guess you really are afraid of rick! While you are still up, Tinkerntom, let me see if you are not too big of a coward to give a straight answer. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? =============== Nice strawman there fool. He already siad he wasn't, BECAUSE he did not go back and read the previous posts. Man, you really are this stupid, aren't you? Right. So thus far not one person on rec.boats.paddle has seen anything from you that proves what you have claimed. =============== No fool, I have provided sites that show that Canadians are dying in wait lines. YOU have yet to provide anything that refutes those sites. You have yet to talk to everyone in the world about what you've already read and ignored, and are now lying about. |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 4:52 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 6:32 AM: snip... If you are using cars as a justification for assault weapons, then you are comparing the two, fool. LOL. ========================== No fool. It is you that is trying to justify something based on what YOU determine to be a need. You failed. You brought up cars, not me. ====================== No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... You brought up cars. Check. =============== LOL STill as dense and stupid as ever I see, eh liar? You brought up 'need' as the basis for owning an object. I just proved to you that 'need' has no bearing on what people do and do not 'have' to own or 'want' to own. You're ignorance is very amusing. Well worth the effort to expose it. |
"rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , KMAN at wrote on 2/28/05 12:59 AM: snippage... "I agree, that you claim, that he made the claim, and failed to support it. No mystery here after watching this squabble for the last week!" ...I missed out on the weasel words you threw in there. I guess you really are afraid of rick! While you are still up, Tinkerntom, let me see if you are not too big of a coward to give a straight answer. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? =============== Nice strawman there fool. He already siad he wasn't, BECAUSE he did not go back and read the previous posts. Man, you really are this stupid, aren't you? Right. So thus far not one person on rec.boats.paddle has seen anything from you that proves what you have claimed. =============== No fool, I have provided sites that show that Canadians are dying in wait lines. Not one other person has seen anything from you to substantiate your claims. |
"rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 4:52 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 6:32 AM: snip... If you are using cars as a justification for assault weapons, then you are comparing the two, fool. LOL. ========================== No fool. It is you that is trying to justify something based on what YOU determine to be a need. You failed. You brought up cars, not me. ====================== No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... You brought up cars. Check. =============== LOL STill as dense and stupid as ever I see, eh liar? Nope. You brought up cars. Check. |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: in article , KMAN at wrote on 2/28/05 12:59 AM: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/28/05 12:40 AM: KMAN wrote: in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 5:10 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Tinkerntom snip.. Tinkerntom, I'm actually surprised that a man of your high moral stands has not jumped in to criticize rick for being a liar and a coward. Why is that? ================ MAybe for the simple reason that I have not lied. Of course, you cannot make the same claim. Why not at least back up one of your claims, fool? If just one Canadian died in a waiting line for health care it would be a national scandal featured on the front page of every newspaper and the lead story of every television and readio news program. It hasn't happened rick. You made it up. You are a liar. And a coward for refusing to admit it. To his credit, Tinkerntom has added his name to the list of those who have never seen you prove your claim. I Did? Where did I say such a thing? TnT Eh? Sorry, my mistake. When I first read... "I agree, that you claim, that he made the claim, and failed to support it. No mystery here after watching this squabble for the last week!" ...I missed out on the weasel words you threw in there. I guess you really are afraid of rick! While you are still up, Tinkerntom, let me see if you are not too big of a coward to give a straight answer. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? [] Yes [] No What if I vote, and I get a hanging chad? Do we call Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Florida Supreme Ct. or US Supreme Ct. to get this mess straightened out? TnT Coward! So what must I do to get off your Coward list, I'm waiting to hear? TnT Answer the question. It's not like I suddenly gave you a label with no foundation, Tinkerntom. You know exactly what this is about. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? [] Yes [] No |
On 26-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
But, the point is that I get to fight to the death Do that. You won't be missed. Which "gay rights" would you be referring to? Gays have exactly the same rights as any other individual citizen under the Constitution. 12 states in the US make it illegal for homosexuals to make love. There is no state that makes it illegal for heterosexuals to make love. Homosexuals cannot marry in most US states - heterosexuals can marry in any state. Hardly examples of how gays have the same rights as non-gays. The worst sorts of genocides and mass killings only take place where the oppressed minority has been disarmed. Armed minorities are still outnumbered. Guns are not an equalizer. But they don't, they increase it. Just because they haven't been, doesn't mean they can't be used to reduce freedom. When someone puts a bullet thru your skull, you lose all your rights. Mike |
On 26-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: And what precludes God from manifesting himself as a human born of a human woman? He is God after all, he can do pretty much anything he wants, by definition But that is not God manifesting himself as God. Which is what I said in the first place, idiot. You don't think that a burning bush that's not consumed is not God revealing himself? Still not God manifesting himself as God. According to whom? What makes their judgment infallible. Uhh, they can _read_ Hebrew. But that's in the realm of reality, where you are at a loss. Mike |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: in article , KMAN at wrote on 2/28/05 12:59 AM: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/28/05 12:40 AM: KMAN wrote: in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 5:10 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Tinkerntom snip.. Tinkerntom, I'm actually surprised that a man of your high moral stands has not jumped in to criticize rick for being a liar and a coward. Why is that? ================ MAybe for the simple reason that I have not lied. Of course, you cannot make the same claim. Why not at least back up one of your claims, fool? If just one Canadian died in a waiting line for health care it would be a national scandal featured on the front page of every newspaper and the lead story of every television and readio news program. It hasn't happened rick. You made it up. You are a liar. And a coward for refusing to admit it. To his credit, Tinkerntom has added his name to the list of those who have never seen you prove your claim. I Did? Where did I say such a thing? TnT Eh? Sorry, my mistake. When I first read... "I agree, that you claim, that he made the claim, and failed to support it. No mystery here after watching this squabble for the last week!" ...I missed out on the weasel words you threw in there. I guess you really are afraid of rick! While you are still up, Tinkerntom, let me see if you are not too big of a coward to give a straight answer. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? [] Yes [] No What if I vote, and I get a hanging chad? Do we call Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Florida Supreme Ct. or US Supreme Ct. to get this mess straightened out? TnT Coward! So what must I do to get off your Coward list, I'm waiting to hear? TnT Answer the question. It's not like I suddenly gave you a label with no foundation, Tinkerntom. You know exactly what this is about. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? [] Yes [] No Ok I'll try to answer you! Last night, I spent several hours going through the archives of this discussion, reading several hundred post by Kman, frtwz, Mike D, Wilko, Scott W, and of course our good friend rick. I do not know whether rick will abide by my arbitration in this matter though so I am not sure whether I should wait for him to agree. However, he did say in one of his post even this AM, that he stands by his record, and that he posted as he claims evidence of Canadians dying while on wait list for medical procedures and Tests. I am assuming also that being on a wait list is the same thing as being in a wait line. If they are different, I did not find any claim by rick that people are dying in an actual line while waiting, or evidence to support any such claim. However, on 2/20 at 9:32 Rick presented 4 links as evidence to support his claim that Canadians were dying while on wait list, and receiving late, slow, and inadequate medical procedures. That if a Canadian had the funding, that he could go to the USA and receive prompt medical attention, and that in Canada, such outsoursing was considered illegal, and subject to a substantial penalty. Rick was not comparing the advantages or disadvantages of the two systems, nor even saying that the American system was good at all. He was only commenting on the Canadian system that resulted in long wait times for certain procedures and tests that at times resulted in people dying before they could receive the medical attention that could have served to save their lives. He was not saying that once the people actually received the medical attention, that the medical practices themselves were inadequate or non-professional. The 4 links are as follow: http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html The main objection to one of the links at the time was regarding the Frasier Institute, and its supposed backers, as being anti-Canadian medical system. Whether this is true or not, I can not determine. Rick also offered that there were many other links to support his claim, data that came from Canadian universites, labor unions, think tanks, that would not supposedly be anti-Canadian. He did not list any other specific link that I found. Regarding your question, unless there is a distinction between waiting list, and waiting lines, and irregardless of the credibility of the links provided as evidence, I believe that rick did provide evidence to support his claim. So my vote is yes, and I believe you KMAN owe rick a public apology. Now I hope this can bring and end to the acrimony, and I would note that though I believe rick provided the evidence, that I understand better after reading maybe a hundred post by him that his style can be abrasive. My only suggestion is that in the future if you want to avoid the abrasion, don't engage him in debate. TnT TnT |
On 26-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been scientifically disproven Why do you continue to lie about this? What part of "implicitly" do you fail to understand? I have _explicity_ stated otherwise, idiot. Nor have you responded to a specific question You still have not provided _any_ proof for _any_ specious claim on which you have been challenged. They instead argue the facts and present evidence and argumentation tending to support their thesis, while recognizing that conflict in theories is the essence of intellectual inquiry. I have argued the facts, idiot and still haven't seen you produce a single fact to support your ridiculous claims. Given that you are clearly uninterested in a reasoned philosophical debate You haven't even begun to engage in reasoned debate. You have lied, misrepresented what is said, made unsupportable claims and refused to offer any facts in your defense. You have no claim to any high road. YOu are a fool that wastes everyone elses' time. NOw you are abandoning the discussion because you have proved nothing but that you are an idiot. Mike |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: in article , KMAN at wrote on 2/28/05 12:59 AM: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/28/05 12:40 AM: KMAN wrote: in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 5:10 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Tinkerntom snip.. Tinkerntom, I'm actually surprised that a man of your high moral stands has not jumped in to criticize rick for being a liar and a coward. Why is that? ================ MAybe for the simple reason that I have not lied. Of course, you cannot make the same claim. Why not at least back up one of your claims, fool? If just one Canadian died in a waiting line for health care it would be a national scandal featured on the front page of every newspaper and the lead story of every television and readio news program. It hasn't happened rick. You made it up. You are a liar. And a coward for refusing to admit it. To his credit, Tinkerntom has added his name to the list of those who have never seen you prove your claim. I Did? Where did I say such a thing? TnT Eh? Sorry, my mistake. When I first read... "I agree, that you claim, that he made the claim, and failed to support it. No mystery here after watching this squabble for the last week!" ...I missed out on the weasel words you threw in there. I guess you really are afraid of rick! While you are still up, Tinkerntom, let me see if you are not too big of a coward to give a straight answer. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? [] Yes [] No What if I vote, and I get a hanging chad? Do we call Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Florida Supreme Ct. or US Supreme Ct. to get this mess straightened out? TnT Coward! So what must I do to get off your Coward list, I'm waiting to hear? TnT Answer the question. It's not like I suddenly gave you a label with no foundation, Tinkerntom. You know exactly what this is about. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? [] Yes [] No Ok I'll try to answer you! Last night, I spent several hours going through the archives of this discussion, reading several hundred post by Kman, frtwz, Mike D, Wilko, Scott W, and of course our good friend rick. I do not know whether rick will abide by my arbitration in this matter though so I am not sure whether I should wait for him to agree. However, he did say in one of his post even this AM, that he stands by his record, and that he posted as he claims evidence of Canadians dying while on wait list for medical procedures and Tests. I am assuming also that being on a wait list is the same thing as being in a wait line. If they are different, I did not find any claim by rick that people are dying in an actual line while waiting, or evidence to support any such claim. Right. That's all I am saying. You should have simply ticked "yes" instead of babbling on, but oh well. He has not provided any evidence that Canadians are dying waiting in line (or waiting on a list) for health care. However, on 2/20 at 9:32 Rick presented 4 links as evidence to support his claim that Canadians were dying while on wait list, and receiving late, slow, and inadequate medical procedures. That if a Canadian had the funding, that he could go to the USA and receive prompt medical attention, and that in Canada, such outsoursing was considered illegal, and subject to a substantial penalty. Rick was not comparing the advantages or disadvantages of the two systems, nor even saying that the American system was good at all. He was only commenting on the Canadian system that resulted in long wait times for certain procedures In certain rare circumstances, particularly in geographically isolated areas, or for unique specialty tests, yes. and tests that at times resulted in people dying before they could receive the medical attention that could have served to save their lives. There is no evidence of that. He was not saying that once the people actually received the medical attention, that the medical practices themselves were inadequate or non-professional. The 4 links are as follow: http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html Yes, I saw all of them. None of them say that Canadians are dying waiting for health care. The main objection to one of the links at the time was regarding the Frasier Institute, and its supposed backers, as being anti-Canadian medical system. Whether this is true or not, I can not determine. The Frasier Institute are a bunch of whackos, and not a reliable source of objective information, but even they aren't saying Canadians are dying waiting for health care. Rick also offered that there were many other links to support his claim, data that came from Canadian universites, labor unions, think tanks, that would not supposedly be anti-Canadian. He did not list any other specific link that I found. No, he didn't. Regarding your question, unless there is a distinction between waiting list, and waiting lines, and irregardless of the credibility of the links provided as evidence, I believe that rick did provide evidence to support his claim. So my vote is yes, and I believe you KMAN owe rick a public apology. Please provide me with the precise quote from one of his links where it states that Canadians have in fact died waiting in line for treatment. Now I hope this can bring and end to the acrimony, and I would note that though I believe rick provided the evidence, that I understand better after reading maybe a hundred post by him that his style can be abrasive. My only suggestion is that in the future if you want to avoid the abrasion, don't engage him in debate. TnT TnT I would suggest that you be more careful in evaluating the question at hand. If you saw evidence provided by Rick (or anywhere else) that Canadians have died waiting in line for treatment, please post it. |
On 26-Feb-2005, "BCITORGB" wrote:
But, as you well know, crime statistics are not easily compared. What may be recorded as a "crime" in Britain, may be recorded as a nuisance in Canada or the USA. I don't know, and neither do you. If we're to talk about "violent crimes" and incidents of "violent crime", then we need to ensure that we're talking about the same thing in each country. To date, everything that I've read indicates that people much more knowledgeable and you or I are grappling with these comparisons. One very important characteristic of these statistics is the change in the way spousal abuse has been treated over the years. What used to be a "family problem" is now a crime. This change has taken place at different rates in different countries over the last several decades. Mike |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "Tinkerntom snip... what this is about. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? [] Yes [] No Ok I'll try to answer you! Last night, I spent several hours going through the archives of this discussion, reading several hundred post by Kman, frtwz, Mike D, Wilko, Scott W, and of course our good friend rick. I do not know whether rick will abide by my arbitration in this matter though so I am not sure whether I should wait for him to agree. However, he did say in one of his post even this AM, that he stands by his record, and that he posted as he claims evidence of Canadians dying while on wait list for medical procedures and Tests. I am assuming also that being on a wait list is the same thing as being in a wait line. If they are different, I did not find any claim by rick that people are dying in an actual line while waiting, or evidence to support any such claim. Right. That's all I am saying. You should have simply ticked "yes" instead of babbling on, but oh well. He has not provided any evidence that Canadians are dying waiting in line (or waiting on a list) for health care. ============== Yes, I have. However, on 2/20 at 9:32 Rick presented 4 links as evidence to support his claim that Canadians were dying while on wait list, and receiving late, slow, and inadequate medical procedures. That if a Canadian had the funding, that he could go to the USA and receive prompt medical attention, and that in Canada, such outsoursing was considered illegal, and subject to a substantial penalty. Rick was not comparing the advantages or disadvantages of the two systems, nor even saying that the American system was good at all. He was only commenting on the Canadian system that resulted in long wait times for certain procedures In certain rare circumstances, particularly in geographically isolated areas, or for unique specialty tests, yes. ====================== And treatment. Even YOU have said Canadians wait for treatment. and tests that at times resulted in people dying before they could receive the medical attention that could have served to save their lives. There is no evidence of that. ============== Yes, there is. He was not saying that once the people actually received the medical attention, that the medical practices themselves were inadequate or non-professional. The 4 links are as follow: http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html Yes, I saw all of them. None of them say that Canadians are dying waiting for health care. ======================= ROTFLMAO You really are that stupid, aren't you? The very first first one says otherwise right in the headline of the article. Are you really so set on being the worlds worst liar that you continue even when the evidence is in front of you? The main objection to one of the links at the time was regarding the Frasier Institute, and its supposed backers, as being anti-Canadian medical system. Whether this is true or not, I can not determine. The Frasier Institute are a bunch of whackos, ====================== Says the head whacko? and not a reliable source of objective information, but even they aren't saying Canadians are dying waiting for health care. ================ LOL Selective reading there too? Rick also offered that there were many other links to support his claim, data that came from Canadian universites, labor unions, think tanks, that would not supposedly be anti-Canadian. He did not list any other specific link that I found. No, he didn't. =============== Because fool, you have already shown that if I list a link, you have some reason not to believe it. I offered you the face-saving way out by finding your own information. You proved instead that you wished to remain willfully ignorant. Regarding your question, unless there is a distinction between waiting list, and waiting lines, and irregardless of the credibility of the links provided as evidence, I believe that rick did provide evidence to support his claim. So my vote is yes, and I believe you KMAN owe rick a public apology. Please provide me with the precise quote from one of his links where it states that Canadians have in fact died waiting in line for treatment. ================ Read them fool. Then write them and ask. Afterall, they are YOUR countrymen. I'm sure they'll give you the info. But, as I have stated before, you are too afraid to find out the truth. Now I hope this can bring and end to the acrimony, and I would note that though I believe rick provided the evidence, that I understand better after reading maybe a hundred post by him that his style can be abrasive. My only suggestion is that in the future if you want to avoid the abrasion, don't engage him in debate. TnT TnT I would suggest that you be more careful in evaluating the question at hand. If you saw evidence provided by Rick (or anywhere else) that Canadians have died waiting in line for treatment, please post it. ================== It just was, fool, again. That you wish to ignore it is your problem! |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , KMAN at wrote on 2/28/05 12:59 AM: snippage... "I agree, that you claim, that he made the claim, and failed to support it. No mystery here after watching this squabble for the last week!" ...I missed out on the weasel words you threw in there. I guess you really are afraid of rick! While you are still up, Tinkerntom, let me see if you are not too big of a coward to give a straight answer. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? =============== Nice strawman there fool. He already siad he wasn't, BECAUSE he did not go back and read the previous posts. Man, you really are this stupid, aren't you? Right. So thus far not one person on rec.boats.paddle has seen anything from you that proves what you have claimed. =============== No fool, I have provided sites that show that Canadians are dying in wait lines. Not one other person has seen anything from you to substantiate your claims. ==================== You just lied, yet again. But then, you've already proven that that is what you are best at, eh? |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... If you are using cars as a justification for assault weapons, then you are comparing the two, fool. LOL. ========================== No fool. It is you that is trying to justify something based on what YOU determine to be a need. You failed. You brought up cars, not me. ====================== No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... You brought up cars. Check. =============== LOL STill as dense and stupid as ever I see, eh liar? Nope. You brought up cars. Check. ====================== No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... checkmate, proven liar... |
Weiser rejects thesis that there is a causal link between poverty and
crime: ============== one fairly well-established cause of crime is unemployment, underemployment, and poverty (Scott, as you so eloquently said in your "What I'd do to lazy welfare Queens" treatise, idle hands do the devil's work). Sorry, but no. I dispute your thesis and your conclusion. ====================== Reject my thesis and my conclusion if you will. May I offer up the conclusions of Chinese economists and Chinese leaders on the topic of income disparity and crime (and revolution): "SOURCE: http://www.macrochina.com.cn/english...10002002.shtml Aug 10 2001 Income disparity in China There is increasing concern about income disparity around China. Last March, Premier Zhu Rongji said according to 1999 figures the Gini coefficient (used to measure income inequality) of China was 0.39, ''close to the internationally recognized danger level''. Some Chinese economists, however, believe that the ''danger level'' has already been passed, and that official statistics considerably understate the income gap. At any rate, there is no doubt that China is in the grip of widespread discontent. Rising crime and serious, if sporadic, protests are a sign that even though absolute poverty is declining, at least in the countryside, rising relative poverty is resented. And in the cities, absolute poverty is increasing as well. Small wonder then if Chinese leaders are spooked by income disparities that are ominously similar to those that fuelled the revolution 50 years ago. (Economist.com)" Well, Scott? frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote: Weiser says: ================== The facts are quite clear: In nations where guns are banned, victimization by violent criminals increases dramatically. In the United States, crime victimization by violent criminals is dropping. =============== I'll not dispute your sources and data.... except, as you well know, because you presented this data, the definitions of various sorts of crimes vary considerably from country to country. What may be deemed an assault in one country may not be recorded as an assault in another. Thus, the stats may not be comparable. Talking about guns, one of the main issues that the NRA and similar pro-gun organisations here wipe under the carpet is the counting of bee-bee guns and air rifles under the "fire arms crimes" header in some countries, that have relatively few firearms crimes overall. Thus, whether I'm trying to "bend" the debate is hardly the point. The point is, more or less, a murder, is a murder, is a murder, no matter where we are on the globe. Murder stats are comparable. The others aren't. If you're murdered, it doesn't really matter if you're shot, strangled, stabbed or killed in one of the multitude of other ways that are available. The thing with guns is that they make killing someone a lot bigger, stronger or better able to fight hand to hand than you pretty easy. That's where the U.S. outranks most western nations: the available means to kill someone (i.e. guns) are available all over the place in huge quantities and the people willing to use them are also plentiful. The result is very high murder rates. -- Wilko van den Bergh wilko(a t)dse(d o t)nl Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe ---Look at the possibilities, don't worry about the limitations.--- http://wilko.webzone.ru/ |
"rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "Tinkerntom snip... what this is about. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? [] Yes [] No Ok I'll try to answer you! Last night, I spent several hours going through the archives of this discussion, reading several hundred post by Kman, frtwz, Mike D, Wilko, Scott W, and of course our good friend rick. I do not know whether rick will abide by my arbitration in this matter though so I am not sure whether I should wait for him to agree. However, he did say in one of his post even this AM, that he stands by his record, and that he posted as he claims evidence of Canadians dying while on wait list for medical procedures and Tests. I am assuming also that being on a wait list is the same thing as being in a wait line. If they are different, I did not find any claim by rick that people are dying in an actual line while waiting, or evidence to support any such claim. Right. That's all I am saying. You should have simply ticked "yes" instead of babbling on, but oh well. He has not provided any evidence that Canadians are dying waiting in line (or waiting on a list) for health care. ============== Yes, I have. Post it. However, on 2/20 at 9:32 Rick presented 4 links as evidence to support his claim that Canadians were dying while on wait list, and receiving late, slow, and inadequate medical procedures. That if a Canadian had the funding, that he could go to the USA and receive prompt medical attention, and that in Canada, such outsoursing was considered illegal, and subject to a substantial penalty. Rick was not comparing the advantages or disadvantages of the two systems, nor even saying that the American system was good at all. He was only commenting on the Canadian system that resulted in long wait times for certain procedures In certain rare circumstances, particularly in geographically isolated areas, or for unique specialty tests, yes. ====================== And treatment. Even YOU have said Canadians wait for treatment. Of course. People wait for treatment in every health care system. That's why all hospitals have waiting rooms. and tests that at times resulted in people dying before they could receive the medical attention that could have served to save their lives. There is no evidence of that. ============== Yes, there is. Post it. He was not saying that once the people actually received the medical attention, that the medical practices themselves were inadequate or non-professional. The 4 links are as follow: http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html Yes, I saw all of them. None of them say that Canadians are dying waiting for health care. ======================= ROTFLMAO You really are that stupid, aren't you? The very first first one says otherwise right in the headline of the article. Are you really so set on being the worlds worst liar that you continue even when the evidence is in front of you? That's a shoddy article by a union looking for more money. Is there a coroner's report that says Mr X. died because he was waiting? How can one crappy article by a union looking for money be considered evidence? The main objection to one of the links at the time was regarding the Frasier Institute, and its supposed backers, as being anti-Canadian medical system. Whether this is true or not, I can not determine. The Frasier Institute are a bunch of whackos, ====================== Says the head whacko? No, that would be Michael Walker. and not a reliable source of objective information, but even they aren't saying Canadians are dying waiting for health care. ================ LOL Selective reading there too? Post the proof using your own superior reading skills. Rick also offered that there were many other links to support his claim, data that came from Canadian universites, labor unions, think tanks, that would not supposedly be anti-Canadian. He did not list any other specific link that I found. No, he didn't. =============== Because fool, you have already shown that if I list a link, you have some reason not to believe it. I offered you the face-saving way out by finding your own information. You proved instead that you wished to remain willfully ignorant. Nothing in your link proves that Canadians are dying because they are waiting in health care lines. Regarding your question, unless there is a distinction between waiting list, and waiting lines, and irregardless of the credibility of the links provided as evidence, I believe that rick did provide evidence to support his claim. So my vote is yes, and I believe you KMAN owe rick a public apology. Please provide me with the precise quote from one of his links where it states that Canadians have in fact died waiting in line for treatment. ================ Read them fool. Then write them and ask. Afterall, they are YOUR countrymen. I'm sure they'll give you the info. But, as I have stated before, you are too afraid to find out the truth. What kind of an ass would refuse to simply post the evidence if it existed? You are a liar and a coward. Now I hope this can bring and end to the acrimony, and I would note that though I believe rick provided the evidence, that I understand better after reading maybe a hundred post by him that his style can be abrasive. My only suggestion is that in the future if you want to avoid the abrasion, don't engage him in debate. TnT TnT I would suggest that you be more careful in evaluating the question at hand. If you saw evidence provided by Rick (or anywhere else) that Canadians have died waiting in line for treatment, please post it. ================== It just was, fool, again. That you wish to ignore it is your problem! It's not there. |
"rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , KMAN at wrote on 2/28/05 12:59 AM: snippage... "I agree, that you claim, that he made the claim, and failed to support it. No mystery here after watching this squabble for the last week!" ...I missed out on the weasel words you threw in there. I guess you really are afraid of rick! While you are still up, Tinkerntom, let me see if you are not too big of a coward to give a straight answer. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? =============== Nice strawman there fool. He already siad he wasn't, BECAUSE he did not go back and read the previous posts. Man, you really are this stupid, aren't you? Right. So thus far not one person on rec.boats.paddle has seen anything from you that proves what you have claimed. =============== No fool, I have provided sites that show that Canadians are dying in wait lines. Not one other person has seen anything from you to substantiate your claims. ==================== You just lied, yet again. But then, you've already proven that that is what you are best at, eh? Tinkerntom now says he thinks he has. But then, I don't think he understood the question. Which is nothing new. |
"rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... If you are using cars as a justification for assault weapons, then you are comparing the two, fool. LOL. ========================== No fool. It is you that is trying to justify something based on what YOU determine to be a need. You failed. You brought up cars, not me. ====================== No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... You brought up cars. Check. =============== LOL STill as dense and stupid as ever I see, eh liar? Nope. You brought up cars. Check. ====================== No So you didn't bring up cars? Another lie! |
On 26-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote:
Try again - there was nothing in that link that said Canadians are dying in waiting lines. Put up or shut up, dickhead. ================= Yes, there was. I see you don't lie any better than the other buffoons... Two sites provided unsubstantiated claims that people are dying in waiting lines. Try providing one that substantiates that claim. The third one states: "Claims about patients dying because of waiting too long cannot be confirmed or denied from current research and information." You still haven't posted a link to prove your ridiculous claim. Mike |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "Tinkerntom snip... He has not provided any evidence that Canadians are dying waiting in line (or waiting on a list) for health care. ============== Yes, I have. Post it. ==================== Already been done, fool. Now, more than once... However, on 2/20 at 9:32 Rick presented 4 links as evidence to support his claim that Canadians were dying while on wait list, and receiving late, slow, and inadequate medical procedures. That if a Canadian had the funding, that he could go to the USA and receive prompt medical attention, and that in Canada, such outsoursing was considered illegal, and subject to a substantial penalty. Rick was not comparing the advantages or disadvantages of the two systems, nor even saying that the American system was good at all. He was only commenting on the Canadian system that resulted in long wait times for certain procedures In certain rare circumstances, particularly in geographically isolated areas, or for unique specialty tests, yes. ====================== And treatment. Even YOU have said Canadians wait for treatment. Of course. People wait for treatment in every health care system. That's why all hospitals have waiting rooms. ==================== LOL We aren't talking about people waiting in waiting rooms, we're talking about weeks, months, and years of wait for treatment. BUT, if you want to discuss waiting room problems in Canada, there are those problems too. and tests that at times resulted in people dying before they could receive the medical attention that could have served to save their lives. There is no evidence of that. ============== Yes, there is. Post it. ==================== Already been done, fool. Now, more than once... He was not saying that once the people actually received the medical attention, that the medical practices themselves were inadequate or non-professional. The 4 links are as follow: http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html Yes, I saw all of them. None of them say that Canadians are dying waiting for health care. ======================= ROTFLMAO You really are that stupid, aren't you? The very first first one says otherwise right in the headline of the article. Are you really so set on being the worlds worst liar that you continue even when the evidence is in front of you? That's a shoddy article by a union looking for more money. ================== LOL See? that's why I told you to look for yourself, fool. First, the problem is a right-wing US wanna-be site, now it's a union being too socialist! You really don't want to see the truth, do you fool? Is there a coroner's report that says Mr X. died because he was waiting? ===================== Read the sites fool. As you know, patient info is not released. Plus, the Canadian health care system has been voted the most secretive, non-responsive group by Canadian journalists. How can one crappy article by a union looking for money be considered evidence? ================ Why are you relying then on what I posted. Go get the info yourself. Try any nimber of other sources, universities, union, Canadian medical journal... The main objection to one of the links at the time was regarding the Frasier Institute, and its supposed backers, as being anti-Canadian medical system. Whether this is true or not, I can not determine. The Frasier Institute are a bunch of whackos, ====================== Says the head whacko? No, that would be Michael Walker. ================= No, that's you,fool. You keep proving it with all your lies and denial. and not a reliable source of objective information, but even they aren't saying Canadians are dying waiting for health care. ================ LOL Selective reading there too? Post the proof using your own superior reading skills. ==================== Already been done, fool. Now, more than once... Rick also offered that there were many other links to support his claim, data that came from Canadian universites, labor unions, think tanks, that would not supposedly be anti-Canadian. He did not list any other specific link that I found. No, he didn't. =============== Because fool, you have already shown that if I list a link, you have some reason not to believe it. I offered you the face-saving way out by finding your own information. You proved instead that you wished to remain willfully ignorant. Nothing in your link proves that Canadians are dying because they are waiting in health care lines. ================ Yep, there was. But don't rely on my posts fool. Look up the facts for yourself. But then, you've already proven you are too afraid to do that. Regarding your question, unless there is a distinction between waiting list, and waiting lines, and irregardless of the credibility of the links provided as evidence, I believe that rick did provide evidence to support his claim. So my vote is yes, and I believe you KMAN owe rick a public apology. Please provide me with the precise quote from one of his links where it states that Canadians have in fact died waiting in line for treatment. ================ Read them fool. Then write them and ask. Afterall, they are YOUR countrymen. I'm sure they'll give you the info. But, as I have stated before, you are too afraid to find out the truth. What kind of an ass would refuse to simply post the evidence if it existed? ================== ROTFLMAO I'm giving you the chance to find it for yourself, fool. That way you can't claim that my sites are too right-wing. Oh, wait, too left-wing. Oh, wait, too middle of the road. Oh, wait, too truthful for your delusions. You are a liar and a coward. ================== Keep telling yourself that fool. maybe someday you'll even believe it. All you've managed to do is prove that yopu are afraid of the facts. Otherwise, you'd have refuted the sites I have posted. Youi haven't, and you can't. Now I hope this can bring and end to the acrimony, and I would note that though I believe rick provided the evidence, that I understand better after reading maybe a hundred post by him that his style can be abrasive. My only suggestion is that in the future if you want to avoid the abrasion, don't engage him in debate. TnT TnT I would suggest that you be more careful in evaluating the question at hand. If you saw evidence provided by Rick (or anywhere else) that Canadians have died waiting in line for treatment, please post it. ================== It just was, fool, again. That you wish to ignore it is your problem! It's not there. ================== Yep, head-in-the-sand. What a loony. |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message k.net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , KMAN at wrote on 2/28/05 12:59 AM: snippage... "I agree, that you claim, that he made the claim, and failed to support it. No mystery here after watching this squabble for the last week!" ...I missed out on the weasel words you threw in there. I guess you really are afraid of rick! While you are still up, Tinkerntom, let me see if you are not too big of a coward to give a straight answer. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? =============== Nice strawman there fool. He already siad he wasn't, BECAUSE he did not go back and read the previous posts. Man, you really are this stupid, aren't you? Right. So thus far not one person on rec.boats.paddle has seen anything from you that proves what you have claimed. =============== No fool, I have provided sites that show that Canadians are dying in wait lines. Not one other person has seen anything from you to substantiate your claims. ==================== You just lied, yet again. But then, you've already proven that that is what you are best at, eh? Tinkerntom now says he thinks he has. But then, I don't think he understood the question. Which is nothing new. ==================== Nope. You lied, again. Must be something you just can't help, eh fool? |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... "KMAN" wrote in message . .. snip... If you are using cars as a justification for assault weapons, then you are comparing the two, fool. LOL. ========================== No fool. It is you that is trying to justify something based on what YOU determine to be a need. You failed. You brought up cars, not me. ====================== No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... You brought up cars. Check. =============== LOL STill as dense and stupid as ever I see, eh liar? Nope. You brought up cars. Check. ====================== No So you didn't bring up cars? ======================== Nice bit of dishonesty there fool. Think nobody would notice? here, let me restore your dishonest deletion: "No, you brought up the "need" of an object being the determination whether or not people should have them. You lost, again, and now have you resort to your ignorant spews... checkmate, proven liar..." I see you still have nothing to say, eh liar? Another lie! ================== By you, yes. |
"KMAN" wrote in message . .. "rick" wrote in message .net... snippage... Why did you dishonestly delete the part about the lies you made about wait lines that I proved you made? Didn't like seeing your stupidity again? restore start Name one thing. Please quote the alleged lie, and provide proof that it is a lie. =========================== That Canadians don't wait for treatment in your health care system. You did not quote me. ====================== Yes, I did. see other posts for today... Here, want to see it again? "...No one is waiting for treatment..." You need to quote without the "... and ..." and you also need to provide a link to the message so it can be verified. What a scumbag you are! ================ There was no "and" fool. You made that statemnet. Too abd you're a proven liar, eh? YOU made the statement. Now you're claiming you can't find it? You really are a loser, aren't you, liar? restore end |
"rick" wrote in message ink.net... "KMAN" wrote in message snippage... Or are you going to be consistent and be a liar and a coward on this issue as well? ==================== Anything you open your mouth about, like Canadians never waiting for treatment. I never said that. Every health care system requires that people wait. ========================== Yes, you did liar. Do try to keep up with your own spews, dolt. What part of your claim: "...No one is waiting for treatment..." don't you undersatnd? You said it fool, 2/20/2005 Big lie there fool... Never said it. Prove that I did. ================ See above fool. You made the claim, liar. Why none of your pithy spews here, fool? Finally realixed how stupid you really are, and how much you lie? snippage... |
"Michael Daly" wrote in message ... On 26-Feb-2005, "rick" wrote: Try again - there was nothing in that link that said Canadians are dying in waiting lines. Put up or shut up, dickhead. ================= Yes, there was. I see you don't lie any better than the other buffoons... Two sites provided unsubstantiated claims that people are dying in waiting lines. Try providing one that substantiates that claim. The third one states: "Claims about patients dying because of waiting too long cannot be confirmed or denied from current research and information." You still haven't posted a link to prove your ridiculous claim. ============================= Again, that you don't like the messenger doen't mean the facts are false. That YOU believe they are ubsubstantiated means nothing. Like kman, if you weren't so afraid of the data you could look for yourself. It's out there. I let kman look for himself, and you now, because the first site was too 'right-wing' the next was too 'union'. If the sites I provided are wrong, it should be easy then for you to find refutation of the data. Hasn't been done yet. Mike |
A Usenet persona calling itself Wolfgang wrote:
"Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... ...it is functionally impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns... Hm..... Gonna have to stop doing volunteer work at the orphanage, the convent, and the Buddhist temple. Wolfgang ducking and covering. :( You need to have a more expansive view of what a "community" is. Fact is that none of the places you mention can be absolutely free of guns, because someone can always bring one in from the outside...perhaps to kill the occupants...like the communists in Nepal have done to the Buddhist temples. Guns exist and are a part of our world and our world society. This means that people need to learn to deal with guns and with those who misuse guns. The fact is that in many cases, the only way to deal with someone misusing a gun is to defend yourself with another gun. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Tinkerntom wrote:
Wolfgang wrote: "Scott Weiser" wrote in message ... ...it is functionally impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns... Hm..... Gonna have to stop doing volunteer work at the orphanage, the convent, and the Buddhist temple. Wolfgang ducking and covering. :( I am surprised that Scott has let you slide this long on this one. I had an all-day meeting on the New Zealand mudsnail, an invasive exotic found recently in Boulder Creek in the reach that includes my property. More to come on that. Maybe cause you let me slide on something ealier. Naw, no chance! I commend you for you charity work, however the above do not represent a community. Only a small fraction of a community, as there are households without guns in possession, all are under hopefully the protective umbrella of those police officer and military who do carry firearms. And, under the umbrella of protection provided by the fact that one's neighbors might have guns. That's one of the best things about concealed carry laws...criminals become very afraid because they donąt know if the next grandma they try to rob might be packing. Thus, even those who don't own guns benefit directly from gun ownership in their communities. This can be proven by asking your local anti-gun nut if they are willing to post a large sign on their front lawn proudly proclaiming "This house is GUN FREE!" I haven't found one yet that'll put their money where their mouth is. Obviously the Tibetan Buddist in their isolation from the rest of the real world, found that all military possession of firearms is not benevolent, and certainly not something that can be separated from in isolation. Same with orphanages and convents, they may not have a firearm in their possession, but there is more than likely one in th vicinity. Yup. I hate being a pragmatist sometimes, but I found that utopian ideology left me feeling very vulnerable. Sorry about bursting your bubble. TnT -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: "Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: in article , KMAN at wrote on 2/28/05 12:59 AM: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/28/05 12:40 AM: KMAN wrote: in article et, rick at wrote on 2/27/05 5:10 PM: "KMAN" wrote in message ... in article , Tinkerntom snip.. Tinkerntom, I'm actually surprised that a man of your high moral stands has not jumped in to criticize rick for being a liar and a coward. Why is that? ================ MAybe for the simple reason that I have not lied. Of course, you cannot make the same claim. Why not at least back up one of your claims, fool? If just one Canadian died in a waiting line for health care it would be a national scandal featured on the front page of every newspaper and the lead story of every television and readio news program. It hasn't happened rick. You made it up. You are a liar. And a coward for refusing to admit it. To his credit, Tinkerntom has added his name to the list of those who have never seen you prove your claim. I Did? Where did I say such a thing? TnT Eh? Sorry, my mistake. When I first read... "I agree, that you claim, that he made the claim, and failed to support it. No mystery here after watching this squabble for the last week!" ...I missed out on the weasel words you threw in there. I guess you really are afraid of rick! While you are still up, Tinkerntom, let me see if you are not too big of a coward to give a straight answer. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? [] Yes [] No What if I vote, and I get a hanging chad? Do we call Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, Florida Supreme Ct. or US Supreme Ct. to get this mess straightened out? TnT Coward! So what must I do to get off your Coward list, I'm waiting to hear? TnT Answer the question. It's not like I suddenly gave you a label with no foundation, Tinkerntom. You know exactly what this is about. Have you seen rick provide any evidence to support a claim that Canadians are dying in waiting lines for health care? [] Yes [] No Ok I'll try to answer you! Last night, I spent several hours going through the archives of this discussion, reading several hundred post by Kman, frtwz, Mike D, Wilko, Scott W, and of course our good friend rick. I do not know whether rick will abide by my arbitration in this matter though so I am not sure whether I should wait for him to agree. However, he did say in one of his post even this AM, that he stands by his record, and that he posted as he claims evidence of Canadians dying while on wait list for medical procedures and Tests. I am assuming also that being on a wait list is the same thing as being in a wait line. If they are different, I did not find any claim by rick that people are dying in an actual line while waiting, or evidence to support any such claim. Right. That's all I am saying. You should have simply ticked "yes" instead of babbling on, but oh well. He has not provided any evidence that Canadians are dying waiting in line (or waiting on a list) for health care. However, on 2/20 at 9:32 Rick presented 4 links as evidence to support his claim that Canadians were dying while on wait list, and receiving late, slow, and inadequate medical procedures. That if a Canadian had the funding, that he could go to the USA and receive prompt medical attention, and that in Canada, such outsoursing was considered illegal, and subject to a substantial penalty. Rick was not comparing the advantages or disadvantages of the two systems, nor even saying that the American system was good at all. He was only commenting on the Canadian system that resulted in long wait times for certain procedures In certain rare circumstances, particularly in geographically isolated areas, or for unique specialty tests, yes. and tests that at times resulted in people dying before they could receive the medical attention that could have served to save their lives. There is no evidence of that. He was not saying that once the people actually received the medical attention, that the medical practices themselves were inadequate or non-professional. The 4 links are as follow: http://www.nupge.ca/news_2000/News%20May/n12my00a.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-24-04.html http://www.utoronto.ca/hpme/dhr/pdf/Barer-Lewis.pdf http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman...oysplight.html Yes, I saw all of them. None of them say that Canadians are dying waiting for health care. The main objection to one of the links at the time was regarding the Frasier Institute, and its supposed backers, as being anti-Canadian medical system. Whether this is true or not, I can not determine. The Frasier Institute are a bunch of whackos, and not a reliable source of objective information, but even they aren't saying Canadians are dying waiting for health care. Rick also offered that there were many other links to support his claim, data that came from Canadian universites, labor unions, think tanks, that would not supposedly be anti-Canadian. He did not list any other specific link that I found. No, he didn't. Regarding your question, unless there is a distinction between waiting list, and waiting lines, and irregardless of the credibility of the links provided as evidence, I believe that rick did provide evidence to support his claim. So my vote is yes, and I believe you KMAN owe rick a public apology. Please provide me with the precise quote from one of his links where it states that Canadians have in fact died waiting in line for treatment. Now I hope this can bring and end to the acrimony, and I would note that though I believe rick provided the evidence, that I understand better after reading maybe a hundred post by him that his style can be abrasive. My only suggestion is that in the future if you want to avoid the abrasion, don't engage him in debate. TnT TnT I would suggest that you be more careful in evaluating the question at hand. If you saw evidence provided by Rick (or anywhere else) that Canadians have died waiting in line for treatment, please post it. KMAN, your question was whether rick posted any evidence, not whether that evidence was valid! I tried to strain out the knats about the lines and lists, because you kept talking about lines, and he talked about lists. His links appear to support what he was saying, and from his perspective were offered as evidence that some Canadian had died while on a wait list for medical test and procedures. Those folks may have died anyway, and maybe not due to being on the wait list which is his implication. His implication may have been beyond the scope of the data provided, and your understanding seems unwilling to consider unfavorable data. Probably both of you are faulted, for your own reasons. I do not see that it was a lack of care on my part answering the question, but on yours asking a poorly framed question. Evidence is submitted in court, tagged and labeled, and added to a case file. It is evidence whether it is good evidence, pertinent or not. You have your evidence, when do we hear your apology? The question of its validity is another issue! TnT |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser says: ================= As to the USA, perhaps the 20% decline is due to the dot-com economic explosion under the careful stewardship of President Clinton. Huh? ===================== Hey, it was my attempt at humor. I was trying to yank your chain. With 10,000 comedians out of work, I'll stick to my day job. Weiser responding to my thesis that there is a causal link between unemployment and crime: ================ Sorry, but no. I dispute your thesis and your conclusion. ================== As with most of the "relationships" we're going to talk about in regard to crime statistics, I think the causal link will be difficult to impossible to prove. I don't dispute that there is some causal link, I dispute that it is THE causal link to the exclusion of all others. Nonetheless, I'll stick with my position that there will generally be a strong relationship between poverty and crime. More specifically, I'll argue that "relative" poverty (related very closely to income disparity within a society) will show a very strong correlation to crime. Give me a few hours, and I'll find you the statistics. You may well continue to dispute the relationship and, I guess, that'll be the end of the argument as neither of us will be able to prove or disprove causality. But, the same goes for your supposed gun-ownership vs lower crime rate causality. Problem is that causality in re gun ownership and crime has been pretty thoroughly established by the careful studies of Lott et al. It's not the only factor, but it's the major one. Weiser again: =============== Japan is a surprise at +49%. But perhaps not. If we note that the decade in question was not particularly kind to Japan economically, we ought not to be surprised that crime was up in Japan. Which has exactly what to do with the issue? ================ We were looking at increasing and decreasing crime rates. Japan had a fairly significant increase in crime over the decade in question. That's what it has to do with the issue. It is a nation. It has a crime rate. Did I miss something? I thought that's what we were talking about. Further, given my thesis, the increased crime rate is easily explained. Does your thesis do as good a job explaining crime rate changes in Japan? I wonder just how "unkind" the decade really was. Do you find a correlation between the economy in Japan and crime rates other than supposition? Is the crime rate in Japan declining with increased prosperity? How then do you explain the rising crime rates in England during a time of economic recovery? Weiser says: ================= While economics may play some part in the rates of crime, and in the rates of change in crime, your argument fails because despite improvements in the economies of the US, GB, Canada and Australia, the rate of change in violent crime STILL goes up in nations where guns are banned, ================= Please note: crime rates in Scotland and Canada`went DOWN. Don't know specifically about Canada, but the Scotland claim is simply false. In particular, Glasgow is one of the most dangerous cities in all of GB right now. London is high on the list as well. I think you're going to have difficulty refuting the "economy as causal factor" in crime thesis. I can accept it as a "causal factor," so long as you don't try to argue that it is the only causal factor or that the gun issue is not a causal factor. Further, how do the former communist regimes fit your model. It seems to me, that people now have much greater access to guns than under the commies. Not really. While more illegal guns are found (or are being displayed) Russia still tightly controls access to guns for Ivan Average, and there is no "right" to keep and bear arms in Russia, much less widespread legal firearms ownership. Most of the firearms in use are illegal and in the hands of organized criminals. Or are these going to be statistical outliers in your model? Partly, yes. The change from a tightly-controlled gun environment to little or no control is usually associated with anarchy and is fraught with danger for everyone. We in the US went through our "wild west" phase (which was actually pretty mild, unlike popular fiction) early on, and since then gun ownership has become an ordinary part of life. There is risk associated with injecting guns into a previously tightly controlled environment, particularly in nations where tribal or ethnic tension is close to the surface. In such situations, to get the benefits of guns in society, you have to arm pretty much everybody at the same time, so that no one group controls the access to arms and can therefore victimize another group that it keeps unarmed. I figure massive parachute drops of firearms and ammunition throughout such nations is about the only way to ensure that every person has the ability to use armed defense at the same time. Perhaps your model only has applicability in the USA. Perhaps what works in Florida is irrelevant in Florence. Not so far as any credible research can determine. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/27/05 5:15 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: KMAN says: ================ There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community without guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns. Right? =============== I think you're being overly optimistic. Indeed. The problem with this utopian ideal is that it is functionally impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns. That being the case, the argument is fallacious at its core. There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets shot there! Prove it. Show me one community that you can certify does not have a gun in it, and then show me how you can prevent a gun from being brought into that community from outside. You can't. Fact is that guns exist, and because they do, no place is safe, not even a prison or courthouse protected by metal detectors. And since no place is safe, it is arrogant and evil in the extreme to propose to disarm SOMEONE ELSE because of YOUR fear of guns. You may disarm yourself, but your authority ends there, because you cannot (and will not) provide for the safety of those you disarm. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/28/05 12:39 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/27/05 5:15 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: KMAN says: ================ There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community without guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns. Right? =============== I think you're being overly optimistic. Indeed. The problem with this utopian ideal is that it is functionally impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns. That being the case, the argument is fallacious at its core. There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets shot there! Could you give me a short list so that I can understand what type of communities you are speaking of? Thanks, TnT Howsabout the Amish? Can you certify that there are no guns in Amish communities? Can you prevent me from taking a gun into an Amish community? -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message oups.com... KMAN wrote: in article , Tinkerntom at wrote on 2/28/05 12:39 AM: KMAN wrote: in article , Scott Weiser at wrote on 2/27/05 5:15 PM: A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote: KMAN says: ================ There's no way that even a gun nut really believes that a community without guns is going to have more gun deaths than a community with guns. Right? =============== I think you're being overly optimistic. Indeed. The problem with this utopian ideal is that it is functionally impossible, anywhere in the world, to have a community without guns. That being the case, the argument is fallacious at its core. There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets shot there! Could you give me a short list so that I can understand what type of communities you are speaking of? Thanks, TnT Howsabout the Amish? The Amish in North Texas deer hunt with rifles, and would sure run you off their land with a shotgun in hand! Maybe your Amish are nicer. TnT Sigh. There are Amish communities that don't have guns. Are you sure? Which ones? Or is it that you are making assumptions based on ignorance. I was not aware of the North Texas Amish. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 26-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: But, the point is that I get to fight to the death Do that. You won't be missed. Which "gay rights" would you be referring to? Gays have exactly the same rights as any other individual citizen under the Constitution. 12 states in the US make it illegal for homosexuals to make love. Yes? What's your point? They have exactly the same right to make love as any heterosexual couple. That they don't have an EXTRA right to make love to a same sex partner doesn't mean their rights to have sex are any less or any different from heterosexuals. There is no state that makes it illegal for heterosexuals to make love. Actually, there are many that make it a crime for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex. It's not often enforced, but it's on the books. There are some others that make any sexual activity, either in or out of wedlock, involving other than penile/vaginal contact a crime. So, once again, homosexuals have exactly the same rights that heterosexuals do. Granted, they may not have EXTRA rights to practice homosexual sodomy, but then again neither do heterosexual couples. Homosexuals cannot marry in most US states - heterosexuals can marry in any state. Well, not quite. Homosexuals cannot marry same-sex partners, but then again neither can heterosexuals. Homosexuals most certainly CAN marry a person of the opposite sex, because the marriage process does not inquire into one's sexual proclivities. Thus, once again, homosexual rights are identical to heterosexual rights. And again, it is true that homosexuals do not have EXTRA rights to marry to the same sex. Hardly examples of how gays have the same rights as non-gays. Sorry, but your analysis is feeble. What you are talking about is preferences, not rights. Homosexuals PREFER to have sex with members of the same sex, and they would like society to recognize that as a "right to choose." But that preference does not yet exist as a "right," and homosexuals are subject to exactly the same laws that heterosexuals are. If a heterosexual pedophile male has consensual sex with another male, in some states he commits criminal sodomy just as if he were a homosexual. The law does not proscribe sexual orientation or preference, it criminalizes SPECIFIC ACTS, and it doesn't matter who commits those acts or what their sexual preferences are. Thus, the "rights" of homosexuals are precisely equal to the "rights" of heterosexuals. Neither may engage in proscribed sex acts. Now, the question of whether or not such sex acts SHOULD be proscribed is an entirely different matter. But in this segment of the debate, you are confusing a desire to engage in a specific behavior with a "right" to do so. The worst sorts of genocides and mass killings only take place where the oppressed minority has been disarmed. Armed minorities are still outnumbered. Guns are not an equalizer. Incorrect. They are the "Great Equalizer." More importantly, your statement suggests that minorities ought to remain disarmed merely because they do not instantly achieve force parity with their oppressors. Sorry, but this is shallow logic. If anything, you support my thesis that MORE and BETTER arms are needed by minorities to ensure that they have sufficient force to defend against a numerically superior oppressor. That's exactly correct. But they don't, they increase it. Just because they haven't been, doesn't mean they can't be used to reduce freedom. When someone puts a bullet thru your skull, you lose all your rights. Indeed. But the solution is not to disarm people and make it easier for criminals and tyrants to put bullets through people's skulls, it's to give them sufficient arms so that they can prevent that eventuality. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:
On 26-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote: And what precludes God from manifesting himself as a human born of a human woman? He is God after all, he can do pretty much anything he wants, by definition But that is not God manifesting himself as God. Which is what I said in the first place, idiot. Sez you. Fortunately, you don't get to dictate to God how he/she/it chooses to manifest. You don't think that a burning bush that's not consumed is not God revealing himself? Still not God manifesting himself as God. Sez you. How do you know what "God" is or how God manifests? Are you presuming to dictate to God what acceptable manifestations are? That's rather rude, not to mention potentially dangerous... According to whom? What makes their judgment infallible. Uhh, they can _read_ Hebrew. But that's in the realm of reality, where you are at a loss. Non sequitur. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:
Weiser rejects thesis that there is a causal link between poverty and crime: ============== one fairly well-established cause of crime is unemployment, underemployment, and poverty (Scott, as you so eloquently said in your "What I'd do to lazy welfare Queens" treatise, idle hands do the devil's work). Sorry, but no. I dispute your thesis and your conclusion. ====================== Reject my thesis and my conclusion if you will. May I offer up the conclusions of Chinese economists and Chinese leaders on the topic of income disparity and crime (and revolution): "SOURCE: http://www.macrochina.com.cn/english...10002002.shtml Aug 10 2001 Income disparity in China Well, Scott? You offer anti-capitalist propaganda from Communist China about "income disparity" as evidence? Are you not aware that this is but thinly veiled justification for taking rich Chinese out and putting a bullet in the back of their heads because they have presumed to make a profit in a Communist/Socialist society? You're going to have to do MUCH better than that. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
A Usenet persona calling itself Wilko wrote:
BCITORGB wrote: Weiser says: ================== The facts are quite clear: In nations where guns are banned, victimization by violent criminals increases dramatically. In the United States, crime victimization by violent criminals is dropping. =============== I'll not dispute your sources and data.... except, as you well know, because you presented this data, the definitions of various sorts of crimes vary considerably from country to country. What may be deemed an assault in one country may not be recorded as an assault in another. Thus, the stats may not be comparable. Talking about guns, one of the main issues that the NRA and similar pro-gun organisations here wipe under the carpet is the counting of bee-bee guns and air rifles under the "fire arms crimes" header in some countries, that have relatively few firearms crimes overall. Do you have proof of this? In most US communities, BB guns and air rifles are classified as "deadly weapons," and even pointing one at someone can be considered a felony menacing. Thus, whether I'm trying to "bend" the debate is hardly the point. The point is, more or less, a murder, is a murder, is a murder, no matter where we are on the globe. Murder stats are comparable. The others aren't. If you're murdered, it doesn't really matter if you're shot, strangled, stabbed or killed in one of the multitude of other ways that are available. Well, here we agree. The objective however is to AVOID being murdered, by any implement. One of the best ways to do this is to carry, and be proficient in the use of firearms, so that when attacked, you have force superiority. In nearly 70 percent of cases in the US where a gun is used for self-defense, no shots are ever fired, and the mere display or presence of the firearm is sufficient to thwart the criminal attempt. The thing with guns is that they make killing someone a lot bigger, stronger or better able to fight hand to hand than you pretty easy. Indeed. That's the WHOLE POINT. A gun carried by grandma makes her the force superior of the unarmed strongman after her Social Security check. And where thugs know that the next random grandma they try to mug MIGHT have a handgun in her purse, they tend to take up other, less dangerous lines of work. That's where the U.S. outranks most western nations: the available means to kill someone (i.e. guns) are available all over the place in huge quantities and the people willing to use them are also plentiful. The result is very high murder rates. And much higher rates of self-defense use of arms to PREVENT crime victimization. Estimates of the lawful use of firearms for self-defense vary from the FBI approved number of more than 80,000 per year (which is almost twice the incidence of violent assaults) to more than two million per year by Kleck, Lott et al. The true number is probably higher than two million because most self-defense incidents that don't result in shots being fired are never reported, and the statistics ignore the number of crimes that simply never take place because lawful concealed carry creates a strong deterrent to street crime. So yes, you are sort of correct, but for the wrong reasons. Guns in the US are used far, far more often for lawful self defense than they are in a criminal episode, which is precisely the reason we so jealously guard the individual's right to be armed for self defense. -- Regards, Scott Weiser "I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM © 2005 Scott Weiser |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com