Cliff LyonApologetics 101 By Billy (Bubba) Bob
If I made up an example like this to illustrate how the Bush Lovers use equivocation to apologize (escape blame) for supporting Bush…no one would believe me. Enter our newbie, Bob S.
We need to get a common dictionary, because I dont agree that I was an apologist for the Bush administration.
In all things, I try to be fair. I see name calling and accusations without proof. I said the same things when Clinton was president. Both people have done enough that can be proven. Baseless accusations of stolen elections are a pet peeve of mine. Neither side is blameless in voter fraud, but I have yet to see proof that the fraud rose to the level of a conspiracy.
Can you identify the apologetic arguments?
The first one is a dead give away. Just invoke Clinton. “Both people have done enough that can be proven..”
Here’s the logic.
Clinton = Lie
Bush = Lie
Ergo: Bush = Clinton
Reinforced by: “Neither side is blameless“
Thats the same defense medieval societies use to exonerate Billy Bob whenever her rapes his sister. I suppose thats bullet-proof logic (if ya live in a one-text-book household with a framed diploma above the sofa).
It works so well in some societies, women have to cover themselves from head to toe. Can anyone name a country where they do that?
The second one is
June 9th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Cliff, you’ve done such a good job with the Windex, you’ve forgotten that you live in a glass house.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
JD,
I think this is the post where Cliff is declaring victory and moving on.
Notice that he hasn’t addressed the problems with his post about the effectiveness of gun control in Australia.
Or how about the use of weapons in another country Cliff?
You have heard about it, right?
7 Dead
10 Injured
All in a country that heavily regulates firearms. Shouldn’t gun control stop those types of crime and make that country a paradise where no one gets hurt?
.
This is the money quote though……the UNPOSSIBLE occurred
A firearm used to stop further harm, a firearm that was used without anyone dying from its use, a firearm that wasn’t taken away from its owner and used against him.
Maybe it’s a good thing that some people carry firearms, imagine how much safer the world would be if more people could carry them.
June 10th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Bob:
Are you suggesting that the relative number of handguns possessed by good guys versus bad guys is the sole determining factor behind the observation you just provided?
June 10th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Albert,
No. but it is an issue. If the villains know the good guys are disarmed; the risk reward ratio is in their favor.
I pointed out the attack to show that other items can and have been used as weapons. Can you truly say that the dead are any more or less dead because a knife or car was used versus a firearm?
Is there any moral, ethical, or philosophical advantage to being attacked with a particular weapon?
The focus on “gun violence” versus violence is distracting from the social and cultural issues that need to be addressed.
I’m poking fun at all the myths about how firearm use can only result in death, how firearms will be taken away from the owner–better not even have one- type mentality that exists.
I’m pointing out that even a trained law enforcement using a baton could not stop the criminal, but the simple drawing of a handgun did.
How many other crimes could be stopped if people were given access to the same self defense tools that our law enforcement carry?
June 11th, 2008 at 5:19 am
Bob,
Reasoning that starts with, “yeah, but the bad guys know,” was abandoned long ago in the deterrence argument for the death penalty and eventually extrapolated to all crime.
In other words, in fact, as penalties gets harsher, crime and incarceration have increased.
Turns out, there is a greater correlation with class and education than with crime, BY FAR. It is unfair of you to expect me to engage in dumb-ass arguments.
You see Bob, you are not even minimally equipped to engage in intelligent discussion with the Big Dogs on this porch. That is why you are still pestering me to address Australia even though the qualitative AND the quantitative factors are so very divergent from the US, as to be erroneous.
I suppose next, you will want me to address the missing fossil records that somehow prove evolution is not true.
Haven’t you noticed, even JD will not back you substantively?
If I were you, I would avoid the “big dog” porch debate stick with soliloquies on house-training with the other pooches under the house.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:02 am
Cliff,
Using this argument that crime increases as penalties get harsher, should we remove all penalties from the crime? Wouldn’t that, according to you, then produce NO Crime?
I’m a little confused on how this relates to the issue of a person in Japan using 2 different weapons to commit murder. Japan is a country with strict gun control laws and almost no private ownership of firearms. Has that factor reduced crime in Japan or have the criminals just found other weapons to use, this criminal simply found other weapons to use.
I don’t understand how or where this relates to anything that I’ve brought up, could you explain further?
As far as addressing Australia, it is simple: Either gun control is effective or is it not effective, right?
Is there any evidence to show that the gun control measures Australia put in place actually reduced crime?
No, all the evidence shows that the trends were already decreasing, decades prior to the gun control laws. Population size, economic, cultural factors in comparison to America don’t matter in this case. The long term trend clearly shows that the Gun control laws produced no statistically significant difference in the crime rates.
So why ban guns? If the gun control laws made no significant difference, why enact more laws; either here or in Australia? That is the point I’m trying to get you to address.
June 11th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Bob S,
You just don’t get it.
More guns means more shootings period. You just won’t get that because you want your guns.
Sorry. Back under the porch with you pooch.
June 11th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Cliff,
You don’t get it. Does it matter to those dead people in Japan that they were stabbed or ran over instead of being shot?
Violence is violence; what is so special about “gun violence”?
June 11th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Cliff,
And once again, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
Using your own example of Australia
According to recent firearms data from the AIC, there are currently about 2.5 million registered firearms in Australia belonging to 731 567 individual licence holders. This compares to nearly 2.2 million registered firearms and 764 518 licence holders in July 2001
Increased number of firearms in Australia, right? But surprisingly
The latest Australian Crime: Facts and Figures 2006 from the AIC states that the percentage of homicides committed with a firearm continues a declining trend which began in 1969: ‘In 2003, fewer than 16 per cent of homicides involved firearms. The figure was similar in 2002 and 2001, down from a high of 44 per cent in 1968.
More Guns, less shootings?
Even in America, firearms numbers are increasing but there has been a decrease in crimes committed with firearms.
Link
June 11th, 2008 at 11:08 am
Really, Cliff? Are you suggesting that penalties for crimes mean nothing?
Do you regularly park illegally? Commit traffic code violations as a matter of course? Rob banks for spending money? Refuse to pay your taxes?
Do ya, Cliff? Because you just suggested that knowledge of legal penalties doesn’t deter criminals. You yourself just extrapolated that since (as you suggest) the Death Penalty is ignored in the case of first degree murder than the $50 fine for parking in front of a fire hydrant is also ignored.
This is just a laughable statement -
Are you suggesting that harsh penalties drive crime? That the prospect of 25 years in the slammer is somehow a carrot to someone who wouldn’t otherwise be disposed to armed robbery?
Umm…let me guess, you didn’t make the cut for the debate team in High School, did you, Cliff?
Have you noticed, Cliff, that your usual allies aren’t supporting your asinine arguments, Cliff?
June 11th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
If we keep beating this horse, surely it will expire!