I agree with that, it was not correct to say crime would rise, OTOH, the ones claiming crime would lower also got it wrong.
Again, how is someone new to the subject under discussion supposed to know this? Are you saying that anyone that wishes to ask a question of someone in here should go to Google and see if it is a “bad” question??
I dunno, but I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt. You know, not jump down their throats for things they didn’t say?
Again, has nothing to do with what I said. Neither does the rest of your post - why all the stuff about climate change?
As I said, this is very enlightening - I guess if I ever decide to ask a question here, I’ll preface it with “if this is a hot button question that makes you think I have an ulterior motive, I don’t”. :smack:
Way to miss the point, that was to show that you are wrong on your estimation that we only do that: assign an ulterior motive for no reason, I also look for evidence of that ulterior motive and I showed to you how it came out on the recent climate change discussions.
Hon, if you go looking for ulterior motives, you are going to find evidence. However, it still doesn’t address the way some people here jump on those who merely ask a question, except I suppose you are providing more evidence as to the reasons why it happens. Provided of course the people here are doing it for the same reasons as those in your link… Yeah, sure, all groups are the same, all message boards react the same way for the same reasons. :dubious:
I’d argue that’s basic politeness, to be honest–it’d be a much poorer board if it were mostly questions with google-able answers.
Appreciated.
My count is two people who predicted dire things and returned to double down rather than recant–Captain Amazing (with whom I have no experience) and Der Trihs (who’s a slapdick cretin of the highest order when he ventures outside the Game Room or Cafe Society).
So really, one person–I don’t think **Trihs **is mentally competent to count as having opinions.
And most of them aren’t - well, at least not the ones that I’ve been jumped on about, such as comparing the reduction in pet vaccinations to the bazillion ones that kids get these days.
As a general proposition for laws in the country - yes.
As to the specific situation in Virginia: no. Anyone who discussed this Virginia law and predicted crime would drop got it right, at least in the first year:
Surprisingly enough on this… I’m with Bricker. This is one of those cases where we need to step back and realize that the evidence is not only against us, but really against us, and if we want to hold our standpoint, we should try to find more evidence (although that isn’t really intellectually honest either).
Nigerian scammers must love you. “Maybe *this *one really does want to give me a million dollars ?” 
Not this clear and unequivocal.
Most of our science based posters are different. Most deniers are the same.
The reason why Politifact and others are assigning items like that as false is that other factors like the current trend on crime reduction that was in place before the law was passed, to hold water, in this case scientific 
the report has to include an analysis to remove that trend, was it done in this case?
Yeah, being capable of allowing someone to explain themselves must mean stupidity. Asking questions certainly doesn’t mean that anyone could learn from others’ mistakes.
Whatever. You are obviously one of those posters here that refuses to believe anything that doesn’t fit into your preconceived ideas. As I’ve said, explains quite a bit.
As I demonstrated, I looked for evidence first, so you are just lying here. That explains a lot about you now.
Uh huh, and I responded to that. You probably don’t know it tho, since you ignored it.
Right on schedule with the gratuitous insults and falsehoods. Your lack of confidence in your opinions is astounding. But unfortunately, not all that unusual.
Did not as I was still giving you the benefit of the doubt.
How it is false? I only look at the evidence and when deniers come with well known already debunked tales, then I assume first that they are just wrong, then after evidence is shown to them and then ignore it then I know where they come from.
When you say that I go for preconceived ideas after I showed that that was not the case, then pointing out that you are lying is only regarding this item, but then again I had to remember how you do in other previous discussions and then I just have to say that it is unlikely that you would understand how stupid what you did here is.
Go back and read the bolded part in your post #103, where you said you look for evidence of ulterior motives. That is completely different than looking at the evidence of whatever scientific issue is under consideration.
All the rest of what you post here is pushing at being a strawman, because that is beyond anything that I have been discussing.
Again, people who disagree with your preconceived ideas are not necessarily lying.
Again, those who have to fall back on insults have little faith in their own opinions/knowledge.
Going to bed - enjoy talking to yourself, since you aren’t bothering to actually respond to me.
The quote was: “you are wrong on your estimation that we only do that: assign an ulterior motive for no reason, I also look for evidence of that ulterior motive and I showed to you how it came out on the recent climate change discussions.”
As I said, I first assume ignorance after they do resort to reheated baloney, your misunderstanding here is to assume that I would continue to assume an ulterior reason for no reason :), ** I would not look for evidence if I obviously had my preconception already made**. Unfortunately for your preconceptions I do look for evidence before I reach for the gauntlet.
But usually what happens is that deniers then confirm what they are by refusing to even see the evidence, so one has to go for what the evidence to say that now, they do have an axe to grind.
I’m just saying, I was discussing that early before you came, this discussion is not just for you.
The point and the evidence shows that I do not do that, so if not lying then you are just incompetent on looking at what others are saying.
It is an insult to point out that you are not telling the truth when that is the case?
Like if you will not see this later, what everyone can see is that not once you bothered to see how underhanded climate change deniers are, nor the mendacity of the conservative politicians like Frank Luntz when creating one of the baloney points. After all that, you coming with the idea that I “obviously” have preconceptions was silly, I would look for better evidence than an out of context quote.
Yes – the current trend is not 5% per year.
Thank you very much.
Although in one sense, what you’ve just said should be such a minimal threshold for how we all work here that your doing it would be unremarkable and my thanks would seem effusive and unnecessary.
But it isn’t. It’s rare, here, rare enough that I truly appreciate it when I see it. Thank you.