Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Questions the left won't discuss about gun control, but should - and soon. [View all]Straw Man
(6,775 posts)84. Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy ...
Straw man argues 'believe' cannot equate to 'think':
I argue no such thing, and you know it. I argue that there is a difference between thinking something may be true (uncertainty) and believing something to be true (certainty).
thesaurus gets poor straw man on both ends:
think verb to believe something based on facts or ideas
believe in - to think that someone or something exists
think verb to believe something based on facts or ideas
believe in - to think that someone or something exists
Your reliance on a supposed equivalence between individual words is childishly reductive. Words make up phrases and sentences, in which there are other words that refine the meaning. For example, you have chosen to ignore the "based on facts or ideas" portion of the cited definition of "think," as well as overlooking the fact that your citation for "believe" is actually the phrasal verb "believe in," which is not the same thing at all. The statements "I believe you" and "I believe in you" are quite different, one suggesting a trust in your veracity and the other suggesting a faith in your capabilities -- neither of which I possess, by the way.
If you think that all of this is "trivial" or "picayune," then you don't understand language. In your formulation, the statements "I think that is true" and "I think that may be true" would be equivalent. They are not.
IE: I believe the correlation would be true. I believe the correlation between declining gun ownership rates and declining violent crime rates demonstrates a contributing causative affect to the former.
Based on what? Based on nothing more than your own pre-existing belief that such a causative relationship exists: in other words, an article of faith, unproven. Demonstration of correlation does not constitute proof of causation. Could I make it any clearer?
Had enough?
I have more than enough of this nonsense, but feel free to carry on. You're only making yourself look foolish.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
160 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Questions the left won't discuss about gun control, but should - and soon. [View all]
EdwardBernays
Oct 2015
OP
sure but you would need to PROVE that your law would absolutely improve...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Oct 2015
#16
Yup, Ireland's always been such a peacful, safe place with no violence to speak of
DonP
Oct 2015
#75
Your WaPo articles speaks to gun violence, not violence as a whole as GE was speaking.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#54
Welcome. I will respond when I have time to consider your questions thoroughly...
Eleanors38
Oct 2015
#19
I would restrict concealed carry permits to trained professionals with a demonstrated need.
Maedhros
Oct 2015
#27
I wasn't suggesting that it was. I was simply pointing out that a carrying populace does not
Kang Colby
Oct 2015
#34
"Too bad no one but the two of us is reading it." Incorrect, unfortunately for the Stuart heir
friendly_iconoclast
Oct 2015
#160
I currently "live with" tens of thousands of alcohol-related deaths a year...
Eleanors38
Oct 2015
#80
I should have said that there are no mass killings in other countries like in the US.
guillaumeb
Oct 2015
#104
Let's see two threads today about people getting shot by reckless concealed carry
upaloopa
Oct 2015
#127