11-09-2017, 10:02 PM
(11-09-2017, 09:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Looks like, in your rush to set up your scorecord and finally check off that big WIN, you forgot to check your impressions against what I actually wrote. Not sure I should keep giving you rope, but here goes:
Yeah, gimme that rope baby, I need to pull a Caradine over here.
Quote:You made a "correct point" about homicides and illegal drugs which does not address any point I made. So yes, of course I will gladly grant you your "facts." And still chuckle in wonderment at your carelessly policing my posts before actually reading them. Again.
Good lord, and you accuse me of being obtuse. Your inane point is that a bunch of deaths all in one event would spur the same kind of response, or at least make the analogy more appropriate. My response is that people are well aware of the deaths related the to drug trade and yet it does nothing to curb the use of drugs. What you're essentially saying is that without a mass death incident people don't care and the media doesn't report. My counter is that people are aware and don't care enough to change. The only people who clamour for gun control after a mass shooting are people who wanted gun control before the mass shooting. Hence your analogy was flawed from the beginning. Keep giving me that rope boy, I'm nearly there.
I
Quote:n response to Neb's question--"But where's the outrage for the pain, suffering and deaths caused by alcohol every year which is much more than what guns cause?" I questioned the guns/alcohol analogy.
My answer: There is not concentrated public, national outrage over alcohol/alcoholism only because the effects of alcohol abuse are distributed over time and space--not in mass groupings--so they do not generate the media attention that mass shootings do. If a drunk driver kills two people in Jonesville, NY, at 10 am and another dies of cirrhosis in Sacramento, CA, at 10:10, and third beats his wife to death in New Orleans at 10:15, there is often local outrage among families affected (and even though "people like to get drunk/high") but it does not rise to national attention. (You said this was called "prohibition"?? That "fact" certainly flew over my head.)
Yes, I addressed this above, your analogy is flawed.
Quote:But if, HYPOTHETICALLY, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, a large group of alcohol-related deaths somehow occurred at once--thousands, hundreds, dozens--then I suggest HYPOTHETICALLY we would see something like the media attention which follows a mass shooting, especially if they occurred every other month--and I hasten to add now that we would see that outrage in my hypothetical mass instances "even though people like to get drunk/high" because we so frequently see it in all those typical individual instances mentioned above.
The words in caps nearly gave me enough rope, nearly. I posited that this would have zero affect on people as the number of deaths is already well known and, as I stated, people like to get high. I still posit this, lack of caps and all.
Quote:So "thousands" came in with Neb's question and the number of alcohol-related deaths in the US each year (88,000 in the last year, according to the National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism), but which occur mostly one at a time in many different places. (And no, I don't recall a mass shooting of thousands in the U.S.--so you get another "fact.")
Please, explain it again, I've got nearly enough rope that I'm starting to see stars.
Quote:And sorry but I still don't see "extremism" in pro-choicers who are ok with abortion before four weeks. "Extremism" is a historically variable and malleable term suitable for propaganda, but not for responsible analysis.
I can only guess that you lack the intellectual capacity to process the point being made. Maybe you gave yourself too much rope?
Quote:How often do you see extremists calling everyone else "extremists"? You don't see me using the term.
Oh well then, point proven! Out of curiosity, who is calling "everyone else" extremists?
