Live blog: Cyclists urged to boycott brands including Bell and Giro owned by US gun maker, road police say cycle lanes "not fit for purpose," amazing numbers from Viviani and lots more

don simon wrote:

Much like you bang on with the same shit in any debate.

Why should the man in the street have a gun in their possession?

It's got fuck all to do with whether I have a 4x4, which does much less harm in my possession than you have the ability to understand.

I told you, I don't have to justify my views to you, or my choices. You've demonstrated that you don't have the ability to understand and there's no debate.

Chao!

Try not to drive past any asthmatics, there's a good boy.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

Much like you bang on with the same shit in any debate.

Why should the man in the street have a gun in their possession?

It's got fuck all to do with whether I have a 4x4, which does much less harm in my possession than you have the ability to understand.

I told you, I don't have to justify my views to you, or my choices. You've demonstrated that you don't have the ability to understand and there's no debate.

Chao!

Try not to drive past any asthmatics, there's a good boy.

Is that it?

You really do need to broaden your thinking, don't you?

don simon wrote:

Is that it?

You really do need to broaden your thinking, don't you?

You harm people every time you drive your 4x4.

That's a fact.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

Is that it?

You really do need to broaden your thinking, don't you?

You harm people every time you drive your 4x4. That's a fact.

Good job there's nothing to offset then, isn't there? Probably doing less damage to asthmatics as a person than you using the computer does.

Think about it.

don simon wrote:

Good job there's nothing to offset then, isn't there? Probably doing less damage to asthmatics as a person than you using the computer does.

Think about it.

You offset the particulate matter that goes directly into people's lungs as you drive past?

Impressive.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

Good job there's nothing to offset then, isn't there? Probably doing less damage to asthmatics as a person than you using the computer does.

Think about it.

You offset the particulate matter that goes directly into people's lungs as you drive past? Impressive.

Is that a serious comment? Your life must be pretty perfect to not have any negative effects on anyone, yet feel yuou can look down on others.

And yes, I do feel that I have a significant positive effect on the quality of air for the general public along side a minimal negative effect. And probably a significantly less effect on your precious asthmatics than you do in your day to day life.

By the way, what fuel am I burning in the 4x4?

don simon wrote:

Is that a serious comment? Your life must be pretty perfect to not have any negative effects on anyone, yet feel yuou can look down on others.

And yes, I do feel that I have a significant positive effect on the quality of air for the general public along side a minimal nefgative effect.

By the way, what fuel am I burning in the 4x4?

Particulate matter is one of the biggest causes of pollution related ill health.

Bigger cars produce much more of it regardless of what fuel they use.

A smaller car would do less harm.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

Is that a serious comment? Your life must be pretty perfect to not have any negative effects on anyone, yet feel yuou can look down on others.

And yes, I do feel that I have a significant positive effect on the quality of air for the general public along side a minimal nefgative effect.

By the way, what fuel am I burning in the 4x4?

Particulate matter is one of the biggest causes of pollution related ill health.

Bigger cars produce much more of it regardless of what fuel they use.

A smaller car would do less harm.

I'll ignore the bit where you're wrong and focus on trying to educate.
While my car may introduce particulates, you're not seeing the bigger picture. I assume you don't live in a cave, so I suggest you look at your own contribution to pollution. Carpet in the house? Kitchen cabinets glued together? Any concrete?
Then look at the buildings that I help provide clean(er), fresh air to.
You want me to stop doing my job because you haven't thought through your argument.
I will go as far as to say that unless you can demonstrate that you are as much of the solution as I am, then wind your neck in.
The world has moved forward and will continue to do so, removing vehicles isn't going to solve your immediate problems.
Sometimes a little bit of nasty has to happen in order for greater benefits. You want to remove a smaller problem, in my case, and fuck it up for many.
As mentioned earlier, broaden your thinking and get building that handmade kitchen. Nails are easy to make, just don't use coal on the forge!

don simon wrote:

I'll ignore the bit where you're wrong and focus on trying to educate.
While my car may introduce particulates, you're not seeing the bigger picture. I assume you don't live in a cave, so I suggest you look at your own contribution to pollution. Carpet in the house? Kitchen cabinets glued together? Any concrete?
Then look at the buildings that I help provide clean(er), fresh air to.
You want me to stop doing my job because you haven't thought through your argument.
I will go as far as to say that unless you can demonstrate that you are as much of the solution as I am, then wind your neck in.
The world has moved forward and will continue to do so, removing vehicles isn't going to solve your immediate problems.
Sometimes a little bit of nasty has to happen in order for greater benefits. You want to remove a smaller problem, in my case, and fuck it up for many.
As mentioned earlier, broaden your thinking and get building that handmade kitchen. Nails are easy to make, just don't use coal on the forge!

A larger car produces more particulate pollution than a smaller car.

That is a fact.

Particulate pollution is very damaging to public health.

That is also a fact.

Maybe you are one of the tiny minority of 4x4 owners who actually require such a vehicle but nothing you've written so far justifies your ownership of a 4x4.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

I'll ignore the bit where you're wrong and focus on trying to educate. While my car may introduce particulates, you're not seeing the bigger picture. I assume you don't live in a cave, so I suggest you look at your own contribution to pollution. Carpet in the house? Kitchen cabinets glued together? Any concrete? Then look at the buildings that I help provide clean(er), fresh air to. You want me to stop doing my job because you haven't thought through your argument. I will go as far as to say that unless you can demonstrate that you are as much of the solution as I am, then wind your neck in. The world has moved forward and will continue to do so, removing vehicles isn't going to solve your immediate problems. Sometimes a little bit of nasty has to happen in order for greater benefits. You want to remove a smaller problem, in my case, and fuck it up for many. As mentioned earlier, broaden your thinking and get building that handmade kitchen. Nails are easy to make, just don't use coal on the forge!

A larger car produces more particulate pollution than a smaller car. That is a fact. Particulate pollution is very damaging to public health. That is also a fact. Maybe you are one of the tiny minority of 4x4 owners who actually require such a vehicle but nothing you've written so far justifies your ownership of a 4x4.

You keep banging the same drum and ignoring everything else. And I'll just ignore you and your desire for people to engage, while you don't.

Getting back to the topic and your introduction of vehicles, you cannot compare a car to a gun. I can do, and do do, many things to offset pollution. As yet I am unable to raise the dead.

How's your toxic Kitchen, carpet, painted walls? Have you thought about your astmatic friends and decided to get rid of these while pontificating?

Just to be sure, you're still having a pop at my 4x4 without knowing what fuel I use and without demonstrating that a larger petrol motor produces more particulates than a smaller diesel.

Widen your thinking little boy....

*

don simon wrote:

Getting back to the topic and your introduction of vehicles, you cannot compare a car to a gun. I can do, and do do, many things to offset pollution. As yet I am unable to raise the dead.

How's your toxic Kitchen, carpet, painted walls? Have you thought about your astmatic friends and decided to get rid of these while pontificating?

Just to be sure, you're still having a pop at my 4x4 without knowing what fuel I use and without demonstrating that a larger petrol motor produces more particulates than a smaller diesel.

Widen your thinking little boy....

Still haven't justified your ownership have you...

Your fuel is irrelevant as for any given fuel/engine a larger car will produce more particulate pollution than a smaller car.

Fuel combustion is also not the only way that vehicles produce particulate pollution.

You can and do multiple things to ensure your gun never harms anybody, it is impossible to do that with your car (assuming you actually drive it).

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

Getting back to the topic and your introduction of vehicles, you cannot compare a car to a gun. I can do, and do do, many things to offset pollution. As yet I am unable to raise the dead.

How's your toxic Kitchen, carpet, painted walls? Have you thought about your astmatic friends and decided to get rid of these while pontificating?

Just to be sure, you're still having a pop at my 4x4 without knowing what fuel I use and without demonstrating that a larger petrol motor produces more particulates than a smaller diesel.

Widen your thinking little boy....

Still haven't justified your ownership have you... Your fuel is irrelevant as for any given fuel/engine a larger car will produce more particulate pollution than a smaller car. Fuel combustion is also not the only way that vehicles produce particulate pollution. You can and do multiple things to ensure your gun never harms anybody, it is impossible to do that with your car (assuming you actually drive it).

You beggar belief, and at best are mildly amusing.  I'll repeat I have no need to justify anything to you, especially as you have such a narrow mind and can't engage in discussions even when facts are presented.

don simon wrote:

You beggar belief, and at best are mildly amusing.  I'll repeat I have no need to justify anything to you, especially as you have such a narrow mind and can't engage in discussions even when facts are presented.

 

So you don't need your 4x4. I think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw give your constant avoidance of the question.

You just choose to harm your fellow citizens because you like to drive a big car.

Nice one.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

You beggar belief, and at best are mildly amusing.  I'll repeat I have no need to justify anything to you, especially as you have such a narrow mind and can't engage in discussions even when facts are presented.

 

So you don't need your 4x4. I think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw give your constant avoidance of the question. You just choose to harm your fellow citizens because you like to drive a big car. Nice one.

And you with your toxic kitchen and furniture, damaging carpet and paints.

Nice one.

What are you doing to counter it?

Again you're concluding without evidence, nice but stupid.

don simon wrote:

And you with your toxic kitchen, damaging carpet and paints.

Nice one.

What are you doing to counter it?

Again you've concluding without evidence, nice but stupid.

Those questions are just a desperate diversion tactic.

You jumped into the 4x4 debate and are now trying to get out.

Do you dispute that a large car produces more particulate pollution than an equivalent small car?

As for the assumption about your 4x4 It's simply a balance of probabilities. The vast majority of 4x4 owners have no actual need for one, without evidence to the contrary the odds are that you have no need of yours.

You also seem keen to wax lyrical about your offsetting and fuel choice but are oddly reticent about why you need a 4x4.

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

And you with your toxic kitchen, damaging carpet and paints.

Nice one.

What are you doing to counter it?

Again you've concluding without evidence, nice but stupid.

Those questions are just a desperate diversion tactic. You jumped into the 4x4 debate and are now trying to get out. Do you dispute that a large car produces more particulate pollution than an equivalent small car? As for the assumption about your 4x4 It's simply a balance of probabilities. The vast majority of 4x4 owners have no actual need for one, without evidence to the contrary the odds are that you have no need of yours. You also seem keen to wax lyrical about your offsetting and fuel choice but are oddly reticent about why you need a 4x4.

Now it's an equivalent small car, is it? Why are you changing your argument? It was a FACT earlier that a large car produces more particulates than a small car. You mentioned this ad nauseum until it was demonstrated as not being a fact at all.

Without evidence to the contrary, it's foolish to assume. So to assume you know why I have a 4x4 is foolish.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that I owe you no explanation about why I have a 4x4 and equally you choose to ignore other elements. Why the fuck should I justify to you, you're no one?

Dismissing a response because it fucks up your argument is also foolish, offsetting is perfectly valid as one has to look at the broader picture, as indeed is the VOCs in and around your home which you choose to ignore.

You're a winner, your constant banging on without evidence can convinced me that you're 100% right.

Enjoy your prize and messages of adoration that you'll be getting over the next few days.

*

don simon wrote:

Now it's an equivalent small car, is it? Why are you changing your argument? It was a FACT earlier that a large car produces more particulates than a small car. You mentioned this ad nauseum until it was demonstrated as not being a fact at all.

Without evidence to the contrary, it's foolish to assume. So to assume you know why I have a 4x4 is foolish.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that I owe you no explanation about why I have a 4x4 and equally you choose to ignore other elements. Why the fuck should I justify to you, you're no one?

Dismissing a response because it fucks up your argument is also foolish, offsetting is perfectly valid as one has to look at the broader picture, as indeed is the VOCs in and around your home which you choose to ignore.

 

You're a winner, your constant banging on without evidence can convinced me that you're 100% right.

Enjoy your prize and messages of adoration that you'll be getting over the next few days.

 

When you have incomplete information you have to rely on the balance of probabilities.

The balance of probabilities suggests you have absolutely no need for your 4x4.

Offsetting might work for CO2 (although there is a fair bit of debate about that) but it most definitely doesn't work for particulates.

*

Rich_cb wrote:

don simon wrote:

Getting back to the topic and your introduction of vehicles, you cannot compare a car to a gun. I can do, and do do, many things to offset pollution. As yet I am unable to raise the dead.

How's your toxic Kitchen, carpet, painted walls? Have you thought about your astmatic friends and decided to get rid of these while pontificating?

Just to be sure, you're still having a pop at my 4x4 without knowing what fuel I use and without demonstrating that a larger petrol motor produces more particulates than a smaller diesel.

Widen your thinking little boy....

Still haven't justified your ownership have you... Your fuel is irrelevant as for any given fuel/engine a larger car will produce more particulate pollution than a smaller car. Fuel combustion is also not the only way that vehicles produce particulate pollution. You can and do multiple things to ensure your gun never harms anybody, it is impossible to do that with your car (assuming you actually drive it).

The problem here is that I'm unconvinced you truly care about unecessary driving (it's more the driving than the car, i.e. the most polluting car parked in a garage does less damage than a small efficient one that's constantly on the road on unncessary journeys).

  Because this just seems like archetypal whataboutery.  Someone's 4x4 might be a problem, but it has nothing to do with mad American attitudes to guns.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The problem here is that I'm unconvinced you truly care about unecessary driving (it's more the driving than the car, i.e. the most polluting car parked in a garage does less damage than a small efficient one that's constantly on the road on unncessary journeys).

 

  Because this just seems like archetypal whataboutery.  Someone's 4x4 might be a problem, but it has nothing to do with mad American attitudes to guns.

I wouldn't say it's whataboutery, it's simply testing the ethical basis for a proposed course of action.

Concorde seems to take a consistent approach to needless objects that can harm society whereas Don Simon only wants to ban harmful things that he doesn't actually own.

I've mainly just been playing Devil's Advocate.

*

*

Rich_cb wrote:

The inference is crystal clear. If ownership of X impinges an 'absolute natural right' then we should restrict the ownership of X. By applying that rule to other items that also impinge 'absolute natural rights' you take yourself down the rabbit hole. There are plenty of items that can be used to kill innocent people, the Boston Marathon bombs were homemade, the Nice terrorist attack used a truck to kill many more than any mass shooter in the US has managed. Banning guns won't solve the problem, the genie is out of the bottle as far as the US is concerned, changing the culture around guns is the only way to improve things IMHO.

you're slipping between words like 'restrict' and 'ban', which are not at all the same thing. I haven't suggested a ban on guns, I've said that there is a conflict of rights, and that the right to life is more important than the right to own a gun. I am using the harm principle to justify a restriction on guns.

It is indeed a rabbit hole - ethics is difficult - but without principles to guide your thinking you will never solve any ethical problems. There are restrictions on all sorts of other items like trucks, bombs, cigarettes and so on, and events like the Nice truck bomb have led to considerable restrictions on all sorts of activities in France, while here in the UK we have put up with restrictions on everyday things because of terrorism for 50 years, so much that you probably don't notice them if you weren't alive before then, and in the USA large numbers of restrictions have been imposed since 9/11. I see no reason why guns should be exempt.

http://www.ethics.org.au/on-ethics/blog/october-2016/ethics-explainer-th...

ConcordeCX wrote:

you're slipping between words like 'restrict' and 'ban', which are not at all the same thing. I haven't suggested a ban on guns, I've said that there is a conflict of rights, and that the right to life is more important than the right to own a gun. I am using the harm principle to justify a restriction on guns.

It is indeed a rabbit hole - ethics is difficult - but without principles to guide your thinking you will never solve any ethical problems. There are restrictions on all sorts of other items like trucks, bombs, cigarettes and so on, and events like the Nice truck bomb have led to considerable restrictions on all sorts of activities in France, while here in the UK we have put up with restrictions on everyday things because of terrorism for 50 years, so much that you probably don't notice them if you weren't alive before then, and in the USA large numbers of restrictions have been imposed since 9/11. I see no reason why guns should be exempt.

http://www.ethics.org.au/on-ethics/blog/october-2016/ethics-explainer-th...

 

 

Restrict and ban are just two sides of the same coin. The use of either term doesn't affect the central argument.

Your use of the harm principle is what I was challenging, if you have decided that the harm from guns is sufficient to warrant a ban/restriction then why are you not simultaneously calling for a ban/restriction on, for example, SUVs?

They clearly cause great harm to the population, they are very rarely actually required.

If you apply an ethical principle arbitrarily then it loses its credibility.

At a purely individual level it is easier to ethically justify owning a gun than an SUV when thinking in terms of public harm.

Rich_cb wrote:

ConcordeCX wrote:

you're slipping between words like 'restrict' and 'ban', which are not at all the same thing. I haven't suggested a ban on guns, I've said that there is a conflict of rights, and that the right to life is more important than the right to own a gun. I am using the harm principle to justify a restriction on guns.

It is indeed a rabbit hole - ethics is difficult - but without principles to guide your thinking you will never solve any ethical problems. There are restrictions on all sorts of other items like trucks, bombs, cigarettes and so on, and events like the Nice truck bomb have led to considerable restrictions on all sorts of activities in France, while here in the UK we have put up with restrictions on everyday things because of terrorism for 50 years, so much that you probably don't notice them if you weren't alive before then, and in the USA large numbers of restrictions have been imposed since 9/11. I see no reason why guns should be exempt.

http://www.ethics.org.au/on-ethics/blog/october-2016/ethics-explainer-th...

 

 

Restrict and ban are just two sides of the same coin. The use of either term doesn't affect the central argument. Your use of the harm principle is what I was challenging, if you have decided that the harm from guns is sufficient to warrant a ban/restriction then why are you not simultaneously calling for a ban/restriction on, for example, SUVs? They clearly cause great harm to the population, they are very rarely actually required. If you apply an ethical principle arbitrarily then it loses its credibility. At a purely individual level it is easier to ethically justify owning a gun than an SUV when thinking in terms of public harm.

"why are you not simultaneously calling for a ban/restriction on, for example, SUVs?"

I am.

ConcordeCX wrote:

I am.

Excellent.

Consistency at last.

Although I wouldn't mention it to Don Simon if I was you...

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

] That's what they _say_ but it doesn't seem a hugely convincing argument. Some handguns and semi-auto rifles against a modern military? How is that likely to go? Besides, when fascist regimes come to power its usually with the support of numerous and powerful parts of the populace, the very people who will be bearing these arms. And US cops seem far more prone to kill innocent citizens than do those of countries with an 'unarmed' populace, so the strategy doesn't seem to be working terribly well.

A quick glance at the US military's recent adventures should persuade you that a crudely armed but determined populace can defy a far superior force. The fact remains that state violence against their own citizens accounted for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century. Given that, a fear of state violence seems like quite a rational position. In a country founded on the basis of protecting individual freedoms from the state (admittedly something they have not unequivocally succeeded at over the years) the right to bear arms is seen by many as the lodestone of their entire worldview.

But the Afghans and Iraqis/ISIS were hardly 'crudely armed'.  The Iraqis had much of Saddam's old arsenal (and ISIS had a lot of Syrian equipment).  The Taliban were the former rulers of the country.  They were also fighting a foreign occupation force, unfamiliar with the country and not exactly fully-commited to total war, with their own survival at stake. 

I just don't buy that 'blood of patriots...tree of liberty' self-flattering stuff. 

I think it has more to do with the US's history regarding race and colonialism.  It's not 'the gubmint' they fear, its their fellow citizens, particularly those of different races.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077552

After accounting for all explanatory variables, logistic regressions found that for each 1 point increase in symbolic racism there was a 50% increase in the odds of having a gun at home. After also accounting for having a gun in the home, there was still a 28% increase in support for permits to carry concealed handguns, for each one point increase in symbolic racism.