It's not just the errors. It's the credibility of the source. The first link was from an egregiously pro-gun site. The second is from a site campaigning against abortion. — andrewk

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-11
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-12

Did you go to the pages to see? Because it says FBI.gov there somewhere.

There is never any point in sourcing statistics from such places. If you see something on such a site and want to know if it's true, go see if you can find corroboration on a credible, unbiased site like BBC, Australian ABC, or some government agency that is not involved in propaganda. — andrewk

So I have to go to the BBC to check out the FBI? Actually I got the links to the FBI from the BBC.

Well, you are confused. If you were shot, would you call that a violence to your person? — tim wood

I would not call it a violent crime if I shot myself. It might be violent, but I do not think killing myself because I want to is a crime. And I would certainly like to see anyone arresting me for killing myself.

Do you begin to see how confused this gets? — tim wood

No. There is nothing confusing at all about it. At least from my point of view.

And if the death is accidental, it doesn't make any difference how the person died? Come on! Jimmy, four years old, gets daddy's gun and shoots Tommy, age three, to death. Cause of death doesn't matter? Are you kidding? — tim wood

Jimmy, four years old, bumps into Tommy, age three, while laying at the top of the stairs and Tommy falls to his death.
Very unfortunately Tommy is dead either way. But both were accidents caused by;
1. Ignorance on the part of the participants
2. Stupidity on the part of the parents for not taking adequate safety precautions.

Does it really matter how Tommy died?

Are you suggesting that guns are not part of the problem? — tim wood

No I am not, and have never said that. But read your own words, "part of the problem". Does it really make sense to place the blame on an inanimate object? Would that not be like blaming the pen for the bad accounting?

Most thinking people in the US think that there are times and a places for guns, and for certain kinds of guns in those times and places. A hunting rifle in the country might be legally defensible (morally is an entirely other question). But not in a big city. On the other hand, it seems unreasonable to ban hunting rifles. Solution: registration and controls. — tim wood

Don't registration and controls already exist? I am sure I read somewhere that most states have at least some of these.

You go to the trouble of being a legal gun owner; do you have any objection in principle to your gun ownership being subject to control (not asking if it's inconvenient - that's likely a given). — tim wood

I have no objection at all to most forms of control. But when someone tells me I cannot retain my legal gun while they are doing little to control illegal weapons I will not be very happy.
Most of the weapons that are used in crimes are not legally owned and registered, so why should anyone be allowed to fuck around with the ones that are.

A good part of it falls under the categories of exegesis and hermeneutics. — tim wood

And who decides what is right and wrong interpretation of the bible and based on what do they decide?
No one alive today or even 19 centuries ago had a lot of first hand knowledge of the people that wrote the different books of the bible. So how would they know the actual purpose of the writing? It is easy to say that it is explained in the bible, but for all of my reading it I have never found a place in it that says "I am writing this to explain a certain situation". That is why it has to be interpreted by other people, because it is not clear what it means.

In short, understanding the Bible is a lot of work. If you don't do the work, then you cannot really criticize it. The best you can do is criticize your own imperfect understanding of it. And this is true of any difficult text - the Bible is not special in this respect. — tim wood

Why should a simple book that purports to be a guide for good living need specialized help to understand it? Did god not want his people to understand him? That sounds like a bad idea for a god.

For example, to dismiss the Bible because of its cosmology in Genesis ("In the beginning, God created...") is pretty much a demonstration of ignorance, and inability or unwillingness to read a book.

Btw, I have been such an ignorant person for most of my life.Now I just try to read books, including the Bible to see if I can understand what they say. Attitude can make a difference! — tim wood

I do not dismiss the bible just for that, it is actually quite a good book. I have read it several times but as with many of the thousands of books I have read, I do not try to hard to retain content.
I dismiss the bible for the purpose it is serving. It is a collection of writings from ancient times that can only be "proven" by cross referencing it with other selected document while ignoring other documents that fail to agree with it. It is used to control the people that serve it and most of the time to make rich a few that promote it. Billy Graham being a good example of that, but there are many more on the list.

I read books, I ponder their meanings or validity, I might discuss them sometimes.
I read almost any kind of writing, my wife has even complained that I sometimes pay more attention to the cornflakes box than to her, which is not true of course.

The Jews never stopped reading and using their sacred writings. — Bitter Crank

But did the Jews actually write it directly from the source they claim or copy it from somewhere else?
There are plenty of creation myths about and some contain elements similar to the one in the bible.

The Old Testament contains at least a dozen creation “stories”. Two of these stories are told in Genesis 1 and 2, in addition to the creation story in Job 38 and the fragment in Job 26:7-13 among others. These stories are not always consistent with each other, so some will hold similarities to contemporary creation myths, while others contain contrasts.

https://graecomuse.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/in-the-beginning-biblical-creation-myths-vs-others-around-the-mediterranean/

Creation stories from the ancient Middle East:

Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre writes that one of his articles:

"... is an attempt to briefly identify some of the Ancient Near Eastern Motifs and Myths from which the Hebrews apparently borrowed, adapted, and reworked in the Book of Genesis (more specifically Genesis 1-11).

It is my understanding that Genesis' motifs and characters, God, Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and Noah, are adaptations and transformations of characters and events occurring in earlier Near Eastern Myths. In some cases several characters and motifs from different myths have been brought together and amalgamated into Genesis' stories.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm

A lot of the old testament could quite easily be a historical narrative of actually events that have had god smeared over them for someone's convenience. As Tim points out in his post,

Books like the Bible - the Bible really is a special case - weren't just thrown together willy-nilly. Smart people wrote/compiled them - what they mean is not-so-easy to get. — tim wood

But my question has always been "why?"
Can anyone prove that they compiled the bible according to god's commands or that it is exactly as he said it should be? Surely if god had order the compiling of the bible he would not have let it be revised and edited along the years, it would have been perfect as it was in the beginning.
And why would any god that wants his creation to believe in him make things so complicated that only certain people could understand him?

As I stated above we do not know the real purpose of the writings in the bible, we are only guessing that they mean what the churches tell us it means. And a lot of them do not even agree on that.

I am in possession of a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. It takes hebrew and greek words and lists which verses they occur in as well as containing a good dictionary (it lists approximate synonyms as well as what words the entry is derived from). It's a very large book. — yupamiralda

The problem with that is that you have no idea what the original books purpose were. It is fine and dandy to get a good translation of them, but what the actually mean we will probably never know. Ten thousand years from now, after the destruction and rebuilding of civilization a couple of times, they might dig up a collection of Harry Potter books and decipher the unreadable scrawling on the page. They might then conjecture that the people of our times had magical powers, simply because they have no idea why it was written.

But there's two more general remarks I want to make. First of all, Christianity works. I mean seriously, do you think it would be so popular if it didn't? — yupamiralda

Works for whom?
The rich ranks of the church maybe. Even the pope has a bitch of a time swallowing the "good life" those bastards live.
All of the poor people expected to donate their few spare coins to the church, just to keep those mentioned above.

The only way I agree that it works is as a control mechanism, to keep the riffraff in their places.

Tourists are not very reliable reporters. — yupamiralda

At least they will not be biased.

Fine. Do you see the problem? The accounting between gun deaths and violent deaths is getting confused, as well as confusing violent and violence. As in, gun deaths by accidental shooting don't count as gun deaths because they're not violent, taken as violence. — tim wood

I have never been confused about what is counted as a violent crime, and suicide has never been on that list, no matter how ugly it was. Because I cannot perceive the act of taking one's own life as any kind of a crime. Accidental deaths are simple accidental, it makes no difference at all how the person died.

Better - often necessary - to go back to the roots. What, exactly, happened? What, exactly, is the significance of what happened? What, exactly, do we want to do about it, assuming we give good answer to the first two questions? — tim wood

Now this is where I agree with you 100%. But not just with suicides, with all gun deaths. The problems, as I have stated many times is not necessarily the guns but the people that use them for whatever reason.

If a person is going to kill themselves does the method make any difference? Which is easier to obtain, a gun or a piece of rope. Maybe even any one of dozens of household products under the kitchen sink are easier to get than a gun.

Any decent logic-textbook listing of forms of fallacious argumentation will seem a playbook for pro-gun advocates. Indeed for advocates of any badness or evil. Which is too bad, because many issues entangled in the fuzzy thinking or vicious arguments of advocates actually could be argued on real merits, leading to real progress, even if in the form of reasonable compromise until folks get a better understanding. — tim wood

I am not an advocate for either side of the argument, I really don't care if people in the US are allowed to have guns or not. I have my legally owned and registered gun, but I do not live in the US, and I am glad I have it because it has been useful on a couple of occasions.
But what I don't like about the discussion of the problem in the US is that everyone just wants to blame the guns. Fallacious argumentation and fuzzy thinking abound on both sides, mainly due to lack of concrete evidence. Why do some people get upset about the discussions?

I have not seen a single realistic proposal for solving the problem yet.

The first thing that ought to catch your eye is his statistics: — tim wood

Actually what caught my eye was the numbers, not the percentages. As I said I have no idea how accurate they are, and I did not have any time to check them.
After looking for further information today it turns out that this is one of many copies of the article, some published by famous people on very popular social media sites. And it does seem that someone's math sucks, I wonder why no one has called the author out on it yet?

I think that he got something else wrong as well though. According to the FBI there were 16,470 murders where gun are stated as the weapon in the USA. His numbers only add up to about 12,000.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-11

As you say, the part about suicide seems about right depending on the source. They tend to vary a bit.

The numbers for the cities also appear to be near enough to accurate, again depending on the source.

One of the parts that interested me though was the mention of these cities having the strictest gun laws. Is this true? After looking for more information I have found no really conclusive evidence of it one way or the other. Trump got hammered for a statement about Chicago, but how reliable is the other sides information?
His statement about California and Alabama also appears to be true, but what are their laws really like?

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-12

And, oh yes, 900 accidental gun deaths don't count as violence. — tim wood

Not for me, it doesn't for the FBI either apparently.

Violent Crime:
Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses that involve force or threat of force.

No point in reading further. Only leaves the questions as to why, Sir2u, you bothered to bother us with this. — tim wood

Err, maybe to get some intelligent conversation about it. But then maybe I am asking for too much.

If I had stopped reading every book or article after finding an error in it I doubt that I would have read half of the things I have read.

And here is another link that probably wont interest anyone either.
http://www.romans322.com/daily-death-rate-statistics.php

Post some pics then. :wink:

Found an interesting article. Don't know exactly how accurate these numbers are, but they do seem to make it clear that gun controls wont help.

http://www.thinklikeacop.org/guncontrol.html

Depends on the mite. Some mites are 6 mm — Raven73

That would make it as big as many ants, but in the story it says

but the ant seems big to the mite. — Raven73

I jus gotta call BS on that one. :lol:

RIP Steven Hawkins.

Adult might are very small, only about 0.3 mm.

Is that visible to the human eye, or do people only see the symptoms of the infestation?

Most dictionaries include the same definition for sex and gender,

The properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles.

I all ways thought that people just used gender instead of sex because it sounds weird talking peoples "sex role" whereas "gender role" is OK. I think they still do, they just don't know it.

My minor way of contributing to this rebellion is to cross out the label 'Gender' whenever it appears on a form I am asked to fill in, and write next to it 'Sex'. Yeah, call me a dangerous radical, but somebody's got to do it. — andrewk

I remember some stupid form the embassy sent to all of the expats living around here, he got pissed of when someone wrote "yes please" as an answer to the question about sex. The next form had gender on it. I doubt he ever figured out who done it. He he.

The ant seems small to us, but the ant seems big to the mite — Raven73

Would they know about mites in those days?

Irony
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/03/07/kennesaw-gun-law-orig.cnn

He had better hope the jury isn't drawn from Yahoo user lists. — Bitter Crank

I am not sure about that, some of them, might force him to pay the teacher and ask the judge to put the idiot in jail to find out exactly what being traumatized really is.

I know that you specifically stated 17 year old SONS in your question, but in my opinion, the gender of the child shouldn't have any effect on our behavior in this instance. — Joe

But it does, most people tend to look the other way when it is a male don't they. They are more protective of the weaker sex.

Yes it is a great memory. EXCEPT when you wake up at 3:50 in the morning with the song banging away in your head and staying there for most of the day.
Funny thing was that on the way out of work I met a third grade teacher with a book under her arm. Yes, it was called "Puff the magic dragon" and it started the song rolling again.

I am a bit tired of letting it be, ya know? :naughty: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Try "Hey Jude".
It is longer but I find it more relaxing.

A few years ago I woke up with "Puff the magic dragon" running through my brain. What could that mean? Thinking about it though, it would be better suited to your situation actually. :wink:

After reading some of the posts, I noticed that many take "I know what is best for me" to imply ignorance. But it doesn't, at least not always.

A teenager goes to buy a car, who knows best what is good for the kid. The salesman says he does, and wont his friends all admire and envy him for having his own wheels. And a lot of the time the kid ends up buying a clunker even after his dad says " don't buy it". He knows what is best for him.
An older person goes to buy a car, and maybe the same thing happens. But maybe if the older person has had other cars he does know what is best for him. He knows what is best for him.

Know what is best for you should be based on your knowledge about the subject, otherwise it might be wise to listen to your friends.

Humans have free will. — Wayfarer

Yes they do.

They can create weapons of mass destruction and destroy the entire earth. — Wayfarer

Having free will do not necessarily give them the ability to do this. Birds probably have more free will than humans and they have not built a bomb yet.

I've never believed in the kind of 'God' that appears on stage, like a cop, and prevents humans from doing things. — Wayfarer

I have never believed in any type of god.

It's a very anthropomorphic belief. — Wayfarer

Yes you are right about that. We showed not suggest that a god has human like characteristics, even though his holy book says we have his.

One wonders why the good Lord would look kindly on the deployment of a weapon that literally pulverises bones and liquifies vital organs, but there it is.) — Wayfarer

But one wonders more why the hell he does nothing about it.

Just found this in the yahoo not so news.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/3011c67e-3b37-3359-ba46-0dadccbdbe06/ss_ex-student-sues-lake-forest.html

Check out the comments at the end.

There are several sources you can try if you are not overly worried about pirate stuff. PM if you are interested. :halo:

I mostly agree with that, but as with all rules there are exceptions. I doubt that most young minded 17 year old would even bother thinking about a relationship with a man twice her age. But there are quite a few more mature ones that don't like the idea of being messed around with by boys their own age that in most cases have no idea how to treat a lady correctly.

And not all dads fill the role model position very well.

What would you say if it was your 17 year old son with a very attractive woman of 40?

Where I live there are still a lot of girls that get hooked up at 16/17. It used to be 15/16 but nowadays they get jobs and just look for friends with benefits. Just kike it was back in England 50 years ago.

One of the things that is pissing me off about the comments on this thread is the absolute certainty that a man of forty could not have good intentions towards a girl of 17. A lot of men and women live with people a lot younger than they are.

Another thing thing is the absolute certainty that the younger of the two is going to suffer some form of trauma. Just a quick look at the case where older females have seduced "young innocent boys" of 14 to 17 years old. As an ex 14 year old I know for a fact that I would not have been traumatized by such an event, unless it was something violent of course. Most guys at that age would be delighted by the brag-ability of the whole thing. They only get traumatized when mom and dad start screaming. Shit, men used to be proud of their sons when they lost their virginity. Now it is a crime.

Before anyone goes accusing me of anything nasty, I am not in anyway implying that I am in favor of anyone taking advantage of other people. But I restate that I believe maturity and education should be the most important factors when considering a legal age of consent.

That is logically impossible since an imperfect being/thing doesn't change. — bahman

Hey, wait a minute there. I am imperfect, does that mean that I have no chance of changing.
Man, I am so screwed.

And now for the candidates for best responses to useless arguments.

"Fuck, man, that's a brilliant argument!"

Add yours favorite candidate below.

Yes, great idea. And I'm sure that that would in no way be seen as an attractive position for child sexual predators. — Sapientia

So when you go to get your drivers license you have no way of knowing that the people testing you are qualified to do so? I am sure that for something as important as this test there would be no way anyone with any evil thoughts would be allowed to participate.

And you don't think that that's vulnerable to exploitation? What planet are you living on? If it's happened in the Catholic Church, if it's happened in professional football youth teams, if it's happened in schools, and in the scouts, and with politicians and parents and children's TV presenters, why on earth wouldn't it happen here of all places? — Sapientia

Could you please tell me which of these positions has to go through a rigorous psychological testing to find out if they have any inclinations towards sexual abuse. What planet do you live on? So many people enter those jobs just because it is easy for them to become sexual predators. There are no checks made except for criminal records. You really do need to think about what you say.

I know that no one likes having their bright idea trashed, but you can't polish a turd. — Sapientia

But there are a whole bunch of idiots doing that right now by saying that the current system works. Do you need ant old rags, I have a big bag of them I could donate to the cause.

My goodness. It doesn't have to be tried to foresee the risks. One would expect the people responsible for these things to think about these things long and hard before jumping straight into a trial and error methodology. — Sapientia

The results of letting people drive cars does not have to be seen to gauge the risks, that is why people are made to take classes and get a license. Why do the same ideas not apply in this situation?

Where did I say that we are starting tomorrow and that we are hiring? I never said for the perverts to get in line for a juicy job.
Of bloody course things would have to be organized and set up, they would have to think long and hard about every detail. Not like the system in place that says if you are this age then no but if you are that age then yes hump away ready or not.

How did I make the comparison? Well, I thought about the one, and then I thought about the other, and then I compared the two, and then I thought some more and reached a conclusion. — Sapientia

So let me guess, the whole comparison took you maybe 20 seconds?
What problems, apart from those you mentioned above, can you foresee in establishing a system of permissible sexual activity for those that prove they are capable of it even if they have to wait until the are thirty before they are allowed to do so?
What are the benefits of allowing someone of sixteen who has had no sexual education to have sex just because he is sixteen?

Do you not have such an ability? — Sapientia

Oh yes I do, and I also know how to use it properly. Give it a try sometime.

Not if the costs outweigh the benefits, and they would in this case. — Sapientia

So now you are a tightfisted fortune teller! How did you reach the conclusion that it would cost more that treating all of the sexually transmitted problems, the unwanted pregnancies and the accompanying abortions, the welfare payments for all of the fatherless kids and the state maintenance of all of the orphans and abandoned babies. Or do you actually have the time to work out how much it would cost to set up my idea and compare it to the government costs of the items mentioned above.
Get real, you think it is not a good idea so you try to make fun of it instead of actually doing so thinking.

Yes, and at least my demolished house doesn't suffer from a leaking roof! :lol: — Sapientia

Duh, how many demolished houses actually have roofs to leak. ONLY yours. So sad. :cry:

It's been fun, as always, although I'm afraid the fun has been at your expense. No hard feelings. — Sapientia

And how did you figure that out. You being a pompous ass as usual cost me nothing. :rofl:

So perfection is not the end — bahman

The end of what?

and you need to say what is wrong with my argument. — bahman

I doubt that there is anything wrong with your argument.

The question is about ability. Does God have power to create imperfect thing? Is it logically possible. — bahman

Of course he can, he created the perfect mistake. We are the ones that see it as imperfection.

Yes, but who would be making the psychological assessments? — Sapientia

Maybe a psychologist could do it?

Or do we have have computers that can do that now? — Sapientia

That would at least be impartial and unbiased.

It would increase the risk of sexual predation on vulnerable youths. — Sapientia

How so? In what way could it increase the level of "predation"?

You've come up with the bright idea of fixing an imperfect system by replacing it with a weaker alternative — Sapientia

How is it possible to state that something that has never been tried is weaker than the present unfair system? How did you make the comparison?

What you're suggesting is a bit like trying to fix leaking roof by demolishing the house. — Sapientia

It is about time it was done as well. A system that discriminates against people needs to be removed and replaced.
At least my method would make a complete sex education for everyone obligatory so no one could claim that "I did not think she could get pregnant and she never told it it was possible"

I think that that's a terrible idea. I think that you'd have priests, scout leaders, and youth football coaches quitting their jobs en masse to apply for this job. — Sapientia

I think I specified that it would be a psychological test and that there would not be a practical part to it. And you forgot to mention politicians.

Not so much of a question type test, but more in line with psychological development and maturity. Obviously there would be a part of it that would question the person's knowledge about the risks and consequences of sex would have to be included, but it would be more important from my point of view to evaluate their ability to make rational decisions.
And I don't think that there should be a practical section to the test. — Sir2u

Although charle's usually a dumbass, he said harder, not impossible. Finding an instance of mass murder that doesn't involve semi-automatic rifles doesn't make the regulation of semi-automatic rifles a moot endeavor. — Buxtebuddha

Did I say anywhere that it was? I really do not remember saying that I think anyone and everyone should have automatic guns. I am not sure but in England it is probably easier to obtain what you need to make a bomb than it is to acquire a gun.

What I have said is that there is an issue regarding the rights of the people, an issue about the implementation and enforcement of any laws, and an issue about what qualifications someone should have to be allowed to have a gun.

So are you also in favour of people having bombs??? LOL — charleton

If you actually learned to read you would see that I did not in any way imply that I am in favor of people having bombs. But I suppose that is too much to ask for.

If a person wants to kill others he will find a way to do it. And that does not mean that I am in favor of people having automatic weapons either. I was simple pointing out that there is more than one way to kill a lot of people if that is what the person wants to do. Don't blame the hammer for the nail that is put in the wrong place.

Like I said: You are making a fool of yourself. — charleton

The kettle talking about the pan or am I following your example?

My point is that children, by definition, are not adult thinkers. — tim wood

Right, they are not. But that does not mean that they don't think.

And "should not" should not be confused with, "Do not!" Children know which is which, so don't confuse them. — tim wood

And here is an example of them thinking. As you say they do know the difference.

Most kids are smart enough from an early age to tell the difference between what is good and bad. Even without cultural influences that they are too young to understand. I will try to find the paper I read a while ago about this but for now here is an article from everyone's favorite source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html

Just making a fool of yourself — charleton

Ditto.

People with automatic weapons tend to be capable of exterminating several children quite easily.
People without guns find it much harder to kill children. — charleton

Tell that to the Manchester bomber, he could not find a gun because they are forbidden in England.

Anyway, to proceed we need to keep track of what "sex" we're talking about, which is, I think, not developmentally appropriate child play-sex, but rather more like what adults call sex, which by its name suggests that children can't do it - notwithstanding whether the child makes a good job of it or not. — tim wood

What exactly do you mean when you say "a twelve year old can't do it"?

And you missed an option - why did you miss it? - because Mom and Dad love me; I trust them; and they told me not to, that I shouldn't. So I won't. — tim wood

No I did not miss it, the last one includes that. Where do you think kids should get their knowledge and advice from, mom and dad, right. But as you said earlier.

"Should not," too often means can. — tim wood

Most parents either tell their kids that they cannot and had better not do it, or the leave the decision up to the kid to make. Hoping all the while that they have enough knowledge on the topic and that things wont turn out all screwed up.

An example is perhaps simplest: your twelve-year-old hears your advice and your beliefs about promiscuity (no imperative), makes her own decision, goes out and contracts Aids or gets pregnant, or fathers a child. — tim wood

Does a twelve year old Stay away from sex because they are

too scared of mom and dad finding out and them getting angry with her?
too scared of catching something or getting pregnant?
too ignorant about it, has no real idea what it is all about?
has considered all of the information given to her and decided to wait a while.

I for one would hope the last to be true.