a well regulated militia

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by jaguar

<snip>not to mention regional secuirty analysis papers on the Spratleys which will take up most of this week</snip>

Please, please, PLEASE post it here, in a new thread, when you're finished.

Thank you.

[jaguar]

gotta write on paper in class in a book we don't get back sadly, can post pages all my notes though.
Nothing too facinating, just a 2000 or so word summary, causes, history, competing NI outline, external factors, resolution attempts, regional stability impact analysis, bit of stuff of the role of Taiwan in particular to tie in with other stuff and some enviromental stuff.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
i simply don't have time to polish my posts. I don't see why that invalidates them.

It's just what I said...if it's not worth your time to write them well, it's certainly not worth my time to analyse (and too often, decrypt) and then respond, only to have you blow it all off with the likes of "Oh, it's not my *good* work" or . ."Sorry I'm incoherent, or went overboard because I'm getting no sleep".

As for polish vs. validity, when you write carelessly <br>
--either trivially so as with random spelling and erratic punctuation
<br> --or more deeply with vitriol or wild accusations,
<br>--or at the very deepest level by littering your arguments with enthymemes and classic fallacies of argumentation like question-begging, red herrings and straw-man arguments<br>
...you shirk work you were unwilling to do, leaving it to be done by the people reading your words.

In fact I'm busy with several projects of my own. But I don't consider writing for the Cellar to be "slumming" just because the software is bloggish. Why not take some time and compose your words (and your thoughts as well)...any given thread will still be here for the posting, when you're done.

Or if you really <b>don't</b> have the time, maybe you should just forget about it and concentrate on the stuff you consider more important.

[jaguar]

Or if you really don't have the time, maybe you should just forget about it and concentrate on the stuff you consider more important.

That is what i just said.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally posted by jaguar
Violence is a tool of the weak minded.

Issac Asimov.
Never heard a truer sentence.

...Therefore guns, for your average joe are an unnessacary risk in terms of self defence.

To Asimov I would append a sentence that improves his contention: Countervailing violence -- resisting evil -- is a tool of the strong of soul.

As to the last sentence of your coda, Jaguar, the experiences of 33 states, Switzerland, and Israel all militate to the falsification of your entire thesis. Furthermore, your argument -- all unbeknownst to you I know, but nonetheless -- opens the way to genocide. A hostility towards private armaments leads to restrictions and bans on guns; and bans on guns are an essential precondition to episodes of genocide -- one of three, the other two being hatred and governmental power. You'd have some awareness of all this if you'd bothered to do the homework in reading Simkin, Zelman, and Rice, Lethal Laws: "Gun Control" Is The Key To Genocide , no ISBN, but available through JPFO's website among other places. I am impressed with this book because the bulk of its pages are devoted to facsimiles of the gun control laws in nations where genocides have occurred, with translations into English on the pages facing each page of original text. Jaguar, I speak, read, and write three of those languages -- the translations are honest, for at least the Spanish, the French, and the Russian. They have relevance to the Guatemalan genocide of the Miskitos, the killing fields of Cambodia [which got its gun control when it was a French protectorate], and the Stalinist unpleasantnesses from the Terror Famine through 1953.

www.jpfo.org

You must master this material before you can persuade the enlightened that you've got it right, and no amount of your misspelled prose will obscure the fundamental flaw of not having this in your knowledge base -- their argument cannot be ignored by rational persons; in my experience it is frequently ignored by those who are not rational about arms.

[jaguar]

Countervailing violence -- resisting evil -- is a tool of the strong of soul.

Evil. That’s an odd word to associate with violence in all cases. I don't see how countervailing something is a tool either....but I digress.

Israel I do not think is an example of a peaceful state. Switzerland on the other hand does have a very low murder rate. I'd attribute that to socioeconomic factors rather than a blanket presence of firearms. I'd be interested to see a breakdown of their murders by weapon.

Pretentious, didactic prattle (aplenty) aside I will admit this is an issue I’m not familiar with, its not something I have much experience arguing with either and thus my knowledge base is not that big. I don't intend to purchase books about it either, it simply is not that much of an interest.

That said I don't think the Khmer Rouge are a good example of the dangers of gun control. Obviously I’m no scholar of pre-revolutionary Cambodian/Indochina law and since you've declined to actually quote anything out of the holy bible of gun control you espouse so highly ill have to guess exactly what your point is.

Apart from the Guatemalan genocide of the Miskitos which I’m not even slightly familiar with and so in no position to comment on your examples are brutal totalitarian regimes. These are not known for their freedoms and oddly enough aren't to keen about leaving firearms in the hands of a populace who would just love to rebel.

So your conclusion appears to be that since massacres have and do occur under despotic regimes that have gun control, gun control is the key factor, not the existence of the despotic regime in genocides occurring. I assume the counterargument is that the despotic regime in question could not have come to power without weapons.

Your more obscure (at least to me) example aside your genocidal states seem to be examples of poverty, or at least less economic successes (lets not get into the nitty-gritty of Stalin's Russia) than your less violent countries, Switzerland and Israel (at least inter-Israeli wise). Maybe socioeconomics have a far larger role to play in your examples than gun control? Just a thought. Or sorry I forgot. I’m an irrational raving loony for opposing you.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Evil. That’s an odd word to associate with violence in all cases.

Distinguish here between "violence" and "agression". Not all violence is agression.

That's one serious problem with the Asmov quote lifted out of context. While the last refuge of the incompetant may indeed be violence, it does not follow that all violence is the acts of desparate incompetants...which is the implicit argument when somebody trots that quote out. This is called "affirming the consequent" , and it's a logical fallacy.

I don't see how countervailing something is a tool either....but I digress.

<blockquote>
<i>To act against with equal force, power, or effect; to thwart
or overcome by such action; to furnish an equivalent to or
for; to counterbalance; to compensate.</i></blockquote>

An umbrella countervails against rain. A flashlight countervails against darkness. A fire extinguisher countervails against fire. An antibiotic countervails against disease. A weapon used defensively countervails against agression.

Of course, a tool can be used agressively as well. I could try to poison you with a pharmaceutical, or try to smother you with a fire extinguisher.

Evil intent will find a tool. Gun prohibitionists ban guns, and then claim success when firearms crime is displaced by violence with other weapons, in greater volume because the victims are known to be disarmed.

[Nic Name]

Victim was warned of 'shooting spree'

Slain woman had sought protection

By SEAN O'SULLIVAN AND TERRI SANGINITI

Staff reporters

08/17/2002

A woman whose ex-boyfriend shot her to death Thursday outside police headquarters sought court protection from the man 10 days ago.

"He says he's going to get his gun and go on a shooting spree, and I'm first," Lettie A. Lyons, 42, said in a petition seeking a protection from abuse order.

The order was granted Aug. 5, and included a requirement that the man, Christopher M. Williams, 43, surrender his shotgun to police that day. He did not.

Williams shot Lyons about 6 p.m. Thursday as Lyons attempted to seek protection at New Castle County Police Headquarters on U.S. 13 and then shot himself to death, police said.

[jaguar]

Distinguish here between "violence" and "agression". Not all violence is agression.

That's one serious problem with the Asmov quote lifted out of context. While the last refuge of the incompetant may indeed be violence, it does not follow that all violence is the acts of desparate incompetants...which is the implicit argument when somebody trots that quote out. This is called "affirming the consequent" , and it's a logical fallacy.

Thankyou for the lesson, very informative I assure you. I'd love to know what it has to do with the line you quoted from me.

Talking of that quote, While you imply that violence is not always the tool of the incompetent, from what I remember the books certainly suggest it is. It is chronicling of the rise of the foundation without the use of force, in my mind that surely suggests that violence is indeed the tool of the incompetent. By the way its Asimov not Asmov. It’s also incompetent, not incompetant and desperate not desparate. Either that or Americans have different ways of spelling these things.

An umbrella countervails against rain. A flashlight countervails against darkness. A fire extinguisher countervails against fire. An antibiotic countervails against disease. A weapon used defensively countervails against agression.

Yes. Correct! The weapon/umbrella/flashlight/fire extinguisher is the tool. Not the countervailing. That was my point. Excuse me while I ram my head into a brick wall.

.....then shot himself to death, police said.

As opposed to.....?

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Thankyou for the lesson, very informative I assure you.

Glad you found it helpful. Actually the whole Logical Fallacies site is worthy of your attention.

I'd love to know what it has to do with the line you quoted from me.

My point being that not all violence is evil. That was either the point you were making, or absolutely contradicted your point, I'm not sure which.

Talking of that quote, While you imply that violence is not always the tool of the incompetent...

Um, no, I'm not implying it. I've been stating it flat out, repeatedly.

from what I remember the books certainly suggest it is....

So, by your reading, during W.W. II, inbetween writing the first and second voumes of the trilogy, Dr. Asimov really shouldn't have been working (along with Heinlein and DeCamp) at the Naval Air Experimental Station at the Philadelphia Navy Base here? With him being such a total pacifist and all, both his enlisting in the Army and working to develop weapons systems surely would have been hypocritical.

I'll take note that spelling criticism is once again fair game, too. :-)

[jaguar]

So, by your reading, during W.W. II, in-between writing the first and second voumes of the trilogy, Dr. Asimov really shouldn't have been working (along with Heinlein and DeCamp) at the Naval Air Experimental Station at the Philadelphia Navy Base here? With him being such a total pacifist and all, both his enlisting in the Army and working to develop weapons systems surely would have been hypocritical. [/quote] News to me. Maybe it was, I’m not sure. The books to me certainly suggest that it was. The key point in the books certainly seems to me to be the use of intelligence instead of violence to resolve problems. I'd have to reread now but maybe it does suggest that there are situations where violence is unavoidable. What exactly was he working on?

My point being that not all violence is evil. That was either the point you were making, or absolutely contradicted your point, I'm not sure which.

That was my origional point, i still don't know what you were talking about apart from a good chance to tundle out some fancy terms for the blindingly obvious.

I'll take note that spelling criticism is once again fair game, too. :-)

You missed an l in volume.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
News to me. Maybe it was, I’m not sure. The books to me certainly suggest that it was. The key point in the books certainly seems to me to be the use of intelligence instead of violence to resolve problems. I'd have to reread now...

Can't imagine why you'd need to reread it, since you referred to it (as a misquote, admittedly) claiming you'd "never heartd a truer sentence". You wouln't make that claim about something without actually knowing what it <b>meant</b>, would you?

What exactly was he working on?

As far as I have been able to tell, his work was classified and he never discussed it, even after the war.

Heinlien was <b>famous</b> for his obstinacy in not disclosing the nature of the work he did there. It has been conjectured by some to have had to do with aiming antiaircraft fire from radar signals, and some of his writing indicates that he'd thought about that problem extensively. I don't even know for sure that he, Asimov, and deCamp were all working on the same project, but we do know that they became close friends.

Asimov was indeed interested in the idea of solving political problems without violence, but unfortunately he failed to pass on to us Salvor Hardin's mathematical models that would have enabled us to predict social outcomes with the precision and reliablity of problems from physics. Without them, I suppose we may all look "incompetant" next to Hardin. We're left only to console ourselves with the fact that he is a <b>fictional</b> character, and thus perhaps not the best source for ethical guidance.

Asimov also died without revealing a synthesys or structure for the remarkable compond "thiotimoline". His paper "The Endochronic Properties of Resublimated Thiotimoline" described a chemical so incredibly water-soluable that it would dissolve <b>before</b> being added to water. A telegraph system that consisted of a battery of thiotimoline cells would have obvious application in finance (by transmitting pricing information from the future) and significant military applications by allowing early-warning of a future attack with any desired lead time. This would certainly have revolutionized the concept of "preemptive strike".

I do know that Asimov was highly disconcerted when, as the final question during his doctoral orals, he was asked to speak on the subject of thiotimoline's endochronitic properties. I guess he didn't realize anybody on the senior faculty read <i>Amazing Science Fiction</i>.

[jaguar]

Can't imagine why you'd need to reread it, since you referred to it (as a misquote, admittedly) claiming you'd "never heartd a truer sentence". You wouln't make that claim about something without actually knowing what it meant, would you?

There are often subtleties in a text that can escape you or forget after a while. Interpreting what an author meant is never a precise art; I would not be willing to delve into a more detailed analysis of the messages in the books without re-reading them.

As far as I have been able to tell, his work was classified and he never discussed it, even after the war.

While it was classified this reluctance suggests maybe it was hypocritical or at least something he was not entirely comfortable with talking about

We're left only to console ourselves with the fact that he is a fictional character, and thus perhaps not the best source for ethical guidance.

The fictional nature of the text does not take away from the value of the message.

You missed a d in wouldn’t.

[Nic Name]

Who woulda thunk that the opportunity to correct Maggie's spelling would be all the incentive Jag would need to give us posts we can read. Thanks to both of you.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar
Interpreting what an author meant is never a precise art

Especially when he is misquoted, as you are fond of pointing out. :-)

While it was classified this reluctance suggests maybe it was hypocritical or at least something he was not entirely comfortable with talking about

How about it just suggesting that he took his secrecy oath seriously...which is a vastly simpler explanation than inventing some mythical embarassment? My point isn't that he wouldn't talk about it, but rather that he was working on weapons systems while writing the series, which casts some doubt on this "Asimov was a pacifist" theory. Henlein was just as stubborn about not talking about his work there, and I can <b>promise</B> you <i><b>he</b></i> had no qualms about the work he was doing.

Besides being a better SF author. :-)

The fictional nature of the text does not take away from the value of the message.

Yes, but the message may be "If you can predict the future, you can afford to be snide about all those 'incompetents'." "Not a precise art", you know. :-) Still, life in the real world is a bit trickier without Seldon's quite fictional crystal ball.