Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure how Republicans exploit guns, at least not from a perspective of growing government/spending, etc.

They do the NRA's bidding, and in return they get the dolla-bills.

Well I want to give a little more credit to being suspect about "conflict of interest". If you see Democracts as endemic of "Big Gov"/threatening sovereignty and part of "Big Gov"/threatening sovereignty is handing out money to people studying things that just so happen to be used as a reason to further expand Big Gov and cede more sovereignty, it's not entirely irrational. The reason the NRA is trusted is because they aren't trying to take anything.

I referenced Al Gore's Hockey Stick before as extremely damaging to the chances of people from both left and right accepting ACC. For one it's Al Gore. #2, the hockey stick as understood didn't/hasn't happened (many if not most people appear to be ignorant of how data can be misrepresented in a chart even if the plots are correct). Toss in Climategate (regardless of whether or not things were actually done underhandedly)/"hand over yer freedoms" and it's case closed for most people disinclined to begin with.

Again, I understand the heuristic tendency, but this doesn't really address where I perceive the irrationality to lie - a disagreement of attribution.

If by do the same thing you mean guilt by association and other forms of shoddy reasoning, yes.

Yes, that's what I mean. But when they see the NRA channeling monies to various republicans and continuously blocking things like the Dickey Amendment from being repealed... then "it's not entirely irrational," yes?

 

[CiG]

What is the alternative for the republican party? Advocate anti-gun measures and work against the interest of their voters and supporters? Makes no sense to me to act like the GOP is only pro-guns "because NRA."

Lets say the GOP is a 100% puppet for the NRA, it doesn't even matter because now and for the foreseeable future the party's supporters are pro-guns anyway.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not expecting them to change their position, just as I wouldn't expect democrats to change theirs on climate change - as you say, the majority of the supporters on either side already support their respective positions.

Dak and I sympathize in slightly different directions; he sympathizes slightly more with the right, and I sympathize slightly more with the left. From my perspective, I don't think you can discount the right's irrationality without also discounting the left's; or, to put it another way, if we call the right's position toward global warming rational, then I think we also have to call the left's position on gun control rational. But it boils down to how you frame both arguments, and the architecture of that frame differs. The right tends to privilege a highly subjectivized position, meaning they privilege the immediate experiences of the individual. The left tends to privilege a more systematic/structuralist position, meaning they privilege models that do not (necessarily) conform to individual experience.

Neither one of these is more or less rational than the other, and both inform political positions that are equally falsifiable (or logically inconsistent).

 

[CiG]

I actually find both equally irrational, but that's the nature of not leaning any which way I guess. Anyway, interesting debate, really enjoying reading along.

 

[Dak]

They do the NRA's bidding, and in return they get the dolla-bills.

Again, I understand the heuristic tendency, but this doesn't really address where I perceive the irrationality to lie - a disagreement of attribution.

Yes, that's what I mean. But when they see the NRA channeling monies to various republicans and continuously blocking things like the Dickey Amendment from being repealed... then "it's not entirely irrational," yes?

The NRA is a voter driven lobby (yes gun manufacturers also play a part, but a fraction). But what is the bidding? They literally do nothing *to* leftwingers except fight for their liberty (they don't even have to go buy weapons. But they have the option to buy and carry). It's apples and oranges with leftwing environmental policy outside of "not liking x". If the NRA were pushing for mandatory buying and carrying of weapons for everyone I would agree with you.

The right tends to privilege a highly subjectivized position, meaning they privilege the immediate experiences of the individual. The left tends to privilege a more systematic/structuralist position, meaning they privilege models that do not (necessarily) conform to individual experience.

I think this characterization is off. It's a case by case basis as in, it depends on the thing being discussed as to whether a rightwing or leftwing person will appeal to subjectivity vs structure.

 

[Einherjar86]

The NRA is a voter driven lobby (yes gun manufacturers also play a part, but a fraction). But what is the bidding? They literally do nothing *to* leftwingers except fight for their liberty (they don't even have to go buy weapons. But they have the option to buy and carry). It's apples and oranges with leftwing environmental policy outside of "not liking x". If the NRA were pushing for mandatory buying and carrying of weapons for everyone I would agree with you.

As it stands, the NRA has a stranglehold on the political process by paying its representatives, who simply vote - repeatedly - against even attempts to investigate or conduct research on gun manufacturing and violence. This isn't fighting for anyone's "liberty" (it actually surprises me that you would write that); it's an insurance policy on gun manufacturing by financially exploiting the political process.

I think this characterization is off. It's a case by case basis as in, it depends on the thing being discussed as to whether a rightwing or leftwing person will appeal to subjectivity vs structure.

It was a generalization - I said "tend to." And I know this generalization to be (generally) accurate.

 

[Dak]

As it stands, the NRA has a stranglehold on the political process by paying its representatives, who simply vote - repeatedly - against even attempts to investigate or conduct research on gun manufacturing and violence. This isn't fighting for anyone's "liberty" (it actually surprises me that you would write that); it's an insurance policy on gun manufacturing by financially exploiting the political process.

Maybe they vote against it because you don't need to research "gun manufacturing and violence". Guns being manufactured will correlate with gun deaths - tons of money and time on research saved. And that relationship doesn't mean anything. We could have an equally useful study on backhoe manufacturing and holes in the ground.

You're going to have to explain the thought process behind "exploiting the political process" and "insurance policy for gun manufacturing". By liberty I mean options - not being legally forced to or to not engage in X. If the NRA members and gun manufacturers were lobbying to get mandatory buy laws passed or even merely trying to get subsidies, I'd understand the anger and the comparison. But as it stands there is no comparison.

It was a generalization - I said "tend to." And I know this generalization to be (generally) accurate.

"My body my rights".

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe they vote against it because you don't need to research "gun manufacturing and violence". Guns being manufactured will correlate with gun deaths - tons of money and time on research saved. And that relationship doesn't mean anything. We could have an equally useful study on backhoe manufacturing and holes in the ground.

How do you know you don't "need" to if they've already prevented research groups from doing so? Seems like you're just picking and choosing what to restrict at this point.

You're going to have to explain the thought process behind "exploiting the political process" and "insurance policy for gun manufacturing". By liberty I mean options - not being legally forced to or to not engage in X. If the NRA members and gun manufacturers were lobbying to get mandatory buy laws passed or even merely trying to get subsidies, I'd understand the anger and the comparison. But as it stands there is no comparison.

I'm not sure how paying representatives to vote a certain way isn't a manipulation of political process. That seems like a "conflict of interest" if I've ever seen one.

They're preventing the "option" of conducting research. You're thinking about individual rights - I'm thinking about larger patterns. To put it another way, you're focusing on individual experience - I'm tending toward systemic models. Seems as though my generalization was right in this case.

Look, I wouldn't be for appealing to any research in favor of banning firearms. That would be an example of the same paranoia of which I'm critical. I maintain the potential for an increasingly complex and reflexive society that can implement models and processes of regulation without limiting people's choice to own firearms. Obviously there are potential problems and pitfalls with any kind of regulatory society, but I think that the gains outweigh the dangers. I don't have any overwhelming love for the sanctity of the body or the human individual, as you know; but I think we can retain some of those institutions while still permitting a social evolution that makes use of us in ways that are decidedly posthumanist.

That's my two cents, and I don't know how much farther we can stretch this.

 

[Dak]

I'm not sure how paying representatives to vote a certain way isn't a manipulation of political process. That seems like a "conflict of interest" if I've ever seen one.

The NRA is a voter lobby. Being in politics requires raising money. Every single politician is engaged in some level of quid pro quo with regard to constituency. Furthermore, as CIG already mentioned, the general Republican base is against any moves against guns. I'm not even a Republican nor an NRA member and I at least am happy about the sort of dug-in position on this issue. One of the few legislative brightspots in DC imo.

How do you know you don't "need" to if they've already prevented research groups from doing so? Seems like you're just picking and choosing what to restrict at this point.

They're preventing the "option" of conducting research. You're thinking about individual rights - I'm thinking about larger patterns. To put it another way, you're focusing on individual experience - I'm tending toward systemic models. Seems as though my generalization was right in this case.

Look, I wouldn't be for appealing to any research in favor of banning firearms. That would be an example of the same paranoia of which I'm critical. I maintain the potential for an increasingly complex and reflexive society that can implement models and processes of regulation without limiting people's choice to own firearms. Obviously there are potential problems and pitfalls with any kind of regulatory society, but I think that the gains outweigh the dangers. I don't have any overwhelming love for the sanctity of the body or the human individual, as you know; but I think we can retain some of those institutions while still permitting a social evolution that makes use of us in ways that are decidedly posthumanist.

That's my two cents, and I don't know how much farther we can stretch this.

It's simply unclear to me what would be learned about the relationship between guns and gun deaths from any CDC research (nevermind the fact that the CDC is the Center for Disease Control. Guns aren't a disease.) that cannot already be quite easily gleaned from perusing FBI crime statistics and suicide statistics. It's a practical tautology, and I think you've said as much yourself. An argument needs to be made as to why an official analysis of such a practical tautology matters before wasting time and money on that, which could be used in other ways, like more funding for infrastructure which has been analyzed to death already and is repeatedly given poor grades.

Edit: Wasn't familiar with the Dickey amendment. After reading the details I approve:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

In United States politics, the Dickey Amendment is a provision first inserted as a rider into the 1996 federal government omnibus spending bill which mandated that “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” In the same spending bill, Congress earmarked $2.6 million from the CDC's budget, the exact amount that had previously been allocated to the agency for firearms research the previous year, for traumatic brain injury-related research.

I have 3 different reasons for like this.

 

[Einherjar86]

The NRA is a voter lobby. Being in politics requires raising money. Every single politician is engaged in some level of quid pro quo with regard to constituency. Furthermore, as CIG already mentioned, the general Republican base is against any moves against guns. I'm not even a Republican nor an NRA member and I at least am happy about the sort of dug-in position on this issue. One of the few legislative brightspots in DC imo.

Well, we all pick and choose.

It's simply unclear to me what would be learned about the relationship between guns and gun deaths from any CDC research (nevermind the fact that the CDC is the Center for Disease Control. Guns aren't a disease.) that cannot already be quite easily gleaned from perusing FBI crime statistics and suicide statistics.

Probably because they haven't allowed the research to happen. Hard to know what the research will show until you actually do it.

 

[Dak]

Probably because they haven't allowed the research to happen. Hard to know what the research will show until you actually do it.

Well I would hope there would be hypotheses and such. We have statistics on crime committed with guns. We have statistics on suicides committed with guns. We have them broken down by race, location, sex, etc. Independent non-profits already do some work with these statistics. I know your academic background would lead you to see little issue between conflating polio with guns (making guns a CDC issue), but I would hope you would understand why many might take issue with treating guns like a disease. Besides ontological contentions (where you and I would be at odds), theres the insinuation that possessing a gun makes one ill by default.

Edit: Speaking of traumatic brain injury research (and also, suicide causes), a breakthrough:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/sto...njures-reveals-microscopic-scarring/86341098/

The veteran who died by suicide, for example, was a military retiree who served with distinction for more than 25 years. According to his wife, he had been exposed to multiple blasts, both during training and in combat, and, after retirement, sought medical treatment for headaches as well as memory problems and cognitive changes.

He had been treated for PTSD, depression and anxiety, and a month before he died of a self-inflicted gun shot wound, had an MRI that showed no evidence of brain damage.

But the post-mortem analysis done at brain repository showed a brownish dust — scarring, according to Perl — along his brain's gray matter and elsewhere.

The authors say the blast wave causes damage at the interface of the brain's structural boundaries, to which the brain reacts with scar tissue.

While examining the brains of former troops to understand the relationship between combat exposure and traumatic brain injury is not new, this study differs from previous ones that explore the effects of concussion or impact-related injury, Perl said.

Of course I don't know if this was discovered with money diverted by the Dickey amendment but it could have been.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sure, I get why people would be upset by the insinuation that owning guns is a disease. That doesn't mean I don't think the CDC has any jurisdiction in the matter. I'm completely comfortable with the notion that every single human brain suffers from some form of pathology - that there is no normal for cognitive function. There is only what most brains happen to conform to, or gravitate toward.

The CDC tracks any and all leading causes of death. Guns fall into this category.

In other much cooler news, robots are building responsive environments now:

http://www.designboom.com/architect...victoria-and-albert-museum-london-05-18-2016/

the responsive shelter will grow over the course of the V&A’s engineering season. sensors in the canopy fibers will collect data on how visitors inhabit the pavilion and monitor the structure’s behavior, ultimately informing how and where the canopy grows. during a series of scheduled special events, visitors will have the opportunity to witness the pavilion’s construction live, as new components are fabricated on-site by a KUKA robot.

 

[Dak]

Sure, I get why people would be upset by the insinuation that owning guns is a disease. That doesn't mean I don't think the CDC has any jurisdiction in the matter. I'm completely comfortable with the notion that every single human brain suffers from some form of pathology - that there is no normal for cognitive function. There is only what most brains happen to conform to, or gravitate toward.

The CDC tracks any and all leading causes of death. Guns fall into this category.

And now we have a hypothesis to start testing. Guns cause death. A few clinical trials can easily prove or disprove this. Put a gun in a room with someone and no other objects in the room. See how long it takes for the gun to viciously attack and maim or kill the person.

In other much cooler news, robots are building responsive environments now:

http://www.designboom.com/architect...victoria-and-albert-museum-london-05-18-2016/

I thought the 3D bridge building robot was cool. That structure looks far too Shelob-esque for me to like it.

 

[Einherjar86]

And now we have a hypothesis to start testing. Guns cause death. A few clinical trials can easily prove or disprove this. Put a gun in a room with someone and no other objects in the room. See how long it takes for the gun to viciously attack and maim or kill the person.

Probably a very long time.

This is basically a reiteration of Dawkins's refutation of Murphy's Law: i.e. it would require that inanimate objects possess agency.

I'm not suggesting that guns are to blame for deaths - it makes no sense to blame guns. I am saying that guns can be a causal actor, and this is perfectly legitimate.

That being said, I appreciate your supreme skepticism. I just also happen to think it's premature.

I thought the 3D bridge building robot was cool. That structure looks far too Shelob-esque for me to like it.

It's funny, another friend of mine said something similar. I love the "insectuous" aesthetic.

 

[Dak]

Probably a very long time.

This is basically a reiteration of Dawkins's refutation of Murphy's Law: i.e. it would require that inanimate objects possess agency.

I'm not suggesting that guns are to blame for deaths - it makes no sense to blame guns. I am saying that guns can be a causal actor, and this is perfectly legitimate.

That being said, I appreciate your supreme skepticism. I just also happen to think it's premature.

I've heard arguments comparing guns to alcohol: Good when used appropriately, dangerous to self and others when abused. It's not a perfect parallel of course. But in either case we are talking about personal behaviors, cultural/personal orientations, etc.

I'm not a fan of spiders at all. I appreciate they keep bug populations in check but that's the extent of my positive list of things about spiders.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

And now we have a hypothesis to start testing. Guns cause death. A few clinical trials can easily prove or disprove this. Put a gun in a room with someone and no other objects in the room. See how long it takes for the gun to viciously attack and maim or kill the person.

Do you really see nothing wrong with an argument like this when you make it? Come on.

 

[Dak]

Do you really see nothing wrong with an argument like this when you make it? Come on.

Do you see nothing wrong with rhetoric like "guns cause death" when people use it? Furthermore, the lumping of deaths into a homogeneous suite is on a level of categorical sophistication that Developmental Psychology likes to think we grow out of prior to starting grade school. Obviously this is incorrect.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Do you see nothing wrong with rhetoric like "guns cause death" when people use it? Furthermore, the lumping of deaths into a homogeneous suite is on a level of categorical sophistication that Developmental Psychology likes to think we grow out of prior to starting grade school. Obviously this is incorrect.

A gun cannot cause death unless it is used by someone with violent intent, but it makes death a more likely outcome when someone acts on violent intent. Therefore, the presence of guns increases the number of deaths.

"Guns cause death" is indeed a misleading phrase, but I didn't use it - you assumed I meant it when I replied to you, which is also misleading.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Congratulations for pointing out the boring edge cases I didn't feel like meticulously documenting. No, you didn't nullify my point.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

A gun is unlikely to cause death unless it is used by someone with violent intent, but it makes death a more likely outcome when someone acts on violent intent. Therefore, the presence of guns increases the number of deaths. The presence of other things, like 20 foot pools of water, also increases the number of deaths.

Happy now? Jesus.