You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Operation Mockingbird 2018 trying to wag the dog about gun control
Huh, that's an interesting stat, where did you get it? Because, frankly, it smells like something you pulled out of a certain somewhere, if you'll pardon my saying so.
LOL, I'm not that creative. Use whatever sources you trust to look up "Richmond gun violence program"
So, you have no source. That's what I thought. Okay, thanks.
Oh, so you are just calling me a liar then, because you didn't want to investigate for yourself? It's pretty lame in the internet age, I gave you the search terms, was I supposed to go find a link for you? am I supposed to know what sources you will like and find credible?
here is a link for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Well, right, see, here's the thing. I've not offered any argument, merely asked you to back up the "facts" you stated in reply to my comment. And no, I didn't call you a liar. I said your stats are fiction. I make shit up for a living, it's cool with me, but call it what it is.
people who make up fiction an purport it as fact are liars. Don't try to dance around it.
Uh, hey, you quoted a stat then said, don't believe me, look it up. That's when I called bullshit. So, if you don't want your "facts" questioned, when you write "news-ish" stories, use sources.
"Uh, hey, you quoted a stat then said, don't believe me, look it up. That's when I called bullshit. "
false, I quoted a statistic, you called bullshit "Huh, that's an interesting stat, where did you get it? Because, frankly, it smells like something you pulled out of a certain somewhere, if you'll pardon my saying so."
then I told you just what to look up. Had you done so you would have found a dozen stories from which you could have chosen whatever made you the most comfortable about what a habitual gun offender is and how much gun crime they commit. Or you could just use common sense, I don't know why it would seem like such a crazy number, divide the number of gun homicides by the number of people. That is not how I arrived at that number but if you wanted to see if it was in the right ballpark wouldn't that be an easy way to see if it was bullshit or not before you claimed it smelled like shit I pulled out of my ass? You were not questioning the facts from one of my articles, you were doing that on a response to your comment.
I did. but the stat you quoted, not to be found in the three articles I read, all very partisan in nature to begin with. Not to say that necessarily makes them untrue, but the burden is on the one quoting statistics to provide a reference, not the hearer. So, my assumption remains the same, you don't know if the statistic is true or not. You're content to let me assume that I've merely missed it, while you go about writing another article no doubt laden with similar "facts" and statistics.
And if you're uncomfortable with that title, then share full details, or don't quote statistics.
We jumped that shark a while ago.
And yes, when you quote statistics, the burden is on your to provide some sort of factual basis for them. You're writing a hell of a lot of "news-ish" articles here, hardly any of which are even moderately sourced, except from highly opinionated echo chamber blogs and sources. You don't really interest me all that much, because statism is on the way out, as it should be, but you're not exactly a reliable source of information.
I might have but you were a jerk about it with you little allusion to shit. So uncalled for. If you don't like them then stop clicking on them. Yeah my "highly opinionated echo chamber blogs and sources." like Newsweek, The Washington Post and ABC. Brilliant.
No, that's not how this works. When you come here, you take the praise, and the questioning. Don't tell me what to click on. Don't put up highly charged poltical rhetoric then not be prepared for a response. Where's your source on the stats? Which one did YOU get it from? Don't know? Don't quote it.
in real life you wouldn't say it to someone like that if you questioned their stats, try this next time: "wow, that's interesting, I am surprised there are so few/many, can you help me with a link where I can learn more about that" if you want to have a real discussion or for me to go look things up online for you that are pretty easy to find.
First, you don't know me. I'd call you on your bullshit wherever, whenever. Second, if you had that statistic so ready, where is it? I can't find it. I can neither confirm, nor deny your statistic,because no one mentions such a stat that I've seen so far. So, yeah, I think your full of shit. I think you stated an accepted "truism" from your camp as "truth" and instead of backing it up, you'd rather chase rabbits regarding the manner in which I called you out. But yet, the stats are still not a part of this conversation. So, you sir, may not have lied (Since, IMO that requires you realizing you were conveying false information) but, you're not used to being questioned, and so, rather than acknowledge that you don't know if this information is, exactly, accurate or not, you'd rather give me a lesson in manners. It's called obfuscation, and you suck at it.