Carl Nisarel wrote:

BottleBob wrote:
Carl Nisarel wrote:
......

If you think dishonesty is fine, that's your choice.

Carl:

No, I DON'T think dishonesty is fine.

You're excusing it.

Carl:

Am I?


Lewis incorrectly labeled the statistics and still hasn't admitted
that he did it.

Do you think he did it deliberately?

Do you think his computer typed the word "armed" without him?

No, I don't. But let me rephrase my question. Do you think he added
the word "armed" to intentionally be deceptive?
The statistics Richard listed were supportive of his contention about
the number of people being victimized in rapes, robberies, and assaults
every year. What difference would it make to the statistics listed if
the perpetrators were armed or not? Would the victims be any less
robbed, raped, or assaulted?


Should a mistake in labeling be
equated to being a liar?

You're excusing dishonesty.

Excuse me? I'm excusing dishonesty by realizing he probably made a
typing boo-boo, or probably made an incorrect word association by using
"armed" with robbery?
Richard has said a number of things that were probably wrong and/or
contained inaccurate data that you could have focused upon. But you
chose to focus on his comment about hundreds of thousands of victims of
violence every year. YOU chose to challenge THAT particular comment and
accused Richard of making that data up out of thin air. When the data
itself was shown to be essentially correct, you changed your focus to
him adding the extra word "armed" in front of robbery as if that somehow
invalidated the data. You must realize that in no way changes the
original data or validates your accusation that he made the data up out
of thin air.


Now since we have 1,410,121 victims, don't you think that tends to
validate Richard's original claim that "a loved one is assaulted by an
unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and doing bodily harm"
hundreds of thousands of times a year?

No, it doesn't. Lewis' definition is a moronic appeal to emotion
fallacy.

Perhaps. But are the FACTS of there being hundreds of thousands of
victims of violent crime every year correct?


Lewis created the idiotic definition and is moving the goalpost trying
to get anything crammed into it.

ARE 100's of thousands of people the victims of violent crime per
year?

Huff and puff all you wish. A 'victim of a violent crime' and "a loved
one assaulted by an unethical criminal, intent on taking stuff and
doing bodily harm" are not equivalent.

I'm sorry, I don't perceive the fine distinction you're trying to make
here. Could you elaborate on the difference between "a loved one
assaulted..." and a "victim of a violent crime"? Is not "a loved one
assaulted etc." a victim of violence? And are not victims of violent
crime probably someone's loved one?



....
As far as your statement that you are "...much more familiar with the
research and the data than anyone else who's appeared in the thread."
Well that's an opinion, perhaps true, perhaps not. There seems to be a
battle of the statistics going on between you and Gunner which may, or
may not, jeopardize your claim to being more familiar with the data than
anyone else.

I'm shredding Gunner.

Gunner probably thinks he's "shredding" you.

He's spouting the standard propaganda from
gunner websites,

And Gunner might very well say YOU'RE spouting the standard propaganda
from ANTI-gunner websites.
Would he be right and you wrong?
Would you be right and he wrong?
Could you both be right?
Could you both be wrong?
Or is it reasonable to assume that there areas of right and wrong on
both sides of this issue?

I'm noting relevant and recent research with which he
is unfamiliar.

Perhaps.


If you think he's more aware of the research and data, you really have
poor evaluation skills.

Actually, I'm not reading all the data at the URL's given. I don't
have enough motivation, (either pro-gun, or anti-gun), or the time to
read pages of statistics and associated rhetoric.


....

What does your repeated use of these dots signify? The end of a
subject?


1) It demonstrates the idiocy of Lewis' emotionally driven fallacious
definition.

Are 410,121 victims 100's of thousands?

They aren't "100's of thousands" that fit his definition.

Are they victims? Are these victims the possible loved ones of someone
else?

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob