BottleBob wrote
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?

Yes, you are.



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.

Then he did it deliberately. He had the correct label in the table he
used. He chose to relabel it.


But let me rephrase my question. Do you think he added
the word "armed" to intentionally be deceptive?

Yes.


The statistics Richard listed were supportive of his contention about
the number of people being victimized in rapes, robberies, and assaults
every year.

That wasn't his contention. His 'contention' was a fallacious appeal
to emotion.

......

You're excusing dishonesty.

Excuse me?

No.

I'm excusing dishonesty by realizing he probably made a
typing boo-boo,

I doubt it.

.....

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

Perhaps.

There's no 'perhaps' about it.

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

That's the goalpost move. He knew he was screwed by his definition so
he had to drag out something else.

God knows why you're supporting and excusing his dishonesty.

......

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.

I can tell.


Could you elaborate on the difference between "a loved one
assaulted..." and a "victim of a violent crime"?

You don't know much about crime statistics, do you?

Most victims of violent crime are violent criminals.

Would you tend to label a violent criminal a "loved one"?


....


I'm shredding Gunner.

Gunner probably thinks he's "shredding" you.

He is rather delusional.


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.

He, and you, would be wrong.

If you think that's correct, identify a single item that I've
'spouted' from such a web site.

......

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

Perhaps.

See Weibe, 2003. There's no perhaps about it.


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.

Like I said, you really have poor evaluation skills.


....

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

It's a standard usenet netiquette for noting that material was snipped
out of the post.

......