UNEXPECTEDLY: Washington Post stands by bogus report claiming North Carolina GOP held vote while Democrats were at 9/11 ceremony . “You may want to sit down for this one: A major newsroom published a bogus story this week casting Republicans as villains and Democrats as noble victims.
Some interesting questions for both sides of the debate.
I’m told that a denialist is someone who espouses a view that flies in the face of a recognized scientific consensus. First question: Why do I need to espouse my denial to qualify? Answer: Because denialism is now being cited as a hate crime. The mere having of the view that, for example, anyone with haggis on her breath should be killed, is only a thought crime. But as long as I keep my thoughts to myself, celebrants of Robbie Burns Day are in no danger. No danger no harm. No harm no foul.
Second question: A consensus recognized by whom? It can’t be those who subscribe to that consensus, because then anyone who denies what the Creation Scientists are telling us would count as a denialist. After all, they too see eye to eye with each other.
Third question: 97% of which scientists?
And fourth: Have they confirmed AGW themselves and independently, or do they merely believe it via the same means the rest of us do? After all, a computer scientist is a scientist, but what does she know about climatology? And if one climatologist is ratifying the findings of a colleague because the first has no reason not to trust the second, then a 97% consensus has no more probative force than would a minority report.Climate, etc.
Here is what I posted on the Volokh Conspiracy on the 10th Anniversary of 9/11: On this tenth anniversary of 9/11, I am in New York, staying at a hotel in Time Square. On the train to the City, dogs swept the train in Philly, and another K-9 team boarded in Newark to ride to Penn Station.
Source: “Saved by the Militia”
Back in March, the Washington Post published a piece by three Texas A&M professors who had produced a paper titled “The Trump Effect: How 2016 Campaign Rallies Explain Spikes in Hate .” The paper, which hadn’t been published or peer-reviewed, claimed there was a 226 percent jump in hate crimes in counties that hosted a Trump rally.
Notice what seems to be the norm on Facebook and other social media…
My latest essay begins, I will describe two modes of political discourse, which I call persuasion mode and demonization mode. In persuasion mode, we treat people on the other side with respect, we listen to their logical and factual presentations, and we respond with logical and factual presentations of our own.
Source: Persuasion vs. Demonization
In politics, “NEED” is a four-letter word, and should be treated as such.
This is a very frustrating question to receive when discussing RKBA, not because it’s difficult to answer but because of a single, overwhelming fact:
The people asking the question never really want to know the answer. They have already assumed that there is no justification for the desire (said justification qualifying as “need”).
“If you need 30 rounds to hunt, you suck at hunting,” they’ll say. They don’t care that it’s not about hunting. Or even if it is, some forms of hunting aren’t sport, or even for meat for the table. They’re pest control. There are cases out there where the best means to selectively control the population of certain pest species is through hunting. Traps and poisons can harm species other than the target, species you don’t want to. So sometimes, the most effective method with the least harm to the ecosystem is to have someone out there…
View original post 1,300 more words
IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE A BAD LAW, ENFORCE IT RIGOROUSLY AND EVENHANDEDLY: Breitbart Claims A Progressive Scalp and Reason, Predictably, Draws the Wrongest Possible Conclusion.
“Hit back twice as hard.”
CATHY YOUNG: (Almost) Everything You Know About GamerGate is Wrong — Harassment campaign? Misogynist hate mob? Alt-right test run? It’s much more complicated: If not Trump, what is GamerGate’s legacy? It did change the cultural landscape, for better and worse.
Stanford law professor John Donohue claims to have discovered evidence that the 1994 federal ban on so-called assault weapons “really did work,” because mass shootings and the deaths caused by them declined while the law was in effect, then rose afterward.
(Paul Mirengoff) Recent mass shootings have prompted calls for new gun control legislation aimed primarily at rifles. However, most murders are not the product of mass shootings by people who want to make a statement, political or otherwise.