Guncrazy USA

**

This economic model actively encourages materialistic forms of thinking and promotes self gratification.

Duhhhh really? SARCASM

Its based on peoples willingness to accept such a society.

This attitude must change and it must start with better teaching of our children what is really important and what is not.

**

Once again if proof was still needed that you don’t read my posts.

Do you remember post 995 just a few pages back?

Here it is-

“This is something that I’ve brought up a few times, and indicated by our differing viewpoints on how to make our societies better you talk of individuals helping other individuals while I talk of people not just helping other individuals but also coming together to help all the people in their community.

If we cannot teach our young to help at a one on one basis how can you expect then to come together as a group?

So what policies would you have in place to assist parents and society in accomplishing this?

I’ve asked you this before and it’s come up many times since, children grow up in a society and they learn as much (if not more) from that society as they do from their parents. Unless you detach them completely from the society they live in (but they have to go out into it sometime) or you teach them to mistrust or even hate their society (which doesn’t seem healthy) or you teach them a myth of their society rather than a rational and honest view (which seems dishonest).

You talk of the ‘me’ thing but your own views seem rather self orientated, you want self protection because you don’t trust your society or many of the people in it. You wish for tougher punishment for criminals without seeming to think very much about the people involved, the society those crimes are committed in and if it has had a part in creating the conditions for criminality.”


And this was yet another occasion when you didn’t dispute what I’d said.

**

 

“what policies would you like to bring in, to tackle this way of thinking?”

“there is NO governmental policy that can change the way people “think”.”

But right through history governments and political establishments have had an influence on how people think.

This happens in small ways or large ways, some benign other malign. I mean some government policies have helped influenced peoples views on smoking or drink driving, but also governments have tried to influence how we view differing ideologies (like communism in the US) or racial groups (like the Jews in Nazi Germany).

One way is through education at school, another through public information campaigns, another is through law or regulations.

Government policies can also influence what can and can’t be advertised and when, can make sure that goods do what the manufacturers claim, and even with their general economic policies influence if or not we spend our money, for example they can encouraging saving or encourage spending.

If you really think that governments have never had an influence on what people think then you have never, ever, given much thought to the subject.

In fact your statement reveals an incredible lack of knowledge of both history and politics.

Again this seems to fit in with my theories – you have this thing about defending gun ownership but you don’t seem to have any context into which to place it since you haven’t given much thought to much else.

**

 

The second amendment is the guarantee that the other amendments will be upheld. God Given and self evident. I will keep my guns no matter the laws that wash over this land. The guns that own are "instruments of death" they are tools. Like any other tool they can be misused and abused. Food for thought Five Gallons of Gasoline are equal in explosive force to a stick of dynamite. Horse shit plus human blood in a 3 to 1 ratio produces a poison capable of inducing tetanus. By the numbers citizens kill less innocent people than police. No matter what when you call the cops theres going to be a delay for when they get there. They cannot protect you as well as you can protect yourself.
All in all its my decision. I think I'll keep my guns. If everyone else want to get rid of theres good for them, but I guarntee that if the law comes down on it. Semi loads and Semi loads of guns will be buried, hidden, and sold.
The reason school shootings can happen is the fact that the school is defenseless. My school is not. Half the kids carry knifes. Half of those kids have guns under the seat in there car. Some punkass wants to raise hell there he will die horribly.

 

Pitt

For example you still haven’t answered my questions about the gun safe idea.

I have addressed your idea on gun safes. While I am a strong proponent of gun safes (as I demonstrated by describing the construction of my own gun vault) It essentially defeats the purpose of self defense, the best option is a biometric case.

A biometric case which if I’m not mistaken is a type of safe? I mean the biometric component is just the lock, right? So you’re talking about a box with a lock on it, which a lot of people would call a safe.

Anyway, I said - “I’ve explained numerous times just why I would introduce the type of regulations I’ve proposed and you do not seem to be disputing those explanations

For example you still haven’t answered my questions about the gun safe idea”
What your reply here is essentially saying is that you don’t dispute what I’ve said about gun safes (or cases).

Which is what I’ve been saying all along?

This is the problem with your approach, you often don’t have arguments to dispute my viewpoints, so you just disagree with what I say even when - like here - you actually agree.

To me that doesn’t seem reasonable or rational (or honest)

**

I’ve also given my countering arguments to you opinion that gun regulation is ineffective and you don’t seem to dispute those arguments either.

But your argument is not backed up by facts.

So because you don’t have a countering argument to what I’ve said you just don’t reply?

I’ve produced a lot of things that seem to back up my views including many of your own comments.

As I’ve said if the ‘facts’ don’t suit you, you just ignore them.

**

I’ve given my view of your supposed facts and figures above and you haven’t given any arguments opposing those views, you’re just ignoring them.

Your view, your opinion, your theory. Call it whatever you want but you have produced nothing to back up these. Again where are your supportive facts?

The views that you seem unable to counter

The opinions that you seem unable to counter

The theories that you seem unable to counter

And as I’ve said if the ‘facts’ don’t suit you, you just ignore them.

The problem is that since you cannot dispute what I’ve said you just don’t accept it.

LOL, come on man, if my opinions are so weak as you seem to imply why not demolish them rather than just refusing to reply.

I mean if you can’t demolish them shouldn’t you be asking yourself why you can’t?

**

 

Since last September I’ve been trying to have a discussion about general crime and the reasons it takes place it’s you that keeps telling me we should be taking only about gun control.

Omfg are you really that dense? These threads are about guns, gun laws, gun culture and their effects.

Exactly guns and there effects and as I said back in September to me an effect of many American’s attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society. It also seems to me to lead to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence.

I’ve put this idea forwards many times and you still haven’t been able to refute it.

You’ve tried to ignore it and you’ve tried to dismiss it out of hand and you have tried (repeatedly) to disrupt any discussion of it, but after all this time it still stands.

If it is such a weak or stupid theory why are you unable to bring it down?


**

Its not about freely giving heroine to addicts or your other ideas. I am speaking about gun control and their intended effects.

Giving heroine to addicts isn’t my idea it has been around a long time and something that several countries have had as a policy to tackle crime and addiction.

The idea is that by giving heroine to addicts it releases them from needing to be involved in crime as a means of feeding their habit and it gets them under medical supervision where they can be treated and weaned off the drug.

It is good for society (with a reduction in crime) and the individual (getting out of the drug scene and weaned off drugs)

But you know this already Pitt since we discussed it at length and you didn’t seem to have a countering arguments except to say that in your opinion it was just plain wrong.

**

These intended effects have to do with crime and violence. You are the one trying to restrict these to “gun Crime” and “gun violence”. When you feel the ground you are standing on slipping away you then want to switch over to your other “holistic” approaches to the social economic problems.

I’ve never tried to restrict the discussion and I haven’t yet felt on unsure ground and as to socio-economic problems you are on record as saying crime and violence are down to social and economic reasons saying it is the fault of hedonism and materialism and I’ve been trying to have a discussion on that, which you seem reluctant to enter into.

**

 

what do you not follow the flow of these threads and see what is exactly being replied to?

Again what the fuck has these social programs that I am involved in or want to see come about or anybody else for that matter have to do with gun control and their intended effects?

Again proof that you don’t read my posts or just another trick?

Since I presented my first theory back in September we have discussed at length what the connection is. Sometimes it is clear you understand at others - when it suits you (like here) you play dumb and say you don’t know.

Again since you don’t have any countering arguments you seem to be trying to get out of an open and honest debate by just asking a question that I’ve been through many, many times and at great length.

And if you couldn’t counter what I’ve said before on the same subject why do you think you’ll do any better now?

If you do have something that counters what I’ve said before why not come out with that?

**

If you really think that governments have never had an influence on what people think then you have never, ever, given much thought to the subject.

Here is another example of your misquoting and twisting others statements. I didn’t say government couldn’t “influence” the way people thing.
What I said was
Again there is NO governmental policy that can “change” the way people “think”.
Are you trying to imply that if the government bans all guns, people will think less about committing crimes?

Government policies cannot change how people think but they do influence on how people think, and that influence can change how people think.

Come on, so you actually agree that government policies can have an effect on what people think.

What is this man?

You don’t dispute what I’ve said you just don’t like what I’ve said so you are just not going to agree even if you do agree?

And you still haven’t explained what you would do or would want done to bring about less hedonism and materialism?

Are you going to?

As to me implying that – “if the government bans all guns, people will think less about committing crimes?”

Again this just seems to show that you don’t read what has been posted in these threads but more likely that once again you are playing tricks.

**

 

Another typical line of nonsensical rhetoric and spin from you. Like I have said many times in the past you do not want discussion you only want converts.

I’m not interested in conversion I’m just here to learn, I’ve been trying to understand the pro-gun argument and in doing so it has taught me a lot about their mentality and attitudes. It has also helped me to develop some ideas that I’d already been nurturing from previous reading and encounters on these forums.

That nascent theory was that many pro-gunners seem a lot more interested in defending gun ownership than they seem to be in their society, in understanding it or making it a better place.

I’m afraid that idea has not been dispelled in fact it has grown stronger.

But the theory or theories have grown.

I’ve been getting the impression that there may be a reason why they seem uninterested in the society they live in, and that is because they see it as threatening.

This is why guns become so important to them and why they feel they need to be defended at all cost.

Time and again pro-gunners mentioned how under threat they feel, there have been tales of violence and crime, death and destruction, of government intimidation and invasion of rights.

But rather than ask the obvious question, why is my society like this and what can be done to change things for the better, all they seem to fall back on is forms of suppression one of which (and the main one it seems in many eyes) is having a gun or lots of guns.

Anyway they seems to be two basic pro-gun arguments

(1) That guns protect the American people (themselves) from government intimidation.

But that isn’t supported by even a quick look at US history.

(2) That guns protect Americans from crime.

Yet the crime figures for countries like the UK (a country with very low gun ownership) and Switzerland (a country with supposedly high gun ownership) don’t have wildly differing crime rates from the US except in one area – gun related crime.

And taking in other factors it would seem that guns in American hands seem to be having or had an adverse effect on US crime in fact it just makes it a place where you are much more likely to be shot or imprisoned, which isn’t my definition of a healthy society.

So why do so many Americans want guns?

Well to me it seems that in one sense they are like Linus’ comfort blanket, it makes them feel better. In what they see as a big bad threatening world they can clutch their gun and feel they are strong and so can carry on.

In another it makes them feel independent, an individual able to stand on their own against…well against their own society and fellow citizens.

Just some musings that I throw in to be discussed.

**

 

Pitt

The most telling thing you have said.

I’m not interested in conversion

You said (and I quote) “Like I have said many times in the past you do not want discussion you only want converts”

To which I replied “I’m not interested in conversion I’m just here to learn”

Meaning I’m not here to convert, I’m here to learn.

I have a question, you have accused me many times of twisting things (although you never seem be able to back it up), but if you do it is that ok?

As I’ve said before I think this is because you just want to win (victory over the non-believer, you could say) so you are willing to lie, cheat, play tricks, misdirect and twist (and I can and have backed up all those claims).

I’m here to learn so there is no advantage for me in lying or cheating since that would get in the way of understanding.

Come on man, drop the dogma and let’s have a decent, open and honest debate, you might actually learn something?

 

**

There is one simple fact you tend to ignore that I have repeatedly tried to get you to address.

You continue to say you want a “holistic” approach to solving the crime problem. That’s all fine and dandy. In this “holistic” approach each and every one of your programs must have some kind of positive outcome toward its intended goal or its nothing but fluff, a feel good knee jerk reaction that only detracts from the whole.


LOL

Oh man I’ve covered that many times.

Why are you continually going back to things that you dropped earlier because you seemingly didn’t have a countering argument at the time?

And if you have now come up with countering arguments to what I said on those other occasions lets hear them.

For example - Post 1004 in the Guncrazy thread from just a couple of weeks ago -

[Pitt] You can have a holistic approach to anything but if one of your many many solutions leading to a predetermined outcome is useless and unproductive toward its intended goal it only serves to detract from the intended goal of the whole.

[Me] But why is it useless and unproductive, why in your opinion would, for example having home safes for guns be useless and unproductive?

And I don’t think you understand what a holistic approach is or haven’t read what I’ve said about it. To me it is about looking at the whole, trying to understand it and seeing what can be done, it is not dogmatic it can be flexible with success being followed up and failures examined and the policies changed accordingly.

Your mentality seems to be ridged, if something isn’t the why you want you do not seem to want to know, as pointed out this mentality is the same that props up failing ventures because it is unable to think of alternatives, again this is in line with the theories I’ve presented.

As far as I can tell you didn’t give a countering argument to my reply although you seem to agree with me on the gun safe (case) thing.

But once again you bring it up, why?

**

The thing is I think there is a difference between how we approach each others posts.

I get great pleasure out of reading what you (and others) post because I’m interested in what’s said. I think about it, mull it over, try and work it out, I cherish them.

But it seems to me that you see them as the enemies, things to be swatted down by any means, you read them only to react, not to seek understanding, if it is not what you want, you ignore it, like a predator you are looking for what you believe are weaknesses and if you cannot find any you make them up.

This is why you often seem like you don’t know what’s going on or what’s been said and so you repeat yourself all the time.

If you stopped just trying to win and actually entered into honest debate you might learn something.

**

 

I have repeatedly tried to get you to define the intended goal of your gun restriction ideas. You have refused to do this.

Sorry have to laugh again.

We’ve covered it at length; didn’t you read any of it?

You must remember all the stuff about wanting a healthier society where people didn’t feel so threatened?

Does that not ring any bells?

**

I then proceeded basing the discussion on the premise that the intended goal is to lower crime and violence. I have shown you dozens of sources showing this is ineffectual. Your only response is to claim they are biased sources or that you can interpret the data differently. Yet you never offer any countering data or studies nor do you ever really define your differing interpretations.

You have shown sources that you claim back up your claims but as I’ve explained several times they are not as solid or as positive as you present them.

They are just interpretations of data that can be viewed differently.

I’ve given long and detailed reasons for my views and you don’t seem to be putting up countering arguments you just seem to be ignoring them.

If you have now come up with countering arguments to what I’ve said I would really like to hear them.

**

You also make wild accusations such as people must live in fear just because they own guns. I have shown you the folly of this flawed logic behind argument. You simply act ignorant and claim the metaphors are not applicable when everyone else understands the implications perfectly.

Why ‘wild accusations’ I’ve just pointed out (and I can give many examples) of were pro-gunners have expressed feelings of being threatened. If they don’t fear in some degree these things why do they feel threatened by them?

(PS: are you still pissed at the condom and the gun metaphor, come on man drop it, it just didn’t work, and the seatbelt thing we’ve done to death and you still haven’t made it work)

**

 

You also claim gun owners tend to ignore social economic problems. I have asked you to provide something to back up this claim and again you have refused to do so, only claiming your “theory” as fact. I have countered this through my own experiences with gun owners and the fact that almost all of them I speak to are involved with or donate to such programs on a regular basis.

WOW, man you really only see things the way you want to don’t you?

I’ve never refused to back up my theory I’ve given hundreds of examples of things that seem to back it up, they are littered through these discussions but just because they don’t fit in with what you want you seem to be dismissing them or ignoring them, but you never seem to face them.

I’ve asked you repeatedly to debate the theories but you refuse and to me that refusal seems telling.

If it is a weak as you seem to claim it should be easy to demolish, so why have you not demolished it?

But rather than entering into debate you seem to be doing everything you can to get out of discussing them?

Why is that?

**

I have never claimed my theory is ‘fact’ far from it I have made it very clear on numerous occasions that it is just an opinion.

Do you actually read the posts in the threads you are in?

Here is a reply to a post from Yank on this subject - “You claimed that my theories had been refuted but then found you couldn’t back up that claim (apology pending) so finding you cannot refute the theories you have gone for trying to downplay them.

So you call it a hypothesis rather than a theory

But hell man I’ve said it is just my point of view, I’ve called it my contention, a thesis, an argument, some ideas set out to discuss.

The important thing as I’ve often said is does it stand?”

And so far it still stands.

**

AS for donations to social programmes, we have covered that in some detail also, again you seem to have conveniently forgotten. (it began I think around the 100’s in the MAD thread and continued, I can go and find some examples if you want)

Just because someone gives money to something that doesn’t mean they have given it much thought.

For example just because someone gives to a ‘just say no’ drugs programme that doesn’t mean they have given much thought to why people might become involved in substance abuse or to understanding the problems involved.

I’m still unsure (although I’ve asked) what drugs policy you want and why?

**

 

I have said all along you are not interested in discussion but only wish to find converts, now you have all but admitted it.

In what way have I admitted it?

I say clearly - “I’m not interested in conversion I’m just here to learn”

I’m not here to convert only learn.

As I’ve said you seem only to be seeing what you want to see.

**

You can claim I am using dishonest tactics, you can even go back to the personal attacks and bashing, but we both know the truth.
To quote Jon Bon Jovi “your conscienceis all you can take to your grave” and my conscience is clear.

What truth?

You have accused me of many things, I’ve asked you to back them up.

Please tell me, can you point to somewhere were you did actually back up your accusation?

You say I twist things but you cannot explain where or when, while I can.

You say I’ve not answered questions, when I can show I have.

You made up things (like the theories are facts jib) which I can show are untrue.

I could go on and on and on, it’s all you seem to do these days, that and asking me to repeat myself.

You say you have a conscience, prove it and apologies and let us go on and have an open and honest debate like I’ve always wanted.

**

 

A certain amount of repetition has begun to creep in between this and another thread. Can we limit replies to just one?


**

 

Even though I personally do not like guns and would never want one where I live I couldn't agree more with what you wrote.

 

Fuck, man.. shit.
I couldn't disagree more with this.

 

pitt

Come on man, drop the dogma and let’s have a decent, open and honest debate, you might actually learn something?

Then answer the question of what is the intended outcome/goal of your gun restrictions?

The one I’ve answered more than once?

The one I’ve written pages on, long posts, short posts, that I’ve clarified on several occasions the one that I believe I’ve answered all the questions you’ve ever asked on it.

Yet you are refusing to acknowledge any of it?

The very simple reply is -

I want with a holistic approach to produce a healthier society where people don’t feel so threatened?

But why don’t you actually counter what has already been said rather than just hoping if you repeat a question enough times you’ll get the reply you want?

The regulatory ideas aimed at guns is to try and reduce harm by keeping guns out of the hands of those that probably shouldn’t have access to them.

You actually have acknowledged that some of my ideas are good and could probably reduce harm you just don’t want them enforced.

Why?

Well to me that is because you are more interested in defending gun ownership than you are in reducing harm.

This seems to back up my theories.

**

[Me] But why is it useless and unproductive, why in your opinion would, for example having home safes for guns be useless and unproductive?

I have answered this before. I am in favor of gun safes; I am not in favor of it being law. I have described my own gun vault to you.

[See above]

For example - you don’t believe gun safes are useless and unproductive, but you don’t want there benefits to be widened by legislation.

It is a differing opinion, I wish to reduce harm and make society a better place you wish to do something else?

But it seems to me that I seem more interested in keeping guns of criminal’s hands than you do.

**

 

with success being followed up and failures examined and the policies changed accordingly.

So again if something has already been shown to have failed at its intended goal, why be so dogmatic at keeping it in your approach?

What has been shown to fail, if you are talking about gun regulation, you are to some a believer in it.

But even ideas that you think may help, you are opposed to being introduced.

You say this is because that in your opinion they wouldn’t work.

But you seem to admit that such things as the gun safe idea might work.

**

I get great pleasure out of reading what you (and others) post because I’m interested in what’s said. I think about it, mull it over, try and work it out, I cherish them.

Since you have enjoyed it so much and have thought it over, What is the intended goal of your proposed gun restrictions?

The ones I’ve already given many times?

Why not address what I’ve already written on the subject rather than just repeating questions until you get the answer you want?

I mean what is the difference between this and the one you’ve just asked above – “Then answer the question of what is the intended outcome/goal of your gun restrictions?”

**

If you stopped just trying to win and actually entered into honest debate you might learn something.

And if you were to stop ignoring the facts that do not happen to agree with your POV you might have a better understanding.

What ‘facts’

You have presented opinions that I’ve disputed if you have your own countering arguments to what I’ve said, give them, but please stop pretending that your opinions have not been disputed.

**

You must remember all the stuff about wanting a healthier society where people didn’t feel so threatened?

Who feels threatened by the law abiding person owning a gun? Why do you think they feel threatened by the law abiding person owning a gun?

Once again you are just ignoring anything that’s been said that contradicts the way you think.

I mean you don’t even seem to dispute that many of the pro-gunners coming here talk about feeling threatened.

**

You have shown sources that you claim back up your claims but as I’ve explained several times they are not as solid or as positive as you present them.

Then it should be simple to show countering data or interpretations of that data, yet you have not.

But I have.

You just don’t read it, or you do but ignore it.

Do I have to repeat everything again and would there be much point if you are just going to ignore it again?

Remember all that stuff about comparing burglary, assault and rape figures in the UK and US and how there is little difference in them and that with the statistical variables factored in those slight differences are virtually meaningless, but that in only one area is the figure hugely different that of gun related homicide?

I’ve written pages on this stuff and you don’t seem to be disputing it only ignoring it.

**

of were pro-gunners have expressed feelings of being threatened.

And I have explained what you perceive as fear is nothing more than a realistic view of the world we live in. They are doing nothing more than being prepared if something were to happen.

As I say you agree they feel under threat.

But they don’t seem to be thinking about ways to improve their society so they don’t feel threatened they seem to be putting there faith in there guns to protect them.

This backs up my theory that they don’t seem to think that much about ways to improve their society.

**

and the seatbelt thing we’ve done to death and you still haven’t made it work)

Why is it everyone else understood what was being said except for you? You claim it don’t work but its only you that refuses to understand.

But you didn’t seem to be able to counter what I said you just don’t accept it, you say over and over that I didn’t understand seemingly only because I didn’t give you the reply you wanted.

Also if anyone else disagrees with my criticism of that comparison why haven’t they given them?

**

 

I’ve never refused to back up my theory I’ve given hundreds of examples of things that seem to back it up

Rotflmao I really must find these “hundreds of examples” of gun owners that refuse to participate in or donate to social / economic programs.

Another example of you reading what you want, not what is said.

“AS for donations to social programmes, we have covered that in some detail also, again you seem to have conveniently forgotten. (it began I think around the 100’s in the MAD thread and continued, I can go and find some examples if you want)

Just because someone gives money to something that doesn’t mean they have given it much thought.

For example just because someone gives to a ‘just say no’ drugs programme that doesn’t mean they have given much thought to why people might become involved in substance abuse or to understanding the problems involved.

I’m still unsure (although I’ve asked) what drugs policy you want and why?”

A person would have to be very stupid or very blinkered to misunderstand.

**

I’m still unsure (although I’ve asked) what drugs policy you want and why?

Again what does this have to do with the subject at hand?

You don’t know?

For you to not know would mean you haven’t actually read anything said by me since we began back in September.

And highlights yet again that if someone says something you don’t like or cannot refute you just ignore it.

“For example just because someone gives to a ‘just say no’ drugs programme that doesn’t mean they have given much thought to why people might become involved in substance abuse or to understanding the problems involved”

My theory was that many pro-gunners thought more about defending gun ownership than they did about the social and economic problems within their society.

Your contention was that you thought as much about social programmes as you did about defending gun ownership, that you spent as much effort and time in trying to understand social problems as you did about defending gun ownership.

So I tried to discuss some social issues with you, one of which was drugs, and you didn’t seem to have much of a clue.

It became very clear, very quickly that you hadn’t given it much thought, far, far less thought than you have given to defending gun ownership.

As I said this backs up my theories.

Do you understand?

But honestly I don’t think you care about understanding, you just want to win. So anything that doesn’t fit in with your view is dismissed.

Which actually also fits in exactly with what I said back in September -

My thesis is that the problem with many American’s attitudes towards guns is that they seem to see them as a way of dealing with and also ignoring many of the social, economic and cultural problems within their society. It also seems to me to lead to a belief that threat and suppression is the best means of defence.

(PS: this is not just with drugs, I’ve tried to talked to you about the roots of crime which you seem to say was all about ‘greed’ and knowing ‘right from wrong’ but don’t seem to have though beyond that. And you blame many of the woes of your society on ‘hedonism’ and ‘materialism’ but don’t seem to have any idea what to do about it)

So Pitt what do these have to do with the subject at hand?

**

 

Here is a reply to a post from Yank on this subject

I believe he was speaking to the point that your “theory” needs some data to back it up. Data you have yet to provide. Data to refute the countering data provided which you have yet to provide.

Oh hell…

I’ve presented some theories, you haven’t been unable to refute those theories, and you are still unable to refute those theories

But rather than refute what I’ve said or even try and refute what I’ve said you are asking me to make my theories stronger.

Why can you not refute what I’ve said already?

As to ‘countering data provided’ you haven’t presented any regarding my theories, you have made assertions (like the social programme argument above) but when these are examined they only seem to strengthen my thesis (as shown above).

**

Just because someone gives money to something that doesn’t mean they have given it much thought.

Nor does it mean they have not thought about it, in fact they must have at least a little to decide to donate. I mean after all would you donate to something you think is ineffective?

(see above)

And anyway if you haven’t given it much thought you wouldn’t know if the programme you are giving to is effective or useful? Some people base their donations on religious or ideological grounds without inquiring what is actually done.

**

 

Pitt

It seems to me that the only way you can carry on commenting on this subject is by disregarding most of the things said in the discussion and by ignoring virtually all of the arguments that oppose your viewpoint.

(I know you say the same for me but if so why is it I can show that your accusations are false but whenever I ask you to back up your claims you refuse to do so?)

If you have counter arguements present them if you haven't got any why not ask yourself why?

**