Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
So game theory does have a use outside the classroom. So what's that, like, 2 nash equilibrims? That was fun, but next time draw out the matirx so it is easier to picture.
|
I have found that doing explicit math in a public forum leads to ... lack of understanding. =)
Tossing out a matrix, and saying "this demonstrates how pro-gun control and wanting to own a gun are consistent" would result in even fewer people understanding my point, I suspect!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RangerDick
This is a prime example of the difference in the worlds between a liberal's world and the real world, where up is down and down is up, nothing in the previous statement makes a lick of sense. For example, it was stated that,
"Notice that B is the safest city (no guns). But, everyone having a gun is safer than half the population having a gun. And, if half the population has a gun, buying a gun is the easiest way to reduce your death rate from guns."
Can someone please help me make sense out of that statement, or is it me?
|
Look at case C.
Quote:
|
C> In the third, half the people have a gun. 500 people with guns die from gunshots. 1000 people without guns die from gunshots.
|
Your chance of dieing from being shot is doubled if you don't have a gun.
So, each person should think "I should buy a gun to make myself safer!
Now, look at case D:
Quote:
|
D> In the forth, 1% of the population has a gun. 30 people with guns die from gunshots, and 100 people without guns die from gunshots.
|
By case D, this is no longer the case: buying a gun is foolish.
In this hypothetical city, buying a gun makes sense if more than a certain percentage of the population has guns. This continues, possibly, until everyone owns a gun.
If less than a certain percentage of the population has guns, buying a gun doesn't make sense. This logic continues, possibly, until nobody owns a gun.
This is a case of two 'locally optimal points'. Everyone has a gun, or nobody has a gun.
Looking at the two points (A and B)
Quote:
A> In one, everyone has a gun. 1,000 people die from gunshots every day.
B> In another, nobody has a gun. Nobody dies from gunshots.
|
You will notice that fewer people die in case B than in case A, at least from gunshots.
This isn't a proof that gun control makes sense: it is just an attempt to illustrate how gun ownership and pro-gun restriction can be consistent.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
My use of "several" is correct.
The "Cold, dead hands" snippit comes from a different speech that occurred a year later in Charlotte, NC. Heston NEVER said it in his Denver speech.
|
Shit man, did you even
read my post?
I gave a definition of 'several'. It means 'more than two or three' in the case of it being used to count nouns.
2 is not more than 2 or 3. Two speeches where used in the movie. And they where not edited together, but placed one after another, with the second speech having an introduction.
At least, that is what I read about the contravercy. Did it happen differently than that?
However, here you are, using lie-filled arguements to attack Moore about lieing. Several is not the correct word to use for the number '2', it's use was a lie.
And yes, that is hyperbole. I don't think you are lieing as much as you are using hyperbole and exagerrative language to argue your point.
EDIT: Deleted some over-the-top hyperbole.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lebell
And thanks for the quote, since it illustrates exactly the lie Moore tries to sell in this instance.
|
Actually, that quote was the wrong one. It didn't contain a lie -- the language was inclusive enough for it to be talking about America and Americans as a whole, and thus makes Moore's defence consistent. The one with the lie or error has to do with transporting of missiles through the neighbourhood at night.
My error, sorry about that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by matthew330
You do realize that Michael Moore's target is the younger generation - the only people that will swallow his BS as truth - and this is "getting money in a good way." At least you characters recognize it as BS, you just have a million and one reasons to justify it.
|
Huh? Please clarify.