Here's Lawrence, master of logic: "When I took Simon to task for ignoring the import of my note; which had a point diametrically opposed to Simon's, he blithely said he ignored the post and merely used Cho as a springboard for saying something he was more interested in." Here's me, imbecile: "My reply had nothing whatsoever to do with any article you may have linked to. Yours was simply a handy thread in which to post." So now, according to Lawrence (Master of Logic), a thread title is exactly equivalent to Cho, madman with a couple of handguns. Astounding. But note also that Lawrence has nothing at all to say about the subject at hand, nothing at all to say about whether gun ownership tends to increase the number of gun-related homicides or whether it tends to reduce them. I'm up for that kind of discussion. Paul Stone's up for it as well. But Lawrence seems only capable of making disparaging remarks about another poster (or Obama). Is the following statement logical? The more guns there are in a society the more likely it is that people will be shot. Simon Illogician ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 9:01 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control I fully expected this bizarre response from Simon. Since he is an imbecile when it comes to Logic, it was utterly impossible for him to understand my criticism of his earlier note when he did what Steyn accuses Obama of doing. When I took Simon to task for ignoring the import of my note; which had a point diametrically opposed to Simon's, he blithely said he ignored the post and merely used Cho as a springboard for saying something he was more interested in. Mike did something similar later on. Neither one of them sees anything wrong in this. They can shake their heads and assert that what they say is true, and so ask what's the problem? The problem is that one thing does not logically follow from the other. The problem is that you can't develop a logically coherent argument that supports your point of view. A few sneers, a few one liners, and a few insults is all your good for. I always end up laughing at Simon's notes. He is so outrageously silly up on his high horse supporting an utterly illogical position -- and proud of it. Lawrence ------------Original Message------------ From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Date: Mon, Apr-23-2007 12:35 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mark Steyn on Gun Control Lawrence surpasses himself by trying to pretend that it is only those in favour of gun ownership that are seeking to score political points. And in doing so he ignores totally the obvious fact that Cho, as depicted by himself on his suicide videos, was every inch the epitomy of gun fanticism. Take away what he did and show the images in isolation and we'd have had Lawrence cheering him on, one more example of how to defend yourself in these violent times, nobody would mess with him on campus, you wouldn't have any massacres if he was around... Indeed. Because anybody, with a gun or without a gun, is but a few shades away from being a madman. An example. Somebody I know is going through a very difficult time in their marriage. Her husband, ordinarily a quiet, softly spoken man, every now and again seems to tilt over the edge at which time he becomes violent. The wife, and also the daughter, are on the receiving end at these times. What would happen, I wonder, if they had a gun in the house? Yet this is just a single example of a situation. In the US, so the statistics say, there are upwards of 80 gun-related homicides every day. And here's Lawrence, watching with the rest of us as 32 young people are murdered by a madman with a gun, and he seriously thinks it proof that society is better off with gun ownership. He really does believe that... Amazing. Simon Still bemused ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence Helm To: Lit-Ideas Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 3:11 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Mark Steyn on Gun Control This was sent to me by a blogger interested in our arguments about Gun and Nutcase control. It is from a blog called "Power Line": http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017407.php . Steyn's entire Sun-Times Column is at http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/351710,CST-EDT-STEYN22.article . Gun Control people trying to make hay over Cho's massacre are in a ludicrous position. There were alreadly laws in place that would have prevented Cho from legally getting a gun, and the place were Cho perfored his massacere, Virginia Tech College was a "gun free" zone. You could almost laugh at this if so many people didn't have to die to expose this nonsense for what it is. What Mike and Simon both did in the wake of Cho was something like Obama did: 'I've had some mail in recent days from people who claimed I'd insulted the dead of Virginia Tech. Obviously, I regret I didn't show the exquisite taste and sensitivity of Sen. Obama and compare getting shot in the head to an Imus one-liner. Does he mean it? I doubt whether even he knows. When something savage and unexpected happens, it's easiest to retreat to our tropes and bugbears or, in the senator's case, a speech on the previous week's "big news."' Lawrence April 22, 2007 The claims of reality Mark Steyn devotes his weekly Sun-Times column to the political and cultural infantilization of American society manifested in events related to the Virginia Tech massacre. He urges us to get "realistic about reality." He doens't miss the unreal contribution of Barack Obama last week. He notes that at Yale, the students cannot even pretend to be realistic about reality: [A]t Yale, the dean of student affairs, Betty Trachtenberg, reacted to the Virginia Tech murders by taking decisive action: She banned all stage weapons from plays performed on campus. After protests from the drama department, she modified her decisive action to "permit the use of obviously fake weapons" such as plastic swords. Unfortunately, Steyn's not done with the Ivy League: A few years back, a couple of alienated loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door, and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled funny so he picked up his Glock and told 'em to get lost. So they concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was sick of environmentalists and chased 'em away. Eventually they figured they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots worked it out: Where's the nearest place around here where you're most likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area. To promote vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale props department policy, it signals to everyone that you're not in the real world. Yale, however, isn't even in the play real world. That has to be some kind of a new low in the avoidance of reality. And the aphorism of the Roman poet Horace applies to "reality" as well as "nature": "Though you drive nature out with a pitchfork, she will still find her way back." Footnote: See also Jack Kelly's column on NBC's irresonsibility in contributing to "the next public mass killing in America."