The thread in which you discuss Obama and current American .politics. ...

[Rass]

Having a logical discussion would involve him being able to respond to you. Not just bam banned. He should be warned. But again that is in logical discussions not dictatorship discussions.

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

I'm not sure I like that. While I think Piotr is right, I'm betting he wasn't lying, he was saying what he honestly thought. You yourself have admitted thrice (I believe) that there is a huge difference, and that's not against iMtG law. Only lying, and lying is intentionally false. So he didn't break iMtG law at all. In a way, you did* by "doing to others which you wouldn't like done to yourself".

*i use this in the loosest sense of the term.

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

If you lie to me, I don't care what your goal is. Goal does not justify the means, neither does good intentions.

So what were these lies?

He lied that my claim is false.

I could say false. Is a knife not an above adequate defense tool that is more consistent than a firearm? Gun jams and misfires are a thing that had been know to happen on more than one occasion.

You would be wrong: knife is a tool which is not self perpetuated, it uses physical power of the wielder rather than power of chemical cartridge. According to reality, statistical man is far stronger and have much better eye-had coordination skills than statistical woman, thus woman armed with knife is still not very likely to be able to defend herself. On top of that, knife requires far more than 2h training to be used efficiently in self defense.

My thesis stands: hand gun is the best self defense tool available to women, given no more than 2h training.

It takes training to successfully use a gun and have it do exactly what you want, it'll fail, and if can fun out if ammo. Knives need no training, never misfire or run out, and the strength of the weilder doesn't so much matter, because it's going to successfully hurt them. Knives are not as good as guns, but almost as good.

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

If you lie to me, I don't care what your goal is. Goal does not justify the means, neither does good intentions.

So what were these lies?

He lied that my claim is false.

I could say false. Is a knife not an above adequate defense tool that is more consistent than a firearm? Gun jams and misfires are a thing that had been know to happen on more than one occasion.

You would be wrong: knife is a tool which is not self perpetuated, it uses physical power of the wielder rather than power of chemical cartridge. According to reality, statistical man is far stronger and have much better eye-had coordination skills than statistical woman, thus woman armed with knife is still not very likely to be able to defend herself. On top of that, knife requires far more than 2h training to be used efficiently in self defense.

My thesis stands: hand gun is the best self defense tool available to women, given no more than 2h training.

It takes training to successfully use a gun and have it do exactly what you want, it'll fail, and if can fun out if ammo. Knives need no training, never misfire or run out, and the strength of the weilder doesn't so much matter, because it's going to successfully hurt them. Knives are not as good as guns, but almost as good.

It takes 5 minutes of training to be able o use a gun reasonably well.  If you get into hand to hand combat, knives are VERy difficult to use, and it'll probably come down to if the assaulted can grab their arm and keep them from moving it.  Strength matters.  The only time it doesn't is when you have the element of surprise.

It takes 5 minutes to use it but a very long time to use it well. Knives, if you can stab randomly you can .love. them up, and it's really good hand-yo-hand. They swing, you stab a knife at their arm, boom that hurts,

[Piotr]

Lol

[Rass]

Having a logical discussion would involve him being able to respond to you. Not just bam banned. He should be warned. But again that is in logical discussions not dictatorship discussions.

Are you saying that he was not warned?

I do not see any warning of bans to anyone on this topic. Second I didn't see a trial against the person who was banned for ten days.

By all means this is your forum you can do what you want. Also you can say they should know better under imtg law. But when someone is trying to link topics that he believes supports his case and all you say is no without trying to post references to support your argument. This seems quite harsh.

[Sparkle Ninja]

Thanks Obama...

[DrEggman789]

Well, that descended quickly after my last post.

The two links he linked to were statistics on rape victims with known assailants and locations of rape victims by state when cross referencing with gun control by leniency...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't contradict itself, or lie, being as the sources posted were the US census and the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group...

Seems like less of a "lying" ban and more of a "you disagree with me" ban.

[Spencer Addington]

Well, that descended quickly after my last post.

The two links he linked to were statistics on rape victims with known assailants and locations of rape victims by state when cross referencing with gun control by leniency...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that doesn't contradict itself, or lie, being as the sources posted were the US census and the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy group...

Seems like less of a "lying" ban and more of a "you disagree with me" ban.

He has done it before, and I expect he'll do it again...

[Rass]

Comparing statistics of crime rate of one country to another is impossible or at best difficult, because crime is affected by plethora of different factors, not only access to guns.

It is far easier to compare crime rates of the same country or state which changed their gun ownership laws, as most of the other relevant factors remain the same. Statistics confirm that when a state such as Florida relaxes their gun control laws, crime rate goes down.

One of logical explanations of this scientifically proven real life phenomenon is that in general, guns in hands of criminals increase crime rate, guns in hands of law obeying citizens decrease crime rate, obviously. When you ban guns you only ban them for law obeying citizens, thus the ratio of legal vs. illegal guns changes, making it easier for the criminals to commit crimes.


For me, this discussion is pointless as I observe 'no victim, no crime' and 'do not punish people for crimes you are afraid they may commit'. Do not break law in prevention of lawbreaking: interfering with free trade of any tools is prohibited under iMtG Law.

The American Journal of Public Health has released a study which shows that the idea of gun ownership leading to decreased crime rates is false: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&

You are claiming something which is not confirmed by scientific evidence nor logical causation. From your first link: "Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides" thus your claim is false. Do not lie or you will be banned.

Most people do not buy guns or any other tool without a reason, most of the time. Thus, the correlation is this: in the states where crime rate is high, more people arm themselves to be able to resist crime. Not the other way round.

He was warned.

Guess I can't read anymore. I was wrong so I will have to take that part of my argument back. I still see it to be silly to ban someone for something like this.you can steal or lie and it's like pulling teeth to get something done to them (check the trial section). But if you argue with Piotr (yes it is his forum) and he doesn't like what you say he uses his absolute power. And as I have heard before absolute power corrupts absolutely. So I guess for me spreading "lies" I should await to see what kind of punishment he deems fit for me.

[Piotr]

Lol

[Skyshadow731]

No offense but Hilary clinton will destroy the american dream. By making is socialist.

[Kaworu, the Fifth Child]

No offense but Hilary clinton will destroy the american dream. By making is socialist.

Not quite...

And @Piotr was that a warning, or did you just ban him?

[DrEggman789]

Comparing statistics of crime rate of one country to another is impossible or at best difficult, because crime is affected by plethora of different factors, not only access to guns.

It is far easier to compare crime rates of the same country or state which changed their gun ownership laws, as most of the other relevant factors remain the same. Statistics confirm that when a state such as Florida relaxes their gun control laws, crime rate goes down.

One of logical explanations of this scientifically proven real life phenomenon is that in general, guns in hands of criminals increase crime rate, guns in hands of law obeying citizens decrease crime rate, obviously. When you ban guns you only ban them for law obeying citizens, thus the ratio of legal vs. illegal guns changes, making it easier for the criminals to commit crimes.


For me, this discussion is pointless as I observe 'no victim, no crime' and 'do not punish people for crimes you are afraid they may commit'. Do not break law in prevention of lawbreaking: interfering with free trade of any tools is prohibited under iMtG Law.

The American Journal of Public Health has released a study which shows that the idea of gun ownership leading to decreased crime rates is false: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&

You are claiming something which is not confirmed by scientific evidence nor logical causation. From your first link: "Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides" thus your claim is false. Do not lie or you will be banned.

Most people do not buy guns or any other tool without a reason, most of the time. Thus, the correlation is this: in the states where crime rate is high, more people arm themselves to be able to resist crime. Not the other way round.

He was warned.

Guess I can't read anymore. I was wrong so I will have to take that part of my argument back. I still see it to be silly to ban someone for something like this.you can steal or lie and it's like pulling teeth to get something done to them (check the trial section). But if you argue with Piotr (yes it is his forum) and he doesn't like what you say he uses his absolute power. And as I have heard before absolute power corrupts absolutely. So I guess for me spreading "lies" I should await to see what kind of punishment he deems fit for me.

If you again claim falsely that I ban people without warning, your punishment will be 7 days ban. Deal?

As for banning for silly things and not for stealing and such, it is a question of practicality. My powers are good enough to know if someone lies in my area of expertise, but knowing if they lie about sending cards is more difficult.

He isn't claiming anything falsely. He is stating his belief that you banned abstract for disagreeing with you. Whether that was the case or not, that is his belief.

Believing something is true and talking about it is different than being deceptive. I think that would apply to both Rass and abstract.

By that application of iMTG law, if someone asked a question regarding MtG rules, and I thought and said that the play in question was  legal, and a DCI judge said it wasn't, that would make me a liar. Would you ban me?

I am not trying to be belligerent, I'm just requesting that abstract be given a trial before punishment, as that is promised in the law you created.

[DirtyMustachio]

Generally speaking

If you state an opinion, say in my opinion and don't cite sources, if you insinuate something opinionated to be truth it is automatically ruled false by Piotr or really anyone.

For example I could go on every thread and cite all the sources I want. Even if they are legitimate sources, but if I claim evolution is absolute truth, it is still in debate until final proof has made it absolute.

So if you want to share your opinions without catching the banhammer, leave them at just opinions. And state facts as facts which would be prerecorded source material not polls or statistics.