Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:16 pm  

Stand-Offish wrote:

If you look at your bargraph, you will see that the SAME people gave a variety of things that they thought were a cause (a factor might be a better word).
It's a fair old list as well.
it's clear that the Duggan thing wasn't THE cause (as in singular).
It was a factor.

The clear difference between 'the Duggan thing' and the rest is that 'the Duggan thing' is the only single incident on there. The rest are perceptions of society and communications. Whilst nobody would argue that the rest of the issues weren't contributory factors, 'the Duggan thing' was the actual incident which set off the chain of events of which the riots were the consequence.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:17 pm  

Cronus wrote:

A causes B; B causes C; C causes D. That does not mean A caused D, or even necessarily C, despite being linked. Please try and understand that.

If A does not happen, then neither does C or D.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:08 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Cronus wrote:

A causes B; B causes C; C causes D. That does not mean A caused D, or even necessarily C, despite being linked. Please try and understand that.

If A does not happen, then neither does C or D.

No one has said otherwise. It's called a chain of events.

That still doesn't mean A actually caused anything beyond B.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:17 pm  

Cronus wrote:

No one has said otherwise. It's called a chain of events.

That still doesn't mean A actually caused anything beyond B.

A (Shooting of Mark Duggan)

C (Riot)

Take away A, and C doesn't happenn.

Ie, No shooting, no riot.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:58 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

A (Shooting of Mark Duggan)

C (Riot)

Take away A, and C doesn't happenn.

Ie, No shooting, no riot.

It's clearly beyond him. I'll leave him in his ignorance.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:01 pm  

Cronus wrote:

It's clearly beyond him. I'll leave him in his ignorance.

The majority agree with me, best to leave us all in our ignorance.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:14 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

A (Shooting of Mark Duggan)

C (Riot)

Take away A, and C doesn't happenn.

Ie, No shooting, no riot.

So its all Mark Duggans mothers fault, if she hadnt got pregnant all those years ago , there wouldnt have been any riots

All sorted

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:42 pm  

I did mention a few pages back that he was a nutter.

Didn't expect him to demonstrate it so aptly though.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:43 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

A (Shooting of Mark Duggan)

C (Riot)

Take away A, and C doesn't happenn.

Ie, No shooting, no riot.

C can still happen without A.
C could depend on B.
C could happen independently of both A and B.
They are all possibilities.
Would you accept that just from a mathematical point of view (or logical point of view)?
If you accept that, you can't definitely say A caused C.

Re: Seems like 'we' might start shooting people? : Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:48 pm  

McLaren_Field wrote:

I did mention a few pages back that he was a nutter.

Didn't expect him to demonstrate it so aptly though.

Love how when people are losing an argument on this messageboard they immediately resort to dishing out abuse.

It's funny because it seems like it's the mods who do it most often, aren't they the ones supposed to be enforcing the rules?

I bet if I was to start dishing it out in response then I would be first to get banned too.

I've already had a 'warning' off a moderator for him abusing me?!

If you don't agree with my points, debate it out. Don't just start dishing out abuse. It really is quite immature that you can't construct an argument without resorting to abuse.