Guns: how much longer will it take ....

sceletera wrote:

Ah, you concede one thing while denying all the others. My statement seems to be pretty accurate in describing you and what your response would be.

There is no accuracy in your personal attacks.

sceletera wrote:

Actually there is a focus on mental illness since the requirements include being "mental defective" which has very clear standards that include symptoms of those with mental illness.

The fact that they also include standards other than mental illness means that this isn't a focus on mental illness.

To help you understand this concept, here is an example: if they targeted every single person in the world, that would include all of the mentally ill people. But since they were also going after all the people who are not mentally ill, there is no focus on the mentally ill.

sceletera wrote:

What precisely do you think a mental disorder is medically?

I think it includes things like dyslexia.

sceletera wrote:

Everything considered a mental illness is classified as a mental disorder.

So are things that are not counted as mental illness.

sceletera wrote:

This might give a bit of understanding. It is WHO's classifications of mental disorders.

As I said.

It includes fear of spiders.

I guess that would have been it for my freedom if Obama had had his way. I'm not a big fan of spiders.
Please point to the specific section of the WHO regulations

It includes claustrophobia.

It includes attention deficit disorder.
It includes homosexuality.

It includes heterosexual people who like kinky sex.

sceletera wrote:

You seem to have gone on and on about how no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement you have made.

No one?

I have never made any such statement.

sceletera wrote:

Are you now claiming that your statement was not about how truthful you are but simply a rhetorical fallacy on your part to attempt to shift the burden of proof unto others?

No. I'm pointing out that I never made any such statement.

Says the person who cannot point out a single untrue thing that I've ever said.

You have a big mouth for someone who can't point out a single untrue thing that I've ever written.

sceletera wrote:

Your statement that no one has ever shown you to make an untruthful claim has to be either one or the other.

Not if there is no such statement to begin with.

sceletera wrote:

If it had a different purpose feel free to tell me what it was.

Perhaps the reason why you are falsely accusing me of making such a statement is to distract from the fact that I am completely correct when I point out that this monstrosity was not limited to the mentally ill.

sceletera wrote:

Would you care to back up your claim by citing the EO?

I'll cite a couple of articles that refer to it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/obamas-executive-actions-on-guns-legal-analysis/
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-gun-law-20150718-story.html
(The last two links are the same article I believe.)

You're making way too many personal attacks and false accusations against me to warrant me taking the time to dig up the actual executive order again

sceletera wrote:

Then you can cite how the regulation came about because the EO.

Federal agencies do as the President orders them to.

The Constitution kind of requires that of them.

sceletera wrote:

Congress did not overturn any EO related to the NICS. Any claim that they did is factually untrue unless you can cite the specific law.
I guess we should make these statements #8 for you being untruthful.
(You should really be careful of using such sloppy logic because if applied to your gun control arguments it creates all kinds of issues for your stance there.)

Your sophistry is neither an untrue statement by me nor sloppy logic by me.

Feel free to try to undermine any of my gun control arguments, if you think you can.

If you do try, it would be preferable if you didn't pollute your position with false accusations and personal attacks. It really doesn't help, and responding to all the nonsense gets in the way of the factual stuff.

In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, I think for the next round of my replies to you I will disregard all false accusations and personal attacks that you make and address only whatever factual issues you raise.

You are referring to one small portion of their list of mental disorders. There were a number of listings beyond the narrow category that you are listing here, and they do include harmless disabilities.

at least
one of the following:
1. Disorientation to time and place; or
2. Memory impairment, either short-term
(inability to learn new information), intermediate,
or long-term (inability to remember
information that was known sometime in
the past); or
3. Perceptual or thinking disturbances
(e.g., hallucinations, delusions); or
4. Change in personality; or
5. Disturbance in mood; or
6. Emotional lability (e.g., explosive temper
outbursts, sudden crying, etc.) and impairment
in impulse control; or
7. Loss of measured intellectual ability of
at least 15 I.Q. points from premorbid levels
or overall impairment index clearly within
the severely impaired range on neuropsychological
testing, e.g., the Luria-Nebraska,
Halstead-Reitan, etc.;

Does he have a long time practice of saying "you haven't proven any of my statements to be untrue"? He seems to want to deny it.

Does he have a long time practice of saying "you haven't proven any of my statements to be untrue"? He seems to want to deny it.

Oralloy is wrong, repeatedly,

Did you deny you were wrong about other things that I have shown you to be wrong about? Yes.

I see nothing inaccurate in my statement.

Which standard other than a mental illness is included.

They are not going after anyone with dyslexia since dyslexia doesn't meet the standard here
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2016-title20-vol2/pdf/CFR-2016-title20-vol2-part404-subpartP-app1.pdf
page 518

Some of those things are mental disorders. Arachnophobia would come under the phobic disorders classification but would not meet the standard set out by the SS regulation.

Homosexuality is not a disorder nor to my understanding is kinky sex.

You run from one thing to the next failing to put them together has a whole which is the requirement under the regulations.

You have said it to at least 3 different posters at different times that I have seen.

Are those isolated instances?

Quote:

Says the person who cannot point out a single untrue thing that I've ever said.

Quote:

You have a big mouth for someone who can't point out a single untrue thing that I've ever written.

There seems to be a pattern of you saying similar things.

Semantic BS on your part.

The reverse rhetorical argument you are making for gun control and SS regulations. Perhaps you are unclear what sets and subsets are. You decide to use the full set when only a subset is talked about or a subset when the full set is being talked about. It may seem like a good argument to you but it shows your lack of logic.

I didn't falsely accuse you.

See your 2 quotes above.

Repeating your false argument about what was included still doesn't make your statements true.

It seems you are mistaking executive action with executive orders.

It seems you have decided that you can simply accuse me of lying and it will either make me go away or prove your statements true.

You have been guilty of not knowing what you are talking about.

You simply hope no one will bother to check up on what you are spouting.

I am hardly referring to one small portion. I am referring to the 7 listed items of which at least one must be met in the SS regulation before they move on to criteria number 2 where two more criteria must be met before someone can be classified under SS as being disabled because of mental defect.

Phobias are not listed anywhere in the regulations that allow one to be classified as disabled because of a mental defect.

Dyslexia isn't a mental disorder that meets the requirements under the SS regulation. The only one claiming it does is you. SS regulations are such that not all disorders are included in what classifies for being referred to NICS.

Continuing to bring up dyslexia after you have been told this will in the future qualify as an untruth on your part.

As I predicted, you simply declare your statements to be true in spite of facts.

By the way, this is the statement you made that caused me to join this board.

oralloy wrote:

You have a big mouth for someone who can't point out a single untrue thing that I've ever written.

I have specifically pointed to your statements and shown how they are false.

You seem to think that your making vague statements is the same thing.

If you would care to point to my specific statements we can test the veracity of those statements.

oralloy wrote:

sceletera wrote:

Does he have a long time practice of saying "you haven't proven any of my statements to be untrue"? He seems to want to deny it.

You're certainly a dishonest and dishonorable fellow, aren't you?

I denied your untrue claim that I claimed to have never been wrong. In fact, I have always admitted my fallibility.

You seem to have gone on and on about how no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement you have made.

However, when I'm confronted with an individual who:

a) has never shown me to be wrong,

b) is trying to claim that I am wrong without even making an argument against anything that I say,

c) is making an untrue claim about how I'm always wrong and there are many examples of me being wrong, and I certainly never said this

d) cannot point out a single instance of me being wrong,

of course in that situation I point out their inability to point out anything that I'm wrong about.

It is a perfectly reasonable response to such a dishonorable person and tactic.

You're about to see me give such a response to that maporsche fellow.

The two statements can both be true. You can admit being wrong while claiming no has ever pointed to an untrue statement. You are arguing against something I never said.

I certainly never said this

b. you are trying to claim I am wrong without making an argument against my actual statement.

c.) you called me dishonorable

What would you suggest should be my perfectly reasonable response to you?

(Your points a. and d. are the same thing. Repeating them doesn't make them true but it does point to some logical failings on your part.)

Thanks to maporsche on how to search here are several instances of you stating x has not pointed to an untrue statement by you.

It seems you repeat yourself a lot on variations of that one phrase.

One could make a reasonable conclusion that you go on and on about it.

Cases where you make an untrue statement and falsely accuse me of being wrong count as cases where you are wrong, not as cases where I am wrong.

(a) In accordance with the
requirements of the NIAA, we will
identify the records of individuals
whom we have ‘‘adjudicated as a mental
defective.’

No. The rule covered everyone who receives social security checks and can't handle their financials. No limitations to mental illness.

(4) Has attained age 18, but has not
attained full retirement age; and

Nope. I post facts. You're the one who is ignoring them.

No such focus. It covered people who receive Social Security for any reason, if they do not handle their own finances.

(1) Has filed a claim based on
disability;

I'm on record repeatedly linking to the executive order when Obama had it on his White House page

You may see nothing wrong about lying about people and making personal attacks against them to bolster a position that you cannot defend intellectually, but it is pretty dishonorable behavior.

Phobias are clearly covered. That would include claustrophobia as well as my own fear of spiders.

I'm not convinced of that. The regulations are so complex that I cannot be sure that it doesn't count somewhere within them.

Why not? Is it not a phobia?

From your link:

If a disorder is covered, it is reasonable for me to point out that it is covered.

It could be. They seem like pretty much the same thing.

Is there an important difference? They are both the President telling the government to do something, right?

I made a mistake by using the term mental disorder when I should have said mental illness.

My main point, that this monstrosity was targeted at people who are not mentally ill remains valid.

(a) In accordance with the
requirements of the NIAA, we will
identify the records of individuals
whom we have ‘‘adjudicated as a mental
defective.’’

(2) Has been determined to be
disabled based on a finding that the
individual’s impairment(s) meets or
medically equals the requirements of
one of the Mental Disorders Listing of
Impairments (section 12.00 of appendix
1 to subpart P of part 404 of this
chapter) under the rules in part 404,
subpart P, of this chapter, or under the
rules in part 416, subpart I, of this
chapter;

That is one small portion of what are pages of different mental disorders.

sceletera wrote:

Phobias are not listed anywhere in the regulations that allow one to be classified as disabled because of a mental defect.

Yes, actually they are.

Page 520

12.06 Anxiety Related Disorders:

2. A persistent irrational fear of a specific object, activity, or situation which results in a compelling desire to avoid the dreaded object, activity, or situation; or

12.06 Anxiety Related Disorders: In these disorders
anxiety is either the predominant disturbance
or it is experienced if the individual
attempts to master symptoms; for example,
confronting the dreaded object or situation
in a phobic disorder or resisting the
obsessions or compulsions in obsessive compulsive
disorders.
The required level of severity for these disorders
is met when the requirements in both
A and B are satisfied, or when the requirements
in both A and C are satisfied.
A. Medically documented findings of at
least one of the following:
1. Generalized persistent anxiety accompanied
by three out of four of the following
signs or symptoms:
a. Motor tension; or
b. Autonomic hyperactivity; or
c. Apprehensive expectation; or
d. Vigilance and scanning;
or
2. A persistent irrational fear of a specific
object, activity, or situation which results in
a compelling desire to avoid the dreaded object,
activity, or situation; or
3. Recurrent severe panic attacks manifested
by a sudden unpredictable onset of intense
apprehension, fear, terror and sense of
impending doom occurring on the average of
at least once a week; or
4. Recurrent obsessions or compulsions
which are a source of marked distress; or
5. Recurrent and intrusive recollections of
a traumatic experience, which are a source
of marked distress;
AND
B. Resulting in at least two of the following:

1. Marked restriction of activities of daily
living; or
2. Marked difficulties in maintaining social
functioning; or
3. Marked difficulties in maintaining concentration,
persistence, or pace; or
4. Repeated episodes of decompensation,
each of extended duration.
OR
C. Resulting in complete inability to function
independently outside the area of one’s
home

sceletera wrote:

Dyslexia isn't a mental disorder that meets the requirements under the SS regulation. The only one claiming it does is you. SS regulations are such that not all disorders are included in what classifies for being referred to NICS.

I'm not convinced of that. All of the various mental regulations are a maze. I lack the expertise to tell whether it is or isn't included.

sceletera wrote:

Continuing to bring up dyslexia after you have been told this will in the future qualify as an untruth on your part.

No worries. I can see that the regulations do include phobias and anorexia.

They suffice just as well as examples of people who are not mentally ill.

sceletera wrote:

As I predicted, you simply declare your statements to be true in spite of facts.

No such facts. My statements there were true whether you like it or not.

sceletera wrote:

By the way, this is the statement you made that caused me to join this board.

oralloy wrote:

You have a big mouth for someone who can't point out a single untrue thing that I've ever written.

Well, can you cite any instance of the person with the big mouth ever finding an error on my part?

Even a minor error such as the one that you found?

sceletera wrote:

I have specifically pointed to your statements and shown how they are false.

Your pointing to true statements and claiming that they are false doesn't count as showing that they are false.

sceletera wrote:

You seem to think that your making vague statements is the same thing.

I don't make vague statements.

sceletera wrote:

If you would care to point to my specific statements we can test the veracity of those statements.

I generally quote the statement that I am responding to. If you see me complaining about your lies, you can see your offending lie quoted right above that.

But here are some of your lies about me:

"You will of course deny it because that seems to be who you are."

"Your outlandish claims of never telling anything untrue seems to be trying to hide behind bluster and name calling."

"That statement is true but it applies to you."

"Who is counting dyslexia as a mental illness other than you?"

"We will simply group all of your above statements that are factually untrue and call them #7."

"You seem to have gone on and on about how no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement you have made."

"You have said it to at least 3 different posters at different times that I have seen."

sceletera wrote:

The two statements can both be true. You can admit being wrong while claiming no has ever pointed to an untrue statement. You are arguing against something I never said.

You are playing word games.

Let me try again. You falsely accused me of saying that no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement of mine.

You cannot point to a single time where I've ever said that no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement of mine.

I made a mistake by using the term mental disorder when I should have said mental illness.

My main point, that this monstrosity was targeted at people who are not mentally ill remains valid.

If I felt like searching (I don't feel like it) I could find a number of times where I explicitly stated that there was one person on a2k who had in fact found (minor) errors on my part.

sceletera wrote:

I certainly never said this

You are complaining about my justified responses to other people who have in fact said it, which why you received an explanation as to why I made those justified responses to those other people.

sceletera wrote:

b. you are trying to claim I am wrong without making an argument against my actual statement.

Nonsense. I have not done any such thing.

sceletera wrote:

c.) you called me dishonorable

A reasonable response to your outrageous lies about me.

sceletera wrote:

What would you suggest should be my perfectly reasonable response to you?

I suggest not lying about me and sticking to arguing about facts.

sceletera wrote:

(Your points a. and d. are the same thing. Repeating them doesn't make them true but it does point to some logical failings on your part.)

The nice thing about facts is, I don't have to "make" them true. Facts are just naturally true of their own accord.

Feel free to try to poke holes in my logic if you like. Trying never hurt anyone.

sceletera wrote:

Thanks to maporsche on how to search here are several instances of you stating x has not pointed to an untrue statement by you.

How many instance of me saying that no one has ever pointed to an untrue statement of mine?

sceletera wrote:

It seems you repeat yourself a lot on variations of that one phrase.

It seems like a lot of dishonorable people use vague references to imaginary occurrences of me being wrong to attack my posts without ever coming up with an argument against anything I say.

sceletera wrote:

One could make a reasonable conclusion that you go on and on about it.

No. There is nothing reasonable about such a conclusion. I respond that way only when I am faced with dishonorable tactics that justify my response.

Facebook Meme:

"So, let me get this straight... School failed, FBI failed, cops failed, officer on site failed, but you guys blame the NRA?!"

Takes a special kind of idjit...