IKEA apologises for child shooting a gun

The doubts, misrepresentations, and faulty interpretations on the part of yourself, are devoid of relevance on the discussion of what is ultimately fact.

 

Given we both know you haven't read the research, I can appreciate your feelings of impotence

 

No matter how many times the matter is denied by yourself, it does not change the fact that what has been presented by yourself has indeed been read. That is why it can be stated with certainty that it is not research. It is nothing more than opinion pieces presented by those who have a political agenda they wish to further at any cost.

 

I'm not doing anything. There is no debate here as you're simply calling for a post-truth outlook which shuns scholarly evidence.

 

It is not evidence. No matter how many claims it is claimed otherwise by yourself, what is presented by yourself will never amount to evidence. It is speculation, it is opinion, it is political advocacy by those that care nothing for what is ultimately the truth.

 

And that is why your viewpoint will always be irrelevant. You have nothing but ideology and, quite frankly, idiotic comment over criminology research.

 

Accusations of ideology are now being leveled by yourself against myself in this particular matter? Ideology is not present on the part of myself. Nor are concepts such as spite, malice, vindictiveness, nor political affiliation or alliance with either the conservative or liberal political parties.

Simply because it is being referred to as research by those who are funding to present and promote it as being such, does not actually make it research. Come up with something more substantial than the politically-motivated opinion pieces of those who wish to pretend that their academic credentials mean something when in fact they do not.

 

Ideologue and post-truther. I'll stick with an evidence-based approach. Now shush, "evidence isn't evidence" repeated again and again is just not worth my time.

 

The approach utilized by yourself is not evidence-based. Rather the approach involves readily agreeing with whatever some individual with academic credentials tells you, so long as it aligns with the personally held beliefs of yourself, and not even questioning the methodology that was utilized by them in achieving their findings.

 

No you arrest them for doing nothing wrong because you're going to show them who the tough guy is.

You know, because allowing your personal opinions to enforce non-laws using the power of the state is very professional and ethical.

 

By the way, did the gun survive?

 

Who was arrested?

 

Trespassing? Bueller?

 

Spare me your ignorant self-righteousness. Talk about "inane"!

I will accept my own personal experience over politically-biased sham "studies" all day long and twice on Sundays.

 

Just more twaddle to hide from the evidence? Didn't see that coming!

 

You're the one engaged in a whole lot of self-twaddling, for no apparent reason other than to pretend you're oh, so superior when in reality you're probably hunched up in your mother's basement trying to figure out how to pretend you bring some kind of value to the world.

Color me unimpressed.

 

Nothing impressive in referring to the evidence. It's basic sense after all.

I appreciate why the ideologue is forced to hide from the evidence. But couldn't you fellows put more effort in your hiding? The "evidence is biased, so my bias isn't" is so low brow.

 

You don't have "evidence", or "basic sense".

You have politically driven studies using cooked statistics to create a specific outcome to push an agenda.

You are an ideologue, no matter how much you haughtily deny it. You have your own bias, and a pathological need to lecture others to try to prove to yourself how superior you are.

I was raised to look for certain things and to behave a certain way. Following those lessons, I found certain realities to be true, and those lessons have served me well in life. Forgive me, but a self-righteous British wog wanting to wave "evidence" that is questionable at best in my face just doesn't impress me.

 

Here you go with the "we don't need evidence as academics don't agree with us". It is pathetic and predictable.

 

The only evidence present, is that no evidence is possessed by yourself in this particular matter. Otherwise it would have been presented now, rather than the mindless repeated statements that are constantly demonstrated on the part of yourself when someone recognizes the so-called "studies" are not actually studies.

 

More accurately it is a matter of reality not matching what academia claims.

 

Yep, ignorant academics should listen to the ideologues!

 

Modern academia is full of ideologues.

 

Its full of critical appraisal. Your post-truth rhetoric is the very reason idiots like Trump can run amok. Shame really!

 

Critical appraisal means absolutely nothing when everything is done by like-minded individuals who share the same political beliefs and affiliations.