Quite the opposite, in fact: the current entitlement state is designed to help the poor stay poor more comfortably, and help the Bigs profit from their poverty -- a system where Big Agribusiness and Big Energy lobby for subsidies, tariffs, mandates and quotas, and then profit from the entitlement programs which direct taxpayer funds toward them through the pockets of low earners. We live in a world where the Big Wall Street banks make billions off getting a cut from the swipe fees of every food stamp debit card for 47 million people across the country.
Both fallacies are similar. Because California is passing ammo background checks, it will be law everywhere. Not likely given the makeup of many state legislatures.
Your entire position on guns is one giant logical fallacy. We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years. No one came to take your guns. Your right to bear arms was not infringed.
And, as I have reminded you many times, the right to bear arms is not unlimited.
Because California is passing ammo background checks, it will be law everywhere.
Ahhh, I see. So, because southern states legalized slavery, it won't be law everywhere? Then there really was no cause for the civil war? Nothing about restricting any person's rights is wrong in and of itself?
Not likely given the makeup of many state legislatures.
Ahhh. But the make up of those legislatures is of the people you would categorize as extreme, paranoid, wrong or on the losing side of the future....
So that means that despite it not probable currently - your very own desire for the future is the exact same kind of legislature that would indeed pass California style laws.
So don't fucking argue appeal to probability bullshit with us when your own politics are working towards the same end that the probability argument posits.
If you say you're going to punch me in the face, I have to assume you are going to punch me in the face. If you've already punched me in the face once and cock your fist back I am going to assume you are going to punch me again.
It's not an appeal to probability when the probability IS YOUR STATED GOAL.
We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years. No one came to take your guns. Your right to bear arms was not infringed.
Logical fallacy.
Wow, that's really easy to do when you don't explain how a particular statement actually is a logical fallacy. Oh wait, maybe I should throw in a link to make it look more official...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
Oh yeah - how is what statement misleading vividness and why?
Because California is passing ammo background checks, it will be law everywhere.
Guess you've never heard that saw "as goes California, so goes the nation".
More to the point, there is this - the inherent dishonesty of gun control-freaks, and you made no effort to disavow it - which when you do this to make a point you always accuse us of supporting something because we haven't gone out of our way to disavow it. That is pretty fucking annoying, isn't it?
Neither is the right to free speech or exercise of religion. That hardly means you can legitimately limit those in the same manner as California treats the RKBA.
Good grief...appeal to probability and straw man before the fucking article even started! And then one giant appeal to fear mixed with slippery slope. Again, because apparently we have comprehension problems.
"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
Actually, I'd like to continue the debate but we can't as long as you guys continue to use logical fallacies. Any change to gun laws does not immediately mean mass confiscation and internment camps. Can I at least get you guys to admit that?
23 comments:
What is your guy's Administration been doing? Oh, that's right - going after medical marijuana in states where it is legal and whistle-blowers.
So, who do we turn to? What do we do? Rely even more on the failed policies and parties that have brought us to this point?
Or?
Quite the opposite, in fact: the current entitlement state is designed to help the poor stay poor more comfortably, and help the Bigs profit from their poverty -- a system where Big Agribusiness and Big Energy lobby for subsidies, tariffs, mandates and quotas, and then profit from the entitlement programs which direct taxpayer funds toward them through the pockets of low earners. We live in a world where the Big Wall Street banks make billions off getting a cut from the swipe fees of every food stamp debit card for 47 million people across the country.
Off topic, but a perennial favorite - is this more of that reasonable gun control you are always touting?
Dammit juris,
Mark has said that if Obama is not physically at your door demanding your guns then they ain't a coming to get em.
Appeal to probability....misleading vividness....the fact that you guys continue to employ logical fallacies sure makes commenting a lot easier...
Appeal to probability
Describe the fallacy involved.
misleading vividness
Describe what is misleading.
the fact that you guys continue to employ logical fallacies
Heading off at the pass....
Both fallacies are similar. Because California is passing ammo background checks, it will be law everywhere. Not likely given the makeup of many state legislatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_probability
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/misleading-vividness.html
There is also a little of this thrown in for seasoning...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
Your entire position on guns is one giant logical fallacy. We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years. No one came to take your guns. Your right to bear arms was not infringed.
And, as I have reminded you many times, the right to bear arms is not unlimited.
Because California is passing ammo background checks, it will be law everywhere.
Ahhh, I see. So, because southern states legalized slavery, it won't be law everywhere? Then there really was no cause for the civil war? Nothing about restricting any person's rights is wrong in and of itself?
Not likely given the makeup of many state legislatures.
Ahhh. But the make up of those legislatures is of the people you would categorize as extreme, paranoid, wrong or on the losing side of the future....
So that means that despite it not probable currently - your very own desire for the future is the exact same kind of legislature that would indeed pass California style laws.
So don't fucking argue appeal to probability bullshit with us when your own politics are working towards the same end that the probability argument posits.
If you say you're going to punch me in the face, I have to assume you are going to punch me in the face. If you've already punched me in the face once and cock your fist back I am going to assume you are going to punch me again.
It's not an appeal to probability when the probability IS YOUR STATED GOAL.
We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years. No one came to take your guns. Your right to bear arms was not infringed.
Logical fallacy.
Wow, that's really easy to do when you don't explain how a particular statement actually is a logical fallacy. Oh wait, maybe I should throw in a link to make it look more official...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies
Oh yeah - how is what statement misleading vividness and why?
Let's see...one, two, three, four straw men with a redirect question at the end to avoid scrutiny.
The right to bear arms is not unlimited, GD. Deal with it and grow up.
Grow up yourself.
Shall not be infringed weighs more on the free side than the limited side.
Spouting 'not unlimited' while pushing more limits is dishonest and childish.
Oh, and learn what the hell you're talking about regarding logical fallacies. You ought to be embarrassed.
Because California is passing ammo background checks, it will be law everywhere.
Guess you've never heard that saw "as goes California, so goes the nation".
More to the point, there is this - the inherent dishonesty of gun control-freaks, and you made no effort to disavow it - which when you do this to make a point you always accuse us of supporting something because we haven't gone out of our way to disavow it. That is pretty fucking annoying, isn't it?
The right to bear arms is not unlimited, GD.
Neither is the right to free speech or exercise of religion. That hardly means you can legitimately limit those in the same manner as California treats the RKBA.
You ought to be embarrassed.
Now this is really the most fascinating aspect of M's online persona - the absolute lack of shame.
I assume it is limited to his online persona, lest I accuse him of being a sociopath in real life.
Oh, and learn what the hell you're talking about regarding logical fallacies. You ought to be embarrassed.
OMG! I'm so outraged that you are accusing me of the exact thing you are guilty of...not...
zzzzz....*snore*
More to the point, there is this
Good grief...appeal to probability and straw man before the fucking article even started! And then one giant appeal to fear mixed with slippery slope. Again, because apparently we have comprehension problems.
"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
Good grief...
Bad faith. Something else you are full of.
Uhh, because they weren't straw man arguments....
M's newest debate tactic - call everything a fallacy to end the debate. Good move to prop up your empty arguments.
call everything a fallacy to end the debate.
Actually, I'd like to continue the debate but we can't as long as you guys continue to use logical fallacies. Any change to gun laws does not immediately mean mass confiscation and internment camps. Can I at least get you guys to admit that?
Any change to gun laws does not immediately mean mass confiscation and internment camps. Can I at least get you guys to admit that?
Why do you need us to admit that? Has anyone actually said that?
No.
And since you are trying to refute a point that no one has made - but you have made up - you have created a straw man fallacy.
And right after saying you can't argue with us because of fallacies.....
The irony meter is pegged.
So self aware, I tell ya....and he would tell you that too.
Has anyone actually said that?
M has, several times.
Oh wait, I see what you are getting at.
Post a Comment