Active Users:750 Time:23/12/2024 06:53:47 AM
He did not Isaac Send a noteboard - 05/01/2013 01:39:40 PM
they were and that I am. Instead of addressing my arguments, he attacked me. I do think that the phrase ad hominem applies there. If it's the wrong phrase to use for such a situation, then at least it still shows the same weakness in debating as I was pointing out.


I'm strictly objecting to your incorrect usage here wasted my time. I was hunting for some comment he said that you regarded as attacking the logic of your argument by big bringing up an irrelevant personal attack. He didn't do that, and when you use a formal term like 'ad hominem' rather than just saying 'I find your tone insulting' it's a bit frustrating as an audience member. But the remark isn't aimed too strongly at you, just general frustration at people using terms from formal argument incorrectly when existing common terms like 'insulting', 'irrelevant', 'distracting', etc already exist and don't mean something specific. If you used 'aggravated assault' in your remarks instead of 'attacked' I'm going to assume you're referencing that specific thing and be a bit pissed as a reader when I've just squandered a lot of time rereading your remarks thinking I'm being dense and not seeing it.

Now, as to him, he seems to have made a bona fide attempt in 'you make no sense' to say his objections, not as polite as he could or probably should have been, but again I didn't consider your arguments well constructed or particularly coherent and you were clearly aiming for that with the numbered format which is why I even butted in. I'm telling you that your arguments aren't coming across as solid and sound and detailed, take that as audience advise to reset and offer a detailed explanation because the audience thinks your remarks are interesting and in my case that I think you're developing a possibly good point and I'd rather you not get distracted with insults, perceived or real, and just enumerate your point more clearly.

I suppose that your bringing up strawmen as an example isn't a strawman, either?


No, it is a standing point of irritation both with how frequently people use them here and how frequently they incorrectly use the term here, which as I said is as often as ad hominem, the two most common fallacies here and the two most common false charges, something I consider painfully ironic and incredibly irritating.

As for your addressing my original question. You are right in that it's not the most logically sound argument ever made. It wasn't intended to be nor did I present it as such.


Then you're in the wrong to be angered he and later I pointed to this, don't you think? Look, you're essentially saying your arguments weren't that great while also saying you feel insulted because someone said so. I think you'd do better to simply avoid the whole situation by clarifying yourself. You tried, it didn't work, that happens, and he said so (rudely admittedly) and I am saying so, politely I hope but courteous is kind of secondary to me here because I've been waiting about two weeks here for you to clarify where you're going with this and I need you to either satisfactorily clarify yourself or just say 'It was general ranting and notice of irony, being killed with your own weapon of self-defense, I'm not making a serious argument at the moment'. Either is fine but you seem steadfast on asserting you've got an important core point and it's frustratingly hard for me to read it, mull it, and rebut, criticize, or approve it when I've no clue what it is. Now you can say that too, we've all had times where we've got something in our head we just can' satisfactorily put into words, in that absence I'm obviously not required or inclined to be swayed by it but I can at least nod my head and say 'ah, yeah, know that feeling' and move on.

I was bemused, because of the difference in thinking. It comes from my basic belief that generally, bringing weapons into a situation means that they are more likely to be used, and that generally, it's better when no weapons are being used.


Problem being - if this really is your core point - it's a trivially true one irrelevant to the debate, and if you think it is you don't understand your opposition and need to study up. Everyone agrees that a gun escalates the potential for one to be used... that's why you'd want one, to be able to use it, even if just as a threat or deterrent. It also breaks on 'weapon' because to most of us a human being, as the byproduct of billions of years of evolution, is pretty much a 'dangerous weapon' by definition. Telling us all 'we don't get it' when we're discussing hot rod performance tends to fall on deaf ears when the bit you don't think anyone gets is that 'cars go faster than people walk'. You could literally say that a dozen times and the audience is going to sit there blinking because they've no idea what you're talking about, because they can't believe your purpose is literally nothing more than to inform them that cars go fast. None of us think that a non-present gun is less likely to be used than one on hand, and if you're not seeing why we believe that and don't just nod and say 'oh, duh, lets not have any guns' then you're insulting the intelligence of everyone in the debate in a very serious and profound way. Like speaking up at a budget debate to say 'deficits are generally bad', something considered generally true by the most reckless socialist and Darwinist libertarian alike. We don't think it is possible to remove all guns and even if we did we wouldn't equate an absence of guns to an absence of weapons.

Your bringing up keys and locked doors isn't really equivalent, because the child isn't going to use the key to shoot 26 people with afterwards.


Except in the context I was not talking about a lock as an offensive tool, but discussing the practical impossibility of defending yourself from someone you've already willing given a key to. Castle walls are handy things but like most defensive tools have specific applications they do and don't work against. A king still has to worry about his family or bodyguard knifing him, no matter how high his walls, but that doesn't mean they are pointless. If you're unclear on this concept, say so and I'll detail, but you're comments seem to be of the 'no defense is perfect, so why bother having one' type, and I can't and won't rebut that because it is manifestly absurd or incredibly fatalistic, and I can't believe you'd be trying to sell me that.

However, that wasn't the point he alluded to as incoherent. His issue seemed to be with my question where I asked if a shoot out between mother and son would be preferable over a situation where neither had guns at all. He appeared to get emotional over the question of choosing between killing your own child or letting them kill you, kill 26 people and then kill him/herself. Which is a nice hypothetical, I suppose, but not the one I was asking, nor a very useful one.


A very legit thing to get emotional over I'd say, but again we get to the problem of you not being sufficiently clear what point you were asking about and the assumption... that you're discussing something not hypothetical and actually useful... that is making me at least a touch irritable at this stage because I'm still waiting to here it stated, and now I'm half-convinced it was the trivially obvious and irrelevant 'guns are dangerous' one that leaves me going 'well, yeah, duh, that's the point'.

But again, all I am personally looking for here is for you to state your point and detail it. I've not seen that yet. I make no promise to be swayed by it or not criticize it but I will read it and give it thought, right now that is an option denied to me.
The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.
- Albert Einstein

King of Cairhien 20-7-2
Chancellor of the Landsraad, Archduke of Is'Mod
This message last edited by Isaac on 05/01/2013 at 01:48:17 PM
Reply to message
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them? - 21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM 1554 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 1003 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 931 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 875 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 1030 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1185 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 535 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 864 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 870 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 916 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 883 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 935 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 851 Views
you're largely correct, which is why we need stronger laws on ownership not guns per se - 21/12/2012 09:39:14 PM 842 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 906 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 880 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 865 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 892 Views
I think you are on the right track, but to the wrong destination; "lethal weapon" is redundant. - 21/12/2012 11:05:29 PM 873 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 918 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1083 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 807 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 864 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 776 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 945 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 997 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 566 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 818 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 499 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 927 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 730 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 893 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 950 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 897 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 830 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 899 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 821 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 583 Views
What bemuses me about this thing with Adam Lanza, is that his mother had 5 registered guns - 23/12/2012 07:10:26 AM 914 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 890 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 830 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 809 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 791 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 811 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 505 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 805 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 492 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 1001 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 790 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 800 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 509 Views

Reply to Message