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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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'.