Don't believe your lying eyes (Enco)

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

You don’t even know what a Strawman is because you couldn’t or wouldn’t even point out how I made one.

While I did teach logic a long time ago, I do remember enough to know that it doesn’t follow from not laying out the strawman in detail that one doesn’t know what a strawman is.

A strawman argument framed one way is an argument against a claim someone never made. You are guilty of doing that over and over and over again.

Like many gun huggers, you directly or indirectly accuse people who want some control over guns of a) wanting to rid society of virtually all guns and of believing that b) controlling guns will eliminate all homicides. In other words, two extreme positions no one here has ever made because everyone here is smart.

Rather than basically accusing Autumn of being stupid, you might have asked “What strawman/men are you referring to?” Instead, you decided to look stupid yourself.

[—Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Autumn, You don’t even know what a Strawman is because you couldn’t or wouldn’t even point out how I made one. So wonder about your own argumentative prowess. Phooey!

I’ve pointed it out to you twice. I have spent many hours wondering about my argumentative prowess such that I don’t make weak arguments or commit to obvious fallacies often.

Acting as if gun rights advocates believe all gun violence stops with gun control is a straw man fallacy. While there may be a small outlier of gun control advocates who believe this, it’s not likely a common belief. However, you took it one step further and attributed that belief to Davis and Unseen who clearly don’t believe anything that extreme.

The reason it’s a strawman is you set up an absurd position that was easier to dismiss than what was actually being argued, then attributed it to the opposing side of the argument. At that point, you aren’t arguing against Davis and Unseen; you’re arguing against your own imagination.

That is now the third (and final) time I’ve pointed this out to you.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Autumn,

One, you did not mention Strawmen thrice.

Two, you are so verbose that you have probably not said the same thing three times in your entire life. You couldn’t summon “Beetlejuice” if such a being existed and if mere words had that power and if your life depended on it.

Three, gun control equalling gun confiscation is not a Strawman:

Becoming a gun-free society would be hard. But we should still try.
By German Lopez@germanrlopezgerman.lopez@vox.com Oct 5, 2015, 2:00pm EDT
https://www.vox.com/2015/10/5/9455025/us-gun-violence

This yutz even makes an equation between gun confiscation and pro-freedom movements such as marriage equality, drug legalization, and criminal justice reform, even though a gun-free society would set all of that back when political tides turn.

[—Participant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Autumn, One, you did not mention Strawmen thrice.

I said I pointed out what it was twice. The post you quoted was the third time. This was in response to you acting all mystified as to what straw man arguments I was talking about.

Two, you are so verbose that you have probably not said the same thing three times in your entire life.

I tend to say the same things ad nauseum often with multiple different approaches as the conversation drags. Regardless, my verbosity is no excuse for your fallacies.

Three, gun control equalling gun confiscation is not a Strawman:

I literally spelled it out for you three times now and not once is that an example I used.

Unseen brought it up, and I think that’s tenable. While there are some gun control advocates at that extreme, no one in this thread has brought it up so it makes no sense why you are arguing against something no one here is saying.

You seem to be of the mindset that if you can find someone who’s taken a more extreme position, that someone’s views transfer to everyone else in the conversation. That’s not how that works.

[UnseenParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Three, gun control equalling gun confiscation is not a Strawman:

I’m not now and never have argued for gun confiscation as a general solution. We rightly keep tabs on various groups ranging from potential Islamic terrorists to hare-brained far-right militia and are legally able to swoop in and confiscate their stockpile of arms. With a warrant, of course, and with prosecution for some sort of conspiracy in mind.

Likewise, police disarm people temporarily and it’s reasonable to legally forbid or prevent some people from possessing firearms, is it not? People who’ve shown a propensity to misuse guns, people who threaten to harm others with guns, people with a pathological inability to control their anger.

It’s a sign of the sickness of you gun huggers that at the very slightest mention of any sort of reasonable limits or of something as inane as a buy-back program, you collapse into the deepest depths of paranoia, invoking Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazis and imagining storm troopers in body armor breaking down doors on innocent families eating dinner to search their house for their constitutionally legal arms.

That’s not going to happen and never will.

So, get a room. One with a therapist in it.

[Author]

Posts