[Craig328]

farrell2k, on 28 December 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

Gorian, on 28 December 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

farrell2k, on 28 December 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

Until you and Craig stop committing logical fallacies in your arguments, I refuse to take either of you seriously.

This really comes across like a child in the grocery store, who refused to move until he gets his candy. Let us instead of accusing people of "logical fallacies" for disagreeing with us, or refusing to debate with them as peers, either gracefully conceded from the argument and thread, or present a rebuttal in a respectful way.

An argument based on a logical fallacy is not sound, and not worthy of rebuttal. I will not debate with anyone who cannot form an argument that is not self-defeating. Don't like it? At the risk of sounding like a child in a grocery store who refuses to move until he gets his candy, too bad. />

Help all the people not as gifted as yourself then. This is where you started claiming logical fallacy:

farrell2k, on 28 December 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

Utael, on 28 December 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

No I'm not saying that by choosing not to go over to peoples houses or be around people that choose to own a firearm doesn't reduce the risk, but I think that the reduction in risk is negligible, I've yet to be proven otherwise.

Argument from ignorance. A proposition is not true just because it has not been proven false.

Until you and Craig stop committing logical fallacies in your arguments, I refuse to take either of you seriously.

You actually started with suggesting someone's argument was from ignorance and previous to that you'd tried "false dichotomy":

farrell2k, on 28 December 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

Craig328, on 28 December 2012 - 05:51 AM, said:

But just for sake of argument, let's assume that despite your L337 avoidance sk33lz that someone does cross your personal boundary line with a weapon? Since you've disarmed yourself what will you do?

False dichotomy. One need not carry a gun to be armed with a weapon. "Either you have a gun, or you're defenseless" arenot the only two options. You have obviously bought into this nonsensical, NRA manufactured idea that you're not safe unless you have a loaded gun in your hands 24/7. It is people like you with loaded guns and limited critical thinking skills that I do my best to avoid at all costs. I am grateful for that list. Every city should have one.

Mind you, you didn't pursue that very long as even non-gifted folk saw through that sham of a response. I mean, last time you ventured into a debate like this you tried to label everything not agreeing with you as "fallacy of false equivalence" and didn't fare too well there either.

So, we've established that you've bookmarked all your favorite wikipedia links to debate definitions and you believe them to be bulletproof (pardon the pun) when someone dares to disagree with your opinion. Can't respond to an obvious flaw in your argument? Call the detractor's argument [insert favorite definition you barely even comprehend here] and voila!...safely dismiss and ignore the detractor.

Anyway, to assist you (because I know you'll do your damnedest to ignore it) the question as of now is: what about the argument (to you) constitutes a logical fallacy? Or will you double down on the debate definition derp?

[Python_4_President]

Craig likes guns, therefore he is wrong.

Farrel doesn't like guns, therefore he is right.

Hey, I think I'm on to something!

(*Runs back to VIM to continue making bootsplash kernel patch for 2.6.21 compatible with 3.2.29 -- Yes, I want to have a splash screen on bootup, with text!)

This post has been edited by Python_4_President: 28 December 2012 - 01:35 PM

[Curtis Rutland]

I realize this is a bit late in the discussion for a response to this post, but I'll post it anyway:

atraub, on 25 December 2012 - 04:39 PM, said:

dorknexus, on 25 December 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

Quote

Sounds like good incentive to buy a permit, whether or not you own a gun. They basically just released a "safe-to-invade" list for burglars.

Another way to think about it is that they just made it easy for would-be burglars to determine which houses have valuable firearms inside.

I knew someone would say it. Come on, don't you think logic would suggest that a burglar would pick his target based on the home or perhaps the target's car rather than actively targeting people with guns? I'd expect hanging an NRA flag would be an excellent crime deterrent.

I'm with nexus on this one. A few years ago, my home was burglarized, and the burglars obviously knew we had guns, because that was all they stole. They took my roommate's guns, and they took mine as well. They either were incredibly lucky, or they watched our house to find the 45 minute window they had to come in and take our stuff.

I've made sure I won't have any guns taken again by getting a proper safe. But to say that burglars wouldn't rob a house that they know has a gun is ridiculous. Most burglars won't rob a house until they know it's unoccupied. After that, a gun is an added bonus because of how much they can get for it.

[farrell2k]

Python_4_President, on 28 December 2012 - 08:32 PM, said:

Craig likes guns, therefore he is wrong.

Farrell doesn't like guns, therefore he is right.

Hey, I think I'm on to something!

You are!

They are both subjective opinion, so both are both right and wrong.

Good job!

Of course I know you are being sarcastic, but you have also just used the straw man fallacy by setting up a position that I do not hold, then attacking me on it.

My position is that I simply avoid guns as much as possible. I make no claims to anyone being right or wrong. I just avoid them. Nothing more.

This post has been edited by farrell2k: 28 December 2012 - 01:44 PM

[Craig328]

Python_4_President, on 28 December 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

Craig likes guns, therefore he is wrong.

Farrel doesn't like guns, therefore he is right.

Hey, I think I'm on to something!

(*Runs back to VIM to continue making bootsplash kernel patch for 2.6.21 compatible with 3.2.29 -- Yes, I want to have a splash screen on bootup, with text!)

That's not quite right. It's not so much that I like guns as I recognize their existence as a tool and don't transfer the outrage of their misuse from the person to the tool. Farrell, despite his best efforts to the contrary, has an entirely valid point in that if you were able to not place yourself within range of someone misusing a gun that your chances for injury or death associated with that misuse decline to nil.

The issue in this conversation (to me) is how a listing of people who have, at least sometime in their lives, registered a handgun is somehow informative to an entirely imaginary effort to avoid those same people solely on the basis of their once upon a time having followed the exact letter of a fairly stupid and useless law and applied and received a permit to own a gun. The points have been made that it's the people who go about abiding by the laws being the people you DON'T need to worry about...although an entirely salient point was made regarding accidental or unintentional handgun incidents.

The list doesn't encompass whether those people ever actually owned a handgun, kept it at the address listed, still own it presently and skips entirely those people who own rifles, shotguns and those people who own a gun but ignored the state and the silly law entirely. The only people that would be avoided by Farrell in his described effort would, ironically, be the people least likely to intentionally inflict harm on him via a gun (supposed by their already demonstrated respect and observance of laws).

That's the issue...to me anyway.

[jon.kiparsky]

Python_4_President, on 28 December 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Craig likes guns, therefore he is wrong.

Farrel doesn't like guns, therefore he is right.

There's something charming about the utter failure to comprehend I'm watching here. Claiming that an argument fails on logical grounds is not an ad hominem attack, it's quite the opposite.


Okay, let's try making it even simpler. Craig says

Quote

the question as of now is: what about the argument (to you) constitutes a logical fallacy? Or will you double down on the debate definition derp?

Okay, we're talking about a claim of "argument from ignorance" and another of "false dichotomy".

Argument from ignorance. If someone claims that "I don't know X to be false, therefore it is true", that is an argument from ignorance.

Quoth the oracle:

Quote

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false

Okay, so we know what we're talking about. "I don't know that X, therefore ~X" is not a valid argument.



False dichotomy: Claiming that one is either armed with a particular flavor of weapon or utterly helpless is a perfect example of a false dichotomy.

Again, first line from the Wikipedia article:

Quote

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option

This post has been edited by jon.kiparsky: 28 December 2012 - 01:54 PM

[supersloth]

at this point i pretty much read the first 5 words of peoples posts and then open instagram to see some boobs.

[h4nnib4l]

This is me registering on DIC as having a gun, so that those who want to be safe from me can be. Otherwise, I'll let you touch it...

[dorknexus]

According to New York State Senator Greg Ball, an attempted gun burglary was linked to the map released by the boneheaded journalists. Haven't seen any related news articles or anything concerning the actual event so not sure if this is factual or just a political move.

Here's "The Truth About Guns" post about it.

[jon.kiparsky]

But... but... I thought if you had a gun, nobody could steal your stuff!

I don't understand...

[dorknexus]

I wish my guns could defend themselves when I'm not around to work them. But alas, no smart-guns yet.

[supersloth]

our guns will always be in danger unless they themselves are given their god given rights to defend themselves with smaller fire arms.

[jon.kiparsky]

Bigger guns have smaller guns
They carry 'em and shoot 'em
And smaller guns have smaller ones...
And so on ad infinootum

(apologies to Jonathan Swift)

[Craig328]

The presence or ownership of a firearm does nothing more than give you an option when presented with certain circumstances. It doesn't guarantee anything other than a choice when, minus it, you may not have a choice.

Take, for instance, the nice lady working at home with her twin kids the other day. Pretty much the same distance from nasty ole Atlanta that I live with my family. In her case, she chose to gather up her kids, she chose to hide with them in an attic crawlspace, she chose to retrieve her pistol before she did so and she chose to phone her husband who, in turn, chose to tell her to shoot the guy who broke into her house should he come after them (and not, say, steal the TV and flatware). The criminal, in turn, chose to bypass things he could steal and chose to search the house looking for the occupants (for who knows why).



It's all about the freedom to choose.