You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #13: As much as I like the page you linked to, your use of fallacies is fallacious [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-23-09 03:40 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. As much as I like the page you linked to, your use of fallacies is fallacious
Mostly. My subject is most definitely not fallacious but in deference to your first critique, I'll word the body of my post a bit more carefully: If you think that more guns in the hands of more people do not necessarily lead to more dead children, then explain why.

Your second critique (false dichotomy) is not applicable, since there is an actual dichotomy being proposed. Either there is a causal relationship or there isn't. No one is creating a false pair of choices from a larger collection of possibilities. (The plurium interrogationum and false dichotomy fallacies are actually mutually exclusive.)

And audiatur et altera pars makes no sense whatsoever. I am asking about a simple link between two conditions. How is that a case of failing to state assumptions? In fact, until I start arguing for a particular conclusion, audiatur is not even possible.

However, it was nice of you to include your own set of logical fallacies in your answer. Let's take a look:
It's entirely possible that if there were fewer guns in the hands of fewer people, homicidally inclined minors would find other ways to kill other kids.

This is a clear case of ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant conclusion). Just because some people may find other ways to kill kids, that does not support the assertion that an equal or greater number of children will be killed by other methods.


Try Googling "Damilola Taylor," "Paul Erhahon," "James (or Jamie) Bulger" and "Lyle Tulloch," all murdered using means other than guns. Then there was Rhys Jones, whose death in a bicycle-by shooting by a teenager was not prevented by private possession of handguns being completely illegal in the UK (but "if guns are outlawed...").


Do I even need to point out the use of anecdotal evidence?


It's not an "either/or" proposition, because there are many factors other than the legality of private ownership of firearms alone that determine the answer to this question.

Straw man. I never mentioned making private ownership of firearms illegal. Also, a bit of your own audiatur et altera pars since you never state any of your alleged "many factors".


The problem, as ever with gun control, is that the people most likely to give up any guns they own are the people least likely to use them for unlawful purposes.

Here's a real example of a false dichotomy. You're implying that the only way to reduce the number of guns is for people to give up guns they currently own.

Also, you state that law-abiding gun owners would be the first in line to hand in their guns. That's a logical fallacy I like to call "bullshit". Are you really saying that Cletus with his gun rack and his "cold dead hands" bumper sticker is going to happily hand in his weapons when asked to by the government? And if Cletus doesn't want to turn in his guns, does that mean that he was planning on using them for some unlawful purpose?


If we have fewer guns in the hands of fewer people, but the only people who are left with guns are all puericidal sociopaths, then we might all too readily end with more dead kids as result.

And finally, you treat us to a classic example of petitio principii (begging the question) by basing your argument on the fallacious assumption that fewer guns means that only puericidal sociopaths will own guns.


So, the bad news is that none of your arguments make sense, but the good news is that we're both now ready to kick the ass of the next creationist we run into. ;)



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -Why do most people think gun control is a good idea? russ1943  May-23-09 12:16 AM   #0 
  - In most places it is.  rwheeler31   May-23-09 12:19 AM   #1 
  - The first sentence of the linked article states a patent lie.  MercutioATC   May-23-09 12:33 AM   #2 
  - I think your laws are weird that child is dead.  rwheeler31   May-23-09 12:42 AM   #3 
  - Why would a charge of criminally negligent homicide be "weird"??  MercutioATC   May-23-09 12:45 AM   #4 
  - Too Bad Illegal Possession doesn't translate into Illegal Acquisition!  Ginny from the Block   Jun-06-09 10:40 PM   #109 
     - It does, actually: 18 USC 922 (d)  Euromutt   Jun-07-09 02:33 AM   #110 
        - I serously doubt this little boy will be prosecuted for illegally "acquiring" this gun.......  Ginny from the Block   Jun-07-09 01:13 PM   #112 
           - Your blog is full of inaccuracies  friendly_iconoclast   Jun-07-09 02:56 PM   #114 
              - Too bad about your regressive approach to gun control  friendly_iconoclast   Jun-07-09 03:25 PM   #115 
  - There is a bit more to this story- the kid was apparently psycho  imdjh   May-23-09 12:49 AM   #5 
  - They kept a gun handy for a psycho? Smart.  aquart   May-23-09 02:15 AM   #10 
  - If only 9-year-olds were allowed concealed carry permits.  jgraz   May-23-09 12:58 AM   #6 
  - Goalposts in motion  Merchant Marine   May-23-09 01:17 AM   #7 
  - It's a very simple question: do more guns in the hands of more people equal more dead children?  jgraz   May-23-09 01:27 AM   #8 
     - The question is fallacious  Euromutt   May-23-09 02:23 AM   #11 
     - As much as I like the page you linked to, your use of fallacies is fallacious  jgraz   May-23-09 03:40 AM   #13 
        - Let me review  Euromutt   May-24-09 02:46 AM   #94 
     - Corellation is not causation  Merchant Marine   May-23-09 02:29 AM   #12 
        - Again, you're using a strawman argument. I never mentioned "confiscation".  jgraz   May-23-09 03:50 AM   #14 
           - Sue em all!  oneshooter   May-23-09 09:11 AM   #17 
           - And, of course, we get the GOP talking points on another issue  jgraz   May-23-09 12:18 PM   #22 
           - How can...  inkool   May-23-09 09:18 AM   #18 
           - The alleged RKBA says nothing about manufacturing  jgraz   May-23-09 12:21 PM   #23 
              - That is all well and good.  inkool   May-23-09 12:57 PM   #27 
                 - Let's start with limiting overproduction for street sales  jgraz   May-23-09 01:08 PM   #29 
                    - Is there any evidence that...  inkool   May-23-09 02:11 PM   #30 
                       - Yes, there is.  jgraz   May-23-09 02:26 PM   #32 
                          - Because juries never make mistakes, right?  Euromutt   May-25-09 02:52 AM   #98 
                          - I'm pretty sure that the article excerpt is about Hamilton ...  sl8   May-25-09 08:32 AM   #101 
                             - I think you're right.  Euromutt   May-26-09 03:21 AM   #104 
                          - Some industrious members...  inkool   May-26-09 07:44 AM   #105 
                          - The FCC permits unlicensed radio stations, provided they broadcast with extremely low power.  patriotvoice   May-26-09 10:14 AM   #106 
           - Objection  imdjh   May-23-09 09:26 AM   #19 
           - Wow...  jgraz   May-23-09 12:25 PM   #24 
              - Pro-corporate and anti-government?  imdjh   May-23-09 12:57 PM   #26 
              - Not really.  jgraz   May-23-09 12:59 PM   #28 
              - "Anti-government"? What makes you think you represent the interests of government?  friendly_iconoclast   May-23-09 07:00 PM   #38 
                 - We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure  jgraz   May-23-09 07:18 PM   #42 
                    - Yep. If the government does something I don't like, I'll seek to change it by democratic means.  friendly_iconoclast   May-23-09 08:14 PM   #49 
                       - What in hell are you talking about?  jgraz   May-23-09 08:30 PM   #53 
                          - You claimed I (and others) are anti-government  friendly_iconoclast   May-23-09 09:14 PM   #57 
           - Should we allow liability suits against the manufacturers of hooded sweatshirts?  friendly_iconoclast   May-23-09 11:53 AM   #20 
           - Next up: Lawsuits against Dell, HP, Apple, etc.  friendly_iconoclast   May-23-09 12:14 PM   #21 
              - Next up: more specious right-wing arguments  jgraz   May-23-09 12:26 PM   #25 
                 - That's three times you've avoided the point.. n/t  X_Digger   May-23-09 06:17 PM   #35 
                 - Wait .. there's a point?  jgraz   May-23-09 07:10 PM   #39 
                 - And you're regurgitiating the  X_Digger   May-23-09 08:00 PM   #44 
                    - Are you incapable of opening other posts on this thread?  jgraz   May-23-09 08:04 PM   #45 
                       - Do you even know the terms of the law that you're railing against?  X_Digger   May-23-09 08:23 PM   #50 
                          - Yes. Do you?  jgraz   May-23-09 09:21 PM   #58 
                             - *snort* Hip deep in BS  X_Digger   May-23-09 09:34 PM   #61 
                                - Are you familiar with the American legal system? At all?  jgraz   May-23-09 09:44 PM   #64 
                                   - *sigh* facts just don't matter, do they..  X_Digger   May-23-09 09:59 PM   #67 
                                      - three words: negligence per se  jgraz   May-23-09 10:05 PM   #69 
                                      - Squeal, Sugarman-lite. n/t  X_Digger   May-23-09 10:07 PM   #71 
                                      - Ahhh.. this one's gonna last all weekend.  jgraz   May-23-09 10:08 PM   #72 
                                      - I venture to say he'd change his tune if *his* company was sued...  friendly_iconoclast   May-24-09 03:10 PM   #96 
                                         - Dude, I used to work for Apple. We got sued on a daily basis.  jgraz   May-28-09 03:41 PM   #108 
                                         - So, if Apple gets sued because someone has child porn,malware, or a pirated movie on an Ipod...  friendly_iconoclast   Jun-07-09 04:27 PM   #117 
                 - every time he can't address an argument, he uses ad hominem  paulsby   May-24-09 12:12 AM   #73 
                    - Wow, you really need to read all the way to the end.  jgraz   May-24-09 12:34 AM   #74 
                    - He usually just runs away crying actually.  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 12:41 AM   #77 
                       - More little-boy macho posturing  jgraz   May-24-09 12:47 AM   #79 
                          - Never miss an opportunity to turn someone's tragedy into your personal political soapbox.  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 12:59 AM   #81 
                             - Well, if I bought I gun I could be just as brave as you, couldn't I?  jgraz   May-24-09 01:02 AM   #83 
                                - How about you just stop being a hypocrite? We'll work on your bravery later.  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 01:04 AM   #85 
                 - 'Specious' to you because *you* don't disapprove of hoodies or computers.  friendly_iconoclast   May-23-09 06:40 PM   #37 
                 - So let's see if I have this straight...  jgraz   May-23-09 07:15 PM   #40 
                    - Let's start with your strawman, and proceed onward from there...  friendly_iconoclast   May-23-09 08:04 PM   #46 
                       - You'll forgive me if your stellar reasoning didn't make a friendly_iconoclast completist  jgraz   May-23-09 08:09 PM   #47 
                          - Hey, you just "knew" how I felt and where I was coming from  friendly_iconoclast   May-23-09 09:07 PM   #56 
                             - And you're trying to make this about you personally,  jgraz   May-23-09 09:26 PM   #59 
                                - More hypocrisy, you never make anything personal do you.  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 01:06 AM   #88 
                                   - Y'know, this thread has been over for a while  jgraz   May-24-09 01:10 AM   #90 
                                      - A fine example of running away crying.  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 01:11 AM   #91 
                                         - Whatever, big guy  jgraz   May-24-09 01:15 AM   #92 
                                            - The hypocrisy never ceases with you does it.  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 01:19 AM   #93 
                 - I'll even give you a concrete example of computers used in crime...  friendly_iconoclast   May-23-09 07:16 PM   #41 
                    - You're only succeeding in giving me concrete examples of your lack of critical thinking skills  jgraz   May-23-09 07:26 PM   #43 
                       - Bleh  Merchant Marine   May-23-09 08:11 PM   #48 
                       - I bet you're wondering what made that wooshing sound over your head  jgraz   May-23-09 08:24 PM   #51 
                          - And hey, look, they can _still_ sue for that.  X_Digger   May-23-09 08:26 PM   #52 
                             - And some have been successfully sued- Remington, for example,...  friendly_iconoclast   May-23-09 08:58 PM   #55 
                             - NO THEY CAN NOT  jgraz   May-23-09 09:32 PM   #60 
                                - Quite a leap in logic..  X_Digger   May-23-09 09:43 PM   #63 
                                   - And my trip through remedial English class continues  jgraz   May-23-09 09:50 PM   #66 
                                      - Not at all..  X_Digger   May-23-09 10:02 PM   #68 
                                         - That's OK. I can be magnanimous in victory.  jgraz   May-23-09 10:06 PM   #70 
                                            - You keep telling yourself that  Euromutt   May-25-09 06:27 AM   #100 
                       - The wi-fi equipment was not defective. It was used improperly  friendly_iconoclast   May-23-09 08:42 PM   #54 
                       - If the company can be shown to be negligent, they can be held liable  jgraz   May-23-09 09:36 PM   #62 
                       - Gun corporations don't usually sell weapons directly, when they do it's not to criminals.  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 12:43 AM   #78 
                          - Just a tiny bit of independent thought is all I ask.  jgraz   May-24-09 12:53 AM   #80 
                             - Your quote, "gun corporations continue to intentionally sell deadly weapons to "unfriendlies"  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 01:02 AM   #82 
                             - Aw, I guess it was too much to ask.  jgraz   May-24-09 01:04 AM   #84 
                                - As I thought you can't back up your lies.  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 01:05 AM   #86 
                                   - Wait... you *thought*?  jgraz   May-24-09 01:05 AM   #87 
                                      - I would say you *lie* but we all know how good you are at that.  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 01:07 AM   #89 
                             - No, you don't  Euromutt   May-25-09 03:22 AM   #99 
           - "when their products are used in the commission of a crime"  Spoonman   May-23-09 02:20 PM   #31 
           - When I'm held up by a beer can, then we'll talk  jgraz   May-23-09 02:34 PM   #34 
              - How about if you're hit by a drunk driver?  Euromutt   May-25-09 02:45 AM   #97 
                 - Once again, you're arguing for the obliteration of a civil right  jgraz   May-25-09 12:26 PM   #102 
                    - Well, you missed the point  Euromutt   May-27-09 12:07 AM   #107 
           - Except that artificially depressing the market IS restricting gun ownership.  krispos42   Jun-07-09 02:50 PM   #113 
  - Never miss an opportunity to turn someone's tragedy into your personal political soapbox.  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 12:38 AM   #75 
  - Do most people think that?  Euromutt   May-23-09 01:27 AM   #9 
  - Your question is vague.  Indy Lurker   May-23-09 06:56 AM   #15 
  - They don't.  Statistical   May-23-09 08:56 AM   #16 
  - Where is your evidence  guardian   May-23-09 02:31 PM   #33 
  - Because they are afraid of a black President  slackmaster   May-23-09 06:29 PM   #36 
  - msongs, is that you? *grin* n/t  X_Digger   May-23-09 09:44 PM   #65 
  - Never miss an opportunity to turn someone's tragedy into your personal political soapbox.  Fire_Medic_Dave   May-24-09 12:38 AM   #76 
  - Meh, the OP is a Lovejoy  friendly_iconoclast   May-24-09 02:52 PM   #95 
  - Gun control would have prevented this how?  LAGC   May-25-09 01:11 PM   #103 
  - Just more fear-mongering.  proteus_lives   Jun-07-09 04:32 AM   #111 
  - They're afraid of a black President  slackmaster   Jun-07-09 03:41 PM   #116 
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC