TEACHABLE MOMENTS: Defending My Questioning of Gun Control Advocates

NOTE: The following post was written in response to an objection to my post:

PUBLIC DEBATES: Why is Banning Guns Always the Only Acceptable Answer?

Until now, I have been forced to keep the following reader’s comments tightly controlled.  However, since her following comment is the first in which she has made any acknowledgment of the rules of logic and reason, I have elected to use her comment in my inaugural post of TEACHABLE MOMENTS.

In responding to my argument in the above mentioned post, Reader made this comment:

“Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you focus your solutions on the gun and not the shooter(s)?”

Sorry, it’s more precisely a loaded question fallacy. I couldn’t think of the name so I went with Straw-man.

Your question is a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.
You start with a fallacy.

You can not claim to want an honest debate with a dishonest question.

OK, let’s break this down a piece at a time.  First, the fallacy I believe Reader wanted is called:

Loaded Language

Loaded language is emotive terminology that expresses value judgments. When used in what appears to be an objective description, the terminology unfortunately can cause the listener to adopt those values when in fact no good reason has been given for doing so. Also called Prejudicial Language.

Now let me demonstrate why this fallacy does not apply to the question she cited from my original post:

“Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you focus your solutions on the gun and not the shooter(s)?”

I did not use language that expresses a value judgment in my question.  I asked a simple declarative question. In order for this fallacy to apply to my question, I would have had to word it in a way similar to this:

“Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you gun grabbers always want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens?”

Therefore, Reader’s objection fails on ‘Loaded Language.’

Reader then says she will settle for accusing me of:

Straw Man

Your reasoning contains the Straw Man Fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have thereby undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the Straw Man Fallacy is caused by lying.

First, the citation Reader provides that she claims is fallacious does not describe the gun control position.  This is because I am asking a question, not describing a position or argument.  This is enough (‘sufficient’) to defeat the accusation of strawman.  However, in the interest of not committing strawman here, it is possible that Reader meant to imply that the position or argument my post ascribes to the gun control advocates is disingenuous.  Therefore, for the sake of caution, let’s assume this is what Reader intended by accusing me of strawman.

First, the characterization of the gun control advocates as wanting to restrict or ban gun ownership is implied in the name, ‘gun control.’  This is what this agenda is known by on all sides of this issue: the term is accepted by all sides. Second, if one looks at our media (news and entertainment) our education system and our political leaders (from either Party), the loudest, most consistent voice one will hear is the demand to ban guns.  The argument is always that, “If it saves one life,” then it justifies the action.  All of this is based on actual observation.  Therefore, I have not committed strawman because I have not only been fair to their position and arguments, I have used some of their own words to do so.  Thus, Reader’s accusation of strawman fails.

Reader then says:

Your question is a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.
You start with a fallacy.

As I have just demonstrated, I did not start with a false preposition (this is the word I believe Reader wants here).  As to whether or not my preposition is disputed, that is not a fallacy.  The fact that we are having a debate pre-supposes a dispute.  So this objection is self-defeating.  Which leaves us with the accusation of:

Begging the Question

A form of circular reasoning in which a conclusion is derived from premises that presuppose the conclusion. Normally, the point of good reasoning is to start out at one place and end up somewhere new, namely having reached the goal of increasing the degree of reasonable belief in the conclusion. The point is to make progress, but in cases of begging the question there is no progress.

In order for the statement Reader cites or the argument I make in the post in question to be ‘question begging,’ I have to start and end with equivalent statements.  In the post in question, I do not do this.  I start with the preposition that gun control advocate will not accept any suggestions except banning or taking guns as a solution to their perceived problem of gun violence.  I end with the conclusion that gun control advocates must be either irrational, hiding a secret agenda — or both.  These are not the same statement, therefore, the accusation of question begging is defeated.

Reader then concludes with:

You can not claim to want an honest debate with a dishonest question.

As I have now shown, I did not do what Reader accuses me of doing, therefore, the accusation of a fallacious question is defeated.  Now, let’s take a look at the fallacies Reader has actually committed.

First, we have:

Quibbling

We quibble when we complain about a minor point and falsely believe that this complaint somehow undermines the main point. To avoid this error, the logical reasoner will not make a mountain out of a mole hill nor take people too literally. Logic Chopping is a kind of quibbling.

Notice how Reader never addresses any of the questions I pose in my original post?  Notice how Reader just looks for small points to use as a weapon against my actual argument, then acts as though she has defeated my argument without actually addressing it?  This is quibbling, and Reader is guilty of committing it.

Then there is strawman.  Read is the one who does not accurately and fairly represent my argument.  She never once addresses any of the questions I pose in my original post.  Nor does she present any information to refute the claims I make.  Finally, she makes no attempt to counter the evidence I present to support my argument.  Therefore, Reader has committed strawman.

On a related note, Reader uses language that is poisonous in tone.  It is obvious she is attacking me, not my argument.  There are several fallacies that have been committed here, but the one most readers will be most familiar with is:

Ad Hominem (also known as Against the Person)

Your reasoning contains this fallacy if you make an irrelevant attack on the arguer and suggest that this attack undermines the argument itself. “Ad Hominem” means “to the person” as in being “directed at the person.”

Reader has tried to avoid having to address my argument on its merits and shut down the debate by painting me as disingenuous and deceitful.  The idea is to destroy my character and, therefore, any trust other readers might have for my argument because Reader has caused them not to trust me.  This fallacy is very common.  Anytime you see someone attacking a person’s character and not their argument, you are dealing with ad hominem.

Reader also commits another common fallacy.  It’s called:

Slanting

This error occurs when the issue is not treated fairly because of misrepresenting the evidence by, say, suppressing part of it, or misconstruing some of it, or simply lying. See the following related fallacies: Confirmation BiasLying, Misrepresentation, Questionable Premise, Quoting out of Context, Straw Man, Suppressed Evidence.

When we object to another person’s argument, it is on us to counter their argument.  What’s more, we must do so by properly applying the rules of logic and right reason.  One of the most important of these rules is that, if we cannot demonstrate that the argument is based on a fallacious foundation, we have to take it apart piece by piece.  This means we have to address and defeat the different assertions and supporting evidence within the argument.  Now, as I have demonstrated, Read has failed to demonstrate that my argument is fallaciously based.  Therefore, she has to address my argument on its merit.  She not only refuses to do so, but she has refused to even bother to refute my assertions of fact or acknowledge my supporting evidence.  This is misrepresenting and omitting evidence at hand, and that is Slanting.

Finally, Reader has committed:

Denying the Antecedent

You are using this fallacy if you deny the antecedent of a conditional and then suppose that doing so is a sufficient reason for denying the consequent. This formal fallacy is often mistaken for Modus Tollens, a valid form of argument using the conditional. A conditional is an if-then statement; the if-part is the antecedent, and the then-part is the consequent.

In this case, my condition is that gun control advocate must address my questions — and do so convincingly — or I am left with the conclusion that they are either irrational (because they are demanding an action that will not affect the problem they claim to want to solve), or they are hiding a secret agenda — or both.  Instead of addressing my argument, Reader seeks to deny it has any credibility from the start, therefore, justifying her dismissal of my conclusions.  This is denying the antecedent.

Now that I have demonstrated that I have not committed the fallacies Reader accused me of committing, and I have demonstrated that Reader has — in fact — committed numerous fallacies of her own in trying to dismiss my argument, I will leave it to you — the rest of this board — to decide between us.

 

ADDENDUM: 4 March 2018

Apparently, the ‘Reader’ whose comment was examined in the above post does not mind having their identity publicized, as they have indicated a desire to continue this discussion by posting another comment after this post was published.  Now, if we take this discussion to the comment section, it will quickly become confusing beyond all recognition.  Therefore, I will copy and paste Brent’s comments into this post below, and we will continue from where we just left off.  I will do my best to keep this as clear and understandable as possible, but I suspect this will be difficult.  Furthermore, I will publish everything Brent has to say in regard to this post, and my post about asking the gun control advocates to answer my questions.  However, if and when this discussion degenerates into personal attack (and I suspect it will), I will end this discussion at that point.  Ready?  Here we go.

Brent replied to my above post with the following comment.  For the sake of trying to make this discussion as clear as possible, I will post Brent’s words in italics, and I will reply — within the body of his comment — using bold blue text.  I hope this will allow the board to keep everything clear in their minds as we go forward:

Cherry picking.

You are committing the Cherry picking fallacy – suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

At this point, I have not done this.  I have posted every word of the single comment I was aware of Bret posting in reply to my post asking gun control advocates to answer some of my questions.  Furthermore, I addressed every word of Brent wrote in that comment.  Therefore, the accusation of cherry picking — at least at this point — fails.

You are so happy to use my second post where I admit a mistake, but do not bring any record of my first post. Even though the reader would need it for a complete picture Because you are talking about it.

In a reply to an email I sent him, Brent told me he had  posted a comment where he claims to have refuted my argument in my post addressing gun control advocates.  At the time I wrote this post, I did not know about Brent’s other comment.  His email was the first I became aware of it.  I found it in the SPAM section of the administration page (it contained links that the system flagged as SPAM, therefore, I never saw it until I had reason to look for it).  I will post this comment next.  However, at this point, I had not intentionally omitted anything from Brent.  Therefore, this attack on me and my argument fails.

You are shaping the narrative to your view by purposely leaving information out that a reader would need to shape a fully formed opinion.

Had I know about the missing comment at the time I wrote this post, Brent would be correct.  However, I did not know about it, therefore, this accusation fails.

Fundamentally you are deceiving by withholding the first post since my second post references it and that post holds the entirety of my argument.

After all you are making the argument I am “Quibbling”.

You also state,

“Notice how Reader never addresses any of the questions I pose in my original post?”

How can they notice that if my first post isn’t given? You are making an argument against no proof. Asking them to make an informed opinion while having denied them the required information to make it.

Again, all of the above would be valid — had I known about and refused to post Brent’s first comment.  But, at the time I wrote this post, I did not know, therefore, I am innocent of the charge and Brent’s objection fails.

Finally,

“I start with the preposition that gun control advocate will not accept any suggestions except banning or taking guns as a solution to their perceived problem of gun violence.”

Which I disproved because I proved they proposed other measures besides banning guns.

OK, Brent ends this comment by claiming he has refuted my preposition in my post addressing gun control advocates.  I will now post the missing comment and address each one of Brent’s point in the same way I have done here.

============================================================================

============================================================================

This is the missing post that Brent mentioned in his comment we just read.  Apparently, it was posted before the comment I used in writing this post.  I apologize.  I was not aware of this comment as it had been flagged by WordPress as SPAM and sent to the SPAM folder.  Thanks to Brent, I now know about it and will post it.  As you will soon see, I wish I had known about it before I wrote this post because it would have made my point even easier to make — not to mention much stronger.  Here is the missing comment:

“Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you focus your solutions on the gun and not the shooter(s)?”

Straw-man fallacy.

You present a false question by stating solutions on guns, as if it is all guns. The official democratic platform is specifically “We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.”

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm

OK, first, Brent has committed a fallacy here.  He has taken my original question (which is not an argument, and as I demonstrated in my original post above, does not use loaded language) and changed it.  Instead of speaking for gun control advocates, he purports to speak for the Democratic Party [NOTE: remember this, it is important and we will return to it.]  By switching from gun control advocates (all of them) to the Democratic Party platform, Brent has committed the fallacy of:

Red Herring

A red herring is a smelly fish that would distract even a bloodhound. It is also a digression that leads the reasoner off the track of considering only relevant information.

Here is why this is important: there are gun control advocates in the Republican Party, as well as independents.  But Brent is implying that the entire gun control movement part of or controlled by the Democratic Party.  Therefore, any and all information Brent presents about the Democratic Party position on gun control can be held suspect as it is inherently fallacious.  This is because it cannot speak for the gun control advocates outside the Democratic Party, let alone all members of the Democratic Party (as Brent seems to be implying).

It is not all “guns” as you are framing it. Only assault weapons are mentioned.

Again, this is a fallacious objection.  It is fallacious because it draws from a flawed premise: that the Democrat Party platform speaks for all gun control advocates.  This objection is, therefore, defeated.

Even the recently proposed “comprehensive, three-part plan” only identifies assault weapons.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/376286-schumer-unveils-democratic-gun-control-plan-with-plea-for-trump-support

Once again, this this is a fallacious objection.  It is fallacious because it draws from a flawed premise: that the Democrat Party platform speaks for all gun control advocates.  This objection is, therefore, defeated.

Democrats have only mentioned “assault weapons”, therefore you have committed a straw-man fallacy by reframing it to mean all guns in general.

Are you starting to see how Brent has destroyed his argument yet?  He continues to argue that the Democrat Party speaks for all gun control advocates: bot inside and outside the Party.  This is fallacious.  It is fallacious because it is simply not true.  In other words, Brent has stated something that is demonstrably false, then built his entire argument on this false statement as though it were true.  Therefore, not only have I not committed strawman, but Brent has utterly failed to make his case or refute my original argument in my post to gun control advocates.

Further, your argument is also a straw-man by framing gun control regulations as only targeting the guns and not people.

The proposed Democratic changes address the shooter(s) and not guns themselves, such as the above mentioned “closing the gun show loophole.” That is to ensure people with known mental health problems or people convicted of violate crimes don’t have access to weapons they would otherwise be denied had they gone to a gun store.

The first part of your post is a straw-man fallacy.

And he sticks with it to the end.  This means the whole of Brent’s objections have been defeated because:

1 — He changed the debate.

2 — He stated something that is false and based his argument on it as though it were true.

3 — All of the conclusions he draws after this are therefore invalid, which makes his argument unsound. 

According to the rules of logic, this means Brent failed to defeat my argument in my original post to gun control advocates.

Now let me address the rest of the board:

First, do you see how Brent changed the subject?  I addressed gun control advocates, byt he changed this to the Democrat Party platform on gun control.  1 — not all members of the Democrat Party are going to agree with the Party platform.  2 — The Democrat Party does not speak for gun control advocates in the Republican Party or those who may happen to be in other Parties, or may even be Independent.  This is not only red herring, but it is a sweeping generalization.  This means Brent’s entire argument is fallacious: not just a part of it, but all of it.  From the moment he changed the debate, everything that followed was irrelevant.  Now, do you see why I said I wish I had known about this comment before I wrote this post?

Next, Brent has stated that he objects to my characterization of gun control advocates as only focusing on the gun and not the person.  He claims that the Democrat Party’s platform proves this because it does not go after all our guns, only those guns it defines as ‘semi-automatic.’  This is another attempt to change the original debate.  But it is better than that.  Whether or not he realizes it, Brent has conceded my point (an thus, defeated himself).  Let me demonstrate:

Brent said:

…You present a false question by stating solutions on guns, as if it is all guns. The official democratic platform is specifically “We will protect Americans’ Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.”

…The proposed Democratic changes address the shooter(s) and not guns themselves, such as the above mentioned “closing the gun show loophole.” That is to ensure people with known mental health problems or people convicted of violate crimes don’t have access to weapons they would otherwise be denied had they gone to a gun store….

Where does any of this address the shooter?  It addresses a person’s right to buy a weapon, but not the person.  And how is making a person beg for permission to have a Constitutionally protected RIGHT not banning it?  If you do not receive the government’s permission, you do not get access to your RIGHTS!  This is a ban:

Definition of ban

2 : to prohibit especially by legal means

No, any way you look at the ‘proof’ Brent claims to have presented, it focuses on the gun and prohibiting the ownership of guns.  It does not address the issues of mental health, fatherless families, the influence of video games and a media focused on a culture of killing.  It does not address the fact that the assault weapons ban of 1994 did not work.  This is not my opinion, but that of the U.S. Government:

The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.

It does not address the fact that the policies Brent is advocating failed in the case of the Parkland school shooter (as well as in many other similar cases).  Brent does not address the idea of arming teachers.  He does not address the idea of hardening schools, and other public places where these mass shootings have happened, such as shopping malls.  Bret does not address the fact that the gun control advocates are advocating the trampling of a Constitutionally protected Natural Right equal to that of the Right to a Free Press and the Right to Life.  Nor do Brent’s suggestions pay any attention to the unequal, and thus, unjust treatment of those individuals who have not violated the law nor posed a threat to society.  In fact, the entire Democratic Party platform, as well as the entire gun control platform is fallacious on its face as it pre-supposes that the Second Amendment can rightly be restricted.  You see, the gun control advocates have done the same thing to this debate that Brent did to my original argument: they changed the debate from:

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

to

“Reasonable gun control.”

Let me put this in a way Brent might understand:

What do you consider to be a “reasonable restriction on your right to life?”

You see, the issue is the same: whether we are dealing with the 1st Amendment, the 2nd or the 10th, we are talking abut the restriction of a Constitutionally protected Natural Right.  If the gun control agenda can convince this nation that the Second Amendment is about anything but the ability to resist the army of a tyrannical government, and that it can be “reasonably” restricted, then it can convince you that the right to life can be “reasonable” restricted, as well.  And lest you think this absurd, let me remind you that IT ALREADY HAS!

The right to life — YOUR RIGHT TO YOUR LIFE — is not protected by the Constitution, but by the Declaration and Nature’s God!!!  And the Declaration clearly states that this right is protected FROM CREATION!  Which means we have a right to life from conception, which is the moment of creation.  This then means that the government has already ruled that your right to life can be “reasonably” restricted.  They call it a “woman’s right to choose” — which is fallacious in that it uses language that intentionally deceives and takes the focus from the real issue.  You see, the woman did have a right to choose — whether or not to have sex.  But that right ends the moment she does so and conceives another life.  At that moment, she now has a duty to that life.  This is because that life is the direct result of her actions, and this imparts a duty unto her and the father.  Therefore, abortion represents a “reasonable restriction” on anotherperson’s right to life.

Which then means that the Supreme Court has turned tyrannical, because it knew — or is supposed to know — all of this.  And now, rogue, tyrannical governments are seeking to trample your right to self-defense.  This actually validates the Founders’ original reasoning for protecting the Second Amendment: so that we would always be able to resist the forces of a tyrannical government.

Now, do you remember I said we would come back to Brent switching things to the Democrat Party’s gun control platform?  Here is where that is connected to the issue at hand.  By switching the discussion from addressing all gun control advocates to the Democrat Party’s gun control platform, Brent is trampling upon the rights of any and all gun control advocate who is not 100% in agreement with that platform.  He is trampling their right to their own free will by purporting to have the Democrat Party speak for them, probably without their expressed permission, and possibly against their will.  Furthermore, Bret appears to have no qualms about seizing their rights and throwing them under the control of a Party — which is just an abstract idea, not a real thing.  Which means he has seized the rights of these individuals and given them to the Democrat Party bosses to control.  By any definition, this is tyranny, itself, but is also suggests a hidden agenda.

Now, this board is free to decide for itself.  All I have done in this post is present an argument that tyrants will simply ignore, dismiss or reject, but one which they will never directly address.  This is because the argument I have presented is nearly impossible to break.  This, then, leaves each individual reader of this post with a fairly simple choice:

Are gun control advocates just irrational, or are they hiding a secret agenda — or both?!

============================================================================

============================================================================

For those who may still be interested:

Brent has posted yet again.  This time, he has posted a 5-page, fallacy-filled comment.  Therefore, I will not post it in full.  Instead, I will post the part that will allow me to demonstrate that Brent still does not understand he is the one who is making a fallacious argument and not me.  The following contains Brent’s most recent comment from the start to the point where I will break off and reply to his latest challenge:

My comment will address a large portion of this blog. I will of course not put in the work if the moderator doesn’t share my post. I have met the rules for posting here.

Now I will address this post in part. This is a third post. My first post was either lost or ignored. Since the host moderates comments we cannot know which one. In my second post I admitted I made a mistake by calling it a straw-man argument, again the first post no one saw, and should have called it a loaded question fallacy.

“Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you always seem to focus your solutions on the gun and not the shooter(s)?”

This is a loaded question fallacy. It is not as the host claims “loaded language”.

https://theroadtoconcord.com/2018/03/03/teachable-moments-defending-my-questioning-of-gun-control-advocates/

I’m going to assume the host is unfamiliar with the loaded question since they got it wrong.

A loaded question is a question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature.

The loaded question fallacy is easily found and recognized. Just google it.

The most common example of a loaded question is;

“Have you stopped beating your wife?”

This question is loaded because it is phrased in such a way that if someone was to answer, they would be forced to accept the implied premise inherent in the question. That (1) they have a wife and (2) you have at some point beat her. This is not loaded language, but a loaded question because the question forces the answerer to accept the premises or deny the whole question.

Now a loaded question doesn’t have to be a fallacy if it is in fact true. A Judge could ask this of a defendant who has been convicted of beating his wife. It has already been established by due process to meet the legal requirements to have proved it, that they have a wife and have beaten her.

Let me stop here.  Notice that Brent just admitted that a ‘loaded question’ does not have to be fallacious.  If the premise is true, then it is not a fallacy.  Now, to whom did I address the question Brent claims is fallacious?

“Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you always seem to focus your solutions on the gun and not the shooter(s)?” (remember, my original post is to gun control advocates)

As you can see, I addressed people who favor or advocate for gun control.  Furthermore, the way I structured my question in this post, I allowed those to whom I was addressing to identify themselves as being a gun control advocate:

If you are in favor of gun control,…

By definition, this means I am addressing those people who self-identify as gun control advocates: or people who want to control guns. Therefore, my question cannot be fallacious because I am addressing something that is admitted to, bot in its name, and by the people to whom I posed my question.

At this point, I could safely dismiss Brent’s comments as it is — once again — he who is making a fallacious argument.  But I will allow him to continue — but only for a bit longer:

However, it is a fallacy if the premise(s) of the question is in fact false.

The fallacy of this question is as such

(1) “Whenever there is a shooting — especially a mass shooting — why do you always” this premise is an absolute. The behavior to be described is without fail and consistent every time there is an incident.

Exactly: by definition, a gun control advocate focuses on controlling guns.  Therefore, according to Brent’s own explanation of ‘loaded question,’ I have not committed a fallacy because my question only addressed gun control advocates.

Again, we could stop here and we would be totally justified as Brent just defeated his own argument.  However, I want to be allow Brent to continue a bit longer.  Now, I ask you to pay close attention to the next part of Brent’s latest comment:

(2) “seem to focus your solutions on the gun” this premise is that the gun(s) used are always targeted. I have expanded this into plural because multiple guns can be used.

(3) “and not the shooter(s)?” premise is an absolute that the perpetrators aren’t addressed. Actions are never discussed that will mitigate this incident in the future. The other premise, that is not taken seriously and rejected because of absurdity and will not be mentioned again, of this is that the shooter(s) themselves are ignored, I.E. no democrats call for the apprehension/arrest of the shooter or that there is no need to stop shooters in the future. Again, this premise will not be mentioned because it is assumed the writer doesn’t mean to imply this.

Notice that Brent has — once again — attempts to change the entire discussion.  Not only does he never acknowledge that I am addressing gun control advocates (a fallacy), he acts as though I have addressed Democrats (another fallacy) and proceeds to advocate the Democrat Party platform as being the only authoritative voice for those who advocate gun control (all of which are fallacies).  But here is the best part.  Notice Brent said:

The other premise, that is not taken seriously and rejected because of absurdity and will not be mentioned again,

This is essentially the same fallacy he has accused me of committing.  Instead of asking if I have stopped beating my wife, he has dismissed a part of my argument as “absurd.’ He is inferring that I and/or my argument are absurd, then asserting that, because it is ‘absurd,’ he can dismiss it.  This is totally fallacious (as I have been demonstrating).

Worse still, the part of my argument Brent dismiss by using loaded language was actually introduced by him!  I never said that no one ever advocates we address those things that affect the person. I asked why they are not addressed, but I asked only a specific group of people: those who self-identify as gun control advocates.  In the post Brent is addressing, I focus my attention specifically on those people who will not consider anything but gun control, and I keep my attention focused on those people and only those people. But there’s more.  Even after he tries to change my argument, Brent claims that the Democrat agenda does address people, by placing more regulations on who can and can’t buy a weapon.  How does that regulate the person?  Does it prohibit the person?  No.  It prohibits ownership of the gun.  Now, what is it called when you prohibit the ownership of a gun?  Oh, that’s right: gun control.  And this means — yet again — Brent has defeated himself.

In short, in just the part of his latest 5 page comment that I have shared, Brent has committed — at least — the fallacy of strawman, red herring, loaded language, begging the question, …

Now, if you have stayed with this discussion to this point, do you see why I am controlling Brent’s comments?  He is not using sound reasoning, and he refuses to admit when he is wrong nor to correct himself.  He just doubles and now triples down by posting ever longer comments that — as I have repeatedly demonstrated — are as or more fallacious than his previous comment(s).

Now, I am going to cut this post off here.  There is no use in going any further.  Either the board can see that I have made my point, or it will agree with Brent.  However, before the board makes its own decision as to which of us understands logic and right reason, I would ask the board to consider this last point:

Please notice that, through all of the preceding commentary, Brent never actually addresses any of my questions.  Instead, he focuses only on trying to de-legitimize my premise and re-direct the discussion toward his own fallacious argument (s).  Ask yourself why this is.  If the facts are on Brent’s side, as he seems want to imply, why does he refuse to address my questions?  I suspect the answer is simple: If Brent were simply irrational, he would not avoid my questions.  Rather, he would be trying to demonstrate how I am wrong about each and every one of my questions.  So, again, why does he try to shut my argument down and destroy my credibility with the audience instead of answering my questions?

Are gun control advocates just irrational, or are they hiding a secret agenda — or both?!

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Your comments are wanted and welcome, but are moderated before posting

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s