reply to post by links234
Links, your usual tactics aren't going to work here. If you want to debate with the grown ups, step up your game brother. The set up
statements to your logical fallacy are fallacious in and of themselves.
...More importantly though, I want to address the comment about the supposed 'importance' of the second amendment. How just wielding a weapon
makes your opinion more worthy of being heard than an unarmed individual. Threatening to get your way, not through reason or rationality, but through
force. I find it absurd that your arguments boil down to stopping one form of tyranny with another form of tyranny.
You're supposed to be responding to Ralalga in this post...he said nothing about making opinions more worthy. You must be responding to my OP in which
I didn't say what you're trying to twist it into.
Likely you're confused about the line saying "The voice of millions of peaceful but well-armed citizens carries infinitely more weight than millions
of unarmed voices." Perhaps it's my fault for not defining this better.
My position is this: All voices are equal. Not all voices are equally heard. When a government is dealing with a free and armed population, they pay
much more attention to the voice of the people, en masse (meaning armed and unarmed alike).
But back to your Logical Fallacy business! You claim that Ralaga is "Threatening to get [his] way...though force...Replacing one form of tyranny with
Here's what Ralaga did say:
...we will remember the names of the politicians that tried to pass these foolish measures and systematically remove all of them (from) office
by the power of vote alone.
See Link? There, in his summary, he states that 'we' will lawfully use the proper mechanism of law to enact changes 'we' seek. Tyranny and
Force at their finest...
You wrap up the paragraph with not a counterpoint of fact or logic, but a DOUBLE Logically Fallacious
!! We should give awards out for this schlitz!
Your statement "I find it absurd..." is classic
P.I. language, in which you attempt to debase the arguments by taking a position of superiority
though derision of the argument. No facts, no debate, no logic.
But why stop there?! You attach your P.I. to a 'summation' of Rala's statements. A summation that doesn't even twist the original statements; It just
a strawman made up of some extreme viewpoint that was never presented!
The irony here is your first paragraph, in relation to your opening claim in para. 2, "You don't want to argue for legitimate reasons you just want to
silence the opposition..."
That's what this is about right? You don't want to argue for legitimate reasons you just want to silence the opposition through force, or at
the very least, threat of force. The only rationale I've heard out of this thread for 'Hi-Cap Mags' is to kill snakes and overthrow the government. A
legitimate, democratically elected government I might add.
Again with that strawman argument that Rala wants to use force to silence opposition. At least your last two sentences don't contain any bad
arguments. Just bad opinions, based on bad reading!
In fact Links, looking at your first post in this thread, I saw 5-6 different arguments based on bad logic...
...BUT WAIT! There's more! I am going to share a very special website with you, Links, because I really want you to be a better
opponent. Perhaps you don't realize this, but all these logical fallacies completely undermine the point you are trying to make. A great
debate revolves around honest, logical discourse using facts and reason. I would MUCH rather beat you in that arena than kick you around over bad
edit on 18-2-2013 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)
18-2-2013 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)