It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by mikegrouchy
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's like they dont hear/read/understand the words coming out of their own mouths.
Yah...Amazing...it's like some folks don't know the difference between a gun and a dog.
BEHOLD!
The Double Bind Theory of Schizophrenia
is alive and well.
A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, in which one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will be automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore cannot resolve it or opt out of the situation.
wikipedia.org / Double Bind
Perhaps we should recommend that the current administration
seek therapy!
Mike
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
We'll never get anything done if the Federal Government grows and grows like a nightmare version of a Chia Pet because people are actually asking them to take more local authority.
We agree there. My point about the irony of the Obama Admin being bashed after refusing to ursurp local authority stands. It speaks to credibility or lack there-of.
Originally posted by James1982
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
We'll never get anything done if the Federal Government grows and grows like a nightmare version of a Chia Pet because people are actually asking them to take more local authority.
We agree there. My point about the irony of the Obama Admin being bashed after refusing to ursurp local authority stands. It speaks to credibility or lack there-of.
Yeah, you really aren't getting it. Please try thinking harder.
Bans are bans.
When discussing the drug war, people reference alcohol prohibition. ALL the arguments AGAINST prohibition ALSO apply to drug prohibition.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Actually, you are the one with the cognitive issues. The principles that are applied to ban one object that some foolish and frightened people want to ban can, and are applied to other objects that foolish and frightened people want to ban.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by James1982
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
We'll never get anything done if the Federal Government grows and grows like a nightmare version of a Chia Pet because people are actually asking them to take more local authority.
We agree there. My point about the irony of the Obama Admin being bashed after refusing to ursurp local authority stands. It speaks to credibility or lack there-of.
Yeah, you really aren't getting it. Please try thinking harder.
Bans are bans.
When discussing the drug war, people reference alcohol prohibition. ALL the arguments AGAINST prohibition ALSO apply to drug prohibition.
Wow and it continues?
Alcohal is to THC...as a pet Dog is to a Semi-Automatic Rifle?
Still not seeing the cognitive disconnect?
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Actually, you are the one with the cognitive issues. The principles that are applied to ban one object that some foolish and frightened people want to ban can, and are applied to other objects that foolish and frightened people want to ban.
And so on...
Psst...Animals aren't guns...they aren't even "objects" as you claim.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Pssst...guns don't do anything.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
They are inanimate objects.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Why so afraid of an inanimate object?
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Pssst...guns don't do anything.
?? Mine do? Don't know what kind of guns you own?
No they don't...not on their own.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
They are inanimate objects.
Yes...unlike Dogs...glad you are starting to understand.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Why so afraid of an inanimate object?
I missed that? Where did I post that I am afraid of guns?
Originally posted by NavyDoc
The hypocrisy, which is fairly obvious, is that the administration does not deign to apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners.
Originally posted by Indigo5
In order for the same logic to be equally applied we must first reduce everything down to "same"
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by NavyDoc
The hypocrisy, which is fairly obvious, is that the administration does not deign to apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners.
The administration does not "apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners"...because...wait for it...a gun is not a dog.
Nor is a pencil an elephant, an orange a knife or a hammer a cat...
In order for the same logic to be equally applied we must first reduce everything down to "same"
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
"They'll need to pry my dog from my cold, dead hands!"
Sounds a little creepy when it's put like that, donchathink?
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by NavyDoc
The hypocrisy, which is fairly obvious, is that the administration does not deign to apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners.
The administration does not "apply the same logical standard to the gun banners as the dog banners"...because...wait for it...a gun is not a dog.
Nor is a pencil an elephant, an orange a knife or a hammer a cat...
In order for the same logic to be equally applied we must first reduce everything down to "same"
Originally posted by Krazysh0t
You are having some sort of logic breakdown here. Either that or you failed your college logic course. In order for a logical argument to hold up, you have to be able to insert ANYTHING in place of what the argument is talking about and the argument's premise still concludes to the same conclusion.
False equivalence (Fallacy)
False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.
It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence. It is achieved by "shifting, imprecise, or tactical (re)definition of a linking term.
A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.
The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal.
It should be noted though that d existing in both sets is not required, only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.
Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
So, lets also introduce this then.
Don't ban abortion, after all it is murder.
But, ban guns, which have yet to murder anyone.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
A dog of a certain breed kills somebody and someone else calls for a ban on that breed. Rightfully, the administration says this is stupid because for every single dog of that breed that kills someone there are tens of thousands of dogs of that breed that do not hurt anyone.
A guy with a gun of a certain type kills somebody and someone else calls for a ban on that type of gun and the president agrees, ignoring the fact that for every death caused by that type of gun, there are about a million guns of that type that are not used to kill anyone.
Originally posted by Indigo5
Originally posted by NavyDoc
A dog of a certain breed kills somebody and someone else calls for a ban on that breed. Rightfully, the administration says this is stupid because for every single dog of that breed that kills someone there are tens of thousands of dogs of that breed that do not hurt anyone.
A guy with a gun of a certain type kills somebody and someone else calls for a ban on that type of gun and the president agrees, ignoring the fact that for every death caused by that type of gun, there are about a million guns of that type that are not used to kill anyone.
Okay...so your are saying that for the purposes of a "Ban" that these items make Dogs and Semi-automatic "assault" rifles equivelant.
(A) Each is able to kill
(B) Of those that kill...the vast majority do not.
I would argue they are different in that...
Semi-Automatic Assualt Rifles are
inanimate objects/tools,
engineered and manufactured by people
specifically designed tools/inanimate objects to maximize it's precision and capacity for killing. Guns are both designed and marketed for how accurately they fire, how many shots can be fired without re-loading, how quickly it fires, ease of use etc. etc. No one ...well maybe some...pets thier gun, bonds with it as a living creature etc.
Gun's don't slobber or play fetch.
While dogs are living, breathing creatures...pets. Not an "inanimate object" as you have touted...nor an object manufactured for a singular use....launching lethal projectiles with rapidity and accuracy.
Otherwise...When was the last time some unstable, skinny, young man walked into a grade school and killed 22 Kids and teachers with thier dog?