Ten Gun Myths and Memes-- Shot Down

[Antares]

Poor POGO, you post a silly rant from Mother Jones and assume everything it says is true...my guns have never killed another human being...its just that simple...ow would you like it if I went to The Blaze and posted something...you would of course vouch for its veracity.

 

[Pogo]

You poor little guy....must be tough for you...not getting the respect you feel you so richly deserve.

Unfortunately the only one here who cannot see past its purely partisan nose is you.

There's nothing "partisan" about identifying ad hominem. Or even purveying it. It's a simple logical fallacy, makes no point, and belies a master baiter with nothing to say. Matter of fact since you and Athena pulled those out of your collective ass, neither one of you has posted anything that's on the actual topic, at all. Empty pockets. All you can do is post about me. This thread isn't about me. But apparently it's all you have.

Except, as I pointed out, it was not an ad hominen. No one is using a personal attack to prove your argument is bullshit, we are just commenting on your charactor in general.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Windbag being Windbag. Deliberately obtuse, just to see his own name on the internets.
Page-search "dolt", "self-aggrandizing" and "lunacy". The latter is supposed to refer globally to my posts in general-- ad hominem in the past and poisoning the well in the future. You cannot really be this fucking stoopid.

[edit - there's the Kanga above this post providing yet another basis for you. And throwing in a well poisoning to boot. Duh.)

And speaking of "bullshit", how come you're running away from the question of who brought "government" in? You think I forgot?

As somebody said somewhere, who is it in this thread that cannot admit he was wrong?

 

[Antares]

Specious is a very good word....and funny enough it applies to your silly Mother Jones argument

Now of course you would accord Beck the same respect you do ole Mother, right?

There's nothing "partisan" about identifying ad hominem. Or even purveying it. It's a simple logical fallacy, makes no point, and belies a master baiter with nothing to say. Matter of fact since you and Athena pulled those out of your collective ass, neither one of you has posted anything that's on the actual topic, at all. Empty pockets. All you can do is post about me. This thread isn't about me. But apparently it's all you have.

Except, as I pointed out, it was not an ad hominen. No one is using a personal attack to prove your argument is bullshit, we are just commenting on your charactor in general.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Windbag being Windbag. Deliberately obtuse, just to see his own name on the internets.
Page-search "dolt", "self-aggrandizing" and "lunacy". The latter is supposed to refer globally to my posts in general-- ad hominem in the past and poisoning the well in the future. You cannot really be this fucking stoopid.

[edit - there's the Kanga above this post providing yet another basis for you. And throwing in a well poisoning to boot. Duh.)

And speaking of "bullshit", how come you're running away from the question of who brought "government" in? You think I forgot?

As somebody said somewhere, who is it in this thread that cannot admit he was wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There's nothing "partisan" about identifying ad hominem. Or even purveying it. It's a simple logical fallacy, makes no point, and belies a master baiter with nothing to say. Matter of fact since you and Athena pulled those out of your collective ass, neither one of you has posted anything that's on the actual topic, at all. Empty pockets. All you can do is post about me. This thread isn't about me. But apparently it's all you have.

Except, as I pointed out, it was not an ad hominen. No one is using a personal attack to prove your argument is bullshit, we are just commenting on your charactor in general.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Windbag being Windbag. Deliberately obtuse, just to see his own name on the internets.
Page-search "dolt", "self-aggrandizing" and "lunacy". The latter is supposed to refer globally to my posts in general-- ad hominem in the past and poisoning the well in the future. You cannot really be this fucking stoopid.

[edit - there's the Kanga above this post providing yet another basis for you. And throwing in a well poisoning to boot. Duh.)

And speaking of "bullshit", how come you're running away from the question of who brought "government" in? You think I forgot?

As somebody said somewhere, who is it in this thread that cannot admit he was wrong?

mocking your idiocy is not running away from it.

 

[Pogo]

Except, as I pointed out, it was not an ad hominen. No one is using a personal attack to prove your argument is bullshit, we are just commenting on your charactor in general.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Windbag being Windbag. Deliberately obtuse, just to see his own name on the internets.
Page-search "dolt", "self-aggrandizing" and "lunacy". The latter is supposed to refer globally to my posts in general-- ad hominem in the past and poisoning the well in the future. You cannot really be this fucking stoopid.

[edit - there's the Kanga above this post providing yet another basis for you. And throwing in a well poisoning to boot. Duh.)

And speaking of "bullshit", how come you're running away from the question of who brought "government" in? You think I forgot?

As somebody said somewhere, who is it in this thread that cannot admit he was wrong?

mocking your idiocy is not running away from it.

That's an admission of being wrong? ... Nope, can't see it.

So basically you think you get to just make shit up, and if I call you on it. it's "idiocy".
Thanks for that clarification.

What we're still waiting for is this:

Of course it can't. Who suggested it can? That's absurd.
Government didn't create gun culture either.

You just did. You want the government to fix the problem,which you are saying is cultural, ergo, you want the government to dictate culture.

Wrong again Batman. Invent much?

I made no mention of "government" at all. In fact you're the only one who's even posted the word recently.
So -- you think government is the answer to everything? Is that what they call a "statist"?

 

[Pogo]

Poor POGO, you post a silly rant from Mother Jones and assume everything it says is true...my guns have never killed another human being...its just that simple...ow would you like it if I went to The Blaze and posted something...you would of course vouch for its veracity.

I've never said I "assume" anything about the article; I posted it, period. I don't edit somebody's article; I link to it, I quote from it, but I don't write it or edit it.

This ain't rocket surgery; any topic of discussion needs a starting point; you don't like it? Break it down by point. Come up with something more tangible than ad hominem fallacies. I mean your sycophant Windbag posted a story about a rape. Does that mean he agrees with rape? Think about it. For a change. You yourself posted a thread entirely plagiarized from Bill Cosby. Does that mean you agree with plagiarism?

Oh wait, I guess it does. Strike that one.

You can post whatever you want on The Blaze. Like I give a shit. But the fact that a person of your intellect has or claims to have guns, yeah that does give me pause. Why don't you confine yourself to wacko websites where you can hear your own echo.