By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Uncertainty In School Shooting Numbers

o_O.Q said:

give up all your guns and let these guys take all of your responsiblity

 

they only care for your safety... so why not?

No thanks...I don't trust my life in the hands of a stranger.



Around the Network
Zekkyou said:
o_O.Q said:

humans/men are made from tissue, water, bone etc etc etc, it is literally impossible to build a man from straw... what does that fact do for your argument?

but regardless i already said that i was expressing my observing a trend in gun control advocates and that's all

(Not commenting on what either of you have said before this, just the bolded).

That's precisely why the word "strawman" is used. It's usually used to refer to someone arguing against a person that doesn't exist, just the vague representation of one. Thus, a strawman (since, as you say, real people aren't made of straw).

I expect you're joking, but it's the internet so eh :D

oh i see, so he wasn't seriously saying that a man could be made of straw but that i was arguing against an imaginary person

but that's not true because i was only posting my observations of a certain group of people i wasn't really arguing with anyone, just expressing my experiences is all

why didn't he just say imaginary instead of straw though? that would have made this less complicated



sundin13 said:
sc94597 said:

I don't see how it is a strawman or irrelevant to the topic at hand. 

Tulipanzo said, "only rising due to the negligence of U.S. government to act and ban the fucking things."

Any ban must be enforced, which would in fact criminalize millions of people who refuse to comply and force cops to confront possible gun-owners, leading to many more deaths of otherwise innocent people. 

Before jumping in, how about read the conversation? Thanks! 

Fair enough. Strange that you would not include that in your quote, but fair enough. I often see individuals jumping to extreme minority opinions as a way of handwaving all the middle ground of what "gun control" can mean, but I'll agree that "ban the fucking things", while not exactly well defined, can really only be interpreted one way.

o_O.Q said:

humans/men are made from tissue, water, bone etc etc etc, it is literally impossible to build a man from straw... what does that fact do for your argument?

but regardless i already said that i was expressing my observing a trend in gun control advocates and that's all

I've personally never seen that opinion and I am someone who frequently advocates for gun control. I mean, gun control advocates tend to be generally on the "anti-war" side of things. But overall, you are basically just throwing non-sequiturs into the conversation in order to demonize a group of people you disagree with (or agree with? I honestly can't tell).

gun control advocates obviously have to be for larger government to regulate/ban things they have been directed to be scared of

war is always waged by government not by the average joe hunting elk or whatever

how can you be for larger government and be antiwar simultaneously? 



Nighthawk117 said:
o_O.Q said:

give up all your guns and let these guys take all of your responsiblity

 

they only care for your safety... so why not?

No thanks...I don't trust my life in the hands of a stranger.

but come on the government has put them there to keep you safe, why don't you trust them?

don't let their increasing brutality towards citizens give you the wrong ideas

these are good men, believe in them, please

you seem paranoid, next thing you'll say is that you don't trust the government and that would just be preposterous



o_O.Q said:
Nighthawk117 said:

No thanks...I don't trust my life in the hands of a stranger.

but come on the government has put them there to keep you safe, why don't you trust them?

don't let their increasing brutality towards citizens give you the wrong ideas

these are good men, believe in them, please

you seem paranoid, next thing you'll say is that you don't trust the government and that would just be preposterous

Like I said, I choose to not put my life in the hands of a stranger....Why do you?



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
Zekkyou said:

(Not commenting on what either of you have said before this, just the bolded).

That's precisely why the word "strawman" is used. It's usually used to refer to someone arguing against a person that doesn't exist, just the vague representation of one. Thus, a strawman (since, as you say, real people aren't made of straw).

I expect you're joking, but it's the internet so eh :D

oh i see, so he wasn't seriously saying that a man could be made of straw but that i was arguing against an imaginary person

but that's not true because i was only posting my observations of a certain group of people i wasn't really arguing with anyone, just expressing my experiences is all

why didn't he just say imaginary instead of straw though? that would have made this less complicated

I wasn't commenting on if his use of it was justified or not, I just thought I'd add insight (in-case you'd just not seen it before). As for why we use those specific words, it's the actual name of a type of argument/fallacy. Like red herring, ad hominem, sunk cost, drinking the Kool-Aid, etc (or for a none argument/fallacy example; cliffhanger). We use the title as a shorthand, but obviously the flaw in that is it assumes the target knows what the title refers to. We all use so many of them in every day language that we all inevitably run into one we aren't familiar with eventually. English is a daft language



Zekkyou said:
o_O.Q said:

oh i see, so he wasn't seriously saying that a man could be made of straw but that i was arguing against an imaginary person

but that's not true because i was only posting my observations of a certain group of people i wasn't really arguing with anyone, just expressing my experiences is all

why didn't he just say imaginary instead of straw though? that would have made this less complicated

I wasn't commenting on if his use of it was justified or not, I just thought I'd add insight (in-case you'd just not seen it before). As for why we use those specific words, it's the actual name of a type of argument/fallacy. Like red herring, ad hominem, sunk cost, drinking the Kool-Aid, etc (or for a none argument/fallacy example; cliffhanger). We use the title as a shorthand, but obviously the flaw in that is it assumes the target knows what the title refers to. We all use so many of them in every day language that we all inevitably run into one we aren't familiar with eventually. English is a daft language

red herring? isn't that a fish? is this the same thing where you aren't really talking about fish but something else?



Nighthawk117 said:
o_O.Q said:

but come on the government has put them there to keep you safe, why don't you trust them?

don't let their increasing brutality towards citizens give you the wrong ideas

these are good men, believe in them, please

you seem paranoid, next thing you'll say is that you don't trust the government and that would just be preposterous

Like I said, I choose to not put my life in the hands of a stranger....Why do you?

because i want to be safe and the world is scary



o_O.Q said:
Nighthawk117 said:

Like I said, I choose to not put my life in the hands of a stranger....Why do you?

because i want to be safe and the world is scary

If you truly want to be safe, then protect yourself...Don't rely on the government to save your ass.  Be self reliant.  Don't trust strangers,  didn't your parents teach you that concept when you were young?



o_O.Q said:
sundin13 said:

Fair enough. Strange that you would not include that in your quote, but fair enough. I often see individuals jumping to extreme minority opinions as a way of handwaving all the middle ground of what "gun control" can mean, but I'll agree that "ban the fucking things", while not exactly well defined, can really only be interpreted one way.

I've personally never seen that opinion and I am someone who frequently advocates for gun control. I mean, gun control advocates tend to be generally on the "anti-war" side of things. But overall, you are basically just throwing non-sequiturs into the conversation in order to demonize a group of people you disagree with (or agree with? I honestly can't tell).

gun control advocates obviously have to be for larger government to regulate/ban things they have been directed to be scared of

war is always waged by government not by the average joe hunting elk or whatever

how can you be for larger government and be antiwar simultaneously? 

That is quite possibly the most reductive argument I've ever seen. Arguing for one means of expanding the size of government isn't arguing for literally everything else that can be done to expand government.