CentralCaliBike said:
I thought you were for the Bill of Rights. Bill of Rights aside, take a look at the homicide rates in the most liberal voting areas of the United States and at those same rates in the most conservative (and most limited gun control laws).
Let's analyze your reply to my statement, supported by a number of arguments, on gun control now.
1) You first choose to ignore all of the arguments I made. There is nothing to dispute or even engage with those arguments, which makes me think you either don't bother to deal with them (separately), or you haven't (yet) thought of any way to deal with them.
2) Then you refer to the US bill of rights, without really stating why you refer to the US BoR. Hence, making an educated guess, I would infer that your hidden assumption is that one cannot question the Constitution. This could explain why you choose to ignore my arguments, because it should be of no importance anyway.
3) Then you assume I am in favor of the US Bill of Rights, quite possibly inferred from my previous statements on civil & human rights issues. At face value, that's like confusing someone who is in favor of health care for someone who thus necessarily favors a public run health care system.
To be in favor of civil & human rights issues, is not logically the same as favoring a specific document, such as the US Constitution. I.e. "All Civil Rights are US Constitutional rights (meaning enshrined in the US constitution)" is not the same as its inverse "All US Constitutional rights are Civil Rights"; Similarly, "All dogs are mammals" is not reversible to "All mammals are dogs"
To be clear, I have no special preference for/against the US variant.
If I brought it up, it must have been in relation to my perceived ambivalence of 'conservatives' towards the(ir, as in US) Bill of Rights. I.e. making special pleas to allow torture, unfair trials, while remaining unrelenting proponents of the second amendment, seems to be inconsistent for 'conservatives' (those who want to 'preserve') who are so in favor of the 'fundamental value' of that document.
4) Then you proceed and tell me to
have a look at
'homicide rates in the most liberal voting areas of the United States and at those same rates in the most conservative (and most limited gun control laws)'.
- you provide no evidence of anything really. You merely use an exhortation that I compare figures you have not provided a source for, while not even drawing your own conclusion or indicating what they are supposed to demonstrate. It's like arguing that:
"smurfs are blue! Now you go check it, and you'll see I am right"
Talking about vagueness... I can only guess what you are hinting at. To be honest, that's not the best way to support statements.
- Only in parenthesis you qualify the statement with reference to gun laws. you leave completely implicit what you really mean and why you enter this information.
So I am going to have to guess, in good faith as is courtesy in debates when one is unsure of another's intended meaning, and try to connect it to the topic:
- The use of parenthesis of a qualification make me somehow think that it's not really relevant to the preceded statement. So when I omit it, it'll make something like this: "homicide rates in the most liberal voting areas of the United States are higher as compared to rates in the most conservative areas"(????)
Hence, may I infer that this could be an appeal to sentimentality, i.e. leaving implicit but trying to allude to a sentiment based on the idea that '(political) liberals are in fact murderers, as 'demonstrated' by the 'higher homicide rates in liberal voting areas'?
- Or are you trying to say that 'those (generally liberal voters) against gun control' are 'those that misuse the existing right to bear arms most, given the homicide rates in their voting areas'.
In either case, it would be a 'poisoning the well' type of argument. The messenger is evil, hence his statements are to be distrusted.
- Now I'll include the qualification in parenthesis 'and most limited gun control laws' which could, but not necessarily needs to, refer to 'the most conservative [voting areas]'(?). Are you thus saying that 'conservative voting areas always have more liberal gun laws, while showing lower homicide rates, whereas liberal voting areas always have more conservative gun laws, while showing higher homicide rates'?
That seems to be a fallacy of the post-hoc, ergo propter hoc type. 'Because of this, therefore this.'
Anyway, in absence of any compelling evidence, as well as (intentional?) vagueness of your statements, combined with logical fallacies, I am inclined to consider your post insufficiently qualified to really argue in favor of liberal gun laws.
A quick summary of your posts as of late. So far I have experienced that you tend to:
- ignore (most) arguments
- omit to support your opinions with either arguments or sources
- refer to sources whose headline/titles seemingly supports your opinion, while not seeming to know what was actually said in the article. Some sources even contradicted your opinion.
- debunk/support arguments or statements via logical fallacies (poisoning the well; hasty generalizations; slippery slopes; post-hoc, ergo propter hoc) and (intentional?) vagueness in what you really want to say.
Very Beckian 'vague & sentimental', not very Burkean...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram