No gun, no death
"As the "straw man" metaphor suggests, the counterfeit position attacked in a Straw Man argument is typically weaker than the opponent's actual position, just as a straw man is easier to defeat than a flesh-and-blood one. Of course, this is no accident, but is part of what makes the fallacy tempting to commit, especially to a desperate debater who is losing an argument. Thus, it is no surprise that arguers seldom misstate their opponent's position so as to make it stronger. Of course, if there is an obvious way to make a debating opponent's position stronger, then one is up against an incompetent debater. Debaters usually try to take the strongest position they can, so that any change is likely to be for the worse. However, attacking a logically stronger position than that taken by the opponent is a sign of strength, whereas attacking a straw man is a sign of weakness."
I think the good counselor is confusing a straw-man argument with using someone's words verbatim:
no gun no death
That Stetson education is really paying off.
You misunderstand. The counselor actually is a strawman, therefore any argument he makes...
The counselor got tired of talking to himself in HIS gun thread so he couldn't "resist" ........
The counselor got tired of talking to himself in HIS gun thread so he couldn't "resist" ........
as I said in another thread, I will RESPOND on the topic . . . you and Boy Wonder did exactly what you guys do, which is post a comment to start a back and forth. Seeing that you have nothing of substance to offer . . . I will move on. Thanks.This is the actual conversation -- with two people and on substance -- that was going on before you two showed up with the usual, in the post right above your strawman lol:
on syg, the standard is the way it is because the focus is the killers state of mind as opposed to whether in hindsight the killer was wrong, but you make a fair point .. interesting timing too, I just read that the judge had to send the jury back in the loud music case
I won't claim to know all the in's and out's of the situations. From what I gather Aqib was far more justified busting off at his sister's ex then loud music dude was shooting up that SUV. But use of potential deadly force would require a life or death situation to justify in my opinion. Not being or feeling threatened. So I'm probably more stringent in how I would allow self-defense or SYG (which again, wouldn't be on my books) then many gun advocates.
Not sure why you guys expend the effort, but have fun
Looks like he's disowning his no gun, no death argument. Must have been someone else who said that.
Looks like he's disowning his no gun, no death argument. Must have been someone else who said that.
damn, there were only two brother in the movie! lolI am not sure what pleasure you could possibly take from making demonstrably dishonest arguments, but have fun Illuminator. Too silly frankly to draw me into a discussion, but keep taking your cuts . . . I will look for a better picture . . .lol
