http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/locke-and-load-the-fatal-error-of-the-stand-your-ground-philosophy/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 "But certainly not all agree. Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, has offered this defense of the law, urging us to sympathize with those who would “stand their ground”: “Have you ever been threatened? I mean you talk to crime victims in the country… it’s the most terrifying moment of their life. They really are in a state of overwhelming reactive panic. Instinctively, they’ll do anything at that point to save themselves.” Such a threat is a highly personal affair — we can’t hope to understand or appreciate the terror, and how people measure it. Don’t judge them, LaPierre says. To judge them calmly after the fact and say, well, he could have run away, or defused the situation, that is too abstract, aloof, pompous, even insulting. It smacks of the elitism typical of gun critics, LaPierre argues. “This duty to retreat may sound fine at an Ivy League cocktail party,” he complains, “it doesn’t work very well in the real world of crime victims.”
Vindro Botticelli, spending hours and hours combing the web to bring you stories you're not interested in.
Vindro Botticelli, spending hours and hours combing the web to bring you stories you're not interested in.
I guess that confirms you're interested in me then, because you keep commenting . . . . oh yeah . . wait . . .. I am forcing you to . . . its a spell . . . you're a victim . . you just don't know it. It's not really that you are a sad little troll who craves my attention . .. that's not why you keep posting . . you're a victim
ha, you did it . . you fell for it because I forced you to ......... so I could call you names . . . .lol .. . . . I kid
lol . .. the rest of the band o' misfits cannot be far behind . . . (btw, I posted that article because Wayne is right about the law)
No gun, no death .... errr http://tbo.com/news/crime/clearwater-police-investigate-homicide-20140224/
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."
.... errr
