- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Quoting posts is not the exposition procedure for any fallacy.no problem
Quoting posts is not the exposition procedure for any fallacy.
Try again.
You failed to quote me making a c=c argument. You failed to disprove Harvard. You failed to show where I was sourcing Lott.Quoting posts proves that you said what you are now claiming you did not say
You failed to quote me making a c=c argument. You failed to disprove Harvard. You failed to show where I was sourcing Lott.
Keep failing, please.
"More guns = less crime" is not a c=c argument. The presence of arms causes crime to go down. The Harvard study whent into great detail on exactly how the presence of guns reduces crime.
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean Harvard or I made any error. It only means you didn't read the study, which means you aren't checking sources, which leads back to why I wasn't bothering to link those sources for you in the first place...I knew you would digest them.
You have proven me correct, you don't care about the truth because you aren't operating on reason and logic. You are operating on pure emotion.
You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true.While Harvard study you link is old, you also misread it.
You keep saying that, but that doesn't make it true.
Please fail again.
You failed to quote me making a c=c argument. You failed to disprove Harvard. You failed to show where I was sourcing Lott.
Keep failing, please.
"More guns = less crime" is not a c=c argument. The presence of arms causes crime to go down. The Harvard study whent into great detail on exactly how the presence of guns reduces crime.
Just because you don't understand doesn't mean Harvard or I made any error. It only means you didn't read the study, which means you aren't checking sources, which leads back to why I wasn't bothering to link those sources for you in the first place...I knew you would digest them.
You have proven me correct, you don't care about the truth because you aren't operating on reason and logic. You are operating on pure emotion.
That's just another lie on your part.The Harvard study is nothing more than a study of correlation...
Still waiting for you to show me where I sourced Lott......Haven't failed the first time yet. You merely seem to not understand a few things.
That's just another lie on your part.
Still waiting for you to show me where I sourced Lott......
We agree that I understand very little of what you say, like "your arguments run through him"...wtf is that? :lol:This what I mean by you missing things. I never said you did. But your arguments run through him.
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man
"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.
We agree that I understand very little of what you say, like "your arguments run through him"...wtf is that? :lol:
So there we were discussing LoneStar allowing students to carry on campus. All of a sudden you bring up Lott, you attack Lott, you declare victory.
Meanwhile my argument is untouched because nothing I said had anything to do with Lott.
Go ahead and trash your straw-man Lott all you want. It does nothing to me.
There you go with your straw man again.Because Lott is largely the originator of you argument, no matter where you picked it up at. However, I've also addressed you other evidence, to which you have not replied. You misread both Harvard and the FBI, making a causal relationship error.
There you go with your straw man again.
Lott is no part of anything I've ever said, and that's why you cannot show where I sourced him.
You lied.
Confess to lying and we can continue. Come on, show some honesty for once. Give me some indication that further conversation with you will not result in you lying again. Earn that avatar by showing some integrity.Anyway Jerry, something newer than your Harvard Study:
Confess to lying and we can continue. Come on, show some honesty for once. Give me some indication that further conversation with you will not result in you lying again. Earn that avatar by showing some integrity.
He can be behind an idea out in the world while not behind my argument here on this thread.You didn't quote him, but he is they behind those ideas.
Capitol "S", what is that supposed to mean?I vent lied, you merely are confused. I think you're hiding behind your false outrage. I never Said you outed Lott.
No, you lied. Straight up, you know it when you did it, you lied. You knew that what you were saying was false and you said it anyway. You lied.I vent lied, you merely are confused. I think you're hiding behind your false outrage. I never Said you outed Lott.
He can be behind an idea out in the world while not behind my argument here on this thread.
If I don't source him, he's therefore not part of my argument.
See the difference?
No, you lied. Straight up, you know it when you did it, you lied. You knew that what you were saying was false and you said it anyway. You lied.
I tried to have a decent conversation with you about why you thought guns weren't appropriate on a collage campus, and you **** all over this thread with lies and strawmen.
Why so you can lie some more?Try to follow me:
You're saying Harvard sourced Lott.Source A gets it from Lott.
Source B gets it from source A.
Source C twist source B, buts keeps he same flawed logic.
And so on until you pick it up from some source along the way. It was based off Lott's flawed logic. It's largely the same claim, with the same mistaken reasoning. What applies to Lott applies to any variation on it. It's not the person who is flawed, it's the reasoning.
Why so you can lie some more?
You're saying Harvard sourced Lott.
Quote it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?