Never let a crisis go to waste

[Slartibartfast]

Bald faced appeal to popularity. Unsupported.

Bald faced appeal to reality.

 

[Pepperdoodle]

I now order you to start taking the birth control pill.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Do what I tell you to do. You're not fully in control of your own body anymore.

 

[CLAX1911]

The argument was addressed in post 504

Where did you nullified your own position

where I also called that people would unimaginatively repeat that failed argument over and over. Effectively, given that all you are doing is repeating your failure, nothing will progress until you either give up or engage in some critical thought.

Meaningless twaddle

 

[RF667799]

The argument was addressed in post 504 where I also called that people would unimaginatively repeat that failed argument over and over. Effectively, given that all you are doing is repeating your failure, nothing will progress until you either give up or engage in some critical thought.

Your "argument" in post 504:

You can swap in any technology for that car as anything can be used as a weapon, so in order for your argument to be effective, all technology including sticks should be eschewed. For this reason, your argument is fundamentally absurd.

If you are claiming your argument applies exclusively to firearms, it's an obvious case of a special pleading fallacy.

The use of cars directly leads to near 50,000 deaths a year. Many of those children's deaths.

Those deaths could be drastically reduced- perhaps virtually eliminated- with a couple simple rules that would do nothing except inconvenience you.

So you decide those deaths don't matter to you, in the name of your convenience.

You can't refute this. It's your own argument applied to something you personally value as is.

 

[CLAX1911]

Bald faced appeal to reality.

And why are you having such a hard time convincing yourself that you successfully argued your position?

 

[Slartibartfast]

And why are you having such a hard time convincing yourself that you successfully argued your position?

Your "argument" in post 504:

You can swap in any technology for that car as anything can be used as a weapon, so in order for your argument to be effective, all technology including sticks should be eschewed. For this reason, your argument is fundamentally absurd.

If you are claiming your argument applies exclusively to firearms, it's an obvious case of a special pleading fallacy.

The use of cars directly leads to near 50,000 deaths a year. Many of those children's deaths.

Those deaths could be drastically reduced- perhaps virtually eliminated- with a couple simple rules that would do nothing except inconvenience you.

So you decide those deaths don't matter to you, in the name of your convenience.

You can't refute this. It's your own argument applied to something you personally value as is.

The refutation is that the demand is absurd due to it being swappable with literally any technology. I already point this out and at this point it’s about your refusal to accept that then it is about the quality of the argument.

 

[RF667799]

And why are you having such a hard time convincing yourself that you successfully argued your position?

A very hard time.

The reality is that the use of cars directly leads to the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

It's also reality that the poster enjoys having a car that can be used to attain unlawful speeds, and believes it would be inconvenient to have to have all occupants of a vehicle don NASCAR gear for every trip. And there isn't any doubt it would be inconvenient.

So convenience outweighs dead children, as illustrated by the poster's tortured attempts to avoid even addressing the point.

 

[Pepperdoodle]

Do what I tell you to do. You're not fully in control of your own body anymore.

People like you make fighting against the pro abortion crowd so much more worth it.
Thank you!!

 

[RF667799]

The refutation is that the demand is absurd due to it being swappable with literally any technology. I already point this out and at this point it’s about your refusal to accept that then it is about the quality of the argument.

You're babbling.

Since it's your original argument, then your original argument is absurd.

We make decisions to disregard death and injury all the time in the name of convenience, with all manner of things.

You think it only reflects on gun owners.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Since it's your original argument, then your original argument is absurd.

We make decisions to disregard death and injury all the time in the name of convenience.

You think it only reflects on gun owners.

Let me know when you start railing against sticks.

 

[The Brad Dad]

I'm not railing about random technologies. That's just a lie.

It's exactly what you do. The baby talk of calling everything a lie doesn't change your arguments.

 

[RF667799]

Let me know when you start railing against sticks.

Deflection.

Let me know when you're ready to address your use of an automobile that is so convenient for you that you're willing to disregard the deaths of tens of thousands of people to avoid being inconvenienced.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Deflection.

Let me know when you're ready to address your use of an automobile that is so convenient for you that you're willing to disregard the deaths of tens of thousands of people to avoid being inconvenienced.

It was addressed in post 504

 

[RF667799]

It's exactly what you do. The baby talk of calling everything a lie doesn't change your arguments.

Have you addressed my argument? It is actually the argument of @Slartibartfast but he wants it to apply exclusively to gun owners.

I ask that, because I understand that no-way, no-how are you going to be able to point out that what I called a lie wasn't a lie.

 

[RF667799]

There is no need to address it since I dispensed with it in post 504 meaning that your accusation doesn’t apply.

You don't dispense with an argument by massively moving goalposts and invoking a special pleading fallacy.

I doubt you're even fooling yourself, because it is really your argument. Hence the furious attempts at misdirection and wild invocation of fallacy.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You don't dispense with an argument by massively moving goalposts and invoking a special pleading fallacy.

I doubt you're even fooling yourself, because it is really your argument. Hence the furious attempts at misdirection and wild invocation of fallacy.

I dispense with arguments by pointing out their weakness in that any technology can be swapped into it. You simply need a better and more specific argument. Until then, I will just wait out your accusations knowing that they cannot apply unless you change your reasoning. There is nothing else I need to do here but refer to arguments I already made.

 

[RF667799]

Gun owners won't accept a few rules because their convenience outweighs dead children.

Car owners won't accept a couple rules that would drastically reduce the numbers of dead children, because their convenience is more important.

BUT WHATABOUT STICKS!?!

 

[RF667799]

I dispense with arguments by pointing out their weakness in that any technology can be swapped into it. You simply need a better and more specific argument. Until then, I will just wait out your accusations knowing that they cannot apply unless you change your reasoning. There is nothing else I need to do here but refer to arguments I already made.

Your personal car isn't specific enough for you?

Why is the category "guns" specific enough?

It's the same argument in both cases, and it's YOUR argument. You're just staking your credibility on a special pleading fallacy.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Your personal car isn't specific enough for you?

Not if I can literally swap out any technology for that argument.

Why is the category "guns" specific enough?

Guns are inherently weapons, most other technologies are weapons as possible side effect.

It's the same argument in both cases, and it's YOUR argument. You're just staking your credibility on a special pleading fallacy.

And that’s why you need a better argument and where it fails.

 

[CLAX1911]

The refutation is that the demand is absurd due to it being swappable with literally any technology.

That's the point I was making.

I already point this out and at this point it’s about your refusal to accept that then it is about the quality of the argument.

That supported my argument.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That's the point I was making.

That supported my argument.

Your argument is that you made a bad faith argument it seems.

 

[RF667799]

Not if I can literally swap out any technology for that argument.

It's YOUR argument. We swap in your personal car and you come uncorked.

Guns are inherently weapons, most other technologies are weapons as possible side effect.

All guns? Categorical claim? Equivocation? Define your terms.

"Possible side effect". Jesus Christ on waterskis . That's clumsy. The guy in New Orleans absolutely used his truck as a weapon, and it was quite suited for that. Moreso than the gun he also tried to use.

And that’s why you need a better argument and where it fails.

I like your argument. That being that gun owners don't care about dead children because they object to a few rules.

You don't like it when it is applied to your car ownership.

In fact, you insist it can ONLY be applied to gun ownership and use. Special pleading fallacy. In lay terms, that means your argument is ****ed.

 

[RF667799]

2 Adults and a Child Killed in Head-On Crash.

OMG! Were the cars hurt badly?

 

[Slartibartfast]

It's YOUR argument. We swap in your personal car and you come uncorked.



All guns? Categorical claim? Equivocation? Define your terms.

"Possible side effect". Jesus Christ on waterskis . That's clumsy. The guy in New Orleans absolutely used his truck as a weapon, and it was quite suited for that. Moreso than the gun he also tried to use.






I like your argument. That being that gun owners don't care about dead children because they object to a few rules.

You don't like it when it is applied to your car ownership.

In fact, you insist it can ONLY be applied to gun ownership and use. Special pleading fallacy. In lay terms, that means your argument is ****ed.

And I’ve already explained why your argument being set up in such a way that any technology can be swapped into leads to failure.