Teen shot to death during home invasion

Tucker Case said:

Oh, so you are guilty of equivocation AND false analogy.

Thanks for the clarification on that.

Drugs mean what I quoted from the dictionary. Alcohol is a drug, and that was the definition of the term beign used when you decded to EQUIVOCATE on it by altering the defintion to suit your purposes. I quoted form the dictionary because YOU were being an ass by purposely EQUIVOCATING on the meaning in order to make an INVALID logical comparison.

That INVALID logical comparison STILL involved you comparing the equality of a specific thing to a general thing to the equality of two specific things, and thus STILL fails as a logical argument.

So you are guilty of TWO logical fallacies in a single post. Bravo.

Would you care to try and formulate an arguemnt that is fallacy free? Or would you rather piss and moan when called on it?

Your choice. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

When people say "drugs", they usually don't mean alcohol.

It's that simple.

yes, alcohol is a drug, but people aren't usually thinking of alcohol when they casually refer to "drugs".

That's all I've been saying this whole time.

Tucker Case said:

Perhaps in the future, if you don't understand something you should actually ask, "What do you mean" instead of making invalid assumptions that you phrase as questions.

Then you wouldn't need to cry and call people names when they call you out on your trolling behaviors.

Click to expand...

Rule 6 bro, stick to it, and I'll fraze my questions however the **** I want, thank you :2wave:

Jerry said:

When people say "drugs", they usually don't mean alcohol.

It's that simple.

yes, alcohol is a drug, but people aren't usually thinking of alcohol when they casually refer to "drugs".

That's all I've been saying this whole time.

Click to expand...

They also don't think of medicine. They think of the drugs that are prohibited by law. So using an argument based on the definition of "drugs" as pertaining to illegal substances in a discussion about persisting with the laws about those drugs is circular logic.

Tucker Case said:

They also don't think of medicine. They think of the drugs that are prohibited by law. So using an argument based on the definition of "drugs" as pertaining to illegal substances in a discussion about persisting with the laws about those drugs is circular logic.

Click to expand...

I haven't even posed an argument off your comment

Jerry said:

Rule 6 bro, stick to it

Click to expand...

:rofl I really think you should read that one all the way through before you call me a "dick" again. :lol:

and I'll fraze my questions however the **** I want, thank you :2wave:

Click to expand...

Feel free to. And I'll call you on it when you phrase them as logical fallacies. :mrgreen:

Tucker Case said:

:rofl I really think you should read that one all the way through before you call me a "dick" again. :lol:



Feel free to. And I'll call you on it when you phrase them as logical fallacies. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

:lol: well by your own admission, that would only be a tiny insult.... :mrgreen:

Jerry said:

Purple.



..............

Click to expand...

Thx

.....
.....

Tucker Case said:

:rofl I really think you should read that one all the way through before you call me a "dick" again. :lol:

Click to expand...

You should read it all the way through before acting like a dick again :mrgreen:

Tucker Case said:

Feel free to. And I'll call you on it when you phrase them as logical fallacies. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

rof Questions aren't fallacies.

Red_Dave said:

At the time definatly, as stated in post 12. You wouldnt take guns into a bar [I presume] so the same principle applies.

Click to expand...

I dont mean situationally, I mean in toto.

Jerry said:

I haven't even posed an argument off your comment

Click to expand...

You were trying to refute another argument about the data given from the prohibition of alcohol by making a false analogy and by equivocating.


A refutation of an argument, is in and of itself, an argument.

Goobieman said:

I dont mean situationally, I mean in toto.

Click to expand...

I cant see how that would be neccesary.

Jerry said:

You should read it all the way through before acting like a dick again :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I'm strongly advising you not continuing this line with me any further.

rof Questions aren't fallacies.

Click to expand...

rof plurium interrogationum

Red_Dave said:

I cant see how that would be neccesary.

Click to expand...

You're the one that suggested the idea.
If the idea is to make sure that people who do drugs also dont have guns, and since people can do drugs pretty much wherever and whenever, then doesn't the prohibition need to be plenary rather than situational?

Tucker Case said:

You were trying to refute another argument about the data given from the prohibition of alcohol by making a false analogy and by equivocating.


A refutation of an argument, is in and of itself, an argument.

Click to expand...

I was asking for clarification of your argument. Nothing more.

All subsequent posts were my attempts at clarifying my request for clarification, and did not address the greater topic itself, but only as it related to understanding your argument.

Jerry said:

I was asking for clarification of your argument. Nothing more.

Click to expand...

Since when do people ask for sources when looking for clarification?

If you truly didn't understand the argument, why would you ask for a source to something I never stated?

Tucker Case said:

I'm strongly advising you not continuing this line with me any further.

Click to expand...

I've been trying to stop for pages now but you keep going even after I report your posts.

Tucker Case said:

Since when do people ask for sources when looking for clarification?

Click to expand...

Uh, since the beginning of time?

I've been here for about 4 years and that's the way it's always been. Always.

I wanted to know where you were getting that opinion from and I linked for you where I was getting mine from.

Tucker Case said:

If you truly didn't understand the argument, why would you ask for a source to something I never stated?

Click to expand...

All you had to say was "that's not what I meant".

It is possible for people to misinterpret your posts, you know. It could be completely my fault and you still don't have to go off.

Jerry said:

I've been trying to stop for pages now but you keep going even after I report your posts.

Click to expand...

You've been trying to stop calling me names?

Tucker Case said:

You've been trying to stop calling me names?

Click to expand...

I said you were acting like a dick, I didn't call you a dick.

That's not flame.

Next time I could say your acting like a "jerk" to be more in line with the language of the forum rules your braking if you would like.

If any of you feel the need to be insulting and call someone names, by all means use me. I enjoy that activity. Some of the insults I have received have been quite original and humorous.

Tucker Case said:

You've been trying to stop calling me names?

Click to expand...

Ever heard of Tourette's?
Dick, dick, dickdick... d-d-d-dick. :crazy3:

Oops, sorry. / twitch.

Jerry said:

Uh, since the beginning of time?

Click to expand...

No, they ask for sources to discover the VALIDITY of a point. Clarification, as in trying to gain a greater understanding; to remove confusion, comes through direct questioning of the meaning of the post.

I've been here for about 4 years and that's the way it's always been. Always.

Click to expand...

I've been here for a year and I've never once seen anyone ask for a source in order to gain a better understanding of a post. Only to determine the validity of their statements.

I wanted to know where you were getting that opinion from and I linked for you where I was getting mine from.

Click to expand...

You never understood my opinion. Your link had nothing to do with my opinion. It was not a rebuttal of my opinion. It was essentially a non-sequitor.

The reason you fell into this error was because instead of seeking CLARIFICATION on my point, you just made an ASSUMPTION about my point, and then sought to receive evidence to support the assumed position -which was never mine to begin with- and offered your rebuttal opinion based on that assumption. Hence the strawman accusation. You gave your opinion based on an innacurate interpretation of mine.

Then, when you offered your "source" for your opinion, even though I asked for a source from where anyone made the "more drugs = less crime" argument you portrayed as my point, I actually offered clarification of what I meant, by showing that what you were talking about bore no relationship to what I was talking about whatsoever.

All you had to say was "that's not what I meant".

Click to expand...

And all you had to say was "What do you mean" instead of posing a loaded question based on a strawman, which may or may not have been accidental.

But in the future, in order to prevent "accidental" fallacies and the reactions they will always inspire, you should first seek legitimate clarification on a point BEFORE trying to ask direct questions about your perceptions of that point based on your incorrect assumptions.

It is possible for people to misinterpret your posts, you know. It could be completely my fault and you still don't have to go off.

Click to expand...

I never went "off". I simply presented a full explanation of precisely WHY your comments had no logical relationship to mine.

My first response was "Who said anything about "more drugs = less crime"" (this qualifies as seeking clarification because it actually asks a question instead of posing a statement as a question to illustrate confusion).

That was supposed to be an indicator that I was indeed not making that point which you mistakenly thought I was, and I was wondering who did in fact make that point.

You responded in such a way that it seemed clear that you were indeed asking me for something which I had never presented.

My next post explained why the question you asked was both a strawman and a loaded question. You claim that these fallacies were accidental, which is totally possible.


I'm sorry I took it to be intentional. I was under the impression that you do this so often in debates on purpose. It honestly never crossed my mind that this consistent behavior on your part was inadvertent.

For that assumption on my part, I apologize. I will be more understanding of this in the future, as I now understand that you do this because you honestly don't understand the points people make, and it is not willfully distorting other people's points in order to use your existing arguments against these distorted points so that you can trap them into debating you in your comfort zone.

I had always assumed it was the latter situation, now I understand it is the former situation. I will act accordingly when it happens again and just tell you that was not the point I was making in clear and concise words so that misinterpretation cannot occur (my error here was assuming that by asking who made such a point it would be strongly implied that I had never made such a point. clearly that wasn't enough. From now on, I will make sure to respond with a much lesser degree of subtlety)


But again, I never "went off". I simply tried to point out that fallacies were indeed present in your responses to me.

Jerry said:

I said you were acting like a dick, I didn't call you a dick.

That's not flame.

Next time I could say your acting like a "jerk" to be more in line with the language of the forum rules your braking if you would like.

Click to expand...

Of course, I'm not actually breaking any rules by pointing out logical fallacies.

Jerry, Tucker:

Get a room.

Goobieman said:

Jerry, Tucker:

Get a room.

Click to expand...

Do NOT post the pictures.