Filibuster: Vainglorius or Victorius? - Page 8

"Ignoratio Elenchi, according to Aristotle, is a fallacy which arises from "ignorance of the nature of refutation". In order to refute an assertion, Aristotle says we must prove its contradictory; the proof, consequently, of a proposition which stood in any other relation than that to the original, would be an ignoratio elenchi… Since Aristotle, the scope of the fallacy has been extended to include all cases of proving the wrong point… "I am required to prove a certain conclusion; I prove, not that, but one which is likely to be mistaken for it; in that lies the fallacy… For instance, instead of proving that ‘this person has committed an atrocious fraud’, you prove that ‘this fraud he is accused of is atrocious;’" … The nature of the fallacy, then, consists in substituting for a certain issue another which is more or less closely related to it, and arguing the substituted issue. The fallacy does not take into account whether the arguments do or do not really support the substituted issue, it only calls attention to the fact that they do not constitute a proof of the original one… It is a particularly prevalent and subtle fallacy and it assumes a great variety of forms. But whenever it occurs and whatever form it takes, it is brought about by an assumption that leads the person guilty of it to substitute for a definite subject of inquiry another which is in close relation with it."[5]

— Arthur Ernest Davies, "Fallacies" in A Text-Book of Logic

From;


"Personal attacks" redirects here. For the Wikipedia policy, see Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.[2]

Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.[3]

Fallacious ad hominem reasoning is normally categorized as an informal fallacy,[4][5][6] more precisely as a genetic fallacy, a subcategory of fallacies of irrelevance.

Like I said, faux naivete.

In a country where one can own a weapon, but not be required to register the firearm, or buy insurance for it, or submit finger-prints to local police, and where ammo can be obtained online, no questions asked, you really believe there are not some people at least who risk carrying guns into a "gun free zone" in the fond conviction they can use them to protect and save their business, friends, family, and whether that business is a corner store or a major nightclub ??? SMH

"This is a potential fugitive on the loose. It is a strong possibly that Mateen’s connections helped Noor leave the area to avoid prosecution for her complicity in the terrorist attack. As of now, it’s not 100% certain why Salman is not in the area, but knowing the magnitude of the charges potentially set against her, it would not be surprising if she left the region."

 

http://hillarydaily.com/brandon/2016/06/20/orlando-shooters-wife-missing/

Yes, I really believe people don't carry guns into a gun free zone....except people like the Islamic terrorist to commit murder. Most gun owners are law abiding citizens, not rogues like you seem to want to portray us.

How's the brexit votes coming...you in or out ? Bet your in, you appear to support totalitarianism instead of sovereignty.

Joanro you said " You are sick person and this will be my last response to your vile posts. " Several posts later and you're still here!!!

@Joan

Just curious... do you own an AR-15 or similar style rifle? And if you do, what do you shoot at, with it?

Someone made the point on the View, I think, that after one person put explosives in his shoes and boarded an airplane, now we all are required to take our shoes off.

So, it really think about that, and how it makes normal, non-paranoid people outraged, to make everyone else suffer the ease of mass murderer's choice of weapons and how they get them because the fear of losing 2nd amendment rights and the NRA stranglehold. Something that isn't being asked to happen. We want common sense to prevail, that's all.

Bee, why are you asking me about ar15 rifles? The shooter in Orlando did not use one.

Can you tell me why you think focusing on gun laws at this time is more important than focusing on isla mic terrorists and open border policy at this time, bringing in unvetted muz lems from the very regions of the world that terrorists originate.....even within five days of this isla mic terrsit attack more than five hundred unvetted Muslims from syria were imported to the us, 49 of them sent to Florida...sickening that the number happens to match the number of Americans slaughtered by the Isis jihadist.

Have you seen any posts by me here that indicates I am opposed to 'common sense gun laws' ?
 

gsd Admin: A few hundred saves but what they don't tell you is how many died because of weapons.  In the last 20 years how many lives have been lost to weapons? 60,000 to 80,000 is a fair guess. In the last year how lives lost to guns? 3,000?

 

Question: How they were "lost to weapons"? What does that mean? You mean to guns - Right? So how did the gun killed someone. Gun is inanimate object. Gun can not go and kill someone. Someone must pull the trigger. And that someone if criminal or Muslim  terrorist who wants to kill  gays for example or rob a  convenience store or rob someone in their home or on the street.....will always find a gun if he wants to. Don't you understand that? To ban gun is only for law obeying citizens. Criminals will not obey law.  Do you REALLY think that when law is passed criminals will say OH you got me . Now I will give up my guns. Nobody is that stupid to beleive that. That is what criminals do. THEY DO NOT OBEY LAW. As I have said before. WE BANNED MURDER, RAPE, DRUGS, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS . HOW IS WORKING?! huh?! In other words someone like you is saying I'll take your ( my ) means of defense against criminals with guns. Is that common sense? That is cruel, mindless, irresponsible, unnatural and illegal  act . Who to fk are you to tell me if and how I can defend myself and my loved ones. If you are scared of guns then do not have one.  Your choice. But keep your paws  from others people's natural, God's given  by constitution protected  means of defense.  But keep in mind   that it is  sure as God made little green apples that criminal is not going to get rid of his gun while you are defenseless. So please mind your own business and stop telling to others what they can or cannot do.

hundmutter:In a country where one can own a weapon, but not be required to register the firearm, or buy insurance for it, or submit finger-prints to local police, and where ammo can be obtained online, no questions asked, you really believe there are not some people at least who risk carrying guns into a "gun free zone" in the fond conviction they can use them to protect and save their business, friends, family, and whether that business is a corner store or a major nightclub ??? SMH

 

Prager: There are about 300 millions of guns in USA. I assure you that nothing will happen  for better   if there would be  ban on sales of all guns at this moment.  Drugs are illegals and you can get drugs even in prisons where the control is utmost. Chicago - home of liberalism and Obama has greatest gun control laws yet last weekend there was 90 shootings in the city from which 13 Killed, 43 Wounded In Father’s Day Weekend Shootings

. So  by what logic can anybody arrive to conclusion that banning guns will do anything except make law obeying citizens defenses is  hard to figure. 

@Joan

It doesn't really matter to me the brand name of semi-automatic assault rifle used, it is the entire category of weapon style that should be once again, banned. I asked you because, I said, I was curious. I also know you shoot tree-rats, oops, I mean squirrels, too. What weapon does the best job of that?

This isn't the Orlando shooter thread, btw, but it is running concurrent at the moment so, no big deal if there is a bit overlap happening.

I am pretty sure you are somewhat of an anti-government, "prepper" type, and even think you might be inserting spaces and phonetic speech in spelling words like, "isl amist terrist", as a way to not be bot-searched, due to a fear of government spying, maybe?

So, I guess when you or anyone starts to dig your heels in with making the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution as sacred and unassailable as the Ten Commandments, and in the absense of actually saying you support comon sense gun controls, I would be guilty of assuming you are not in favor of any.

The other issues are apples and oranges to this one, IMHO. I now, really think Omar used the terrorist sympathizer phone calls hoping for some affect or message on his relationship with his father, and to deflect from his real hatred... of himself, most likely. The Orlando shooting reminds me (and others) how deadly the AR-15 type weapons were purposely made to be deadly to people—only, and is why it makes this issue, the mass murderers' weapon of choice, timely.

It doesn't mean the other ones are forgotton, or are going away. I just know that focusing on one controversial issue at a time is the way to actually get something discussed for a better conversation/debate. It takes time to fact check some of the more outrageous conclusions, too. You want to start new threads on the other topics, I will probably join in!