Wednesday, July 17, 2013

In which a liberal gun-owner attempts discussion...

Anonymized Author -

I am honestly unsure if you are simply trying to work through the available list of logical fallacies (, testing us all on whether we can accurately identify which one you are engaging in on a given day, or engaged upon some more subtle misanthropic endeavor. The only thing we can be certain of is that you are not engaged in intellectually honest discourse, though whether that is at a conscious or unconscious level is not able to be determined from the evidence at hand.

However, in the spirit of good sportsmanship, I will assume that you are engaged first in a grand game of "guess the fallacy" and I call "Straw Man Argument!" I will accept a Rock Island Armory 1911 as my prize if goodies are being handed out to the first person to accurately identify the fallacy du jour, though I would also be open to the Chiappa .45-70 lever action.

Second, it would appear that after falsely stating my position in a manner specifically meant to make it easy to deride that you are engaged upon further illegitimate diversionary tactics as you engage in an "appeal to emotion" class of fallacy in dragging in the uncited alleged comments of the juror - which in turn brings us to your next pair of fallacies, the "False Cause" in assuming that simply because a juror may or may not have a special animus or affection towards a given group that they are thus incapable of rendering a just or logical decision, and then the second fallacy of the pair - a return to an ad hominem attack directed at the juror based on her alleged statements.

Moving right along, we see you leap to use the "appeal to emotion" (or arguably bandwagon) fallacies to attempt to guilt readers into an opinion or course of action.

Having identified and quantified the volume of distilled intellectual dishonesty contained in your last missive, we can then move on to the meaningful content (if any) in your email to the list. Despite accusations of wild and uncontrolled optimism, I continue to believe that you are neither stupid nor ignorant so I cannot cut you any slack on those accounts.

As others have pointed out, bad judgement in the course of a series of events leading ultimately (but not necessarily rising to being causative) to the death of some party does not necessarily reach to the level of manslaughter or murder or a great many other things.

I await a reply that actually addresses the merits of the issues at hand rather than bloviating.

Seattle, WA

 7/16/2013 7:14 PM, Anonymized Author wrote:

  So GayCynic, then you don't believe Zimmerman is guilty of using bad judgment, as one of the jurors who spoke to press has said. Bad judgment where someone is killed seems a textbook example of manslaughter.

Then there is her, the juror, comment about "these people" that again appears to point to a racially motivated decision.

Collective bad judgment by a few can reflect poorly upon a great many others.

Anonymized Author
SumCity, WA

Anonymized Author-

That's dreadfully ingenuous, bordering on the offensive.

Trayvon Martin was 17, 6' or more (depending on which source you believe), and 160 lbs (a rough median of reported weight) of reasonably fit young man. In other words, just as equipped to - without complex tools - wreak serious mayhem upon others. His hue or heritage do not affect "young, fit, capable."

It has been a deceitful tactic of those attempting a high-tech lynching of George Zimmerman to poison the media (often willing accomplices), contaminate the potential jury pool with a media conviction (beginning before charges were even brought), and plow the field for rioting  should Zimmerman be acquitted to portray Martin as a helpless child of some sort when in reality he was physically adult - not the innocent 12yo shown in the most common pictures. His often glossed-over history of petty criminal conduct and his recently released cell phone records (partial, , also lead to significant doubts about Martins "innocence" and indicate a predilection for physical fights, perhaps even assaults.

Martin may or may not be a victim, but he was to all but the dimmest of bulbs or the ideologically motivated neither an untainted innocent nor a helpless child.

Given that I do not believe you to be stupid or ignorant and that the above data is verifiable from multiple readily available sources, I must then question the motivation for your snide suggestion in response to Esteemed2AElder. I might even go so far as to suggest your comment borders on an ad hominem attack

Seattle, WA

On 7/13/2013 1:56 AM, Anonymized Author wrote:
Esteemed2AElder   wrote:

> Stop the "poor unarmed li'l teenager" meme.

I forget. It's open season on black kids. My bad.

Anonymized Author
SumCity, WA

No comments: