This is a prime example of why, by and large, attempting to argue with anti-rights nuts is fruitless and frustrating for all people involved – when they realize they are losing the conversation, they shove their fingers in their ears, start screaming nonsense, and run off into the horizon:
iamboogie: Wow. “Some polls have indicated that 67 percent of Texans are against guns on campus.” And yet. http://j.mp/icBunr #noguns #TXlege
wotc_linoge: @iamboogie If 67% of Texans supported slavery, would you be ok with the resurrection of that hateful practice?
iamboogie: @wotc_linoge What a ridiculous logical fallacy. And a hateful question.
wotc_linoge: @iamboogie You are right – supporting the abridgment of basic human rights on the basis of a *poll* is a logical fallacy, and hateful.
iamboogie: @wotc_linoge Carrying a gun isn’t a basic human right-in the *USA* it’s the 2nd amdt & I support it. BUT I’m Texan & support gunfree schools
wotc_linoge: @iamboogie Self-defense *is* a basic human right, regardless of your opinion. Supporting its denial by way of a poll is a logical fallacy.
wotc_linoge: @iamboogie Specifically, a logical fallacy known as “appeal to popularity”.
iamboogie: @wotc_linoge I don’t think you understand–I don’t support anything based on a poll. I hope you support gay marriage rights.
wotc_linoge: @iamboogie I support the right of all people to engage in whatever contracts they desire. Which is immaterial to the debate at hand.
iamboogie: @wotc_linoge “Appeal to popularity” is only 1 facet of logical fallacy. Your first response was also a logical fallacy, called a “straw man”
wotc_linoge: @iamboogie Except not. You specifically pointed to an poll to support your position. Thus no strawman.
iamboogie: @wotc_linoge The specific law in TX applies only to students 21+. Many students are under 21. So they won’t be able to defend themselves.
wotc_linoge: @iamboogie So what about the students who are not under 21? Should their rights be arbitrarily infringed upon?
iamboogie: @wotc_linoge I did not use it to support my position at all. I just noted that several people had opinions like mine. Thanks. Blocked.
wotc_linoge: @iamboogie So, in short, you were relying on “appeal to popularity”, and are now too ashamed to admit it. Thanks for the clarification.
wotc_linoge: @iamboogie Gotta love people who are too cowardly to defend their positions, and instead resort on running and hiding.
iamboogie: I can’t stand losers who attack people for their beliefs. I support safe learning environments where students can learn peacefully. #TXlege
wotc_linoge: @iamboogie When your beliefs support the infringement of basic human rights, you had better get used to it.
[Update] My apologies to my readers, but it would appear as though iamboogie took the coward’s escape and locked down her Twitter feed; as such, the above links to her specific tweets will no longer function. Rest assured that they were quoted directly from her feed when it was public – a fact you can corroborate for yourself if she ever bothers to unlock it again (and does not delete the tweets in question). “Reasoned discourse”, at its finest. [/Update]
I should have known the conversation was going to be pointless just based off her first response – logical fallacies are arguments put forward that are are based on an error in reasoning. An argument, specifically, is “one or more premises and one conclusion”, and by that definition alone, a question cannot be an argument, and thus cannot be a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, given her profile (specifically where she claims to be a “vegan-eater”), it appears as though English is not iamboogie’s strong suit… unless, of course, she actually does eat vegans, in which case my opinion of her might increase a little, though we really should notify the authorities.
About the only thing I would have done differently in that conversation is not used the phrase “on the basis of” – she obviously supported the infringement of Texan students’ rights to self-defense long before she saw the poll, so she was only using that statistic to bolster her position… And make no mistake, she was using the poll to support her anti-rights argument – why else would she phrase her tweet in that fashion? It constituted little more than, “All these people agree with me, and yet we are doing this anywise!”
Yes, well, if all those people agreed with you that slavery was acceptable, would that actually make it acceptable?
I am not going to thoroughly fisk her obfuscation, flawed arguments, red herrings, and rampant denial of Supreme-Court-recognized, Constitutionally-protected rights, but I will ask this: how many students in college are at or above 21 years of age? Arguably, somewhere around a quarter, but in reality, how many adults are going back for a second degree, to finish what they started, or to get a masters/PhD? How many veterans are employing their GI Benefits to get their college degree? How many over-21-year-olds work at a college? Should all of those people be rendered defenseless just because iamboogie and some percentage of Texans have an irrational fear of firearms?
And, if so, why was the South not permitted to keep their slaves?
*shrugs* When she plugged up her ears and ran away, she conceded the argument, so this post constitutes nothing more than a small victory dance for myself; however, it more than adequately demonstrates why I have a significantly decreasing interest in engaging the anti-rights cultists in any way aside from exposing their idiocy here. Like so many people like her, iamboogie failed the discussion flowchart before she could even get to the actual discussion, and then she lacked the courage to defend her claimed positions… and my patience with that kind of behavior is pretty darned low these days.
As the saying goes, I am so very sorry her beliefs are so inherently weak that they cannot withstand questioning, or my beliefs being expressed.
Appeal from popularity, appeal from authority, ad hominem…
The more I try to use logic to clearly lay out line of reasoning the more futile it seems. Even a fellow Infantry Officer in the SF pipeline resorted to both Appeal from Authority and Ad Hominem to defend Dave Grossman’s belief that video games cause violence.
I can argue evidence, data, and statistical significance but when someone says that LTC Grossman is right because he outranks CPT AM, well there is no real response to that. You just can’t argue with people who are prepared to defend their position out of ignorance and emotion.
I’ve seen that type of “Discussion” so many times I couldn’t dream to count them all.
I think, maybe subconciously, she realized your rebuttal was rock solid, so rather than aim for victory, they aim for the other side to grow tired and walk away.
Its a fruitless act when its a one-on-one, but when you add a 3rd or more party it really becomes a useful exchange because somebody is going to say at some point: “Are you fucking crazy, or what?”
Sounds like there’s an Internet sale on earrings.
Oh BTW notice how that Gay Mairrage argument came up? That’s the lovely bigotry of the anits:
By Expressing interest in the 2nd Amendment you now must be:
- A Republican
-From the Rural South
-Uneducated
-Christian
-Hate Gays
-Hate Women
-Hate Non-Whites
-Hate Non-Christians
She thought she had you with that “You must support Gay Marrage, Right?” because obviuously all gun nuts hate the fags, so she thought she might have painted you in the same uncomfortable corner that she was painted in.
I was saying “OH SNAP!” to myself when I read every one of your rebuttals to her ridiculous statements. Nice work. You have a lot more patience than I do!
Hmm, according to the research I’ve done only 16% of the students fit the typical 18 to 22 year old, full time, and living on campus. Source
Over 56% of the students are over 22 years old. source
And in a masterful stroke of self-indulgent cowardice, iamboogie did exactly what any self-assured person would do when they are certain they are arguing from the superior position – she went and locked her Twitter account down, and you cannot see her feed any more unless you are an “authorized” follower.
Have you ever noticed how the only people to pull that kind of bulldren are those who know they are losing?
Unfortunately for her, the phrase “closing the barn door after the horses escape” comes to mind – I have already recorded her bigotry for the world to see, and as the other saying goes, the Internet never forgets. Enjoy your short-lived infamy, Lauren – you earned it.
@ AM: …Red Herring, appeal to spite, misdirection of the burden of proof, hasty generalization… It is almost like iamboogie went down the list of logical fallacies, and decided to employ a handful of them, just because.
Unfortunately, the military is replete with Appeals to/from Authority, and, in some cases, they are appropriate – after all, higher-ranking individuals typically have more experience and technical knowledge than lower-ranking (so long as you look at the sets of “officer” and “enlisted” as being disjoint); however, just because a higher-ranking officer says it, that does not make it true.
Pointing that out to the higher-ranking officer, though, is… entertaining, in my experience.
@ Weer’d Beard: Unfortunately, given the nature of the Twitterverse, it would not at all surprise me if people took to heart her claims that I was being a meanihead, and sided with her. After all, it is quite likely that she surrounds herself with people like her, and… well, you can see where that ends up.
@ AuricTech: Bah. That is what I get for writing posts shortly after I awaken – I miss out on the one-liners I helped create!
@ Weer’d Beard: I damned-near literally had to sit on my hands to keep from responding with something along the lines of, “What the flying frak does that have to do with the price of tea in China?” Unfortunately for her, the logical fallacy of stereotyping failed her miserably, and I dare say it was my response to that question which pushed her over the edge. My position was the more consistent, and more sound, and she could not tolerate the possibility/concept.
@ Mike-ENDOtactical: To be fair, it was rather like grenading fish in a barrel – I almost had to wonder if she was intentionally lobbing me those stupid-assed softballs as if to make a point.
@ Bob S.: Thanks for pulling up the information! I dare say that effectively perforates iamboogie’s argument that most students would be incapable of exercising their carry rights… Try not to tell her that, though… Lord knows how she would take it.
I turned 21 right after my dad died, and since I “inherited” his guns (I was the only one with any interest in them) I right away started to investigate CCW and etc. Needless to say, I was always a little bit P.O.ed by my state/school’s anti gun policy, considering the walk to campus wasn’t through the classiest of neighborhoods. It’s not just “on campus” carry that is being infringed upon.
Exactly so – not all students live on campus, and a lot of them have to travel through some pretty unsavory areas of town to get to/from their education and abodes. One of the most-popular off-campus housing areas at Georgia Tech was also one of the most crime-ridden (thanks to the low cost of the area), and the number of assaults and muggings was disturbing even when I was there.
And anti-rights nuts like iamboogie would have those people continue to be defenseless, just due to their own paranoia. Gotta love self-absorbed jackasses, I suppose…
[...] is an auspicious dayWeer'd Beard on familial victoryLinoge on familial victoryLinoge on #7Linoge on the logical fallacies of @iamboogiePhssthpok on familial victoryZerCool on familial victorySean D Sorrentino on familial victoryIan [...]