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:
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!”
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.