And not a very good one at that.
A few days ago, Baldr Odinson, one of the more dishonest, lie-prone, straight-up moronic anti-rights cultists out there, put up some asinine list entitled "You’re Probably A Pro-Gun Extremist If …. " which basically boiled down to, "If you disagree with me and my ‘gun control’ desires, you are an ‘extremist’ and in need of professional psychiatric help".
Friendly guy, that Baldr. I do wonder where he got his degree in Over-The-Internet Psychoanalysis though…
Well, predictably, various pro-rights webloggers, commenters, and other activists decided to address Baldr’s inane rantings and ravings, and they accurately, concisely, and correctly pointed out all of the various ways his "list" was factually incorrect, logically flawed, blatantly intolerant, and patently bigoted. What was Baldr’s response?
Wow, you guys have really proven my points, both here and at your own blogs!
Well, I guess in Baldr’s warped and twisted mind, us continuing to disagree with him does prove that we are "extremists", but this is where the joke comes in – I do not recall where it originates (probably some Abbott and Costello routine), but it goes something like this:
Person 1: You’re so negative!
Person 2: No I’m not.
Person 1: See!?
While that exchange can be humorous in some contexts, in this particular case it just goes to show how weak Baldr Odinson’s argument really is, and how much it is dependent upon logical fallacies. To begin with, the entire concept of the list (that we pro-rights activists are "extreme" while Baldr is not) is based entirely on Appeal to Popularity and Middle Ground fallacies, especially since it is the author himself who arbitrarily defines "extreme". Speaking of, Baldr fails the Burden of Proof test, in that he makes outlandish and – dare we say – extreme claims without the slightest shred of evidence, factual or otherwise, to substantiate them, and thus puts pro-rights activists in the position of having to defend themselves. Suffice to say, the person who makes the claim is responsible for proving it, and he has completely failed to do so. Moving on, Baldr Begs the Question, or, as it is more commonly known, engages in circular reasoning – we disagree with him because he calls us extreme because we disagree with him. Last but not least, Baldr intentionally Poisons the Well by outright stating (I guess I should give him credit for not making it a backhanded implication) that anyone who disagrees with him should seek professional psychiatric help.
In the end, trying to arbitrarily and unilaterally define "extremist" is a fool’s errand – everyone thinks they are middle-of-the-road, whether it is through actually being there, confirmational bias, or just plain delusional tendencies; however, just to briefly play Baldr’s game, maybe he can answer me this one question: if the pro-rights stance is so far "outside the mainstream", then why has "gun control" so thoroughly failed at almost every political level for the past decade?
Regardless, all of this is somewhat moot – our rights are not subject to popular opinions of "extremism" or "mainstream". However, it is good to see that, in addition to his various other faults, Baldr implicitly admits to being yet another "gun control" supporter who would have likewise supported slavery back in the 1860s…