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!
*blink*
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…
Heh. Ol’ Baldr flushed my comment down the moderation memory hole.
I’ll also note that Baldr is not interested in discussing the issue any place outside of his tightly controlled environment.
In spite of a pingback, deliberately sent, he has failed to comment on my blog or any other pro-rights blog that I know of.
Isn’t it amazing that little ole extremist me is willing to talk about it and Baldr isn’t?
How does it go?
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice?
Most of the anti-gun arguments I personally hear come out of thin air (aka, people putting words in my mouth). I had this friend (who became so political you can no longer hold a normal conversation with him) who somehow came to the conclusion that owning guns means you’re fearful (paranoid kind) and have sadistic tendencies (violence is fun kinda thing). He claims *I* said this when I said one time “Shooting is a lot of fun, my friends and I do it all the time.” He managed to derive fear and sadism from that alone.
Also, I’ve noticed that pretty much every anti-gunner I know holds this semi-collectivist thought. Which is hilarious because every one of them are supported by their parents or other people. Seems to me they’ll say anything to keep from being personally responsible for their lives.
So on that note, I’m not surprised by baldr-esque arguments. It’s all just outrage noise.
I have to wonder what College of Idiots awarded him a doctorate…
My stalwart Swedish and Norwegian ancestors and family cringe at his blasphemous use of the names Odin and Baldar. He’s a pale and weak stick-boy twist, nothing of the kind of man for such a name, not even close. He’s a worm shapeshifter Loki, a meth-head tweaker at best, the skinny underage boy at the county fair with twig-arms in a Jack Daniels cut-off t-shirt that drapes over him like a bedspread.
@ hecate: Given how afraid the coward is of dissenting opinions, I am not surprised…
@ Bob S.: Oh, he has talked about it… and outside of his own weblog, at that – he commiserated with Guy and Mike about how those meanie “gun-rights” jerks were picking on him!
But, yeah, you are dead on… he wants to dominate the message, and knows he cannot sustain a conversation when he cannot control the conversation. Poor him – no such luck on our sites
.
@ wfgodbold: Something like that
.
@ the Dude: I think the word you are looking for is “projection” – the vast majority of anti-rights nuts do not want guns in our hands because they are afraid of what they would do if they had firearms in their hands, and since they are stricken with projection, they think everyone will behave like they do.
Obviously, this is not the case, but talking people out of psychoses… well, that is a mega-bucks-paying job, is it not?
You are square on the money with your perspective on personal responsibility, though – each and every one of them fear it intimately, and know that carrying a gun augments that responsibility by several orders of magnitude…
@ BobG: Dumbasses ‘R’ Us.
@ DirtCrashr: The irony is that the “gun control” supporter’s stereotype of firearm owners – overweight, underexercised, pasty white, defective vision, etc. – applies perfectly to Baldr. Now, granted, he probably chose that moniker as an impressionable youth thinking it sounded cool, but, at this point, if those gods do exist, they are a bit peeved, I would imagine.
Can’t resist given the current musings (re: defense of property)
Oh, he has talked about it… and outside of his own weblog, at that – he commiserated with Guy and Mike about how those meanie “gun-rights” jerks were picking on him!
Sorry talking about it on Sparky’s blog doesn’t count; that is just another blast of hot air in an echo chamber.
@ Bob S.: Point, but at least it was not his own site!