Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Duck and cover
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:22 am

Since this is a forum for skepticism and critical thinking, I would like to point out a fallacy that is in the news recently.

Example: We understand why it is silly to blame cars when drunk drivers kill others. It is the driver who is to blame, not the object used.

We understand the fallacy of blaming "object X" when someone uses "object X" to do harm to others.

And yet, many people still commit the fallacy of blaming guns for the evil actions of certain people.

Here is another way to express what I am trying to say here:

Image

When a homicide is committed with a knife, no one blames the knife, because we all know that the person is to blame for their actions, not the object they use.

So why is it so hard to see that this same idea applies to guns? Why do people keep blaming guns?

It's not about guns.


Here's another way to express the fallacy:

Image

Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden, guns did . . .

. . . said nobody, ever.

So don't blame guns for the actions of stupid people.

Or people who do evil.

Making it harder for honest and responsible people to own guns is like making it harder for sober people to own cars.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4756
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:46 am

you're cute when you'Re desperate.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:04 am

Knives are banned in lots of places. Brass knuckles are illegal almost everywhere as are open vats of hydrochloric acid or keeping pet bears. Cars are not allowed on sidewalks. I can defend myself against a knife, bat, or rope...not so against a gun.

Gee Xouper....its hard to understand what you are trying to say when everything you say is just flat out wrong.

What are you trying to say?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:19 am

ElectricMonk wrote:you're cute when you'Re desperate.
Is that all you have? Insults? That's pathetic.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:21 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:What are you trying to say?
Are you having difficulty understanding what I posted?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:23 am

Gee X==who started this thread by claiming that people who think guns are used to kill people are stupid?

WHO DID THAT???

................... and what is the proper evaluation of such extremely poor analysis?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:26 am

xouper wrote:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:What are you trying to say?
Are you having difficulty understanding what I posted?
"No.... you are" I was quoting you. ............. Ha, ha.......so often........ you can't even follow your own argument. THAT MEANS: you aren't really making an argument, you are just repeating talking points you don't even understand.

Thats what I take you to mean. "Guns don't kill people." "Cars are just as bad." "We need more good people with guns..." Not analysis. Its mantra.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:34 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Gee X==who started this thread by claiming that people who think guns are used to kill people are stupid?

WHO DID THAT???
Not me.

I did not say that, nor did I imply it.

You made that erroneous inference all on your won.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Ha, ha.......so often........ you can't even follow your own argument. THAT MEANS: you aren't really making an argument, you are just repeating talking points you don't even understand.
BS.

In case you didn't get it the first time, here it is again:
bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Cars are not allowed on sidewalks.
Of course. And when someone violates the law and uses a car on the sidewalk — illegally — we don't blame the car, we blame the driver.

That is my point. That is the logic that is obvious to most thinking people.

Likewise, guns are not allowed to be used to murder people.

But when someone uses a gun illegally to murder someone, that same logic dictates that we should not blame the gun. We should blame the person.

That is my point.

It's not about cars or guns. It's about the evil that some people do.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:37 am

It's about the evil that some people do...... with cars and guns.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:44 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:It's about the evil that some people do...... with cars and guns.
Exactly.

When a car is used illegally we don't blame the car, we blame the driver.

Likewise, when a gun is used illegally, that same logic dictates we should not blame the gun, we should blame the perp.

That is my argument.

That is the entire point of this thread.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 6:44 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I can defend myself against a knife, bat, or rope...not so against a gun.
That's not true of everyone.

This guy for example, who successfully defended against an armed robber:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQiiHk_Lujw

There are many such examples of successful defense against someone with a gun.

So just because you cannot do it, is not sufficient justification to deny others the option of doing so.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4756
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:09 am

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:you're cute when you'Re desperate.
Is that all you have? Insults? That's pathetic.
You feel insulted by my comment?


I feel that you are insulting my intelligence by dragging out ancient strawmen out of your closet.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:47 am

ElectricMonk wrote:I feel that you are insulting my intelligence by dragging out ancient strawmen out of your closet.
Insulting your intelligence? That's a laugh. First you have to have some.

For the record, there is no straw man in the opening post. These past few weeks, the news is full of people blaming guns, demanding something be done about guns, etc. No straw there. Anyone with any intelligence who has been watching the news already knows this.
Last edited by xouper on Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4756
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden is

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:20 am

xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:I feel that you are insulting my intelligence by dragging out ancient strawmen out of your closet.
Insulting your intelligence? That's a laugh. First you have to have some.
Interesting that you can take normal comments as insults while a the same time disparage other posters constantly.
Self-reflection isn't your strength.

As I said, it's cute what you think is a meaningful argument.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden is

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:25 am

ElectricMonk wrote:
xouper wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:I feel that you are insulting my intelligence by dragging out ancient strawmen out of your closet.
Insulting your intelligence? That's a laugh. First you have to have some.
Interesting that you can take normal comments as insults while a the same time disparage other posters constantly.
Self-reflection isn't your strength.

As I said, it's cute what you think is a meaningful argument.
Hey look, the pot is calling the kettle black.

Interesting that you can take normal comments as disparagements while a the same time insult other posters constantly. Self-reflection isn't your strength.

You  are the problem.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4756
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden is

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:06 am

xouper wrote:
You  are the problem.
I'm glad to be your problem in the way of staying in your tiny comfort zone.
Maybe you would like your comfort zone to be a conflict-free zone?
Now how would you enforce that?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden is

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:34 am

ElectricMonk wrote:I'm glad to be your problem in the way of staying in your tiny comfort zone.
Maybe you would like your comfort zone to be a conflict-free zone?
Now how would you enforce that?
When you're done running your mouth and have something relevant to say about the topic of this thread, let me know.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11409
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by TJrandom » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:38 am

It seems to me that your tactic is to make any thread that deals with guns so ascorbic that you can find a way to claim you are wronged, and get the thread locked. Not much for free speech, IMO.

No - guns did not kill Bin Laden - because the force that did so was highly trained, legally executing a plan, and used guns as legitimate tools to get their job done. Quite unlike the wannabe warriors with assault weapons who use them to kill people outside of legal coverage. But you know that - right? Your arguments fail in large part because they are not relevant. Not relevant to a civil society.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 23259
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:40 am

The DSM definition for "mass murderer" used to specifically exempt military. Haven't looked lately. I chuckled a bit when I read that the first time.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5282
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by gorgeous » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:48 am

Bin Laden was created and armed by the CIA....Bush protected his family....and.......the Seals who allegedly killed him were then murdered to keep them quiet about what happened....how convenient..... Obama stonewalls SEAL Team 6 Extortion 17 helicopter crash probe ...



https://www.washingtontimes.com/.../oba ... on-17-heli...


Aug 5, 2015 - Obama stonewalls SEAL Team 6 helicopter crash probe, watchdog says ... in Abbottabad and killed al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:33 pm

TJrandom wrote:It seems to me that your tactic is to make any thread that deals with guns so ascorbic that you can find a way to claim you are wronged, and get the thread locked. Not much for free speech, IMO.
Your assertion is ridiculous. What you are doing here is blaming the victim. That's like saying she deserved to get raped because of the way she dressed. It's a faulty argument.

Just because someone doesn't like my argument is not license to attack me personally in violation of the rules.

TJrandom wrote:No - guns did not kill Bin Laden - because the force that did so was highly trained, legally executing a plan, and used guns as legitimate tools to get their job done. Quite unlike the wannabe warriors with assault weapons who use them to kill people outside of legal coverage. But you know that - right? Your arguments fail in large part because they are not relevant. Not relevant to a civil society.
That is not a valid rebuttal to my argument.

Since you agree that guns did not kill Bin Laden, then by the same logic, you must agree that guns used illegally by "wannabe warriors" also did not kill anyone.

You can't have it both ways.

My argument is that it is not valid to blame the gun when someone uses it illegally. What you said does not refute that argument. Not even close.

Furthermore, my argument is totally relevant to what is in the news these days. And it is on topic for the stated purpose of this forum, to examine failures of critical thinking, which is what the opening post is about.

Nothing you've said (so far) refutes anything in the opening post.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:44 pm

TJrandom wrote:It seems to me that your tactic is to make any thread that deals with guns so ascorbic that you can find a way to claim you are wronged, and get the thread locked. Not much for free speech, IMO.

No - guns did not kill Bin Laden - because the force that did so was highly trained, legally executing a plan, and used guns as legitimate tools to get their job done. Quite unlike the wannabe warriors with assault weapons who use them to kill people outside of legal coverage. But you know that - right? Your arguments fail in large part because they are not relevant. Not relevant to a civil society.
I don't think X is ascorbic. I'd say ascerbic more fitting but even that wrong too. No.....he just takes ill informed opinions that don't make much sense and then whines when told thats what they are. He conflates himself with his opinions. Hard headed vs no heart at all.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:51 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I don't think X is ascorbic. I'd say ascerbic more fitting but even that wrong too. No.....he just takes ill informed opinions that don't make much sense and then whines when told thats what they are. He conflates himself with his opinions. Hard headed vs no heart at all.
Making disparaging and false comments about me personally, as you have done here, does not refute my arguments.

Apparently you have no real rebuttal to the opening post, else you would not need to resort to ad hominems.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:57 pm

X==read a dictionary. Look up conflation to the end that disparaging your argument is not disparaging you. Granted its close...but the line is there. Its the kind of distinction you need to make to see the difference between guns and cars. You make very little argument and confuse what you merely repeat as analysis. I don't see what you get out of it. Bored to the Max?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:14 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:X==read a dictionary. Look up conflation to the end that disparaging your argument is not disparaging you. Granted its close...but the line is there. Its the kind of distinction you need to make to see the difference between guns and cars. You make very little argument and confuse what you merely repeat as analysis. I don't see what you get out of it. Bored to the Max?
Making disparaging and false comments about me personally, as you have done again, does not refute my arguments.

Apparently you have no real rebuttal to the opening post, else you would not need to pile on with yet more ad hominems.

When you're done running your mouth and have something useful to contribute, let me know.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 1:37 pm

It takes two.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11409
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by TJrandom » Thu Nov 09, 2017 5:46 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:It seems to me that your tactic is to make any thread that deals with guns so ascorbic that you can find a way to claim you are wronged, and get the thread locked. Not much for free speech, IMO.
Your assertion is ridiculous. What you are doing here is blaming the victim. That's like saying she deserved to get raped because of the way she dressed. It's a faulty argument.

Just because someone doesn't like my argument is not license to attack me personally in violation of the rules.

TJrandom wrote:No - guns did not kill Bin Laden - because the force that did so was highly trained, legally executing a plan, and used guns as legitimate tools to get their job done. Quite unlike the wannabe warriors with assault weapons who use them to kill people outside of legal coverage. But you know that - right? Your arguments fail in large part because they are not relevant. Not relevant to a civil society.
That is not a valid rebuttal to my argument.

Since you agree that guns did not kill Bin Laden, then by the same logic, you must agree that guns used illegally by "wannabe warriors" also did not kill anyone.

You can't have it both ways.

My argument is that it is not valid to blame the gun when someone uses it illegally. What you said does not refute that argument. Not even close.

Furthermore, my argument is totally relevant to what is in the news these days. And it is on topic for the stated purpose of this forum, to examine failures of critical thinking, which is what the opening post is about.

Nothing you've said (so far) refutes anything in the opening post.
Perfect example Xouper. My post was written very carefully to NOT disparage you or libel you - yet you claim I have attacked you personally in violation of the rules. I gave an opinion - a personal opinion, based upon an observation - my observation. Your faux wounded wing rebuttal proves my point.

And I can have it both ways. Use of guns in a legal manor - by police and the military is far different from their use by nutters gone rouge, and your twisting of the distinction is both ludicrous and a perfect example of a failure in critical thinking.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:02 pm

TJrandom wrote:Perfect example Xouper. My post was written very carefully to NOT disparage you or libel you - yet you claim I have attacked you personally in violation of the rules.
Except I did not claim you attacked me.

You made that erroneous inference all on your own.

You are correct that you did not attack me, and so there was no reason for me to accuse you of doing so.

The context of your observation was attacks on me by other people, and that is the context I was responding to. Just as you were referring to attacks on me by other people, so was I.

When I said, "Just because someone doesn't like my argument is not license to attack me personally in violation of the rules", I was speaking in the hypothetical, not making an accusation about you personally. I used the word "someone", not "you".

Perhaps it would have been more obvious if I had inserted two more words, like this:

Just because someone doesn't like my argument is not license for them to attack me personally in violation of the rules.

I had assumed the words "for them" was implied by the word "someone" and thus it did not need to be made explicit. Most of us here are not professional writers, and we do the best we can under the circumstances.

On this forum, and on many forums in general, there seems to be some people who have a predisposition to interpret a post in the most hostile way possible, even when that was not the intention of the writer. You seem to have done that here. To be fair, I have sometimes been guilty of that myself, so I know how easy it is to make that error.

TJrandom wrote: I gave an opinion - a personal opinion, based upon an observation - my observation. Your faux wounded wing rebuttal proves my point.
No it doesn't.

I was arguing against your assertion that I am to blame when other people attack me. There's even a word for what you tried to do, it's called "victim shaming", and I don't buy it.

TJrandom wrote:And I can have it both ways. Use of guns in a legal manor - by police and the military is far different from their use by nutters gone rouge, and your twisting of the distinction is both ludicrous and a perfect example of a failure in critical thinking.
No, you can't have it both ways.

In both cases the gun is not to blame.

Whether the gun is used legally or illegally has no logical relevance to who (or what) is responsible for how the gun is used. In both cases, the person pulling the trigger is to blame, not the gun itself.

Perhaps it would be easier to see that by substituting cars for guns.

Whether the car is used legally or illegally has no logical relevance to who (or what) is responsible for how the car is used. In both cases, the person driving is to blame, not the car itself.

When a drunk driver uses a car illegally and kills someone, it is not logical to blame the car.

Likewise, when a person uses a gun illegally and kills someone, it is not logical to blame the gun.

That is the point I am trying to make in this thread.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11409
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by TJrandom » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:14 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Perfect example Xouper. My post was written very carefully to NOT disparage you or libel you - yet you claim I have attacked you personally in violation of the rules.
Except I did not claim you attacked me.

You made that erroneous inference all on your own.

You are correct that you did not attack me, and so there was no reason for me to accuse you of doing so.

The context of your observation was attacks on me by other people, and that is the context I was responding to. Just as you were referring to attacks on me by other people, so was I.

When I said, "Just because someone doesn't like my argument is not license to attack me personally in violation of the rules", I was speaking in the hypothetical, not making an accusation about you personally. I used the word "someone", not "you".

Perhaps it would have been more obvious if I had inserted two more words, like this:

Just because someone doesn't like my argument is not license for them to attack me personally in violation of the rules.

I had assumed the words "for them" was implied by the word "someone" and thus it did not need to be made explicit. Most of us here are not professional writers, and we do the best we can under the circumstances.

On this forum, and on many forums in general, there seems to be some people who have a predisposition to interpret a post in the most hostile way possible, even when that was not the intention of the writer. You seem to have done that here. To be fair, I have sometimes been guilty of that myself, so I know how easy it is to make that error.

TJrandom wrote: I gave an opinion - a personal opinion, based upon an observation - my observation. Your faux wounded wing rebuttal proves my point.
No it doesn't.

I was arguing against your assertion that I am to blame when other people attack me. There's even a word for what you tried to do, it's called "victim shaming", and I don't buy it.

TJrandom wrote:And I can have it both ways. Use of guns in a legal manor - by police and the military is far different from their use by nutters gone rouge, and your twisting of the distinction is both ludicrous and a perfect example of a failure in critical thinking.
No, you can't have it both ways.

In both cases the gun is not to blame.

Whether the gun is used legally or illegally has no logical relevance to who (or what) is responsible for how the gun is used. In both cases, the person pulling the trigger is to blame, not the gun itself.

I think maybe you should check your own "failure in critical thinking" here.
Yes Xouper - but you preceded that with...
Your assertion is ridiculous. What you are doing here is ...
which clearly targeted me. My observation stands.

As does my observation that you are attempting to confuse by not recognising the difference between legal use of guns to minimise violence and their use to illegally be violent.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Thu Nov 09, 2017 7:30 pm

TJrandom wrote:Yes Xouper - but you preceded that with...
Your assertion is ridiculous. What you are doing here is ...
which clearly targeted me. My observation stands.
No, it doesn't.

I already explained that you misinterpreted what I meant.

When there is more than one way to interpret what I said, who has the authority to decide which interpretation is correct?

Answer: Not you.

You do not have the right to tell me what I meant. Only I have that authority.

TJrandom wrote:As does my observation that you are attempting to confuse by not recognising the difference between legal use of guns to minimise violence and their use to illegally be violent.
You are using that distinction to reframe the argument away from the point I am trying to make. That's called a straw man fallacy.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 11409
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by TJrandom » Thu Nov 09, 2017 10:22 pm

xouper wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Yes Xouper - but you preceded that with...
Your assertion is ridiculous. What you are doing here is ...
which clearly targeted me. My observation stands.
No, it doesn't.

I already explained that you misinterpreted what I meant.

When there is more than one way to interpret what I said, who has the authority to decide which interpretation is correct?

Answer: Not you.

You do not have the right to tell me what I meant. Only I have that authority.

TJrandom wrote:As does my observation that you are attempting to confuse by not recognising the difference between legal use of guns to minimise violence and their use to illegally be violent.
You are using that distinction to reframe the argument away from the point I am trying to make. That's called a straw man fallacy.
Explain what you meant all you want - it isn`t what you wrote. Man up. I did not misread - see the quote. I can accept that you may not have meant to write what you wrote, but it is not a misinterpretation.

I am not reframing in any way. I am simply pointing out the fallacy in your contention.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 17865
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Nov 09, 2017 11:34 pm

Avoid the :banghead:
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 12:52 am

TJrandom wrote:Explain what you meant all you want - it isn`t what you wrote. Man up. I did not misread - see the quote. I can accept that you may not have meant to write what you wrote, but it is not a misinterpretation.
Nope.

My interpretation and explanation of what I wrote is completely consistent with what I actually wrote.

And since my interpretation of what I wrote is the only valid interpretation, that makes your interpretation wrong.

You flat out misinterpreted what I wrote. Man up and own that.

TJrandom wrote:I am not reframing in any way. I am simply pointing out the fallacy in your contention.
Sorry, but you did not show any fallacy in my argument.

Here is my argument again:

Whether the gun is used legally or illegally has no logical relevance to who (or what) is responsible for how the gun is used. In both cases, the person pulling the trigger is responsible, not the gun itself.

Perhaps it would be easier to see that by substituting cars for guns.

Whether the car is used legally or illegally has no logical relevance to who (or what) is responsible for how the car is used. In both cases, the person driving is responsible, not the car itself.

When a drunk driver uses a car illegally and kills someone, it is not logical to blame the car.

Likewise, when a person uses a gun illegally and kills someone, it is not logical to blame the gun.

Contrary to what you claim, you have not shown any fallacy in that argument.

You have asserted that in determining responsibility (or blame), it makes a difference whether the object is used legally or illegally. According to your argument, when a drunk driver uses a car illegally, then it is the car that is to blame, not the drunk driver.

Sorry, but your logic is simply ridiculous on the face of it.

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by Io » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:20 am

Whilst I don't have any strong feelings on the issue of guns as that cat is well and truly out of the bag and any attempt to put it back is just going to get you scratched, I can see how the original post is missing a significant relevant point that would help clarify the objections some people have.

Taking the cartoon you could re-caption the panels
1: "You killed him with something designed for another purpose"
2: "You killed him with something designed for another purpose"
3: "You killed him with something designed for another purpose"
4: "You killed him with something designed explicitly for the purpose of killing"

Essentially: a gun has no use other than killing. There is no "responsible use" for a gun except not using it. (And no conflating 'legal' with 'responsible' please).

I don't think anyone truly blames the guns for the problems caused using guns, but control of the guns is only going to help mediate the actions of those with access to them. It's also not an either/or situation. I don't think anyone is thinking "either we address guns or address the people using them". We do both as much as is sensible.

It makes perfect sense for the thing used explicitly for killing to be better controlled than the things that can be used to kill but are designed for other purposes. Yet the reverse seems to be true. I should state that I'm from the UK where attitudes to, availability of and crimes involving guns are markedly different to the US so really I'm not ideally qualified to argue on the topic.

Or something.

Maybe gun-lovin' America is actually made up of people who are all desperately worried that they're the sort of person who won't be allowed a gun if guns are denied to "crazy people". Does all of America secretly think they're nuts?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:34 am

gorgeous wrote:the Seals who allegedly killed (Bin Laden) were then murdered to keep them quiet about what happened....how convenient.....
Really? What were their names?

Navy SEAL who shot Osama bin Laden to speak at Lake County Veterans Day event /
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/lak ... story.html

You really are uniquely stupid Gorgeous.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by Matthew Ellard » Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:37 am

Io wrote:1: "You killed him with something designed for another purpose"
2: "You killed him with something designed for another purpose"
3: "You killed him with something designed for another purpose"
4: "You killed him with something designed explicitly for the purpose of killing"
Yep. Fertilizer is used to both blow up people and to feed people. One usage outweighs the problems caused by the other illegal use,

I don't know about the USA but even toy guns are banned here in Australia. We are trying to remove guns from ongoing civilian culture, like spitting. :D

User avatar
Io
Poster
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by Io » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:05 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Yep. Fertilizer is used to both blow up people and to feed people. One usage outweighs the problems caused by the other illegal use,
Indeed! Although my point was more that, when trying to illustrate illogical thinking about one thing by comparing it with other similar things it's best to have actual other similar things. What was being said here was "Of these things the one that people think differently about is the one that's not like the others.". Not exactly a surprise :D

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:44 am

Io wrote:Whilst I don't have any strong feelings on the issue of guns as that cat is well and truly out of the bag and any attempt to put it back is just going to get you scratched, I can see how the original post is missing a significant relevant point that would help clarify the objections some people have.

Taking the cartoon you could re-caption the panels
1: "You killed him with something designed for another purpose"
2: "You killed him with something designed for another purpose"
3: "You killed him with something designed for another purpose"
4: "You killed him with something designed explicitly for the purpose of killing"

Essentially: a gun has no use other than killing. There is no "responsible use" for a gun except not using it. (And no conflating 'legal' with 'responsible' please).
You raise an interesting point.

However, you are mistaken about #4.

Guns do have legitimate purposes other than just killing people.

Also, I disagree with your assertion that using a gun for self defense is not a "responsible use" of a gun.

Here's an example of the responsible use of a gun for defense against a home invader:

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.s ... arged.html
LAPEER COUNTY, MI -- An 11-year-old girl used the shotgun she normally keeps to go hunting with her father to scare off a robber in her home, police said.

The girl was alone at her North Branch Township home on Five Lakes Road about 3:45 p.m. on Jan. 30 when police said she surprised burglars who had broken into the house.

The girl hid in a bathroom closet, where she grabbed her shotgun that police said she stores in a gun safe.

When one of the burglars opened the closet door, police said the girl -- whose parents were due home from work a short time later -- pointed the shotgun at him and he ran off.

... Lapeer County Sheriff Detective Sgt. Jason Parks ... praised the girl's responsibility, poise and composure.
Notice that the sheriff says it was a responsible use of a gun for self defense.

One of the things that makes a gun so effective for self defense is that it has the obvious potential to kill someone.

Sometimes, as the above example clearly shows, the mere risk of being killed by the victim can persuade an attacker to stop attacking, without any shots being fired. I can cite many more real life examples of that if you like.

The vast majority of people who have concealed carry permits do so for self defense, not because they want to kill someone. Sometimes merely having the gun is sufficient to stop an attack.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4756
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:48 am

The argument from Mutually Assured Destruction of attacker and defender is exactly that: MAD.
By necessity it creates an arms-race.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10898
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Location: has left the building

Re: Navy Seals didn't kill Bin Laden

Post by xouper » Fri Nov 10, 2017 7:32 am

ElectricMonk wrote:The argument from Mutually Assured Destruction of attacker and defender is exactly that: MAD.
By necessity it creates an arms-race.
I disagree. That is not a necessary outcome.
  1. FBI data show that, on average, unarmed victims of an attack have a worse outcome than armed victims.
  2. Armed victims have successfully defended against armed attackers without any "mutually assured destruction". I assume you've already seen the thread on this forum full of such examples.
  3. Having a gun for self defense is not a guarantee of successful self defense, but I would rather have that option than not. I would rather have the choice to go down shooting than just simply be a defenseless target.
  4. I accept that not everyone will choose to be armed, but it is not your right to make that choice for me.