Originally Posted by jeepinRRT
And all evidence is created equal.... Riiiigt.
I can't debate someone who clearly made a hasty generalization about firearm owners and then proceeded to justify it by saying its a personal opinion and observation. Jeezus man, look up confirmation bias.
Back to your previously scheduled programming, I'm done teaching logic for the day. Although I didn't get to my lecture on validity, soundness, and cogency, which is really quite compelling if I do say so myself.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I can't believe you can't wrap your mind around what I'm saying. You are trying to make yourself look intelligent without putting anything on the table to refute me. Prove me wrong, please. I would love to think all gun owners are gee wiz friendly people who have no malice on their mind at all or that no people carry a gun to boost their ego/confidence.
Since you must be new to the whole intellegent debate scene, here are a few logical fallicies that you may be tripping over:
Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.
Burden of Proof
You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.
You assumed that one part of something has to be applied to all, or other, parts of it; or that the whole must apply to its parts.Often when something is true for the part it does also apply to the whole, or vice versa, but the crucial difference is whether there exists good evidence to show that this is the case. Because we observe consistencies in things, our thinking can become biased so that we presume consistency to exist where it does not.
You presented two alternative states as the only possibilities, when in fact more possibilities exist.Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.
Begging the Question
You presented a circular argument in which the conclusion was included in the premise.This logically incoherent argument often arises in situations where people have an assumption that is very ingrained, and therefore taken in their minds as a given. Circular reasoning is bad mostly because it's not very good.
Now this next one here you need to pay close attention to and how I presented my original statement. Note that I did not state my observations were fact but instead observations. I did not say ALL gun owners are alike in my statement but only those that get butthurt because they can't have a gun with them at all times. Also, if you go back to my original post, I say at the very end that it is my PERSONAL OBSERVATION and nothing more, a hypotheosis in a way but you could also call it a theory.
You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.
I think this one really applies to your stance tonight.
You misrepresented someone's argument to make it easier to attack.By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest rational debate.
And lastly even if how I presented my argument is flawed, it doesn't make it wrong.
The Fallacy Fallacy
You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.It is entirely possibly to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.
So there is a little information for you to digest and hone your debating skills. If you wish to intelligently debate the topic, start a thead (i.e., Nuggets is full of shit!) and I will compile scientific evidence to support my position that a certain percentage of gun owners carry because they want to feel strong and powerful and not just to defend themselves. Or you can walk away and preserve your dignity.