Democrats are afraid of violent backlash

[Perm]

Um, no. Conservatives are those who follow and support conservative positions and values. That's not a fallacy that's a definition.

Just because the media calls them conservatives doesn't make them so.

I think you need to catch up on the thread, friend.

 

[Fletch]

It's like dealing with a badly injured person (said person being metaphor for the Constitution). It's got multiple broken bones and infection (the Republicans) and arterial bleeding (the Democrats). The broken bones and infection are bad (and the infection, untreated, can kill) but neither of them matter if you don't stop the arterial bleeding. One has to keep the patient alive long enough to be able to deal with the infection and the fractures. Get the bleeding stopped, then worry about antibiotics.

Best analogy of the state of things that I've heard so far. It also suggests the libertarian/third party answer:

"Which would you rather have? Broken bones and infection? Or an arterial bleed? Choose."

"Um, neither."

 

[Expat]

Best analogy of the state of things that I've heard so far. It also suggests the libertarian/third party answer:

"Which would you rather have? Broken bones and infection? Or an arterial bleed? Choose."

"Um, neither."

That is so correct. They say neither, sticking to their principles and then watch the body become a corpse as the bleeding is never staunched.

 

[Fletch]

That is so correct. They say neither, sticking to their principles and then watch the body become a corpse as the bleeding is never staunched.

If only Republicans aspired to be something better than broken bones and sepsis.

 

[thompal]

WTH?!

What are you attempting to accomplish Perm?!

He's just trying to prove that he gets all of his political news from Democrat-run media outlets.

There are PLENTY of things to bash Republicans about, but the healthcare/insurance bailout bill isn't one of them. Now, if we want to talk about the Patriot Act, THEN we can certainly bash Republicans!!

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

"But, as I’ve said, violence and threats are unacceptable. That’s not the American way.".....It's a shame they don't teach history anymore.

 

[Perm]

He's just trying to prove that he gets all of his political news from Democrat-run media outlets.

There are PLENTY of things to bash Republicans about, but the healthcare/insurance bailout bill isn't one of them. Now, if we want to talk about the Patriot Act, THEN we can certainly bash Republicans!!

I think I have a new approach here...

They took our jobs!

King Obama really just wants to run our lives!

Pretty soon we'll be frying them Jews just like the Nazis!

I just need a way to escape this thread at this point.. does that get me an exit?

To get back to the OP... by all means, just like the first 5 pages infer, go shoot some politicians, that will get us somewhere.

 

[thompal]

Ya gotta remember, this is the same guy who's "logic" in another thread caused him to inform us that poor people don't need guns, because they are poor and have nothing worth stealing

Considering his comments about various things, that's not unexpected from him. He obviously believes a lot of the Democratic propaganda, and the heart of the Dem. argument is that your life is not worth defending, and that a criminal's life has more worth than their victim's. Looked at with that background, the only reason anyone would therefore need a firearm would be to defend their material wealth. Lately, the far left has been running the Democratic Party, and as a result, the ownership of material wealth by the average citizen is frowned upon. Logically we must conclude that the ownership of firearms is equally frowned upon.

 

[dburkhead]

The unfortunate thing is that the "moral highground" approach does not work. Show me one time in history were it has...

The left is allowing people to basically conduct assymetrical warfare at the stage 1 level against us. And we are allowing it to happen. At some point in time you either have to fight your enemy or capitulte to them.

What we need to do NOW is elect our voices back into DC post haste. If not, if not it may become to late. Show the critters on the Hill that the people WILL replace them. They are currently operating under the assumption that there is nothing we can do to them once they are elected to that position. It is past time to show that the people are tired of career criminals lying to us.

I am a brown belt in Judo. Now, in Judo there are certain rules--no strikes, joint locks only applied to the elbow, when throwing someone, you throw to land them on their back instead of their head, that sort of thing. (Not always obeyed, but they are there.)

Boxing also has rules. No throws, no rabbit punches, no kidney punches, no hitting below the belt, no kicking, no biting off of ears, and so on. (Not always obeyed, but they are there.)

I play by those rules when I'm fighting by someone who also plays by those rules. I might even use those rules as something of a "guide" when fighting someone who doesn't play by those rules so long as the situation isn't too threatening.

But what I won't do is be bound by the Marquis of Queensbury rules, or IJF Judo shiai rules when I'm in a knife fight in an alley against multiple opponents who want to kill me.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[steveh_131]

Do you understand the difference between infrastructure and discretionary expense?

If yes, then proceed to the next question.

Does having a national interstate system of roads support an efficient and solid national infrastructure?

If yes, then proceed to the next question.

Does an educated population that can conduct itself with civility, carry out research and develop ideas that are useful to all support a solid infrastructure?

If yes, then proceed to the next question.

Does a healthy population contribute to individual/family unit happiness and support the most productive workforce possible? Is that an integral part of infrastructure?

If you answer no to any of these, I'd be interested to hear why.

The problem with this outlook is that the questions never end. What is next on the list?

Does a population divided into religious factions support the most productive workforce possible?

Does a population allowed to protest divisively support the most productive workforce possible?

Does a population divided into economic classes support the most productive workforce possible?

Does a population that is allowed the use of weapons support the most productive workforce possible?

So where does this lead us? Far far away from the America that the founders envisioned, I can promise you that.

Even if the answer to all of those questions is "Yes", this in no way implies that it is the government's purpose, responsibility, or even right to supply and/or force them upon us.

Also, I want you to know that your extensive knowledge of internet forum debate concepts such as "red herring", "NTS", "ad hominem", etc. does not make you sound more intellectual. It makes you sound like a pompous a$$. The entertainment value only increases when you use them incorrectly.

 

[dburkhead]

Well I am a tad elitist... it's difficult for me to come back from witty rebuttals such as "ARE YOU KING OBAMA!!!"



I'm a gun-toting bumpkin too... I grew up in nowhere Indiana. I've just read a book in between times I wasn't shooting things. I recommend it.

Ah, the old "if you disagree with me it's because you're an ignorant bumpkin" argument.

Tell me, oh learned one, which of the classical logical fallacies is that?

(BTW, you might want to check your assumptions. This "gun board" has people of considerable education and experience on it. Why, I have it on good authority that there is at least one physicist on the board as well as several lawyers.)

 

[Perm]

The problem with this outlook is that the questions never end. What is next on the list?

Does a population divided into religious factions support the most productive workforce possible?

Does a population allowed to protest divisively support the most productive workforce possible?

Does a population divided into economic classes support the most productive workforce possible?

Does a population that is allowed the use of weapons support the most productive workforce possible?

So where does this lead us? Far far away from the America that the founders envisioned, I can promise you that.

Even if the answer to all of those questions is "Yes", this in no way implies that it is the government's purpose, responsibility, or even right to supply and/or force them upon us.

Also, I want you to know that your extensive knowledge of internet forum debate concepts such as "red herring", "NTS", "ad hominem", etc. does not make you sound more intellectual. It makes you sound like a pompous a$$. The entertainment value only increases when you use them incorrectly.

Well I'd call you out on using the slippery slope argument... but you might judge me for having used it incorrectly.

Unfortunately I understand that:
a) I haven't used them incorrectly
b) That you won't point out where I have because you understand this fact as well.
c) You also realize that even if you *did* make some kind of minor point regarding superfluous usage of a given logical fallacy, that 90% of the people reading this wouldn't have the capability of understanding why. They'd pretty much respond with "Just like a Democrat to say that!!" (read this page for veracity of that observation.)

 

[dburkhead]

I strongly disagree that doing this "something" was better than doing nothing.
This "something" will help bankrupt America.

I am reminded of a former medical treatment--bleeding. A person has been severely injured and lost a lot of blood, so what does the doctor recommend? Why, bleeding of course.

But at least they were "doing something."

 

[Perm]

Ah, the old "if you disagree with me it's because you're an ignorant bumpkin" argument.

Tell me, oh learned one, which of the classical logical fallacies is that?

(BTW, you might want to check your assumptions. This "gun board" has people of considerable education and experience on it. Why, I have it on good authority that there is at least one physicist on the board as well as several lawyers.)

Hey brother.. I am by no means saying I'm the smartest person registered on this forum. What I *am* saying is that this thread isn't a shining example of intellect and higher debate.

 

[dburkhead]

Why do we have the right to education or roads or public utilities? Let's just go anarchy.. it was already suggested once in this thread.

Education, probably not actually at the Federal level. And if the Federal government is so good at telling people how they should run their schools why don't they turn the DC public schools (for which there is no Constitutional bar to the Federal government's control) into a shining example that everyone else will rush to follow. And if they can't do even that much, why should the rest of the country have to follow their lead?

Otherwise, education is, or should be, a State and Local level not a matter for the Federal government.

Roads are actually in the Constitution. Post roads (but once built, anyone can have them. And most roads are built at the State and Local level and thus don't come into the issue.

Public utilities are usually State and Local, not Federal. Nice try though.

You do understand the difference between holding the Federal Government to the actual Constitution (or properly amending it if one really wants to add new powers to the government) and abandoning all public works.

 

[dburkhead]

I think you need to catch up on the thread, friend.

I'll take it under advisement.

 

[CarmelHP]

What follows is an example of the formal fallacy of Ignorantio Elenchi. (It's one of the Fallacies of Relevance)

Do you understand the difference between infrastructure and discretionary expense?

If yes, then proceed to the next question.

Does having a national interstate system of roads support an efficient and solid national infrastructure?

If yes, then proceed to the next question.

Does an educated population that can conduct itself with civility, carry out research and develop ideas that are useful to all support a solid infrastructure?

If yes, then proceed to the next question.

Does a healthy population contribute to individual/family unit happiness and support the most productive workforce possible? Is that an integral part of infrastructure?

If you answer no to any of these, I'd be interested to hear why.

 

[steveh_131]

Well I'd call you out on using the slippery slope argument... but you might judge me for having used it incorrectly.

Unfortunately I understand that:
a) I haven't used them incorrectly
b) That you won't point out where I have because you understand this fact as well.
c) You also realize that even if you *did* make some kind of minor point regarding superfluous usage of a given logical fallacy, that 90% of the people reading this wouldn't have the capability of understanding why. They'd pretty much respond with "Just like a Democrat to say that!!" (read this page for veracity of that observation.)

The argument was made that the vast majority of Republicans in power do not represent "conservative" interests in any way shape or form.

Your response was the "No True Scotsman" rubbish, which clearly does not apply here. The fact remains that the vast majority of Republicans in power do not represent "conservative" interests in any way shape or form.

Calling it a "no true scotsman" argument doesn't change its validity.

Also, a slippery slope is not a logical fallacy. It's a fact of physics and of life. How about a real response to the argument?

Or maybe I should just attempt to insult you based on the number of books you have read, because when someone doesn't agree with you it means they are uneducated and/or ignorant. I bet I've read more than you. Nah nah nah-nah nah. I also have a nicer car, more guns and a larger penis.

 

[dburkhead]

Best analogy of the state of things that I've heard so far. It also suggests the libertarian/third party answer:

"Which would you rather have? Broken bones and infection? Or an arterial bleed? Choose."

"Um, neither."

Not an option. You've got the injured individual in front of you. You've only got two hands. Which are you going to deal with first? Are you going to let the patient bleed out while looking for that nice, clean, sterile bandage to use to apply pressure? Are you going to let both lungs collapse from that sucking chest wound while you attempt to set the broken femur?

You can't do everything at once. You have to find the worst, or most immediate, problem and deal with that first. Then work on the rest. If you try to do it all at once (in the metaphor that would be voting for that "perfect" candidate even when that candidate doesn't have enough support to have a hope in perdition of winning) then. the. patient. will. die.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[dburkhead]

If only Republicans aspired to be something better than broken bones and sepsis.

Stop the bleeding. Then worry about the broken bones and sepsis.

The metaphor is not saying the other things aren't bad. It's saying they can wait while we deal with more critical things now.