Ad hominem attacks: This is common with all right-wing argumentation, but is particularly common with gun proponents.What can you say to someone that is so blinded by ideology that they don't even recognize they're contradicting themselves in the very same sentence as he tries to dehumanize firearm owners?
I tried once but he's so ensconced in his personal ivory tower admiring his own alleged intellect that he can't see it was built w/o straw.
This is why they still believe they're winning.
6 comments:
woooo! Another moron who does not know what ad Hominem attacks actually are. If I attack you for being completely ignorant about the particular topic about which we are debating, and you are in fact completely ignorant on that topic, that is not a logical fallacy, that is a relevant fact. Pointing out personal failings is only a fallacy if it irrelevant to the topic at hand.
So calling these people out for being anti-rights and anti-self-reliance and other not so nice things is not a logical fallacy because it establishes ulterior motives for their propositions, and is therefor a relevant fact in the debate.
But then again these people threw logic out the window a long time ago. (that's not an ad Hominem attack either, it too is a relevant fact in the discussion.)
That whole thing is hilarious. It's nothing more than trying to accuse the pro-gun side of every tactic used by the anti's.
In other words, they know that their tactics are invalid and damning, so they attempt to transfer the use of those tactics onto us.
I notice that there are no comments on the article. I wonder if it's because none have been made, or just that none have been published.
It usually takes him awhile to approve comments. Assuming he's allowing any this time, that is.
He decries "anecdotal evidence."
And just what do anti-gunowner advocates use to attack CCW reform?
The "paid for by Media Matters" at the bottom of the page tells all.
I agree with Sailorcurt; from what I can see he has accused us of everything of which they are guilty. Which begs the question: is he a conniving liar, or really that clueless?
Post a Comment