pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Bang: Ryan warns gun control coming in Obama 2nd term
#31
Paradigm;20510 Wrote:
heili;20466 Wrote:I have yet to see a reasonable or logical argument against same-sex civil marriage put forth by anyone, ever.

What I have seen is religiously motivated bigotry and emotionally heated fear-mongering which are the antithesis of reason.

What reasonable argument could you possibly make against civil marriage being genre blind?

And this is what's called a "strawman" logical fallacy. It is when you construct a very similar argument in order to divert attention from the original argument. Some scholars believe the term comes from early military, where you'd make a strawman to practice attacking so you don't kill your sparring partner.

An example is "Dude, we should legalize marijuana!" And the strawman guy says, "Are you crazy? We can't legalize drugs!" Of course, marijuana is a drug...but the original guy didn't say ALL drugs...just marijuana.


For the sake of the original discussion, the original point was "gay marriage"...not civil unions. Both are similar in appearance, but not the same thing.



My libertarian leanings say that civil unions are just fine. That's a contract between two consenting adults and the state. They are able to assign benefits, determine ownership of property, and plan estate issues.

My conservative leanings have problems with "gay marriage" on two points: First of all, at the most basic level, the term "marriage" is reserved for a man and a woman. Redefining words for social issues? Not a fan. A duck is a duck. A pen is a pen. A marriage is a marriage.

Secondly, marriage is also historically a religious ceremony. The biggest problem with this is that over time, our society has allowed the state to take over in YET ANOTHER area where it should not have been involved. Whether you approve of religion and religious beliefs is moot, as the term belongs to the religious realm. And pretty much every world religion historically disavows homosexuality. If you don't like that, then you find another religion...or none at all.


As far as emotion being the antithesis of reason, you are fundamentally correct in that pathos (emotion) and logos (logic) are not the same, but Aristotle doesn't make them an opposite. He places them on separate ends of his triad (anchored by ethos...ethics). Aristotle saw real need for emotion, and logic, and ethics. Putting your eggs in any one of them (and discounting any of the others) is problematic at best.

Cheers!

GoodpostWinner
das, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
#32
It's actually just called a rhetorical question, with a hint of sarcasm. For someone claiming to be so keen at dissecting things you struck out on that one.

Furthermore by missing the point you went into an interesting rant that didn't even address the real issue either. All of this post of yours is, incidentally, a rather amusing strawman.

Paradigm;20460 Wrote:
IronSight;20457 Wrote:Oh the horror of gays getting married. Are you just afraid that your homophobic views aren't shared by the later generations? Rolleyes

This, my friends, in the scholarship of rhetoric, is called a red herring. Also known as a non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow").

It's akin to calling someone a racist simply because they don't believe in Obama's policies.

Someone can have perfectly reasonable views for or against homosexuals "tying the knot" that can be based in logic, religion, psychology, and even emotion. If you disagree, then the next step would be to discuss such points.

Accusing someone of having a "fear of gay people" is only designed to divert attention away from the argument, typically because the sophist throwing the red herring wishes to bully the person into adopting his/her position, or because the sophist knows that they cannot properly argue the point.

We have enough drama. There are plenty of ways to discuss the issue without drama.

%or
IronSight, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
#33
das;20514 Wrote:
Paradigm;20510 Wrote:And this is what's called a "strawman" logical fallacy. It is when you construct a very similar argument in order to divert attention from the original argument. Some scholars believe the term comes from early military, where you'd make a strawman to practice attacking so you don't kill your sparring partner.

An example is "Dude, we should legalize marijuana!" And the strawman guy says, "Are you crazy? We can't legalize drugs!" Of course, marijuana is a drug...but the original guy didn't say ALL drugs...just marijuana.


For the sake of the original discussion, the original point was "gay marriage"...not civil unions. Both are similar in appearance, but not the same thing.



My libertarian leanings say that civil unions are just fine. That's a contract between two consenting adults and the state. They are able to assign benefits, determine ownership of property, and plan estate issues.

My conservative leanings have problems with "gay marriage" on two points: First of all, at the most basic level, the term "marriage" is reserved for a man and a woman. Redefining words for social issues? Not a fan. A duck is a duck. A pen is a pen. A marriage is a marriage.

Secondly, marriage is also historically a religious ceremony. The biggest problem with this is that over time, our society has allowed the state to take over in YET ANOTHER area where it should not have been involved. Whether you approve of religion and religious beliefs is moot, as the term belongs to the religious realm. And pretty much every world religion historically disavows homosexuality. If you don't like that, then you find another religion...or none at all.


As far as emotion being the antithesis of reason, you are fundamentally correct in that pathos (emotion) and logos (logic) are not the same, but Aristotle doesn't make them an opposite. He places them on separate ends of his triad (anchored by ethos...ethics). Aristotle saw real need for emotion, and logic, and ethics. Putting your eggs in any one of them (and discounting any of the others) is problematic at best.

Cheers!

GoodpostWinner

+1 The gov is supposed to stay out of religon, period. Seperation of church and state and all that drivel that isn't in the constitution that the liberals keep screaming about. And while we're at it, quit building mosques all over the place, dammit! There would be death threats, lawsuits and riots in the USA if our government built a church here so why in the hell are we building mosques in the middle east?
ColdBlueSteel, proud to be a potential enemy of the state.
#34
ColdBlueSteel;20547 Wrote:
das;20514 Wrote:GoodpostWinner

+1 The gov is supposed to stay out of religon, period. Seperation of church and state and all that drivel that isn't in the constitution that the liberals keep screaming about. And while we're at it, quit building mosques all over the place, dammit! There would be death threats, lawsuits and riots in the USA if our government built a church here so why in the hell are we building mosques in the middle east?
Agreed! Stop pandering to these cavemen! Excellent post!.
das, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
#35
Paradigm;20510 Wrote:
heili;20466 Wrote:I have yet to see a reasonable or logical argument against same-sex civil marriage put forth by anyone, ever.

What I have seen is religiously motivated bigotry and emotionally heated fear-mongering which are the antithesis of reason.

What reasonable argument could you possibly make against civil marriage being genre blind?

And this is what's called a "strawman" logical fallacy. It is when you construct a very similar argument in order to divert attention from the original argument. Some scholars believe the term comes from early military, where you'd make a strawman to practice attacking so you don't kill your sparring partner.

An example is "Dude, we should legalize marijuana!" And the strawman guy says, "Are you crazy? We can't legalize drugs!" Of course, marijuana is a drug...but the original guy didn't say ALL drugs...just marijuana.

You were asked a question, no straw man except that of your imagination was erected. Civil marraige is not akin to 'civil union' either buddy, if you think it is then by law you're just plain wrong. In fact that post doesn't mention civil unions at all.

Quote:For the sake of the original discussion, the original point was "gay marriage"...not civil unions. Both are similar in appearance, but not the same thing.



My libertarian leanings say that civil unions are just fine. That's a contract between two consenting adults and the state. They are able to assign benefits, determine ownership of property, and plan estate issues.

My conservative leanings have problems with "gay marriage" on two points: First of all, at the most basic level, the term "marriage" is reserved for a man and a woman. Redefining words for social issues? Not a fan. A duck is a duck. A pen is a pen. A marriage is a marriage.

It's funny then that the Republican party had to write in a definition of marraige in an attempt to prevent gay couples from receiving civil benefits through either a 'union' or a 'marraige'. I'm not a fan of the government rewriting law in favor of religous oppression.

Quote:Secondly, marriage is also historically a religious ceremony. The biggest problem with this is that over time, our society has allowed the state to take over in YET ANOTHER area where it should not have been involved. Whether you approve of religion and religious beliefs is moot, as the term belongs to the religious realm. And pretty much every world religion historically disavows homosexuality. If you don't like that, then you find another religion...or none at all.

Except that a number of Christian churches welcome in gay members and that it happens to be those that do not who are seeking to change constitutions to prevent the free exercise of other's religous beliefs.

The state is an integral part of marraige at the present time, and that's not changing. As a result it is decisively unequal for the state to regulate it based on only one specific religous belief.

Quote:As far as emotion being the antithesis of reason, you are fundamentally correct in that pathos (emotion) and logos (logic) are not the same, but Aristotle doesn't make them an opposite. He places them on separate ends of his triad (anchored by ethos...ethics). Aristotle saw real need for emotion, and logic, and ethics. Putting your eggs in any one of them (and discounting any of the others) is problematic at best.

Cheers!
IronSight, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
#36
IronSight;20546 Wrote:It's actually just called a rhetorical question, with a hint of sarcasm. For someone claiming to be so keen at dissecting things you struck out on that one.

Furthermore by missing the point you went into an interesting rant that didn't even address the real issue either. All of this post of yours is, incidentally, a rather amusing strawman.


Now THAT is sarcasm! Well played, sir! Cool
Regards,
Paradigm
#37
What does any of this have to do with the topic, Obama's 2nd term and gun control? How did it get turned into gay marriage?

Back on track, Obama has promised an assault weapons ban and promised to close the gun show loophole. Who gets to decide what an assault weapon is? We know he has already said that AK's belong on the battlefield, not in the hands of civilians. He did not distinguish between full-auto and semi-auto AK's, so it is fair to assume he intends all AK's. If he can take semi-auto AK's, wouldn't he take AR's? Why not all semi-auto rifles? No more than eight rounds in a hand gun would be logical, or else it could be for assault purposes.
support the agenda to get national reciprocity
Small Business Consulting
#38
longcall911;20572 Wrote:What does any of this have to do with the topic, Obama's 2nd term and gun control? How did it get turned into gay marriage?

Back on track, Obama has promised an assault weapons ban and promised to close the gun show loophole. Who gets to decide what an assault weapon is? We know he has already said that AK's belong on the battlefield, not in the hands of civilians. He did not distinguish between full-auto and semi-auto AK's, so it is fair to assume he intends all AK's. If he can take semi-auto AK's, wouldn't he take AR's? Why not all semi-auto rifles? No more than eight rounds in a hand gun would be logical, or else it could be for assault purposes.

You are right indeed, my apologies on continuing a tangent.

Paradigm;20558 Wrote:
IronSight;20546 Wrote:It's actually just called a rhetorical question, with a hint of sarcasm. For someone claiming to be so keen at dissecting things you struck out on that one.

Furthermore by missing the point you went into an interesting rant that didn't even address the real issue either. All of this post of yours is, incidentally, a rather amusing strawman.


Now THAT is sarcasm! Well played, sir! Cool

Should a suitable thread arise in which the issue can be discussed with you, I will gladly join in. You actually do raise some points I would like to dive much more deeply into. For now, as requested, I shall leave it be.
IronSight, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
#39
longcall911;20465 Wrote:Well, Obama has stated that in a 2nd term, he will work to reinstate the assault weapons ban and will close the gun-show "loophole" which I believe means PICS/NICS on all purchases including long guns. When did he say it? It is in the Dem party platform, which details the candidate's position.

Democrat Party Platform: "We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms. We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few." http://www.democrats.org/democratic-nati...ing-rights
-----------------------------------

Romney has said that he will leave current laws alone, reaffirms that self-defense is a God-given right, opposes the Clinton gun ban, and favors nationwide Carry Permit reciprocity.

Republican Party Platform: "The Second Amendment: Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms-We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the law-abiding citizen’s God-given right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a law-abiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the ill-considered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as “Fast and Furious,” conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration’s Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority." http://whitehouse12.com/republican-party-platform/
------------------------------

You can certainly argue that politicians rarely keep their promises. But, Obama is promising more gun control, Romney is promising no additional control. To me, Romney is offering the far better deal.

again, it's ALL propaganda.

why doesn't the republican party remove entire sections of gun laws when they have the total power to do so? ever stopped to think about that?
[Image: quotes.php]
#40
andrewjs18; Wrote:.


again, it's ALL propaganda.

why doesn't the republican party remove entire sections of gun laws when they have the total power to do so? ever stopped to think about that?

Few laws are ever repealed by anyone, otherwise every 4 years we'd be living under constant and total anarchy, not knowing what's legal or illegal.

The real question is why senators and congressmen who claim to be for liberty or against certain laws aren't introducing bills to have certain laws (gun laws primarily) revoked and why they aren't passing.

Government rarely undoes anything, which is why we have to prevent it from happening. Obama term 2 stands a better chance of passing that which will not be undone than Romney term 1.
Vampire pig man since September 2012






Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I support the 2nd Amendment! rocketfoot 0 463 02-22-2018, 10:26 AM
Last Post: rocketfoot
  Mask is Coming Off 'Commonsense Gun Safety Law' Disclaimers sgtsandman 0 411 02-19-2018, 01:21 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  14 Hour Gun Control Filibuster halftrack 3 998 06-16-2016, 12:25 PM
Last Post: Mr_Gixxer
  Obama: 'Easier to Buy a Gun Than Buy a Book' das 5 1,090 10-14-2015, 06:42 AM
Last Post: Philadelphia Patriot
  U.S. District Court finds provision of 1968 Gun Control Act unconstitutional das 0 813 02-19-2015, 04:51 AM
Last Post: das



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.