Reply #81: how about you try to remember this [View All]

Aristotle is a man.
All men are mortal.
Therefore Aristotle is mortal.

That argument is VALID and SOUND. The premises are true, and they lead to the conclusion. If I say "Aristotle is a man, and all men are mortal", you may FEEL FREE to say that I have said "Aristotle is mortal".

Now we'll try this one.

Scum go to gun shows.
Therefore all people who go to gun shows are scum.

OH LOOK. It isn't at all like that "Aristotle" one. It is DUMB. It is DEMONSTRABLY DISPROVABLE.

So why would anyone in his/her right mind, with a modicum of intelligence and a shred of honesty, SAY it?

And, the real question (since NO ONE actually DID say it): WHY would anyone accuse another person on this board of having said it??????

To accuse someone of having said "All people who go to gun shows are scum" WHEN WHAT S/HE SAID WAS "Scum go to gun shows" ***IS*** a personal attack -- it is an allegation that the person being talked about is either so grossly, appallingly stupid that s/he would THINK that the fact that scum go to gun shows proves that all people who go to gun shows are scum, or so grossly, appallingly dishonest that s/he would SAY that the fact that scum go to gun shows proves that all people who go to gun shows are scum.

The plain fact is that saying "Scum go to gun shows" IS NOT SAYING "All people who go to gun shows are scum". And that fact is so plain that ... well, yer on yer own there.

If someone said "Aristotle is mortal", would anyone else jump in and say YOU HAVE SAID THAT ALL MORTALS ARE ARISTOTLE? How dim, confused, crazy or dishonest would someone have to be to say that??? Can we do the math?

You made a statement that DID NOT MAKE SENSE. The BEST WAY to demonstrate that a statement does not make sense is to take its premise and apply it to another situation where it will be OBVIOUS that it does not make sense. Nonsense. ABSURDITY.

Sometimes the most OBVIOUS nonsense statement is one that normal, sane, decent people will RECOIL FROM.

The proper response, most particularly from someone who is already averted to the technique being applied, is to either

(a) acknowledge that the initial statement was nonsense;
(b) present rational argument to establish that the initial statement was not nonsense and that what has been done is not to reduce the argument to absurdity, but to mischaracterize it by ignoring salient points, or whatever.

Did you do either of those? NO.

Accusing me of equating owning firearms with beating pets IS NOT RATIONAL ARGUMENT. I DID NOT DO THAT and there are NO grounds for representing what I did as saying that.

I equated the LOGIC of saying that if I cannot be compelled to beat my dog then you cannot be prevented from beating your dog with the LOGIC of saying that if I cannot be compelled to own a gun then you cannot be prevented from owning a gun.

I HAVE USED THE SAME ***LOGIC***. Illogic, pardon me. I have DEMONSTRATED the illogic of the "logic" by applying it to another situation and showing that it produces nonsense. ABSURDITY.

If I had used an innocuous example -- say, if I cannot be compelled to cross the street, then you cannot be prevented from crossing the street -- the ILLOGIC might not be as apparent to the casual reader. The illogic is exactly the same, but the whole point of reductio ad absurdum is to DEMONSTRATE the illogic, and so OF COURSE the example chosen will be one that best demonstrates that -- an ABSURD example.


"Sure, maybe the benign explanation was the point being made, but that was not the message that was put out."

YES IT WAS. The fact that someone/anyone, in a forum where people are supposedly able to read and write English and have learned the basic skills needed in order to discern the meaning of what they read, failed to get/acknowledge the message, or chose instead to derive some alternate and improbable message from what s/he read, is simply NOT the fault of the messenger.

.