Reply #49: guess I'll be needing an explanation [View All]

You seem to be engaged in fallacious reasoning. You've got all that stuff where you live--Canada, I presume. Whether I want the things you mention or not (BTW: I do) is irrelevant in this context. I don't know why you bring them up. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

Well, my friend, you're the one who said (I underline the bits that are causing me difficulty when I try to understand what you are now saying):

It's quaint actually, how so many liberals expect the courts to hand them everything on a silver platter without a fight. That's the reason why we keep losing.

Do you want to explain what you WERE talking about?

I'm sure you've heard the expression "fallacious reasoning" used in a sentence, but you don't seem to have figured out what it means.

You berated liberals for expecting the courts to hand them "everything" (?) on a silver platter, and stated that "that" (?) was the reason "we" kept losing. And, um, keep losing *what*?

While Canadians don't quite expect the courts to hand us anything on a silver platter -- after all, one has to go to a court and persuade it of what one wants -- we haven't kept losing. We haven't lost hardly anything. One of the things we won quite recently was the entitlement of the same-sex common-law spouses of deceased contributors to the Canada Pension Plan (like your social security) to receive survivor pension benefits, back-dated to the date the extended equality guarantees in the Canadian constitution took effect (1985) -- rather than to 1997 as the government had enacted already. May your troubles all be little ones, eh? Like I said; rights you ain't even heard of.

So anyhow, what's this "everything" that the courts aren't going to hand "us" on a silver platter? What, exactly, about my response to your claim in that respect was "fallacious reasoning"?

You made a statement; I offered facts that demonstrate that it is not a universally true statement, at least, and that I offered as a reasonable basis for rejecting it even as a true statement about some more particular circumstance. If Canadian courts can uphold individual rights and freedoms as they do (and as a huge majority of Canadians state that they trust them, the most, to do), why would one think that USAmerican courts cannot do the same? Aren't you the land of the free?

If the things I mentioned -- things that are dear to the hearts of most liberals -- were "irrelevant", what the hell was this "everything" that you alleged the courts would not be handing over to liberals on a silver platter??


As far as my assertion about the constitutionality of gun control, yeah..it's an opinion. By your logic, all constitutional decisions are. Therefore, is constitutionality merely a matter of opinion?

Scusi? I was talking about the statement of your opinion, not about constitutional decisions.

Certainly constitutional decisions (i.e. of the courts) are opinions. That they are the opinions of bodies whose opinions are authoritative, i.e. must be given effect, makes them somewhat different, in terms of their effect. It is still possible that there are different opinions that would be "better", in the sense of more consistent with the broadly accepted premises to be considered in making a decision.

If your claim that firearms control is unconstitutional were supported by some actual constitutional decisions, it would be a "good" opinion in so far as it would be a statement of fact, as a statement of the authoritative opinion in the matter, at least to the extent that it mirrored those authoritative decisions. Your problem is that your claim is NOT so supported, I'm sure you see. So it's just a bald opinion, an unsupported claim, evidently not based on broadly accepted premises, let alone any authoritative opinion, and made without even any facts or argument in support to demonstrate that it is "better" than the authoritative opinion.

Talk about yer fallacious reasoning.

I don't like gun control.
Therefore gun control is unconstitutional.

That's what I heard. And that wouldn't normally be dignified by calling it "reasoning".


As far as Kleck's and Kates' research goes, even Marvin Wolfgang--world famous criminologist and gun control advocate - couldn't fault their methodology.

We're just not answering the question, are we?

Here it is again -- I'll underline the bits you might be missing:

And what, pray, might you have read in the way of critiques of those tracts, or analyses that reach somewhat different conclusions?

Despite my repeated attempts to learn the answer, you have said nothing. I'm feeling fairly confident in interpreting this as you answering "nothing".

You could always say "nothing, because there aren't any". Except that I think there are.

So you could say "nothing, because I don't want to", or "nothing, because I don't have time". In the first case, you'd look kinda like someone who dismisses different points of view out of hand. And in the second, you'd look kinda like someone who does not listen to different points of view before coming to a decision.

I am having visions of shoes that fit, and pots saying things that ricochet.


Maybe you'll actually do your own reading.

Maybe you'll someday demonstrate a modicum of respect for people who disagree with you, kinda the way you apparently think a liberal oughta do.

I won't be holding my breath.