Saturday, July 7, 2012

Gunloon non-arguments addressed

Let's see, there are so many ways they can take the argument off track starting out with saying something that is absolutely off topic, which is a good argument for moderation.

But let's start with something like "it's plagiarism", "copyright material", etcetera:
Serious non-argument for not addressing the actual assertion. Ironically used since gunloons tend to repost the same material all over the internet since it usually increases the position on search engine results.

That's probably why they hate it when the other side does it as well.
Saying something is plagiarism without addressing the substance is one of the more intellectually lazy attempts to silence the opposition that I know. This isn't an academic review--it's an effing blog fer chrissake!

The problem is that they are trying to block the dissemination of information while stacking the deck for their own.

Can't forget the old ad hominem, or some other comment about the person, rather than what has been mentioned in the post. Come on, people, address the topic that has been raised--not get personal.

The Gish Gallop, which is where you drown the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time: LegalEagle45 did that.

Basically, we are talking about tricks to keep from really addressing the issue and try to silence the opposition.

Yeah, yeah, you're gonna get all pouty on me and say, "but you're moderating our comments!"

Yep, we started doing it because you couldn't act like adults and try to have a real conversation.



  1. I was the anon who commented that my understanding of the 2nd amendment meant persons in the service had a right to own a gun, going by the "militia" wording.
    That same day you blocked anons. Fine.
    I got a Google ID (no blog).
    I understand and have no problem with it. Those who do......???

  2. Thanks for understanding the reason for the change Steve.

    At the point where the change was made, far too many of our comments came from people who were simply listed as 'anonymous' or the occasional variant 'unknown'. This made responses to comments very difficult to follow, and created more confusion with minimal benefit in exchange.

    We have fewer comments; I know that at least I personally do try to see that the lapse time between someone making a comment and that comment being moderated being published is as brief as possible. That inconvenience seems to me to be well worth the benefit of more substantive comments, more on-topic comments, and better clarity and ease of follow for discussion threads.

    The only thing I would add to Laci's post is that clearly most of those who assert claims about plagiarism seem to not quite grasp what plagiarism is. It is NOT using something - say a newspaper article or a reference - that comprises a large part of a post, or even nearly all of it. Plagiarism is representing that content as your own work. We don't do that; we quite clearly indicate who wrote it, where it is found, and usually provide links to it. That is not taking credit for that content as your own. Further, another criteria in improper use of intellectual property involves making moeny from it - we don't do that either.

    There is in fact, no finite description in any copyright law or intellectual property law that defines how much of the material must be your own for most uses. Particularly in relatively short instancs - larger quantities of content are allowed, because of the relative length. What that means in practice is that you can use a newspaper article of 10 paragraphs, and make a comment of only a short sectoin of your own writing which elaborates on that article, and still not be guilty of plagiarism, so long as you are not representing the newspaper article as your own work, and you are not making money from it that would otherwise go to the author.

    Further, every comment expands on that elaboration to the original material, and all previously related content on the topic counts towards that as well.

    So ever time I see the false accusation of plagiarism, the only response I feel is the thought that the person making the claim is sadly ignorant, and could benefit from a visit to the dictionary or better yet, some sort of more extensive remedial education on the whole concept of plagiarism, and what it is and isn't.

  3. meant persons in the service had a right to own a gun, going by the "militia"

    If by service you mean the Army, you would be incorrect.

    The militia is a local, part-time military force in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. This can be the entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms and who will be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.

    The army is a full-time, professional force.

    There is a vast difference between the two with only one common thread--that the force is under civilian control. The founders saw these as two distinct institutions.

  4. "Can't forget the old ad hominem, or some other comment about the person, rather than what has been mentioned in the post. Come on, people, address the topic that has been raised--not get personal."

    So calling gun owners names like crabby, fat, gunloon, Nazi KKKRistian AmeriKKKans (every post by DC is full of name calling) etc is not ad hominem it is just good ole debating by the gun control crowd?

    1. Jim, it's fun watching you show the world how clueless you are.

      That's not an ad hominem.

      And neither are your examples. Those are name calling.

      the ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

      The ad hominem works like this:
      1) X works for the Joyce foundation, therefore, you can't trust him

      2) That study was funded by liberals, therefore it's inaccurate.

      3) You are a plagiarist, we can't trust what you say...

      More examples from Wikipedia:

      "You can't believe John when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job."
      "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."
      "What would Mary know about fixing cars? She is a woman." (an example of Ad feminam)
      "What makes you so smart and all-knowing to deny God's existence? You haven't even finished school."
      "Your fashion opinion isn't valid, you can't even afford new shoes."
      "Your exposition is highly correct and valid, but you don't have enough academic degree" (Credential fallacy, official degree fallacy).

      Saying that you are clueless isn't an ad hominem, it's an insult as well as a statement of fact.

    2. further claification:

      Many people are quick to label all insults as ad hominems because it makes them look smart. They have that italicized Latin, they get to throw around skeptical buzz terms like "logical fallacy," and it makes the other girl or guy look like some kind of traitor to the noble cause of logic. But that is not correct. Commit the following mantra to heart: insults are not ad hominems. Insults are not even logical fallacies because insults, by themselves, are not arguments.

    3. My bad - feel free to keep insulting the gun owners and having a good laugh at your cleverness.

    4. ok I clicked on the link in the message - Recognizing Propaganda Techniques and Errors of Faulty Logic - and the first type of propaganda technique was name calling. That is funny.

    5. JimF - I believe you need to distinguish between claiming something about someone that is not true, and making a statement about a quality or characteristic that is true.

      Whether or not the observation is insulting or negatively reflects on the person is incidental; it is not propaganda if it is true.

    6. REPEAT: Commit the following mantra to heart: insults are not ad hominems. Insults are not even logical fallacies because insults, by themselves, are not arguments.

      Jim, you once again prove your IGNORANCE.

      Name calling can indeed be a technique of propaganda, but only if it is being used as an ARGUMENT?

      E.g., That is a liberal idea...
      Only liberals believe that...
      Don't believe those tree huggers...

      Propaganda works to short circuit the intellect and appeal to the emotions.

      Insults only show disgust and disadain.

      Calling you an ignorant bastard isn't an argument since you are and are more than willing to demonstrate your ignorance and inability to grasp complex concepts. Additionally, it shows my disgust and disdain for you and your comments.

    7. Quote:
      Name calling: This techniques consists of attaching a negative label to a person or a thing. People engage in this type of behavior when they are trying to avoid supporting their own opinion with facts. Rather than explain what they believe in, they prefer to try to tear their opponent down.

      Jim, I do both, with loads of help from you.

      You are more than willing to show the world your astounding level of ignorance. I try to explain things to you, yet you are always unclear on the substance. Additionally, you seem persistently incapable of, or unwilling to, learning.

    8. "Calling you an ignorant bastard isn't an argument since you are" That is factually untrue. My parents were married when I was conceived and are still married today.

    9. Let me expand your vocabulary JimF; the word bastard has more than one correct meaning or usage. For example, as an adjective, the term bastard when applied to a specific sword refers to an intermediate sized weapon between a typical single-handed sword and a two handed sword - a hyprid, if you will.

      From the World Dictionary, courtesy of

      (try instead meaning 1 through 3 and 5; your old fashioned meaning is a ways down the list)

      bastard (ˈbɑːstəd, ˈbæs-)

      — n

      1. informal , offensive an obnoxious or despicable person

      2.informal , jocular often a person, esp a man: lucky bastard

      3. informal something extremely difficult or unpleasant: that job is a real bastard

      4. old-fashioned , offensive or a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate baby, child, or adult

      5.something irregular, abnormal, or inferior

      6.a hybrid, esp an accidental or inferior one

    10. When Laci's Brit accent wells up, it's pronounced more like barstard, adding an extra r. Now if it were spoken as pirate-speak, that would be barrrrrrrrrstard, with multiple additional r's.

      Glad to clear that up for you.

    11. The Pirate accent would be an accent from the Southwest of England, usually Cornwall or Devon, but given I went to Uni in Devon...

      DG has it correct in 1!

      informal , offensive an obnoxious or despicable person

      Jim, that you are indeed.

    12. You two need to develop a sense of humor.

    13. Gee, are you sure it's the two of us in need of a humor transplant here Jim? We both had a good laugh at the extra r's in barstard.

      Maybe you should lighten up, and start appreciating a bit of nuance now and again. But then I don't see you taking issue with the ignorant part.

      I believe you will concede on the issue of who is the better educated? Some of the greatest writers in English literature, notably Chaucer and Shakespeare, could throw a few choice descriptives, when they felt the need to be expressive.