At least seven dead at shooting at Wisconsin Sikh temple

Wompa1

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, as to this exchange, I didn't realise it was a argumentum ad populum. See how that works?

As to patriotism, I'm not American or Irish, however I do recognise patronising comments when I see it, and tend to call them.

Whilst such events are tragic, mock "despair for Americans" is thinly disguised contempt. If you are genuine, I apologise - but something tells me I'm close to the mark.

Careful Now! Boards is a strictly Anti-American forum site, we don't take kindly to folk who try to make a point that's not belittling Americans.

later12

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry, as to this exchange, I didn't realise it was a argumentum ad populum.

I'm afraid you don't quite know what an argumentum ad populum is.

I expressed an opinion, not a belief in a popular misconception, nor endorsement of a position, whether true or misconceived.

You also just took the tu quoque to a wholly absurd new level.

I am not wholly surprised.

Logical_Bear

^^^^
dammit knew I should of studied latin.

MadsL

later12 wrote: »

Most of us lament for many aspects of Irish governance.

later12 wrote: »

I'm afraid you don't quite know what an argumentum ad populum is.

I expressed an opinion, not a belief in a popular misconception, nor endorsement of a position, whether true or misconceived.

You made your position and backed up with some kind of argumentum ad populum based on the supposed fact that 8 of 10 cats lament for Irish governance. Pretty textbook according to this definition.

You also just took the tu quoque to a wholly absurd new level.

Deliberately absurd to highlight your patronisng comment. Reductio ad absurdum, if you like. Will we folie a deux while we are at it? You might want to look at which forum you are posting in my literate friend.

I am not wholly surprised.

Ah, when in doubt insult the poster. Good job.

later12

MadsL wrote: »

You made your position and backed up with some kind of argumentum ad populum based on the supposed fact that 8 of 10 cats lament for Irish governance. Pretty textbook according to

Where?

I expressed an opinion; I did not reference any statistic nor endorse any popular misconception; you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

You do realise, that you are also responding to an allegation of a tu quoque with yet another tu quoque?

MadsL

later12 wrote: »

Where?

later12 wrote: »

Most of us lament for many aspects of Irish governance.

Wikipedia wrote:

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."

Not that hard to grasp really.

You do realise, that you are also responding to an allegation of a tu quoque with yet another tu quoque?

Yeah, but what about the French?

Seriously, hadn't realised that AH had such proper debating standards and a degree in philosophy was required - what do you not get about my Reductio ad absurdum statement? My point was meant to highlight an aspect of Irish society that you would probably be annoyed about it I used it to frame my "despair' at the Irish people.

you have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

And....once again with the insults...charming.

Sorry, what was your point again?

later12

MadsL wrote: »

Not that hard to grasp really.

Sorry, what was your point again?

It's simple ; my personal belief that one really does have to lament for Americans in terms of firearms transgressions.

I have little interest in embarrassing you; however, if you do insist on continuing this line: from your own link

Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true.

Sorry.

Grayson

Actor wrote: »

You can't ban guns in the US because the right to bear arms is engrained in the constitution. Nobody's denying that more guns = more crime, but for the average Joe; the most effective way to protect against gun crime is to arm yourself.

They have the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia.

The actual phrase is

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Now a normal person would read that as militia members have the right to bear arms. But the supreme court says it means Joe Redneck can own a semi automatic assault rifle.

MadsL

Grayson wrote: »

They have the right to bear arms as part of an organised militia.

The highlighted portion is your interpretation of that amendment.

Now a normal person would read that as militia members have the right to bear arms.

Except (leaving aside your insult about 'normal') Wisconsin also has a constituition as a State, and that says...

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

[source]

Which is pretty clear - even to 'normal people'.

But the supreme court says it means Joe Redneck can own a semi automatic assault rifle.

If it has a lawful purpose.

Joe Redneck

Your arguments would garner more respect if you didn't resort to insulting 60% of the population of Wisconsin.

MadsL

later12 wrote: »

It's simple ; my personal belief that one really does have to lament for Americans in terms of firearms transgressions.

Compared to?

later12 wrote: »

I have little interest in embarrassing you;

Really? I notice no apology for your little barbed insult earlier.

however, if you do insist on continuing this line: from your own link

Are you really claiming that you didn't attempt to back up your point by claiming that most people believe X, therefore it is a valid point of view? Now, you are persisting in arguing that because some technical philosophical nomenclature perhaps doesn't apply in your example that me pulling you up on your arrogant dismissive 'sympathy' is somehow invalid.

Sorry.

Is that my apology?

later12

MadsL wrote: »

Compared to?

Compared to... nothing.

You read my earlier statement yes?

I have simply put a position that one must lament for Americans in terms of this sort of firearms transgressions they experience.

Try as you might, it really is unclear where you can go from that point.

I'm sorry ; it is so difficult to watch you try. But if you feel you refer to logical fallacies, then you ought to so refer on the basis of factual evidence.

Let me again refer you to your own link:

Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists. Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree. I.e., ad populum only proves that a belief is popular, not that it is true.

I'm not sure how you're not quite getting this.

MadsL

later12 wrote: »

Compared to... nothing.

So this is just some vapid hand-wringing on your part. Thank you for your contribution.

You read my earlier statement yes?

I have simply put a position that one must lament for Americans in terms of this sort of firearms transgressions they experience. Try as you might, it really is unclear where you can go from that point.

I'm sorry, maybe it is just me, but I cannot help but read this in a rather superior and snide voice. If I am wrong, feel free to let me know.

I'm sorry ; it is so difficult to watch you try.

..and there is that superior and snide voice again. See why I get that impression?

But if you feel you refer to logical fallacies, then you ought to so refer on the basis of factual evidence.

Well, actually you brought it up. I just pointed out the logical fallacy in your own appeal to, and belief in, mass 'despair' at Irish Governance.

Let me again refer you to your own link:
I'm not sure how you're not quite getting this.

Repeating it doesn't make it any different - it was still there in your argument.

Anyway, why don't we get back on topic, this isn't UCD Debating Society. "tu quoque" indeed.

PrincessLola

He had a 9/11 tattoo on his arm.

probably a racist who thought he was shooting Muslims.

Its not a 'senseless' crime though. Its just racist.

hatrickpatrick

Of course, if every US citizen was allowed to walk around with 10 AKs hidden under their jacket, this sort of thing would never happen. [/Republican conservatrolls]

Between this and the rising levels of police brutality, I genuinely believe America is starting to fall apart a bit, and I find it deeply saddening.

MadsL

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Of course, if every US citizen was allowed to walk around with 10 AKs hidden under their jacket, this sort of thing would never happen. [/Republican conservatrolls]

Between this and the rising levels of police brutality, I genuinely believe America is starting to fall apart a bit, and I find it deeply saddening.

It would seem that way if you listen to the wringing of hands and anti-American sentiment on boards; however crime rates have been falling steadily.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/18/nation/la-na-nn-crime-rate-america-20120617

Chuck Stone

MadsL wrote: »

It would seem that way if you listen to the wringing of hands and anti-American sentiment on boards; however crime rates have been falling steadily.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/18/nation/la-na-nn-crime-rate-america-20120617

Umm...

“Uncounted in the official tallies are the hundreds of thousands of crimes that take place in the country’s prison system, a vast and growing residential network whose forsaken tenants increasingly bear the brunt of America’s propensity for anger and violence.”

Prison rapes, murders, assaults — “Crime has not fallen in the United States,” Glazek writes. “It’s been shifted.”

His article — titled “Raise the Crime Rate” — made the equally provocative suggestion that the cost of safer cities has not been worth the hidden costs of uprooting nonviolent offenders from their homes and their families to hide them away in prisons, from where they are more likely to return to the streets jobless and to become repeat offenders.

The statistics touting the country’s crime-reduction miracle, when juxtaposed with those documenting the quantity of rape and assault that takes place each year within the correctional system, are exposed as not merely a lie, or even a damn lie—but as the single most shameful lie in American life.

http://nplusonemag.com/raise-the-crime-rate

MadsL

Whilst i would fully support tracking of crimes committed within the penal system, they would hardly be helpful in judging the crime rate among the general public.

The point I'm making is that despite doom-laden posts about American society, the reality is that crime rates are falling. Now some might argue that gun ownership is rising and that is the reason. I'm not so naive as to believe that supposed correlation.

Manic Moran

Grayson wrote: »

Now a normal person would read that as militia members have the right to bear arms. But the supreme court says it means Joe Redneck can own a semi automatic assault evil black rifle.

You might be surprised as to who is a member of the federal militia. It's somewhere about 25% of the US population.
With that amount of numbers, you might as well just let everyone at it.

But the Supreme Court undertook a long analysis of the 2nd, it's available for reading if you want.

NTM