• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teen shot to death during home invasion

I really was not discussing those 'what if's', merely stating an opinion about how the shooter may feel after. That is all.
I only hope he eventually comes to the conclusion that he did the 'right' thing, because of those what if's. I know I would.

What he did was legal, but imo he used excessive force by jumping directly to lethal force when his life was not in danger.

Someone broke into your home...that doesn't mean you just pull out a gun and shoot them.

And why fight with the kid after shooting him? Shoot him again, damnit. Don't have a slap fight all around your property.
 
I don't know that anyone is, which is why I asked. As soon as you realize that I included a "?", indicating a question, you might understand that I made no such claim.

Bull****.

A question mark in that context "more drugs = less crime? Source please?" means that you are attempting to portray that I have made that assertion, which was further proven by your play on words relating to a specific argument AGAINST prohibition of guns.

A question that presupposes anything is making a statement in and of itself. Fallacy of begging the question.
 
Hey I'm pro-2nd amendment but that doesn't mean I support private ownership of missiles and explosives.

I want pot legalized, that doesn't mean I support all these other drugs.

Pot is a pistol, tobacco is a rifle, alcohol is machine gun.

Shrumes are stinger missiles, cocaine = VX gas, meth = hydrogen bomb.

Anyone, without exception, who supports legalizing hard drugs are no better then the loony kooks who support private ownership of ICBMs.

But as i said to grateful heart these are incomparable as legalisation would make these things less harmful.
 
Alcohol is a drug.

A drug, by definition, is "a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body"



Also, the correct logical analogy, using a specific term compared to a general term would be:

Alcohol is to drugs what a pistol is to guns.

Thus Alcohol = drug as Pistol = gun

You compared a specific to a general and then a specific to a specific.

Obviously that is a false analogy.

:prof No it's a typo.
 
Bull****.

A question mark in that context "more drugs = less crime? Source please?" means that you are attempting to portray that I have made that assertion, which was further proven by your play on words relating to a specific argument AGAINST prohibition of guns.

A question that presupposes anything is making a statement in and of itself. Fallacy of begging the question.

I know my motivations, so if you choose not to believe me, that's your choice.

Would you care to clarify what you originally meant, then, or shall we keep debating who meant what when they said what when that's not the topic of the thread?

Your choice :2wave:
 
That's one helluva typo. :lol:

After going back and re-reading it, no, it wasn't a typo, but I wasn't trying to make any analogy at all, either.

I was trying to counter the automatic reference to alcohol prohibition whenever anyone contests legalizing everything.

Alcohol does not = "drugs". Notice "drugs" in quotation, meaning the term as commonly used.

That's not an analogy, let alone a false analogy, and never warranted you acing like an ass by quoting the dictionary to me.

You weren't even taking about the same thing I was when you quoted me, You just went off on something else.
 
What is unclear about what I meant?

How would I know, I didn't understand what you meant, and when I asked, you spend pages acting like dick.

So I don't care anymore.
 
Last edited:
Or legalise them but only in a controlled enviroment, sans guns.
So...
If you want to do drugs, you have to give up your right to own a gun?
 
ALRIGHT! Lets legalize drugs! WOOHOO! OH YEAH! WOOT-WOOT!:roll:

Wait! Drugs are illegal!? I thought drug laws would have stopped something like this from occuring. What's going on here!?
 
After going back and re-reading it, no, it wasn't a typo, but I wasn't trying to make any analogy at all, either.

I was trying to counter the automatic reference to alcohol prohibition whenever anyone contests legalizing everything.

Alcohol does not = "drugs". Notice "drugs" in quotation, meaning the term as commonly used.

That's not an analogy, let alone a false analogy, and never warranted you acing like an ass by quoting the dictionary to me.

You weren't even taking about the same thing I was when you quoted me, You just went off on something else.

Oh, so you are guilty of equivocation AND false analogy.

Thanks for the clarification on that.

Drugs mean what I quoted from the dictionary. Alcohol is a drug, and that was the definition of the term beign used when you decded to EQUIVOCATE on it by altering the defintion to suit your purposes. I quoted form the dictionary because YOU were being an ass by purposely EQUIVOCATING on the meaning in order to make an INVALID logical comparison.

That INVALID logical comparison STILL involved you comparing the equality of a specific thing to a general thing to the equality of two specific things, and thus STILL fails as a logical argument.

So you are guilty of TWO logical fallacies in a single post. Bravo.

Would you care to try and formulate an arguemnt that is fallacy free? Or would you rather piss and moan when called on it?

Your choice. :mrgreen:
 
No, actually it doesnt. See having a gun is a Constitutional right set out in the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution.

So no, it doesnt work both ways. :thumbs:

Drug use is an unenumerated right per the Ninth Amendment. It always helps to read the WHOLE document instead of just latching onto the Amendments you find personally convenient.
 
No but it would be preferable not to use both at the same time. See post 12
Well, why not then require that to do drugs you have to give up your guns?
 
How would I know, I didn't understand what you meant, and when I asked, you spend pages acting like dick.

So I don't care anymore.

Perhaps in the future, if you don't understand something you should actually ask, "What do you mean" instead of making invalid assumptions that you phrase as questions.

Then you wouldn't need to cry and call people names when they call you out on your trolling behaviors.
 
Well, why not then require that to do drugs you have to give up your guns?

At the time definatly, as stated in post 12. You wouldnt take guns into a bar [I presume] so the same principle applies.
 
Perhaps in the future, if you don't understand something you should actually ask, "What do you mean" instead of making invalid assumptions that you phrase as questions.

Then you wouldn't need to cry and call people names when they call you out on your trolling behaviors.

But then how would we recognize him? :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom