Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[Blueshell]

Yet another post that indicates your lack of integrity.

Logical Fallacy: Loaded Question

Exposition:

A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:

"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."

Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question. So, a loaded question is one which you cannot answer directly without implying a falsehood or a statement that you deny. For this reason, the proper response to such a question is not to answer it directly, but to either refuse to answer or to reject the question.

Some systems of parliamentary debate provide for "dividing the question", that is, splitting a complex question up into two or more simple questions. Such a move can be used to split the example as follows:

"Have you ever beaten your wife?"
"If so, are you still doing so?"
In this way, 1 can be answered directly by "no", and then the conditional question 2 does not arise.

Your question: "You do realize you are using your self admitted disability, the mental disorder called OCD, as an excuse to say that I advocate violence?" is a "loaded question". I do not assume you advocate violence, to then use my OCD as a cover.

In fact OCD has little to do with violence at all.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And I find your attempt to engender sympathy yet another indication of your lack of integrity.

Hold on, I need to google "what is gender sympathy", I really don't know what that is...

Ok, Google didn't help ( Link Removed ) I have no idea what you're talking about.

Bold added by me for emphasis...

I posted (used) the word "engender".... not the word "gender".

engender: definition of engender in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

engender
-snip-
Cause or give rise to (a feeling, situation, or condition):
Bold added by me for emphasis...

And you disparage my reading comprehension ability?

 

[Bikenut]

Read this: Logical Fallacy: Loaded Question

Answering a loaded question with a loaded question has nothing to do with integrity one way or the other.

Your question: "You do realize you are using your self admitted disability, the mental disorder called OCD, as an excuse to say that I advocate violence?" assumes that I say you advocate violent. I don't assume you advocate violence. Quite the opposite, the fact that you don't advocate and even personally carry out violence the basis of my argument against you.

The fact that you would resort to such a ploy in this discussion IS an indication of your lack of integrity.

And my question was not loaded as you say. A plain reading of it says nothing about you advocating violence (although you seem to do that quite often in many of your posts) but only says that you are using your OCD as an excuse to say that I advocate violence. All that is necessary to find that you have said repeatedly that I advocate violence is to read your own postings.

 

[Blueshell]

So.... In your mind it is legal to beat someone to death with a hammer because there are no limits on who may own one?
You can burn down buildings because there are no limits (infringements) on who may own matches?

Somehow your logic(?) doesn't compute in my reality.

I think you quoted the wrong person as I argue that all rights have limits.

 

[Blueshell]

The fact that you would resort to such a ploy in this discussion IS an indication of your lack of integrity.

Executing the proscribed methodology for mechanically exposing a fallacy you make is nothing but pure debate.

I don't claim that you advocate violence. I say the very fact that you do not advocate violence means you don't mean what you say.

If your arguments on this thread were sincere then you WOULD advocate violence.

 

[Blueshell]

And you disparage my reading comprehension ability?

Yes, because I stop to learn whereas you press on.

So you say I 'give rise to' sympathy...to what? and how is it related to integrity?...and how is it related to tissue boxes?

 

[Blueshell]

The fact that you would resort to such a ploy in this discussion IS an indication of your lack of integrity.

And my question was not loaded as you say. A plain reading of it says nothing about you advocating violence (although you seem to do that quite often in many of your posts) but only says that you are using your OCD as an excuse to say that I advocate violence. All that is necessary to find that you have said repeatedly that I advocate violence is to read your own postings.

I don't say that you advocate violence, to then have used my OCD as a cover.

In fact I mentioned my OCD only one time, and I note you refused to include the proper 'trackback' code in the quote so no one could see my original statement in it's proper context.

You are tripping over your own lies.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The fact that you would resort to such a ploy in this discussion IS an indication of your lack of integrity.

Executing the proscribed methodology for mechanically exposing a fallacy you make is nothing but pure debate.

I don't claim that you advocate violence. I say the very fact that you do not advocate violence means you don't mean what you say.

If your arguments on this thread were sincere then you WOULD be advocate violence.

Now who is engaging in the logical fallacy that in order for one to be sincere they must advocate violence?

Why is it only you who is talking about using violence?

Your lack of integrity is astounding.

 

[Blueshell]

Now who is engaging in the logical fallacy that in order for one to be sincere they must advocate violence?

I'm pointing out that you have no conviction behind your argument, that you don't actually believe what you say.

Why is it only you who is talking about using violence?

This whole forum is about using violence, it's what firearms are for.

Violence, ie the use of physical force, is the only thing firearms are capable of doing. Violence against a paper target, violence against game, violence against a burglar, etc.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post

Originally posted by Blueshell
You do realize you're harassing me over a disability, right?

I didn't disparage you. I asked a question.

You do realize you are using your self admitted disability, the mental disorder called OCD, as an excuse to say that I advocate violence?

And I find your attempt to engender sympathy yet another indication of your lack of integrity.

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And you disparage my reading comprehension ability?

Yes, because I stop to learn whereas you press on.

So you say I 'give rise to' sympathy...to what? and how is it related to integrity?...and how is it related to tissue boxes?

Using a bid for sympathy because of having been clinically diagnosed with OCD need I go back and quote your own words admitting to having clinically diagnosed OCD? is a ploy to put me in a bad light and therefor lessen my credibility casting a shadow on my argument that the right to keep arms includes hiding a pistol inside a tissue box. And I am sure those who are watching this discussion already understand only someone who has nothing to back up their argument and who lacks in integrity would resort to that.

Originally posted by Blueshell
In fact I mentioned my OCD only one time, and I note you refused to include the proper 'trackback' code in the quote so no one could see my original statement in it's proper context.

You are tripping over your own lies.

You mentioned you have clinically diagnosed OCD the first time. You just mentioned it again. Perhaps it would be interesting to go back and see how often you mention your OCD in your own posts? See posts 36/300/320/326. Is it necessary to post the definition of the word mention?

As far as not including the proper trackback code... did I, or did I not, post your words within a quote attributed to you? As for context we already know that it is you who changes the entire wording within a quote in a very transparent attempt to imply the words you injected into the quote are the words of the person quoted.

Now you are trying to diminish, demean, and demonize me by saying I have been lying?

I will say this again...
All that is necessary is to engage an anti gunner/anti gunner lite/anti rights person in conversation and simply allow them to out themselves as having little to no integrity.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The fact that you would resort to such a ploy in this discussion IS an indication of your lack of integrity.

Executing the proscribed methodology for mechanically exposing a fallacy you make is nothing but pure debate.

I don't claim that you advocate violence. I say the very fact that you do not advocate violence means you don't mean what you say.

If your arguments on this thread were sincere then you WOULD advocate violence.

It seems to me you are judging what I should do according to what you think should be done. Again, it is only you who is advocating for violence.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Why is it only you who is talking about using violence?

This whole forum is about using violence, it's what firearms are for.

Violence, ie the use of physical force, is the only thing firearms are capable of doing. Violence against a paper target, violence against game, violence against a burglar, etc.

Where have I heard that thing about firearms are only for violence before? Oh yes, from every anti gunner I've ever had the displeasure of engaging in conversation.

This whole forum isn't about violence. In fact, aside from your own many postings mentioning violence, this particular thread within the forum isn't about violence but is about tissue box firearm storage devices and the tangent conversation about whether or not hiding a pistol in a tissue box is part of the right to keep arms.

 

[Leader]

I think you quoted the wrong person as I argue that all rights have limits.

What are the infringements set in law against owning a hammer?

Are you saying that because murder is against the law that you shouldn't be allowed to drink a glass of water?

What are the limits/infringements to owning underwear?

You are so far from reality that it makes no sense to even continue this thread.

 

[Blueshell]

Using a bid for sympathy because of having been clinically diagnosed with OCD need I go back and quote your own words admitting to having clinically diagnosed OCD? is a ploy to put me in a bad light and therefor lessen my credibility casting a shadow on my argument that the right to keep arms includes hiding a pistol inside a tissue box.

Thread and post number, please, so everyone can see the context my comment was made in.

 

[Blueshell]

As far as not including the proper trackback code... did I, or did I not, post your words within a quote attributed to you?

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet"
~~Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Blueshell]

What are the infringements set in law against owning a hammer?

I don't know. What?

Are you saying that because murder is against the law that you shouldn't be allowed to drink a glass of water?

Nope.

What are the limits/infringements to owning underwear?

I don't know. What?

 

[Blueshell]

Where have I heard that thing about firearms are only for violence before? Oh yes, from every anti gunner I've ever had the displeasure of engaging in conversation.

Me too. In fact when I engage anti-gunners I often have to spell it out for them: I carry a gun every day so that I have the ability to kill a human being if I need to.

This whole forum isn't about violence. In fact, aside from your own many postings mentioning violence, this particular thread within the forum isn't about violence but is about tissue box firearm storage devices and the tangent conversation about whether or not hiding a pistol in a tissue box is part of the right to keep arms.

Retaining the ability to apply violence is the whole reason we even have the second amendment in the first place.

 

[Blueshell]

It seems to me you are judging what I should do according to what you think should be done. Again, it is only you who is advocating for violence.

I haven't advocated violence.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Using a bid for sympathy because of having been clinically diagnosed with OCD need I go back and quote your own words admitting to having clinically diagnosed OCD? is a ploy to put me in a bad light and therefor lessen my credibility casting a shadow on my argument that the right to keep arms includes hiding a pistol inside a tissue box.

Thread and post number, please, so everyone can see the context my comment was made in.

Already did.

-snip-
You mentioned you have clinically diagnosed OCD the first time. You just mentioned it again. Perhaps it would be interesting to go back and see how often you mention your OCD in your own posts? See posts 36/300/320/326. Is it necessary to post the definition of the word mention?-snip-
-snip-

What was that you said about reading comprehension?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
It seems to me you are judging what I should do according to what you think should be done. Again, it is only you who is advocating for violence.

I haven't advocated violence.

If you are not advocating violence exactly what is the meaning of your words contained in your post I quoted below? Please take special note of the portion of your post I put in bold for emphasis.....

Me too. In fact when I engage anti-gunners I often have to spell it out for them: I carry a gun every day so that I have the ability to kill a human being if I need to.


Retaining the ability to apply violence is the whole reason we even have the second amendment in the first place.