phreddy wrote:

Ann Coulter wrote:

...gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense.

I'm an idiot. Despite the logical invalidity of above categorical statement, I wasted five minutes on the column.

Phreddy, if you would like me to point you to some links that explain the logic of basic argumentation I would be happy to do so.

As a rough guide, be extremely wary of people who talk in absolutes, and who use words such as "all" "always" and "never." They are seldom intelligent, and almost never (notice the qualifier?) trustworthy.

Also be wary of people who libel their opposition with categorical statements (such as "They're Democrats, so they cheat") - this is the language of deliberately divisive emotion, not logic.

Finally, be wary of people who make grandiose conclusions that are not supported by predicative arguments. The blonde horseface at the top of the page did nothing at all to demonstrate that "...gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense." Even if she's historically correct about niggers and guns and all the rest of it, she is a very long way from being able to make any logically valid categorical statement.

I am quite happy to entertain arguments from the far right, but not if they're articulated dishonestly. The perversion of conservatism that this woman embraces is exactly what she claims for gun control: a ploy by the powerful to keep the powerless in thrall, but through ignorance, poverty, and the adulation of violence. 

By the by, I still think you're somebody's left testicle. Possibly Choad's.


Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

I don't think that Coulter is trying to make an logical argument. The article is more of a recap of history and is in fact mostly a paraphrasing of this Wikipedia article. If any argument or persuasion is meant, it is to educate people that the history of gun control has always been one of repression of Blacks, not the protection of Blacks. Nearly every gun control law in this country is designed to keep guns from the hands of the poor without restricting the rich. $49 Saturday night specials are outlawed but $800 Colt 1911's are not. Cheap foreign military surplus is banned but expensive domestic clones are allowed. "Gun control" has nothing to do with stopping murders or suicides. It's all about protecting Police while on the job and keeping cheap guns out of the hands of the poor by throwing up trade protection, lots of paperwork and the need to have a spotless criminal record while ratcheting down the barriers of what constitutes a "felony" to further deny people their 2nd amendment protections.

XR wrote:

Who the fuck suggested that the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting incident had ANYTHING to do with the KKK in the first place?

Contrary to MSNBC hosts, I do not believe the shooting in Florida is evidence of a resurgent KKK.

Based on that, the last line in the article, the answer is "NOT Coulter".

What really makes me LOL about this case is that the Democrats are stuck in a rough spot: While trying to convince everyone that we should leave all personal defense to the "professional" police, the only ones they think should have guns, they are also mad at the police and calling for them to do something which directly contradicts the law on the books.

This is all going to come down to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and without contradictory witnesses, the prosecution certainly has their work cut out for them.

GooberMcNutly wrote:

I don't think that Coulter is trying to make an logical argument.

Goobs, you've fallen into her trap (and, worse, committed a grammatical error). She certainly isn't logical, but she imitates logic for the usual partisan reasons, and when you argue for or against dishonest arguments, you unwittingly give them credence. Years ago I was attached to a group of earnest young zoologists who invited the loathsome Duane Gish to the local university for debate. When the debate was over we were astounded by the depths of his intellectual dishonesty. Were his arguments logical? No - like this woman, he wasn't even trying. He was a master of argumentum verbosium, argumentum ad populum, post hoc ergo propter hoc, ignoratio elenchi, etc. In the end we agreed that the debate had backfired and should never be repeated. You cannot enter into a liar's agenda without giving them what they want - a soapbox from which they can shout down the opposition through an emotive appeal to an under-educated populace.

2010-11-18: An Ann Coulter column all of us can appreciate

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs