Joe Ferguson forever

That's easy. They're angry.

Red Herring Fallacy The red herring fallacy refers to an instance in which one speaker attempts to divert the attention of another speaker from the primary argument by offering a point which may be true, but which does not actually further the substance of a counterargument. So named for the implication that the odoriferous fish in question might “throw one off the scent” of the actual argument itself, the red herring will typically support a conclusion with a fact which does not actually provide substantive support. Example 1: Child: This fish tastes funny. I don’t want to eat this. Parent: There are children starving in Africa. Eat your dinner. The topic is gun control's effect on the homicide rate.....my point about different demographics was in response to your study (which salient but flawed)

poverty rate. Educational attainment. population density. Sample size. Post some more data then. here. from my first citation that you apparently didn't read: In that study, which was published March 28, 2019, in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, Siegel’s team analyzed 25 years of national data to examine the relationship between 10 different types of state laws and the number of deaths by homicide and suicide in all 50 states. State gun laws requiring universal background checks for all gun sales resulted in homicide rates 15 percent lower than states without such laws. Laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by people who have been convicted of a violent crime were associated with an 18 percent reduction in homicide rates. In contrast, Siegel found that laws regulating the type of firearms people have access to—such as assault weapon bans and large capacity ammunition magazine bans—and “stand your ground” laws have no effect on the rate of firearm-related homicide. None of the state gun laws studied were found to be related to overall suicide rates. Universal background checks, which have long been a top priority for gun control advocates and policymakers in the United States, appear to have the biggest impact. Though there has been a push for federal gun regulations in recent years, the power to legislate gun sales and gun ownership is largely beholden to the states. And according to Siegel, the data don’t lie. The average firearm homicide rate in states without background checks is 58 percent higher than the average in states with background-check laws in place. As of 2017, only 13 states, including Massachusetts, had laws requiring universal background checks.

firstly, Kenessaw was not directly compared to Chicago, therefore you can't make the conclusion that the murder rate in one is different than the other. Secondly you can't conclude that the claimed difference is due to gun laws. The demographics in the two areas are vastly different. There are many other variables to be considered as well. Post Hoc Fallacy In full Latin phrasing, Post hoc ergo propter hoc means “after this, therefore because of this.” Instances of this fallacy occur when one incorrectly attributes a cause and effect relationship between two phenomena in the absence of proof that one causes the other. The flaw in this strategy is that it draws a singular relationship between a premise and a conclusion without considering an array of variables that might disqualify the possibility of such a relationship. Example 1: Every time we sacrifice virgins, it rains. Therefore, sacrificing virgins causes it to rain.

you posted the data and came to an incorrect conclusion. Shocked. You want an academic paper summarizing data? Look for yourself as I know that you'll reject anything that I cite. Those papers are there for u to peruse. Ad hominem An abbreviated phrase meaning “to the person,” argumentum ad hominem refers to an argument which relies on an attack directed at the speaker rather than the substance of the speaker’s argument. This rhetorical strategy is often fallacious in nature, employing an approach designed to discredit the character, substance or motive of a person in lieu of deconstructing the person’s claims. Example 1 Speaker 1: I think the idea of a moral law requires the existence of a lawgiver (i.e. God). Speaker 2: Of course you would say that. You’re a Christian. Why should we listen to you?

plenty more https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-is-clear-gun-control-saves-lives1/

yes. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/state-gun-laws-that-reduce-gun-deaths/

How bout we not do that and strengthen and enforce gun laws. False Dilemma Also sometimes referred to as a “false dichotomy,” this is a fallacy in which one incorrectly places limitations on one’s possible options in a given scenario. This fallacy rests on the false premise that one is faced with a binary choice when it’s possible that multiple options are available. In essence, this occurs when one reduces the array of available options and alternatives to a simplified either-or condition. Example 1: If you aren’t a capitalist, you must be a communist.

How did you feel about this? The long island scum threw a beer at McIlroy's wife and shouted obscenities at the Irishman as he lined up shots. They had to call in a dozen state police to escort his team. Do you think the hecklers were liberals? The US just can't have nice things at this point in time. Sad and embarrassing. Bunch of yobos... https://apnews.com/article/ryder-cup-rory-mcilroy-fans-behavior-86b5a189f6699a0734a77d27c9ebd8aa

Switzerland has very well defined rules. Trains run on time. Nearly everyone does a stint in the army. Residences are well kept or face loud criticism. Most have survival bunkers and supplies. But they're not into suppressing free speech. They don't ban books for instance.

The Ryder Cup is showing how far we've sunk. It's golf. And they're chanting F Rory. They had to call in the state troopers to accompany him on his round. Celebrate maga's This is not normal.. Civility is dead...at least in Long Island. At least there's some great golf.

is it the truth? truth /troo͞th/ noun Conformity to fact or actuality. "Does this story have any truth?"

debate is sport. there are many competitions with honest discussion. the important and imperative thing is that they play by the rules.

the two things aren't mutually exclusive. You can win and look for the truth. You just need to play by the rules...

I think it’s better than your cartoons.

You don’t need to always be offensive

Who said it was for all ages? You’re on a streak. Keep that fallacy coming. “”Ya’ll”refers to more than one doesn’t it? Do you think maybe y’all referred to liberals? And I’m the one who supposedly can’t communicate. You’re the one with delusions. did Neo post a counter argument?

I posted 4merperformer to illustrate that an Epstein post predated the claim of another poster. why did you move on from my short debate with Neo?

Asked and answered. He didn’t rebut. In fact, he agreed with me. But should he, I’ll assume he’s speaking for you given your above claim.

It’s roughly equivalent to your “if everyone jumps over the falls” tactic.

Who said anything about the killing fields or brokeback mountain? You posted the definition of straw man but didn’t comprehend it. I’m not sure I understand your awkward prose either. But here’s a list of banned classics. Steinbeck and Huxley stand out. https://www.rawstory.com/florida-banned-books-2666728303/

because it's entertaining and I like to win. but yeah, it's futile.

Untrue. False. Incorrect. Posted August 22, 2019 I left this separate from the main Epstein thread. Lots of people gave been accused or rumored to be friends of Epstein. Shirley there are others. Take a guess or two at whose name might come out some day. It can't be anyone already mentioned or anyone from his black book. I'll start: Stephen Hawking Untrue, false, incorrect \ https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2025/sep/26/jimmy-kimmel-trump-ratings-escalator

You’re giving way too much credit to the current electorate. If he wins, it must be because the judge is liberal? Why?