except that THAT is NOT TRUEThat is the subject.
it isn't the subject that you are referring to any more than it is the subject that i specifically replied to in your post...
My very first post on this thread was to point out the logical fallacy of... (wait for it!) your intentional redefinition of the term responsible gun owners !!
i even quoted it!
to which you then justified your use of the redefinition by proving, via strawman argument, that you were pissed off at the court system for not actually enforcing the law!because we all know it's unfair to punish "responsible gun owners" by actually expecting them to be responsible, and, hey, what are we gonna do, 'cause they've got guns. ...
Then again, "responsible gun owners" aren't exactly rushing to distance themselves from this menace.
I even tried to get you to go back to the topic...
but you would have none of that, because you had to prove that all gun owners will eventually be irresponsible and kill off thousands of innocent victims [hyperbole - but seems to be more accurate than not]don't make trouble where none exists... you don't like irresponsible gun owners. I don't either. they make the rest of us look bad.
so... take it out on them, not us
so you took up the mantle of what appears to be a fanatic and decided you had to bash it into my head that you can be the only one right in this regard!
i don't care what you believe in... really. i don't.
but you can't say that your actions are in any way logical in the posts you and i are having...
every single one of my posts to you have been trying to get you to see the strawman and logical fallacy you've created. period.No, really: How much of the content of your twenty-five posts in this thread actually attends the actual topic?
that is just one reason i used the analogy i did... because it is not only relevant, but actually right on the mark. you are blaming the actions of a few idiots on the whole... while ignoring the inconsistencies in your own argument that demonstrate a fanatical religious approach to the argument moreso than a logical one.
if you had been logical from the start ... if you had not posted a blatant misrepresentation of facts (as well as strawman) i would not have replied to you at all!
problem is: this is a hot-button topic and you came into it scrapping for a fight... so it actually wouldn't matter what i said or how OT i was, if i agreed with you, i am right... but since i don't agree with what you said, i am "changing the subject", or using an unstuffed strawman, or...
I mean, isn't that the whole reason you will NOT address the strawman and redefinition you actually started this with?
because you want to change the topic from your intentional strawman and misrepresentation... so you instead use this tactic... here:
now, considering i am STILL trying to get you to address the original argument that i made to you when i responded to your post (in my very first post here)...How much of the content of your twenty-five posts in this thread actually attends that subject?
So when you get down to straw men built on false accusations↑―
WHO is really the one trying to change the subject?????
considering i actually never changed the argument and that i am addressing a legitimate complaint regarding your intentional misrepresentation, strawan and delusion that i addressed IN MY FIRST POST..... and that this is a forum for actually discussing stuff just like that... how, i mean, really... HOW can i get back on topic when you will not even consider addressing the challenges to your own fallacies that you yourself posted and i addressed so that everyone can be on the same page?No, really: How much of the content of your twenty-five posts in this thread actually attends the actual topic?
makes it hard...
(going to diner - Bback l8er)
EDIT:
there are NO false accusations there that i saw
as a matter of fact, it actually is a factual representation of what you are attempting to do... distract from your own attempted strawman and intentional misrepresentation of facts