Knife Control

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
261

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again, I can only use my own experience.

Courtrooms are EXTREMELY volatile places. Closed, often times cramped and confined spaces…with not only emotions running high…but people often on edge; within feet of the source of their pain and/or anger; ready to lash out at anybody and everybody.

And this is just with the LAW ABIDING portion of the people. Add to it thugs and criminals about to lose their freedoms, and everything is magnified.

Bringing in a firearm is like bringing in matches to a room with a leaking Propane Tank.

A Courtroom is simply FAR different from “other places”.

Mufasa[/quote]

Exactly: the right to bear arms can be temporarily and circumstantially revoked under certain circumstances. In this case, circumstances involving lots of irresponsible people and high amounts of tension.

And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.

Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons. But it is my honest and somewhat informed opinion that a college dorm is far more like a courtroom with regard to the characteristics in question than many people believe. If I ran a university, I simply would not trust the student body enough to allow them to keep guns in their rooms.[/quote]
Yep

You made an analogy right here, and an argument from it. But you did say that it’s not ‘directly analogous’, whatever that means…

irresponsibilities and high tensions is to courtrooms

as

irresponsibilities and high tensions is to college campuses

A = C, so I would think even more direct than usual. But if you don’t agree, I can switch it easily

irresponsible court room attendies is to courtrooms

as

irresponsible college students is to college campuses

You made an analogy, and an argument from it, in your own words - now what?

262

It was my opinion in the first place that the ABCD type stuff was just a trick in the first place

It’s real meaning was a form of shielding actually. Nothing push would say would ‘work’ unless he played your game first

Once he plays your game, it’s your game. That’s why he didn’t do it. I don’t mind so much, cuz I thought I might be able to beat you at your own game. Still remains to be seen if I will or not, since you can continue adding as many layers as you want - since the game is yours after all

I only play so that I can show you what you play. I don’t think you know. Push probably doesn’t either - in my opinion, he understands subconsciously through instinct. I see it well enough to maybe show you

Or I guess I’ll see, maybe your not running a trick after all - time will tell

263

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again, I can only use my own experience.

Courtrooms are EXTREMELY volatile places. Closed, often times cramped and confined spaces…with not only emotions running high…but people often on edge; within feet of the source of their pain and/or anger; ready to lash out at anybody and everybody.

And this is just with the LAW ABIDING portion of the people. Add to it thugs and criminals about to lose their freedoms, and everything is magnified.

Bringing in a firearm is like bringing in matches to a room with a leaking Propane Tank.

A Courtroom is simply FAR different from “other places”.

Mufasa[/quote]

Exactly: the right to bear arms can be temporarily and circumstantially revoked under certain circumstances. In this case, circumstances involving lots of irresponsible people and high amounts of tension.

And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.

Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons. But it is my honest and somewhat informed opinion that a college dorm is far more like a courtroom with regard to the characteristics in question than many people believe. If I ran a university, I simply would not trust the student body enough to allow them to keep guns in their rooms.[/quote]
Yep

You made an analogy right here, and an argument from it. But you did say that it’s not ‘directly analogous’, whatever that means…

irresponsibilities and high tensions is to courtrooms

as

irresponsibilities and high tensions is to college campuses

A = C, so I would think even more direct than usual. But if you don’t agree, I can switch it easily

irresponsible court room attendies is to courtrooms

as

irresponsible college students is to college campuses

You made an analogy, and an argument from it, in your own words - now what?[/quote]

Pay attention now:

“And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.”

Or, in logical terms, A is B, where A is college and B is entirely voluntary.

And implicitly: C is ~B, where C is court and ~B is not entirely voluntary.

Again:

[b]A is B

C is ~B[/b]

And another:

“Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons,” which means, expressed in more detail as it was in my next post: “a courtroom is volatile in a way that the average college campus on the average Tuesday could never dream of being.”

Or, in logical terms:

C is D, where C is court and D is volatile to some fixed degree.

A is ~D, where A is college and ~D is not volatile to that fixed degree.

Again:

[b]C is D

A is ~D[/b]

SO–are you telling me that I set up an analogy between A and C with the following premises:

[b]A is B and ~D

C is ~B and D[/b]

?

I ask because it is not logically possible to analogize A and C when the only two attributes listed in the making of the analogy are each listed as not common to both A and C.

And of just as much importance–for this to have been an argument from analogy as you’ve explicitly charged, I would have had to identify attributes common in absolute terms to both A and C, college and court, and then I would have fallaciously had to infer that some other unobserved attribute must also be common to both A and C. What observed attributes did I identify as exactly common to A and C, and what unobserved attribute did I then infer must also be common among them? Please produce directly-quoted text in support.

264

[quote]smh23 wrote:

Pay attention now:

“And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.”

Or, in logical terms, A is B, where A is college and B is entirely voluntary.

And implicitly: C is ~B, where C is court and ~B is not entirely voluntary.

Again:

[b]A is B

C is ~B[/b]

And another:

“Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons,” which means, expressed in more detail as it was in my next post: “a courtroom is volatile in a way that the average college campus on the average Tuesday could never dream of being.”

Or, in logical terms:

C is D, where C is court and D is volatile to some fixed degree.

A is ~D, where A is college and ~D is not volatile to that fixed degree.

Again:

[b]C is D

A is ~D[/b]

SO–are you telling me that I set up an analogy between A and C with the following premises:

[b]A is B and ~D

C is ~B and D[/b]

?

I ask because it is not logically possible to analogize A and C when the only two attributes listed in the making of the analogy are each listed as not common to both A and C.

And of just as much importance–for this to have been an argument from analogy as you’ve explicitly charged, I would have had to identify attributes common in absolute terms to both A and C, college and court, and then I would have fallaciously had to infer that some other unobserved attribute must also be common to both A and C. What observed attributes did I identify as exactly common to A and C, and what unobserved attribute did I then infer must also be common among them? Please produce directly-quoted text in support.[/quote]
I don’t even know what this means

can’t play with you at that angle

265

I will make it simpler.

Argument by analogy is a formal process and it works like this:
[b]

  1. Of uncontroversial case A, X is true
  2. Uncontroversial case A is analogous to controversial case B because they share attributes H, L, M, K, and O

Therefore, of controversial case B, X is true.[/b]

Your problem is that I did not make this argument. Instead I made an argument like this:

  1. Uncontroversial case A proves that Push believes in maxim Z
  2. I believe that maxim Z applies to controversial case B

Note here that, while an analogy can be set up by some outside observer between the subject-nouns A and B in my argument, my argument does not hinge on any of the common attributes H, L, M, K, or O, which is the very fundamental nature of argument from analogy. In fact, my argument explicitly notes that attributes H, L, M, K, and O are not common to both A and B–rendering it the very antithesis of argument from analogy.

And there you have it. It is important that you understand the nuances here, particularly the difference between two nouns that can be expressed analogously and an argument from analogy, i.e. an argument which hinges upon an analogy set up between two subjects with common observed attributes and then claims by inference that a further unobserved attribute is also common among them.

If you pay attention to nothing else, please pay attention to this:

An argument by analogy is like this:

[i]1. Fire cooks food.
2. Fire is analogous to taxi cabs because they are both yellow.

Therefore, taxicabs cook food.[/i]

Whereas deduction of a maxim for the purpose of applying that maxim elsewhere–what I’ve done–is like this:

1. Because Push agrees with the jury’s verdict in the Lorena Bobbitt trial, Push necessarily believes that a person should be acquitted of criminal charges so long as that person can prove that s/he felt an irresistible impulse to commit the crime in question and that that impulse was born of temporary insanity.
2. I believe that Carl Lee Hailey of John Grisham’s A Time to Kill felt an insanity-born irresistible impulse to kill his daughter’s rapists and therefore that Push, having already been shown to believe such an impulse to be reason for acquittal, should vote to acquit Carl Lee Hailey of the charge of murder.

Note that, unlike in the fire/taxi argument, Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt do not need to share any outside attributes M, L, or O in order for the argument to work. Whether or not they share the attribute of temporary insanity is the argument’s target, not a means by which it strikes its target–which means that the argument is not one from analogy, regardless of the fact that somebody might be capable of expressing the two subjects of the argument as analogous to each other. Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt may differ in that the former is [Q, W, E, R, T, Y, U, I, O, P, A, S, D, F, G, H, J, K, L, Z, X, C, V, N, and M] while latter is [~Q,~W,~E,~R,~T,~Y,~U, ~I, ~O, ~P, ~A, ~S, ~D, ~F, ~G, ~H, ~J, ~K, ~L, ~Z, ~X, ~C, ~V, ~N, and ~M] AND YET THE ARGUMENT WILL STILL BE PERFECTLY VALID AND SOUND SO LONG AS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT PREMISE 1 IS TRUE AND MY BELIEFS EXPRESSED IN PREMISE 2 ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE.

Which is a long way of saying that once the maxim has been deduced, Lorena Bobbitt is no longer needed.

Which is another way of saying that this is not an argument by analogy.

Which is another way of saying that you’re wrong.

266

I’m still waiting for push to explain why he is perfectly comfortable giving up his second amendment rights…nay…perfectly comfortable for EVERYONE to give up their second amendment rights…when it comes to court houses.

Yet still goes around calling people in this thread who choose not to carry a weapon a “spineless fool”

Seems like his MO is to to latch onto small details and hammer them to death, while refusing to acknowledge his own garbage…

267

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I will make it simpler.

Argument by analogy is a formal process and it works like this: [/quote]This is already as I predicted, just so you know. Most arguments here are not a formal process - but ok, if you insist

[quote]
[b]

  1. Of uncontroversial case A, X is true
  2. Uncontroversial case A is analogous to controversial case B because they share attributes H, L, M, K, and O

Therefore, of controversial case B, X is true.[/b]

Your problem is that I did not make this argument. Instead I made an argument like this:

  1. Uncontroversial case A proves that Push believes in maxim Z
  2. I believe that maxim Z applies to controversial case B
    [/quote]The part I have you quoted does not make mention of Pushes beliefs. It has yours. You stating your beliefs may not constitute an argument if going by rigorous formal process, but that’s not how things work here. You can call that ‘not an argument’ if you want, but I think the goal posts are shifting. The only way I can think of for me to win your game

you’re formal processes and strict logic won’t work on me, ya hear!!!

Alright, calm now

  1. of uncontroversial case A (court room), X = gun control is true
  2. court room A analogous to B = campus because they share attributes H = tension, L = irresponsibily, M = consent, etc. (there may or may not be more)

Therefor, of B, X = gun control is true

Holy smokes - this logic stuff is pretty cool - you did do that, no?

268

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I’m still waiting for push to explain why he is perfectly comfortable giving up his second amendment rights…nay…perfectly comfortable for EVERYONE to give up their second amendment rights…when it comes to court houses.

Yet still goes around calling people in this thread who choose not to carry a weapon a “spineless fool”

Seems like his MO is to to latch onto small details and hammer them to death, while refusing to acknowledge his own garbage…[/quote]
That’s how I feel about smh sometimes, so I can understand

push does it sometimes, but it doesn’t seem to be a major tool of his. Maybe just because I agree with him a lot, so I don’t notice as much. Maybe. Anyways

He has already explained. In a courtroom you can be highly confident that others aren’t packing. And it makes a lot of sense that you don’t want everyone packing under those circumstances

Not so with just any old place. You will rarely find both of those two aligned

I should rephrase that. You might find that second piece always aligned,

269

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

  1. of uncontroversial case A (court room), X = gun control is true
    2. court room A analogous to B = campus because they share attributes H = tension, L = irresponsibily, M = consent, etc. (there may or may not be more)

Therefor, of B, X = gun control is true

Holy smokes - this logic stuff is pretty cool - you did do that, no?[/quote]

No, I did not. And the hinge is at premise 2, which I’ve emboldened. Figure out why on your own because I’ve already explained it ad nauseum. I’ll give you a hint: when I connected the volatility of a courtroom with that of a college campus, how did I express that connection?

Again, and if you don’t get this then this discussion is over because I’m not going to teach you logic for free over the internet:

[quote]“And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.”

Or, in logical terms, A is B, where A is college and B is entirely voluntary.

And implicitly: C is ~B, where C is court and ~B is not entirely voluntary.

Again:

[b]A is B

C is ~B[/b]

And another:

“Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons,” which means, expressed in more detail as it was in my next post: “a courtroom is volatile in a way that the average college campus on the average Tuesday could never dream of being.”

Or, in logical terms:

C is D, where C is court and D is volatile to some fixed degree.

A is ~D, where A is college and ~D is not volatile to that fixed degree.

Again:

[b]C is D

A is ~D[/b]

SO–are you telling me that I set up an analogy between A and C with the following premises:

[b]A is B and ~D

C is ~B and D[/b]

?

I ask because it is not logically possible to analogize A and C when the only two attributes listed in the making of the analogy are each listed as not common to both A and C.[/quote]

As for the shuffling and equivocating you’re doing with the “aw shucks, you gon’ toss that formal jibber-jabber my way and I ain’t gon’ be able to fight fair,” I really don’t give a damn whether or not you feel it fair to examine the logical structure of an argument which has been accused of being logically specious, because I certainly do.

270

I do not know what ‘logically specious’ exactly means, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what I was accusing

271

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I’m still waiting for push to explain why he is perfectly comfortable giving up his second amendment rights…nay…perfectly comfortable for EVERYONE to give up their second amendment rights…when it comes to court houses.

Yet still goes around calling people in this thread who choose not to carry a weapon a “spineless fool”

Seems like his MO is to to latch onto small details and hammer them to death, while refusing to acknowledge his own garbage…[/quote]
That’s how I feel about smh sometimes, so I can understand
[/quote]

First of all, this logic business has come up because of an accusation tossed my way. It has nothing to do with my argument in this thread, which has been expressed very clearly and very simply. If that’s what concerns you, look, for example, to the point about Pfizer/First Amendment rights in a classroom/my exchange with JJACKKRASH and the discussion re: the Eleventh Amendment.

And more broadly: I don’t know where you’re coming from with this, but as far as I can remember, our only other exchange involved me lambasting a September 11/Sandy Hook “truther” and you feebly trying to defend him for a few posts before giving up.

272

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

I’m sure you’ve got an entire rack full of ways to make arguments informally, while then claiming that you aren’t

Then when called on that you are - you show that it wasn’t formal
[/quote]

Yep, exactly what I thought:

You come in, level an accusation, are proved to be wrong, and then begin slinking away with “aw shucks, you’re just so full of guile, I betcha got so many ways of doing this, it’s just so darn unfair with your “formal” and “informal” talk.”

Let’s make it a hell of a lot easier:

You say I was arguing from analogy.

What exactly is an argument from analogy, and what preconditions must be met in order for an argument to qualify as “from analogy”?

Since you’ve accused me of argument from analogy, you should really be able to answer this correctly and instantly.

273

[quote]smh23 wrote:
“And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.”

Or, in logical terms, A is B, where A is college and B is entirely voluntary.

And implicitly: C is ~B, where C is court and ~B is not entirely voluntary.

Again:

[b]A is B

C is ~B[/b]

And another:

“Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons,” which means, expressed in more detail as it was in my next post: “a courtroom is volatile in a way that the average college campus on the average Tuesday could never dream of being.”

Or, in logical terms:

C is D, where C is court and D is volatile to some fixed degree.

A is ~D, where A is college and ~D is not volatile to that fixed degree.

Again:

[b]C is D

A is ~D[/b]

SO–are you telling me that I set up an analogy between A and C with the following premises:

[b]A is B and ~D

C is ~B and D[/b]

?

I ask because it is not logically possible to analogize A and C when the only two attributes listed in the making of the analogy are each listed as not common to both A and C.[/quote]

[quote]Deduction of a maxim for the purpose of applying that maxim elsewhere–what I’ve done–is like this:

1. Because Push agrees with the jury’s verdict in the Lorena Bobbitt trial, Push necessarily believes that a person should be acquitted of criminal charges so long as that person can prove that s/he felt an irresistible impulse to commit the crime in question and that that impulse was born of temporary insanity.
2. I believe that Carl Lee Hailey of John Grisham’s A Time to Kill felt an insanity-born irresistible impulse to kill his daughter’s rapists and therefore that Push, having already been shown to believe such an impulse to be reason for acquittal, should vote to acquit Carl Lee Hailey of the charge of murder.

Note that, unlike in the fire/taxi argument, Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt do not need to share any outside attributes M, L, or O in order for the argument to work. Whether or not they share the attribute of temporary insanity is the argument’s target, not a means by which it strikes its target–which means that the argument is not one from analogy, regardless of the fact that somebody might be capable of expressing the two subjects of the argument as analogous to each other. Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt may differ in that the former is [Q, W, E, R, T, Y, U, I, O, P, A, S, D, F, G, H, J, K, L, Z, X, C, V, N, and M] while latter is [~Q,~W,~E,~R,~T,~Y,~U, ~I, ~O, ~P, ~A, ~S, ~D, ~F, ~G, ~H, ~J, ~K, ~L, ~Z, ~X, ~C, ~V, ~N, and ~M] AND YET THE ARGUMENT WILL STILL BE PERFECTLY VALID AND SOUND SO LONG AS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT PREMISE 1 IS TRUE AND MY BELIEFS EXPRESSED IN PREMISE 2 ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE.[/quote]

Also, respond substantively to these (i.e., prove that something I’ve asserted is not so) if you’d like this discussion to continue, because until you do, there is no point. Pay particular attention to “[b]Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt may differ in that the former is [Q, W, E, R, T, Y, U, I, O, P, A, S, D, F, G, H, J, K, L, Z, X, C, V, N, and M] while latter is [~Q,~W,~E,~R,~T,~Y,~U, ~I, ~O, ~P, ~A, ~S, ~D, ~F, ~G, ~H, ~J, ~K, ~L, ~Z, ~X, ~C, ~V, ~N, and ~M],” and think hard about how that fits into the substance of my argument.

274

you made an analogy between courtroom and campuses

Then drew conclusions towards campuses

It’s that simple to me

(you did not explicitly state ___ is to ___ as ___ is to ____ but drawing a list of similarities is same enough)

(you did draw conclusions from that towards college campuses, but it might be fair to say it was already your opinion, so your reasoning didn’t really matter to you. You understood it might matter to others - a form of argument. Are you saying that what I quoted is not an analogy? Not an argument? Or just that they are not perfectly tied together according to strict formal requirements?)

275

[quote]squating_bear wrote:
you made an analogy between courtroom and campuses

Then drew conclusions towards campuses

It’s that simple to me

(you did not explicitly state ___ is to ___ as ___ is to ____ but drawing a list of similarities is same enough)

(you did draw conclusions from that towards college campuses, but it might be fair to say it was already your opinion, so your reasoning didn’t really matter to you. You understood it might matter to others - a form of argument. Are you saying that what I quoted is not an analogy? Not an argument? Or just that they are not perfectly tied together according to strict formal requirements?)[/quote]

I am saying that not only did I not make an argument from analogy as you’ve charged, but that you don’t actually even know what it means to make an argument from analogy.

276

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
“And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.”

Or, in logical terms, A is B, where A is college and B is entirely voluntary.

And implicitly: C is ~B, where C is court and ~B is not entirely voluntary.

Again:

[b]A is B

C is ~B[/b]

And another:

“Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons,” which means, expressed in more detail as it was in my next post: “a courtroom is volatile in a way that the average college campus on the average Tuesday could never dream of being.”

Or, in logical terms:

C is D, where C is court and D is volatile to some fixed degree.

A is ~D, where A is college and ~D is not volatile to that fixed degree.

Again:

[b]C is D

A is ~D[/b]

SO–are you telling me that I set up an analogy between A and C with the following premises:

[b]A is B and ~D

C is ~B and D[/b]

?

I ask because it is not logically possible to analogize A and C when the only two attributes listed in the making of the analogy are each listed as not common to both A and C.[/quote]

[quote]Deduction of a maxim for the purpose of applying that maxim elsewhere–what I’ve done–is like this:

1. Because Push agrees with the jury’s verdict in the Lorena Bobbitt trial, Push necessarily believes that a person should be acquitted of criminal charges so long as that person can prove that s/he felt an irresistible impulse to commit the crime in question and that that impulse was born of temporary insanity.
2. I believe that Carl Lee Hailey of John Grisham’s A Time to Kill felt an insanity-born irresistible impulse to kill his daughter’s rapists and therefore that Push, having already been shown to believe such an impulse to be reason for acquittal, should vote to acquit Carl Lee Hailey of the charge of murder.

Note that, unlike in the fire/taxi argument, Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt do not need to share any outside attributes M, L, or O in order for the argument to work. Whether or not they share the attribute of temporary insanity is the argument’s target, not a means by which it strikes its target–which means that the argument is not one from analogy, regardless of the fact that somebody might be capable of expressing the two subjects of the argument as analogous to each other. Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt may differ in that the former is [Q, W, E, R, T, Y, U, I, O, P, A, S, D, F, G, H, J, K, L, Z, X, C, V, N, and M] while latter is [~Q,~W,~E,~R,~T,~Y,~U, ~I, ~O, ~P, ~A, ~S, ~D, ~F, ~G, ~H, ~J, ~K, ~L, ~Z, ~X, ~C, ~V, ~N, and ~M] AND YET THE ARGUMENT WILL STILL BE PERFECTLY VALID AND SOUND SO LONG AS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT PREMISE 1 IS TRUE AND MY BELIEFS EXPRESSED IN PREMISE 2 ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE.[/quote]

Also, respond substantively to these (i.e., prove that something I’ve asserted is not so) if you’d like this discussion to continue, because until you do, there is no point. Pay particular attention to “[b]Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt may differ in that the former is [Q, W, E, R, T, Y, U, I, O, P, A, S, D, F, G, H, J, K, L, Z, X, C, V, N, and M] while latter is [~Q,~W,~E,~R,~T,~Y,~U, ~I, ~O, ~P, ~A, ~S, ~D, ~F, ~G, ~H, ~J, ~K, ~L, ~Z, ~X, ~C, ~V, ~N, and ~M],” and think hard about how that fits into the substance of my argument.[/quote][/b]
haha - I don’t even understand it

it’s ok, we can end it. But Im not slinking away

We could continue a different way if you’re willing - what is the meaning of this?

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Again, I can only use my own experience.

Courtrooms are EXTREMELY volatile places. Closed, often times cramped and confined spaces…with not only emotions running high…but people often on edge; within feet of the source of their pain and/or anger; ready to lash out at anybody and everybody.

And this is just with the LAW ABIDING portion of the people. Add to it thugs and criminals about to lose their freedoms, and everything is magnified.

Bringing in a firearm is like bringing in matches to a room with a leaking Propane Tank.

A Courtroom is simply FAR different from “other places”.

Mufasa[/quote]

Exactly: the right to bear arms can be temporarily and circumstantially revoked under certain circumstances. In this case, circumstances involving lots of irresponsible people and high amounts of tension.

And particularly so, I believe, where affiliation with an institution is entirely voluntary.

Now, I don’t believe that a courtroom and a college campus are directly analogous here, for obvious reasons. But it is my honest and somewhat informed opinion that a college dorm is far more like a courtroom with regard to the characteristics in question than many people believe. If I ran a university, I simply would not trust the student body enough to allow them to keep guns in their rooms.[/quote]
I did consider it to be an informal (covert actually) method of arguing by analogy

277

[quote]1. Because Push agrees with the jury’s verdict in the Lorena Bobbitt trial, Push necessarily believes that a person should be acquitted of criminal charges so long as that person can prove that s/he felt an irresistible impulse to commit the crime in question and that that impulse was born of temporary insanity.
2. I believe that Carl Lee Hailey of John Grisham’s A Time to Kill felt an insanity-born irresistible impulse to kill his daughter’s rapists and therefore that Push, having already been shown to believe such an impulse to be reason for acquittal, should vote to acquit Carl Lee Hailey of the charge of murder.

Note that, unlike in the fire/taxi argument, Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt do not need to share any outside attributes M, L, or O in order for the argument to work. Whether or not they share the attribute of temporary insanity is the argument’s target, not a means by which it strikes its target–which means that the argument is not one from analogy, regardless of the fact that somebody might be capable of expressing the two subjects of the argument as analogous to each other. Carl Lee Hailey and Lorena Bobbitt may differ in that the former is [Q, W, E, R, T, Y, U, I, O, P, A, S, D, F, G, H, J, K, L, Z, X, C, V, N, and M] while latter is [~Q,~W,~E,~R,~T,~Y,~U, ~I, ~O, ~P, ~A, ~S, ~D, ~F, ~G, ~H, ~J, ~K, ~L, ~Z, ~X, ~C, ~V, ~N, and ~M] AND YET THE ARGUMENT WILL STILL BE PERFECTLY VALID AND SOUND SO LONG AS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT PREMISE 1 IS TRUE AND MY BELIEFS EXPRESSED IN PREMISE 2 ARE JUSTIFIED BY THE EVIDENCE.[/quote]

An analogy can be drawn between Hailey and Bobbitt, but that is entirely unremarkable in light of the fact that an analogy can also be drawn between the sun and a pair or swimming goggles, or Jack London and a turtle shell, or Adolf Hitler and Barack Obama, or justice and knee-high socks. The salient fact is that the argument does not depend upon Hailey and Bobbitt being like or not alike in any infinite number of attributes, and that it is therefore not an argument from analogy.

This has been fun, but I have real things to do. If you take the time to learn about analogy and particularly fallacious arguments from analogy, it will do you good.

278

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

I did consider it to be an informal (covert actually) method of arguing by analogy[/quote]

There is no such thing as an “informal” argument from analogy. Something is either an argument from analogy, or it is not. And this is not.

279

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

I did consider it to be an informal (covert actually) method of arguing by analogy[/quote]

There is no such thing as an “informal” argument from analogy. Something is either an argument from analogy, or it is not. And this is not.[/quote]
You’re not really in a position to tell me what does not exist. I’ve seen it

I’ve also shown it - haha

Have a nice day then

280

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I’m still waiting for push to explain why he is perfectly comfortable giving up his second amendment rights…nay…perfectly comfortable for EVERYONE to give up their second amendment rights…when it comes to court houses.

Yet still goes around calling people in this thread who choose not to carry a weapon a “spineless fool”

Seems like his MO is to to latch onto small details and hammer them to death, while refusing to acknowledge his own garbage…[/quote]
That’s how I feel about smh sometimes, so I can understand
[/quote]

First of all, this logic business has come up because of an accusation tossed my way. It has nothing to do with my argument in this thread, which has been expressed very clearly and very simply. If that’s what concerns you, look, for example, to the point about Pfizer/First Amendment rights in a classroom/my exchange with JJACKKRASH and the discussion re: the Eleventh Amendment.

And more broadly: I don’t know where you’re coming from with this, but as far as I can remember, our only other exchange involved me lambasting a September 11/Sandy Hook “truther” and you feebly trying to defend him for a few posts before giving up.[/quote]
It wasn’t to defend him actually

Nor am I mad at you

There have been other instances, but they are all past. Most of them were just from me reading - not posting

You’re a slippery guy as am I. Slippery enough to give the illusion of proving a thing which you actually didn’t. I think you might recognize it when I say it, but haven’t fully thought that through yet.