The US 2nd Amendment.....

[edteach]

A one word rebuttal is an easy cop-out and just as easily dismissed. I have dismissed it.

You shouldn't dismiss the "Straw Man Fallacy" so readily.
Since becoming familiar with this argument style fallacy, I see it used nearly every day, especially in web forums and in politics.

I do not dismiss the idea of straw-man arguments. Along with loaded question band wagon and appeal to authority. It just does not fit in this case. Just today Muslims blew up and killed over 50 in Turkey. Islam IMO has two types of people those who strap on the suicide vest and those who say they do not support it but quietly are going yippity yaa haa when they see it done. I have no use for Islam or Muslims. I am not Islamaphobic I just don't trust nor like them. They can stay in their own country's and kill each other whole sale for all I care. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N57C...ature=youtu.be

[duckmcf]

....Just today Muslims blew up and killed over 50 in Turkey. Islam IMO has two types of people those who strap on the suicide vest and those who say they do not support it but quietly are going yippity yaa haa when they see it done.

Wow, you're on fire with the logical fallacies.

You moved seamlessly from the Straw Man into a Texas Sharpshooter and then nailed the hatrick with a False Dichotomy.

I'm seriously begining to think that you're actually a False Dichotomy lecturer or post grad who's fishing for material for a Ph.D.

[HughC]

I have no use for Islam or Muslims. I am not Islamaphobic I just don't trust nor like them. They can stay in their own country's and kill each other whole sale for all I care.

Errrrrrrrrrr.........do you understand what you said?

Now lets do some simple equations.....there are an estimated 1.6 billion ( or 22% of global population) Muslims....lets pick a figure from the "air" for "Muslim terrorist attacks" and say 1million a year ...so 1,000,000/1,600,000,000 multiplied by 100 gives a % of 0.0625%, now deduct that from 100 and you get 99.9375% of Muslims that aren't involved.

Really even at the ludicrous figure of 1m the result speaks for itself.

[edteach]

I have no use for Islam or Muslims. I am not Islamaphobic I just don't trust nor like them. They can stay in their own country's and kill each other whole sale for all I care.

Errrrrrrrrrr.........do you understand what you said?

Now lets do some simple equations.....there are an estimated 1.6 billion ( or 22% of global population) Muslims....lets pick a figure from the "air" for "Muslim terrorist attacks" and say 1million a year ...so 1,000,000/1,600,000,000 multiplied by 100 gives a % of 0.0625%, now deduct that from 100 and you get 99.9375% of Muslims that aren't involved.

Really even at the ludicrous figure of 1m the result speaks for itself.

15 to 20 percent conservative estimates is the percent of Muslims who are radical. So 320 million Muslims are radical terrorists. That is 320,000,000 blow themselves up and kill everyone. If you don't count those Muslims who are packing the bomb vests and only the ones who actually blow them-self up you have no idea what your talking about. The actual ones who carry out the terror attacks are the tip of the ice berg, which is only 10 percent 90 percent is under the water and can not readily seen. Sorry charlie your just wrong. According to your reasoning Charlie Manson should not be in jail, he did not actually kill anyone.

[jar]

I have no use for Islam or Muslims. I am not Islamaphobic I just don't trust nor like them. They can stay in their own country's and kill each other whole sale for all I care.

Errrrrrrrrrr.........do you understand what you said?

Now lets do some simple equations.....there are an estimated 1.6 billion ( or 22% of global population) Muslims....lets pick a figure from the "air" for "Muslim terrorist attacks" and say 1million a year ...so 1,000,000/1,600,000,000 multiplied by 100 gives a % of 0.0625%, now deduct that from 100 and you get 99.9375% of Muslims that aren't involved.

Really even at the ludicrous figure of 1m the result speaks for itself.

15 to 20 percent conservative estimates is the percent of Muslims who are radical. So 320 million Muslims are radical terrorists. That is 320,000,000 blow themselves up and kill everyone. If you don't count those Muslims who are packing the bomb vests and only the ones who actually blow them-self up you have no idea what your talking about. The actual ones who carry out the terror attacks are the tip of the ice berg, which is only 10 percent 90 percent is under the water and can not readily seen. Sorry charlie your just wrong. According to your reasoning Charlie Manson should not be in jail, he did not actually kill anyone.

Well thanks to God and our Constitution in the US we cannot refuse to grant a Visa or Passport or equal rights or citizenship or a job based on someone being a Muslim and even someone as utterly ignorant as il Donald can't change that.

[edteach]

I have no use for Islam or Muslims. I am not Islamaphobic I just don't trust nor like them. They can stay in their own country's and kill each other whole sale for all I care.

Errrrrrrrrrr.........do you understand what you said?

Now lets do some simple equations.....there are an estimated 1.6 billion ( or 22% of global population) Muslims....lets pick a figure from the "air" for "Muslim terrorist attacks" and say 1million a year ...so 1,000,000/1,600,000,000 multiplied by 100 gives a % of 0.0625%, now deduct that from 100 and you get 99.9375% of Muslims that aren't involved.

Really even at the ludicrous figure of 1m the result speaks for itself.

15 to 20 percent conservative estimates is the percent of Muslims who are radical. So 320 million Muslims are radical terrorists. That is 320,000,000 blow themselves up and kill everyone. If you don't count those Muslims who are packing the bomb vests and only the ones who actually blow them-self up you have no idea what your talking about. The actual ones who carry out the terror attacks are the tip of the ice berg, which is only 10 percent 90 percent is under the water and can not readily seen. Sorry charlie your just wrong. According to your reasoning Charlie Manson should not be in jail, he did not actually kill anyone.

Well thanks to God and our Constitution in the US we cannot refuse to grant a Visa or Passport or equal rights or citizenship or a job based on someone being a Muslim and even someone as utterly ignorant as il Donald can't change that.

You sir know nothing of US history. The Japanese inturnment during the war is one example. It was a very sensible thing to do. Being a Monday morning quarter back and ignorant of history does not impress me. The Japanese were very devoted to the homeland and did not assimilate well much as today's Muslims. There were instances of them spying and attempting to engage in sabotage of the American war production. At a time when we were anything but assured of winning the war it could not be risked to take the chance. Libtards will say we have to love everyone and it will make it all good. This is the most stupid thing these aging hippie idiots could do. In the 1800s the Chinese were denied immigration do to them over running the country. Abraham Lincoln denied Habeas corpus during the Civil war. I suggest you read a bit of US history.

[duckmcf]

According to your reasoning Charlie Manson should not be in jail, he did not actually kill anyone.

...followed up with a Straw Man kicker....



As John McEnroe so eloquently put it, "You cannot be serious".

[jar]

I have no use for Islam or Muslims. I am not Islamaphobic I just don't trust nor like them. They can stay in their own country's and kill each other whole sale for all I care.

Errrrrrrrrrr.........do you understand what you said?

Now lets do some simple equations.....there are an estimated 1.6 billion ( or 22% of global population) Muslims....lets pick a figure from the "air" for "Muslim terrorist attacks" and say 1million a year ...so 1,000,000/1,600,000,000 multiplied by 100 gives a % of 0.0625%, now deduct that from 100 and you get 99.9375% of Muslims that aren't involved.

Really even at the ludicrous figure of 1m the result speaks for itself.

15 to 20 percent conservative estimates is the percent of Muslims who are radical. So 320 million Muslims are radical terrorists. That is 320,000,000 blow themselves up and kill everyone. If you don't count those Muslims who are packing the bomb vests and only the ones who actually blow them-self up you have no idea what your talking about. The actual ones who carry out the terror attacks are the tip of the ice berg, which is only 10 percent 90 percent is under the water and can not readily seen. Sorry charlie your just wrong. According to your reasoning Charlie Manson should not be in jail, he did not actually kill anyone.

Well thanks to God and our Constitution in the US we cannot refuse to grant a Visa or Passport or equal rights or citizenship or a job based on someone being a Muslim and even someone as utterly ignorant as il Donald can't change that.

You sir know nothing of US history. The Japanese inturnment during the war is one example. It was a very sensible thing to do. Being a Monday morning quarter back and ignorant of history does not impress me. The Japanese were very devoted to the homeland and did not assimilate well much as today's Muslims. There were instances of them spying and attempting to engage in sabotage of the American war production. At a time when we were anything but assured of winning the war it could not be risked to take the chance. Libtards will say we have to love everyone and it will make it all good. This is the most stupid thing these aging hippie idiots could do. In the 1800s the Chinese were denied immigration do to them over running the country. Abraham Lincoln denied Habeas corpus during the Civil war. I suggest you read a bit of US history.

And that action was found to be unconstitutional.

Of course Presidents have flouted US laws and our Constitution but I hope we are certainly more educated than we were in the 1940s.

The US has often been the power that commits genocide but that does not make it right.

There is no evidence though that Muslims pose any bigger threat than any other group.

[dneal]

A one word rebuttal is an easy cop-out and just as easily dismissed. I have dismissed it.

You shouldn't dismiss the "Straw Man Fallacy" so readily.
Since becoming familiar with this argument style fallacy, I see it used nearly every day, especially in web forums and in politics.

True, as are erroneous claims of "straw man". A straw man takes an argument, misrepresents it and then attacks the misrepresentation.

The "We are not talking history..." post does not commit the straw man fallacy.

If you diagram it, it comes out to:

- If you said that comment about slavery/crusades is history, then I would agree it has little to do with today. (conditional statement)
- Islam is violent and warmongering today. (assertion)
- Your comment is moot (assertion)
- Like Obama saying christians... stupid comment... trying to obfuscate... (analogy, assertion approaching a minor ad-hominiem, and assertion)

There is simply disagreement with the preceding assertion. The assertions require proof, the analogy is poor, an ad-hominiem would be a fallacy - but there is no straw man present.

[dneal]

....Just today Muslims blew up and killed over 50 in Turkey. Islam IMO has two types of people those who strap on the suicide vest and those who say they do not support it but quietly are going yippity yaa haa when they see it done.

Wow, you're on fire with the logical fallacies.

You moved seamlessly from the Straw Man into a Texas Sharpshooter and then nailed the hatrick with a False Dichotomy.

I'm seriously begining to think that you're actually a False Dichotomy lecturer or post grad who's fishing for material for a Ph.D.

A false dichotomy is based on a disjunction, not a conjunction, because it requires a choice from the use of "or" (it's a truth-table issue). The "Islam has two types..." statement is an assertion. If it were in an "or" form then it could be a false dichotomy.

[duckmcf]

A false dichotomy is based on a disjunction, not a conjunction, because it requires a choice from the use of "or" (it's a truth-table issue). The "Islam has two types..." statement is an assertion. If it were in an "or" form then it could be a false dichotomy.

Oh of course. Damn it, I knew that. I really shouldn't drink and post.

[dneal]

A false dichotomy is based on a disjunction, not a conjunction, because it requires a choice from the use of "or" (it's a truth-table issue). The "Islam has two types..." statement is an assertion. If it were in an "or" form then it could be a false dichotomy.

Oh of course. Damn it, I knew that. I really shouldn't drink and post.

No worries. I agree with jar that "internet arguments" are chocked full of logical fallacies. My pet peeve (because my bachelors is in philosophy with a focus on sentential logic) is that the internet is also chocked full of people crying "fallacy", usually labeling with "straw man" or "red herring".

Although I often see claims otherwise, the U.S. school system doesn't teach critical thinking or principles of reasoning. It shows in our media and is propagated in our culture.

[myu]

A one word rebuttal is an easy cop-out and just as easily dismissed. I have dismissed it.

You shouldn't dismiss the "Straw Man Fallacy" so readily.
Since becoming familiar with this argument style fallacy, I see it used nearly every day, especially in web forums and in politics.

I do not dismiss the idea of straw-man arguments. Along with loaded question band wagon and appeal to authority. It just does not fit in this case. Just today Muslims blew up and killed over 50 in Turkey. Islam IMO has two types of people those who strap on the suicide vest and those who say they do not support it but quietly are going yippity yaa haa when they see it done. I have no use for Islam or Muslims. I am not Islamaphobic I just don't trust nor like them. They can stay in their own country's and kill each other whole sale for all I care. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N57C...ature=youtu.be

You've just put yourself into the irrational box. You're saying every single Muslim is either a suicide bomber radical or someone who is happy when suicide bombers blow up other people. You're completely forgetting the numbers at hand... the population statistics. How many Muslims there are in the world. If your claim was true, there would be millions of people dying every year from radical militants of Islamic based belief systems.

15 to 20 percent conservative estimates is the percent of Muslims who are radical. So 320 million Muslims are radical terrorists. That is 320,000,000 blow themselves up and kill everyone. If you don't count those Muslims who are packing the bomb vests and only the ones who actually blow them-self up you have no idea what your talking about. The actual ones who carry out the terror attacks are the tip of the ice berg, which is only 10 percent 90 percent is under the water and can not readily seen. Sorry charlie your just wrong. According to your reasoning Charlie Manson should not be in jail, he did not actually kill anyone.

Where do you think that "320 million Muslims are radical terrorists" comes from? Alex Jones and other hate-speak right wingers who make shit up. There is no poll that can be done. It's all about basic provable numbers. Intelligence gathering produces estimates from monitoring populations and it's nowhere near that large. All you need to do is look at the population size and the number of people who die from terrorist attacks. The numbers are so small, much smaller than the number of people who die in airliner accidents.

When you make statements like this, it's just screams "Islamaphobic." In that very sentence you said "I just don't trust nor like them". That's a phobia!

You're just one person. But what really bothers me is that there are probably a few million people who are believing this way. That have bought into all the fear mongering, all due to a very small percentage of people who have committed terrorist acts.

The Quran is unfortunately riddled with passages condoning violence. Some of it is in a historical context, some of it is not. A vast majority of Muslims have reformed their belief system and don't abide by those ways. Just like many Christians are not strict followers of the Bible, even accepting the idea of homosexuals having equal rights... when the Bible blatantly condemns homosexuality. While you don't see hard liner Christians executing homosexuals, they certainly do discriminate against them. And unfortunately for Islam, there are desperate people who interpret the Quran literally, even taking passages out of context to justify a jihad. They are terrorists.

So this structure of the Quran presents serious problems, because it makes it difficult to easily identify those who are peaceful and those who are not. It takes vigilance. Muslims are here to stay for the long haul. You are NOT going to be able to force them out of Western countries. But for those majority who are peaceful people, we need their cooperation to be vigilant. And we won't get their cooperation if people like YOU go around with your hate speech saying they're all out to subjugate Western society, by any means necessary -- including violence.

[HughC]

The "We are not talking history..." post does not commit the straw man fallacy.

I disagree.

This post

Hardly unusual in human history, more the norm than anything else.

doesn't disagree with the original post. Just notes similar human actions have occurred.

This post

We are not talking history. If you said that comment about slavery in the US, or the crusades I would agree, its history and has little to do with today. Islam is violent and warmongering today, not yesterday or last year but today this hour this very second. So your comment is moot to the point. It is like Obummer saying that Christians did this or that in the conquest for the holy lands, it was a stupid comment by a president who knows better and is trying to obfuscate the argument.

attempts to refute a position that the original post made about the posters historic views and which I don't dispute. I advance no argument , refuting a non existent argument is a strawman.

[dneal]

I disagree.

This post

Hardly unusual in human history, more the norm than anything else.

doesn't disagree with the original post. Just notes similar human actions have occurred.

I didn't say your "Hardly in human history..." post disagreed with anything. I said edteach's response simply disagreed with that. His disagreement was not with the fact of your post, but the context within the conversation. He may be right or wrong in the assertion that "we're not talking history", but that's not a straw man.

This post

We are not talking history. If you said that comment about slavery in the US, or the crusades I would agree, its history and has little to do with today. Islam is violent and warmongering today, not yesterday or last year but today this hour this very second. So your comment is moot to the point. It is like Obummer saying that Christians did this or that in the conquest for the holy lands, it was a stupid comment by a president who knows better and is trying to obfuscate the argument.

attempts to refute a position that the original post made about the posters historic views and which I don't dispute. I advance no argument , refuting a non existent argument is a strawman.

Like I said earlier, lots of folks on the internet throw out "straw man" erroneously. You have to set the straw man up before you can knock it down. He does not do that, although you're free to illustrate where or how he does.

What you claim as refuting a non existing argument I don't see as the case. If he is pre-empting an argument he predicts might be made, that's not a straw man either. Your "hardly unusual..." remark is potentially a red herring, which he identifies and attacks with the "your comment is moot..." and "like Obummer saying..." portions of his post - in other words, he is asserting that you are trying to obfuscate the argument (committing a red herring). Again, he may be right or wrong, but he doesn't create a straw man.

[dneal]

You've just put yourself into the irrational box. You're saying every single Muslim is either a suicide bomber radical or someone who is happy when suicide bombers blow up other people. You're completely forgetting the numbers at hand... the population statistics. How many Muslims there are in the world. If your claim was true, there would be millions of people dying every year from radical militants of Islamic based belief systems.

Now this is a straw man. edteach's post is rephrased by changing the conjunction to a disjunction (which creates the possible false dichotomy and sets up the straw man), and then attacked. I agree that "There are two types of muslims..." is an incomplete list, and therefore erroneous; but that is what needs addressed. It's disproven the same way a false dichotomy is disproven. Simply introduce a third type, like any muslim in Turkey who lost a friend or family member in the recent Istanbul bombing.

[MTurbo]

I'll keep mine! Thank you very much!


Australia Warns America: Don't Let Them Take Your Guns!
Government officials and citizens in Australia speak out to warn America "Don't Let Them Take Your Guns!" According to reports when the Gun Ban went into effect in Australia the crime rate spiraled out of control. The police officers are overwhelmed and are unable to protect the citizens due to so much crime.

When the forced gun ban (buy back program) went into effect law abiding citizens had to turn in their semi automatic firearms, pump action rifles, and shotguns or face going to jail. Six hundred forty thousand conventional firearms were taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens, confiscated and destroyed. Law abiding citizens followed the law and turned in their weapons. Citizens were promised safety in return for turning in their guns. Does any of this sound familiar, like UN Gun Treaty perhaps?

Since the gun ban in Australia, armed robberies are up 69%, assaults with guns up 28%, gun murders increased 19%, and home invasions jumped 21%. More proof that not only does gun control not work, it makes it safer for the criminals at large.

http://freedomoutpost.com/australia-warns-america-don/

[Scrawler]

You've just put yourself into the irrational box. You're saying every single Muslim is either a suicide bomber radical or someone who is happy when suicide bombers blow up other people. You're completely forgetting the numbers at hand... the population statistics. How many Muslims there are in the world. If your claim was true, there would be millions of people dying every year from radical militants of Islamic based belief systems.

Now this is a straw man. edteach's post is rephrased by changing the conjunction to a disjunction (which creates the possible false dichotomy and sets up the straw man), and then attacked. I agree that "There are two types of muslims..." is an incomplete list, and therefore erroneous; but that is what needs addressed. It's disproven the same way a false dichotomy is disproven. Simply introduce a third type, like any muslim in Turkey who lost a friend or family member in the recent Istanbul bombing.

It is rather curious how this thread has deteriorated into the usual ignorance on both sides of the Islam issue. The best way to understand Islam is to go and live in an Islamic society, rather than listen to the antagonists and appeasers. Go see what kind of societies Islam creates. The truth of something is in what it does, not in what it says about itself. I have lived in a couple and my wife is from an Islamic country. It is quite wrong to say, as was stated above, that there are two types of Muslim. There are actually 73 different sects, derived broadly from two major divisions. All of the trouble, murders and mayhem that you are seeing is from one sect and its subdivisions only. Confusion about what Islam is, comes largely from the apparent dichotomy between the manifest violence of one group of sects and the peaceful, friendly ways of members of other sects. Indeed the more violent sects claim the others are "apostate" and victimize them too. Thus leading to the confusion caused when it appears that Muslims kill other Muslims, despite the teachings. I am going shortly to have coffee with a lady who identifies as a Muslim. She is a kind, thoughtful and generous person. If you were to judge Islam by her and her ethnic group, you might form a good opinion of Muslims in general. If on the other hand you have only been exposed to one of the strict observance sects, you would likely form a different opinion. In the same way many people identify as Christian but are very different. There is almost no relationship, beyond the name of the principal, between say a nominal Anglican and a foaming at the mouth American Evangelist. Many Muslims are victims of Islam and would quite happily just be another person, just like you or me, but for the non-acceptance that forces them into communities, where the strictures of the religion can be enforced on them by the more recent wave of migrants. There are many who identify as Muslim, but are not accepted as "real Muslims" by others, but cannot drop the label.

[HughC]

I'll keep mine! Thank you very much!


Australia Warns America: Don't Let Them Take Your Guns!
Government officials and citizens in Australia speak out to warn America "Don't Let Them Take Your Guns!" According to reports when the Gun Ban went into effect in Australia the crime rate spiraled out of control. The police officers are overwhelmed and are unable to protect the citizens due to so much crime.

When the forced gun ban (buy back program) went into effect law abiding citizens had to turn in their semi automatic firearms, pump action rifles, and shotguns or face going to jail. Six hundred forty thousand conventional firearms were taken out of the hands of law abiding citizens, confiscated and destroyed. Law abiding citizens followed the law and turned in their weapons. Citizens were promised safety in return for turning in their guns. Does any of this sound familiar, like UN Gun Treaty perhaps?

Since the gun ban in Australia, armed robberies are up 69%, assaults with guns up 28%, gun murders increased 19%, and home invasions jumped 21%. More proof that not only does gun control not work, it makes it safer for the criminals at large.

http://freedomoutpost.com/australia-warns-america-don/

Wrong.

[MTurbo]

You've just put yourself into the irrational box. You're saying every single Muslim is either a suicide bomber radical or someone who is happy when suicide bombers blow up other people. You're completely forgetting the numbers at hand... the population statistics. How many Muslims there are in the world. If your claim was true, there would be millions of people dying every year from radical militants of Islamic based belief systems.

Now this is a straw man. edteach's post is rephrased by changing the conjunction to a disjunction (which creates the possible false dichotomy and sets up the straw man), and then attacked. I agree that "There are two types of muslims..." is an incomplete list, and therefore erroneous; but that is what needs addressed. It's disproven the same way a false dichotomy is disproven. Simply introduce a third type, like any muslim in Turkey who lost a friend or family member in the recent Istanbul bombing.

It is rather curious how this thread has deteriorated into the usual ignorance on both sides of the Islam issue. The best way to understand Islam is to go and live in an Islamic society, rather than listen to the antagonists and appeasers. Go see what kind of societies Islam creates. The truth of something is in what it does, not in what it says about itself. I have lived in a couple and my wife is from an Islamic country. It is quite wrong to say, as was stated above, that there are two types of Muslim. There are actually 73 different sects, derived broadly from two major divisions. All of the trouble, murders and mayhem that you are seeing is from one sect and its subdivisions only. Confusion about what Islam is, comes largely from the apparent dichotomy between the manifest violence of one group of sects and the peaceful, friendly ways of members of other sects. Indeed the more violent sects claim the others are "apostate" and victimize them too. Thus leading to the confusion caused when it appears that Muslims kill other Muslims, despite the teachings. I am going shortly to have coffee with a lady who identifies as a Muslim. She is a kind, thoughtful and generous person. If you were to judge Islam by her and her ethnic group, you might form a good opinion of Muslims in general. If on the other hand you have only been exposed to one of the strict observance sects, you would likely form a different opinion. In the same way many people identify as Christian but are very different. There is almost no relationship, beyond the name of the principal, between say a nominal Anglican and a foaming at the mouth American Evangelist. Many Muslims are victims of Islam and would quite happily just be another person, just like you or me, but for the non-acceptance that forces them into communities, where the strictures of the religion can be enforced on them by the more recent wave of migrants. There are many who identify as Muslim, but are not accepted as "real Muslims" by others, but cannot drop the label.

I sure wish we would see all these "Muslims victims" you are speaking about gather together and protest against all the others who are giving them such a bad name..but we never hear so much as a peep from them.

Please ask your coffee date this question and let us all know what her reply is.