Skip to main content

View Diary: What CAN we agree on? (183 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Of course they are . . . (6+ / 0-)

    but ad hominum (or ad organizationum) is not valid argument.  If the NRA says that the vast majority of gun homicides are not comitted with assault rifles that doesn't make the statement a "talking point" or untrue.  And if someone from RKBA here on dKOS says the same thing that doesn't mean they are "spouting NRA talking points" and should just shut up.  Just for one example . . .

    Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

    by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:44:26 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  A true point, and also has no... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco, glorificus

      relevance to the discussion.

      I'm certain that were we discussing the relevant points of a specific ban, it'd apply for statistical information.

      And yes, I've accused others of spouting talking points.  I have no problem whatsoever admitting to that.  There's a lot of fallacies tossed about in these diaries.

      How exactly does that discussion have ANYTHING to do with what we're talking about right now, which is a discussion of where we can agree?  

      What I'm gathering is that you don't feel that we can agree that the NRA should be excluded from the discussion due to... possible fallacy abuse.

      Apparently you're the only one.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 03:53:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Apparently you just want (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gerrilea, happy camper

        to pick a fight (while claiming otherwise).  I've said nothing defending the NRA.  I've "defended" the right of RKBA members (one of which I am not, by the way) to say things that they believe to be correct without accusations of "spouting talking points" being thrown at them.

        Why don't you provide a list of "NRA talking points" which we are supposed to assume without question to be untrue, and thus "exclud[ed] from the discussion"?

        Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

        by Deward Hastings on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 04:05:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It actually does make that a talking point. It (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bisbonian

      happens to be a talking point constructed around a factually accurate phrase, but it is still employed to obfuscate. After a while, people are entitled to express displeasure at being exposed to the same old bullshit.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 06:32:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Utter nonsense. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper, 43north

        Facts are facts.

        Just because a group you happen to dislike (which I happen to dislike as well) refers to a fact makes it no less a fact.

        I realize you might like to characterize some facts as "talking points" in an attempt to ignore them, but that is simply dishonest.

        Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

        by theatre goon on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 04:43:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  When "facts" are used to disinform, rather than (0+ / 0-)

          to inform, and the same conversation repeated endlessly, there will inevitably come a time when even the most patient individual (as I'm sure you, your self have experienced) will just declare "That sounds like an NRA talking point to me", and move on.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Mon Jan 14, 2013 at 09:28:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site