Sick burn by jon Stewart

Back when we were a Christian nation we said that the right to self defense is God given, it superceeds government, and they were right.
 
In my circle two things are in hot debate:

1) Was it ever possible to carry on with Western Culture after Christianity was largely lost?

2) What is the relationship between the death of Christianity and the broader death of the West?
 
Stewart is wrong because he uses the Sorites paradox in reverse. That is, he looks at the overall number of guns and then applies that to all situations in the US. Obviously, that's wrong. There are some areas with strong gun controls, others with lax. Without looking at the crime / misuse rates of guns with respect to gun control laws--ignored by Stewart--you can't tell if more guns helps or hurts crime / misuse rates.

Then Stewart talks about background checks and permitting making another logical fallacy. He is essentially Affirming the consequent. He associates background checks with being able to determine who should and shouldn't have access to a firearm. The problem with that is criminals operate outside of that system and unless you can put a check on illegal possession of a firearm, background checks do little or no good.

Next he tosses in a false number. Stewart mentions "50,000 gun related deaths." This includes suicides which are highly problematic. The question here is, Would those wanting to commit suicide still do so if guns weren't available? If the answer is "Yes," then those deaths need to be excluded as they aren't gun related other than by convenience.

The whole thing on Stewart's part is one logical fallacy after another.

Okay, the above doesn't answer the question on the table about guns and gun deaths. What it does do is point out that Stewart's positions are all bullshit ones based on logical fallacies, not that the guy he's interviewing is much better. On the whole, it's a worthless discussion between two people who haven't put much thought into a solution.

After that, Stewart goes off on an irrelevant tangent to gun control and makes a false analogy by begging the question.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Stewart is wrong because he uses the Sorites paradox in reverse. That is, he looks at the overall number of guns and then applies that to all situations in the US. Obviously, that's wrong. There are some areas with strong gun controls, others with lax. Without looking at the crime / misuse rates of guns with respect to gun control laws--ignored by Stewart--you can't tell if more guns helps or hurts crime / misuse rates.

Then Stewart talks about background checks and permitting making another logical fallacy. He is essentially Affirming the consequent. He associates background checks with being able to determine who should and shouldn't have access to a firearm. The problem with that is criminals operate outside of that system and unless you can put a check on illegal possession of a firearm, background checks do little or no good.

Next he tosses in a false number. Stewart mentions "50,000 gun related deaths." This includes suicides which are highly problematic. The question here is, Would those wanting to commit suicide still do so if guns weren't available? If the answer is "Yes," then those deaths need to be excluded as they aren't gun related other than by convenience.

The whole thing on Stewart's part is one logical fallacy after another.

Okay, the above doesn't answer the question on the table about guns and gun deaths. What it does do is point out that Stewart's positions are all bullshit ones based on logical fallacies, not that the guy he's interviewing is much better. On the whole, it's a worthless discussion between two people who haven't put much thought into a solution.

After that, Stewart goes off on an irrelevant tangent to gun control and makes a false analogy by begging the question.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion. So can you address the infringement part?
 
AProudLefty said:
Correct. Therefore we were never a Christian nation.
Click to expand...

Correct. By world standards, the US is a very religious nation, but not per se a Christian one. That is, a good portion of the population practice the religion of their choice but there is no national or government sanctioned religion.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Correct. By world standards, the US is a very religious nation, but not per se a Christian one. That is, a good portion of the population practice the religion of their choice but there is no national or government sanctioned religion.
Click to expand...

Yep. We were never a Christian nation.

Those Republican Christians are trying so hard to make it so or convince their base.
 
AProudLefty said:
Thank you for your opinion. So can you address the infringement part?
Click to expand...

Stewart brings that up as a fallacy of composition, and really a non sequitur. The idea that more guns make you safer or less make you safer is a canard, a non sequitur. It's no different than saying more hammers would result in more nails driven.

Guns aren't why crimes occur. Guns are a tool of criminals and those wishing to achieve an end. Eliminating them does nothing to solve the underlying cause or problem. Stewart brings up domestic violence. It would still occur, at the same rate, and intensity as it does guns or no guns. Domestic violence isn't caused by guns. It is caused by two people having a disagreement under the same roof. The gun is merely a tool.

Stewart's whole argument through that clip boils down to this: Less guns, less violence, less crime. It is an argument born of ignorance.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Stewart brings that up as a fallacy of composition, and really a non sequitur. The idea that more guns make you safer or less make you safer is a canard, a non sequitur. It's no different than saying more hammers would result in more nails driven.

Guns aren't why crimes occur. Guns are a tool of criminals and those wishing to achieve an end. Eliminating them does nothing to solve the underlying cause or problem. Stewart brings up domestic violence. It would still occur, at the same rate, and intensity as it does guns or no guns. Domestic violence isn't caused by guns. It is caused by two people having a disagreement under the same roof. The gun is merely a tool.

Stewart's whole argument through that clip boils down to this: Less guns, less violence, less crime. It is an argument born of ignorance.
Click to expand...

That wasn't his argument. The argument was about the regulation.

[Edit] - I meant the infringement but you get what I meant.

Nathan made an argument that it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people. So what is the solution? So it's a contradiction. Either do a background check and such or you don't. Jon brought up voting right as an example. Is it an infringement on their right to be required to register?
 
Last edited:
AProudLefty said:
That wasn't his argument. The argument was about the regulation.

[Edit] - I meant the infringement but you get what I meant.

Nathan made an argument that it's not the guns that are the problem, it's the people. So what is the solution? So it's a contradiction. Either do a background check and such or you don't. Jon brought up voting right as an example. Is it an infringement on their right to be required to register?
Click to expand...

My solution is deal with the problems people cause where they tend to use guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top