The Irony of buying a gun vs. voting

[Straw Man]

In virtually every state in the country you can purchase a gun without a photo ID

What is the argument we most often hear from Republicans in objection to even the most modest gun legislation?
They say it would create an unfair burden on law abiding citizens AND the criminals would still find a way to get a gun anyway so what is the point?

If you believe that argument then the same exact argument applies to voting.   If you were intent of being a fraudulent voter it wouldn't be that difficult to get a fake ID (probably easier then getting a real one) and does in fact create a burden on law abiding citizens who would to cast a legitimate vote

Also, we know that gun violence is a REAL problem and we have zero proof that fraudulent voting is a real problem

So how about some consistency from our Republican friends or at least some honesty. 

[240 is Back]

talking about the loophole thing?  where joe smith can meet john doe in a walmart parking lot and legally purchase 50 rifles from him?   as long as they're both private citizens, there is no ID, no background check, no receipt needed either?  (?) 

it's odd. 

[Irongrip400]

I'm a gun advocate and I don't even know why/how this is legal or a good idea. That said, I am for voters having to produce a picture ID. I'm assuming this is talking about private gun transactions, I couldn't imagine you could go to a gun shop and buy with no ID.

[Straw Man]

talking about the loophole thing?  where joe smith can meet john doe in a walmart parking lot and legally purchase 50 rifles from him?   as long as they're both private citizens, there is no ID, no background check, no receipt needed either?  (?) 

it's odd. 

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/clintons_line_was_true_the_sad_facts_about_assault_weapons_and_voting/

As for guns, under federal law, you can buy a gun through a private seller without even showing an ID. And assault weapons have been fair game since the ban on them expired in 2004. Here’s a Department of Justice report (emphasis added):

Individuals who buy guns from an unlicensed private seller in a “secondary market venue” (such as gun shows, flea markets, and Internet sites) are exempt from the requirements of federal law to show identification, complete the Form 4473, and undergo a National Instant Criminal Background Check System check.

[Straw Man]

I'm a gun advocate and I don't even know why/how this is legal or a good idea. That said, I am for voters having to produce a picture ID. I'm assuming this is talking about private gun transactions, I couldn't imagine you could go to a gun shop and buy with no ID.

It's a lot more than just producing a picture ID.  As I mentioned in another thread we have the example of a WWII Veteran who could not use VA photo ID because it didn't include his address (the guy lived in the same town for the last 40 year).  Student ID's aren't acceptable in Texas.

having a photo ID doesn't prevent voter fraud (which is so rare as to be statistically non-existent) but it does in fact (see recent GAO report) reduce turnout of legitimate legal voters by tens of thousands

the part that bugs me is the dishonestly

Some prominent Republicans have admitted the true intent of these laws so why are the rest of us expected to continue pretending it's really to prevent the non-existent voter fraud.

[Archer77]

Totally besides the point.  Republicans control your mind, Fallacyman. 

[Archer77]

I can't imagine there is one person on this site who thinks buying a gun without a photo ID is acceptable.   Did you use the word irony correctly?

[Straw Man]

Totally besides the point.  Republicans control your mind, Fallacyman. 

Professor Logic you're back

Are you finally going to prove your claim of argumentum ad consequentiam or admit you're too fucking stupid to do it

You've had at least a couple of days to figure out the two simple points of the equation

[Straw Man]

I can't imagine there is one person on this site who thinks buying a gun without a photo ID is acceptable.   Did you use the word irony correctly?

I'll let you mull that one over Professor

you don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer these days

[Archer77]

Professor Logic you're back

Are you finally going to prove your claim of argumentum ad consequentiam or admit you're too fucking stupid to do it

You've had at least a couple of days to figure out the two simple points of the equation

I already proved it multiple times.  Are you going to stop obsessing over the republicans?

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that assert a conclusion's truth value (true or false) without regard to the formal preservation of the truth from the premises; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's consequential desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making (which discusses possibilities that do not exist yet in the present) and abstract ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.



Negative form
If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.

(P)Passing ID LAWS  (Q)ID laws will result in fewer minorities and young people voting
Q: Fewer minorities and young people voting is undesirable
Therefore, (P) ID Laws are bad.

[240 is Back]

there is some voter fraud.  didn't affect outcome in 2012 or 2008, but could have in 2000 or 2004.

every voter and gun buyer SHOULD have an ID.  Common sense.

YES, there are some people who won't get to vote because they don't have ID.  And yes, repubs love it because it's usually dems.  But IMO, that's just making excuses for people that refuse to get an ID.  Yes, it can be up to $30 or 50 or more, and it sucks, but some things ya just gotta get.

[Archer77]

I'll let you mull that one over Professor

you don't seem to be the sharpest knife in the drawer these days

Tell me how its ironic?  

[Straw Man]

I already proved it multiple times.  Are you going to stop obsessing over the republicans?

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments that assert a conclusion's truth value (true or false) without regard to the formal preservation of the truth from the premises; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's consequential desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value. Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making (which discusses possibilities that do not exist yet in the present) and abstract ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism.



Negative form
If P, then Q will occur.
Q is undesirable.
Therefore, P is false.

(P)Passing ID LAWS  (Q)ID laws will result in fewer minorities and young people voting
Q: Fewer minorities and young people voting is undesirable
Therefore, (P) ID Laws are bad.

try again dummy

the only consequence I have ever talked about is disenfranchising legitimate voters

that is "B" or the "negative" or "undesirable consequence

[Straw Man]

Tell me how its ironic?  

you figure it out

you still haven't  figured out argumentum ad consequentiam so maybe you should finish that one before you take on a new challenge

[Archer77]

try again dummy

the only consequence I have ever talked about is disenfranchising legitimate voters

that is "B" or the "negative" or "undesirable consequence

Wrong, dummy.  

[Archer77]

you figure it out

you still haven't  figured out argumentum ad consequentiam so maybe you should finish that one before you take on a new challenge

Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences is often an irrelevancy. For instance, ID laws "may" have negative consequences by causing less voter turn out, but these facts have nothing to do with whether ID laws are innately bad.


Just give up. You're an amateur.  You knows what ironic?  Calling yourself strawman in order to create the image of adhering to logic and repeatedly making numerous logical fallacies.    IRONIC.....  hahaha

[Straw Man]

Wrong, dummy.  

nope

I said that the problem with these laws was that it resulted in disenfranchising legitimate voters

that is the "B" or the negative consequence and it's supposed to be used to prove A is "false"

Why am I surprise that you are so stupid that you were confused from the beginning

[Straw Man]

Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences is often an irrelevancy. For instance, ID laws "may" have negative consequences by causing less voter turn out, but these facts have nothing to do with whether ID laws are innately bad.


Just give up. You're an amateur.  You knows what ironic?  Calling yourself strawman in order to create the image of adhering to logic and repeatedly making numerous logical fallacies.    IRONIC.....  hahaha

I'm still waiting for you to prove your first point

come on Professor it's easy

A:  Voter ID laws were created to prevent voter fraud
B:  The negative consequence is that is disenfranchises legitimate voters

Therefore "A" must be false

right?

wait that doesn't seem right because we know A is not false

so what we're left with is that you don't have a fucking clue what argumentum ad consequentiam actually means

[Archer77]

I'm still waiting for you to prove your first point

come on Professor it's easy

A:  Voter ID laws were created to prevent voter fraud
B:  The negative consequence is that is disenfranchises legitimate voters

Therefore "A" must be false

right?

wait that doesn't seem right because we know A is not false

so what we're left with is that you don't have a fucking clue what argumentum ad consequentiam actually means

Nope.    You committed another one.    I love it!

Framing fallacy: Posing a question in a misleading way that if accepted, steers the conclusion. Also called "loaded question".

[Archer77]

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2] The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]

[Straw Man]

Nope.    You committed another one.    I love it!

Framing fallacy: Posing a question in a misleading way that if accepted, steers the conclusion. Also called "loaded question".

from the beginning I've pointed out the consequence of these laws and you've been saying that I can't judge the laws based on their consequences.  

Again, B is supposed to prove A is "false" not that A is "bad" as you did in your example

try again

[Archer77]

from the beginning I've pointed out the consequence of these laws and you've been saying that I can't judge the laws based on their consequences.  

Again, B is supposed to prove A is "false" not that A is "bad" as you did in your example

try again

Seriously just pack it in.   I should keep track of your fallacy count. 

[avxo]

If you believe that argument then the same exact argument applies to voting.   If you were intent of being a fraudulent voter it wouldn't be that difficult to get a fake ID (probably easier then getting a real one) and does in fact create a burden on law abiding citizens who would to cast a legitimate vote

No it doesn't. Cut the bullshit.

[Straw Man]

Seriously just pack it in.   I should keep track of your fallacy count. 

Hey Dipshit - remember when you copy and pasted this and pretended it was your own words

Again, so what.   You need to change your screen name.  You abuse logic.  I'm going to personally write Ron on this issue.


The argument from consequences or argumentum ad consequentiam if you insist on Latin, is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. An example of arguing from adverse consequences might go like: belief in the theory of evolution leads to eugenics; therefore the theory of evolution is false. Conversely an argument from favourable consequences might go: belief in God leads to an increase in charitable giving; therefore God exists.

remember I even tried to help you out

well if you're going to complain to Ron about my abuse of logic then you might actually want to be able to prove it

fill in the blanks

The argument takes this form:

If A is true then it implies, causes, or creates, B.
B is, either subjectively or objectively, bad, immoral, or undesirable.
Therefore, A is false.

So try again or even better admit you can't do it because you apparently haven't got a clue what you're talking about

[Straw Man]

No it doesn't. Cut the bullshit.

The GAO report concluded it does but if you have some other recent report that says it doesn't then I'll be glad to look at it