--

"Such is the complacency these great men have for the smiles of their prince
that they will gratify every desire of ambition and power at the expense of
truth, reason, and their country."

- John Dickinson, 1771 -

"Noah Simoneaux" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:15:10 -0800, "Dan" wrote:

(snip)
Maybe only 1/5 of the population live in the 25 states not requiring
permits?

Which invalidated the quote how?

I think he is serious with that question!

Shouldn't be too hard to find the answer, since we had a census fairly
recently.

What has census data to do with his statement? He states categorically that
census data will have no effect on his position... You err because you
assume
Gunner is in any way restricted by a need to use reason or logic or
information
in arguing his position. He never has, and he apparently never will.

- "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on,
- and walk down the street with no permit of any kind:
- some say it's crazy. However, 4 out of 5 US murders
- are committed in the other half of the country: so who is crazy?" --
Andrew Ford

The point was, thee was no logical connection between the true part of the
statement and the conclusion drawn, which is standard technique for Gunner
and
Rush Limbaugh, to name but two practitioners or the art.

First, there is the difference between the granularity of the two sets of
numbers - they are not related at all. Second, the statement about states
"allow"ing actions is designed to confer the notion that these states have
no regulations, ignoring Federal regulations which supersede State laws.
In fact, "anyone" cannot ..."buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the
street with no permit of any kind..." any more than clinics in San Francisco
can dispense medical marijuana...

For instance, I could say:

"The sky is blue, therefore grass is unpleasant."

Is it true? Certainly the first part can be shown, and the second part
cannot be proved wrong, it being an opinion, so the statement is
true.

Is it interesting or meaningful? I'll leave that to the reader...

Gunner argues that there need not be a connection between the true
statement and the conclusion drawn from it, nor even that there necessarily
needs to be a true statement. He does this by attempting
(and failing, as always) to ridicule the person who points out the
fallacy.Were he a clever sort, he might think he could hide behind a "I
never
SAID that" because he was "just asking a question," but I do not give
him that much credit; thus my statement.

I think, based on his record of posts, that he
actually believes that there need be no connection between a premise
and a conclusion. That is the way he responds to posts, that is
the way he "argues" his positions, and that is the way he attempts
to insult people (usually by calling them names based on his own
fears and dislikes).

He doesn't read my stuff any more - he has conceded that he is
a jerk - but that doesn't mean I let his lack of knowledge go
unchallenged. If people choose to be taken in by his antics,
so be it. Not all of us are quite so ignorant.

Dan