Sorry, I assumed that most here would know what a "loaded question" fallacy actually was. I see I must have forgot about you. It was covered rather completely in this thread, but you might like to go to a source to educate yourself further. "A "loaded question", like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded." http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html You should do a little research before you resort to the typical name-calling. ....Just sayin'.
You're not trying then, because you have missed the meaning of the term and how it is a fallacy. "too hard" Has nothing to do with it, but of course you already knew that.
LOL! Thanks. I even brought out the dictionary to help everyone out, but I guess Webster's Dictionary was cleary written by right-wing fanatics that are biased towards the "gun's rights" position. It's sad when we get to the point where two conflicting sides cannot agree on something that should be obviously to anyone with a fair mind.
Unashamed revisionism, on your part, friend. I seem to recall you doing this cheap trick here before. Your claims as to "two conflicting sides" on this issue is deceptive. I recall that even anti-controllers here admitted that your OP was a loaded question.
No. It's the unadulterated truth: In post #22, I indeed used dictionary.com to define the term "loaded question," and it agreed 100% with my explanation of the term. Where is the revisionism? Does Sunnyside represent all "anti-controllers?" I didn't think so. In fact, I recall responding to his post, explaining that he looked at my statement entirely out of context. My reference to the "two conflicting sides" was in reference to my disappointment that your side is so withdrawn from reality that you cannot agree to the simple point that the DECEPTION that the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March are clearly guilty of is wrong. Why must you continue to defend these groups when I have PROVEN their lies/deception?
You are most welcome. It`s a curious stance they take, when they oppose the average working person`s right to defend themselves.
The OP is perfectly clear and correct, nothing loaded, nor any other reason to run away from the questions. We can all see that you simply have no answers to the questions.
More straw man fallacies from you I see. Where exactly have I endorsed this position that you ascribe to me? Don't bother because you won't be able to find it, so I suggest that you stop trolling here.
The revisionism is cherry-picking one post out of many without showing my logical response to your errors. You therefor put a different face on an issue that has been settled by both myself and others here who have patiently explaining to you the meaning of this fallacy. I even used your OWN source to show your error on this, which you have conveniently forgotten, I see. I'll give you a little hint. Look again at this question that you posed one more time with your new-found knowledge of a loaded question fallacy: "Do you condemn the shady strategy of lying and deception that is so common in all of the major anti-gun organizations?" Take your time..... What you explained to him was clearly erroneous and not worthy of re-hashing here now. The fact that "Sunnyside" is an anti-controller IS significant in that he was willing to correct you on this error. What is NOT relevant is whether or not he speaks for all anti-controllers. He was addressing the validity of your argument, and not your stance on gun laws. More revisionism. Wow. You proved NOTHING here, other than that you will resort to fallacies (if not outright falsehoods) to make a point. Your OP laid out three examples, none of which were accompanied by linked sources. The first one dealt with a supposed deception by the Million Mom March (allegedly, because we don't actually have the source for this) who counted "children" as up to twenty years old. This is not a stretch by anyone who has children of that age. The vast majority of youth live with their parents until this age and would well be considered "children" by most people regardless of your protestations. Your second example is simply a semantic fallacy. I already pointed this out to you here. Your last example was a reference to an outdated study by Kellerman without mentioning his revised later study (and you accused OTHERS of being deceptive?). You, once again made an allegation that you did not substantiate with a source. This is not surprising because I'm not aware of any major pro-control group currently using the figures that you claimed. I'm afraid you have used smoke and mirrors with a little emotional indignation thrown in for dramatic effect. Hardly compelling and not surprising that your friend actually fell for it. Frankly, I'm surprised you even persist with it.
Then you haven't been paying attention. Not surprising considering your propensity for baseless accusations here. Look, if I were to ask you: "So, have you stopped beating your wife?" Would you be able to have a logical answer to this? If you answer either "yes" or "no", you are still admitting the presupposition that you beat your wife. 1)"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which admits "I was beating my wife." 2)"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which admits "I am still beating my wife." Now, look at this question that the OP asks us: "Do you condemn the shady strategy of lying and deception that is so common in all of the major anti-gun organizations?" An answer of "yes" OR "no" admits that there is "lying and deception". It is therefor unanswerable. These are what are called a "loaded question". Get it?
Fail. By your own token, the questions put forward by the OP are asking. Have you stopped beating your wife, because there is indisputable evidence of your crimes, photos, movies, witnesses, DNA evidence etc. The answer, too hard.
It's ironic that you so often speak here of "evidence", and in this case; "indisputable" evidence, and yet are never able to present any. Oh, the irony!
The biggest problem is that depending on where you live, almost every rifle can become an "Assault Rifle". I used to sell firearms in California, and their "Assault Rifle Ban" is a complete farce. Here is the basics of what makes a weapon an assault rifle there: * detachable magazine * thumbhole stock or telescoping stock * flash suppressor or grenade launcher (I would think a grenade launcher would be worse then an assault weapon) * pistol grip * length over 30" * bayonet lug (are we talking about shooting people or stabbing them with a clumsy spear?) And it gets even more confusing because of conflicting laws. "High capacity magazines" are also banned, which is any magazine that holds over 10 rounds. And the law also specifies it applies only to centirefire rifles. But the law that classifies any magazine over 10 rounds as an "assault rifle" does not specify centerfire. So the DA can take your Ruger 10/22 with a 30 round magazine and claim it is an assault rifle. And what do the descriptions do to make a rifle more deadly? Not a single thing. If somebody has a grenade launcher and ammunition, I would not care if it was attached to an AK or a broomstick. In short, "assault rifles" do not exist. Under California laws, a WWII era M-1 is an "assault rifle". I can take a perfectly street-legal rifle like a classic Winchester 1905, and by adding one thing it suddenly morphs into an "assault rifle". And this is not paranoia talking. Back in 1990 I was transfered from North Carolina to California, and took my Ruger 10/22 with me. I had a pistol grip stock and a flash suppressor put on it (so I could practice as if it was an M-16, without the expense). It was stolen a year later, and eventually recovered. When I went to claim it, the police told me they did not return stolen firearms. I tried to make a stink about it, and they told me if I continued to press the issue, they would bring me up on charges for importing an "assault rifle" into the state. That is when I was first given a rundown on the byzantine California laws. In short, every rifle is or can be an assault rifle (unless it is a bolt action or muzzle loaded).
Denver Colorado is amusing for their definition. You can have the folding stocks, the flash suppressors, heat shields, whatever. However cannot possess a magazine that holds more than 20rds. The definition varies so much it is silly and meaningless term to describe an object.
What are you talking about? You called my response "revisionism" (regarding using the dictionary to define the term "loaded question"). I then pointed out to you that there was no revisionism at all, and indeed in post #22 I illustrated that dictionary.com's definition of "loaded question" agrees with mine. This begs the questions, Where is the revisionism, because the only revisionism that I see is coming from YOU. If you actually took the time to read and comprehend my OP, then you would understand that I provided LOADS OF EVIDENCE proving beyond the shadow of a doubt that these anti-gun organizations were indeed using "shady stategies," such as "lying" and "deceiving." My OP wasn't asking the question, "Do you agree that these anti-gun organizations are using "shady strategy of lying and deception?" Rather, this was clearly established. Hence, this is why the following (extremely fair) questions were asked: 1. Why do you think it is necessary for major anti-gun organizations such as the Million Mom March, Brady Campaign, and others to resort to such devious tactics to prove their point? If they had a legitimate argument, couldnt they get their point across without deceptions as those mentioned above? 2. Can you find examples of pro-gun groups, such as the NRA or Gun Owners of America, where similar flagrantly dishonest tactics are used? If not, then why dont you think so? 3. This last question is to those who espouse an anti-gun ideology. Do you condemn the shady strategy of lying and deception that is so common in all of the major anti-gun organizations? It seems that YOU are the one who is guilty of REVISIONISM. Again, Sunnyside does not represent everyone on my side of the argument, and I explained to him in a follow-up post the error of his argument; he has yet to respond to that post. Also, the fact that dictionary.com agrees with MY interpretation of the term "loaded question," is far more significant than you getting ONE person who is not pro-gun to agree with you.
That's because (in regards to Questions 1 and 2) all you have to go to these organizations respective WEBSITES to witness these examples of deception. I made this point very clear in my response to Sunnyside. Regarding question # 3, I do indeed include a citation. The source of this is Cook and Ludwig’s article “The Cost of Gun Violence Against Children." Just google search the title of this article, and you will find tons of links to the FREE article. You can have an offspring who is in their nineties, but I would hardly consider them a "child." The legal age of an adult is > 18 years. The medical definition of a "child" is someone who has yet to reach puberty. Thus, the fact that you even are defending these organizations for sinking to such debase tactics (e.g. include 19 year-old gangmembers as CHILDREN) tells a lot about your character and you definition of "fairness."
Again, the article did not use the term "Youth" (which has vague definitions), but rather used the term "child" (which is much more strictly defined). People can live with their parents their entire lives, but that does not make them CHILDREN. That word ("child") has a meaning, and just because I've got you in a corner doesn't mean you can purposely distort its meaning to include AARP members. That "semantic fallacy" was all yours. How was it outdated? Data from this study continues to be cited by these anti-gun organizations (again, check their websites), so I hardly consider it to be outdated. Also, how can a study about the "dangers" of gun ownership be outdated? We aren't talking about a medical article dealing with some outdated treatment modality. We are talking about supposed data that supports a supposed statistically significant conclusion about guns. Thus, such data theoretically will never be "outdated." All of this aside, why won't you just answer my simple questions? What are you so afraid about?
I find your slanted memory very interesting, but first let's address your inability to follow my post. I fully understand what you were previously saying and it was precisely what I was addressing in my response. You somehow missed this. You had implied that your post #22 was the end-all (and still do, by the way) and the determinant of your claim that your OP did not use loaded questions. Unfortunately, your revisionism failed to account for my RESPONSES to that and other posts by yourself that repudiated your claims which your Wiki source agreed with my claims. Your revised and convenient memory failed to account foe my response that particular post #22 here; post #26. You also failed to account for the other posters who also called your OP full of loaded questions here ....and ....here. I further explained the loaded question fallacy to you here, here, here, here, here, where I explained to you: "For you to repeatedly ignore the nature of your questions only shows your own tactic of desperation, I guess. I have done everything but read the definitions to you out loud for you." Here, where I told you:"For you to repeatedly ignore the nature of your questions only shows your own tactic of desperation, I guess. I have done everything but read the definitions to you out loud for you. You'll find that when you parse your questions FAIRLY and logically, that you'll see many willing responses. Unfortunately for you, you have done neither and are thus stuck with the fruits of your labor. You reap what you sow, as the Book says. I only find it ironic that your OP bemoans a lack of fair and honest debate while you feel the need to stack the deck unfairly and possibly dishonestly yourself." And here, where I explained to you: "Your reliance on a web dictionary to somehow make your fallacious argument work is an act of desperation in itself. I have "redefine[d]" NOTHING. I, along with two other members here have attempted to bring you up to speed on this particular deceptive argument that you have used in your OP. You, on the other hand have only offered weak denials. Hardly a way to make a thread that asks for honest arguments. Now THAT'S irony." Finally, after your revisionism (as you are once again, now) caused you to forget my valid responses, I told you here: "It's not as if we haven't already covered this point. You had previously misinterpreted the "dictionary" definition to say something it clearly did not do. Remember? You had said that "loaded question" meant; "A "loaded" question, by definition, contains a presumption of guilt". I duly helped you with this saying; "It's not about guilt, per se, but rather a loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. Such questions are used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda." Your revisionism fails to account for these historical realities and for you to now resort to such deceptive tactics is frankly disingenuous." Sigh,..... More revisionism. This is troubling because the ONLY thing you provided verifiable "evidence" for in your OP was a reference to an outdated paper that nobody refers to anymore, other than people like you. You conveniently did NOT refer to that particular researcher's more recent work AND you failed to show ANY willful deception on his part anyways. If THIS is what you call "LOADS OF EVIDENCE", then excuse me if I have a good laugh. Your OP was glaringly devoid of supporting evidence. You presupposed that these people were being deceptive regardless of the evidence and based your loaded questions on that flawed premise. Ignorance can be a human frailty and can afflict us all. Deception, on the other hand is purposeful and much, much more difficult to prove. You haven't even proven the former. FAIL.............AGAIN.
That's doubtful. I implied nothing. I downright stated, in black and white, that my statements in post #22 clearly demonstrated that I did indeed use the dictionary to define "loaded question." Do remember how this all got started? In post #54, I responded to aussiefree2ride with humor that it was ridiculous that despite bringing out the dictionary to help define the term "loaded question," your side still refuses to admit that you are wrong. In post #55, you referred to this [bringing out the dictionary] as "unashamed revisionism." In post #56, I correct you again, explaining that in post #22 (which was typed many months ago), I did indeed use dictionary.com to define "loaded question." You have since gone on a tangent far away from the original point of discussion, and you have STILL failed to answer the questions posted in the OP. On the contrary, I did respond to your post regarding Wikepedia's definition, and stated that their definition agreed with MINE, rather than yours. In fact, it was ME who used wikipedia, alone with dictionary.com, in post #22 to clarify the definition of "loaded question." Your explanations were absurd, and none of them agreed with the understood definition of the term "loaded questions" as defined in the dictionary or on Wikipedia.
Again. How can data (when collected appropriately) and results and conclusions based upon that data EVER be "outdated?" That makes absolutely no sense. Either the article was valid, or it is a sham PERIOD. There is no middle ground here, and your use of the deceptively neutral term "outdated" as an improper substitute for "sham" or "crock" just shows how absolutely weak your argument truly is. Oh, and the Kellerman article under question (Kellermann AL, Reay DT. Protection or peril? An analysis of firearm-related deaths in the home . N Engl J Med 1986;314:1557–60.) is indeed still being referenced today by the Brady Campaign. Just go to their website, and under the header "Get the Facts About Guns" you will see the multiple Kellerman articles mentioned, and those newer Kellerman articles are heavily based upon "data" collected in his 1986 work (and this 1986 article is referenced in those newer articles). How many times do you want me to prove flagrant deception? Once should be enough. Why you continue to defend indefensible behavior is beyond anyone's comprehension. We are now 73 posts deep into this topic, and yet we have gotten absolutely nowhere. For G-d sakes, all I asked you to do is answer a few very simple direct questions. Why all the stalling?
If this were so simple, then I suppose that even YOU would be able to show this. Unfortunately for you, you cannot. It's simple really. YOU make a claim, do NOT substantiate it, claim it to be a valid fact and yet ask ME to do your own work for you and substantiate YOUR claim. ALL to validate your loaded question, which of course makes it a loaded question fallacy. It's really not that difficult for the rest of us to figure this one out, really. You'll catch up. Sorry, I won't do YOU work for you. Are you lazy? More importantly, you still haven't shown a source that shows this particular study being the source of this Million Moms March (supposed) claim. Oh yeah, you still haven't even shown us the MMM even saying this. All in all, a very weak argument.
Don't dodge now. I laid out a logical argument that included sources showing your claims to be a semantic fallacy. Ignoring this doesn't improve your standing here. Be honest, now. Well, if you were actually informed of your topic, you'd know that the researcher in question revised that first study and subsequently included variables that others had criticized him for omitting, as I recall. Odd that you would not know this. Ha! You STILL can't show a link of them "citing" this, eh? VERY weak. You REALLY expect us to take your word on this? Really?
