Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Arguing Against Opposition Rather Than The Issue

In the post that I posted yesterday, I posted (How many times can I get post into one sentence?) some replies to a comment that I left at the Huffington Post (Answer: 5).  My comment included the stats that I found in this post.  The results of that post were to say that there is a direct correlation for more murders per capita to more gun restrictions.

Naturally some on the left disagree.  The following are two replies that I received to my comment.  I want you to notice that they are arguing against my posting opinion opposite to their own.  They are arguing that my opinion should not be made, not that it is wrong.

Nice blog post you are quoting there. Unfortunately, "Spootville" (for god's sake) makes the classic mistake of confusing correlation with causality.

Besides, are law-abiding gun carriers in those neighboring states actually drawing their guns and chasing off would-be shooters? Do you have any numbers on that?

ALL studies that report numbers like this are false on their face. FALSE. They are statistically corrupt and the methodology is complete garbage.

You can't compare murder rates to gun laws, state-by-state, and expect it to mean ANYTHING.

the inference here is that concealed carry in a state like NH is CAUSAL to the low murder rate. It's simply false. People carrying guns is not stopping other people from murdering. It's simply not. It's a ridiculous conclusion.
Notice that they are not saying that I am wrong*, they are saying that I should not oppose them.

Another reply that attacks my making an argument, not the argument itself:

Oh please, don't you think that with 20 dead 1st graders, we are far beyond semantics? 
These commenters are not claiming that other countries that have more gun restrictions than the U.S. have less crime (like another commenter did, and who is also wrong, but at least wants to argue the issue rather than me).  They are not comparing other sets of states to show where less gun control has meant more crime.  They are not claiming that gun violence has gone up after concealed carry was allowed (the opposite is true).  They are claiming that my argument is not the one that I should make against them.

They do not want to debate the actual issue, they seem to want to debate weather or not a counter to their claim argument should be made.

This seems to be something that I am noticing more with these comment debates.  They oppose that I oppose them, not my arguments. They want to criticize me and my methods for disagreeing with them rather than criticize my arguments.


Arguing that my comment is wrong because I confused correlation with causality could be a legitimate argument.  But here is my reasoning for posting what I did.

Their argument- we need more gun control because more gun control will mean less gun violence

My argument - the places that have more gun control have more murders than the places that have less gun control

I thought that I was directly contradicting the argument of my opponents.

And, oddly enough,  an Atlantic writer agrees with me. (I don't endorse his political  ideas, and this post was actually written before that one.)

*Well, the-lexicon is saying that I am wrong, but he is also calling data (from the U.S. Census Bureau) a "false," "garbage," "study."  So, what does he know?

No comments:

Post a Comment