â??We wouldn’t be having this conversation if the gun nuts respected the rest of society more. But they don’t. thus, they must be regulated.â?

Really?

I could go back to my post about nuts with guns being different then gun nuts, but I donâ??t think it is worth it. I really donâ??t think you understand, or choose not to. Itâ?¦ it is worthless to respond to you. I was thinking the blog on science blogs, high on the google search would produce a great environment to have my views challenged, but your opinions are based on my previously mentioned weak gravy.

Your bias is so overriding and ignorant of both the Tea Party and of Gun owners/supporters that we can not share a common ground as to the morals of average people, because you seem to not phathom that they might be. Enjoy your memes, your echo chamber, and your sophomoric knowledge.

I am just walking away unimpressed.

I stopped thinking he was a teabagger way back when more information causing me to change my mind started to show up. He probably isn’t. I’ve said this previously.

Tea party members around these parts tend to be gun nuts, or supportive r there of. Michele Bachmann really is a teabagger, she practically invented the phrase, and she really does ask her supporters to use their connections to gun ownership to threaten the political opposition. Kill anybody at any time? Now we’re talking straw, man!

Greg has shown his distain for the shooting, and his distain for Tea Party members by calling them Tea Baggers.

Do you not disdain the shooting? Seriously? Is Duke a hero to you? Do you not disdain the Tea Party Members (teabaggers, as they orignally called themselves until they found out about the sex act)? Are you a teabagger?

Regarding laws, regs, and enforcement vis-a-vis guns, I am NOT making a simplistic argument that guns should be banned or that new strict lawas are needed. I am making the argument that we need to be realistic, understand the data and respect what it means, and change how we do things in some cases mildly and in some cases drastically. I think everything is on the table, including new laws, but also including alternatives to new laws.

We wouldn’t be having this conversation if the gun nuts respected the rest of society more. But they don’t. thus, they must be regulated. For the most part existing lawas probably give sufficient basis for that. But if not, so be it.

I’m not sure I’d use the phrase Straw Man, and I suspect Stephanie would not either. A straw man is an argument that the arguer sets up to argue against. Here, you’re misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) my arguments, I suspect because you sense that I’m not on your side on the “my gunz iz my toyz leave dem alone!!!” argument, so you assume that I have the standard anti-gun arguments. I don’t, you’re wrong.

That, I suspect, is why Stephanie used the term “Straw Greg” rather than “Straw Man.”

One addition.

You, nor anybody, ever, will know what another person cares or believes. You will never, can never, know another person’s intent.

And nobody will know yours. Unless you clearly state it, and even then, it might be fallacious. So nobody can know.

You know your intents, I know mine, and that is the way it will always be.

Claiming to know somebodies intents, beliefs, cares, puts you on the same shelf with psychics and mind readers.

I have done it before also (and might have done it here on a post or two) but I don’t know either.

I do care about what I am saying. Please don’t play with a straw me, nor call me Joshie. Only my better half and my sister get to (None of my 4 daughters get to either.)

Though I am confused, maybe at that is straw and what isn’t. Per wikipedia:

“A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position”

I think Greg made it very clear that he feels there needs to be stronger laws on gun ownership, and also that nut cases are tea baggers. His own words are:

“Duke was, clearly a teabagger, given what we know of his politics. So this particular incident can be chalked up as yet another violent right winger. ”

and

“We need stricter gun laws.”

Then followed it with

“It matters to me that we have a major political movement consisting of the love of guns, the love of threatening people with guns, along with it’s stupid political motives and positions. Teabagger leaders tell their winged monkeys to show up “armed and dangerous” (and they do: http://tinyurl.com/2facs6w ) or to kill their opponents should the opponents win (which I assume is themeaning of “a second amendment remedy”)”

I really could go on – I don’t think I need to though to prove to you that I am not arguing with straw, but with a person who believes that the assaliant was a tea bagger/Tea Party supporter, and that tea party members are gun nuts and gun nuts are willing to kill anybody at any time and that they are working together to keep us unsafe by keeping laws from being passed that he things would benefit everybody.

Because he said it. In these posts.

I am kinda dumbfounded, really. Where I am calling Greg on a position he doesn’t hold? I am putting up cases of similar issues, and discussing items outside the realm of the his post in a fleshing out of his position, but I don’t hold much in the way of who Greg is besides what he has put out there. I do not have an internalized picture or stereotype of who he might be, or who he is beyond this and a few other post of his I picked up. I am not painting him with a single brush, as he does so adamantly with gun supporters/tea baggers.

I would say the staw argument falls right in his, and maybe your, lap.

I called him on that in fact. The total lack of research into the political past of a crazy person he quickly associated the actions of with a political party he doesn’t understand or agree with.

That would be more in line with the setup for a straw man. Per wikipedia again:

“The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.”

What Greg did to Duke was exactly this. Greg has shown his distain for the shooting, and his distain for Tea Party members by calling them Tea Baggers.

So, no, I am not attacking a straw man. I am attacking a straw man argument against tea party members and gun right supporters.

Yup, that’s how it works. The owner of the vehicle is responsible, to some degree, for what happens, depending. The complexity that someone else got her keys then left them in there does not obviate her responsibility, though I assume most juries and judges would see it as minimal.

From where I came from (Alaska) we just left the car running in the winter at the store so it wouldn’t freeze.

That was probably illegal. I do remember being rather put off when I heard of a person in Minnesota, in my own neighborhood, getting cited for this. In that case, she had the car running to warm it up AND the car was locked (Two sets of keys, obviously) but was still cited. I always look both ways before doing that here.

I also leave my car unlocked routinely up north unless the vehicle has alcohol or narcotics in it.

Probably not a teabagger.

Actually, more likely IMHO. I figured you would catch me on that one… 🙂

As for the rest: good points. In the case I cited, the grandmother, who wasn’t driving nor was she the one who left the keys in the car, it was her grandson. And the courts are still saying she is liable in a suit the names her, her grandson, and John Doe.

The case is here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45204854/Tenn-Newman-v-Jarrell

It seems there is an issue of where the car was parked. If on private property then it was okay, but out in public they can be held liable.

I am kinda of flabbergast, but I think you are more correct on this point! I am going to check on my states local laws. From where I came from (Alaska) we just left the car running in the winter at the store so it wouldn’t freeze.

Off to look at Wa State Law…