Exactly six months after the horrific mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, I released the book, LOL at the GOP - Volume 3: Guns Don't Kill, Cars Don't Drive, and Ovens Don't Bake. This was to poke fun of the common right-wing talking point, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people!"
So, a couple of days ago, a self-described Tea Partier sent me the following tweet:
"People Kill, People Drive, and People Bake. Your title is a fallaciously implied argument."
Based on that statement, it seems pretty obvious to me that this man believes the before-mentioned talking point - "Guns don't kill people; people kill people!" - and that humans are fully in control of everything that takes place in our everyday lives.
The problem with his argument is he's alleging an "implied argument" of a sarcastic title poking fun at a talking point, and assuming to be fully cognizant of the tone of said title, my beliefs on the matter, and the content in the book - of which he's likely never read. In other words, through his logic in accusing me of containing a fallacy within the title of my book, he appears to have been guilty of an informal fallacy or two.
A reason why this specific individual and many like him appear to have trouble understanding any vantage point on this particular issue other than that, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," is due to a tendency of thinking in black-and-white terms (good/evil, God/devil, heaven/hell, yes/no, right/wrong, moral/immoral, etc.). As I've said before, and as I depict in my book, gun violence (and deaths) require two common denominators - a person and a gun. Baking requires two common denominators - a person and an oven. Driving requires two common denominators - a person and a car. This was the common theme/trend I was showcasing in the title of my book. For someone to say, "Guns don't kill people," would be like to say, "Ovens don't bake" or "Cars don't drive," yet without these very devices, people couldn't shoot and kill others (via gun), couldn't bake, and couldn't drive. So, what was that again, mister?
"People Kill, People Drive, and People Bake. Your title is a fallaciously implied argument."
Keep thinking that. Take away a man's gun, and we'll see if he can shoot and kill a person with it. Take away a person's oven, and we'll see how effective his/her baking skills are. Take away an individual's car and let's observe how well he or she can drive.
So, a couple of days ago, a self-described Tea Partier sent me the following tweet:
"People Kill, People Drive, and People Bake. Your title is a fallaciously implied argument."
Based on that statement, it seems pretty obvious to me that this man believes the before-mentioned talking point - "Guns don't kill people; people kill people!" - and that humans are fully in control of everything that takes place in our everyday lives.
The problem with his argument is he's alleging an "implied argument" of a sarcastic title poking fun at a talking point, and assuming to be fully cognizant of the tone of said title, my beliefs on the matter, and the content in the book - of which he's likely never read. In other words, through his logic in accusing me of containing a fallacy within the title of my book, he appears to have been guilty of an informal fallacy or two.
A reason why this specific individual and many like him appear to have trouble understanding any vantage point on this particular issue other than that, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," is due to a tendency of thinking in black-and-white terms (good/evil, God/devil, heaven/hell, yes/no, right/wrong, moral/immoral, etc.). As I've said before, and as I depict in my book, gun violence (and deaths) require two common denominators - a person and a gun. Baking requires two common denominators - a person and an oven. Driving requires two common denominators - a person and a car. This was the common theme/trend I was showcasing in the title of my book. For someone to say, "Guns don't kill people," would be like to say, "Ovens don't bake" or "Cars don't drive," yet without these very devices, people couldn't shoot and kill others (via gun), couldn't bake, and couldn't drive. So, what was that again, mister?
"People Kill, People Drive, and People Bake. Your title is a fallaciously implied argument."
Keep thinking that. Take away a man's gun, and we'll see if he can shoot and kill a person with it. Take away a person's oven, and we'll see how effective his/her baking skills are. Take away an individual's car and let's observe how well he or she can drive.
Comments
Post a Comment