I suppose I lied when I said I was done.
Reduction to the absurd is actually a completely legitimate technique and not at all fallacious. It gets a bad rap because of fools (like Scalia and, apparently, Demelain) who cannot distinguish it from the slippery slope.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.
In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
The statement which I called slippery slope:
Next they will be saying that I am not at fault when the bullet comes down into a crowd just because I incorrectly thought firing it into the air was the end of it.
He made a conscious choice to take a weapon meant for killing along while stalking a complete stranger with no reason other than vigilantism. And he is still to blame for the events set in motion by that aggressive act, including his own death if that had been the result instead.
The poor logic that an aggressor gets to choose the end of the encounter and has any ground to claim self defense both set horrible and dangerous precedents that will not, ever, end well.
Why it is not reducto ad absurdum, and it is instead slippery slope:
*Following someone on public property is neither inherently dangerous nor irresponsible, unlike discharging a firearm into the air,
which anyone who has taken a firearm safety course knows is reckless and dangerous.
*You are attempting to claim that if we allow someone to follow someone else and, as a result, the follower is assaulted by the person being followed, and the follower is forced to kill his attacker because he is in legitimate fear for his life, we
must accept that someone who, unprovoked and without cause, discharges a firearm into the air, is not responsible for where that bullet lands.
So you can just fucking explain how your argument made
any goddamn sense at all.
Either way, assuming it not need be addressed falls squarely under the fallacy fallacy and the false assumption that the mere notion that an opponent's logic may not be completely sound intrinsically invalidates that opponent's conclusion.
I acknowledged the argument from fallacy fallacy and also indicated that to avoid it, maybe you shouldn't use a fallacy to begin with. Further, I addressed your falacy by explaining why it was a fallacy and why the conclusion reached because of it was false.
With the logic this has established, I could break into someone's home and, if they had the gall to attack me, I could shoot them. And I may be arrested for breaking and entering and I may be charged with attempted robbery... But killing them was purely self defense.
Nice straw man.
George didn't "break into someone's home" - he was on public property. Trayvon was not defending himself or his property. Trayvon did not attack a burglar, a belligerent drunk, or a verbally aggressive provocateur. Trayvon noticed someone was following him, lost his pursuer, turned around and followed his pursuer, confronted his pursuer, and physically assaulted his pursuer. If you're going to shit on Zimmerman for not letting the police handle it, then you've got to shit on Trayvon, too - because George followed Trayvon with the intent of making sure he was not breaking into a house. Trayvon followed George with the intent or knowledge that a physical altercation would results, lent credence by the fact that he began that altercation.
I admit I did not address the second one, because it was so blatantly absurd that I didn't think it needed addressing. But apparently I'm wrong about that. I've corrected myself and addressed it in this post.
But, I've found that, more often than not, people who spout off fallacy names without actually addressing an issue generally only do so because they are unable to actually address the issue themselves, even if it would only require actually explaining how and/or why a fallacy has been used. It's the current trend in total argument evasion and is as valid as simply shouting "nu-uh!"/quote]
I did address your issues, and they were even issues which had been raised elsewhere in the thread and addressed.
Does not matter. He instigated the confrontation. He was the initial aggressor. It is HIS fault that a conflict happened.
Except again, that's wrong. Zimmerman followed Trayvon, but lost sight of him and returned to his vehicle. Trayvon turned around and followed George back to his vehicle. Meaning the Trayvon instigated the conflict, because he could have just kept going home.
Nor should you be allowed to stalk them, both in a vehicle and on foot, while carrying a gun (anyone with proper training knows guns are not for intimidation or wounding, they are for killing), against the advice of the people charged with coordinating government assistance to private citizens no less, and still claim self defense when you kill them because they had the audacity to perceive you as a threat.
That's right. Guns are for killing. And it was used for its purpose, within the constraints of the law, and to reasonably protect himself from serious harm or death.
He admitted to killing another human being. He is guilty by confession.
The trial was not to determine guilt or innocence, but whether the killing was justified and what the punishment would be.
And because of a poorly worded law combined with grossly moot character assassination, the wrong decision was reached.
Addressed, and repeatedly. And drop the character assassination - the prosecution instigated in by attacking Zimmerman (the judge in the pre-trial informed the prosecution that they were permitted to question Zimmerman's character. The defense was told that they were permitted to question Trayvon Martin's character only if the prosecution made it relevant by questioning Zimmerman's). The attacks on the character of the defendant and Martin were both unwarranted, but the Defense did not initiate it. They were both aware ahead of time it was a possible topic, and had adequate time to prepare. That Zimmerman's defense was more successful cannot be attributed to him being alive (he never took the stand) - it can be more properly attributed to either inadequacy on the part of the prosecution, or the fact that there simply wasn't much to attack.
Sadly, this is the truth. And the argument in favor of it being self defense is that just because Zimmerman thought the encounter that HE had deliberately initiated was over, he was no longer at fault for setting it in motion.
...
He made a conscious choice to take a weapon meant for killing along while stalking a complete stranger with no reason other than vigilantism. And he is still to blame for the events set in motion by that aggressive act, including his own death if that had been the result instead.
The poor logic that an aggressor gets to choose the end of the encounter and has any ground to claim self defense both set horrible and dangerous precedents that will not, ever, end well.
For the rest of that, he wasn't the aggressor. Trayvon followed Zimmerman knowing that he (George) had lost him (Martin) and was returning to his vehicle. You cannot dispute this, because you have no evidence to the contrary. If you do, both I and the state of Florida would like to see it - such evidence would be significant enough to prompt a retrial.
So why don't you take a moment to explain why I'm wrong, instead of repeating the same arguments as though they'll become true if you say them enough.
On the matter of Zimmerman instigating the conflict:
While following someone on public property is odd, it is neither a crime in and of itself, nor would anyone consider it reasonable to turn around and assault said follower. Your opinion may differ on this, but it remains an opinion until you both provide a more concrete definition of instigation and show that Zimmerman's actions fall securely under it.
There is tons of room to argue when, exactly, the criminal action has stopped. After all, if the robbery was thwarted and the attempted robber was fleeing, a crime has been committed, but is not being committed.
And the fact that we even have to discuss it is absolutely ridiculous.
You're right that you could not
shoot a fleeing criminal. Why? Because you are not in immediate fear for your life. But you COULD pursue him and attempt a citizen's arrest, using non-lethal force if necessary.
even if his story of not physically attacking first is true, as we should assume it to be, since the only one who could refute it is dead.
Also the physical evidence of Trayvon only having wounds on his knuckles and the single bullet wound supports that George did not physically confront or oppose Trayvon prior to the self-defense action. You know, because he was screaming for help and wanted to get away without anyone getting hurt. A shame that Trayvon wouldn't let that happen.
The deceased's character is moot because it cannot be defended.
It also has no bearing on the reason Zimmerman took action before a physical confrontation occurred. What Martin may or may not have done in the past has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Zimmerman was motivated by any kind of previous grudge or prejudice.
Why can't it be defended? Is it beause the deceased cannot testify? Zimmerman didn't testify, but that didn't stop his character from being defended. It's almost like character is attacked and defended primarily through people who know you, rather than yourself. Maybe that's because, for the purpose of establishing someone's character, it is useless to ask the person directly.
What Trayvon did in the past
does have bearing on establishing whether or not he posed a credible threat to Zimmerman, and whether or not Zimmerman could have defended himself without lethal force. Martin's participation in informal fighting competitions were vital to that.
