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.
And anyone who has taken a firearms safety course is supposed to know that guns are not deterrents nor are they disablers. Guns are meant for killing and taking one into a potential confrontation means you belief you will nee to kill. This makes taking a gun into any potential confrontation (which following someone in the dark always is) always inherently dangerous. So they are, indeed, similar in that regard.
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.
Actually, I was making the claim that if we allow someone to create a threat for a second party (which following at night does) and then allow
them to make the assumption of when the threat is over (simply because
they are no longer aware of it), we should extend the same privilege to everyone who creates a threat to another party (or parties), such as discharging a firearm into the air.
That is where I am applying the same principle to both ideas. And that is why it is reduction to the absurd instead of slippery slope. And that is why it makes sense.
I acknowledged the argument from fallacy fallacy and also indicated that to avoid it, maybe you shouldn't use a fallacy to begin with.
And thus completely missed the point of fallacy fallacy. Which was why I once more called attention to it.
Further, I addressed your falacy by explaining why it was a fallacy and why the conclusion reached because of it was false.
In the original post I was responding to, you did not. You mentioned you thought it was a fallacy (wrongly dismissing it in doing so) and why fallacies destroy debates, but never addressed why you thought it may have been a fallacy nor the actual point in bringing it up.
Spoilered here for reference:
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.
Slippery slope.
Fallacious arguments have a place, and that place is in political debates. In any serious discussion with reasonably intelligent competition, inserting a fallacy into your argument unnecessarily weakens what may or may not be a solid foundation. Aside from being a fallacy, it further encourages others to commit one - argument from fallacy (that because a claim is fallacious, it is necessarily false). It turns an argument into a shitfest. This is the second time you've brought one into the discussion, so you either don't recognize it as a fallacy or are intentionally attempting to use it to sway opinion or dissimulate facts.
If you are of the opinion that people should not act out vigilante cowboy fantasies, that is perfectly reasonable. However, by the same logic, people should also not act out vigilante martial arts fantasies.
False equivalency, you act like one is just as dangerous, reckless, and lethal as the other. Ideally, neither would be acted out. But considering Martin was a an unarmed minor being followed by some stranger, it's quite likely he was scared and not thinking as calmly and rationally as someone sitting at a computer screen. Zimmerman might also have been afraid of who Martin was and not thinking straight, though he was a fully grown adult, the one doing the pursuing, the one with access to a car for actual easy escape, and the one with a gun.
Here is an example of the proper way to respond to what you feel is a fallacy in your opponent's argument. Call it out, explain why you called it out, then attempt to refute it logically.
Had you attempted to actually address it, it would have become clear to you much sooner the point I was actually trying to make, which I will here reiterate since you have missed it so many times before.
I wasn't comparing discharging into the air and following another person, but instead was pointing out that we have to treat them the same if we allow the one starting the action to decide when they are no longer responsible for the consequences of their own actions.
Trayvon turned around and followed George back to his vehicle.
Yes, he did. But that is not the instigation of a new conflict. That is Trayvon's response to Zimmerman's initial instigation. That is the consequence of Zimmerman's actions in pursuing Trayvon by vehicle and on foot. That is the consequence of Zimmerman's actions of making Trayvon
feel his life was in danger.
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.
Harm or death that would have resulted directly from his own actions. And I believe this means he has no right to claim self defense.
The attacks on the character of ... Martin were ... unwarranted
Again, no. His character had a lot to do with whether or not he was A) profiling and B) seeking violence when initiating the conflict. These are entirely relevant to whether he committed murder or simply manslaughter.
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.
And I would like to see any evidence that this is the case. I have not seen a single quote from someone saying Trayvon told them he knew he had lost his pursuer and was going back to try and kill him anyway.
Perhaps it's the media's fault for not making such a quote more known in their racist agenda? Why then have you not posted such a direct quote?
Until such time as
evidence is presented that Trayvon had malicious intent himself, why are we making assumptions about someone who, by the self acknowledged actions of another, cannot defend themselves, due to being dead?
nor would anyone consider it reasonable to turn around and assault said follower.
Actually, Florida's own laws consider it reasonable, as long as you believe in any way they mean to cause you harm. And being followed by a stranger at night, in a vehicle and
then on foot, even after I have tried to lose them before, I would most certainly assume they meant to cause me harm.
That's not the kind of effort people generally put into following you for any other reason, especially if they're not calling out to you or trying to get your attention.
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.
Yet, shooting a fleeing criminal that is no longer on your own property (or never even was in the first place - one involved a man shooting thieves on his neighbor's property) has been upheld as valid under stand your ground in multiple different cases, which, iirc, were linked in the thread already.
This is, obviously, a huge issue with the law in question, and I'm glad you agree.
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.
Actually, they do not. You can confront someone physically and threaten them quite well without ever actually causing them bodily harm, especially if the other person is any more skilled without weapons than you are. But that doesn't mean you don't pose a threat, especially if you are armed.
Even if Trayvon took the first swing (or even just the first one that landed) it doesn't mean he's the one that made the confrontation physical. And the only word we have on it is that of the killer.
Zimmerman didn't testify
He, at least, had the option.
What Trayvon did in the past does have bearing on establishing whether or not he posed a credible threat to Zimmerman
But not on whether or not Zimmerman instigated the conflict with an ulterior motive or due to profiling, so is still entirely moot to the case.
