Dismissing someone’s argument over semantics is trivial objection that doesn’t engage in the actual argument. You understand perfectly well what the argument is, and that it’s addressing a different issue than categories of armament.
Plus, declaring your opponent an “incompetent fool” to dismiss their argument is a bonus ad hominem fallacy.
It is not semantics. People honestly don’t know what defines an assault rifle vs a semi auto.
Also looking incompetent isn’t me saying that to dismiss their argument it is them simply looking like they don’t know what they’re talking about and thus their own actions make them able to be disregarded.
You really don’t understand logical fallacies or how they work it seems.
Well I will agree that one of us does not have a grasp on logical fallacies.
People do not NEED to know the textbook definition of an assault rifle to know that a weapon designed for maximum carnage should be regulated. You also don’t NEED to hear an accurate reference to a specific weapon to understand their argument. You know what they mean.
By outright dismissing them because they haven’t defined a term to your satisfaction, you are not engaging in good faith.
If you really were interested in discussion, you would respond to establish a standard definition and then, based on that definition, provide your counter argument.
It’s not tho. Use specific terms and u don’t look like an incompetent fool.
Dismissing someone’s argument over semantics is trivial objection that doesn’t engage in the actual argument. You understand perfectly well what the argument is, and that it’s addressing a different issue than categories of armament.
Plus, declaring your opponent an “incompetent fool” to dismiss their argument is a bonus ad hominem fallacy.
It is not semantics. People honestly don’t know what defines an assault rifle vs a semi auto. Also looking incompetent isn’t me saying that to dismiss their argument it is them simply looking like they don’t know what they’re talking about and thus their own actions make them able to be disregarded.
You really don’t understand logical fallacies or how they work it seems.
Well I will agree that one of us does not have a grasp on logical fallacies.
People do not NEED to know the textbook definition of an assault rifle to know that a weapon designed for maximum carnage should be regulated. You also don’t NEED to hear an accurate reference to a specific weapon to understand their argument. You know what they mean.
By outright dismissing them because they haven’t defined a term to your satisfaction, you are not engaging in good faith.
If you really were interested in discussion, you would respond to establish a standard definition and then, based on that definition, provide your counter argument.