this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
-2 points (47.8% liked)

Conservative

391 readers
95 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I never alluded to such non-existent rights. If you can’t make an argument without jumping to strawman arguments, then politics may not be for you.

Taking a subset of a political opponent's argument and showing how it's harmful is a core conservative rhetorical strategy. Look at this article from today about Britney Spears's abortion which argues against it because she had access to it, the liberal dream. If one person has access to abortion, and it causes problem, then it probably causes problems in the majority of cases.

In any case, my three links about gun statistics support your argument. I'm not strawmaning anything. I'm looking at it directly in the face and dismissing it based on the fact that the law and historical interpretation of the Second Amendment (as of 2008) establishes a right to bear arms. I assume the law is the final arbiter of all things permissible in society (except for all the laws I don't care to follow). Thus, having concluded that guns are permissible and desirable, I can rationalize backwards, finding evidence that guns support life in contrast to a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

The other day, someone pointed out that I was a troll from the previous conservative instance. They're not exactly wrong...but I don't discriminate. Liberals need to get better at handling conservative rhetoric. Because none of your arguments are effective.

[–] PizzaMan 0 points 1 year ago

Taking a subset of a political opponent’s argument and showing how it’s harmful is a core conservative rhetorical strategy

I am well aware. I deal with it all the time.

Because none of your arguments are effective.

If you have suggestions I'm all ears. Until then this is only a complaint with no solution.

I'm also not really here to convince conservatives.

In any case, my three links about gun statistics support your argument.

The last two do, but I don't see how your first link comes to a pro-gun control conclusion.