Op Ed in the New York Times

Status
Not open for further replies.
Though it does get a little frustrating when the "requirements" are such things as "exclusive" print such as this nice little policy from the times...
Click to expand...

If exclusivity is a problem for you, try the Huffington Post.
 
Haven't they heard about Nazi Germany?
Click to expand...

Thats the problem. I think that bringing up what happened in Germany is a valid point. If you try to argue it, they bring up Goodwins Law - The theory that the first person in an argument to bring up Hitler automatically loses. They fail to recognize that that Mr. Goodwin intended to prevent analogies like "Hitler used sugar, you use sugar, so you must be evil." and not to prevent a valid comparison.

What I found most disturbing was her comment that under stress, no one is a good shot. So I suppose that she doesn't consider a marine rifleman over in Iraq to be a good shot...
 
What I found most disturbing was her comment that under stress, no one is a good shot. So I suppose that she doesn't consider a marine rifleman over in Iraq to be a good shot...
Click to expand...
Her argument reductio ad absurdum would be that since police officers are under stress when they use firearms in the line of duty, they aren't good shots, either -- and hence should not carry firearms.
 
Read the article. I'm a pretty center of the road guy, and get a lot of my news from CNN and NPR, as well as various internet sources. I vote both republican and Democrat depending on the issues.

But this article is garbage. Not even the slightest attempt to be fair in its rapid attempts to create and subsequently "shoot down" various strawmen from beginning to end. It pretty much just reads "bla bla bla guns bad bla bla bla healthcare bla bla guns". What, you mean guns can be used to kill people? We had NO IDEA!
 
So by her logic shouldn't the police be the first to be disarmed? Innocent bystanders are shot and killed, often by police. But guns also save the lives of cops and normal citizens who are being threatened and robbed. Ambulances save lives, but sometimes they run into a pedestrian or another car.
 
SHHH
you used logic
and this article in the same sentence
a logical evaluation (such as is happening here)
is the BANE of articles like this....
 
I am glad to remove the NYT from my favorites menu on Monday. Didn't like it for free and I sure won't pay for it. I would never imagine that anyone on a "gun enthusiast" website could actually consider Gail Collins a journalist. Bashing guns every chance she gets certainly suggests a "slant." Joe
 
ZeSpectre said:
Though it does get a little frustrating when the "requirements" are such things as "exclusive" print such as this nice little policy from the times...

We ask that all submissions be sent exclusively to The Times. We will not consider articles that have already been published in print or online.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's not the Times being snooty: it's just boilerplate to avoid conflicting copyright issues.
 
kayak-man said:
Thats the problem. I think that bringing up what happened in Germany is a valid point. If you try to argue it, they bring up Goodwins Law - The theory that the first person in an argument to bring up Hitler automatically loses. They fail to recognize that that Mr. Goodwin intended to prevent analogies like "Hitler used sugar, you use sugar, so you must be evil." and not to prevent a valid comparison.
Click to expand...
The most highly ranked comment made an irrelevant appeal to emotion using Somalia. The poster claims to be a professor who has managed to get by with a poor grasp of punctuation and grammar.

P.S. It's Godwin's Law, not Goodwin's Law.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top