Shapiro vs Morgan

[HumblePie]

If that is what Morgan says...I believe you...and that is asshat level stuff.

I am clear I think Morgan is a blowhard.

That said, Shapiro makes a political point by using his dead ancestors...something that turns me off just as much as anything Morgan said.

I don't need any appeal to emotion to understand Mr. Shapiro or his political positions. The minute him or anyone else serves up a platter of fallacious BS I'm skeptical of their logic and reasoning.

The political point he was making, and it was a personal use unlike Morgan who has no personal history with Sandy Hook children, is that tyrannical governments can come up even in the most peaceable and stable nation at any time. That when it happens people die. That people have to fight back against tyranny or people usually continue to die. It was pretty easy to extrapolate that from Shapiro's statement regarding his dead grandparents as a result of his explanation for Morgan.

There is a MASSIVE difference in how Shapiro mentions his dead grandparents and what Morgan does with the Sandy Hook children that died. Shapiro said because of how my grandparents died, being turned to ashes, is why I support gun rights.

Morgan basically states that if you don't believe in banning guns, then you believe in killing children like those at Sandy Hook. Something he has said. HUGE difference as one is using a historical fact as a backing to a factual claim while the other is using hyperbole by equating two things that aren't equal.

 

[irishScott]

If that is what Morgan says...I believe you...and that is asshat level stuff.

I am clear I think Morgan is a blowhard.

That said, Shapiro makes a political point by using his dead ancestors...something that turns me off just as much as anything Morgan said.

I don't need any appeal to emotion to understand Mr. Shapiro or his political positions. The minute him or anyone else serves up a platter of fallacious BS I'm skeptical of their logic and reasoning.

Then you must avoid effectively all political discourse, because personal reasons are a big part of it.

So if someone supports gun rights in part because they were robbed at one point, do you reject that argument as well? Conversely, Representative McCarthy's son was murdered with a gun, which inspired her to be anti-gun. Is this invalid as well?

Granted neither is a logical argument, but a big part of politics and media is relating to people. If we were to just go off raw stats an AWB and magazine ban would be laughable ideas.

 

[OrByte]

But Morgan didn't do the same, that's the point. See this for starters:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uzHB9serew&t=2m22s

He openly used dead children to imply that gun lobbyists "don't get it." and "don't want change." Both of which are absolutely false in most cases.

Shapiro did nothing of the sort. He simply stated an argument and his reasons, which happen to include his grandparents. He didn't use them to pass or imply moral judgement on Morgan.

I disagree!

Shapiro used his dead grandparents as an appeal to emotion to elevate his status and knowledge base in the argument. Because his grandparents died of a tyrannical forces, his belief of how a government can and will be tyrannical is elevated due to his connection to tyrannical governments.

So now I'm forced to believe he knows better about tyranny than me or Morgan.

nope...thats a fallacious argument. He is a smart fellow, well spoken, and in control of his facilities...but he can use a bad argument just as well as Morgan or Rush or any of the other blowhards.

The whole point being, he could have made his argument without mentioning his grandparents..but because he did, he is guilty of emotional persuasion....just like Morgan. It may look and sound and act differently...but it is the same

 

[HumblePie]

I disagree!

Shapiro used his dead grandparents as an appeal to emotion to elevate his status and knowledge base in the argument. Because his grandparents died of a tyrannical forces, his belief of how a government can and will be tyrannical is elevated due to his connection to tyrannical governments.

So now I'm forced to believe he knows better about tyranny than me or Morgan.

nope...thats a fallacious argument. He is a smart fellow, well spoken, and in control of his facilities...but he can use a bad argument just as well as Morgan or Rush or any of the other blowhards.

The whole point being, he could have made his argument without mentioning his grandparents..but because he did, he is guilty of emotional persuasion....just like Morgan. It may look and sound and act differently...but it is the same

Was mentioning the ashes bit an appeal to emotion in a backhanded slap to Morgan? Sure was. But the difference is in presentation and how it was applied.

Shapiro did not state anything like, "Well if you aren't for gun rights then you are obviously in favor of burning Jews like the Holocost."

THAT would be something very similar to the hyperbole that Morgan spews and would have been very bad. I would have turned in disgust if he had.

But when Morgan is asking for an example of government tyranny one needs firearms to defend against, using a historical example, albeit a personal one with an emotional appeal, is a legit argument.

 

[OrByte]

Was mentioning the ashes bit an appeal to emotion in a backhanded slap to Morgan? Sure was. But the difference is in presentation and how it was applied.

Shapiro did not state anything like, "Well if you aren't for gun rights then you are obviously in favor of burning Jews like the Holocost."

THAT would be something very similar to the hyperbole that Morgan spews and would have been very bad. I would have turned in disgust if he had.

But when Morgan is asking for an example of government tyranny one needs firearms to defend against, using a historical example, albeit a personal one with an emotional appeal, is a legit argument.

I only slightly disagree with you..

They both employ bad logic arguments. Using an emotional appeal is the exact opposite of a legitimate argument even if you agree with the conclusion of the argument. Even if the emotional appeal is dressed up all pretty like.

That is where I go back to Shapiro being a hypocrite when he himself uses his own dead ancestors as an emotional appeal to win his argument that he is RIGHT to believe in a 2nd Amendment that protects against a tyrannical government.

He didn't have to mention his ancestors in order to make that point...but he did...and I have to call him out on it. Not that it matters.....

 

[OrByte]

Then you must avoid effectively all political discourse, because personal reasons are a big part of it.

So if someone supports gun rights in part because they were robbed at one point, do you reject that argument as well? Conversely, Representative McCarthy's son was murdered with a gun, which inspired her to be anti-gun. Is this invalid as well?

Granted neither is a logical argument, but a big part of politics and media is relating to people. If we were to just go off raw stats an AWB and magazine ban would be laughable ideas.

no if someone supports gun rights in part because they were robbed at one point then that is a valid argument for him/her.

 

[HumblePie]

I only slightly disagree with you..

They both employ bad logic arguments. Using an emotional appeal is the exact opposite of a legitimate argument even if you agree with the conclusion of the argument. Even if the emotional appeal is dressed up all pretty like.

That is where I go back to Shapiro being a hypocrite when he himself uses his own dead ancestors as an emotional appeal to win his argument that he is RIGHT to believe in a 2nd Amendment that protects against a tyrannical government.

He didn't have to mention his ancestors in order to make that point...but he did...and I have to call him out on it. Not that it matters.....

Including passion or emotion into a debate does not invalidate nor automatically make your point a logic fallacy. Using an emotional appeal as your sole explanation IS a logic fallacy, but using emotion itself as a PART of the argument doesn't automatically make the argument inherently incorrect or flawed. We are robots or vulcans. While using good and sound logic reasoning is what you want to do with your arguments, sometimes using a passionate appeal based upon a sound argument is needed to break through with your point to the other person. And when you think about it, what is the point of an argument or debate discourse?? It's to convince someone else of your argument. With some people, spouting pure facts alone will not win over the target audience. This is all Debate Team 101 stuff. Being the type of debated that just reads out cold facts isn't going to win usually.

You need to know how to bring a logical argument with cold facts and present them in a way that will not only garner the attention of your target audience, but make them pay attention for the facts you want to give them as well as try to sway them to your line of thinking. THAT is Debate Team 101. Now the finer nuances of how that is done is for Debate Team 201 class which I won't go into right now

Basically, I am pointing out that what Shapiro did was GOOD debate strategy and what Morgan does is a hyperbolic, logic fallacy, strawman pundit want of convincing.