Yes yes all the law abiding citizens should have their guns confiscated and the government should keep all the money and anyone who sees things any differently is uneducated and dumb
No one said anything even remotely close to any of those things, you should try to view things rationally instead of hastly overgeneralizing like that ._. overgeneralization doesn't substitute for actual arguments.
listen well fren cuz i'm bout to drop this knowledge on you
Gun control doesn't mean every citizen should have their guns confiscated, it means that a citizen can apply for a licence for a gun and that you can't bring guns to public places. If you have a valid reason for a gun, you are mentally healthy and your background is clean, you would get your licence for a gun without any problems. Gun control is globally proven to be an effective method to lower the amount of homicides.
(
here's a link to finland's wiki page on gun politics and I can say that they are effective)
you're overgeneralizing the liberal view again, which you have admittedly done in the past as well. literally no one has said or implied that you shouldn't have money. besides i'm pretty money would lose all value if only government had it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You're saying that people should respect other people's views but you still talk about it condescendingly, don't you think it's hypocritical to expect someone to respect fe. your views if you're condescending towards others? Also I literally made my previous post on this thread about how if you're "uneducated"(notice how this adjective can be replaced with any other adjective), it doesn't mean your arguments wouldn't be as valid as anyone else's. And you're talking like there is some universal definition to "dumb" or "uneducated". You assume some people here can't view other people's opinions rationally, but sorry to say it, to me it looks like you're the one with that problem.
That's basically every informal fallacy right? Any logic that doesn't specifically adress the argument has some fancy shmancy name.
What is "basically every informal fallacy"? (I didn't get your point exactly! D:)
I was specifically talking about ad hominem, but in general, names for informal fallacies tend to help people to adress the argument properly.
(For example, if we take "any logic that doesn't specifically adress the argument has some fancy shmancy name.", you can say that's it's an essentialistic generalization, because it's based on you defining any term in context with logic as "fancy shmancy".)
