Argumentation on Reddit
[012] Delusional Troll #1
Username: Repulsive_Grand4746
​
Interlocutor: Redditor18, Redditor19 (Delusional Troll)
​
Subreddit: changemyview
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Preface:
​
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor18:
Change My View: The right to bear arms and free speech are inalienable human rights.
​
​
I don't understand the POV of gun control and wish to learn how it would be effectively enforced without the government overreaching on an individual's rights.
​
I see it as very dangerous when I see someone who wants to "ban all guns".
​
I'll hang up and listen.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor19 (Delusional Troll):
The right to bear arms isn't even listed on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
​
The right to protect oneself is an inalienable human right; the right to bear arms is not.
​
Literally by no standard is bearing arms a basic human right. By what logic is it a basic human right?
​
All throughout human history it shows the slippery slope of taking away the right to defend yourself. I can give over 100 examples since the dawn of humanity.
​
Nice bait-and-switch.
​
Your post isn't about the right to defend oneself.
​
Your post is about the right to bear arms. Please stay on the topic of your own choice.
​
​
I don't understand the POV of gun control and wish to learn how it would be effectively enforced without the government overreaching on an individual's rights.
​
It's not my job to educate you.
​
Do some research; read about countries where gun control is in place.
​
Since you haven't done that, your current view doesn't appear to be well-informed. There's nothing to change, because it's built on nothing.
​
​
I see it as very dangerous when I see someone who wants to "ban all guns".
​
1. That's a weird extreme. No place on earth has outlawed all guns.
​
2. You forgot to elaborate on these supposed dangers. People cannot change your view if you won't share your view.
​
​
I'll hang up and listen.
​
So you're not interested in learning after all?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
[Redditor18 left the chat]
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
Literally by no standard is bearing arms a basic human right. By what logic is it a basic human right?
​
It is a basic human right by Redditor18's standard. Please read more carefully.
​
​
There's nothing to change...
​
You can change their view about bearing arms being a basic human right. Did you notice that? You disagreed with them on it.
​
​
People cannot change your view if you won't share your view.
​
Redditor18 shared their view. It is about bearing arms being a basic human right. So that was a redundant thing for you to say.
​
​
So you're not interested in learning after all?
Redditor18 said they were listening, which is a necessary part of learning here. They probably are interested in learning.
​
Hope I helped clear up any confusion for you!
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor19 (Delusional Troll):
It is a basic human right by Redditor18's standard. Please read more carefully.
​
He didn't give any standard. Please read more careful.
​
​
Redditor18 shared their view.
​
Humor me:
​
What's their view on why right to bear arms and right to free speech are unalienable human rights?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
He didn't give any standard. Please read more careful.
​
Redditor18 established their view, so Redditor18 has a standard they get their view from.
​
We ought to be careful to not outright reject people's standards with extreme blanket statements like "There is literally no standard for your view".
​
Behavior like that can make a person exhausting and unreasonable to engage with.
​
Perhaps this is where you double down and further argue Redditor18 has no standard and you know every standard that exists so you can reasonably affirm a specific one does not exist?
​
​
What's their view on why right to bear arms and right to free speech are unalienable human rights?
​
You are both quoting the view Redditor18 challenged you to change and framing them as not having shared a view to change.
​
Something is wrong there.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor19 (Delusional Troll):
What's their view on why right to bear arms and right to free speech are unalienable human rights?
​
Something is wrong there.
​
Yeah, you didn't answer the question.
​
I wonder why it's difficult for you to put their view into words.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
Yeah, you didn't answer the question.
​
Of course, because it is a red herring. You are resorting to logical fallacies in order to keep up with me.
​
People cannot change your view if you won't share your view.
​
Redditor18 shared their view. It is about bearing arms being a basic human right.
​
What's their view on why right to bear arms and right to free speech are unalienable human rights?
​
That is where you went off the track. In order to follow a coherent discussion, you are supposed to either admit they shared a changeable view, or reject their post and affirm they did not share a changeable view. Going off and inquiring a reason for their view is a red herring when the subject is whether they shared a changeable view.
​
Their view and the reason they hold their view are two different things. They gave you their changeable view. You are framing them as not giving you a changeable view. I do not submit to your fallacies.
​
I wonder why it's difficult for you to put their view into words.
​
Do not wonder that, because it is very easy for me to do. I did it several times here.
​
You are pretending to somehow know what is difficult and what is easy for me, but you really do not know. You are wondering off your speculations but presenting your guesses as fact. I can do that, too.
​
I can use your method of communication and say, I wonder why you are trolling.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor19 (Delusional Troll):
What's their view on why right to bear arms and right to free speech are unalienable human rights?
​
Something is wrong there.
​
Yeah, you didn't answer the question.
​
Of course, because it is a red herring.
​
Redditor18's view is a red herring? Alright.
​
Interestingly, you still fail to explain what Redditor18's view is. Because he didn't give one...
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
Redditor18's view is a red herring? Alright.
​
You do not pay attention to the entirety of a message? Alright. That is unfortunate because we are having a discussion.
​
It is interesting that you conveniently leave out the parts where I show you are resorting to using a logical fallacy in order to keep up with me. When I mention your fallacy, you frame my words as being directed towards the Redditor18. So you are twisting my messages via the Reddit quotation system. It is interesting to see what you twist. // It is like watching a lizard in a terrarium, waiting to see which insect it will eat next.
​
Do you have no better way to engage?
​
​
Interestingly, you still fail to explain what Redditor18's view is. Because he didn't give one...
​
It is interesting that you accept Redditor18 provided a view while rejecting they provided a view - all in the same message.
​
It is interesting what I am able to point out by observing the entirety of a message.
​
Redditor18's view is a red herring? Alright.
Redditor18 did not give a view.
This dialogue appears to be a discussion between two people, but it is from your single message. How can Redditor18 have a fallacious view if there is no view? That is a logical contradiction.
​
If you are playing on Reddit and using sarcasm, you might find more accepting communities geared towards a younger audience. This subreddit is for serious discussion. Redditor18 shared a view on gun rights. The best thing to do is discuss their view in a productive manner.
​
Hope I helped!
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor19 (Delusional Troll):
Do you have no better way to engage?
​
Engage with what?
​
​
It is interesting that you accept Redditor18 provided a view while rejecting they provided a view - all in the same message.
​
You're delusional.
​
​
Hope I helped!
​
Nope.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
Engage with what?
​
With me.
​
I will spell the question out for you in case you need more help understanding it clearly. Do you have no better way to engage with me than how you are currently engaging with me?
​
​
You're delusional.
​
Twisting messages is delusional.
​
How am I delusional?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Redditor19 (Delusional Troll):
Do you have no better way to engage with me than how you are currently engaging with me?
​
Engage with you on what?
​
​
How am I delusional?
​
It is interesting that you accept Redditor18 provided a view while rejecting they provided a view - all in the same message.
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Repulsive_Grand4746:
Engage with you on what?
​
What do you mean engage with you on what?
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
[Redditor19 left the chat]
​
​
------------------------------------------------------------
Previous: [011] Written In 1787
Next: [???] ???????
​
Enter: Additional Writings