Previous Post
Next Post

Logical Fallacy Referee (courtesy

TTAG’s posting policy: no flaming the website, its authors or fellow commentators. This “play nice” policy makes our comments section a clean, well-lighted place where civilized people can engage in respectful debate. While that’s still working well, there’s a growing tendency amongst TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia to personally attack the subjects of our posts. In Director of Women and Gender Studies at College at Brockport, NY: Ban Guns! dozens of commentators sneered at Barbara LeSavoy‘s looks and sexual orientation. Nope. Not having it. TTAG will not, must not stoop to the anti-gunners’ habit of using ad hominem attacks on people with whom they disagree. We will continue to delete comments on this nature. Your restraint and understanding is most appreciated.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • @bastiches: As this is his forum he is God on here. His forum, his rules. Makes sense to me. There are plenty of other forums for those that don’t like the rules here.

      • As clarification-

        The little troll that identifies its self as “God” I dismissively refer to as ‘god’ is a favorite punch-toy of mine.

        Now, I’m not the jealous or possessive type and as far as I’m concerned, any of the regular TTAG’ers are welcome to play with ‘it’ as much as they like and make it dance…

        Just try and be creative about it.


        • Don’t sweat it Nick, Tyler’s just upset because he was outshot by a 12yr old girl and a handful of college kids, who probably haven’t yet started shaving, at Pecos.

        • What’s that? I couldn’t hear you down there in the middle of the pack. I’m up here in the top 10 where the air is fresh and clean.

        • oh lordy, you guys cracked me up big time. I am glad I live alone, since I am snorting in my drink and then giggling like a idiot on drugs.

          Maybe Nick should do a cross-over type article some day. Go drive with a rally driver coaching you, then take the rally driver thru a 3 gun setup. That would check a lot of boxes for me, i love me some hot cars off road AND the smell of gun powder.

  1. Ya, that’s why Conservatives have to argue stupid sh_t. If you can’t attack a person’s character, then you are forced to argue with them, and 1 = INFINITY more than 0 when it comes to lending credence to what would otherwise not qualify as even poorly natured manure.

    • Hmm is that ad hominem too? But seriously, I would rather not see overly broad “conservatives do x” or “liberals think y” generalizations on TTAG. It won’t help us win over any 2A fence sitters.

      • What part of upholding the Constitution is winning over fence sitters. Uphold or die, not uphold or kinda ablate the thing while I stand by and not call ya on it. We don’t argue here against problems caused or proposed by Conservatives. Even abortion (as an example), society has long chucked abortion as abhorrent, Conservatives call that out but libtards want to take a second look.

        • And by “chucked as abhorrent”, you mean “steadily liberalized the laws and the social acceptance of” over the past, like, 100 years?

        • If you think there’s been any greater acceptance achieved whatsoever, I would caution otherwise. What has been accomplished is that there has been a retraction in social bonding (fewer people think their fellow man is worthy of a societal pairing) and that has always shown to lead to ruin. Acceptable mores, norms, and ethics make apoear to change periodically, but if viewed long-term, have not moved whatsoever over the course of millenia, and it is improper to believe that your attempts to change it will be different. Human nature and physics have already decided.

          You are correct in your indication that those wishing to promote abotion have moved-off (moved away from) those who were bulwarking and safeguarding ‘Society’, and those people are Conservatives.

    • …Especially when such juicy red meat (like Ms LeSavoy) is thrown in our pen.

      TTAG knows how to get our dander up, that’s fer sure.

    • I didn’t comment on that other post, but: Dang! It was hard not to comment on the Professor’s appearance.


      For future reference:

      Please make it easier on us by not including personal photos when the antis look like that. It is so tempting to take the low road.

  2. Good.

    But does TTAG’s policy prohibit providing details such as the home address, email, and phone number of *public figures* that speak against 2A matters? I’ve noticed such information published by anti-2A bloggers about *private persons* that favor 2A issues.

    • Well……yes and no. Doxxing is bad if anyone but TTAG does it. The article in question provided a link straight to the professor’s bio page, after all, which includes her email address. I’d bet that got flooded from TTAG readers, she and/or the school complained, and here we are.

      • There is a fine line between fixing and posting professional contact information for someone that has made themselves a public figure.

        The work address, held out for public review and contact is, I think, on this side of the line. A personal address, would have been crossing it.

  3. TBH, I didn’t click on the article until I saw this post. I saw the headline w/picture which was enough for me to know I didn’t want to waste time with the article -didn’t even read the intro. I’m sure the article was accurate, I just didn’t want to hear her pass gas through her mouth. Just tellin like it is. You post zoomed face pictures like this or the HC picture the other day or Feinstein, you got to expect some remarks. Nearly everyone is rocking HD resolution the days. Unattractive people who knowingly antagonize and infringe rights of a group of people better be ready for some sort of rejection. There once was a picture of the best looking DA in the country spouting about gun rights. Wasn’t much anybody could say about ugliness, so somebody popped in with “I’d still hit it.” The point is to show as much disdain and disrespect for the very people that have no respect for the BoR or their fellow citizens.

  4. Really appreciate this housekeeping. It is annoying to see posts that are off the topic and attack someone looks or some personal attribute that has nothing to do with the discussion. Thank You.

  5. Understood, I’m all about the “do unto others as they would do unto you” mind set. We have to laugh at these folks though, if for no other reason than for our own sanity…

    People like Barbara give us so much ad hominem material. I’ll be nice though as I value what TTAG dose and the brain trust that we are. I’m honored to be able to be a little part of that…. So okay…For the Team!!!

  6. Ah, taking a page from the liberal playbook – only the comments you approve of are allowed. Dammit Rob, we’ve had this discussion many times (off the website, because of course you delete any criticism) and you’d been pretty good about it for the last couple of years. I guess just like the anti’s, you were just biding your time to bust out the same “law” again. You can put the liberal in a red state, but you can’t take the blue state out of him. =)

    Don’t worry, I know this will be deleted in under 5 minutes and I’ll receive an angry email. I don’t have the energy to argue with you about it this time, so I won’t respond / complain. Still, when you stoop to censorship of any kind, you’re no better than they are. Remember, there are no shades of grey when it comes to freedom – you’re either for it or you’re not. Saying that you’re for free speech but only if you approve of it is like saying that you’re for the Second Amendment, but only for specific types of guns.

    • Speaking of the liberal playbook, isn’t it a liberal idea that my freedom requires that I get something from you? in other words “for me to have free speech you have to provide and maintain a forum for me to post things you dissagree with”. Now if ttag was blocking you from starting your own forum or blocking your access to other forums that allow ad hominum attacks I would see it as an attack on your freedom. What I won’t ever agree with is a freedom that requires others to do things for you.

      • I never said anyone HAS to allow you to do / say anything, I simply pointed out that saying that you support free speech and then censoring any speech you dislike on your website makes you a hypocrite and not really a proponent of free speech. He’s entirely within his rights to delete anything he wants, but it also makes his pants burst into flames if / when he says he supports free speech.

    • This is a private venue, as such the owner is free to impose his (completely admirable) moral and ethical standards on all voluntary participants in that privately-owned venue.

      If you don’t like it, you can leave. THAT’s how Freedom works.

      If you don’t like it, you *cannot* come into someone’s privately-owned venue (this website) and FORCE its owner to do things your way. THAT would be how Tyranny works.

      • Except, nobody’s demanding that this forum be made available to all, nor that RF doesn’t have the right to establish whatever (inconsistent, hypocritical, selectively-enforced) standards he chooses.

        This guy’s just calling him out for doing what the liberals do. TTAG caught some static, or is trying to avoid some, and doesn’t want to look like and be thought if as the bad guy. Some day he’s goingv to want to sell this site, you know. So it’s just about preserving the brand.

        Problem is, that sometimes entails compromising a principle. That’s all this guy was arguing, which seems valid to me. After all, the truth about guns includes the ethical issues pertaining to guns. The Truth About Guns cannot very well reasonably expect to escape such ethical scrutiny itself, can it?

        • “This guy’s just calling him out for doing what the liberals do.”

          Except it’s not and Publius is wrong in his assertion.

          The libs delete any and all dissenting comments, no matter how politely and respectfully worded.

          There are all manners of disagreeing comments posted and allowed to stand here. All RF is has asked is that we don’t turn his forum into a 6 year old level schoolyard.

          If someone can’t see the difference then we are in worse shape (intellectually) than I thought.

        • Jonathan

          Maybe we could look at this situation from a different angle; how would allowing ad hominem attacks/comments improve the quality of the discussion? I’m presuming that the purpose of the comments section is to discuss, not to vent based on emotional responses.

          I’m not sure if I like this new policy or not (because one man’s ad hominem may be another man’s factual description). What I do like is that I will be more comfortable with sending my fence-sitter/factually-challenged acquaintances to drink deep from the fountain of truth here.

          My two bits.

        • “one man’s ad hominem may be another man’s factual description”

          Strictly speaking, this is incorrect. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy and is thus not open to interpretation. A statement is either logical or it isn’t. A statement is either an ad hominem or it isn’t.

          That said, the term has been corrupted in popular usage. Ad hominem is not a synonym for “insult.”

          I generally agree with the “policy,” but not because of the “optics” and all that.

          I agree with it for the reason you offered: insults and immature snark add NOTHING valuable to conversation and thus become nothing but noise. Such noise has a tendency to drown out the real signal we WANT people to see.

        • If we really want to win in the town square (without barricades) we ought to be concerned about the optics.

          And, you are ultimately correct. If we want people with open minds to read TTAG and see what we have to say about the topics of debate then we want to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high.

        • JR_IN_NC

          Thanks for correcting me on the meaning of Ad Hominem. I’ll call them personal attacks from now on (or maybe attacking the person?).


        • Thanks for being one of the few (if only) one who gets it. Rob is fully free to set whatever rules he wants on his forum. However, deleting comments he dislikes is hypocritical when he says he supports free speech – just as it would be hypocritical for a person to say they support the right to bear arms and then bans guns on their property.

  7. I get what TTAG is doing. Look on it this way….. if M.L.K, or his supporters, were on air saying “F those crackers. They beat us, treat us like dogs, kill us, threaten to kill us, burn our houses down… F THEM! Honkies! Can’t drive, dance, and none of them have a chin worth a damn…”

    Well, the message gets lost.

    Am I enraged by what this person said? Yes. Am I scared that someone like this exists, has a position of power, and can influence things? Yes. Have I seen this caricature of a person before? Yes.

    Do I, in my mind, rip them to pieces? For their verbiage, their looks, their arrogant ways? Oh, hell yes.

    Do I do it in a forum that can be used to set this righteous cause back, by giving our adversary ammo?


    Why? Because our cause is just. We are fighting for the basic principle of freedom. To be armed is to be able to say ‘NO”. Our founders understood this.

    So understand me.

    We must not sink to their level. We must not diminish ourselves, by being like they are.

    We fight for humanity. The beauty of freedom.

    Do these people sicken me? They surely do, to my very soul. I see them, as I see child molesters. (In fact, was it not Salon who recently begged people to “understand” pedophiles?)

    But we must put our best foot forward. Show the undecided, the sheep, the oblivious that our way is NOT just another way….

    It is the only, right, and JUST way.

    (Sorry for the rant).

    • +10,000


      Zeal and good intentions simply do not count. They are ingredients, along with prudence, tact, and discretion that can be combined to produce good results – but by themselves those things are repulsive and toxic.

      Much like eating raw eggs instead of combining them with sugar and flour to make a cake. Zeal and righteous indignation are key components, but they CANNOT be used by themselves.

  8. Playing by the rules while allowing the other side to ignore them is a recipe for failure Example: soon-to-be-gone John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi’s BFF.

    The enemy dictates the rules of engagement.

  9. i love ad hominem attacks, it means the person resulting to those has lost in every way imaginable and is throwing a tantrum.

  10. Preening, self-righteous tripe, this “no flaming” policy.

    TTAG doesn’t speaks up when when it commenters attacking each other. Hell, TTAG is one of the worst offenders committing ad hominem attacks. Really, how relevant is what Shannon teaches her kids about “Star Wars”, anyway? We all see through the thinly veiled attack on her as a poor mother based on her political stance.

    Ad hominem attacks: do or do not. There is no do, then back pedal, nor do not against some, but do against others, nor do until some anti-gunner whines and cries about it elsewhere online, then issue an inconsistent, half-hearted admonition to do as I say not as I do.

    Much ado and doo-doo about nothing.

    • “TTAG doesn’t speaks up when when it commenters attacking each other.”


      They delete comments or parts of comments quite often. Sure, they give commenters a long leash, so at best you could argue they are inconsistent.

      I don’t think they are SUPER inconsistent in applying the policy, but I concede that is an argument with some ability to hold water. But the claim that they don’t police the site is wrong on its face.

      Hell, TTAG is one of the worst offenders committing ad hominem attacks. Really, how relevant is what Shannon teaches her kids about “Star Wars”, anyway?”

      It’s PERHAPS relevant to ask the meta-question “Is Shannon consistent in her beliefs about ‘gun violence?'”

      The point being addressed in such conversation is really important: Is Shannon Watts against “guns” or is her motivation something else (aside from a paycheck as a hired PR person)? Is it REALLY violence, gun violence and all that that she stands against, or is it REALLY just WHO has the guns and the capacity to control violence?

      That’s a fair question, given her stance on certain issues. Maybe the Star Wars context is a bit of a stretch, and maybe who cares? But it is not ad hominem to use her ‘stance’ on Star Wars’ violence to question if her stance on real world violence is legitimate.

      That is, a stance on a movie does not have to align with a stance on real-world, but either way, it’s not ad hominem to ask the question.

      “We all see through the thinly veiled attack on her as a poor mother based on her political stance.”

      No one said she was a poor mother based on her political stance. The question was one of consistency in her stance.

      Here’s the entire quote from that post:

      “Reader ML writes

      By now, millions have watched the new trailer for the next cash cow from Hollywood…myself included…and most are excited for the new Star Wars story. This made me ponder the following question: how can the anti-gun crowd explain to their kids why the Jedi FIGHT evil with swords, when they are opposed to doing the same in real life? If the good guys fly spaceships with guns, use lightsabers and blasters to defeat bad guys with guns, cooler lightsabers and blasters, why the double standard?

      Are all fans of Star Wars are just gun-nutz? Is the thought of picking up a (lightsaber) gun for protection too scary to comprehend? Or are they really just whimps?”

      {my emphasis}

      Please identify the specific ad hominem in that quote.

      Not a SINGLE word about anyone being a poor parent. But note the emphasized part.

  11. In the spirit of housekeeping could I suggest that for future articles we consider replacing the word ‘civilian’ with the word ‘citizen’?

    It may seem like a small detail but i never cared to be called a civilian by either the disarmament faction or our side. When used by the disarmament faction the word just carries a certain tint of both disdain and inequality.

    • For every old shoe, there’s an old sock…

      The condition of those apparel items is up to the individual to judge…


  12. Damn, clear sailing ahead for the Hildebeast and now you inform me that “carpet munching” is out of bounds?
    Well OK, but it’s gonna be difficult.
    Is “Hildebeast” too far also?

  13. Butch up, Farago. The best response to speech is virtually always speech, particularly given this blog’s mod’s tendency to interpret any and all criticism as a “flame.”

  14. There is a legitimate point to made that fantastically unattractive women lack the life experiences that lead more attractive women to seek a defense from potential sexual assault… She lacks perspective. She has no idea what it’s like to be stalked, or threatened, or be defenseless while jogging and “no” doesn’t make him go away… It’s never happened to her. The low scum that would force itself upon a woman, would certainly not choose her.

    Really, really ugly women don’t have any skin in that game. No pun in tended. While it is possible to take offense to that, you’re playing the Liberals’ “I’m offended” game. I do not mock her by saying she’s so amazingly hideous that no one would want to have their way with her. It’s sad. It might even hurt. But it’s no less true. Are we going to ignore truth because it might hurt an ugly girl’s feelings?

    It COULD be Ad Hominem. But it also bears a real impact on her argument. When it could be taken either way, do you err on the side of “oh no, censor that cuz someone might be offended!?”

    • “She has no idea what it’s like to be stalked, or threatened, or be defenseless while jogging and “no” doesn’t make him go away… It’s never happened to her.”

      While that might be true (or it might not…you know for a FACT she has never been stalked or threatened?) in her specific case, it has little to do with being attractive or unattractive.

      Women of many body shapes and facial features are raped and attacked all the time. Women are not assaulted only because they fit some socially acceptable definition of “hot” or whatever.

      I’ve done rape and other assault investigations and speak from experience. I’ve also studied serial killers and victim selection. You can’t make a blanket statement that BECAUSE she is not held to be “attractive” that she has not and never will be the victim of any type of assault, including sexual.

      And therein lies the real tragedy of her argument and all the anti’s arguments. What they are willing to decide for themselves should NEVER be forced upon others. SHE might choose to allow herself to be a victim, but her choice should be mandated for ALL women…”hot” or otherwise.

      Women either want agency and independence of ‘self’ or they don’t. If they do, they darn sure should not listen to this “Women’s Studies” professor that is doing nothing more than seeking to take their free choices and individual sovereignty away from them. She’s simply trying to replace the “oppressive patriarchy” with her own words of oppression and submission…and control.

      Women that listen to her ilk will NEVER be “empowered.” Illusions of empowerment (ie, SAYING “I’m empowered”) don’t cut it in the real world where stalkers, rapists, thieves, etc exist. But, a woman that arms herself is taking responsibility for herself…which is the very LAST thing women like her want to happen.

  15. So, would it be in keeping with the spirit and purpose of thetruthaboutguns if I said Ms What’sHerName looks like she got butt stroked by a large marine? Notice the firearm reference.

  16. Dear Ringmaster…

    Only someone like you – and your ilk – would promote a policy like this one.

    (Also, can we please have a caliber war over the preferred ammo for hunting “ilk?”)

  17. Robert:

    Damn you’re taking all the fun out of posting about those that want us D-E-A-D, DEAD!

    I see you left my reply to a now deleted comment made by someone else about that horn-rimmed glassed anti, you know the one referencing Lesbian-on-Lesbian domestic violence and latex phallus assault in Florida so can I assume that one didn’t violate the rules or am I mistaken?

  18. Oh yeah Bobby? I was thinking it! Boy, I saw her picture and man I was thinking it!
    I was actually thinking why all the anti-gunners look like blankadee blank blank blank etc.

    It’s quite OK though, I was busy on the Spokesman Reviews website spewing my pro2A rhetoric at the idiotic antis. Oh so much work to do, so little time.

    • You should know how it goes with EVERYONE in the media (no matter which side they are on) we are ALWAYS held to a higher standard even by OUR supposed allies while our opponents are given every opportunity to besmirch our character, question our masculinity, while our enemy has free reign to abuse us using the worst forms of profanity and if/when we question the double standard we’re called “extremists” and get “banned”.

      The ONLY way we will win and successfully defeat our opponents/enemy is to fight using THEIR rules, “By ANY Means Necessary” isn’t that what they say?

  19. Y’all better check yo trigger words and micro aggression. We about to be gettin’ all social justicey up in heah!

    • We must be civil and restrained, while the commie collectivist shredders of the Constitution openly call for NRA members to be shot. In other words, the Romney Approach. We know how well that works.

      These rabid statist moonbat collectivist cultists should be met with superior force, in verbiage or otherwise. THAT is how wars are won.

      • If our supposed allies continue restricting our speech, taking away one of our most potent weapons ie. mockery, which highlights our enemies insanity (while our opponents are free to use all tactics available to them with NO such restrictions) ultimately we WILL lose in the court of public opinion.

        We MUST question whether those that claim to represent OUR interests have the stomach for the fight. I submit like the loser Romney, those on OUR side, who believe they are our “betters” and say that WE must be controlled for fear WE might offend our opponents sensibilities ARE our enemies, enemies as dangerous to us and our campaign to protect and retain our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights as the diabolical disarmament cabal themselves.

  20. so. edit feature for thee but not for me?
    let most of it through, please.
    endless enjoyment at other’s expense is delightful.
    also known as “fun for some.”


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here