In Scientific Debates, I Have to Play by the Rules. And It Is Frustrating “AF,” as the Kids Say.
I would be laughed out of my profession if I used any of the rhetorical and logical fallacies people use on the internet.
A friend of mine posted a screen capture of the “stop the bleed” training they are doing as part of the intake process for their new job as a high school teacher. The training explains how to stop bleeding from injuries due to stabbings and gun shots. My friend expressed frustration that they must take this training, because the safety of the children in their care is not guaranteed. They then argued that the children in the school would be safer if there were less guns around.
Almost immediately, someone jumped into the comments to her social media post and began to argue that firearms are “just a tool,” and that anyone who really wants to kill someone would use something different. “Should we outlaw cars? People die when struck by cars,” the commenter said. They also pointed at stabbing attacks in Japan (a country with strict gun control) as examples of what happens when there are no guns readily available at department stores and without background checks. “The bad guy would just stab you to death.”
