
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
While I was fishing in the dull canal, Karl Hungus crept softly through the vegetation, mumbling - > "AH#49" <"AssholeT#49"@ your.net> wrote in message >> Karl Hungus wrote: >> > >> > "Some Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > >> > > Thats disingenuous. Nobody is saying such a thing. A >> > > suicidal person > with >> > a >> > > gun is much more likely to die than a suicidal person >> > > without a gun. >> > >> > True. >> >> Not true. > > My bad. Retracting it is an error. Your statement is consistent with the literature on suicide. > I was trying to make the point that a gun is a > more effective means of offing oneself than some other > means, but that suicide remains means independent. Suicide isn't 'means independent'. Suicides generally are impulsive acts and since guns are more effective, using a gun is more likely to lead to a successful suicide. The general literature on suicides does not support the 'method substitution theory' -- Argumentum ad ignorantiam Examples: Since you cannot prove that ghosts do not exist, they must exist. Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |