That's not ad-hominem.

Sigh... Here, let me help you...

1) What you think you see would be an induction, not a deduction.

2) You only see that due to awkward paraphrasing on my part. (Try: "There are too many guns for a ban to be efficacious")

Next time, try not to make incredibly basic errors when "correcting" someone else on what would ultimately have been a mere triviality.

LOL! How is that "ad hominem"?

That's not true. You simply ignored it, mumbling some nonsense about "ad hominem" instead. Presumably because you can't face reality.

You're very confused.

So ... Reading Slashdot is harmful? I always leave feeling thoroughly disgusted.

Epic play-pretend logician Fail! (You even misspelled "fallacies"!)

Fail 1: His post contains only one logical argument. The rest is rhetorical.

Fail 2: The implication that if an argument is fallacious, the conclusions must necessarily be false. (Basic logic fail!)

Fail 3:

None of the "premises" you list assume the conclusion.

Fail 4:

Does not mean "I disagree with your assertion".

I guess you couldn't think of any other "logical fallacies" after those two, eh?

Here's the parent's argument:

Putting it in to "logic book" form:
Premise 1: As there are many guns, banning guns is unlikely to eliminate a significant number of guns from society. "Even supposing you can "ban" all guns, the shear volume of guns in the wild will assure there presence indefinitely"
Premise 2: As guns are very durable, guns remaining after a ban are unlikely to significantly reduce in number naturally over time. "Remember, with a modest amount of care, guns can last centuries. 'Attrition' just isn't an option."
Conclusion: "Banning guns will not work in our culture."

Bonus Fail 1: You notice immediately that this is an inductive argument! (Bonus Fail 2: You don't realize why that's a 'fail'.)

Perhaps you should stop using words that you don't understand.

You're still wrong. I find it interesting that you haven't offered anything to prove your assertion. (No definition, no quote to illustrate that my post fits your criteria, no evidence that such an "error" invalidates the rest of the post. Nothing but bold assertion in face of evidence to the contrary.)

You know what I think? It's a pointless distraction. You can't handle the actual issue here, which you're apparently incapable of defending: "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts".

Or have you come to your senses and realized that your little pronouncement is ridiculous nonsense?

Only in your imagination.

You're delusional. -- I've not offered any opinion on AGW!

I found this page for you. It's at your level, with many very simple examples, clearly explained.

You'll find that a couple posts back. You purposefully ignored the substance because you can't face it. I'm done. It's the finger print scanner all over again. I had thought that was just religious devotion. It was worse. You're willfully ignorant.

Nope. You REALLY need to go read up on what that term means. You very obviously don't know. You've had ample time to go do some reading, so you don't really have any excuse this time.

On the rest of my post, have you finally puzzled out why your nonsense pronouncement was, er, nonsense? I hope so.

Haha! Well done!

No, no it does not. See, you seem to think it means "name calling" or "personal insult" It does not.

Are all autodidacts morons?

So you're making your idiotic claim "It is the rational thing for non-domain experts to be informed by the consensus of domain-experts" specific to science topics.

Okay, that's fine. It's still incredible stupid, however. Let's go back to the earlier example where we're dealing with a scientific question.

What's a non-domain expert to do? Not being an expert in homeopathy myself, I should look to the experts, right? See what the consensus is about it's efficacy, safety, etc.? If I'm lucky, there's even a few journals specific to the topic. After all, to get the consensus on climate science I should look to climate science journals right? To get the consensus on homeopathy, I should hunt down some homeopathy journals!

So I do some digging and find some peer-reviewed scientific journals. I've got Homeopathy, which is an Elsevier journal. The same group that publishes The Lancet , a well-respected medical journal that even us non-domain experts have heard about. We've also got The American Journal of Homeopathic Medicine which has been around since 1844. Clearly, they're an old and venerable institution, just like the British Homoeopathic Journal.

Looking at the peer-reviewed literature is daunting, not being a domain expert, but there seems to be a clear consensus that homeopathy is efficacious and safe.

So, is it rational for me, a layperson, to adopt the consensus opinion of the domain experts? According to you "It's irrational for non-experts to form a opinion contradicted by the consensus of domain experts."

Do you see now how incredibly stupid your idiotic advice looks to everyone with an IQ above 70?

Sigh... You're confused. I know it's 'cool' among the autodidact crowd to use fancy Latin terms (it makes them feel smart and important) but if you don't know what they mean, or you otherwise misuse them, you just look like an idiot to those with an actual education.

In short, that term does not mean what you think it means. Your use of the term in your post makes you look like an idiot.

Moving on, if the example I offered isn't to your liking, I can give you another one. I have no interest in further dissecting a simple illustration that you seem intent on misunderstanding. That's just a useless distraction. Give this one a go:

Should I accept the consensus position on the divinity of Jesus from the Vatican?

That is, after all, the "rational" thing to do. I'm wrong if I think otherwise.

Saying it again doesn't make it any more true.

Should I accept the consensus position on the efficacy of homeopathy from experts on homeopathy?

That is, after all, the "rational" thing to do. I'm wrong if I think otherwise.

Nonsense. As Microbox wrote:

Implying that she should not merely accept the opinion of "domain-experts" but that she would form the correct opinion if only she would learn about climate science.

Blindly putting faith in someone or some group you believe to be more knowledgeable than you is not rational. Don't be foolish.

Again, the important bit here is that MB completely misses JQP's point. I notice that you also don't bother to address it either?

You're one to talk about irrationality! Last time I saw you post, you were defending the quality of a finger-print scanner in direct contradiction to all available evidence! It was pretty sad. I honestly though you'd quit using the site!

Everyone has their blind-spots. Still, I'm curious as to what "irrational" opinion you think I hold?