Thoughts on logical fallacies
Some speakers want to forbid a commercial gun show at the Clinton Arena because of close proximity to Clinton School or local playgrounds and because social media posts are judged by the speakers to be racist, sexist, or anti-Muslim.
According to the former point of view, legal firearms ought not be allowed at the Clinton Arena even though they are allowed everywhere between the arena and the school.
The latter point of view proposes that the First Amendment creates second-class citizens when people say things with which others object.
While we don’t have a dog in the hunt about what businesses rent the Clinton Arena, we have significant interest when people try arbitrarily to limit free market enterprise and the liberties under which they operate.
Lets parse this out:
Argumentum ad absurdum is a logical fallacy when one impugns the integrity of a speaker rather then address what is said. Calling someone racist, sexist, and anti-Muslim, whether true or not, is unrelated to the legality of the legal business enterprise proposed.
Petitio Principii, amongst others that would apply, is a logical fallacy that would have us assume that something legal when proximate to a school or playground is illegal even though further away because a speaker feels it should be illegal.
One of the nice things about a market economy is that people can engage in civil commerce even with those with whom they disagree. One of the dreadful things about politics today is that too many people seem to want to rule others, especially those with whom they disagree.
Faulty logic has become commonplace where schooling has substituted activism with little foundation at the expense of learning to defend against words wielded as weapons.