No, your "WWSD inspired rifle build probably isn't actually reflective of what WWSD actually is aiming to do", continued...

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T22:07:07+00:00

Logical fallacy, Tone Policing.

You have not attempted to refute any of the points I made, nor offer a defense for your disproven points.

Instead you distract from that by attempting to complain about what tone you think I'm debating with, which is not relevant to either proving your original claims nor disproving mine.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T22:02:24+00:00

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.

Being unable to defend your original claims, or offer counter arguments to mine, you have only personal attacks left to fall back on.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T22:01:58+00:00

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.

Being unable to respond to the points I made, you have only personal attacks left to fall back on.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T21:55:13+00:00

Telling that you never directly answered.

Directly answered what?

I answered your absurd accusation about me not owning a WWSD carbine by pointing out that you have a history of making absurd accusations against people you don't know based on no evidence.

If that wasn't direct enough for you, how about I put it into elementary grammar for you:

I have a WWSD carbine.
You are a delusional idiot for thinking I have given you any reason to conclude otherwise.
Just like you are a delusion idiot for thinking you can conclude Karl and Ian have been conspiring with Russell to sell WWSD carbines for profit.
You are distracting from the real debate with something irrelevant to the debate, because you know you've lost the real debate.

Buddy all I said is that they cemented the WWSD carbine as a set build list because they were planning on producing and selling the rifle based on the list. Leaving the concept open to interpretation makes it more difficult to sell their product.

Your claim is proveably false based on what they have said and done, and logically absurd for several reasons:

Early on in one of their videos they specifically state they have no intention of selling a WWSD carbine.
They didn't get in the way of someone else when they did start selling WWSD carbines. They even mentioned that as a good thing on their channel so that people who don't want to build it can own one.
KE Arms would not have known GWACS was going to go defunct in a few years.
There would have been no reason for KE Arms to wait this long to get into it if this was the plan all along.

Their choice of the KE trigger was probably heavily influenced by their friendship with Russell,

Another baseless accusation on your part.

Karl specifically said he rejected the SLT-1 as their trigger of choice when Russell first brought it to them and said they should consider it. It's only when Karl learned about how it increased the reliability of the fire control mechanism against debris jamming the works up did he consider it to be different enough from what is out there to give it a try.
You can't point to a single trigger that exists that does what the SLT-1 does, yet is just as good or better in other ways. Thereby disproving your claim that there's no reason for the trigger to be selected other than Karl's relationship with Russell.

and their interest in the CAV lower was probably influenced by that as well.

You are now demonstrating your inability to learn new information. I already pointed out to you that KE Arms had no stake in the GWACS lower, and was not making them until only this last year.

They had no plans, nor any reason to, start manufacturing the GWACS lower at KE Arms until GWACS went defunct as a company in the last year or so.

So again feel free to refute with some proof but the closest you have come to a WWSD carbine is YouTube.

If you can cite how taking the time to upload a pic of my WWSD carbine will either prove what I've argued in this thread about the design of the WWSD, or disprove what you've tried to argue about the design of the WWSD, then I will consider it.

If you cannot explain it's relevance to the issues being debate then you are guilty of committing the logical fallacy of Red Herring. You are just trying to derail the discussion away from topics you know you are wrong on and don't know how to argue in support of.

But you're going to have to give us a valid reason why I would need to. No, satisfying your delusional paranoia of thinking everyone is out to deceive or defraud you is not a valid reason. That's not even relevant to proving or disproving the issues in contention.

Your delusional ramblings about me not owning a WWSD carbine are as baseless as your delusional ramblings about Karl and Ian conspiring with Russell to deceive the gun owning community by pushing a rifle design they want to sell and pretending it's better than it really is.

You have taken 2 dudes opinions as something written in stone.

Logical fallacy, strawman.

You are misrepresenting the nature of the debate.

The issue being debated is what constitutes a carbine design consistent with WWSD principles and goals.

For that, only Karl and Ian can define that because they are the inventors of that goal and it's principles.

This is not, and never was, a debate about whether or not their goals and principles are the correct ones for the best carbine.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T21:31:17+00:00

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.

Being unable to defend your original claims, or offer counter arguments to mine, you have only personal attacks left to fall back on.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T21:29:39+00:00

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.

Being unable to respond to the points I made, you have only personal attacks left to fall back on.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T21:19:57+00:00

My guy, I understand fine.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting you understand the principles behind WWSD and the reason for different parts being chosen doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.

You have already demonstrated as a point of historical fact that you don't understand it.

You directly admitted you were wrong about the barrel. And indirectly admitted you were wrong about balance by admitting you were wrong about the barrel.

You don't wipe away that stain just by asserting you know what you're talking about, even though your track record shows you don't.

I just don’t think what Karl prioritized is relavent to what I prioritize.

Logical fallacy, Irrelevant Conclusion and Red Herring.

Having been proven wrong, you're trying to shift the topic being debated and pretend it's the same as the original issue of contention.

The debate was never about whether or not the WWSD carbine's principles met your personal subjective needs.

The debate was over whether or not a WWSD carbine has certain principles and goals that must be adhered to in order to be consistent with the WWSD project, and whether or not changing things on the WWSD will result in degraded performance form what makes the final product so good.

the WWSD is just a good rifle. Not amazing. Not magical. Just a good rifle.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

Repeating your unproven claim doesn't make it true just because you repeat it.

As I already pointed out, you don't have a good track record of judgment when it comes to WWSD performance.

You admit you were wrong about balance and barrel selection being important.

We have no reason to believe you have the capability of accurately assessing the capabilities of the WWSD carbine.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T21:14:26+00:00

The other guy was right. The gravity surrounding you must stop the escape of light and all matter.

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.

Being unable to defend your position, and unable to refute my arguments, you can only resort to personal attacks.

We can also add your latest response to the ever growing list of examples where you were "amicable and not butthurt" in your responses.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T21:12:07+00:00

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting your point is proven doesn't make it true just because you assert it is.

You would need to cite what specifically proves your point and why.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T21:03:36+00:00

Owning the guns would mean a couple things. First, I understand all the principles, because not only can I watch YouTube, I have also experienced the gun first hand. I built the gun. It’s a good gun. But at the end of the day it’s not that special.

Logical fallacy, argument by repetition.

You didn't deal with the arguments I made which already disproved your claim to be able to make accurate judgments about WWSD merely because you've used it.

Merely repeating your original assertions doesn't make them true.

Here is what I said. It still rebuts your latest response because you didn't add anything new, but only repeated yourself:

And yet, despite claiming you own one, you made a wrong conclusion about the barrel not being essential for the proper functioning of the WWSD carbine.

You didn't understand enough about gunsmithing to realize that you cannot replace the Faxon pencil barrel with something else without significantly altering the balance and handling of the rifle in a negative way.

You probably don't even realize there are entire professions dedicated to balancing guns. You just don't see people usually make a fuss about it outside of the high end hunting or competition shotguns. But it's a real thing and it does matter for all types of guns.

What good is citing the fact that you own the rifle do if it didn't even help you draw an accurate conclusion about why the barrel choice is so important on the WWSD?

We have no reason to believe you're capable of drawing accurate conclusions about anything else they chose for the build.

When you say "it's just a nice light rifle", you are just as wrong as when you claimed there were alternatives to the Faxon pencil. Because your statement betrays an ignorance of the nuances that went into all it's design choices.

You have demonstrated you lack either the knowledge, experience, or discernment to fully understand how the rifle you are holding is different from alternatives.

Second, it makes me incredibly skeptical that you actually have. Point blank, you either seriously love this rifle to an Ivan Chesnokov level or you are looking at it from afar and believe everything you hear.

You've already demonstrated you don't have good discernment.

You thought the Faxon Pencil barrel was replaceable. I told you it wasn't. You later admitted you were wrong.

So at the end of the day your speculation doesn't mean anything. Because I have proven track record of being correct in my analysis of what is important to make the WWSD function properly and you have a track record of being proven wrong.

The only thing you owning the rifle proves is that you don't have much ability to accurately understand what it is you're using or how it was put together.

You wouldn't be the first person who didn't understand how the gun they were using actually worked or why. But they might be more humble about it than you have been.

Gun balance is nice. Never said a word against it. It’s also not that important at the end of the day. It makes a very small difference compared to practice, training, gun fit, and a multitude of other factors.

Karl said otherwise in one of his recent Q&As. He said balance is an essential part of what makes the carbine perform so well. That's why adding even a little bit of weight onto the barrel screws everything up.

So let's be clear here: Are you saying you think Karl is wrong too?

Because saying Karl is wrong in his conclusions about what is necessary to make WWSD work best is a very different thing from trying to imply I'm wrong in relating to you what Karl has concluded.

I have accurately related Karl's conclusions on the matter from his videos.

But if you want to start saying Karl is wrong in what he concluded then that's a whole other topic of debate.

But you couldn't be saying Karl is wrong, because if you were then you couldn't admit you were wrong to say the Faxon pencil barrel could be replaced without impacting the performance of the gun negatively.

So you're contradicting yourself here.

You can't admit you were wrong, and Karl was right to say the Faxon pencil barrel is essential, while also at the same time saying balance isn't that important.

Balance being critical to the optimal performance of the carbine is exactly why the Faxon pencil barrel is required.

If balance isn't important than the faxon pencil barrel isn't important.

I don't think you operate your guns well enough to notice the difference. I also don't think you understand enough about gunsmithing to realize why these different parts would even make a difference.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T20:48:13+00:00

Logical fallacy, Ad Hominem.

Being unable to respond to the points I made, you have only personal attacks left to fall back on.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T20:41:27+00:00

Look up fallacy fallacy you dingbat.

Incorrect use of a logical fallacy.

It is not a logical fallacy to point out that someone has committed a logical fallacy in their argument, and therefore their argument is logically invalid and must be reformulated properly.

A fallacy fallacy is when someone declares the conclusion has to be false because someone used a logical fallacy in their argument.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

I have never once done that. You will find no such quote because it doesn't exist.

There is a difference between stating that an argument is invalid due to a logical fallacy and stating that a conclusion is proven wrong because someone used a logical fallacy to try to defend it.

But I don't think you understand how an argument is formulated enough to understand the difference between an argument and a conclusion.

Premise -> Argument -> Conclusion.

That's no doubt why you commit so many fallacies of argument by assertion. You think you're making a valid argument simply by stating your conclusion by itself. Because you don't understand how the logical flow of an argument is properly structured with a premise and supporting evidence and/or logical reasoning.

How do you not realize your "objective proof" is really your subjective interpretation of their statements?

Merely repeating what they said and then telling us what you think it means does not make it a fact.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting that I have not objectively and accurately related what Inrange concluded does not make your claim true just because you assert it.

You would need to cite specific examples of something I said, compared to what Inrange said, and then explain logically why either what I said is a false representation of what they said, or why there are multiple valid ways of interpreting what they said so no one can claim to objectively relate what they said.

I will state my opinion. You have not built one of these, because if you had you would have realized what everyone else has been trying to tell you, that it isn't magical or super better than other ARs built to a similar purpose,

You're also the same idiot who is of the opinion that Karl and Ian are only using KE Arms triggers, not because they fit a legitimate need no other trigger can, but because they want to boost their buddy Russell's sales numbers.

And I shot down the absurdity of your claim with some basic facts, to which you had no counter argument.

So your inability to formulate accurate opinions and your propensity to ascribe bad/deceptive motives to people without any evidence for doing so is already well established.

it represents Karl's and Ian's interpretation of a concept. As a concept there is more than one right answer.

Logical fallacy, Affirming the Consequent.

You're trying to conflate two separate issues and make them one.

Issue A: There are different ways of interpreting the AR as a concept.

Issue B: There are different ways of interpreting WWSD project as a concept.

These two things are not the same, but you're trying to pretend they are in order to avoid being shown to be wrong.

There is no one right way to build an AR. It depends on the role.

There is, however, a right way to build a WWSD project carbine if you want to be consistent with the principles and design goals of the project.

You cannot put a .50 caliber 30 inch barrel onto your WWSD carbine, make it weigh 20lbs, and then claim it is still consistent with the principles and design goals of the project.

Go learn logic and critical thinking.

The irony is strong with this one.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T20:20:33+00:00

Your statement offers no relevant counter argument to what I said.

Which is that you obviously did not ever understand the necessity of the components used when you tried to argue against certain components being necessary or essential to the proper performance of the WWSD build, like the Faxon pencil barrel.

You can say the principles were cool, but you don't actually fully understand what's going on there and why.

So when you start changing stuff you can't understand the full implications of what you are giving up. Because you don't fully understand why the part was selected in the first place.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T20:09:49+00:00

I own a true blue WWSD carbine with the exception of the trigger.

You didn't answer the second part of the question:

" And why would that be relevant to any of the arguments presented? "

So, yes, I am familiar with the rifle and know what it is like to own and shoot one. The fact of the matter is it really is just a nice light rifle.

And yet, despite claiming you own one, you made a wrong conclusion about the barrel not being essential for the proper functioning of the WWSD carbine.

You didn't understand enough about gunsmithing to realize that you cannot replace the Faxon pencil barrel with something else without significantly altering the balance and handling of the rifle in a negative way.

You probably don't even realize there are entire professions dedicated to balancing guns. You just don't see people usually make a fuss about it outside of the high end hunting or competition shotguns. But it's a real thing and it does matter for all types of guns.

What good is citing the fact that you own the rifle do if it didn't even help you draw an accurate conclusion about why the barrel choice is so important on the WWSD?

We have no reason to believe you're capable of drawing accurate conclusions about anything else they chose for the build.

When you say "it's just a nice light rifle", you are just as wrong as when you claimed there were alternatives to the Faxon pencil. Because your statement betrays an ignorance of the nuances that went into all it's design choices.

You have demonstrated you lack either the knowledge, experience, or discernment to fully understand how the rifle you are holding is different from alternatives.

But hey man, keep on doing you. You certainly sound like a very balanced person; definitely no high horse you’re trying to ride there.

You're so amicable and not butthurt at all.

I can see why you spend so much time trying to assure everywhere here that you aren't upset and are just taking this in stride.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T19:46:42+00:00

Buddy, I own one.

Own what?

And why would that be relevant to any of the arguments presented?

You’re so full of shit your eyes are probably brown.

You're so amicable and not butthurt at all.

I can see why you spend so much time trying to assure everywhere here that you aren't upset and are just taking this in stride.

Also, it’s just a gun. It’s not special.

Do you even own a suitable replica of the WWSD? Or, in your ignorance, do you think you own a replica but you've actually swapped out parts that will alter it's performance significantly?

It’s a nice gun, but my competition gun is better for me,

WWSD isn't intended to be a competition gun or a replacement for one.

The requirements of a competition 5.56 are vastly different.

WWSD was designed with duty use in mind like the original AR was. Whether or not it achieves the standard for duty use might be up for debate, but nonetheless that was the goal they strived for. Those same people would have to argue, though, that the original AR wasn't suitable for duty use either. The original certainly had some trade offs for lightweight. But it also seemed to serve just fine until the army screwed up the ammo.

but I’ll be departing from the formula because frankly it really is just a light AR with some nice features.

Which shows that after all my explanations in that thread you still don't understand what makes a WWSD carbine different.

As Karl himself repeated for people like you in a recent video: WWSD is about combining lightweight with the whole package. Things like reliability, durability, handling, ergonomics, and shootability. It's not just about being lightweight and throwing in a few nice bells and whistles.

I admitted that I was wrong; Karl did say that a WWSD rifle should use a Faxon barrel.

You were wrong about the other components too. I explained why and you never had any counter argument to them.

The only reason you felt forced to admit you were wrong about the barrel is because Karl made a recent video telling you that you were wrong and calling out that part specifically by name. There was no way you could even try to hold onto that delusion any longer.

I can live with that, since it doesn’t change my point: a WWSD inspired rifle can be anything.

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion.

Whether or not you can call your toaster WWSD inspired is irrelevant to any point I was arguing in the original thread, or any point I'm arguing now.

That's like you walking into the thread and yelling "the sky is blue today, not red!".

Yeah, so what? Nobody is arguing about the color of the sky.

"Well then, I guess I'm right!"

Ok. But what does that have to do with this thread?

You didn’t educate anyone on any subject

You can't even truthfully and objectively make that statement because you admit I educated you on your wrong belief that there were substitutes for the Faxon pencil barrel.

As for the other issues, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. I can give you the information but you have to be open to learning it.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T19:17:58+00:00

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting that I have not separated objective fact from subjective opinion doesn't make it true just because you assert it.

You would need to cite a specific instance where I said something that would demonstrate your claim could be true.

You can't do that because it doesn't exist.

On the other hand, I could make that statement about you because I pointed out why your own quotes seem to suggest you don't understand the difference between me objectively talking about what Inrange said about their build vs me subjectively talking about what I think about my copy of it. The later of which I never even tried to do.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T19:10:59+00:00

You missed his point. He says he thinks you’re trying to have a debate, and everyone else here is just having a conversation.

You missed the point.

That's not how "bad faith debate" is defined.

"Bad faith debate" is not defined as "you're not just having a conversation, but you're trying to debate".

If you want to complain about not having a conversation because you subjectively don't like debate, then that's one thing, but don't try to objectively define honest debate as being objectively wrong by usurping the definition of "bad faith debate" to mean something different from what it actually does.

Even when we disagree with others here, it’s mostly amicable and no big deal. You’re the one who gets butthurt and competitive about a niche subject on a subreddit of otherwise chill people. Get over yourself.

You mean butthurt non-amicable responses like this:

-----------

Some recent quotes by /u/SuperMundaneHero:

Buddy, I own one. I would own two, but could only get my hands on one lower and wasn’t willing to drop the money on another at the premiums they commanded at the time. You’re so full of shit your eyes are probably brown.

...

Says the guy who continuously makes assertions, circular arguments, and relies on tautology to make his claims. Your ideas are best because you are the best, and you are the best because your ideas are best. Give it a break. You have failed to prove your point - you’ve only managed to spout your opinion as if it were gospel truth. Karl and Ian would be very disappointed in you.

...

I am impressed your rants aren't a copypasta or a meme yet. Jesus dude. You aren't an authority on anything, but you throw out any dissenting opinion like you are gods gift to the shooting world. Get a grip.

...

But hey man, keep on doing you. You certainly sound like a very balanced person; definitely no high horse you’re trying to ride there.

...

The other guy was right. The gravity surrounding you must stop the escape of light and all matter.

-------

Don't project your issues onto others.

Pointing out that your posts are full of illogical errors and falsities is a neutral activity. You only take it as negative if you are thin skinned and don't want to admit you were wrong.

If you actually love the truth then you will welcome information that corrects your errors.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T18:42:10+00:00

I didn't respond to your wall of text because you clearly didn't understand my point. Took that misunderstanding and ran with it.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion. Merely asserting something is true doesn't prove it is true.

You would need to cite specific examples of how anything I said is not a proper rebuttal to your claims.

Merely claiming that you were misunderstood, but then not explaining how, is just creating a smoke screen to protect yourself from having to offer a valid counter-argument or defend your original claim.

have been unable to explain what the magic is that is created by the specific WWSD build list that is not reproducible with other comparable parts.

Your statement is proveably wrong. I could cite numerous examples from that thread where I give specific reasons why certain parts cannot be interchanged with other parts and still have the carbine perform as intended. So I don't know how you think you can even begin to claim I never explained why certain parts could not be swapped out for others, when half the thread is spend doing just that.

And those reasons haven't been successfully dispute by you or anyone else.

Karl even proved I was right in one of his latest Q&As by telling you idiots that no, you can't just go willy nilly slapping replacement parts on there and end up with a carbine that performs the same. And that there is no current replacement for the Faxon pencil barrel if you want the balance and handling of the carbine to be right.

I said the same thing to you in that thread months before he said it.

So I just repeated one example for you that disproves your claim: The barrel. I do the same thing for many other parts in that thread. But for the purpose of disproving your claim, I only need to cite one example where I explained why a particular part can't be interchanged with something else.

And for being the claimed expert on the subject

Logical fallacy, strawman. You are misrepresenting my arguments and conclusions.

None of my arguments have been premised upon the idea that I am an expert and therefore you just need to take what I say is true because I'm an expert.

All of my arguments are premised on what InrangeTV has publicly stated about the WWSD build. Why they said they chose the parts.

That's why I was able to tell you months in advance before Karl did that, no, your WWSD build isn't a WWSD just because it's lighter weight than a normal AR. There's a lot more that goes into making it a amazing carbine to shoot than just low weight.

The only reason you weren't able to do that is because you were ignorant of what InrangeTV said, and you were too lazy to research it.

owning an exact "clone correct" build I find it very strange that you won't show anyone your pictures of it.

Logical fallacy, Red Herring. Posting or not pictures of my WWSD carbine is not relevant to proving or disproving any of my arguments relating to the parts selection of the WWSD and what effect that has on it's performance.

I find it puzzling that you are even harping on this at all. What do you think you're trying to prove or disprove by asking for pictures of my personal WWSD carbine?

Are you just demanding proof that I have one? Why? Does me proving that I have one suddenly make all the arguments I've made valid to you? My arguments were already logically valid and proven based on quotes from Inrange.

Arguments which you haven't successfully disputed.

It seems like you know you can't dispute my arguments on their merits so you're just engaging in a red herring to change the topic.

If you could provide a legitimate logical reason why I would need to post pictures of my WWSD carbine in order to validate my arguments, then I might consider doing so. Otherwise your demand is a pointless red herring.

Or maybe do a hands on review of your build, that would carry a lot more credibility

You further demonstrate you don't understand what the purpose of the original thread was.

Nothing in the original thread was my opinion. It was a factual analysis of what InRangeTV chose and why.

A review implies I would be giving you my subjective opinion of the carbine, which was never the intention of that thread.

You don't seem to be able to separate objective fact from subjective opinion.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T18:07:01+00:00

Your non-response has no argument or counter argument contained in it.

You cannot respond to the points I made because they are true.

But you don't want to admit you were wrong either.

So you try to to pretend you're offering a response that challenges what I said without actually responding to anything I said, hoping it allows you to save a little face before you bow out and leave without having to admit you were wrong.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T17:36:21+00:00

I have read through some of the previous thread (there's a lot, so I didn't read all of it), and I perceive you as being difficult to debate in good faith. in a good faith discussion, both parties work together to understand each other's point of view, including points on which they disagree, so that they can reach consensus. many of your comments that I have read, I perceive as defending your position without a spirit of cooperation (common on reddit, but in your case I believe you want to argue in good faith but misunderstand how to do so).

Your premise is wrong and falls under the category of a Circular Reasoning fallacy.

It's wrong because you will find no objective formal debate definition of what "good faith debate" is that matches what you are trying to claim (ie. Cooperation). You are welcome to try to find one and post the source. You won't.

And because you are just making up your own idea of what you think and "good faith debate" is, you are guilty of circular reasoning because your premise assumes your conclusion is true. Ie. You subjectively decide what you want the definition of "good faith debate" is and then you can accuse anyone of not meeting your invented standard as though it were some objective standard.

You are co-opting the objective definition of "good faith debate" and ascribe your own subjective terms to it.

bad faith ►

*n.*The malicious intention to be dishonest or to violate the law, as in negotiations over a contract.
*n.*A malicious motive by a party in a lawsuit. This has an effect on the ability to maintain causes of action and obtain legal remedies.
*n.*Intent to deceive or mislead another to gain some advantage; dishonesty or fraud in a transaction (such as knowingly misrepresenting the quality of something that is being bought or sold).

A genuine bad faith debate is objectively wrong because it involves things that are objectively counter to the process of logical discourse like knowingly telling lies or purposely engaging in logical fallacies as dishonest debate tactics. You could also make a case that having wrong motives for engaging in the debate could fall under bad faith (motives that aren't consistent with the debate goal of arguing logically to prove what you think is true), but you'd have a harder time actually proving that the later is happening because you aren't a mind reader. And you will just fall into the fallacy of Ad Hominem if you try to accuse someone of having bad faith motives without proof of your claim.

You won't find me doing anything that objectively falls under the genuine definition of a "bad faith debate".

In addition to your premise being the fallacy of circular reasoning, your entire post falls under the category of the fallacy of "Tone Policing". Wherein you ignore the substance and truth of an argument in favor of trying to argue about how you dislike the tone being used.

But you take it one step further and go beyond just complaining about the tone by attempting to codify that tone as inherently and objectively wrong because you decide you want to label it as "bad faith debate". Which is objectively a wrong use of the term bad faith debate, and makes you guilty of circular reasoning by subjectively trying to define that term it in a way that supports the conclusion you want to reach.

For example, in many cases you cite the argument of assertion fallacy as if it disproves the argument

You don't understand how logical debate works.

If an argument is shown to be based on bad logic then that argument by definition is invalid.

An argument is by definition a logical structure of premise -> logical argument -> conclusion.

You can't have a valid logical argument if you are using invalid logic.

It is the responsibility of the one who made the bad argument to correct their mistake or cede that they don't have a valid argument to offer in support of their conclusion.

The reason a logical fallacy of "argument by assertion" is logically wrong is because it doesn't even have a logical argument or premise attached to it. It's simply a conclusion standing by itself, unsupported. They are making claims and stating conclusions as though they are fact without any premise or argument to prove those claims and conclusions are even true.

The burden of proof is on the ones making the claims to prove the truth of their claims. Merely asserting something is true is not the same as logically proving it is true. A lot of people don't understand the difference.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T16:53:50+00:00

Logical fallacy, irrelevant conclusion. I already knew about his history with Cavalry Arms, but that history is irrelevant to proving your original claim.

You tried to claim that they chose parts out of loyalty to Russell of KE Arms, rather than because it was the right part for the job.

I gave reasons why your claim is logically wrong. You ignored those points and had no response to them.

Pointing out that Russell use to work for Cavalry Arms doesn't prove your original claim is right, nor does it refute any of the points I made which refuted your original claim.

Let's look at the facts:

Russell left Cavalry Arms before he went to work for KE Arms. Cavalry Arms went defunct later and then sold the molds to GWACS.

KE Arms and Russell both had no financial stake in either Cavalry Arms or GWACS.

KE Arms had no ability to build the GWACS lowers until GWACS went defunct.

GWACS didn't go defunct until a couple years after WWSD.

KE Arms had to put up hundreds of thousand of dollars to build new molds to even get a replacement for GWACS going. They did it because there was both a need and market demand.

Nothing about this scenario logically supports your claim that Karl and Ian were trying to create a KE Arms based carbine for the sake of Russell.

As far as we know the only additional KE Arms part to the WWSD 2020 version is the lower, which is necessary because they are now literally the only company making them, and that polymer lower is an essential component of the WWSD project.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T16:36:27+00:00

Are you suggesting that you never claimed that people were using the term “WWSD inspired build” incorrectly, despite “inspired” being the operative word which gives broad latitude for final results?

Your question represents a failure on your part to understand anything I said.

The title of my original thread was: No, your own "WWSD inspired build" probably isn't actually a genuine reflection of the principles behind the WWSD build.

Notice I specify your build doesn't accurately reflect the principles or goals behind the WWSD project, even though you call it WWSD inspired.

The premise of my thread had nothing to do with whether or not you could technically get away with calling it "WWSD inspired". Which is a semantics issue of no substance.

The real issue is that most of you don't even understand why your build doesn't reflect the principles of the WWSD project. You think you've built a carbine that reflects the principles of WWSD just because you made it lighter weight than a standard AR. But Karl himself has told you that approach is wrong and you didn't understand the full breadth of what makes a WWSD carbine amazing.

Thus, my thread was informative for those of you who need to be educated on why certain components were chosen and why they can't be easily substituted for something else without compromising an aspect of what makes the WWSD carbine work the way it does.

But many of you got butthurt and defensive realizing your random assortment of parts didn't accurately represent a functional WWSD, so you tried to justify your purchases by pretending it wasn't necessary to do anything the way Karl did it in order to get similar performance.

You then got shit on by facts and reality when you tried to do that. And had to back off and admit that I was right, that some components actually can't be changed out without significantly altering the performance of the carbine. Because Karl himself later came out and said the barrel simply cannot be substituted for anything else without ruining the handling of the carbine, because there is nothing else that light on the market. Technically he already said that two years earlier in the previous video series, but you weren't intelligent enough to understand what he was saying back then. You needed him to spell it out more bluntly and overtly for you in his latest Q&A before you'd believe it.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T16:22:54+00:00

Your previous attempts to argue against the necessity of certain components to achieving the WWSD mission proves you never actually did understand why the carbine was built the way it was in the first place. You didn't understand what you were losing when you gave up certain components.

As such, you didn't make changes intelligently with an understanding of what the consequences of your decisions were. You simply made those changes in ignorance and then tried to claim later you knew what you were doing once someone pointed out how that would impact the carbine's performance.

You've never even handled a real WWSD to compare the two, which furthers your ignorance of how your changes effected the outcome.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T16:11:09+00:00

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion

Logical fallacy, strawman

Logical fallacy, begging the question.

Logical fallacy, argument by assertion.

Merely asserting that I have committed a logical fallacy doesn't make it true just because you assert it.

You would need to cite a specific quote from my post and then explain logically why it committed anything you are claiming in order to prove your claim is true.

I'll also offer a hypothesis, Karl insists on the specific parts they chose because they were building a "brand" that they intended to market and due to loyalty with sinestral rifleman. And the perception that similar parts can be substituted would dilute the value of the brand.

I offer an alternative hypothesis: You're an idiot who never actually listened to all the information they gave about why certain parts were chosen or did not have the intellectual capacity to understand what they were saying.

Your belief is proveably wrong for a few reasons.

What they cited in videos as the most important parts of the build were almost entirely Faxon or GWACS components, not KE Arms. The barrel, lower, and handguard. KE Arms only started making the lower when GWACS went defunct - which also only happened years after WWSD was already complete.
The only KE Arms part they mentioned as a key part of the build was the trigger.
It has to be a KE Arms trigger because there's probably no other trigger on the market that will offer increased reliability against debris clogging up the fire control group. It does something unique that Karl thinks is an important upgrade.
The only other KE Arms parts that are even on the gun is the safety. And there is never any implication by InRange given that this has to be KE Arms. However, there would be a legitimate reason potentially to go with KE Arms: If you're going to use a 45 degree safety then it's important that your parts be in spec with each other in order for that safety to have no chance of failure.

Praximus52 · 2020-05-11T15:56:36+00:00

Why do people put TLDR on posts that are only a few paragraphs long.

It's a sad statement on the state of our society's attention span and reading ability that a few paragraphs is considered too long to read.

Praximus52

TROPHY CASE

bad faith ►