Debate about Gun Control

[playwrite]

(07-07-2016, 03:12 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-07-2016, 11:31 AM)playwrite Wrote:

(07-06-2016, 09:05 PM)taramarie Wrote:

(07-06-2016, 08:51 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-05-2016, 12:24 PM)playwrite Wrote: There it is.  I knew you get around to the false equivalency of banning military weapons platforms to illegal drugs.  I guess comparing such a ban to  say ownership of bazookas, chemical warfare shells, tanks and ICBMs is just too far afield, ey?

Are you sure you're not just trying to talk yourself into opening up your own Meth lab?  Maybe too many Breaking Bad episodes?  pssss, most, by far, get caught or killed eventually.   As far as I'm concern, it's a triple: less military platforms in civilian hands, less ammosexuals running free, and a devastated GOP.  Whooo-hoo!

There we go with ad-hominum / strawman again.  You know full well that the above is not what I represent or advocate, but that's all you've got, lies and insults.

Hmm…  I don’t know if it is that you can’t get it, or that you don’t want to get it, or that some sort of defense mechanism that protects your world view is kicking in.  To me, what I’m trying to express is very simple.  I’ll go around one more time.  It’s not that I think you are open to basic human decency, it’s for the other people reading at this point.

What is the opposite of partisan?

A partisan has a culture, set of values and/or world view that he is extremely fond of and has grave difficulty moving outside of.  Anything that meshes with his home culture is obviously and absolutely correct.  Anything that opposes it must therefore be wrong.  

The opposite mode of thinking acknowledges that one can have differences in self interest without being wrong.  It might line up with the Myers Briggs distinction between Judger and Perceptive.  The Judger sees things through a system while the Perceptive tries to see things as they are.  My own perspective weighs heavily that if a whole bunch of people are strongly affiliated with a culture, there is a reason the culture came into existence.  If it is an old culture, there was likely a time when said culture worked very well.  If it is a new and rapidly changing culture, it likely developed out of an older culture that had significant problems, or someone had a theory which sounded really good and took root among lots of people.

Neither a conservative or progressive culture is necessarily ideal.  A conservative culture or world view is apt to ignore problems that are important to some but not others.  On the other hand, not every new idea is a good one.  Marxism at one time seemed like a good idea.  So did alcohol prohibition.  People can work up a ton of enthusiasm for something untried and spend considerable effort creating a disaster.

The key, no matter whether one is attached to a conservative of perspective approach, is the attitude towards those with conflicting perspective.  The partisan will ignore, disparage and reject conflicting ideas.  The opposite would be to respect, acknowledge and perhaps incorporate aspects of conflicting world views.

I will admit to disliking the heavily partisan approach.

One aspect of the uber partisan approach is the techniques used to reject an opposing world view or culture wholesale.  One labels the rival group with some extremely preparative ugly label, then state it obvious that anyone so labeled is wrong.  Labels that might be used include stupid, religious fanatic, insane and authoritarian.  This can become argument by insult.  It can be and often is ad-hominium, as one is not dealing with ideas or history, one is just disparaging the individual.  It is often strawman, as the labels are not always accurate or relevant.

But if one is sufficiently partisan, if one insults someone, it seems to follow that one has invalidated his culture and won the argument.

The recent examples are “ammosexual” and “Narcissist”.  These are variations on the insanity offense.  If everyone on the other size is crazy, one can presumably ignore everything they are saying.  Thus a common partisan tactic is to scatter shot accusations that anyone who disagrees with one is insane.

The opposite is to assume that they other guy has reasonable and valid reasons for his beliefs.  The way I try to understand history, if one sees a culture, a way of perceiving the world, there is presumed to be a valid reason why that culture formed.  If one wants to truly understand a history, a culture, a people, one should not strive always to insult and demean, one should seek to understand and respect.

This doesn’t mean one has to always agree.  If I am living somewhere where a new and very real problem is not being addressed, and some other guy lives somewhere where the problem hasn’t become a problem yet, and doesn’t want to pay a lot of money to fix what doesn’t seem to be broken, that ought to be interpreted as reasonable differences of opinion on what it would take to improve life in one place or another.

Differences of opinion should not lead one to jump instantly to the conclusion that the other guy is evil, stupid, insane, authoritarian and/or etc…  The primary approach to understanding and resolving ought not to be to disparage, insult and lie.

Very reasonable response. I have listened to both sides on this issue too and both have some points that are very reasonable and understandable to me.

Oh, that's just great.

Could you write a letter explaining it to the moms of these Sandy Hook kids -



I think it would be particularly helpful to the moms who had closed-caskets, given that most of the head of their kid had been blasted away.  I'm sure they would particularly find comfort in your seeing both sides.

Myself?  I had this reaction to your discovering Bob's 'reasonableness' -

Back to your cage, little man.

Have you written you letter to the Sandy Hook moms yet explaining your discovering of Bob's 'reasonableness?'

Or, are you too busy trying to find the next bigoted thing to say against 320 million Americans?