I've followed some intelligent debates on OSA ... and they didn't involve bacon
Only victims of gun violence can have valid opinions on gun laws
- Thread starter jstaylor62
- Start Date
- Status
I've followed some intelligent debates on OSA ... and they didn't involve bacon
It's been my general observation that people who base their opinions solely on emotion, are not susceptible to having their viewpoint "developed" for them. Only those who have an emotional response and acknowledge it as such are reasonable enough to debate such an emotionally charged topic.
For example, if I were to discuss gun control with Carloyn McCarthy or Sarah Brady, I would beging that discussion knowing that they haven't the slightest interest in my opinions, logical thought processes or unbiased statistics. All they have on their emotionally rattled brains is "guns bad, gun people bad". Therefore, my only choice is to acknowledge their pain and suffering in a manner that while possibly patronizing and disagreeable, correctly portrays them as emotionally compromised and uneducated on the facts. My only recourse is to take the wind out of their sails by simultaneously pitying them and openly stating what they are, hysterical.
Were I to debate someone like Josh Sugarmann on the other hand, I'd completely destroy his credibility and if possible, call into question his very manhood. He is a repugnant little troll and should be handled as such.
Now if someone has been a victim of a crime where a firearm is involved and has a fear of guns, but hasn't made the leap to virulent anti-gunner, then yes, you can have a reasonable discourse with that person. But once they've made the leap to gun control poster boy/girl, they're a write off.
Kinda where I am with this. What is the ROE here? Shot and hit, rounds danger close, grazing fire, property damage w/o body hits, uniformed v non-uniformed, urban, rural, declared hostile area, imminent danger, random drive-by, drunk neighbor,WPWT, and so on?
Which situation creates the most valid position?
Kinda where I am with this. What is the ROE here? Shot and hit, rounds danger close, grazing fire, property damage w/o body hits, uniformed v non-uniformed, urban, rural, declared hostile area, imminent danger, random drive-by, drunk neighbor,WPWT, and so on?
Which situation creates the most valid position?
The situation that creates the most valid position is whichever happened to me. Because of this, I am right and you are wrong, and don't try interjecting your logic, it is not welcome here.
That about cover the emotional debate...
I understand. My logic and I surrender to the superiority of emotional reactions.
The problem with the OP is that it is an emotional response, and it is used to shut off debate. In this respect, it is akin to the logical fallacy of arguing from authority. A position is held to be more valid because of who says it. As an example, I was talking to a union business rep once and made a suggestion about a issue that I wanted in the next contract. He said that my issue was already in the contract, and I said that it wasn't. His response was to get very huffy and say "Well, I'm a BR, and I say that it is!" (It wasn't; I checked.) IOW, his being a BR made it so.
Would the OP care to explain how what he (or she) says is different from arguing from authority?
Would the OP care to explain how what he (or she) says is different from arguing from authority?
What if you've attacked someone with a gun - then is the opinion valid or does it have to be just the victim?
What if you've defended someone with a gun against an attack? What if you are a law enforcement officer and have defended others or seen first-hand?
What if you've taken the time to study both sides of the issue without any sort of bias? Does that make the opinion valid?
Here's the real question to the OP - What makes your opinion on this subject valid in the first place?
(Edited to add - this is not meant as inflammatory, but rather to provoke thought)
What if you've defended someone with a gun against an attack? What if you are a law enforcement officer and have defended others or seen first-hand?
What if you've taken the time to study both sides of the issue without any sort of bias? Does that make the opinion valid?
Here's the real question to the OP - What makes your opinion on this subject valid in the first place?
(Edited to add - this is not meant as inflammatory, but rather to provoke thought)
Last edited:
Lets continue the insight into my moronic statements...
I believe in the death penalty. There are just some crimes that raise to the level that people should be executed for them. I feel that the punishment is appropriate is some cases.
I had a brother that was murdered in an ambush. Afterward, it solidified my opinion that some people should be executed for their crimes.
I would run into people that were against the death penalty, so I would ask them if they ever had a family member that was murdered. If they said yes, I would tell them I was sorry for their loss and tell them that based on my life experience, I have chosen to support the death penalty. Then I would try to explain to them why I made my decision. Since we had a shared life experience, I had more value in their opinion since they they were exposed to similar circumstances, but just formed an opinion that was different from mine.
If somebody against the death penalty answered that they had not had a family member murdered, I would simply tell them to come back and talk to me after they had. I would try explain to them that they needed to share my life experience of having a family member murdered before they could form a valid opinion on the death penalty.
There's an old idiom...don't judge a man, until you have walked a mile in his ( shoes,boots,sandals )
People every day place value on somebody's opinion based on the life experience of that person. You just don't reliaze it or you are too stubborn to admit it...
I believe in the death penalty. There are just some crimes that raise to the level that people should be executed for them. I feel that the punishment is appropriate is some cases.
I had a brother that was murdered in an ambush. Afterward, it solidified my opinion that some people should be executed for their crimes.
I would run into people that were against the death penalty, so I would ask them if they ever had a family member that was murdered. If they said yes, I would tell them I was sorry for their loss and tell them that based on my life experience, I have chosen to support the death penalty. Then I would try to explain to them why I made my decision. Since we had a shared life experience, I had more value in their opinion since they they were exposed to similar circumstances, but just formed an opinion that was different from mine.
If somebody against the death penalty answered that they had not had a family member murdered, I would simply tell them to come back and talk to me after they had. I would try explain to them that they needed to share my life experience of having a family member murdered before they could form a valid opinion on the death penalty.
There's an old idiom...don't judge a man, until you have walked a mile in his ( shoes,boots,sandals )
People every day place value on somebody's opinion based on the life experience of that person. You just don't reliaze it or you are too stubborn to admit it...
Placing value on experience is not the same as removing value from a lack of specific personal experience (or experience under identical circumstances).
- Status
Similar threads
