Nico Testosteros
Member
What exactly did we lose to the Soviets in the Cold War?
I think we *all* understood what you were trying to say there, wink wink nudge nudge.Ah!
Ridicule!
Because if I can make fun of it, I don't have to understand it.
[-snip-]
Arfin:This summary:
Gun rights: liberty, freedom, creativity, hopefulness.
Gun control: manipulation, restriction, prevention, apprehensiveness.
This summary, as worded, reflects an innate prejudice on your part. All of the words on the Gun Rights line are positive and uplifting in nature. The words associated with Gun Control are generally less so, more negative. That is not the way to win an argument. I submit to you that a person who favors gun control very probably believes that it is a positive idea, a good thing, and would take exception to the negative aspects of your description. So....in the spirit of learning to understand the mindset of your opponent, how would you cast those ideas in more positive terms? For instance, a person who fears firearms may feel restricted because of the presence of guns and may feel that controlling them or prohibiting them would be a liberating, freeing experience.....it really does come down to the same terms for both.
[-snip-]
I wasn't trying to "win an argument." I was trying to illuminate an underlying principle.That is not the way to win an argument.
I don't offer that description to people with whom I'm having a debate or "adversarial discussion." I offer that description to people attempting to understand what kind of mindset would motivate someone to impose capricious restrictions on an enshrined and guaranteed right.I submit to you that a person who favors gun control very probably believes that it is a positive idea, a good thing, and would take exception to the negative aspects of your description.
It's gonna be tough to characterize a downscale emotion in "positive terms."So....in the spirit of learning to understand the mindset of your opponent, how would you cast those ideas in more positive terms? For instance, a person who fears firearms may feel restricted because of the presence of guns and may feel that controlling them or prohibiting them would be a liberating, freeing experience.....it really does come down to the same terms for both.
*I wasn't trying to "win an argument." I was trying to illuminate an underlying principle
Not a "creative drive"....that is your mindset. You can get away with it here because you are preaching to the choir.*Gun control is, in its most basic essence, is inspired by fear. Water it down if you like. Call it "caution;" call it "apprehensiveness." Hey, call it "prudence." It still derives from "preventing bad things." That's not a creative drive
That is the weakness in your position. You see it as downscale; they surely don't. Your language is unremittingly critical and until you are able to understand and to put into appropriate emotional words the POV of the antis, you will have an incomplete picture of the situation.It's gonna be tough to characterize a downscale emotion in "positive terms."
"As moderator of the first presidential debate in Denver Colorado, we respectfully request that you ask President Obama and Governor Romney to present their plans to address the issue of gun violence in our nation, because :
* the debate will take place within 10 miles of two of the most deadly mass shootings in U.S. history: Columbine High School and the Aurora movie theater.
* Every day in our nation 32 more Americans are murdered with guns.
* During the next presidential term, 48,000 more Americans will be murdered unless we do something about it.
Since the recent tragedies in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin, a real national conversation has begun, bringing together Americans from across the nation and across the political spectrum, to call for real solutions — solutions that recognize the Second Amendment right to bear arms — solutions with the only goal of preventing gun violence.
It is time our presidential candidates listen to the American public, join the conversation, and provide us with their plans.
As a nation, we know we are better than this. It is time for those seeking our highest office to show that they know it to."
And this is necessary if one is to be effective.Arfin: *
I was thinking about framing the argument from the POV of the opposition.
You say "judgmental" like that's a bad thing.I appreciate your explanation of what your purpose was and is. I do. Accordingly, I do not want to turn this byplay into an adversarial debate about terminology. That being said, understanding the opposition's emotional wavelength, yes, may be helpful. The way that you have expressed that understanding, though, is in itself debatable. Your entire vocabulary, at least as expressed here, is very much slanted to the critical, judgmental and negative and that shows a lack of understanding of the emotional state that you are examining.*
I'm familiar with fear. And anger. And a whole spread of related emotional positions. There's a line below which creativity is sacrificed in favor of the drive to stop things. Yes, it's a matter of degree, but the drive to create is far less for fear, and the drive to stop has the upper hand.Not a "creative drive"....that is your mindset. You can get away with it here because you are preaching to the choir.*
Fear is what it is. Anger is what it is. The fact that these are not creative emotions has nothing really to do with being "critical." In a study of martial arts, these are emotions from which students strive to be free, in favor of serenity. And there's a good reason for that. Reason suffers greatly in that emotional band.That is the weakness in your position. You see it as downscale; they surely don't. Your language is unremittingly critical and until you are able to understand and to put into appropriate emotional words the POV of the antis, you will have an incomplete picture of the situation.
I must confess I'm not following you. What I may say when framing a discussion may not reflect everything I know to be true, but what I say and how I say it will be informed by what I know.You don't have to believe it; you just have to be able to say it.
Gun rights is an extension of the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to be secure in the exercise of those things.For example, one could also say that our position is fear driven as well....afraid that our rights will be infringed, afraid that we will lose the sense of empowerment that owning firearms gives us, afraid that we will no longer be able to do things (like shoot Trap) that give us tremendous pleasure.*
Certainly it can be "recast" but it would not be "just as valid."I submit to you that your entire exercise could be recast from the POV of the Antis and be just as valid.*
Roger that.Remember....I'm on your side. Just being a bit of the devil's advocate.
Pete
[-snip-]
In a way, the gun rights / anti-gun rights movement is like a cold war, of sorts - it's now moved away from the center-line of the conflict and is being fought in a thousand proxy wars on the periphery.
As evidence of this, here's an excerpt from a letter campaign from Handgun Control Inc, urging the gun control topic to be raised at the presidential debate:
"As moderator of the first presidential debate in Denver Colorado, we respectfully request that you ask President Obama and Governor Romney to present their plans to address the issue of gun violence in our nation, because :
* the debate will take place within 10 miles of two of the most deadly mass shootings in U.S. history: Columbine High School and the Aurora movie theater.
* Every day in our nation 32 more Americans are murdered with guns.
* During the next presidential term, 48,000 more Americans will be murdered unless we do something about it.
Since the recent tragedies in Aurora, Colorado and Oak Creek, Wisconsin, a real national conversation has begun, bringing together Americans from across the nation and across the political spectrum, to call for real solutions — solutions that recognize the Second Amendment right to bear arms — solutions with the only goal of preventing gun violence.
It is time our presidential candidates listen to the American public, join the conversation, and provide us with their plans.
As a nation, we know we are better than this. It is time for those seeking our highest office to show that they know it to."
Dissecting this argument, we see the following:
#1 An emotional plea based on proximity to emotional events
#2 A statistical argument which does not reveal all of the facts
#3 An emotionally charged, hypothetical argument of future events that have not unfolded, presented as fact - "48,000"
#4 A vague "appeal to authority" - "since ... a real national conversation has begun"
#5 A demand for action off of an unfounded belief - "it is time.. to show they know it to (sic)."
#6 A position of moral superiority - "we know we are better than this"
This isn't an exercise in debate. This is real, on their website. It IS their current argument and plan of attack. Pin down one or both candidates in public, so they can push their agenda further once either candidate is in office.
[-snip-]
I strongly disagree.
If you listen to what's being said, you will be able to derive where he's coming from.
And the other shoe drops.
Sometimes you just can't win these debates.Rev. D. Haberer There is always darkness and light and Jesus took the road of nonviolence. I will follow him and [ask] all others to do likewise.
But I keep trying.
(Told you he was closet anti-gunner - took the better part of 5 hours to finally get a confirmation out of him though.)
Uh, negatory.You should not have to derive anything. You should know ahead of time: what his or her questions are, what his facts are, what his criticisms will be, what his answers will most probably be.
Erroneously.I get the impression, perhaps erroneously, that when you fellows engage an anti in a debate that you operate with a great mass of information that you have collected but with little understanding of the opposition aside from, as you say, that they are operating from a fear based position. I also get the impression that the people with whom you have had debates are not very prepared - certainly not as much as you seem to be.
Beg pardon? The "three weakest points" concept presumes I'm working from a proforma script of some kind.Let me ask you this question.....what are the three weakest points in your argument for gun rights as you would pose that argument to an anti?
Helpful note: remember.....liberty is a loaded word. It can and does mean a lot of different things to lots of different people. A word that can mean just about anything doesn't mean anything.
“To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.”
-Sun Tzu
“know yourself and you will win all battles”
-Sun Tzu
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle”
- Sun Tzu
The fundamental objective I have, is to identify the root cause of why events cause SOME people to go strongly PRO, while the same exact events inspire others to go strongly ANTI.
We're facing a paradox here - No plan of action survives first contact with the enemy. But he who is not prepared to win, will not win.
Or put another way, from Sun Tzu (I'm partial to Asian philosophy on the matter, for obvious reasons):
Pete D.'s philosophy:
"To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy."
-Sun Tzu
ArfinGreebly's philosophy:
"know yourself and you will win all battles"
-Sun Tzu
Which more closely aligns with my revised snippet above.Both are correct, and both combine to form the following philosophy:
"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle"
- Sun Tzu
My problem, my paradox, is I currently neither fully understand my OWN beliefs, nor do I understand my adversary's beliefs. I mean, I understand the message carried by both sides, but I do not understand the root cause, the train of experience, exposure to events, and full thought process that leads one to choose one path or the other.
What made me go "pro-gun" when I have strong events in my life where I suffered great emotional turmoil and harm involving firearms? When the same events turned other people in my family strongly anti-gun?
While certainly not my most pressing life concern, it has become a fascinating subject for me, as a major tenant of my faith is introspection to reach enlightenment. Because so much of my life experience has been formed at an early age (and again at points through my life) from events involving a firearm, these tools have taken a central role in this mid-life examination of my past and present.
While not trying to expand at all on the religious theme, it is unfortunately, somewhat necessary to understand where I'm coming from. This has become (from a Buddhism perspective) an "abiding place", in any path to enlightenment there are "stops" along the way where one cannot progress towards further understanding of enlightenment without "unlocking" the conflict in the mind. So solving this issue, and gaining understanding has a very personal and profound meaning to me.
The lessons I learn will, of course, be shared. Probably in an essay, not a book.
But .. back to the subject at hand, I gotta figure this out guys.
Rephrasing:
The fundamental objective I have, is to identify the root cause of why events cause SOME people to go strongly PRO, while the same exact events inspire others to go strongly ANTI.
Having witnessed this in my personal life, it is a very important topic to understand.
Witnessing this in society at large, on a daily basis today on news and social media, it is a very important topic for us to discuss.
If we determine WHY people choose one path or the other, we will understand our adversary, and we can win every fight from here on out.
If we don't understand why the path is chosen, we will neither win nor lose, but continue to exist in a state of "Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Sort Of)", where each side occasionally wins or loses ground, depending on whim and the price of wheat in China.
EDIT: This is fundamentally a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE than understanding their ARGUMENTS. I want to understand what flips the switch.
There is, of course, more to it than just "emotional tuning" but that's something you can generally observe about a person without having their life history in front of you. There will be other stuff in that history that you won't know and which will influence how they respond.I want to understand what flips the switch.
Beg pardon? The "three weakest points" concept presumes I'm working from a proforma script of some kind.
"Receptiveness" will vary from person to person (what will resonate).Something my wife brought up last night when we were talking psychology.
She says I often appear to write or speak from a position of superiority and this may "tune out" readers or the audience.
Regarding the method of delivery, what is the appropriate "tone" to use? Or should this vary with each encounter?
Welcome to the human race. You won't move the needle much in any venue if your approach is one of always questioning your own validity. Do your best to get your facts straight, present them with confidence, and always be willing to accept and acknowledge correction when new facts update your understanding.In life, I operate from the assumption that I am correct, until shown otherwise. Then I integrate the new data, modify my views, and continue operating from the assumption I am correct.
Refine your tone? Perhaps "get better at tuning your dial." At least at the individual, one-on-one level. Groups respond differently, and that's kind of a different subject, given that the parameters for group dynamics require a little more work.Based on the phrasing and attitude in this thread, can anyone provide some honest, open feedback on style and tone? As mentioned, I operate on the assumption I'm correct until shown otherwise, and my wife (a much higher authority) indicated I might need to refine my tone to be more effective at persuasion on the masses when discussing gun rights.
Feel free to be blunt, I have a thick skin.
(She's correct; you can lose an argument even if you have the process well in hand, and data in order; just off of presentation)
Style and tone will have to be adjusted to the nature of the audience. That audience is composed of people who have varying life experiences that have influence the way that they process information.Based on the phrasing and attitude in this thread, can anyone provide some honest, open feedback on style and tone? As mentioned, I operate on the assumption I'm correct until shown otherwise, and my wife (a much higher authority) indicated I might need to refine my tone to be more effective at persuasion on the masses when discussing gun rights.
Feel free to be blunt, I have a thick skin.
(She's correct; you can lose an argument even if you have the process well in hand, and data in order; just off of presentation)