Ask An Anti Reprise The Great Debate (Not)

[Treo]

Well I just had the "debate" W/ the anti in my english comp class.
Oddly enough it was somewhat anti-climactic in that my first question left her speechless except for "Well um, well that's just what I believe" she admited that her "laws" were unenforceable. She also stated that persons W/ a criminal record shouldn't be allowed to own a gun. Apparently she didn't realize that was already a law.

Anyway the debate ended when the teacher called it on time, when it became clear that her only argument was just that she thinks gun laws should be stricter

 

[Cyclimus]

Wow, sounds like she never even bothered to try researching and making up statistics or anything. Class must've been pretty boring.

 

[JWarren]

Sadly, we see what we are dealing with.

These people's emotions are weighed on the same level as our FACTS.

-- John

 

[Johannes_Paulsen]

What was your first question?

 

[mbt2001]

Well um, well that's just what I believe

That's fine, but what about what I believe? Why are your beliefs more valid than mine?

I have never understood these type of arguments.

+1 to what JWarren said.

 

[cambeul41]

Not all antis are dishonest or confuse feeling with fact. Not terribly long ago I had a discussion with another faculty member. She hated guns, and when I offered to provide documentation for my arguments, said “I can do my own research, thank you!”

The following day, she conceded that her research confirmed what I had told her – but she still hated guns.

 

[Seminole]

Why are your beliefs more valid than mine?

See, there's your problem--you think that some beliefs are more valid than others. The beliefs of all of us are all equally valid because we all have the right to our own beliefs.

I you think the line of argumentation in the above paragraph is odd or unusual, you haven't had much interaction with the recent products of the school systems in the U.S. As far as I can tell, the concept that ideas can have a greater or lesser degree of validity because of their internal logic has not been taught in the primary and secondary educational systems in a long time. It's sad, but I see it in otherwise bright college students every day. While there are clearly some students who can think logically (treo seems to be a good example), they seem to be developing this ability in spite of the school systems, not as a result of them.

 

[romeo212000]

Agreed Seminole. I recently commented on an anti-gun editorial at my college here in Oklahoma. It amazed me what was being presented as fact. I know what I know because I refuse to take many things at face value. I have to tell you I am in quite the minority because of the emotion driven crap that has been being forced down my classmates throats from the time I was in gradeschool. I worry for my future and my children's future.

 

[SoCalShooter]

Good work, but thats kinda what I think we expected!

 

[Treo]

Her points were ( pretty close to) in this order

If you buy a gun you should go through a background check

If you have a criminal record you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

My Response
Those are already laws

Her Reply (echoed by a few classmates)
Well I know people who are felons and they own guns

My Response
So they're not obeying the gun laws in existence now, why would they obey your stricter laws.

Her Response
I'd make them

NEXT POINT
If you have children you should be required to have your guns locked up.

My Response
How do you propose to enforce that W/in the confines of the 4th amendment?

Her Reply
(Crickets chirping)

NEXT POINT
Gun Laws should be stricter

My response
(I refferenced VA Tech NIU Colombine & Vonn Marr)
So if the shooters in ALL 4 of these cases didn't obey the existing laws, how would your stricter laws have stopped them

Her Reply
You shouldn't have guns if you don't have training (shes getting upset by now)

My Response
Ok I'm hearing opinions but I'm not hearing facts. How do you propose to enforce your new stricter laws?

Her Reply ( notice she's not even following a logical progression now) Really I think they should just get rid of all of them (guns)

My Response
Given that Colorado law forbids gun registration , tracking gun sales, or compiling a gun owner data base, how do you propose to enforce your ban ? Do you think it might work as well as the current prohibition on say, Marijuana? ( by this time the whole class is rolling on the floor & home girl has smoke pouring from her ears)

Her Reply
I have a lot of research, I even talked to the NRA. & all guns should be banned !

My Response
Molon Labe

At which point the instructor invoked the mercy rule and called the "debate"

 

[Soybomb]

Right on Seminole, alot of adults today believe that they are special little snow flakes and each one of their ideas or thoughts is valid and special. We've done society a disservice in trying to spare people's feelings. Some ideas are dumb, we've all had them before.

Sounds like the debate went well, hopefully at least 1 student noticed that argument was logic v. emotion and might be interested in changing their opinion on the topic or researching it further.

 

[R127]

Yup, sounds like it went exactly the way I thought it would go.

As far as I can tell the problem is that people higher up on the totempole decide what they want for society. You can pick or choose or point at who those people are and what they want for specific cases but society is and always will be heirarchical. Anyway these people higher up on the totempole use their various outlets like teevee, public speaches, ridiculous noozepaper articles etc to tell the people lower down on the totempole what they want. A certain portion of these people closer to the bottom will look at it critically and say "That does not mesh with the facts." and reject it. Another portion will hear their masters speak and will obey, critical thinking never enters the equation. Inevitably the two groups of underlings clash because one knows its the bad idea and the other feels compelled to carry out their orders. When this clash takes place one of two things happens.

1. The obedient go along to get along group member is unable to defend the position because they never scrutinized it in the first place, such as we saw with this "debate"

2. The obedient go along to get along group member realizes they have been outflanked, probably due to some form of trickery from the other camp, so decides to counter facts with facts. Since their position is not supported by the facts they just make up new ones. This is what we see with groups like the Brady Bunch.

This goes far beyond guns though.

 

[Treo]

What I found interesting was that even though she claimed to have done the research, she never stated a single fact. She never even stated why she wanted guns banned. It got lost in the editing but at one point I pointed out that private gun sales in Colorado are unregulated , given that I pointed out that there were an un-disclosed number of legally owned guns in this state that nobody knows about. How do you intend to enforce confiscation? She actually admitted that she couldn't then dropped the point and moved on really quickly.

She articulated that Sun Hui Cho ( VA Tech) shouldn't have had a gun but couldn't say why. She also said that the shooter at NIU was too young to own a gun.

I derailed her argument with one question that I asked again and again " The BGs aren't obeying the gun laws you have now. Why will they obey stricter laws?" The first time I asked it I actually watched her go into brain lock because the logic didn't compute. She actually stopped talking and got a confused look on her face trying to fit what I asked her into her available "facts" , that's when her brain started to melt.

 

[Czar]

Good work! I never had the opportunity for such fun in my english classes. Then again I wasn't an english major so I only had to have the university required course. Since the Prof didn't jump in against you once the gal folded, I'm having to assume this wasn't Boulder?

Again good job!

 

[Treo]

The teacher wanted a reasoned logical arguement, she didn't deliver. He let me have her for lunch. At one point when she started to really get defensive someone in the class actually said that I was trying to help her write a better paper, so I assume that I came off as fairly sympathetic. While came off as simply pathetic

And to answer your question Colorado springs

 

[Seminole]

that's when her brain started to melt.

 

[bogie]

How do you think the class reacted?

Oh heck, guys... You start a logic loop, and you see all sorts of bad craziness... Fun part is when they start to read something, and they're agreeing with it, and then they come to the brick-wall of logic...

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I you think the line of argumentation in the above paragraph is odd or unusual, you haven't had much interaction with the recent products of the school systems in the U.S. As far as I can tell, the concept that ideas can have a greater or lesser degree of validity because of their internal logic has not been taught in the primary and secondary educational systems in a long time. It's sad, but I see it in otherwise bright college students every day. While there are clearly some students who can think logically (treo seems to be a good example), they seem to be developing this ability in spite of the school systems, not as a result of them.

There is nothing especially new about this attitude. My first wife was a product of Catholic schooling. Our brief marriage ended more than 30 years ago, but I distinctly remember one of the interactions that convinced me there was no hope for saving it.

She was writing a letter to someone. She asked me how to spell a word. I don't remember what word, but I knew how to spell it, so I told her. She said she disagreed. I invited her to look it up in the dictionary. Her response was, "Hmmph! You think you're so smart! Well I have a right to my opinion, too."

People who "think" like that are incapable of understanding that there's a fundamental difference between facts, and feelings and opinions. We know that, but the distinction is something that they simple cannot comprehend. It isn't all that new a phenomenon ... unfortunately.

 

[Seminole]

There is nothing especially new about this attitude.

Aguila, I agree that the inability (or unwillingness) to think critically isn't new. In fact, I'm enough of a pessimist to believe that critical thought has always been rare. What is different now is that the educational system as a whole seems to actively discourage critical thinking rather than encouraging it.

I also didn't make a distinction between public and private school systems. Unfortunately, private schools tend to hire from the same pool of teachers that the public schools do--graduates of university "education" programs. Plenty has been written about the pernicious effect of the curricula of these "education" departments on teachers as well as their role in "reforming" education in primary and secondary schools.

But enough about that. It was not my intent to hijack treo's thread on what was obviously a very successful rebuttal of an anti's "argument," but to congratulate him or her on bringing critical thought to bear on the issue of increased gun regulation. Yay, treo--keep up the good work!

 

[BlackBearME]

I agree - keep up the good work!

Obviously, the girl is probably a lost cause. Unless she gets raped or beaten....and I'm certainly not wishing that on her or anyone, but that's probably what it would take.

The rest of the class, however, now has some food for thought. Good for you. I wish I had had an opportunity like this when I was in school.

 

[jimbob86]

Her points were ( pretty close to) in this order

If you buy a gun you should go through a background check

If you have a criminal record you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

My Response
Those are already laws

Her Reply (echoed by a few classmates)
Well I know people who are felons and they own guns

My Response
So they're not obeying the gun laws in existence now, why would they obey your stricter laws.

Her Response
I'd make them

You missed your opening right there. "If you won't enforce the current laws against felons in posession of firearms, what would cause the gun owning public to believe you would enforce further laws any better than the current ones? You already know of felons with guns, yet you do not report them. Making more laws will not make you report them either. More laws will only affect the law abiding."

To put it in "street" vernacular, "the Boys in the Hood don't care if you makes it mo' illegaller.... they gonna get theirs."

 

[nplant]

Good work, treo. It's a little sad that there was no back and forth, because it always feels better to win a fair fight, but hey, you countered some illogical tripe, and may have saved a person or two in your class from believing and buying into the theory that inanimate objects and words written on paper in a capitol building somewhere have magical powers.

 

[Larry E]

Good work in the debate treo! It sort of amazes me that the instructor actually allowed a liberal female to be chewed up by a male who had facts on his side. I've had discussions of a similar sort with co-workers before I retired that worked out the same way, except that there was nobody to referee. The anti-gunner would pretty soon either leave in a huff or change the subject to anything else. It was entertaining for awhile, but rapidly began to be like arguing with the dog - except that the dog is generally more intelligent.

 

[RPCVYemen]

I wonder how she tells the story of the "debate"?

Mike

 

[bogie]

"That bad guy wouldn't let me tell anyone how I felt. And I was scared of him, because he probably had a hidden gun, and if I said anything, he'd take it out and it'd shoot all of us."