Calling Names

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Art Eatman

Moderator In Memoriam
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
46,725
Location
Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
I realize that the majority of the folks who post here are not at all happy with many of the policies and ideas of the Democratic Party. I'm in accord. But, folks, this is The High Road, and it does not reflect well upon us to go using thinly disguised scatological comments or doing a lot of name-calling.

The idea is to advance the cause of RKBA. I'm not much concerned about the opinions of those who are anti-gun because for most of them, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with facts." I am concerned about the opinions of those who are neutral on the gun issue.

Calling names and using harsh language tells those who are neutral and curious that the labels given us by the antis just might have some merit.

Attacking ideas is fine. Showing scorn against foolish behavior is fine--but it need not be wild-eyed and ranting.

Again, this is The High Road. Help us keep it that way.

Art
 
you mean scatological?

WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]

adj : dealing pruriently with excrement and excretory functions;
"scatological literature"

being an election year its probably going to get much worse before it gets better.:D
 
Frustration at one's inability to adequately express oneself leads to the shortcut of name calling. I continue to observe such behavior in my grandson's pre-school. Sadly, many never progress beyond that stage. ;)
 
Art...

Your point is well taken and should be reviewed by everyone who posts on this board. As well as other boards and the entire internet/public media channels.

I have a feeling that some of this may stem from frustration at some of the tactics used by many different anti-groups which attempt to portray the vast majority of gun owners as potential criminals, less-than-socially advanced personalities (as they see themselves), along with a calculated misrepresentation of the facts surrounding guns and the positive/negatives uses thereof.

There has also been a gradual (?) downward spiral in the general behavior of people in this country over the past years. I would have to say it started with television as the visual medium has allowed a flood of inputs, good and bad, that is virtually uncontrolled and uncontrollable. sometimes it is good, often it is not.

Both of these are not reasons tho, merely excuses.

You are still right. We need to insist on a modicum of good behavior and always strive to take the moral high road as we continue to work to protect our rights.
 
I find ther mentality of those who need to type things like (redacted) and (redacted) hilarious and enjoy reading their posts. But I agree, it has no place on THR.

(Edited to remove comments that would have made my grammaw's jaw drop.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Although I'm not happy with the majority of the Democratic Party's stance re gun control (or many other platforms), what really ticks me off is the "selling out" by the Republicans, & even more so, those on "our side" who bow to the "inevitable" stream of rights infringements in the name of "whatever" - possibly, the political realities of it all.

It need be neither.

The Wife happily pointed out a day or so back that my rants - attempts at persuassion - are seen more as rage & are totally non-persuassive as the "message" is lost in the "rant."

Effective comunication lies first in the listener to willingly even hear the complete message.

A rant, etc. turns the listener off to an extent to make the remainder irrelevant. Noone is swayed by such.

Guilty as charged.

& promise to either completely refrain, or make a succinctbrief point.
 
I find ther mentality of those who need to type things like (redacted) and (redacted) hilarious and enjoy reading their posts. But I agree, it has no place on THR.
Click to expand...

To that end, shall we also eliminate ad hominim attacks such as "Shrub" or "King George" or remarks about politicians ascending to "the throne?"
 
One thing is for sure. You aren't going to win any people over to your side with insults and name calling. The "sheeple" one is particularly egregious. It is a short hand way to not only insult other people, it also display a fair amount of ego-bloat simultaneously.
 
My "rant" was lost, in the ether, but calling names has its place.

The Elder Bush placed restrictictions on imports through an exectutive order, The Shrub has voiced support for the continuance of the AWB.

Are not each of these worthy of comtempt? of the decision itself, and of the man who made them?

If we can't "attack" the person who made them, what else is left?'''

The actual person who actually did this is evil, & should be attacked personally.

Mentioning The Shrub is as an apt description as saying This Administration.
 
labgrade...

"If we can't "attack" the person who made them, what else is left?'''"

You "could" attack the issue, show why it is wrong, and why the person was wrong to support it.

Or you could just bad-mouth the person, leaving someone ignorant of the situation to think more badly of you than your target and therefore willing to support a bad decision which they do not understand.
 
"The Issue" itself IS the whole debate, but, at the same time the person itself purporting this agrument IS the sole cause of the scenario, no?

That person needs to be attacked at their base level to defeat them - at their very core - which is their views.

The person, themself, is the reason this debate is being given public viewing.

Isn't that correct? & I'm wholeheartedly in favor of the expression of view-points.

But if, that person has views that are most contrary to what we believe, shouldn't that person be reviled?

Not to mention their views? for their ideals for what our republic, their "deomocracy,' should evolve to?

Now, I can understand that the person should be "inviolate," but their views perpetrated are antethemic to anythig we believe, & through that, the person themselves perpetrate these views/opinions.

We, through THR, accept the premise that we can't attack the person themselves, but that is the very core from whence they come, & to not attack them there, & allows them their sanctuary - & one can never defeat another if they have their sanctuay to further spew their retorect.


What is come down to is this:

We've an attempt at a socialistic government who wishses to subvert us to buying into further taxes & more govrnmental control, - for the betterment of all of us.

or:

We've a fascist state, that will control everything we do do, in the interest of safety.

I reject both.

Why cannot we have a society that recognizes that we both have responsibilities, while maintaining the societal cobtract?
 
That person needs to be attacked at their base level to defeat them - at their very core - which is their views.
Click to expand...

Except that by doing so, the key issues get ignored. For example, if we are having a debate over the issue of gun control and I said that you sodomized chickens of the same gender as yourself, the issue of gun control would rapidly be ignored as you became outraged. While others might tend to agree with me and revile you, others (including those who believe we have a right to sodomize chickens of the same gender) would be equally revilved by my actions. The debate would be lost by both sides.

When one debates another person or discusses the issue, you present your ideas and defeat the other person's ideas rather than trying to destroy the person. That allows a full and open discourse on the subject matter. If the issue at hand is the character flaws of a person, it is quite easy to discuss said flaws rather than descend to the most vile level of attacking the person. For another example, I disagree with your position tht we should attack the person and make them a subject of ridicule in order to bring people to our side. I believe that is counterproductive and intellectually lacking. That is a much better way of handling the issue than discussing your parentage, your stature (or lack thereof) or your intelligence (or lack thereof).
 
Well, it isn't mentioned specifically in The Constitution, but that document actually limits the powers of the federal government.
Click to expand...

I think controlling that conduct falls within the police power reserved by the states. :rolleyes: ;)
 
FPrice,

"You "could" attack the issue, show why it is wrong, and why the person was wrong to support it.

Or you could just bad-mouth the person, leaving someone ignorant of the situation to think more badly of you than your target and therefore willing to support a bad decision which they do not understand."

Yes, I can be totally objective here - & even with my own situation. - reagrds to nother post/thread/s. & this won't carry much weight with the antis, or even our own "pro gun" side, but we do have the explicit right to carry (yada, & there's plenty to consider the Militia Clause)

Spcificcaly, The Second.

FPrice,

I'm betchin'ya're looking for some solution.

There isn't one, Sir.

I don't have it, & frankly, the drugs are kicking in again. ... I don't have the metal facility try to answer.
 
"scatological"
Well I'll be, I learn something new everyday.

Well interesting enough I have an instructor whom is a shooter, the drawing on the eraserboard before class was in reference to model 70 in '06...Not WiFi ( boy that should confuse some folks studying for exam on Thurs...)

Anyway I actually can't believe I actually held a conversation in a college classroom about guns and politics. In regard to folks and "some political" thinking I actually commented " some folks must like to run barefoot through a cow pasture I guess, they keep doing it, they deny it, don't understand the stink, but they keep doing it".

People agreed with me about "certain political candidates" and topics.

I could have used a "big word" , then again I didn't know about this one. Of course whom was it that said "never use a big word when a small one will do".
;)
 
Art, ya mean words like blissninny, Demonkrats, traitor, sheeple?
Click to expand...

I think we can all agree the term "sheeple" is politically neutral and just describes a brain dead moron who listens to and believes whatever the government (or media) tells them.

"Blissninny" is interesting, because I can't figure out how that would be a political term.

"Traitor" is a term I understand, however I don't think it has s pecific party affiliation. I'd say one's opinion of who is one and who is a patriot probably depends on your point of view on political issues.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Here's The Deal!
Replies
20
Views
1K
TheBluesMan
T
A
  • Locked
Anti-gun writer upset with googled name-calling
Replies
1
Views
647
Bartholomew Roberts
B
C
  • Locked
Name calling and gun folks
2 3
Replies
59
Views
3K
pax
P
K
  • Locked
Call to action?
Replies
15
Views
838
ksnecktieman
K
X
  • Locked
Can we learn from this?
Replies
1
Views
411
kevin davis
K
Back
Top