Still Yet Another "I Argued With An Anti" Thread
- Thread starter jakemccoy
- Start date
- Status
6_gunner
Member
I hate debating. If they aren't convinced after I've layed the facts out for them, it isn't going to do either of us any good to continue the discussion.
Arguing with hardcore antis doesn't accomplish anything and it further undermines my faith in humanity. I generally avoid it. Facts and logic don't work against people who are entirely governed by emotion.
As many have noted, antis just don't think the same way that we do.
The only time I feel obligated to butt in is when they lie, and there are innocent bystanders around to hear it. If it's just a herd of mindless antis congratulating each other for being so civilized and humane, I figure they can have fun in the dream land they've created for themselves. If there's a danger of them infecting others with their garbage, I'll take the time to set the facts straight. I figure I owe it to humanity to ensure that unfortunate passersby doesn't go from uninformed to misinformed.
Arguing with hardcore antis doesn't accomplish anything and it further undermines my faith in humanity. I generally avoid it. Facts and logic don't work against people who are entirely governed by emotion.
As many have noted, antis just don't think the same way that we do.
The only time I feel obligated to butt in is when they lie, and there are innocent bystanders around to hear it. If it's just a herd of mindless antis congratulating each other for being so civilized and humane, I figure they can have fun in the dream land they've created for themselves. If there's a danger of them infecting others with their garbage, I'll take the time to set the facts straight. I figure I owe it to humanity to ensure that unfortunate passersby doesn't go from uninformed to misinformed.
Duke of Doubt
member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,863
Gamera: "Whaaa?"
Meaning that his use of "need" as a criterion for distribution of rights and wealth implies his right to prioritize my preferences, rather than mine. I found this highly offensive. I also wanted to point out to him the fact that we were, at the time, actually traveling by yacht. Without it, we (or he) would be in the drink. At that moment, he needed a yacht, which I suppose I had the power to take away. He saw my point.
Meaning that his use of "need" as a criterion for distribution of rights and wealth implies his right to prioritize my preferences, rather than mine. I found this highly offensive. I also wanted to point out to him the fact that we were, at the time, actually traveling by yacht. Without it, we (or he) would be in the drink. At that moment, he needed a yacht, which I suppose I had the power to take away. He saw my point.
Ed Ames
Member
I split between two themes depending on audience.
1. "The question is not whether you can control. Yes it may be possible to ban private or all gun ownership. The question is, can you live with the consequences of that control? We can see in every area from prohibition to interstate speed limits that gaining even 90% compliance can cause major shifts in society and major reductions in safety and quality of life for everyone. To truly erradicate guns would mean controlling access to metalworking tools, tracking metal purchases, and a host of other measures that would harm everyone through reduced recreation and innovation for a start."
2. "People are inventive and laws can't stop them from fulfilling their needs. So long as people feel they need to do things we consider criminal - including murder - they will procure or invent weapons. "
Of course I try to be more concrete than that with most people.
1. "The question is not whether you can control. Yes it may be possible to ban private or all gun ownership. The question is, can you live with the consequences of that control? We can see in every area from prohibition to interstate speed limits that gaining even 90% compliance can cause major shifts in society and major reductions in safety and quality of life for everyone. To truly erradicate guns would mean controlling access to metalworking tools, tracking metal purchases, and a host of other measures that would harm everyone through reduced recreation and innovation for a start."
2. "People are inventive and laws can't stop them from fulfilling their needs. So long as people feel they need to do things we consider criminal - including murder - they will procure or invent weapons. "
Of course I try to be more concrete than that with most people.
mljdeckard
Member
The statement is absolutely correct and logical, and you were right to say it. However, these people have no use for logic.
- Status
