Parading victims of tragedy out to call for mob justice

[26charlie]

@Condescending_Robot

No, I don’t think I am obligated to convince everyone on the Internet to become a supporter of gun rights in order to claim that arguments should be made based on facts and logic instead of emotion and stigmatizing the concept of disagreement.

Well, thats good. But i’d think you meant the progression should be to make arguments with logic and without emotion in order to lead them to becoming gun rights supporters, rather than the reverse. That wont be hard to achieve, since gun ownership rights aren’t being threatened in the current debate.

I honestly want to learn what the opinions are of those who believe our 2nd amendment rights are threatened by a ban being talking about in the media. Because if there are details about the slippery slope that are pertinent to understanding this issue, then we sure aren’t hearing them. All i see are the emotional arguments of the NRA being parroted by people who believe what they’re saying is true, but are very reluctant to elaborate on it when asked. I listened carefully to the originator of this rhetoric on foxnews sunday and wasn’t surprised when wayne lapierre’s efforts went solely into talking around the questions rather than answering them. You can see how polished his obfuscating has become. Probably enough so that even chris wallace was frustrated by wayne’s dodging enough to chastize him for not giving an honest answer (or giving any answers) and pointing out how his logical jumps dont make good sense.

You’re not obligated to explain the rhetoric of the NRA - but can you suggest where i could learn what it is and get some answers to my questions? Thanks

[Condescending_Robot]

@BrainGlutton

:dubious: You cannot seriously expect that to believed, unless it means you are something far further RW than a “conservative,” and the less said of such the better.

I know you think the only reason anyone can disagree with Obama or want to own a gun is because of knee-jerk membership in some boogeyman group like “conservatives,” but that’s due to your own narrow horizons, not anything regarding me or reality.

[Ludovic]

@Condescending_Robot

I know you think the only reason anyone can disagree with Obama or want to own a gun is because of knee-jerk membership in some boogeyman group like “conservatives,”

Of course, every Obama supporter thinks that, according to you. Or are you going to withdraw your previous comment to that effect?

[Condescending_Robot]

@26charlie

Well, thats good. But i’d think you meant the progression should be to make arguments with logic and without emotion in order to lead them to becoming gun rights supporters, rather than the reverse. That wont be hard to achieve, since gun ownership rights aren’t being threatened in the current debate.

I honestly want to learn what the opinions are of those who believe our 2nd amendment rights are threatened by a ban being talking about in the media. Because if there are details about the slippery slope that are pertinent to understanding this issue, then we sure aren’t hearing them. All i see are the emotional arguments of the NRA being parroted by people who believe what they’re saying is true, but are very reluctant to elaborate on it when asked. I listened carefully to the originator of this rhetoric on foxnews sunday and wasn’t surprised when wayne lapierre’s efforts went solely into talking around the questions rather than answering them. You can see how polished his obfuscating has become. Probably enough so that even chris wallace was frustrated by wayne’s dodging enough to chastize him for not giving an honest answer (or giving any answers) and pointing out how his logical jumps dont make good sense.

You’re not obligated to explain the rhetoric of the NRA - but can you suggest where i could learn what it is and get some answers to my questions? Thanks

I don’t think you get this…I don’t have to debate every angle of the gun issue with you in order to make the point about emotion and dissent. That you don’t like the fact that Wayne LaPierre “dodged” something on a news show means as much to me as a log on the ground. It has zero to do with my argument in this thread, even if I was casting myself as some sort of huge fan of Wayne LaPierre or the NRA, which I am not. If you want to discuss guns in general I am doing so in several of the ten million other threads on the topic; if you think that by arguing about guns here you can somehow make it OK to pass laws by yelling at people who object to them about how insensitive they are being to a grieving father because he supports them, you are wrong.

[Ravenman]

To be outraged at understanding the human toll of various policies – whether it’s hearing the story of a victim of gun violence, the victim of a crime who couldn’t be armed, or a patient dying of some terrible and preventable disease – is to be well along the road to being a non-member of society. If you can’t look someone in the eye, listen to their story, consider its relevance in a larger context, and make up your own mind on issues while considering the human cost of whatever policy, I say there’s very little point of believing that person can be part of a civil society.

That doesn’t mean that every policy discussion should be decided on whichever side can produce the most tears. Look at the data, examine your values, interpret the law: do all those things, but I think it is bordering on psychopathic to get upset when confronted by the human toll of purely intellectual debates. If you can’t relate to another grieving human on a personal level and say, “I’m sorry for what happened to you, but I disagree with you,” the problem is with you, not the person who suffered the loss.

[solosam]

@26charlie

You’re right that AQ and their ilk want innocents to die when we attack them. This acknowledges that the killing of innocent civilians is not because they were militantly shaking their fists at america and thus deserved to be killed. Our media never shows the horror that the locals see in the aftermaths - the innocents and children nearby killed - or worse, severely wounded and lingering in pain without medical attention before dying. They would know AQ shared some responsibility, but if they hear americans claiming all those killed were bad and not making distinctions in their initial statements, then it wont take long before they put ALL the blame on the US.

Not caring to make distinctions shows an indifference to their suffering that eventually works against the original mission. In time, the drone missions effectively become counterproductive by producing far more long-term enemies than the few that are eliminated. AQ depends on our public to support more drone attacks on them, for their eventually victory. This makes them believe they’re smarter than us. Why must we give that to them?

So maybe we should focus the debate on the cost vs. benefits, instead of declaring that everyone who supports airstrikes against military targets is a member of the Nazi party.

[solosam]

@26charlie

They certainly dont deliberately target innocents but they get a lower grade for trying to avoid it. After watching thousands of air to ground firings, i always give them the benifit of doubt. But it looks more like there is a reluctance to deny permissions for firing and the favoring of aggressive action when they’re in doubt. In the wiki leaks video, the pilot’s trigger fingers were very itchy, when looking for any excuse to fire on a group of people - or making one up. They dont always go to great lengths to avoid killing innocents - they more often exhibit an indifference (for reasons of their own).

Obama’s team recently deemed any male of military age that is killed by a drone strike, to be classified as enemy. They didn’t specify what the lowest age is though. Over there, it can be when they are physically able to shoot an AK - they’ll surely get counted when the ages of those killed cant be easily verified.

Well, apparently we have had different experiences. I have seen far too many incidents when the enemy has received a free pass to attack Americans at will because the command is completely averse to taking action.

It saps the will and destroys the morale of the unit to know that your leaders consider you expendable; that they would rather let Americans die than risk the consequences of taking action against the people who are trying to kill us.

My experience has been that our leaders are far too cautious… while at the same time the media portrays us as trigger-happy murderers who blow up children for giggles.