Challenge – blog style
Two bloggers have agreed to slug it out. Pro-gun Kevin v. Anti-gun jhupp.
Update: I love this from comments at jhupp’s:
I don’t have any optimism about the possibility of real debate with the gun advocates, but I admire you for trying.
So, what kind of spices do you put on words when you’re about to eat them? I smell Reasoned Discoursetm coming.
He seems to be the only one worthy of the effort among the crowd. The other two have devolved to the point past ad hominem attacks and now they are just snickering amongst themselves at the stupid little pro-gun peons. Of course, they are probably banking on our stupidity for us to not notice that they did not even attempt to address… well… any of the points brought up.
Par for the course and why they’re a waste of time.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Well, Uncle, where are you supposed to point the Soccer Moms when you’re trying to convince them? I said in my piece
September 25th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
JadeGold has already made an appearance. How do you manage to keep him off this site without banning him? I’m envious! I’m blocking a whole swath of IP addresses to keep him off TSM.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Kevin:
Jade claimed that Uncle banned him. Posting here would have made him look like an even bigger idiot. But then he changed his tune and claimed Uncle unbanned him.
He’s just got an unhealthy fixation on you.
September 25th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Jadegold is a troll. Trolls seek to start flamewars. If a flamewar does not start, the troll will mostly leave for greener pastures.
I think that’s why he briefly appeared on Snowflakes in Hell, commented ferociously, then went away when nothing happened.
September 25th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Actually, that first commenter is right; there’s no possibility of debate between people like that and pro-gun people.
Debate implies that both sides have something to say that they can argue and defend against the points of the other side in at least a vaguely effectual manner (because otherwise it’s not much of a debate, is it?).
In my experience, they simply haven’t got anything to debate, other than an emotional or ideological insistence that guns are bad, or gun owners are bad, or similar axioms.
(Kevin’s right, of course, in that even non-debates can have a useful purpose. Heck, I think a situation where the anti-gun side has nothing substantive “debating” thoughtful individual armament advocates is possibly the most positive one for swaying fence-sitters.)
September 25th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
Especially as showing us to be reasonable, thoughtful and willing to listen. It isn’t so much the words as the actions. It is tough to write us off as drooling, hicktard rednecks when we’re throwing court cases, statistics and evidence that gun nuts are generally anything but irresponsible.
If we get one fence sitter to go, “Hmm, he has a point and he’s responsible with his guns…”, we win. One heart and mind at a time.
We put the “reason” in Reasoned Discourse(TM). It should be our slogan. 🙂
Matt
September 25th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
1. Most GFW are leftist liberals.
2. Most leftist liberals are obviously superior intellects. Just ask them.
3. Superior intellects don’t deign to debate, they proclaim.
4. When their proclamations are rejected by inferior intellects, they turn purple, fall to the floor, drum their heels against the floor, and call you names because their emotional age is something less than three years old.
Logical progression.