Blackwater OPS
New member
Agreed. Lets take the high road. At the same time however, lets not fight those on our side who use the tactics of the enemy. We are on the same side after all.
Another Ex. of less guns = more crime
- Thread starter Blackwater OPS
- Start date
Agreed. Lets take the high road. At the same time however, lets not fight those on our side who use the tactics of the enemy. We are on the same side after all.
IZHUMINTER
New member
You're right on one thing: it is most certainly not a war. However, it is also most certainly not a debate. It is, as you put it in your next sentence:
Debates are structured and have rules. Debates are moderated to allow both sides to get their points across (to the best of their natural abilities). In competetive debate, those who manufacture evidence and are caught are sanctioned. None of these appear to be the case in the Court of Public Opinion as far as gun control is concerned.
Rather, it is an Argument. In an Argument, the one with sympathetic friends standing nearby making cooing noises is often the one who wins in the eyes of onlookers.
Personally, I do my best to take the high road and discuss my beliefs, but I'm only human and end up in my fair share of Arguments. When that happens I like to understand what techniques my opponent might use against me, so that I can better counter them. I also try not to use them myself, but I am only human...
For this reason I highly recommend everyone read Arthur Schopenhauer's "The Art of Controversy." Ordinarily, he's your standard boring dead philosopher, but in this work he really shines. Choice pieces of advice such as Strategem XXI show keen insight on the proper conduct of an Argument (bold added by me):
"When your opponent uses a merely superficial or sophistical argument and you see through it, you can, it is true, refute it by setting forth its captious and superficial character; but it is better to meet him with a counter-argument which is just as superficial and sophistical, and so dispose of him; for it is with victory that you are concerned, and not with truth. If, for example, he adopts an argumentum ad hominem, it is sufficient to take the force out of it by a counter argumentum ad hominem or argumentum ex concessis; and, in general, instead of setting forth the true state of the case at equal length, it is shorter to take this course if it lies open to you."
The whole work (in English and German) can be found here: http://coolhaus.de/art-of-controversy/
ok Wild, all we've seen you do is shoot down others' interpretations of the numbers, let's see your own. Why don't you come up with a cohesive analysis of crime rates and gun control. You seem to know the numbers, I'm definitely interested in what your theory is...
...because it's easy to shoot down others, it's something else to offer up something of your own.
...because it's easy to shoot down others, it's something else to offer up something of your own.
Blackwater OPS
New member
What Wildalaska is trying to say is the numbers are meaningless, not that his interpretation of them is superior to yours.
Last edited:
that's fine, and I don't begrudge anyone for being the devil's advocate, god knows I've been one plenty of times.
But when you do that you have to do two things. You say:
1) you're wrong, and here's why
2) I'm right, and here's why
It's like going into court, you don't just say "Everything the other side said is wrong." You have to follow it up with, "And here's what's right."
So my problem with Wild lies not in that he's discounting the use of numbers or whatever, it lies in the fact that he's only providing a half-argument, and the easier half at that!
If numbers don't matter, what does?
But when you do that you have to do two things. You say:
1) you're wrong, and here's why
2) I'm right, and here's why
It's like going into court, you don't just say "Everything the other side said is wrong." You have to follow it up with, "And here's what's right."
So my problem with Wild lies not in that he's discounting the use of numbers or whatever, it lies in the fact that he's only providing a half-argument, and the easier half at that!
If numbers don't matter, what does?
IZHuminter,
I don't think you really understand the material you quoted. Schopenhauer isn't saying that you will win the issue, but that you will personally defeat your trite opponent at the time of the argument.
The "win" in a public debate (and it is a debate, because there will be a winner, and it takes place on all levels of public discourse) is when you equip those with the power to vote with the will to take your view and act. This doesn't occur when you make your oppenent looks dumb or you smart. It happens when you demonstrate that the your view would win ANY debate, regardless of who makes the argument.
Play in the mud with the kids and the adults will not take you seriously. I request that you consider that the votes will come from the observers of the argument realize that there is depth and intelligence to our position. If we play by our oppenents rules we don't have a leg to stand on.
I don't think you really understand the material you quoted. Schopenhauer isn't saying that you will win the issue, but that you will personally defeat your trite opponent at the time of the argument.
The "win" in a public debate (and it is a debate, because there will be a winner, and it takes place on all levels of public discourse) is when you equip those with the power to vote with the will to take your view and act. This doesn't occur when you make your oppenent looks dumb or you smart. It happens when you demonstrate that the your view would win ANY debate, regardless of who makes the argument.
Play in the mud with the kids and the adults will not take you seriously. I request that you consider that the votes will come from the observers of the argument realize that there is depth and intelligence to our position. If we play by our oppenents rules we don't have a leg to stand on.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Already gave you numbers....NYC has a lower violent crime rate than Houston...NYC has strict gun control...Houston does not...ergo...strict gun control =less crime.
WildisntthatthesameaslottsAlaska
IZHUMINTER
New member
Handy:
Since you completely missed the tone of my post, I'll rephrase it for you: Know Thy Enemy.
Schopenhauer didn't say anything about "the issue," but he did say you will defeat your opponent at that time: why else do you think I quoted him? Indeed, I made sure to post the Strategem, and my admonition for everyone to read his work, after I wrote "When that happens I like to understand what techniques my opponent might use against me, so that I can better counter them." I don't think anyone here could tell me with a straight face that the Strategem I quoted hasn't been succesfully used by the antis in what you claim is a "debate."
On that note, the Oxford English Dictionary defines debate and argument as follows:
Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one
Gun control is a topic often filled with vitriol, with its supports making unsubtantiated (and I would submit often wholly fabricated) claims such as "thousands of children are killed every year by guns." These are not the actions of an honored opponent. Rather, they are the actions of a crafty foe who understands human nature...a foe who knows that to convince the majority, one need not use rational honest discourse.
Time and time again, I have seen a charismatic yet ignorant speaker sway the crowd against the learned yet inarticulate one. Just look at VADM Stockdale in the '92 Vice Presidential debates. The man was brilliant, a true American hero, could confidently defend every point of his platform and was mocked for years because of how badly he performed on TV. The message was lost for want of the messenger.
I have never once encouraged anyone to stoop to using our opponents means. I have a well-developed sense of integrity, and try to take the high road in all that I do. The cold hard truth, however, is that the world at large has never been populated by grown-ups...and in our democratic system the ignorant, the uneducated and those ruled by their emotions rather than their intellect have just as much right to vote as anyone.
Go ahead and stick with the grown-ups. Our opponents are busy winning over everyone else.
Since you completely missed the tone of my post, I'll rephrase it for you: Know Thy Enemy.
Schopenhauer didn't say anything about "the issue," but he did say you will defeat your opponent at that time: why else do you think I quoted him? Indeed, I made sure to post the Strategem, and my admonition for everyone to read his work, after I wrote "When that happens I like to understand what techniques my opponent might use against me, so that I can better counter them." I don't think anyone here could tell me with a straight face that the Strategem I quoted hasn't been succesfully used by the antis in what you claim is a "debate."
On that note, the Oxford English Dictionary defines debate and argument as follows:
Debate: a formal discussion on a particular topic in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward.
Argument: an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one
Gun control is a topic often filled with vitriol, with its supports making unsubtantiated (and I would submit often wholly fabricated) claims such as "thousands of children are killed every year by guns." These are not the actions of an honored opponent. Rather, they are the actions of a crafty foe who understands human nature...a foe who knows that to convince the majority, one need not use rational honest discourse.
Time and time again, I have seen a charismatic yet ignorant speaker sway the crowd against the learned yet inarticulate one. Just look at VADM Stockdale in the '92 Vice Presidential debates. The man was brilliant, a true American hero, could confidently defend every point of his platform and was mocked for years because of how badly he performed on TV. The message was lost for want of the messenger.
I have never once encouraged anyone to stoop to using our opponents means. I have a well-developed sense of integrity, and try to take the high road in all that I do. The cold hard truth, however, is that the world at large has never been populated by grown-ups...and in our democratic system the ignorant, the uneducated and those ruled by their emotions rather than their intellect have just as much right to vote as anyone.
Go ahead and stick with the grown-ups. Our opponents are busy winning over everyone else.
I'll cover this again:
An argument is a spat or quarrel: A meaningless exchange of heated vitriol that has little or not import outside itself.
Debate: A judged contest with a winner.
Schopenhauer is telling you how to verbally vanquish someone you argue with. He is not telling you how to win a debate, because the tactics he discusses will just get you both kicked out. And he is definitely not telling you how to appear intelligent to anyone but yourself.
On topic: Making us look like bigger morons than Sarah Brady is an awful stupid way of convincing those on the fence to take our side. Do you understand that?
An example: Voter turnout and candidate support is negatively impacted by political smear campaigns. In other words, voters get turned off by juvenille antics.
So you'll pardon me if I think it is an excessively foolhardy idea that we should act in public like the people we believe are idiots. The only thing more stupid is proposing an armed attack on HCI.
So please do the rest of us a favor and don't identify yourself with Second Amendment supporters when you want to publicly display a 5th graders understanding of statistics (or Schopenhauer).
An argument is a spat or quarrel: A meaningless exchange of heated vitriol that has little or not import outside itself.
Debate: A judged contest with a winner.
Schopenhauer is telling you how to verbally vanquish someone you argue with. He is not telling you how to win a debate, because the tactics he discusses will just get you both kicked out. And he is definitely not telling you how to appear intelligent to anyone but yourself.
On topic: Making us look like bigger morons than Sarah Brady is an awful stupid way of convincing those on the fence to take our side. Do you understand that?
An example: Voter turnout and candidate support is negatively impacted by political smear campaigns. In other words, voters get turned off by juvenille antics.
So you'll pardon me if I think it is an excessively foolhardy idea that we should act in public like the people we believe are idiots. The only thing more stupid is proposing an armed attack on HCI.
So please do the rest of us a favor and don't identify yourself with Second Amendment supporters when you want to publicly display a 5th graders understanding of statistics (or Schopenhauer).
IZHUMINTER
New member
Handy:
You are absolutely right. "Making us look like bigger morons than Sarah Brady is an awful stupid way of convincing those on the fence to take our side." Now, please quote me where I've said something that conflicts with that.
I'll take the Oxford English Dictionary's definitions over yours, thank you very much. You may like yours, but the ones I used are the standard in academic and governmental circles (and the ones I used quite successfully in high school and college Debate). Based on them, "the Public Debate" is not a Debate at all.
For the third time: I did not refer to Schopenhauer's tactics as a "how to" guide. I referred to them as a guide to the tactics our opponents habitually use. That's something I like to refer to as "Intelligence" (with a capital I). For you to defend yourself against an opponent who does not play by the same rules you hold yourself to requires an understanding of their methods. If you want to fight blind, by all means go ahead and lose. I like to know where my opponents are coming from and what defenses I can prepare in advance...another little something I used as a Debater with a winning record. Hell, it's a principle of military action going back to Sun-Tzu.
I'm glad you don't want to associate yourself with me. I have read, understood and been examined on quite a bit of Schopenhauer in both English and German at a collegiate level...and never once in this thread mentioned statistics...but somehow you managed to judge that I am publicly displaying only "a 5th graders understanding" of both. Such a comment is not taking the high road but rather stooping to the same smear tactics that you claim to oppose; a person who does that isn't one I want on my side either.
This is not a world ruled by logic, but that doesn't mean we have to stoop to dirty tricks or irrational means to get our point across. I like to carry a gun because it makes me feel safe. I don't have any statistics to prove it makes me any more or less safe; my opinion is purely personal in nature, but I am willing to discuss it with anyone regardless of their level of education, political affiliation or position on the issue. I can talk about what it means to me and my feelings all day long, and never sound like a fool. THAT is just one example of how we can learn from our opponent's tactics and use them to our advantage without getting dirty, and how we can win over even those whom I wouldn't consider grown-ups.
You are absolutely right. "Making us look like bigger morons than Sarah Brady is an awful stupid way of convincing those on the fence to take our side." Now, please quote me where I've said something that conflicts with that.
I'll take the Oxford English Dictionary's definitions over yours, thank you very much. You may like yours, but the ones I used are the standard in academic and governmental circles (and the ones I used quite successfully in high school and college Debate). Based on them, "the Public Debate" is not a Debate at all.
For the third time: I did not refer to Schopenhauer's tactics as a "how to" guide. I referred to them as a guide to the tactics our opponents habitually use. That's something I like to refer to as "Intelligence" (with a capital I). For you to defend yourself against an opponent who does not play by the same rules you hold yourself to requires an understanding of their methods. If you want to fight blind, by all means go ahead and lose. I like to know where my opponents are coming from and what defenses I can prepare in advance...another little something I used as a Debater with a winning record. Hell, it's a principle of military action going back to Sun-Tzu.
I'm glad you don't want to associate yourself with me. I have read, understood and been examined on quite a bit of Schopenhauer in both English and German at a collegiate level...and never once in this thread mentioned statistics...but somehow you managed to judge that I am publicly displaying only "a 5th graders understanding" of both. Such a comment is not taking the high road but rather stooping to the same smear tactics that you claim to oppose; a person who does that isn't one I want on my side either.
This is not a world ruled by logic, but that doesn't mean we have to stoop to dirty tricks or irrational means to get our point across. I like to carry a gun because it makes me feel safe. I don't have any statistics to prove it makes me any more or less safe; my opinion is purely personal in nature, but I am willing to discuss it with anyone regardless of their level of education, political affiliation or position on the issue. I can talk about what it means to me and my feelings all day long, and never sound like a fool. THAT is just one example of how we can learn from our opponent's tactics and use them to our advantage without getting dirty, and how we can win over even those whom I wouldn't consider grown-ups.
Friend,
You are the one that referred to ad hominem as "proper conduct" in the argument we are discussing. You spoke of strategy. Now you're talking circles.
Did you, or did you not post that quote as a defense of using ad hominem and other base tactics as a means of combatting gun banning rhetoric? Yes or no.
It sure looks like yes, since your entire post was a response to mine decrying such methods.
Instead of quibbling further over who's definition is better, I will AGAIN remind you that it is only an argument if both sides are arguing. And it is only an argument if the audience doesn't care. Don't like the word "debate"? Fine. I don't care what you want to call this campaign to sway public opinion. But I do care about what result using lies and BS are going to produce for us, which is the point of this thread. And that's exactly what your post appears to advocate.
You are the one that referred to ad hominem as "proper conduct" in the argument we are discussing. You spoke of strategy. Now you're talking circles.
Did you, or did you not post that quote as a defense of using ad hominem and other base tactics as a means of combatting gun banning rhetoric? Yes or no.
It sure looks like yes, since your entire post was a response to mine decrying such methods.
Instead of quibbling further over who's definition is better, I will AGAIN remind you that it is only an argument if both sides are arguing. And it is only an argument if the audience doesn't care. Don't like the word "debate"? Fine. I don't care what you want to call this campaign to sway public opinion. But I do care about what result using lies and BS are going to produce for us, which is the point of this thread. And that's exactly what your post appears to advocate.
IZHUMINTER
New member
No, I did not refer to an ad hominem as "proper conduct," and I never have. I quoted an especially well written Stratagem by an intelligent philospopher, one whom I believe had great insight into the human mind, and specifically did so to emphasize the bolded passage "...for it is with victory that you are concerned, and not with truth." Time and time again, our opponents have used the issue as a means for personal or political gain, but rarely have they been concerned with Truth. For us to effectively counter any tactics they use (Schopenhauer here merely used the example of an ad hominem), we have to understand that mindset.
No.
No, my post was a response to the fallacy that we can win by being coldly impassionate, and the silly notion that our message can be effectively transmitted regardless of who delivers it. Real life just doesn't work that way, and we have to accept it. The trick lies in finding a way to deliver our message that still has the desired effect and yet does not compromise our own moral code.
Last edited:
Thank you for finally clarifying.
I'll do the same. I do not think, and have never written that "we can win by being coldly impassionate, and the silly notion that our message can be effectively transmitted regardless of who delivers it." I don't know where you got this from."
My one and only message in this thread has been that lies, bad statistics and poorly made arguments are ultimately damaging to the cause. I can't imagine how you extracted the above from anything I said. So the only "silly notion" I see is that one.
I highly recommend spokespeople who are impassioned and present themselves well. Armed with logic and real facts such people make the best case.
I'll do the same. I do not think, and have never written that "we can win by being coldly impassionate, and the silly notion that our message can be effectively transmitted regardless of who delivers it." I don't know where you got this from."
My one and only message in this thread has been that lies, bad statistics and poorly made arguments are ultimately damaging to the cause. I can't imagine how you extracted the above from anything I said. So the only "silly notion" I see is that one.
I highly recommend spokespeople who are impassioned and present themselves well. Armed with logic and real facts such people make the best case.
CobrayCommando
Moderator
Stephen Colbert Voice:
Why, Mr. Alaska, do you hate America? Your words sir, not mine:
In all seriousness I have to agree, maybe by getting away from the flawed more guns less crime logic, we can avoid the pitfalls that the NRA encountered when they adopted what came off to most liberals as a 2nd Amendment is for hunting stance. Charlton Heston calling full autos unnacceptable for civilian ownership etc.
Why, Mr. Alaska, do you hate America? Your words sir, not mine:
In all seriousness I have to agree, maybe by getting away from the flawed more guns less crime logic, we can avoid the pitfalls that the NRA encountered when they adopted what came off to most liberals as a 2nd Amendment is for hunting stance. Charlton Heston calling full autos unnacceptable for civilian ownership etc.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Huh?
WildOKletshearthisoneAlaska
CobrayCommando
Moderator
Just a joke, you may not watch the Colbert Report 