Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 9/20/2009 4:43:18 PM EST

I got into an argument (friendly at first) about the 2nd amendment with this mid-thirties woman the other night. As expected every single thing that was said was based purely on emotion and not logic or reason. I felt bad because she was trying her hardest to win the argument by going back to 2 basic arguments, one, her brother was murdered by a man using a handgun (I can see why she would have a lot of emotion over this) but her second argument really blew me away, that was she would kill someone over silly reasons if she had a gun. Basically she was saying that if she had access to a gun at any given moment that she would use it to kill over trivial disagreements. Then she applied this to every other person out there, saying they would do the same.
For the record the person that killed her brother was a family friend and "band-mate" that was wacked out on drugs at the time (both were), got into an argument, left and came back with a pistol and shot him in the back. Yet this is an example that she chooses to use saying guns kill people (yes, she insisted the gun killed him, not the drugged out hippie coward who shot him in the back over a lame disagreement)

What I took mostly from this experience was that there is no winning these people over, I countered every single one of her emotion based points with calm reasoning and fact, but it had absolutely no affect on her. Didn't matter, she was affected by gun violence, blamed the gun not the person, and transferred her own immaturity and inability to handle stressful situations without wanting to kill someone for no good reason to everyone else on the planet.

Be wary...
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 4:46:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2009 4:47:20 PM EST by bulldog1967]
Liberals always want to take guns from us because they know that they are emotionally immature and think that if THEY would go around shooting someone for no reason, then EVERYONE else who actually owns a gun must too.

ETA, don't feel bad about it at all.

I don't.

Link Posted: 9/20/2009 4:47:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By mgamber:
...she would kill someone over silly reasons if she had a gun. Basically she was saying that if she had access to a gun at any given moment that she would use it to kill over trivial disagreements. Then she applied this to every other person out there, saying they would do the same.


It's called "projection" and is used by quite a few anti's. http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/rage.htm
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 4:48:39 PM EST
Why do you feel bad about it?

It's not your fault they are an idiot.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 4:49:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By Bubbles:
Originally Posted By mgamber:
...she would kill someone over silly reasons if she had a gun. Basically she was saying that if she had access to a gun at any given moment that she would use it to kill over trivial disagreements. Then she applied this to every other person out there, saying they would do the same.


It's called "projection" and is used by quite a few anti's. http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/rage.htm


The crazy part is she didn't deny the "projection" she freely admitted she would kill over trivia.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 4:50:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2009 4:51:09 PM EST by capnrob97]
In another 2 years, it will probably be illegal to debate a lib here.

See the thread about 2 Christians arrested in UK because an Islam woman was offended.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 4:51:26 PM EST
Originally Posted By mgamber:
Originally Posted By Bubbles:
Originally Posted By mgamber:
...she would kill someone over silly reasons if she had a gun. Basically she was saying that if she had access to a gun at any given moment that she would use it to kill over trivial disagreements. Then she applied this to every other person out there, saying they would do the same.


It's called "projection" and is used by quite a few anti's. http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/rage.htm


The crazy part is she didn't deny the "projection" she freely admitted she would kill over trivia.


then she shouldn't be driving or in the general population. She should be in solitary on a funny farm.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 4:53:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By mgamber:

I got into an argument (friendly at first) about the 2nd amendment with this mid-thirties woman the other night. As expected every single thing that was said was based purely on emotion and not logic or reason. I felt bad because she was trying her hardest to win the argument by going back to 2 basic arguments, one, her brother was murdered by a man using a handgun (I can see why she would have a lot of emotion over this) but her second argument really blew me away, that was she would kill someone over silly reasons if she had a gun. Basically she was saying that if she had access to a gun at any given moment that she would use it to kill over trivial disagreements. Then she applied this to every other person out there, saying they would do the same.
For the record the person that killed her brother was a family friend and "band-mate" that was wacked out on drugs at the time (both were), got into an argument, left and came back with a pistol and shot him in the back. Yet this is an example that she chooses to use saying guns kill people (yes, she insisted the gun killed him, not the drugged out hippie coward who shot him in the back over a lame disagreement)

What I took mostly from this experience was that there is no winning these people over, I countered every single one of her emotion based points with calm reasoning and fact, but it had absolutely no affect on her. Didn't matter, she was affected by gun violence, blamed the gun not the person, and transferred her own immaturity and inability to handle stressful situations without wanting to kill someone for no good reason to everyone else on the planet.

Be wary...


Dealt with this with an ex-gf who thought guns were inherently bad. I simply asked if she though rocks and sticks were evil. She said no, despite these being the first weapons humans used to kill. If rocks and sticks aren't evil, how can guns be? They're simply a tool used by both good and bad people.

Link Posted: 9/20/2009 4:54:24 PM EST
Projection. Anti-gunners are full of it. And mentally ill in many cases...
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 4:54:53 PM EST
Liberal/socialist/progressive/communists or whatever you want to call them use stupid arguments because they are stupid.

Being stupid and having the reasoning ability of a small dog or marmet they fail to understand even basic reasoning or logic. Everything they do is guided by simple minded emotional arguments and a desire to excuse themselves and their low-life supporters from accepting responsibility for their actions or behaviors.

It is always the fault of the tool or everyone else and not them. Someone else is supposed to pay for everything for them, healthcare, housing, transportation, retirement and/or find them a job and overpay them for doing as little as possible.

Forest Gump figured them out in the 60's. "Stupid is, as stupid does".
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 4:58:07 PM EST
Don't feel bad about it thats like letting her win.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 4:59:50 PM EST
Originally Posted By 762gunman:
Liberal/socialist/progressive/communists or whatever you want to call them use stupid arguments because they are stupid.

Being stupid and having the reasoning ability of a small dog or marmet they fail to understand even basic reasoning or logic. Everything they do is guided by simple minded emotional arguments and a desire to excuse themselves and their low-life supporters from accepting responsibility for their actions or behaviors.

It is always the fault of the tool or everyone else and not them. Someone else is supposed to pay for everything for them, healthcare, housing, transportation, retirement and/or find them a job and overpay them for doing as little as possible.

Forest Gump figured them out in the 60's. "Stupid is, as stupid does".


She is also an obama supporter, said that she "loves our president" and he is much better than the idiot that we had before. Didn't get into that one at all.

Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:01:19 PM EST
Originally Posted By ares51082:
Originally Posted By mgamber:
Originally Posted By Bubbles:
Originally Posted By mgamber:
...she would kill someone over silly reasons if she had a gun. Basically she was saying that if she had access to a gun at any given moment that she would use it to kill over trivial disagreements. Then she applied this to every other person out there, saying they would do the same.


It's called "projection" and is used by quite a few anti's. http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/rage.htm


The crazy part is she didn't deny the "projection" she freely admitted she would kill over trivia.


then she shouldn't be driving or in the general population. She should be in solitary on a funny farm.


No, She would likely be dead. Shot by a responsible citizen after she threatens them over something trivial. She would be one of many liberals killed in such a way. This is why liberals hate guns, their kind of people are the ones that get killed by responsible gun owners. She knows if she tried to shoot someone over something trivial, she would likely get popped herself.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:01:33 PM EST
Admit there is no chance of winninig THAT argument with her and change the subject to SEX.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:01:54 PM EST
The average liberal anti gun wimp does not think, debate, deduce, apply logic or even argue in the classic sense.

All they do is spew emotion riddled verbage like a pressure cooker with a bad valve.

Discussion on virtually any level with them is all but impossible.

It's like trying to hold a conversation with a three year old having a temper tantrum.....it's a waste of everyones time.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:03:23 PM EST
Had a Liberal friend that said the reason he doesn't like guns is because he doesn't trust himself with a gun.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:09:17 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2009 5:09:59 PM EST by Ryan1021]
You will never "win" an argument where the person is emotionally attached to the issue. Emotion clouds people's judgment and make them less likely to rationally examine their position regardless of what the issue is.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:10:46 PM EST
mgamber:

Your experience with this woman mirrors mine at a Million Mom March event in Dallas a few years ago. Emotion is all they have, and they think you can't argue because they have "lost someone to gun violence."
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:15:38 PM EST
Taker her out to dinner, and chat about anything excepts guns and politics. Show her a different side of you, instead of the advocate for the 2nd. amendment.

Get to know her too for a while, and then take her to the range with just the 10\22. Nothing big or scary, and definitely not a hand gun. Deck her out with all the hearing and eye protection. Take good care of her and emphasize safety.

You can turn many friends that way, but especially women.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:18:07 PM EST
Originally Posted By DSRV:
Taker her out to dinner, and chat about anything excepts guns and politics. Show her a different side of you, instead of the advocate for the 2nd. amendment.

Get to know her too for a while, and then take her to the range with just the 10\22. Nothing big or scary, and definitely not a hand gun. Deck her out with all the hearing and eye protection. Take good care of her and emphasize safety.

You can turn many friends that way, but especially women.


No opportunity to do something like that, she is in a different state. As an addition to the story, the person who killed her brother evidently took her and other family members shooting often growing up...
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:19:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By mgamber:

What I took mostly from this experience was that there is no winning these people over,

There's no winning that particular one, but there are plenty of people that can be won over.

Mrs. Wingnutx was basically anti at one point, and now she has her own AR that you'd have to take from her cold dead hands
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:19:59 PM EST
Most libs are secretly afraid they will off THEMSELVES, it's why they hate guns. Self loathing thing I think.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:20:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2009 5:21:10 PM EST by callgood]
Has she ever rammed someone over a trivial traffic squabble?

Has she ever shanked someone for breaking in line at the cafeteria?

Why would a handgun be any different?

Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:22:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
mgamber:

Your experience with this woman mirrors mine at a Million Mom March event in Dallas a few years ago. Emotion is all they have, and they think you can't argue because they have "lost someone to gun violence."


And any attempt to do so was met with "You don't have the experience that I do, you cannot be as knowledgable on this subject as I am."
What I wanted to say was;
"Look, your brother was murdered by a deranged, druged out hippie sociopath that was not capable of living in a polite society anyway, the real tragedy of the event was that he didn't then turn the gun on himself and save the next person that he decides to kill, your arguments are based on emotion and not logic or reason and therefore not valid"
But I wouldn't
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:22:25 PM EST
"Never argue with a liberal. You feel dirty, and the liberal likes it."

Should have asked the silly bitch if she owns any kitchen knives. If she does, ask how many people she has killed with them.

Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:22:40 PM EST
the old tried and true answer to that is...since she has a vagina she's doomed to be a whore.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:25:14 PM EST
Once you become ideologically subverted you...pretty much stay that way.

In laymen terms Libtards = brainwashed.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:28:21 PM EST
...and such people are allowed to vote.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:32:33 PM EST
Me: "how would you feel about knives if the drugged out hippie stabbed your brother in the back with a common kitchen knife? Do you think an 8" blade in the back would have killed your brother any less dead?"


She doesn't want to think, she doesn't want to let go of the emotions she has. People really seem to want to have something to hate, and she's found hers.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:47:02 PM EST
You know, normal people don't kill each other on the drop of a hat just because they have weapons. If you believe that you would kill someone for no reason other than the fact that you have a weapon, you need to check yourself into an institution.. Do it for the children.








Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:48:52 PM EST
A true liberal does not process information like a true conservative does. Liberals understand feelings, but logic, reason, and rational thought are a foreign language to them, one that they never learn well enough to think in it.


A true conservative mindset is based on logic and reason, cause and effect, action and consequence, and while conservatives are not emotionless, we are far less ruled
by our emotions than liberals.


It's a fundamental difference in how our brains operate.


I think it's a state of evolution, as well. Liberals are less evolved, in terms of brain function, than conservatives.

I stand by that assessment as our current state of society is driven by technology. You can't develope technology without developing valid scientific methods for research
and development. You can't develop those methods if you don't fully comprehend cause and effect, logic, and reason.

I'd go so far as to state that very few significant technological inventions have been invented by liberals. They don't have the mental capacity for logic that is required of
a researcher.


I consider liberals to be retarded in a VERY real sense of the word.


CJ
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:51:02 PM EST
Projection is STRONG in liberals.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:52:40 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2009 5:52:57 PM EST by thexrayboy]
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
A true liberal does not process information like a true conservative does. Liberals understand feelings, but logic, reason, and rational thought are a foreign language to them, one that they never learn well enough to think in it.


A true conservative mindset is based on logic and reason, cause and effect, action and consequence, and while conservatives are not emotionless, we are far less ruled
by our emotions than liberals.


It's a fundamental difference in how our brains operate.


I think it's a state of evolution, as well. Liberals are less evolved, in terms of brain function, than conservatives.

I stand by that assessment as our current state of society is driven by technology. You can't develope technology without developing valid scientific methods for research
and development. You can't develop those methods if you don't fully comprehend cause and effect, logic, and reason.

I'd go so far as to state that very few significant technological inventions have been invented by liberals. They don't have the mental capacity for logic that is required of
a researcher.


I consider liberals to be retarded in a VERY real sense of the word.


CJ



Hard to argue with that thesis.....now if we could only get some research money from the Messiah to do some fMRI research into the workings of
liberal brains vs conservative brains. Might actually show some physiological differences.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 5:58:07 PM EST
You tried to have a battle of wits with someone who was obviously disarmed.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 6:00:42 PM EST
Welcome to arguing with liberals 101

They won't listen to logical arguments. I'm amazed she kept her cool through the onslaught of logic.

I've been having an ongoing (friendly, to his credit) argument with a guy I work with.

Their arguments are emotion based, and not based on facts. They don't even care about facts. They just care how they feel about it, not what the actual factual reality is. Don't believe me? Look for them to try to pass a tax on soda in the near future. At least they are targeting something that most Americans use. Or "green" cars, etc

Liberalism isn't about studying the facts about something. It is how they feel about it, regardless of the reality.

You can't bring facts into an emotion based argument. It just doesn't work. Furthermore, you can't counter an emotion based argument, because it's totally subjective and not open for interpretation. They want what they want, and they won't accept when their emotions sway them against the facts. If they looked at the facts, they wouldn't be arguing against us so much.

Furthermore, I think they choose their arguments based on what will irritate us the most. Honestly, it seems that they just want to make us bow, and that's all they care about.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 6:01:11 PM EST
Libtards are just dumb that way. No reason.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 6:09:43 PM EST
I think it is really expecting a lot (too much) if you want a person who has first hand experience with violent crime where a gun was involved to be rational about the idea of individual gun ownership. You might get such a view from such a person, but you can't expect or, certainly, demand it.

The fact that Speaker Pelosi and Senator Feinstien directly experienced the assassination of the Mayor and supervisor Milk in San Francisco is one of the biggest reasons we face draconian legislation about gun ownership and Second Amendment rights.

Every time some whacko uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, I feel like we loose some more momentum for our cause of preserving the Second Amendment.

I don't expect anybody with such personal experience to be logical in a discussion of freedom.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 6:11:42 PM EST
Originally Posted By mgamber:
Originally Posted By Jarhead_22:
mgamber:

Your experience with this woman mirrors mine at a Million Mom March event in Dallas a few years ago. Emotion is all they have, and they think you can't argue because they have "lost someone to gun violence."


And any attempt to do so was met with "You don't have the experience that I do, you cannot be as knowledgable on this subject as I am."
What I wanted to say was;
"Look, your brother was murdered by a deranged, druged out hippie sociopath that was not capable of living in a polite society anyway, the real tragedy of the event was that he didn't then turn the gun on himself and save the next person that he decides to kill, your arguments are based on emotion and not logic or reason and therefore not valid"
But I wouldn't


Also, her brother was a fucking doper, getting high with the shitstain that killed him. Using illegal substances marketed in an underground, criminal enterprise that enriches murderers (killing is part of doing business). He put himself in a dangerous situation that invited tragedy to begin with, whether it was overdose, reaction to bad shit, drug induced accident or a killing (which is what happened here).

And she has the nerve to paint law abiding gun owners with a negative brush because of his stupidity? He PUT HIMSELF in a bad situation that INVITED TROUBLE.

So, she can go fuck herself. Her position has no validity, and I don't feel sorry for her or her brother one iota. Don't waste your time arguing with her. I know it sounds callous on my part, but I've dealt with enough idiots and emotional liberals to become very jaded over such things.

Link Posted: 9/20/2009 6:22:12 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 6:45:29 PM EST
Just remember, it's not nice to yell at the mentally deficient....

That being said, you cannot win an argument or change their point of view as they have it hard-coded (You're Conservative, you're wrong and evil).
Originally Posted By mgamber:

I got into an argument (friendly at first) about the 2nd amendment with this mid-thirties woman the other night. As expected every single thing that was said was based purely on emotion and not logic or reason. I felt bad because she was trying her hardest to win the argument by going back to 2 basic arguments, one, her brother was murdered by a man using a handgun (I can see why she would have a lot of emotion over this) but her second argument really blew me away, that was she would kill someone over silly reasons if she had a gun. Basically she was saying that if she had access to a gun at any given moment that she would use it to kill over trivial disagreements. Then she applied this to every other person out there, saying they would do the same.
For the record the person that killed her brother was a family friend and "band-mate" that was wacked out on drugs at the time (both were), got into an argument, left and came back with a pistol and shot him in the back. Yet this is an example that she chooses to use saying guns kill people (yes, she insisted the gun killed him, not the drugged out hippie coward who shot him in the back over a lame disagreement)

What I took mostly from this experience was that there is no winning these people over, I countered every single one of her emotion based points with calm reasoning and fact, but it had absolutely no affect on her. Didn't matter, she was affected by gun violence, blamed the gun not the person, and transferred her own immaturity and inability to handle stressful situations without wanting to kill someone for no good reason to everyone else on the planet.

Be wary...


Link Posted: 9/20/2009 7:24:19 PM EST
Wait..we aren't suppossed to shoot people over trivial bullshit? I thought that's what the background check was for-to ensure our mental instability?
My fav lib "friend" (I longer talk to her after she told me that socialism is what our country needs-that we have fucked it up with capitalism and democracy) anyway, she asked me why I carry. I said I like to be personally accountable for my own safety. She then goes on about how if you have a gun you are more likely to get shot, blah, blah blah. then proceeds to ask me what kind of shotgun she should get to "waste any motherfucker that trespasses on my property."
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 7:35:42 PM EST
When hit with the projection argument I usually counter with something along the lines of" guns are too loud, that's what a knife/shovel is for. "

That is usually followed by a look from the person I said it to.
Link Posted: 9/20/2009 8:06:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2009 8:08:24 PM EST by unpleasant]
I've had a lot of the same style arguments with people.

Everything in this thread is correct, it is reason versus emotion.

I think knowing how they argue is important so we know how to counter, or when to walk away.
(Just walking away is probably the best option, but if you are prepared for their response, you should be able to beat them)

The typical liberal trends that I see in the arguments are as follows.

-Lack of facts (Had this with a lot of Iraq War arguments, and now with healthcare)
-Lack of context (Historical and political, existing and past conditions/policies)
-Topic changes or loss of focus on original argument
-Emotional reasoning (They drum up a personal story, or a "nobody should be hungry" type argument)
-Personal attacks or Stabs (Snippy replies, "racist!" type generalizations, outright rudeness)


The other thing I'll see a lot is a response like this.

1.Do you have scientific proof that XXX has happened?
2. [Insert over generalized example here]
3. "Maybe you should read up on / XXX"


My best tactic so far (aside from walking away early) is fight like hell to keep them on topic.
If they spew horse-shit, call them on it, and don't continue the argument until they correct their errors. If they don't, then you have the out of "You can't argue a point without knowing the facts"
Know when the argument is getting personal, call them on it, and if they continue, that's your out.
Call them on their argument style, whether it's getting personal, emotional, etc. when it ceases to be a reasonable argument between two adults, it's no longer productive.

Top Top