Apparently Rusty had the gall to offer a dissenting opinion on an anti-gunners blog posts. The response is precisely what I've come to expect from folks who seem stuck in perpetual childhood.
1. Lay out a flatly illogical, emotionally based argument and back it up with "facts" that are both easily disproven and from obviously biased sources.
2. Claim that you have proof to back up your assertions. Proof that somehow never materializes. Case in point.
"I could show hundreds of statistics on why tough gun control laws should be strictly enforced, but the best argument is that one child’s death is too many."
Where are these "hundreds of statistics?" They never materialize because they quite simply don't exist. The best she can come up with is to pull "facts" from the Brady Campaign website. How she would expect anyone to accept such "facts" at face value is beyond me. The same is true from any "studies" she cites, be it the often debunked Kellerman study or some piece from Chicago based & Joyce funded NORC. Those groups have an obvious agenda the data used for such "studies" contradicts their findings. It's blatantly obvious for anyone willing to look at the raw data.
3. Get pissed off and act like a child the moment someone dares post a dissenting opinion, despite the fact that you've allowed comments on your blog for precisely that reason.
4 . Respond with insults, deflections, and childish antics as everything said in your original post is calmly and logically refuted.
5. Throw a tantrum, claim you've been harrassed, insulted, and bombarded with malicious comments. Remember, to an anti having the audacity to dissent IS inherently malicious and insulting. Such a viewpoint seems insane until you realize these same folks will somehow recoil in fear and disgust at the very sight of a holstered firearm, or at times merely a picture of a firearm.
6. Remove evidence of your immature behavior.
Why do anti' s react this way? It's a simple defense mechanism. They know at some level that their arguments lack merit. They are incapable of separating reason from emotion. They live in a world ruled by their feelings. In such a world facts don't matter, reason succumbs to emotional outbursts, and logic is in short supply.
Just look at how this woman has reacted. She's repeatedly claimed that she could get into the legal technicalities of this discussion, yet she refuses to do so. She repeatedly claims that courts & case law somehow back up her argument, yet the best she can do is post an "interpretation" straight from the Brady website. She calls us "NRA shills" yet apparently is too lazy to read and analyze case law and founding documents on which to base her argument. Instead she links to a easily refuted Brady Campaign summary (that conveniently ignores the Parker & Heller decisions)
I know I've touched on this before, but if you've got a blog that allows comments you should be able to calmly and effectively argue your position. If you'd rather take your ball and go home than engage in some good, fun, civil discussion then I have two things to say to you. Number 1, what's the point in bothering to allow comments if you're going to act like an infant. Number 2 if you can't defend your position I say you're a coward (or your position is logically indefensible)
I used the term "delusional" to refer to Catherine not because I disagreed with the position she took, but because of her reaction to having her position challenged. Maybe the reason Catherine reacts as she does is due to the nature of what she must defend. It must be hard on the psyche to be challenged, have your entire belief system called into question, and have nothing concrete on which to anchor your defense. When your position is emotionally based you cannot allow it to crumble by admitting you're wrong.
Why? because for someone like Catherine, admitting she's got nothing would be far too emotionally damaging. For her it's more than just a basic logical, reasoned argument with facts, points, and counterpoints. She has to attempt to argue a factually indefensible position without tying herself in an emotional knot. Deep down she knows it's indefensible, which is why the progression of the discussion leads to evasion, projection, and self-inflating puffery via childish attacks on her dissenters. Such tactics, and then eventually running away from the discussion altogether are unavoidable given the mental gymnastics necessitated by her positions. There's a reason we see the same basic progression anytime an anti-gunner has their positions / beliefs challenged.
Update - Yup she deleted my comments. What a child, and very un-lawyerlike of her. You'd think a lawyer would be able to back up what she says.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Sad but Predictable
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Ms. Lawyer Lady needs to learn how to spell if she's going to make fun of us.
Where are these "hundreds of statistics?" They never materialize because they quite simply don't exist.
And that, right there, is the very core of her shortcoming - she is of the belief that simply because she says it, it has to be true, despite facts, reality, and logic to the contrary.
Unfortunately, there is no dealing with people like that. There is simply no way to burst their self-protective bubble, and beat into them the reality of the situation.
Me, I mostly just point and laugh at them (no, not helpful, I know).
"Me, I mostly just point and laugh at them (no, not helpful, I know)."
Not helpful maybe but certainly entertaining. The world would be a boring place without stupid people to laugh at.
Samuel Butler said: "The truest characters of ignorance are vanity, pride, and arrogance.
Mark Twain said: "the offspring of riches: Pride, vanity, ostentation, arrogance, tyranny"
Raise your hand if you see the pattern!
Nothing says sinful pride like this level of elitist arrogance
Oddly enough, she actually left a comment over my way. I was probably too harsh on her in my response, but now she has been sitting on my site for the past two hours, refreshing periodically.
Statcounters are fun and all, but I have to wonder what she is expecting.
She sounds like an average Lefty to me.
Perhaps her feild of law does not require firm logic, but just an ability to feel for the victim. I give you:
Not sure if that's her, but the last name on the copyright for the blog and this person being a lawyer - I'd say it's highly probable.
Considering that she browsed and commented on my weblog from that domain name, Oakenheart, I would consider the odds to be good.
More of the same here
According to this she's a litigator, meaning that her legal expertise is in suing people. Constitutional law seems to be outside her comprehension.
Yes, one might expect a lawyer to back up his or her assertions. Since you never do, I guess you haven't yet taken that class in law school.
Post a Comment