I felt I should post a correction to my last post claiming that Joan Peterson is lying. It would be more accurate to say that she is making false statements.
I think Joe Huffman has it right when he says that a "useful idiot" like Joan is incapable of determining truth from falsity. She, and those like her have no objective basis on which they determine the veracity of any particular statement. I've often asked anti-gunners some variation of the question "On what rational basis do you make claim X?" They respond as if I've just asked them a question in Swahili.
If a person is incapable of engaging in a logical line of thought necessary to determine whether or not a statement is accurate can we really say that they are lying? Lying would imply that they know what they say is false and they say it anyway. In Joan's case she simply lacks the faculties necessary to engage in such thought.
If I have a dog and haven't trained him not to pee in the house I cannot very well be mad at him for peeing in the house. I can't get mad at him for being unable to do algebra either. I suppose I can't really be annoyed with someone like Joan Peterson (or MikeB) for their inability to think or to understand simple concepts.
Still, I have to admit that the lack of basic critical thinking skills Joan displays is a bit shocking. She has shown herself incapable of understanding concepts that my 5 year old nephew can grasp.
I pity her, but at the same time she shouldn't get a pass. Whether they're lying or not, folks like Joan need to be driven into irrelevancy so long as they're still spouting falsehoods, spewing bigotry, and advocating for the infringment of Constitutional rights. Bigot and Brady Board Member Joan Peterson, should be challenged and ridiculed no matter what.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Good correction, but a correction to your correction.
We all agree that the 2A is a Constitutional right, and most agree it is a natural right. The shift point to civil right (emphasis added) is now nessecary to further marginalise these people as abnormal and not mmainstream. Politicians only understand $ and suing jurisdictions and their overlords, personally, for their conduct to deny us our civil rights will be the only thing that finally drives them to extinction.
Yes, it is nit picky, but I thought it too important not to tie into your post.
Great post but it fails to address one interesting point -- not only can people learn but they should learn.
When you encounter something that doesn't fit in your world view, you can either determine what it is or you can ignore it.
The antis like Joan and Mikeb302000 have been presented information, they have been presented data, statistics, legal opinions, etc.
Their frame of mind has been discussed.
All the items needed to make an informed decision have been presented --and rejected.
It's not just they don't have the ability to tell falsity from truth, they don't appear to want it.
Bob - Understood. I implied that point, but apparently not very well.
People can learn, I agree, but not all people.
Rational human beings are capable of learning. Not all humans have such a capability. My lab can learn not to pee in the house. He can learn to ask for all kinds of things without speaking.
In that respect my lab has a greater capacity for learning than Joan Peterson has shown us.
Not only that, but Zack can be trained through repitition. Joan, not so much.
Whether or not she understands that assault weapons are not really fully automatic, or whether or not she understands that actual grenades are not really sold at gun shows, is really somewhat immaterial to me... In the end, she has intentionally and consciously blinded herself to only believing what certain people tell her, regardless of whether or not that data is true or not.
Even without an ability to determine truth from falsity, that indicates a degree of maliciousness, and that is all that is necessary for her actions to constitute willful lies. At least for me :).
Post a Comment