%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 |   Exploring the future through the present. One day at a time. |
| If so, then I need a lot more practice. I just pulled myself out of an (intentional!) Twitter debate, and I admit I’m a bit exhausted. Overall I enjoyed this one, because my opponent didn’t stoop to personal attacks. He was actually quite adept at presenting his arguments, and a few times I almost got caught by my own words. The best (worst?) part is I could see where he was going with it, and could see his point of view quite clearly, a few times almost too late. It started with a statement someone made, “If something is immoral, it is immoral regardless of need.” The immorality in question pertained to government theft via taxation as far as the re-distribution of weath from the rich to the poor. The premise being that theft — the forceful taking of property without consent — is always immoral. One person (my opponent in this case), used the analogy of how murder isn’t always immoral, especially when it comes to self defense. Therefore the statement, “If something is immoral, it is immoral regardless of need” is an incorrect statement. I maintained that murder is also always immoral, because it’s the purposeful and unlawful taking of one’s life. If he had used a different word or act such as “killing” which is not always immoral (because killing can be justified if it’s in self-defense, if it’s an animal attacking livestock, or a weed in a garden, then it’s not always immoral. Killing can be immoral if someone killed a dog or destroyed a garden for the fun of it). Then his analogy would have worked. So in that sense, my opponent’s point of view was spot on. The phrase, “If something is immoral, it is immoral regardless of need,” can be argued away depending on the act. I consider myself lucky that he used “murder” as his argument and not “killing,” alcohol consumption, or a slew of others. The discussion went back-and-forth for easily an hour with neither one of us giving ground. I finally had to bow out. My last tweet said, “Off topic, but mostly because I have to go (my hubby is cooking pork chops!), I want to thank you for the discussion. It was informative, enlightening and challenging [boy was it challenging! Hence my exhaustion]. You kept it civil, attacking my words and not me personally which is refreshing. Thank you again.” He responded with, “The feeling is mutual. One of the better exchanges I’ve had on here.” High praise indeed. All-in-all, I did okay. I could have done better by really studying the original comment as well as my opponent’s rebuttal, and looking at every possible argument for and against both before adding my first comment. I know that comes with practice, so I guess I’ll have to keep practicing. Still, I think I will reward myself with a glass of wine. I pray you all have a happy, stress-less and safe Easter! |
| Tom and I just got back from our church’s annual “Easter Experience.” It’s similar to the 12 stations of the cross Catholics are most familiar with, except there are ten stations with activities such as making a crown of thorns out of brown construction paper. It’s geared mostly for children, but many adults enjoy participating as well. I helped welcome the participants, give them instructions and show them where to start. I felt like a broken record after ten minutes repeating the same thing several dozen times, but I still enjoyed it. Last year we had about 100 people show up, and this year we counted about 170. Almost double, which is amazing. Right now, I’m lazing away on my chair writing this entry while Tom is building the “paradise” part of his mansion in Minecraft. No TV, no music or radio. No sound other than the birds chirping outside. With the thousands of geese flying overhead every day for the last two weeks, and seeing my first mourning dove and robin of the year yesterday, I’d say Spring has finally arrived. Even the sun doesn’t set until 7:45pm. That doesn’t mean it’s short-sleeve weather, though. Today we had a high of 35(F), and projected 1-3 inches of snow on Friday, so Winter isn’t ready to give up, yet. I’m bummed, because I am really tired of wearing my winter coat. |
| I’ve hesitated giving my honest thoughts on this whole “gun control” hullabaloo for several reasons. I don’t like confrontation. Nor do I like to label myself, and with all the hatred and vitriol against gun owners in general and NRA members in particular, the coward in me prefers to stay silent in the hopes it’ll all go away. But even this quiet coward has her limits. This is not a rant so much, but a recitation of facts, both the purpose of the NRA and why I’m both a member and why banning firearms and repealing the 2nd Amendment is a bad idea (now before you say, “No one is suggesting banning all firearms or the 2nd Amendment,” I can share plenty of statements all over social media advocating for exactly that). The NRA was founded in 1871 by Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate, because they were “dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops.” The NRA then and now “promote[s] and encourage[s] rifle shooting on a scientific basis.” In 1904, the NRA began “promoting the shooting sports among America’s youth by establishing rifle clubs at all major colleges, universities and military academies.” In 1934, due to concerted and repeated attacks Second Amendment rights (see the National Firearms Act), the NRA formed the Legislative Affairs Division (now known as NRA-ILA [Institute of Legislative Action] which is the lobbying arm and formed in 1975). Still today, the NRA focuses on promoting shooting sports, hunting, and education (to name a few) while NRA-ILA focuses on state, local and federal legislation pertaining to Second Amendment rights. The Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program (established in 1988) is geared toward firearm safety for children. They are taught “that if they see a firearm in an unsupervised situation, they should ‘STOP. DON’T TOUCH. RUN AWAY. TELL A GROWNUP.’” The Founders saw first hand what an oppressive despotic government looked like, so they wanted to take as many steps as humanly possible to prevent the fledgling USA ending up the same way. They wanted the People (and the individual States) to have more power than the federal government. They didn’t want future Americans endure similar or worse oppression. so they took steps to protect their power. Not only are those steps outlined in the Constitution with the separation of powers between the three branches of government, but also the Bill of Rights. Aside: Many states refused to ratify the Constitution, because they didn’t think the Constitution as written protected their individual rights. Hence the addition of the first ten Amendments, which are designed to protect both individual and State rights that the Founders (and many of us still today) consider both God-given and inalienable. The Founders understood that one way to make sure the new government wouldn’t grow too powerful was to guarantee both the States and the People retained certain rights. Those rights included the right to be a part of any religion they chose. They didn’t want anyone forced to be a member of a government-approved religion before they could participate in said government. As the old saying goes, “the pen is mightier than the sword.” The Founders understood this as well, that speech, especially unpopular or critical speech against the government needed protection. The rest of the Bill of Rights includes more protections, but my focus is on the Second which states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” First, here are a few quotes from the Founders with regard to rights: “[The] Supreme Being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He . . . Invested him [man] with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety.” ~ Alexander Hamilton. “There can be no freedom where there is no safety to property or personal rights. Whenever legislation . . . breaks in upon personal liberty or compels surrender of personal privileges, upon any pretext, plausible or otherwise, it matters little whether it be the act of the many or the few, of the solitary despot or the assembled multitude; it is still in its essence tyranny. It matters still less what are the causes of the change; rather urged on by the spirit of innovation, or popular delusion, or State necessity (as it is falsely caused), it is still power, irresponsible power, against right.” ~ Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story The right to bear arms: “The . . . Right of the [citizens] that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense. . . [This is] the natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. . . . [To] vindicate these rights when actually violated or attacked, the [citizens] are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the [government] for redress of grievances; and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.” ~ Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws. “[S]elf-defense, or self-preservation, is one of the first laws of nature, which no man ever resigned upon entering into society.” ~ Zephaniah Swift. “[T]he said Constitution [should] be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” ~ Samuel Adams. With regard to who the militia is: “A militia . . . are in fact the people themselves . . . [and] are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns.” ~ Richard Henry Lee “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” George Mason. I could go on, but I doubt I need to, and my fingers are getting fatigued. G.K. Chesterton once said, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what’s behind him.” While I can’t speak for every NRA member or firearm owner, I am willing to bet many would agree if I changed the above quote slightly to read, “We don’t own and train in the proper use of firearms because we hate those in front of us, but because we love what’s behind us, and because we love our country and the freedoms she represents.” For more information on the NRA’s purpose and history, see https://home.nra.org/about-the-nra/ For the history of and principles behind the Second Amendment, and where I found many of the quotes above (and where they originally came from), I encourage you to buy this book: https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-David-Barton/dp/0925279773/ |
| I’m reading “Socratic Logic. A Logic Text Using Socratic Method, Platonic Questions, and Aristotelian Principles” by Peter Kreeft. I started it a few months ago, but am only about a third through it. Meaty stuff. I bought it, because I wanted to learn how better to debate and discuss, and that includes knowing when to not engage. The book has helped, although I still fall into traps once in a while, and engage when I shouldn’t. Often those times occur when my opponent isn’t interested in listening and learning opposing views, but to scream at me. One of my friends on Facebook tagged me with thoughts on a particular video, specifically on whether or not we’re listening enough: https://www.facebook.com/BuzzFeedVideo/videos/2484657501675117/ My response: First off, thank you for sharing, and for tagging me! He makes a lot of valid points, and I admit I’m constantly tempted to stay within my own echo chamber. Part of it stems from frustration. For example, when people malign the NRA. I so desperately want to have a real conversation with those who hate the organization, so I can show them what it means to be an NRA member, and why it’s so important to me. Instead, all I get is, “You have blood on your hands,” and “You love your guns more than your children.” I can’t engage in a conversation that way. No one can. At that point, it’s best to simply stay silent and walk away. So yes, we need to not only step out to hear opposing views, we also have to set aside our pride just a little bit and ask, “Could my own preconceived notions be wrong? Does their point of view have validity?” Like all conversations and debates, both sides have to be willing to set aside emotions, preconceived opinions, pride, and prejudices. We also need more logic when it comes to discussions and debates, and try not to take any disagreements personally. Until then, we’re all simply yelling at ourselves within our echo chambers. Those outside can’t hear, because they, too, are yelling at themselves in their own echo chambers. We need to start by asking more questions without first throwing accusations. Anything less is disrespectful at least, cruel at worst. I don’t know about you, but I never once changed my mind because someone swore at me, or called me an awful person because I happen to be a member of a certain group. Comedian Owen Benjamin has a great video titled, “If you can’t argue the other side, you can’t have an opinion.” It’s just over seven minutes long, but well worth it: https://youtu.be/RDOeI0FXfjI Listening to opposing views is a start, but it’s not enough. I can listen all day and decide not to be swayed by anything, regardless of how logical or factual the opposing argument is. It also takes a bit of humility, and asking, “What if I’m wrong?” Or “Do I see, and can I argue for the other side?” Still, even if we can argue the other side, in the end we can still reject it. At least then we’ll know our rejection (or acceptance) is based on quantifiable logic and facts, and we can be confident that our decision has real merit. Once we’re better informed, we can approach an opponent with, “I know exactly where you’re coming from.” It eases any initial discomfort, and real discussion can begin. Better informed is always better armed, which means seeing (and arguing for) as many sides as possible, both at the extremes and in the middle. Coincidentally, at the same time my friend shared the video, I was writing a rather ranty entry on my frustration with the never-ending vilification of the NRA. I will add it in a later entry, but after I edit out some of the rantiness. Part of why I want to tone it down is because i sounded a bit whiny and pitious. I don’t want anyone’s pity, or to argue “ad Misericordiam,” which is an argument based on a strong appeal to the emotions, or an appeal to pity or misery. Appeals to emotion rarely work, especially long-term, because emotions by definition are irrational and fleeting. “Understand this, my dear brothers and sisters: You must all be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to get angry.” ~ James 1:19 |
 Log in to Leave Feedback |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
.
