Great article about understanding philosophical opposites

[Gmountain]

Originally Posted by architype

I can delete the post, but it perfectly illustrates the mindset discussed in the article. This woman felt it was her duty, (she is good, they are evil), to take the law into her own hands and become judge, jury and executioner. It is exactly the problem. What ever happened to taking down the license plate number and reporting it to the authorities? That is the sane version of good vs. evil in my mind.

I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation, but I completely agree with how you were trying to illustrate what you thought of the original article.

[architype]

Originally Posted by Gmountain

I completely disagree with your assessment of the situation, but I completely agree with how you were trying to illustrate what you thought of the original article.

I completely understand why you would think that.

[buddyhu]

Originally Posted by mc1

i don't mind the tangents (as i responded to it), but i can understand those who do. so i will comment more directly on the op.

i read the article rather quickly, and i didn't really dig it. i have a lot of sympathy for ewalling's views. i questioned the facts about police overwhelmingly supporting gun control, did some searching, and tend to find that statement questionable and not so clearly true.

i kind of want to joke that it shows the liberals are the empathetic, understanding and bridge building ones, but i suspect it might not go over so well.

anyway i also went to the author's website, and here is the first line of her bio:
Sophia Raday lives in Berkeley, California, with her soldier/police officer husband, their two children, a bipartisan dog, and assorted firearms.

Man, if this another instance where I have been too trusting, I am going to be really pissed!

Edit: just saw the most recent posts by architype and Gmountain. Looks like I am off base (again!).

Please pretend like I haven't written anything...

[BrunoBlack]

Yes, it's good to recognize we all want the same outcome. This article is a good reminder about some basic ideals we share. In some ways it reminds me of a pretty interesting book I read several years ago titled "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think" by George Lakoff.
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Politics.../dp/0226467716

[flaggerphil]

I don't worry much about guns because I have these around my house. The HOA's not happy about it, but, y'know, I live in Florida.

[catdaddy]

This quote from the article describing gun rights advocates gave me some insight. In the context of how a person with that philosophical bent feels about gun control, "That’s sending him out to face the playground bully with his hands tied behind his back."

Seems that the author has chosen to portray the gun rights advocates as having an adolescent schoolyard mentality. I've got to say that from my personal position on the subject I don't find that revelation to be especially comforting.

[Mbroady]

Originally Posted by fazool

Again - let's keep this thread open. Its not a place to argue our philosophies, but to recognize how opposing philosophies can coexist.
.

It is not a question of whether 2 opposing philosophies can go coexist. They do. But can they coexist in harmony? History says no more often then yes. But we are still here and there is always hope. We live in interesting times.

I applaud the author of the article, I do not perceive it as propaganda, just some guy sharing his view point.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by catdaddy

This quote from the article describing gun rights advocates gave me some insight. In the context of how a person with that philosophical bent feels about gun control, "That’s sending him out to face the playground bully with his hands tied behind his back."

Seems that the author has chosen to portray the gun rights advocates as having an adolescent schoolyard mentality. I've got to say that from my personal position on the subject I don't find that revelation to be especially comforting.

Funny, I didn't read it that way. I thought she was reaching into a modern situation that is fresh and alive to the progressives, bullying, and using it as an analogy to explain the equivalent helplessness created by only allowing the bad guys access to self-defense. It is an especially fresh analogy in that some schools are treating aggressor and victim as functional equivalents if the victim defends himself, and suspending or expelling both indiscriminately.

Bob

[catdaddy]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Funny, I didn't read it that way. I thought she was reaching into a modern situation that is fresh and alive to the progressives, bullying, and using it as an analogy to explain the equivalent helplessness created by only allowing the bad guys access to self-defense. It is an especially fresh analogy in that some schools are treating aggressor and victim as functional equivalents if the victim defends himself, and suspending or expelling both indiscriminately.

Bob

It is a metaphorical cliche. I find bullying to be an old unchanging and distasteful story associated mostly with adolescents. Only the cultural context changes along with new technology. Yes, your read on it is unlike mine and that is no surprise.

[Davis Webb]

We can not discuss your post OP, at all, on AGF. We cannot touch on religion or politics and your post is all about religion and politics.

[seannx]

I think the point is that trying to understand the other side's beliefs, opinions, and perspective is a helpful and even essential place to begin a dialogue. Anything past that, will definitely get us into trouble, as the next logical step, is to investigate the practical consequences and facts related to the feelings and perceptions of both sides.

Believing that carrying guns for self defense, or having them readily accessible for home defense, isn't the same as proving that they will indeed be useful, or that any additional restrictions or regulations would interfere with the sense of autonomy provided by gun ownership.

Even if statistics show that having a gun in the house, is actually associated with more accidental deaths, shooting of family members, etc., then in gun free households, that isn't going to change individual feelings and perceptions. Those who believe that for their individual circumstances, the benefits of having guns outweighs the risks, aren't going to agree to any restrictions on gun ownership.

It's kind of like people who prefer to drive long distances instead of flying, even though the statistical chance of death or injury is far greater. It's their car, they are driving, and there is more of a sense of personal control.

I'm not giving this example to criticize gun owners. I support responsible gun ownership. My point is how difficult it is to address and understand personal perception, overcome differences, and make meaningful changes that will bring the most benefit.

I can't imagine anyone on either side reading this:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/accused-...ide-1444249903

and concluding that continuing with our present procedures will result in anything else than more of the same in the future. Who knows? Maybe that's the collective price we will continue to pay. In any case, as the article advises, looking to find a common goal is the first step.

[Earwitness]

I thought the article was helpful, but going into the details of why might just further debate.

The part I would call attention to is that those who disagree with us are not "idiots" or stupid" or whatever. This is what I find so childish. (Naturally, I find others do it more than I do....) Why can't we say, "I don't interpret the evidence on global warming the way you do," or "I don't think that foreign policy will have the best chance of working," or "I don't agree with your goals of redistributing wealth," or whatever? Why does it have to be "George Bush is an idiot" or "Barack Obama is an idiot" (people with Ivy League degrees)?

That's the direction I think would be helpful, and the direction the article was trying to go in the gun debate. People who disagree with you are not necessarily stupid; they have different goals or interpret facts differently or within a different worldview.

Okay, I'm off to a mediation today....

[zabdart]

"The test of a truly great mind is to hold two opposing thoughts in it simultaneously." -- Thomas Jefferson

[kydave]

The last paragraph in an article "Bernie Gets His Gun", has everything to do with Bob's point in the OP. Ignore the fact that Bernie is a politician, because the reference I quote below is not about politics, but in the interaction of persons of differing viewpoints.

As a close friend of Sanders told National Journal: “He doesn’t really care about guns. But he cares that other people care about guns. He thinks there’s an elitism in the antigun movement.” And he’s right.

I'm aware I can be just as guilty of "elitism" in my comments toward those of superstitious bent at times. I believe it is a human failing that we can only hope to address if we're aware of it. And addressing it, at least to the point of being able to communicate with, rather than talk past, one another about it is the only way to education which might be beneficial for us all as social beings.

[jwing]

Originally Posted by Gmountain

,and the liberal view is that people can't do things on their own and the government has to solve everything.

I can't let this egregiously false statement slide by without calling Gmountain out on his flagrant trolling.

It's clear Gmountain has no intention of trying to understand the intention of this thread and has used it to post his version of problem we are discussing.