The hopelessness of our "conversation" on guns (1 Viewer)

[Tom Servo]

The incredible hopelessness of America's conversation on guns.

The money quote:

From a moral-foundations perspective, left and right almost couldn’t be more polarized than they are on this issue. Conservatives can process the liberal concern for gun violence and the suffering it causes. But liberals literally cannot understand how someone could share that value while also having the slightest concern for Second Amendment rights.

Put differently, the conservative worldview is a system of morality that liberals simply can’t compute. It’s a prism that liberals can’t and won’t accept as even falling into the category of legitimate moral thinking. Thus, conservative beliefs and the people that harbor them can be readily demonized and easily marginalized.

This is why the issue of gun "control" can be argued about forever...and, sadly, is here in the FFA.

 

[Sconch]

That "money quote" is stupid as F.

And Vision and Values is a big right-wing circle jerk.

 

[Underachievers]

Case in point is the post by Sconch.   

 

[Sconch]

Case in point is the post by Sconch.   

Glad to know that the author knows exactly what every liberal thinks.  

"Conservatives can process the liberal concern for gun violence and the suffering it causes. But liberals literally cannot understand how someone could share that value while also having the slightest concern for Second Amendment rights."

 

[Lester Burnham]

 

[Tolstoy]

good article. 

no wait, the other one.....awful.

 

[Sconch]

"Is there anyway for the right and the left to somehow reach a fair middle ground when discussing the gun question?"

"Sure.  Liberals just need to think more like conservatives.  TA-DA!"

 

[avoiding injuries]

I'm a conservative who couldn't care any less about gun rights. 

 

[Tolstoy]

I'm a conservative who couldn't care any less about gun rights. 

I'm sorry I can't relate to your vision and values.  For some reason I'm only concerned about the suffering of others.

 

[Mario Kart]

Conservatives CAN:

- process liberal concerns

- only be demonized and marginalized

Liberals CAN NOT:

- understand how gun violence AND have concern for the 2nd

- understand a worldview of morality

- and won't accept this supposed "legitimate" moral thinking

This is another way of reading the quoted section. And, What doofus wrote this?

 

[ChiefD]

The incredible hopelessness of America's conversation on anything.

Fixed for 2016.

 

[bueno]

I'm sorry I can't relate to your vision and values.  For some reason I'm only concerned about the suffering of others.

People need to be better shots. Problem solved.

 

[ATC1]

I really admire Liberals.  They like to give people the benefit of the doubt.  They believe in giving a person second chances.  They don't profile people. They truly believe giving a person a hand out benefits a less fortunate person's life.  

I just don't feel that is in the best interest of my country for our leaders to have that mind set.  

 

[Sconch]

I really admire Liberals.  They like to give people the benefit of the doubt.  They believe in giving a person second chances.  They don't profile people. They truly believe giving a person a hand out benefits a less fortunate person's life.  

I just don't feel that is in the best interest of my country for our leaders to have that mind set.  

We do?

 

[Tolstoy]

We do?

Sure.  Didn't you get the minutes from the last meeting?

 

[Eephus]

Sure.  Didn't you get the minutes from the last meeting?

I skipped the meeting because I was waiting for delivery of free stuff from the government

 

[bueno]

The real reason we will never come to an agreement on guns is that those of us in the country see them as a necessary tool while those in the city do not.

Plus the regulation of the militia is a state function, not a federal one.

 

[SlimShady]

Inalienable rights are hard to take away

 

[FUBAR]

The real reason we will never come to an agreement on guns is that those of us in the country see them as a necessary tool while those in the city do not.

Plus the regulation of the militia is a state function, not a federal one.

1. No

2. I disagree but your point is worth considering. 

 

[Mitch Robbins]

Dems don't want to pass gun legislation, they just want to grand stand to try to make the Repubs look bad.

If they were serious about it, they would have passed their laws back when they had full control of both houses earlier in Obamas Presidency.

 

[bueno]

1. No

2. I disagree but your point is worth considering. 

1. Yes

2. Thank you. The Constitutions of Idaho and Connecticut (the only two I checked) made it clear that people have the right to own guns and be called up by the Governor to defend the state or nation. Given that powers not explicitly granted the federal government are relegated to the States, maybe you should rethink your position.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

Put differently, the conservative worldview is a system of morality that liberals simply can’t compute. It’s a prism that liberals can’t and won’t accept as even falling into the category of legitimate moral thinking. Thus, conservative beliefs and the people that harbor them can be readily demonized and easily marginalized.

I am struggling to put into words just how terrible this postulate is.    Next-level idiotic.

 

[Henry Ford]

1. Yes

2. Thank you. The Constitutions of Idaho and Connecticut (the only two I checked) made it clear that people have the right to own guns and be called up by the Governor to defend the state or nation. Given that powers not explicitly granted the federal government are relegated to the States, maybe you should rethink your position.

Most of the guns I owned in my life I purchased while living in the city. But I don't fully disagree with your ideas, just the broad brush.

 

[Sconch]

Most of the guns I owned in my life I purchased while living in the city. But I don't fully disagree with your ideas, just the broad brush.

Broad brushes are why we are at this standstill.

 

[Henry Ford]

Broad brushes are why we are at this standstill.

No, tons of under-educated citizens are why we are at this standstill.  I don't think bueno is part of that.

 

[bueno]

Most of the guns I owned in my life I purchased while living in the city. But I don't fully disagree with your ideas, just the broad brush.

I admit the first statement painted with a pretty broad brush, but still I look  at what I own (or would like to) and whether I would need to own them in the city.

1. 2 Glocks - self defense in case of break-in. Police assistance too far away. Would probably keep them in the city for the same reason.

2. 22 long gun - small predators that would go after chickens. Rabbit hunting if I ever were so inclined. I'm good enough to take out a sitting turkey or grouse with a 22. (Head shot)

3. 306 - larger predators, including ones that might want to eat me - like bears. Deer, moose, elk if I ever were inclined to hunt them.

4. 12 Gauge shotguns for slugs and buckshot - larger predators, potentially home defense. (if someone is not frightened off by chambering a round in a 12 gauge, they have no sense)

5. 12 gauge, modified choke (my favorite choke) - upland bird, small game hunting if I am so inclined, spraying the damn bear in the ### with birdshot to discourage him from coming back.

 

[FUBAR]

No, tons of under-educated citizens are why we are at this standstill.  I don't think bueno is part of that.

Under educated people with broad brushes make ugly paintings. Often it's the only tool they have. 

(But no bueno isn't part of that)

 

[Da Guru]

"Is there anyway for the right and the left to somehow reach a fair middle ground when discussing the gun question?"

"Sure.  Liberals just need to think more like conservatives.  TA-DA!"

Please..please...America needs a new party.   So sick of liberals and conservatives. People are ready for it...Can it ever happen?

 

[FUBAR]

Please..please...America needs a new party.   So sick of liberals and conservatives. People are ready for it...Can it ever happen?

Yes we can! 

 

[Sconch]

I admit the first statement painted with a pretty broad brush, but still I look  at what I own (or would like to) and whether I would need to own them in the city.

1. 2 Glocks - self defense in case of break-in. Police assistance too far away. Would probably keep them in the city for the same reason.

2. 22 long gun - small predators that would go after chickens. Rabbit hunting if I ever were so inclined. I'm good enough to take out a sitting turkey or grouse with a 22.

3. 306 - larger predators, including ones that might want to eat me - like bears. Deer, moose, elk if I ever were inclined to hunt them.

4. 12 Gauge shotguns for slugs and buckshot - larger predators, potentially home defense. (if someone is not frightened off by chambering a round in a 12 gauge, they have no sense)

5. 12 gauge, modified choke (my favorite choke) - upland bird, small game hunting if I am so inclined, spraying the damn bear in the ### with birdshot to discourage him from coming back.

Not sure who really has a problem with this.

 

[bueno]

Not sure who really has a problem with this.

I wouldn't expect anyone to the right of Diane Feinstein to have a problem with it, but if I owned some of them in the city and didn't hunt, I suspect I'd have nervous neighbors and police harassment.

 

[Captain Cranks]

I'm not sure what's worse:  that someone wrote the article or that someone read the article and thought it was profound.  

If anything, it's evidence that we can't have a debate in this country because we don't bother to understand the other side's point of view.  If that's really the conservative takeaway of the liberal perspective on guns, that's sad.

 

[Long Ball Larry]

The incredible hopelessness of America's conversation on guns.

The money quote:

This is why the issue of gun "control" can be argued about forever...and, sadly, is here in the FFA.

I agree.  It's the other side's fault.

 

[DallasDMac]

 The Constitutions of Idaho and Connecticut (the only two I checked) made it clear that people have the right to own guns and be called up by the Governor to defend the state or nation.

This happen a lot in those states the past 200 years or so?

 

[Mister CIA]

I am struggling to put into words just how terrible this postulate is.    Next-level idiotic.

People like you inspire me, oddly.

 

[Galileo]

2. Thank you. The Constitutions of Idaho and Connecticut (the only two I checked) made it clear that people have the right to own guns and be called up by the Governor to defend the state or nation. Given that powers not explicitly granted the federal government are relegated to the States, maybe you should rethink your position.

This happen a lot in those states the past 200 years or so?

When those Mooslims start going after the potato crop, the sh t is going to hit the fan

 

[bueno]

This happen a lot in those states the past 200 years or so?

Idaho hasn't been a State for 200 years. But then no one has bothered to try to change the law in those states either.

 

[FishTacoTuesday]

We really need more threads about cameltoe, and less threads about stuff like this. 

 

[Tom Servo]

Glad to know that the author knows exactly what every liberal thinks.  

"Conservatives can process the liberal concern for gun violence and the suffering it causes. But liberals literally cannot understand how someone could share that value while also having the slightest concern for Second Amendment rights."

Except the guy who wrote the book about those moral pillars...is a liberal.

*mic drop*

 

[Tom Servo]

To put a further point on this, this article from Vision and Values originally discussed the concept of why liberals and conservatives to have problems with discussing issues. The article is a discussion of Jonathan Haidt study of the subject of this lack of effective communication and wrote "The Righteous Mind" as a result.

But here's why the critics of the original article prove Haidt's point:

The first is that conservatives can relate to the moral thinking of liberals, but the converse is not true at all. Haidt, who is liberal himself, elegantly explains how and why conservatives will view liberals as merely misguided while liberals tend to view conservatives as incomprehensible, insane, immoral, etc.

The fact that this article appeared on a conservative website was an automatic non-starter for many of you. Haidt is a fellow traveler for liberals, and if this same article appeared at Vox, HuffPo or Slate you probably wouldn't have given it a second thought.

The point of the research is that liberals will focus on the care/harm pillar almost to the exclusion of the others whereas conservatives take a more balanced approach. And it's the liberal Haidt who calls this the "conservative advantage". It is the liberal Haidt that proves that talking to liberals about the danger to their policies to our society is fruitless.

Mock the article and premise if you wish, but understand that a liberal came up with this.

 

[dparker713]

Increased gun control isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue.  It's a NRA bought politicians vs. 90% of the public issue.

 

[Tolstoy]

To put a further point on this, this article from Vision and Values originally discussed the concept of why liberals and conservatives to have problems with discussing issues. The article is a discussion of Jonathan Haidt study of the subject of this lack of effective communication and wrote "The Righteous Mind" as a result.

But here's why the critics of the original article prove Haidt's point:

The fact that this article appeared on a conservative website was an automatic non-starter for many of you. Haidt is a fellow traveler for liberals, and if this same article appeared at Vox, HuffPo or Slate you probably wouldn't have given it a second thought.

The point of the research is that liberals will focus on the care/harm pillar almost to the exclusion of the others whereas conservatives take a more balanced approach. And it's the liberal Haidt who calls this the "conservative advantage". It is the liberal Haidt that proves that talking to liberals about the danger to their policies to our society is fruitless.

Mock the article and premise if you wish, but understand that a liberal came up with this.

The article would have been just as stupid if it appeared on motherjones.

although I admit, reading the "about" section of that website made me , literally,

 

[Apple Jack]

The hopelessness is in the fact that many in the conversation are as tone deaf as the guy who wrote that article.

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

People like you inspire me, oddly.

ERROR:  sarcasm sensing packet parser is currently offline, no results returned.  

If I'm being mocked, thank you.   

If you are serious, I am sorry.    C:> Pray for Mojo

 

[AhrnCityPahnder]

The fact that this article appeared on a conservative website was an automatic non-starter for many of you.

Prior to this thread I had no idea what V&V was, and I read only what you pasted here.   My comments about this article were purely from it's content and not judged from what site it was posted , nor the political slant of the author.   

 

[Sconch]

Except the guy who wrote the book about those moral pillars...is a liberal.

*mic drop*

Oh snap!  So he DOES know what we're all thinking.

 

[MaxThreshold]

Increased gun control isn't a liberal vs. conservative issue.  It's a NRA bought politicians vs. 90% of the public issue.

I'm not sure where you're getting this number from.  Is this something you made up?  Did you talk to some friends of yours and 9 out of 10 them agreed with you?

YOUR liberal version of gun control is the problem, not actual gun control.

 

[bueno]

I'm not sure where you're getting this number from.  Is this something you made up?  Did you talk to some friends of yours and 9 out of 10 them agreed with you?

YOUR liberal version of gun control is the problem, not actual gun control.

90% of all FBG statistics are made up, don't cha know?

 

[DallasDMac]

I'm not sure where you're getting this number from.  Is this something you made up?  Did you talk to some friends of yours and 9 out of 10 them agreed with you?

YOUR liberal version of gun control is the problem, not actual gun control.

He's probably referring to the myriad of articles the past two weeks that stated 92% of the public is in support of some type of gun control, such as more background checks, etc and so on. That number has appeared quite literally dozens of times the past week or so. You can argue with it, but it isn't like he even remotely made that number up.

 

[Warsteinner]

Not sure who really has a problem with this.

If he has a Glock 17 which holds 17 9mm rounds there are lots of people that have a problem with it.