GoWolfpack
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 522
How did you avoid siding with anti-gun thinking?
Easy.
I used my brain.
Easy.
I used my brain.
I thank God for that upbringing every day....and lament the fact that those days are gone, probably forever.I was raised in an environment that fostered THINKING about decisions and issues, not blindly allowing groupthink and knee-jerk reaction dictate my beliefs.
I'm 18, going to a public school. The crap we're spoon fed is unbelievable. I seriously fear for my generation. Anti gun beliefs are the norm, and are given as facts. I argue with teachers regularly. The only reason I'm not a sheep is because of my family teaching me right at a young age.
So you claim I couldn't remember being 17-years-old? I purchased my first firearm when I was 18, maybe I forgot that too. Frankly SIR I don't like being called a liar. There was plenty of information available before the information age. The implication that I only heard about it after the advent of the net is insulting. Might I add, you know teachers. I guess that makes you an expert. I was a teacher and still hold a license. I guess you know more than I do.Born in 1977 and reaching the age of some awareness in the 1990's didn't allow you to see the other side of the coin. I doubt you were aware of the 1994 AWB (unless you had a parent or respected relative who informed you) until internet access became common for regular people. In my opinion, there is a real push in the public school curiculum to train kids during their formative years to be againsts "negative forces" as mostly defined by the left leaning "education system". But who would dissagree that kids should be nudged away from negative forces, right? By the way, I have two brothers who are teachers and they would totally agree with your statement above.
@ ol' scratch - check out the writings/interviews of Charlotte Iserbyt, formerly at the highest levels in the US Dept of Education. Check out the writings/interviews of John Taylor Gatto, former NYC and NY state teacher of the year.
Of course, its not about every teacher. My h.s. science teacher was a Marine Korean war vet (a medic in a unit that lost most of its men to enemy fire). When we went on the annual school field trip out in desert country, he'd strap on his 357 mag revolver stuffed with snake loads for the rattlesnakes. (Of course this was many, many years ago. Would never happen today.)
After investigating this for yourself, you may have a change in viewpoint about public 'schooling', however:
http://johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm
P.S. - interestingly enough, I've only gotten a few school teachers to read the above. Many don't want to think that what they had been taught about 'education' may have been a lie.
So you claim I couldn't remember being 17-years-old? I purchased my first firearm when I was 18, maybe I forgot that too. Frankly SIR I don't like being called a liar. There was plenty of information available before the information age. The implication that I only heard about it after the advent of the net is insulting. Might I add, you know teachers. I guess that makes you an expert. I was a teacher and still hold a license. I guess you know more than I do.
I stand by what I said about Iserbyt and it is not a logical fallacy. Simply stating that a respondent is using a ad hominem fallacy doesn't make it true. I argue that Iserbyt is a conspiracy theorist and uses flawed logic in her academic pursuits. I don't think I need to go further than that. So let me be specific regarding Iserbyt and my problem with her. She uses the fallacy of the straw man and the slippery slope to support her claims. Everything is a huge conspiracy where she builds up and then attempts to break down with flawed logic. She uses some historical and modern examples in an attempt to make the reader believe her "theories" are factual so she can support her claims of a widespread and national conspiracy perpetuated in education. Everything done in a public school is presented as a conspiracy to further ignorance and hence increase control over the populous. Attacking her credentials (which you toted as a way of adding credibility to her claims) because she was relieved in less than a year from that job is not a logical fallacy when you use credentials in an attempt to add legitimacy to your argument. She has a blatant and extreme right wing political agenda which I dismiss as I do extreme left wing political agenda. I will provide a link to a recent article she wrote below proving her hard right stance. She is so mired in the fringe, she does interviews with Alex Jones. What I wrote might have come off as a little pointed concerning Iserbyt and that is my own bias shining through. I can't stand conspiracy theorists. Understand that I know about Iserbyt's body of work and I know her background. I ran across her book when doing research for a paper I was writing 5 years ago. She is not a creditable source. Concerning Gatto. You claim that you "only (got) a few school teachers to read the above." The implication is that you have recommended Gatto to other individuals who are not familiar with him. You then SEEM to attack my experience and education because I didn't know who he was by saying "he is extremely well known to those familiar with the history of education in the United States." You are contradicting yourself.@ol scratch - - - - you started off with an Ad Hominem attack, that is an attack on the individual rather on specific points made, - in reference to Iserbyt. This is a logical fallacy. Such attacks shut down further inquiry.
As for Mr Gatto - he is extremely well known to those familiar with the history of education in the United States. The nature of education was purposely changed starting in the late 1890s to early 1900s. This was done by private monied interests through private foundations which they controlled. I suggest you read Mr. Gatto's book "Underground History of American Education". Earlier I provided the link to where you can do this online for free. Gatto provides sources (from those who have pursued this agenda) and his writing style is excellent.
I'm sorry, but you commit another error of logic when you state that your own personal ground level experience proves that there is no broader agenda in action regarding education. The specific does not necessarily apply to the broader picture. To be fair, however, you did say that you could not comment on that given your lack of specific knowledge in this area - particularly in regard to the work of Mr. Gatto.
An example of this type of error of logic, would be the account of a Vietnam war vet who said his personal experience on the ground proved that there was no broader agenda to get America into that war. He never saw such an agenda in action and he was an infantry grunt on the ground for more than a year. Well, the historical evidence is rather obvious today that President Johnson used false reports of 'attacks' on US Navy ships in the Gulf of Tonkin as an excuse to expand US participation in that war. This, despite the sincere protests of our infantry grunt whose personal experience was irrelevant to these matters.
Also, to be fair - I'm referring to education in much broader terms than just concerning how people may have been influenced regarding their views on guns. This is the topic of the thread, not this broader question.
BTW - I don't happen to be 'right wing' and I don't watch mainstream 'news' sources. I'd like to think I have come to outgrow the false 'left' versus 'right' paradigm of thinking. My attitudes on this changed years ago when I looked at this subject with an open mind, and came to see that both sides ended up supporting the same kinds of actions on the ground, despite their rhetoric. For example, 'conservatives' talked about fiscal soundness, but like spending tons of money on the military & expansion of government. 'Liberals' were all for peace, but supported multiple wars when 'their guy' in office was pushing them.
As supporters of the 2A and firearms enthusiasts, we are allies. We are on the same side on this issue. Its not my purpose to get into a 'pissing contest', to prove myself 'right' and you 'wrong'. My purpose is to introduce you to Gatto's work particularly, so that you may read it and with an open mind, decide for yourself. Several have thanked me for introducing them to material which had a profound impact on their way of viewing the world.
http://johntaylorgatto.com/underground/index.htm
Regards, - - -
I grew up outside of a small Ohio town, the only place that sold diesel fuel was a half hour drive, my whole family hunted and so did all my friends and a few of my teachers, nobody ever tried to tell us guns were bad and I didn't find out how anti my mom was until I tried teaching my daughter to shoot and I got called a bad parent. Now some of the guys I grew up with think guns are evil because they went to liberal arts colleges and it drives me nuts that they grew up on a farm in the country and hate guns.
IF I was insulting or "called you a liar", then I apologize. You took an observation about most 17 year old kids and an opinion as a personal attack. So be it.
I don't care when you purchased your first firearm. That certainly doesn't make you an expert or well informed. It just means you bought a firearm. When the 1994 AWB went into effect, I went out and bought an Uzi. Does that make me an Uzi expert?
All I can say is that you must have been a very special 17 year old kid being so well informed on politics and so worldly. For that I congratulate you. Most 17 year olds I know today barely know what year the Declaration of Independance was signed let alone what is happening today in the world of US politics. Most couldn't tell you who the Vice President of the US is or name one of their state's US Senators. They are very a worldy group in general.
wojownik - - - thanks for relating that. Many of us knew it was bad in some parts of the country, but not that bad
Did you grow up in NYC ? (Hope you don't mind my asking. You mentioned 'a borough'.) You state your location as 'the Old Dominion', are you in Virginia now ? A more 2A friendly place ?
The conditions you described are nothing short of pure Soviet style propaganda. Not even close to an even handed examination of facts and logical, open minded debate of the issues.
Quite chilling.
If pro 2A now, how was your thinking changed ?
Regards, - - -
I grew up in a borough of a major city, no guns in the house, and believed (well was taught to believe), that firearms were only for policemen and the military.
Even in high school, during government class (one of the few schools that still had such a class in HS), one teacher skipped right over the 2nd Amendment (a sub teacher - the principal - covered 2A as applying to the military only). The one neighbor who showed us kids his rifles (old rusted, pretty much non-functional relics) acted like he was showing us some big nasty secret ... that even having these things were "wrong".
Even in college - during debate class - we were randomly assigned partners and allowed to choose debate topics. The girl I was working with (a stunner) wanted to choose the 2A as a topic (I frankly would have agreed to anything she suggested). The professor summarily dismissed the topic as inappropriate for classroom debate, and told us to pick another.
One could not avoid anti-gun thinking - there were no alternatives. "Conform or be cast out" as the song from Rush goes...