Rambling Thoughts
Chess is a game with so many permutations that only in the last decade -- after years and years of trying -- was anyone able to design a computer capable of competing successfully with a human master player.
I once had a book of chess openings; said book was an inch thick (more, actually). It started off with standard "centerline" moves and their counters, then went to common gambits and their counters, then on to more unusual and obscure openings and their responses and their variations and responses.
An inch+ thick.
And the essence of the book was,
if he does this, then you do that, and if he does this other thing, then you do that other thing.
Hundreds of pages. Exhaustive treatments of certain opening patterns and supporting reasoning behind each.
So, here we sit, with a game set up on the board, and a common gambit is played:
"Guns are only usable as weapons!"
And we consider the possible responses and counters and the rationale behind each.
Remember, this is a
GAME to those who attack us. Remember,
THEY have nothing, really, to lose. They have no stake that they're aware of. It is only we who have something to lose -- a real stake -- in the game. It really doesn't matter if our opponents are risking their freedom and liberty, because -- from their side of the board -- they simply don't perceive that risk. It really doesn't matter
WHY they don't see it, what matters is that they don't, and therefore they're willing to treat as a
game something that matters dearly to us, something with far-reaching consequences.
I will stipulate that there are those among the opposition who know exactly what's at stake and who know what they risk and what's to be gained. For them, this is not a game. For all that, they will nonetheless
stage it as a game -- much in the way a litigator refuses to concern himself with the rightness or wrongness of his client's position, seeking only to contrive matters so that he wins.
It is important to understand that truth, merit, right, wrong, logic, reason, and so on, have very plastic meanings when the opponents of civil rights take the podium. All that matters is winning the game. Remember, if
they lose, nobody's going to show up at 3:00am to confiscate their stuff. At least not in their world.
So, when structuring an argument against the advocates of civil tyranny, you have a handicap: your argument must not only conform to the rules of truth, merit, logic, and reason, your argument must also refute their position and constrain further lines of development.
Depending on how committed your adversary is, you might illustrate that his position is anything from silly, to harmful, to ignorant, to stupid. I would note that "proving stupid" would not be appropriate for winning friends and influencing people. It might be appropriate to simply neutralize.
One possible response to the "only usable as weapons" gambit is the "why does that matter" counter-gambit.
They're only for use as weapons.
Why does that matter?
Well, weapons kill people!
All weapons?
(Hmm, blocked line of attack, switch attack lines) . . . Well, they have no legitimate use outside of killing. I mean, knives can be used in the kitchen, but you can't use a gun in the kitchen.
You also can't use a bulldozer in the kitchen, nor a jack hammer for that matter. What do kitchens have to do with defining legitimate use?
(Hmm, blocked again, switch lines of attack) . . . Well, guns make killing easy and you can kill someone at a distance.
I see. So killing someone is okay as long as it's difficult and close-up?
(Dang, blocked again) . . . Well, it's been proven that people are more violent around guns. (This is false, but remember, false doesn't matter.)
Why would you use an argument that has been completely debunked by Harvard? (False argument fails.)
(Crap, this isn't going well) . . . Well, guns are frightening and just having them around can lead to emotional trauma, and children shouldn't have to be exposed to dangerous things.
(Finally, an opening . . .) So, you're advocating the destruction of our culture by seeing to it that children grow up unable to cope with the violence and barbarism that more primitive, aggressive cultures will bring to bear. Kind of like Rome.
You can place yourself at a disadvantage by becoming wedded to one kind of argument. Remember, it's a game. White moves first and generally establishes the mode and overall line of play. If you only know
Queen's Gambit Declined and you've never learned the
Reti transposition, you can find yourself floundering, even though you
know you're right.
Being right isn't useful. It's only worth moral points, and those don't count in this game, unless they're moral points derived from emotions and feelings.
You're accustomed to honest discussion, which places you out of your element in these games. Find someone who's willing to play "the black pieces" and practice those moves, then you play "black" for a while. Role playing can be very educational.
Sometimes you can open with a counter gambit that completely ignores their opening. That's risky, but played well it can kick butt.
Guns can only be used as weapons.
You're right. The Nazis should never have been allowed to have them.
I'm not talking about that.
Oh. You're more worried about the guns owned by the police?
No, the police are trained and can be trusted.
Ah. So we don't need the Fourth Amendment any more?
And so on.
The book of openings and their resolutions is at least an inch thick.
There's no one-size-fits-all argument.
Expand your openings portfolio.
Yes, learn the basic truths. Then learn debate. With a little skill, you can actually start to enjoy these encounters.
Oh, and don't forget the end game. You can't count on your opponent's resigning when it gets bad. Sometimes he'll play to the bitter end.
Be prepared for that.
