Washington Post: Interesting story of open carry

[yokel]

Truly, after you already engaged in the ad hominem of implying that I'm anti-gun?

For you to take Mother Jones or the The Washington Post at face value betrays a certain amount of naïvety and guilelessness.

So much of what our side thinks they are "doing" is people making empty speeches, making pointless bumper stickers and substituting bravado for thoughtful action. All the "stuff" you wrote in this in other threads unfortunately typifies what I'm talking about.

This issue is moot if we can't even establish a mutual understanding with respect to the American Founding with emphasis in constitutional, ideological, and political history.

 

[RX-79G]

For you to take Mother Jones or the The Washington Post at face value betrays a certain amount of naïvety and guilelessness.



This issue is moot if we can't even establish a mutual understanding with respect to the American Founding with emphasis in constitutional, ideological, and political history.

"Face value"? I stated that I understood the underlying editorial motivation for the Jone's article. You seem to think that a fact, as statistic, a picture or a story become "untrue" because of the politics of a publisher. It doesn't work like that.

Mutual understanding with whom? What understanding, and how are you attempting to communicate it? Again, words that contain zero action.

 

[yokel]

"Face value"? I stated that I understood the underlying editorial motivation for the Jone's article. You seem to think that a fact, as statistic, a picture or a story become "untrue" because of the politics of a publisher. It doesn't work like that.

You fell for their stories hook, line and sinker!

Mutual understanding with whom? What understanding, and how are you attempting to communicate it? Again, words that contain zero action.

It is difficult to judge from just an online discussion forum, but there appears to be a paucity of ideological unity and mutual understanding amongst THR members.

 

[RX-79G]

You fell for their stories hook, line and sinker!



It is difficult to judge from just an online discussion forum, but there appears to be a paucity of ideological unity and mutual understanding amongst THR members.

Still going with the insults?

No kidding that we don't all completely agree. No group of people, even supporters of a particular cause, are in ideological lockstep. Unfortunately, I can't tell for what you stand for, outside of empty principle.

 

[Frank Ettin]

It is really not that abstruse or impenetrable....

That is not for you to decide. That is for the reader to decide.

....Successful reading comprehension strategies will result....

Well, I do know a bit about reading comprehension and the use of the English language. I spent my professional career reading, understanding, making use of, and apply quite a bit of complex and often difficult material. After all, the primary tools with which a lawyer plies his trade are words.

Effective writing is more than just stringing together words, the meanings of which are known. The words must be used in ways that convey coherent and meaningful thoughts.

One can certainly understand the meanings of the words you tossed about in post 44. But do they all mean when something when taken together? And how do they express thoughts germane to the subject under discussion?

So while each word of your post 44 can be understood, when assembled into something structurally resembling a paragraph they are merely bunches of unconnected, unsupported conclusions and non-sequitur.

So let's look at the first four sentences:

As liberty depends on the decency and courage of the people, so despotism depends on subduing them with terror. A fundamental truth is that unreasoning fear epitomizes the threat to liberty. Unreasoning fear makes people susceptible to the insane argument that the threat comes from the means of self-defense, not the evil will of would-be despots slyly seeking to strip them away. Though ostensibly focused on fomenting a superstitious fear of firearms, this insane logic actually exploits the moral vulnerability of people who no longer believe in their own goodwill, their own capacity to control the evil impulses connected with the unrestrained ambition for success, and the pleasure and power it brings....

Now --

1. Looking at the first sentence we might be willing to accept it as self-evident that despotism depends on terror, but the notion that liberty depends on decency and courage warrants some explanation and support. It certainly isn't something that people should be expected to simply accept as stated.
   
   Furthermore, what is the purpose of setting out that distinction? What does it mean in the context of this discussion, and what does it mean as a response to my comment in post 43 to the effect that different people can have different understandings of liberty?
   
   
2. And then your assertion that unreasoning fear is a threat to liberty is a fundamental truth can not be a forgone conclusion. Is that really true; is the truth fundamental; and what does fundamental mean in that context are all questions left begging for answers.
   
   Furthermore, how does that follow from your first sentence? In the context of your paragraph, it's a non-sequitur.
   
   And anyway, what does it mean in the context of this discussion, and what does it mean as a response to my comment in post 43 to the effect that different people can have different understandings of liberty?
   
   
3. And now how does your third sentence tie with the first two? (No, please don't try to tell us.)
   
   
4. And the fourth sentence: such a collection of multisyllabic and emotionally charged words "full of sound and fury signifying nothing." And it's yet another non-sequitur unrelated to the topic of this thread and non-responsive to my comments in post 43.

 

[yokel]

An utterance such as "just because someone owns guns, that doesn't mean that they are awesome people we should be proud of " is about as empty and inane as it gets around here.

 

[yokel]

That is not for you to decide. That is for the reader to decide.

Well, I do know a bit about reading comprehension and the use of the English language. I spent my professional career reading, understanding, making use of, and apply quite a bit of complex and often difficult material. After all, the primary tools with which a lawyer plies his trade are words.

Effective writing is more than just stringing together words, the meanings of which are known. The words must be used in ways that convey coherent and meaningful thoughts.

One can certainly understand the meanings of the words you tossed about in post 44. But do they all mean when something when taken together? And how do they express thoughts germane to the subject under discussion?

So while each word of your post 44 can be understood, when assembled into something structurally resembling a paragraph they are merely bunches of unconnected, unsupported conclusions and non-sequitur.

So let's look at the first four sentences:

​

Now --

1. Looking at the first sentence we might be willing to accept it as self-evident that despotism depends on terror, but the notion that liberty depends on decency and courage warrants some explanation and support. It certainly isn't something that people should be expected to simply accept as stated.
   
   Furthermore, what is the purpose of setting out that distinction? What does it mean in the context of this discussion, and what does it mean as a response to my comment in post 43 to the effect that different people can have different understandings of liberty?
   
   
2. And then your assertion that unreasoning fear is a threat to liberty is a fundamental truth can not be a forgone conclusion. Is that really true; is the truth fundamental; and what does fundamental mean in that context are all questions left begging for answers.
   
   Furthermore, how does that follow from your first sentence? In the context of your paragraph, it's a non-sequitur.
   
   And anyway, what does it mean in the context of this discussion, and what does it mean as a response to my comment in post 43 to the effect that different people can have different understandings of liberty?
   
   
3. And now how does your third sentence tie with the first two? (No, please don't try to tell us.)
   
   
4. And the fourth sentence: such a collection of multisyllabic and emotionally charged words "full of sound and fury signifying nothing." And it's yet another non-sequitur unrelated to the topic of this thread and non-responsive to my comments in post 43.

This reader has decided that your reply is replete with incomprehensible jargon or plain incoherent gibberish used to give the appearance of a strong argument, in place of evidence or valid reasons to accept the argument.

 

[Frank Ettin]

This reader has decided that your reply is replete with incomprehensible jargon or plain incoherent gibberish used to give the appearance of a strong argument, in place of evidence or valid reasons to accept the argument....

Can't say I'm surprised. But having reviewed many of your past posts, I'm satisfied that your reaction says more about you than it does about my writing and analytical skills.

An utterance such as "just because someone owns guns, that doesn't mean that they are awesome people we should be proud of " is about as empty and inane as it gets around here.

You might think so, but it's pretty clear to me from some of your posts in this thread that what you think doesn't mean much.

I think it's a true statement quite relevant to the discussion in this thread.

 

[yokel]

Can't say I'm surprised. But having reviewed many of your past posts, I'm satisfied that your reaction says more about you than it does about my writing and analytical skills.

Having reviewed your previous posts, the supercilious manner and abrasiveness is no surprise.

I think it's a true statement quite relevant to the discussion in this thread.

The statement is irrelevant and fatuous because nobody has asserted or suggested that "just because someone owns guns, that means that they are awesome people we should be proud of."

 

[Frank Ettin]

Having reviewed your previous posts, the supercilious manner and abrasiveness is no surprise.

Nor should that be a surprise. It's been apparent to many for a long time. But being supercilious and abrasive doesn't make me wrong.

The statement is irrelevant and fatuous because nobody has asserted or suggested that "just because someone owns guns, that means that they are awesome people we should be proud of."

In the context of this discussion a statement like that doesn't need to be in response to a contradictory statement in order to be apt.

 

[yokel]

But being supercilious and abrasive doesn't make me wrong.

Nor does it necessarily make you right.

In the context of this discussion a statement like that doesn't need to be in response to a contradictory statement in order to be apt.

I'll concede that it is also a one-sided and unresponsive statement.

 

[tipoc]

Beginning of an interesting discussion and then a couple of pages of bizarre.

tipoc

 

[Shaq]

Beginning of an interesting discussion and then a couple of pages of bizarre.

tipoc

Rather amusing, ain't it? Sorta like sitting at a table in a study room at Harvard.