4 ms·
That's not an argument. Imagine having that conversation with someone who lost someone dear due to getting struck by lightning, and who is now demanding that w
by mzw_mzw 10y ago
That's not an argument.
Imagine having that conversation with someone who lost someone dear due to getting struck by lightning, and who is now demanding that we install lightning rods every twenty feet and legally mandate nonconductive clothing. Obviously you'd sympathize with them, but you can't base national policy on emotion. You have to look at the facts.
- jacquesm 10y ago> but you can't base national policy on emotion. As if the majority of the pro-gun ownership arguments aren't based on emotion.
- mzw_mzw 10y agoThen you shouldn't have any trouble using reason to defeat them. Go on, then.
- jacquesm 10y agoNo, on the contrary.
- Nadya 10y agoThey're based more-so on reality. You can argue there are appeals to emotion ("protect your family!") but they aren't completely devoid of fact and ignoring statistics. People hunt (some for game, some for sport) and need guns. People get robbed and would like a gun to keep in the home for self-defense. Some people live in criminal ridden areas where being mugged is a relatively common occurrence, having a gun helps there too.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> you can't base national policy on emotion Value propositions are all ultimately rooted in emotional responses to propositions which cannot be objectively supported, and all policy is ultimately rooted in value propositions; you can't not base policy (national or otherwise) on emotion.
- gnarbarian 10y agoThat is very interesting. In the strictest sense you are correct. It comes down to how I value the freedom to bear arms over reducing gun violence. Regardless of that, some arguments are more rational/illogical than others.