Why the fervor over the 2nd ammendment but not the 1st?, take 2

Why would I, wanting to hear someone speak on their opinions, be willing to pay someone to speak that I don't give a rat's ass about and am totally uninterested in their views? Debate all you want, and good luck setting up a format that will do ought than expose prejudices and harden stances.

 

The attitude you depict (whether yours or not) is exactly what universities should strive to eliminate.

If our civilization is to successfully deal with the many challenges we face people must learn to think critically.
* always start with the facts as best as we can discern them (which is never perfect)
* listen to differing interpretations of the facts and opinions on what they indicate we should do before making up you mind
* be willing to re-examine your decision as new facts or new interpretations or new ideas come to light

That does not come naturally to humans. It needs to be taught. Humans are most comfortable inside an echo chamber that reinforces the rightness of our views whether or not they are based on reality or make sense. Alas comfort will not solve the problems we face.

 

The only people who don't see it are the ones supporting it.

 

I did explain. Critical thinking is needed to solve complex global problems. If ideology rather than fact based views and emotional seat of the pants reactions and short term thinking was sufficient, such problem wouldn't' exist. But they do.
Critical thinking is a skill that needs to be taught. Considering alternative points of view is part of that skill. Are you really arguing that critical thinking is a bad thing?

I don't claim it was an insult. I claim it is an example of the echo chamber in action. Why think about anything that is contrary to your point of view when it is so much more comfortable to just apply a label like "argumentative liberal"?

 

Critical thinking is a great tool and listening to different opinions is an even better tool... Most people go to name calling rather than actually listening and discussing their differences.

Two holes, for lack of a better term, in using just critical thinking, is

1)critical thinking and basing judgement on 'facts' presumes that we can know all the facts at one time. The truth is new things are being discovered all the time and based on new information ... things change and

2)we as human beings do not have the capacity to keep all of the facts in mind when making a decision. We ignore what doesn't fit within out belief systems.

Its like looking at something thru a red lens and every thing looks red, then swithing the lens/belief to blue and every thing looks blue.

We dont notice our internal prejudice.

 

I was using "critical thinking" (perhaps overly generously) to encompass the issues you raise. I did specially say it includes the notion that we can never perfectly know the facts and new facts arise.

Your point about not being able to keep all the facts in our heads to make a reasoned decision, is a good one. I run into this in the corporate/engineering world when a group is trying to decide between alternatives. I find that if the alternatives are not written down with their pros and cons all on just one brief page (one line for each item) that so that things can be compared and whittled down to leave the best choice, you are destined to make an emotional choice and not a reasoned one. It's hard to do even in an engineering context. In a political one it's even harder. But I still think we need to swing the pendulum more in that direction.

 

Unaddressed, it seems, in spite of saying it is or was.

 

The attitude I said universities should strive to eliminate was your statement that "[people's views] I don't give a rat's ass about and am totally uninterested in their views?"
being "totally uninterested in their views", i.e. the views that do not conform to yours, its the antithesis of critical thinking, of being willing to reevaluate your position to listen to opposing views as I have said. and as I have explained critical thinking is what we need to solve todays problems.

 

Perhaps if you spoke and wrote in complete sentences, your intent could be understood. And, I will gratuitously add, you have presumed to try interpreting my statements, and you blew it totally. Do NOT try to ascribe thoughts and attitudes to me that you cannot possibly know.

 

I have not tried to "ascribe thoughts and attitudes" to you, I have only commented on what you have written. If I have misunderstood what you have written perhaps you could point out where I have done so rather than just hurling a few insults.

 

What pray tell does a "bill of rights" forum have to do with prepping?

Long after the first thread of this title was locked YOU posted
"...the thread is locked, so start another one if you care to.
I'm actually not happy you've not been back..."
I generally assume people mean what they say, sorry my mistake.

 

The real reason why leftists like to jack-around with 2nd Amendment rights... is because they can. And they do it mainly because it is a hot-button issue with conservatives. They do it to punish their enemies--and one of the easiest ways of doing this is to pass gun restrictions and law that will mainly affect conservatives.

Look at the recent article about 'liberals trying to purchase guns quickly' and being denied.
Leftist/liberals don't play with guns--don't hunt by and large, don't target shoot.
It's not a big deal with liberals/leftists. They don't give a jack about guns.

Sooooo... the leftist use punishment against their opponents (in many other forms as well). And playing/bending/spindling the 2nd Amendment is one of their favorite methods of punishing their opponents--because they know by and large you will do nothing (other than complain, protest and whine), or can do nothing to retaliate against them, since they control all the courts and legislatures where such laws are railroaded through.

It is punishment--nothing more.
Wrap your skulls around this fact please.
Two can play at the punishment game as well...










It's not that leftists hate guns, they just hate the idea of you with a gun and not their own Stasi.

 

Have to curtail the first ammendment for "mu safety".

This has already been defeated in court. Remember when f troop was all like "you can't put gun bulid instructions in the P80 kits". That shit lasted like 2 seconds. Defeated on 1st ammendment grounds.

 

"If we lose The Second, we lose the rest!"

 

If we lose the First, we will lose the Second as misinformation and censorship take over education and opinion.

 

I figure before we lose the 2nd ,,, we'll be losing some politicians.