I wrote a post on the murder off Trayvon Martin. Here.
Greg, way to jam the masses against guns! Your ad hominem attacks are sublime. Equate racism with gun ownership to confuse people, that’s honest debate!
“Jamming makes use of the rules of Associative Conditioning (the psychological process whereby, when two things are repeatedly juxtaposed, one’s feelings about one thing are transferred to the other) and Direct Emotional Modeling (the inborn tendency of human beings to feel what they perceive others to be feeling).
Turning Associative Conditioning and Direct Emotional Modeling against themselves, we Jam by forging a fresh link between, on the one hand, some part of the mechanism, and, on the other, a pre-existing, external, opposed, and therefore incompatible emotional response. Ideally, the bigot subjected to such counterconditioning will ultimately experience two emotional responses to the hated object, opposed and competing. The consequent internal confusion has two effects: first, it is unpleasant– we can call it ‘emotional dissonance,’ after Festinger–and will tend to result in an alteration of previous beliefs and feelings so as to resolve the internal conflict. Since the weaker of the clashing emotional associations is the more likely to give way, we can achieve optimal results by linking the prejudicial response to a stronger and more fundamental structure of belief and emotion. (Naturally, in some people this will be impossible, as prejudicial hatred is the strongest ) element in their beliefs, emotions, and motivations. Without resorting to prefrontal lobotomy–ah! sweet dreams!–these people are more or less unsalvageable.) Second, even where an optimal resolution does not occur, the internal dissonance will tend to inhibit overt expression of the prejudicial emotion–which is, in itself, useful and relieving.
The ‘incompatible emotional response’ is directed primarily against the emotional rewards of prejudicial solidarity. All normal people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like one of the pack. And, these days, all but the stupidest and most unregenerate of bigots perceive that prejudice against all other minority groups-e.g., blacks, Jews, Catholics, women, et al.–has long since ceased to be approved, let alone fashionable, and that to express such prejudices, if not to hold them, makes one decidedly not one of the pack. It was permissible, some forty years ago, to tell the vilest ethnic jokes at the average party, and, if the joke was reasonably well told, the joker could expect to receive applause and approval from his or her roistering confreres. (Should you find this hard to believe, read 2500 Jokes for All Occasions, a popular 1942 compilation by Powers Moulton, which will surely stand your hair on end.) With the exception of certain benighted social classes and backward areas of the country, this is quite generally no longer the case. “
Thank you for the wikipedia article.
I’ve not equated racism with gun ownership. I’ve linked them, and they are linked. I know several gun owners well; they are close friends and relatives. None of them are racists and most of them are actually liberal progressives. But there is a strong link between Tea Party Politics, gun ownership, racism, and a handful of other issues, and there is a strong link between those things and bias in the criminal justice system, the nature of violence on the streets, and the attitudes of various people.
I’m sorry if this bothers you. Perhaps its a bit close to home.
OH, and another thing: ad hominem attack? What are you talking about? George Zimmerman gunned down an innocent kid. He is a bad person. I’m not disagreeing with his ideas but leaving the person out here, I’m saying he is a bad person. I’m applying that to racists in general and to people who want to patrol the streets and shoot anyone they don’t like in general.
That. Is. An. ad hominem. Attack.
You are using the term “ad hominem” here to mean something different. You are complaining that I’ve use the “ad hominem” fallacy. I am not using a fallacy. I am personally attacking the individuals and claiming them to be flawed, bad, dangerous, mean spirited, and stupid. There is no fallacy here. I am not pretending to argue about ideas but using personal attacks as a tool. I am making the person, ad hominem statement. Please to not think for a second that I am not doing that.
You really need to re-read that part of your WikiBible.
Your entire first paragraph is nothing but ad hominem attacks on people that may not share your view.
The “wikipedia” article I quoted was from Marshall Kirk & Hunter Madsen in “After the Ball” ( http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm )
You’re clearly injecting race to make a negative association with gun ownership and the concept of self-defense.
“In truth, we canâ€™t separate the issues of gun violence and overzealous worship of guns and gun ownership from the issue of race and racism.” I can. Apparently some of your friends can. Who are “we”?
You’re not going to debate gun ownership / self-defense on the merits. You attempt to gain an advantage in a Politically Correct society by playing on people’s emotions while advocating a supposedly unemotional education policy.
If you are looking for a place to donate to help out the people in the Philippines, Eli Rabett has a list of places HERE
Click here to visit my page for the novel Sungudogo, which is now available for the Kindle
I and the BIRD … not just a Web Carnival any more