My reference there was to your assertion that people (adults, me, or in your word “progressives”) who embrace and support these kids are “attempting to bypass the debate” by doing so. WE are the people who want reasonable gun laws. I wasn’t referring to any of the kids making statements you may find over the top but to the supporters of those kids who you say are undermining the debate by supporting them. Hope that’s clearer.
It is clearer, yes. Thanks.
And I did find it a little insulting that you think progressives are generally debate avoiders and tricksters and conservatives less so. Ive found the opposite to be true but, as you’ve already noted, this may also be one of those things that depends on whether or not you support the point of view of the debater.
I'm sure there's a degree to which everyone unconsciously plays down their own side's culpability, but to be clear, I'm saying something very narrow: I'm saying progressives disproportionately fall into this
specific thing. There are
absolutely things that conservatives are more prone to fall into, they're just different things. Happy to expound on them if that makes it feel less like partisan sniping.
I don't think this is really such a controversial or partisan idea, though; it makes perfect sense that different worldviews would be more or less susceptible to different intellectual pitfalls.
I guess my point is I don’t see that statement as being the absurd rhetoric that you insist it is when its directed at the NRA and their cronies from whom ive heard truly despicable statements. When its directed at Rubio? Yeah that’s probably different but was it directed at Rubio? And if so what was the context? Did they say “youd rather see us dead” or more like “you are showing that you are more concerned with gun rights then children’s rights”. Which is true in my book.
I mean, I can Google the exact quotes, but I can't imagine you haven't heard most of it by now. People telling Rubio that looking at him is like looking down the barrel of a gun again, the whole stunt implying he values each student's life at $1.05. This would be pretty extreme if you threw it at pretty much anyone, but it's particularly absurd when tossed at one of the few people actually standing there, taking the abuse, and still trying to forge a compromise.
Part of this probably isn't resolvable, because it seems like I can give examples of extreme rhetoric, and you'll tell me it's not extreme because the thing it's confronting is just
that bad. Suffice to say, it's easy to justify anything if you start with the premise that the other side is just awful, even though (again) everybody thinks that, which is precisely why we have to be careful to argue from shared or neutral premises in the first place.
Well the brain washing part is something Ive heard commonly now from people who oppose these kids. “Brainwashed” and “crisis actors”. That’s why I put it in a second set of quotes right after the first quote and didn’t mash them together because Im pretty sure you did say “use” or “using” so it does need to be in quotes but if I put “brain washed” without quotes right after that it would look like I was calling them brain washed (clearly we need actual quotes and air quotes options!). So the effect ended up looking clunky. Didn’t mean to imply you had specifically used that term though.
Fair enough.
I've heard people say that about the kids, too. I think that's pretty extreme. I don't think they're old or mature enough to consider the full measure of this debate or reliably express themselves in appropriate ways, however. And I definitely think lots of people
want to manipulate them to their own ends in this debate and don't much care how it will effect them. You seem to, which is good, though the mere fact that you admit to wrestling with it suggests you understand the tension there.
Fair enough. I hope my replies make sense and you don’t see as further “misrepresenting”. I actually thought I tried to show the nuance and conflict I feel in my position over these kids. Not simply parrot some contrary point of view to your comments just for the sake of it. And I can also be a very rambling and stream of consciousness type of debater.
I dig. No worries. Appreciate the response.
It's an unfortunate match, because when someone lists five or six things in quick succession I usually want to reply to each in turn, so when combined with the stream of consciousness stuff...ooo boy, the replies get out of hand quickly. Cynically, it's because most people who do that are just Gish Galloping or venting or whatever, but I realize for some it's just a habitual manner of communicating and not malicious or deceptive.
I think we can whittle this one back down to a reasonable size going forward, though, if there's even that much left to say.