denis bider wrote:
> > > << So, I don't think America's aversion against banning guns has any
> > > rational structure at all. >>
> > >
> > > The statement is true.
> > It is true that "you don't think" the aversion to banning guns has any
> > rational structure at all. But that hardly makes the assertion true,
> > does it?
> I knew someone would hunt me down for that one. I should rephrase.
> There is a rational structure, and it consists of the prevalent emotional
> attitude to firearms throughout your society.
> So there. I think that's true - all the arguments I've been presented with
> were a matter of personal outlook on what an individual's "rights" are
> supposed to be (emotional argument), and what the social situation in the
> USA is (rational argument, based on emotions people have for each other,
> rougly speeking).
> You could now hunt me down on the specifics of the final part of my
> paragraph above. If you do, consider that I just retract the whole
> statement. :-) Rhetorics are meaningless, and I've already stated what I
> perceive the facts to be.
You are unusually honest and that is certainly much appreciated.
However, doesn't the above leave you in the position of "I believe what
I believe and that is that"? How can a rational argument be based on an
anecdotal approximation of what people's emotions are, "roughly
speaking"? Rhetoric is relatively meaningless. Do you consider this
type of discussion to be nothing more than rhetoric? If so, then I have
to agree it is a waste of time to continue it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:21 MDT