🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CzDpML.L6L@zadall.com>, John Bartol <jbart@zadall.com> wrote:
>
>I swore over and over that I wouldn't get involved in 2 threads (both of
>which have been spawned over the bc doctor shooting: abortion and gun
>control
>

You know, I really should listen to myself more often :-)

I read over my post after reading the follow-ups and can agree to a couple of things:
a) I should get all my facts straight before commenting (something I usually do), and
b) I really should listen to myself more often.

In a discussion yesterday, I mentioned that I avoid the 2 topics mentioned above for
1 overriding reason:

    In a reasoned discussion between 2 people or groups of people, fruitful results
    can be obtained when the 2 sides are willing to listen, debate, and compromise.

    In these 2 topics, that is pretty much impossible. The 2 sides on both issues are
    so totally convinced they are right that any arguments set forth by either side
    are seen as 'trite' and incapable of being used to support the proposers' point.

    I am not immune to this. On the topic of gun control (I'll avoid the other topic
    since I didn't get myself in hot water on it :-), it is fairly obvious that I
    come in on the side of strict,strict,strict controls. Can I explain why? Yes, but
    anything I say is based on emotional grounds and is not a valid argument. Many
    other posters come in on the side of less controls or current controls. Can they
    explain why? Yes, but I will perceive anything they say as based on illogical
    foundations.

So, I give up. Argue away. Just don't be annoyed (either side) when you find that after
a few hundred (or thousand, or million) posts/debates/arguments/etc., that nobody can
come to any agreement.

god, we can be hardheaded sometimes, eh>?