🚀 go-pugleaf

jbart@zadall.com (John Bartol) writes:

> In a discussion yesterday, I mentioned that I avoid the 2 topics mentioned ab
> 1 overriding reason:
> 
>     In a reasoned discussion between 2 people or groups of people, fruitful r
>     can be obtained when the 2 sides are willing to listen, debate, and compr
> 
>     In these 2 topics, that is pretty much impossible. The 2 sides on both is
>     so totally convinced they are right that any arguments set forth by eithe
>     are seen as 'trite' and incapable of being used to support the proposers'
> 
>     I am not immune to this. On the topic of gun control (I'll avoid the othe
>     since I didn't get myself in hot water on it :-), it is fairly obvious th
>     come in on the side of strict,strict,strict controls. Can I explain why? 
>     anything I say is based on emotional grounds and is not a valid argument.
>     other posters come in on the side of less controls or current controls. C
>     explain why? Yes, but I will perceive anything they say as based on illog
>     foundations.


  Good points, John.  I'd add one more, though...on whose side are the 
actual *numbers*?  The facts...the evidence?

  We get ours from Statscan, the RCMP, the FBI, the American Justice 
Department and Bureau of the Census, etc.  We provide the proof...but all 
we get in return are anecdotes, theories, analogies (sometimes quite 
humorous) and opinions.  If I were a computer analyzing all this data i 
know what conclusions *I* would come to... :)