When Fudds and Non-Fudds Collide

From this closed thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?86756-Your-manners-questioned

The following quotes are from the closed thread, but they and my response are not on the specific topic that closed the thread.

The "two sides" James refers to are gun owners who have a view that some exercises of the RKBA, although legal and peaceable, aren't good "manners", "common sense", "wise" or whatever and gun owners who have the view that what is legal and peaceable is always appropriate.

These two sides crop up, for example, as:
CC'ers who could care less for OC.
Gun owners who could care less about pushing for any carry rights.
Hunters who could care less for black rifles.
Long gun owners who could care less about the availability of handguns.

Do NOT talk about long-gun versus handgun open carry! Administrator, I've given this warning and would like to keep this thread open. Can you please delete offending comments or ban offending commenters from this thread, instead?

JamesIan said:

I see two sides arguing right past one another

Click to expand...

I always see one side discussing issues and responding point-by-point and the other side not taking up those points and continually falling back on the subjective rhetoric of "manners", "common sense", "it will set us back", etc. Yes, in that situation two sides will talk right past each other, but that doesn't mean nobody wins the debate. My vote for the winner of a debate goes to the guy who talks and rebuts point-by-point, if his opponent continually does not defend the points and rebuttals coming his way and continually falls back on non-specific, subjective rhetoric.

JamesIan said:

We do not do anyone any favors when we demagogue against people who are otherwise our allies.

Click to expand...

We do not do our allies any favors if we allow them to persist in saying patently wrong specific things and do not attempt to give them specific correction on specific wrong statements they make.

JamesIan said:

Labels like "Fudd" do not cause the labelled to re-examine their position. The labelled merely dig in further.

Click to expand...

Those gun owners who have been attempted to be engaged in specific discussion about the specific wrong things they say against the RKBA, and who do not re-examine their position but merely dig in, deserve to be called "Fudd".

JamesIan said:

Our purpose is not to smash our opponents in the face. Our goal is change minds and hearts, so that all of this ridiculous legislation is removed.

Click to expand...

My goal is the defense and expansion of the RKBA. As much as I can do that in a pleasant manner, I will. However, when faced with entrenched Fudd or anti-gun mentality, I will call it as it is. Patrick Swayze said it perfectly: "Be nice until it's time to not be nice." We've had to employ that guidance here in Michigan, and a few times we've had to become not so nice, particularly with Fudds and anti-gun folks holding positions in municipal authority or supportive of anti-gun municipalities. Your statement that changing minds and hearts is our goal is false. It may be a means (and the first means of choice) to the goal, but it is not the goal.

Banning certain people from posting in certain threads is IMO the wrong road to start down on.

This whole thing isn't about guns or types of guns... or where those guns are being carried... or how they are being carried.. or even who is carrying them. In fact, this whole "gun rights" thing isn't even about guns... nor is it about rights either.

The whole dust up right from the start has been, still is, and always will be, all about who gets to tell who what, where, when, why, who can/can't, how much they can/can't, etc., etc., ......

The whole thing is who gets to be in control.... who gets to tell everyone else what to do.

The gun is just the symbol of the fight for control.... just as it is also the symbol for the fight to remain free.

stainless1911 said:

Banning certain people from posting in certain threads is IMO the wrong road to start down on.

Click to expand...

That is preferable to a whole thread being closed due to one person bringing up long gun OC. But are there better alternatives short of closing a thread? Sure, it's possible, and I'm for any such possibility.

Bikenut said:

This whole thing isn't about guns or types of guns... or where those guns are being carried... or how they are being carried.. or even who is carrying them. In fact, this whole "gun rights" thing isn't even about guns... nor is it about rights either.

The whole dust up right from the start has been, still is, and always will be, all about who gets to tell who what, where, when, why, who can/can't, how much they can/can't, etc., etc., ......

Click to expand...

So, why don't Fudd's get this, and stop playing the same games and engaging in the same rhetoric the gun-controllers do?

And, more to the point of my criticism of JamesIan, why do some folks, like JamesIan, defend Fudd opinions as if they are valid at all? The only thing different about Fudd opinions from gun-control opinions is that Fudds exempt *their* particular firearm, mode of carry, areas of carry, purpose for gun ownerhsip, etc. from whatever it is they feel is "inappropriate" or "not common sense" with regard to the RKBA.

In other words, there is a fine line between being a Fudd and a gun-control advocate, and that fine line consists of whatever guns the Fudd or his friends happen to own and use them for.

I'm sorry, is someone saying my comments in this thread won't be welcome?

DanM, you are doing exactly what I'm talking about. You are so worked up into a froth that you have no turned on me as though I don't agree with you and the rest here about RKBA. Stop and read my posts. I call out the public's irrational fears. I say that I want NO laws about carry. I cannot think of a way to better express my agreement with you other than to look at you with a dopey smile and tell you how dreamy you are.

I agree on the end goal! I agree with with Bikenut. Everything between here and there is strategy. Maybe you want the most direct route. Maybe I am willing to tolerate a more circuitous route so that we have better roads. Maybe Breda hasn't even considered that part of our destination and is a little dismayed that someone has taken her off road and she is in the middle of a strange field. the point is that we are all going to the same place eventually, we just disagree about how to get there.

There are some here that seem as though they are desperate to play cowboys and indians and everyone must immediately be labeled as such. We have the same enemies, the same troubles and plenty of both. We don't need to widen the gulf.

Take a minute. Catch your breath. Read what is being written.

Also, when someone calls another person a Fudd in the 2A community it is an ad hominem attack. One cannot thereafter claim any sort of intellectual integrity. Yes, Breda started it by labeling us buffoons, but you lost the high ground when you took the bait.

JamesIan said:

an ad hominem attack. One cannot thereafter claim any sort of intellectual integrity

Click to expand...

While I don't like to see name calling when discussing these topics, this is not at all true outside of your opinion, nor do I believe any ad hominems have occurred here. Certainly not the 'Fudd' comments anyway.

Before tossing this term around so emotionally, I recommend you read this:

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

If you want to start pretending this is going on, let me submit to you that DanM has used the term Fud which you label as 'ad hominem', but he has continued to try and debate you and Breda in a civilized way. Breda on the other hand called OCers buffoons and a**holes and then used that kind of hand waving to not argue or debate her beliefs with anyone.
Now you are here telling us that DanM is making ad hominem attacks and because of that he is somehow disqualified.

It could be reasonably argued (although I admit, not by me) that you and Breda are engaging in ad hominem attacks, but it cannot be reasonably argued that DanM is doing the same.

Once you introduce insults into a conversation, they color the responses of the person you are arguing with. Your opponent digs in to repel an attack. You cannot insult them and then claim that they are not matching you point for point. You have poisoned the ground.

ETA: I like that article. I look to refine my reasoning skills.

JamesIan said:

Once you introduce insults into a conversation, they color the responses of the person you are arguing with.

Click to expand...

I do not agree. Only emotional people who take debates on the internet seriously will be 'colored' and react. There are plenty of people (especially on this forum) that can handle wording that may or not be insulting or rough and can continue to debate facts reasonably.

After all, what one person calls an insult might just be an observation of their behavior or argument that they are just not comfortable with hearing.

Your opponent digs in to repel an attack. You cannot insult them and then claim that they are not matching you point for point. You have poisoned the ground.

Click to expand...

While this is certainly true of certain people (japete comes to mind), this is not at all true of the majority of people on this forum. Consider the fact that Breda (and others) directly insulted OCers and they still showed up and made well reasoned and inspired arguments to her points.

Anti gunners are well known for 'digging in' and defending their emotions when presented with facts and reason. This is not something I have seen with the majority of the pro-rights community so far.

Surely you recognize that calling someone a Fudd in the 2A community can only be destructive, no? I have at no time denied that Breda participated in name-calling. I even affirmed it. I will stand by my opinion that calling her a Fudd, while not ad hominem in the strictest sense, is still a cheap flourish intended to invoke a disproportionate effect that would augment his argument by reducing her credibility. People practiced in making good arguments see through those tactics, but most people not only fall prey to them, they use those tactics themselves.

If you don't believe that people on this forum entrench themselves at even the perception of being attacked, go back and read a few threads in which someone suggested(not demanded) that people should consider their appearance while OC'ing. A crapstorm if ever there was one.

JamesIan said:

calling her a Fudd, while not ad hominem in the strictest sense

Click to expand...

Or in any sense. It is name calling, but it is not ad hominem.

JamesIan said:

If you don't believe that people on this forum entrench themselves at even the perception of being attacked, go back and read a few threads in which someone suggested(not demanded) that people should consider their appearance while OC'ing. A crapstorm if ever there was one.

Click to expand...

Spirited debate and emotional entrenchment are two very different things.

Rich B said:

Or in any sense. It is name calling, but it is not ad hominem.

Click to expand...

Nope, I would argue it is still a lesser form of ad hominem. It is not a one-for-one replacement for arguing the points, but it is still a partially augmentive replacement for a good argument.

JamesIan said:

Nope, I would argue it is still a lesser form of ad hominem. It is not a one-for-one replacement for arguing the points, but it is still a partially augmentive replacement for a good argument.

Click to expand...

It was simply an observation in the context it was used. At no time was it used to imply that Breda was somehow disqualified from the argument, in fact, quite the opposite considering the person who said it has done nothing but try to engage her in further debate since then.

Name calling != ad hominem.

JamesIan said:

DanM, you are doing exactly what I'm talking about. You are so worked up into a froth that you have no turned on me as though I don't agree with you and the rest here about RKBA.

Click to expand...

James, I'll ask you like I ask other people who tend to characterize what others are saying without quoting what they said: quote me. That's what I do when I'm discussing an issue with someone. It keep me honest in what I'm criticizing them about. If you notice, I started this thread out by specifically quoting you, and giving my criticism of your words. Now, do the same for me. Quote my words, and offer your specific criticism if you have any.

JamesIan said:

There are some here that seem as though they are desperate to play cowboys and indians and everyone must immediately be labeled as such. We have the same enemies, the same troubles and plenty of both. We don't need to widen the gulf.

Click to expand...

Would you please just start quoting people (in context) and specifically criticize the quotes, without giving things your own characterization. Please, just specifically quote and give specific criticism. It really is easy.

JamesIan said:

Also, when someone calls another person a Fudd in the 2A community it is an ad hominem attack.

Click to expand...

No, an ad hominem attack is an attack on the person of your opponent rather than their arguments. However, if there is a weakness in your opponents arguments, you demonstrate that weakness, and there is a convenient one word name for that weakness, you may use that name in referring to those specific arguments you've demonstrated to be weak. If that person persists in using such arguments, then you may refer to their view with a synonymous term.

Anytime I've referred to someone as a Fudd, the point of discussion related to support or not for particular aspects of the exercise of the RKBA, I have quoted their arguments, and I have went through a detailed criticism demonstrating that their statements fit the definition for a Fudd (and, insult or not, it has a quite clear definition).

I have never used the term Fudd as an ad hominem. I've only used it as one-word description of an argument, or to describe a person who consistently uses arguments, that I have demonstrated in detail fit the definition.

JamesIan said:

I will stand by my opinion that calling her a Fudd, while not ad hominem in the strictest sense, is still a cheap flourish intended to invoke a disproportionate effect that would augment his argument by reducing her credibility.

Click to expand...

As I said above, I call "Fudd" after having demonstrated in detail someone or something fits the bill. I spent a bit of time at Breda's blog destroying in detail her and some others' statements. There's so much of my quality material over there that "augmenting" it by calling her and those others Fudds would be as superfluous as "augmenting" a pig with lipstick. You're going to smell it long before you see it. Same goes for Breda's blog and her views on "manners" and "common sense". You're going to smell Fudd long before anyone says it.