I hope this is an ok thing to ask or start a discussion on.. I'm trying to have a civil discussion about the current victims and they way they've been treated.. I know there are several people following this conversation that know I'm on the "gun people" side, and I want to make the argument that may allow me to further explain that position. I grew up with this girls family and want to respect them and the time I've known them while not backing away from what's right...

The conversation started with this article being posted:

From The Guardian

To which I replied:
"While I disagree with much of the behavior, its a bit one sided for the Guardian to portray this behavior as something new and happening to only these kids... There have been incredibly vile things said about Trump, his wife, and more notably their son. Cartoons frequently depict government officials/those in the public spotlight in horrible fashion. These kids have not stood up and said lets have a polite/civilized conversation. They've yelled, screamed, lectured, cursed, and insulted anyone who doesn't fall in step with them. I think if they did, the other side wouldn't have come out swinging. What they went through was horrific, but it doesn't confer knowledge or expert status on them. As I said, I think everyone involved could do with a little more decency, kindness, and truth in their interactions."

The daughter of the original poster replied:
"I would have to agree that horrible things have been said about Donald Trump and his family and I have empathy for those individuals even in cases when the insults are based on fact. While this is true, I'm not sure if its particularly relevant when talking about young student activists. In my experience, I've found that using comparative narratives to minimize problems aren't very effective if the goal is productive conversation. Certainly issues are not singular and isolated but comparing the treatment of the Parkland students to the treatment of the Trumps seems a bit extraneous and inconsequential, no? Now concerning the activism tactics used by the Parkland students, while I've seen them yell, scream lecture, curse, and (to a degree) "insult" others, I don't see how this could be perceived as a problem, indecent or untruthful as these actions are the nature of protests and activism. Studies show that activism of any kind has a direct effect on the ability to enact change. For example: yelling, screaming, or lecturing may not create change itself, but it captures the attention of others and is a catalyst for empathy, which in turn leads to larger groups of people taking tangible actions such as voting, donating, or running for office. This is not a new thing. Consider Vietnam War protests in the 60's and 70's. Or Women's Suffrage, The Labor Movement, the GM Sit Down Strikes or even The Boston Tea Party. Now, by no means do I believe they should receive a pass for their behavior, I fully expect and am not surprised that those who oppose them are swinging back. It's just a bit unfortunate they are swinging so hard at children. When you consider the very definition of activism and its role in history (especially in the United States of America) its a bit disparaging to minimize the actions of the Parkland students as a reaction to those who "don't fall in step with them". That all being said, by no means are they experts or all-knowing concerning the cause they fight for, with that I can agree. But that also does not mean they are to be eliminated from the conversation or waive their right to express themselves freely. I also would venture to guess that through this experience they are learning quite a lot. I recently watched an interview with five less-known Parkland students and they all have varying opinions, concerns, and causes they support. They are quite a knowledgeable and bipartisan bunch of kids that have done their own individual research and have developed their own personal beliefs. Pretty neat!"

I then replied:
"Hi Bree, I say everything that follows hoping to find real solutions, to create discussion, and not to argue. I have great respect for everyone in your family, and I wouldn’t want this to change that..

My point about the Trump’s was mostly in regard to the way their child (Baron) has been treated. One can’t say that because they’re children they can’t be criticized while saying “yeah but” and then dismissing how Baron is treated. I was only trying to point out the double standard as being just that.. The modern media has had no problems saying awful things or allowing them to be said because it suits them.

To suggest that the “children” who are trying to change the constitution and remove a natural-born right shouldn’t be called on the carpet for the hyperbole they’ve been spouting (calling members of the NRA killers, or saying that they have blood on their hands, etc) because they’re purposefully instigating to bring awareness is a bad road to head down. They are children. A couple of them seem pretty petulant and in need of some pretty serious correction/discipline. These children are parroting the same talking points that have been used for some time by those wishing to enact gun control (most times with little to no evidence that back up the argument). I think many on the pro-gun side are hearing Nancy Palosi (sp) talk when they hear/see the kids say some of the very same things.

I don’t want them eliminated from the conversation (and I would hypothesize that many of the people criticizing them don’t either).. I’d like to see the rhetoric, name calling, and antics stop. Come, meet the other side at the table with some level of civility. I understand it’s a heated topic, but there is no need for the behavior the farthest on both sides have shown.

I’m not sure which studies you’re drawing from about activism, but I would venture to say there’s some level of decency that has to happen for people to meet somewhere in the middle. I think their behavior has done some pretty big damage to the argument when you look at how the NRA’s numbers have increased..

All that being said, I don’t agree with how they’re been treated when it comes to personal attacks.

I would be curious to see the interview that you’re talking about with the group of kids. Can you give me a link?

I hope that makes sense (I typed it on my phone)..."

She has now replied:
"Hi Nate!

I had a feeling you were referring to the treatment of Baron, but I didn’t want to assume (we all know that old saying). While I wholeheartedly agree that it isn’t fair for Baron to be criticized in any way, I still would like to reiterate my point that I question the relevancy in mentioning Baron’s treatment when discussing the student activists at Parkland.

For example, growing up if my parents were to discipline me for being rude, it wasn’t productive to me to say, “But Cailin pushed me down the stairs last week.” While my sister’s actions may have also been questionable, it has no effect on the issue at hand. This kind of discussion tactic serves solely as a diversion and an attempt to minimize the original issue.

Conversely, if the topic of this original discussion was about the treatment of Sasha and Malia Obama and the racial slurs thrown at them for participating in events such a Spring Break, or getting into Harvard, then it would be a perfect opportunity to bring up Barron Trump and the insults he has endured.

In terms of hyperbole, thats quite a subjective term itself. I’m still confused as to what the issue is here. Politics, activism, social commentary is by nature hyperbolic. People are passionate! While it would be quite easy for me to claim that many of your own statements (or my mom/dad’s for that matter!) are dangerous exaggerations, I understand that people have their beliefs and will fight passionately for them. One of the great things about this country, no?

What I understand is that your issue with the Parkland students is not that they are passionate but that they are passionate children. (Correct me if I’m wrong, children is written both in and out of “quotes” so I’m not quite sure if I’m understanding you correctly). While I cannot convince anyone that children who choose to fight passionately for their beliefs are probably good for society, I can attest that it did nothing but fantastic things for me personally. My parents raised me to fight passionately in the things I believed in, even as a child. Those things have definitely changed, but that encouragement helped me grow into someone I am very proud to be in adulthood.

In terms of this very very bad behavior you describe, I just can’t seem to find anything so terrible as to insinuate that the Parkland student activists are not civil or willing to meet or discuss with someone with different beliefs (see video below). Sadly, though I see a lot of horrible things being said about them. Perhaps you could elaborate on the bad rhetoric, name calling and inappropriate antics they’ve committed? I did see that a student who survived the shooting called the president a piece of shit shortly after the incident. Maybe this is what you might be referring to?

�What is important to remember about activism is that it is not reform itself. Activism serves only to promote, delay, or direct social, political, economic, etc, reform. Activism serves as the opportunity for private citizens to make their opinion known by means other than voting or running for local office. It’s not the role of the activist to meet somewhere in the middle as that is not the nature of activism. Activists already have formed their opinions. Now if an activist chooses to take part in the reform itself, then I would have to agree that would require some level of decency! Considering that the Parkland students are underage their options to get involved are limited, so I applaud them for turning to activism to get their voices heard! I am sure many of them will pursue public office in the future.��

And here is the link I mentioned:Trevor Noah interviews Parkland kids Perhaps after watching you’ll understand my confusion when people say these kids are inappropriate! Here you’ll see how their personal opinions differ from one another. I also think they make it so clear how badly they want everyone to remember how much they are grieving!"

So, I've got some ideas on a response, but I want to seal this up and make my case as strongly and airtight as possible (while still being respectful).. Thoughts? Points you'd make? Links to videos that help make my case? Please help me ladies and gentlemen!

my advice, walk away. No one ever has won an internet debate. Push back go enjoy your family, pets, hobbies etc.....

You are both heavily invested in winning at this point which virtually guarantees neither of you will win. There is no magic phrase or fact that will enlighten either of you to the others position. Just thank her for an honest and civil discourse then stop. There is nothing to gain from continuing that discussion.

A complete waste of time. Pointless. You might as well try to reason with cattle in a pasture.

Well, jeez... I was hoping for something.. Different.. I knew it was something that was going to be difficult to do, but I thought it was worth a try.

Either you think you can change their minds, or you're trying to be right. The former is impossible and the latter is pointless.

15-17 year olds who wade into the public discussion are open to public attack.

Just like they would be charged with murder at that age.

Didn't start none, wouldn't be none.

There is a ton of research in communication theory in addition to good old common sense that says you are pissing up a rope.

In a nutshell the harder you push the narrower her opening (or latitude) to accept what you are saying becomes. She obviously has high ego involvement with this issue.

Social judgement theory. It's interesting especially when applied in context to social media.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Either you think you can change their minds, or you're trying to be right. The former is impossible and the latter is pointless.

Well I clearly think I'm right, but my hope was to change her mind to not automatically accept the behavior just because they were on "her side".. Thanks for walking me back into reality.

quote:

Originally posted by goatboyz:
I just can’t seem to find anything so terrible as to insinuate that the Parkland student activists are not civil

She must have missed the town meeting where the students showed their 'civility' with NRA spokeswoman, Dana Loesch.

They are children, quit trying to reason with them and their immature thoughts.

quote:

Originally posted by goatboyz:
Well, jeez... I was hoping for something.. Different.. I knew it was something that was going to be difficult to do, but I thought it was worth a try.

I've generally found such discussions to be pointless. To the point I no longer engage in them. I will correct false public assertions, as the mood strikes and time allows, but I no longer attempt to engage leftists in rational debate. (Or True Believers of any stripe, really.)

Witness her statement

quote:

In terms of this very very bad behavior you describe, I just can’t seem to find anything so terrible as to insinuate that the Parkland student activists are not civil or willing to meet or discuss with someone with different beliefs (see video below).

If she couldn't find it, she has to have been purposely avoiding finding it, because such things are all over the 'net.

IMO it's time to close with "I think we'll just have to agree to disagree" and leave it at that.

And for God's sake, do NOT allow yourself to be drawn back into the discussion IRL.

quote:

Originally posted by goatboyz:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Either you think you can change their minds, or you're trying to be right. The former is impossible and the latter is pointless.

Well I clearly think I'm right, but my hope was to change her mind to not automatically accept the behavior just because they were on "her side".. Thanks for walking me back into reality.

To reiterate: It's unlikely you will change someone's mind that has an opposing viewpoint as yours (Although, I actually did this once, on the topic of guns). The point of an argument/discussion in a public/semi-public forum is to sway those who have a neutral opinion to your side.

The one time I actually got an anti-gunner to agree I was right, at least on the point of banning guns (think CCW) on college campuses (This person worked on a campus). Her argument was that it would prevent someone from shooting their professor, if they got a bad grade. My argument was that if someone was so unbalanced that they had decided on a course of action (murder), whose consequences were that they could be sentenced to life in prison or death, that the comparative minuscule punishment for bringing a gun on campus was surely not going to deter them. They got it.

The old saw "children should be seen and not heard" was followed when I was young. In family gatherings there was "adult" talk and "child" talk, and seldom was there any mixing of the two. Children were considered to be immature and without worldly experience, and their views on "adult" subjects simply were not given any attention. Frankly, I have not seen any reason to change that approach. Yes, they can have their opinions, and are even lawfully permitted to express them; that does not mean that I, or any other adult, needs to listen or give credence to them. Until they are on their own and paying their way, their braying is pointless.

flashguy

The Salem witch trials come to mind. Here were young girls, afforded only a very limited role in socialty, suddenly showered with attention, treated like rock stars and people were hanging on every word. Those that questioned these children often were themselves charged or were ostracized.
It wasn't until they accused those with real power that the population turned on them.
Right now, with the Parkland group, they are still being treated like rock stars. That's because they are useful.in time they will have their moment and be discarded.

I have a much different view than those posted above. Granted I am in the “younger” demographic at only 32, however I would invite the young lady and her parents to have a sit down discussion about facts.
Ask her to prepare her arguments for say a week while you prepare yours. And have a civil sit down discussion about those facts with parents present but only there to observe.
The argument is frequently made that neither side of the gun lobby is willing to sit down and start the conversation. Be the one to do it. Especially with a young lady who will be a future voter.

My idea comes from my time in high school doing Lincoln Douglas debate. Each party gets a subject beforehand and must argue both sides. This allows both parties to research each side of an argument.

If this was a random person I would say forget it. Since this is a person you know and clearly respect their family I would attempt to engage in discussion civily and in person.

As I’ve shown before in other threads in this Forum, the math proves that the number of both mass and individual shootings and deaths in relation to the number of gun owners and specific types of firearms in circulation is extraordinarily small—-in the hundredths of one percent.

The only problem is that the left does not deal in logic—-they deal in emotional blackmail.

Let’s say I showed NTSB and insurance data detailing the number of deaths involving drivers under age 21 who were shown to have been driving recklessly and/or speeding. Although it shows those traffic deaths to be significantly higher percentage-wise than firearm deaths, the left would angrily deny the facts and call me every name in the book, because it refutes their claims and exposes their false narrative.

Probably the only way to have gotten through to your online friend is to ask one question:

“Regardless of how the Parkland shooter obtained his weapon, when it became obvious that the Broward County Sheriff’s deputies weren’t going to protect those children, wouldn’t you have given anything if an armed citizen or teacher had been there to give them a fighting chance?”

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
15-17 year olds who wade into the public discussion are open to public attack.

Just like they would be charged with murder at that age.

Didn't start none, wouldn't be none.

Exactly.

The commies KNOW that using children to do their dirty work affords them some public sympathy because they're kids. No different than Palestinians using children to do their dirty work in Israel.

Any high school kid who grabs the public weenie prize of being the Spokesman of a Generation should be open to ALL responses, positive or negative.

And Para is 100% correct; engaging with idiots such as these is an utter waste of time. I have long ago stopped trying to change commie's minds about guns.

But you could win the internets!

"You're an idiot. I hope you live long enough to realize it."

Done.

I think it is best at this point to agree to disagree. She is unwilling to view her side of the discussion with an open mind and has come to a conclusion she is right. The same might be said of you. Does this mean you are wrong? I hope not because I am on the same side of the discussion with similar beliefs. I would commend her for her civil conversation while reminding her that this is something we on this side of this debate rarely see anymore, and I would invite her to join you at the range on your dime. Should she be open to that it might go farther towards changing her viewpoint than any internet/email argument.

Arguing with idiots is a waste of time, especially on the internet.