Slogans versus logic

Kevin has an update for his The Other Side posting. The doctor that inspired him to write the post to begin with responded. Well sort of responded. He just said:

Kevin, thanks for writing. I am all for individual rights but life is sacred. Too many guns end up in the wrong hands. Whatever reason, the youth of North Philly too easily obtain firearms which are designed to seriously wound. Furthermore, the folks who wrote the constitution also owned slaves. Times do change and we have not demonstrated that the masses, unlike you, can responsibly control firearms. Peace, JK

“Too many guns” “Wrong hands” “Too easily”

That’s the problem with getting into debates with these people. They don’t respond to any of your logic or the facts. They just chant slogans. Our side does something like what Kevin did, tearing the guys entire position to shreds, and he just chants his slogans again.

In the update Kevin tears him to pieces, again, but it’s not going to do much good in the doctors case. It can do good for our side in that observers can see the emptiness of the “argument” the bigot presents and I am not going to discourage anyone from doing that. But for me, I’m tired of investing that much time into something that will just be dismissed with couple of sentences. This is why I came up Just One Question. Kevin actually used it in his original post and, of course, the doctor ignored it.

Oh, for your reading enjoyment, here’s another good exercise in logic and facts.

2 thoughts on “Slogans versus logic

  1. Clichés emanate from he Left with astonishing predictability:

    “…the folks who wrote the constitution also owned slaves.”

    So, it’s null and void then?

    “Times do change…”

    So, the Constitution is null and void? Human nature changes with the seasons?

    “…we have not demonstrated that the masses…can responsibly control firearms.”

    And what? “We” have demonstrated that governments can responsibly control firearms? What constitutes a “demonstration”? Have “We” demonstrated that the masses can responsibly control automobiles? What exact standard of “responsible control” is he suggesting? Who is this “We” person to whom the doctor refers? “We” the medical doctors? Are the medical doctors are supposed to be running things then, or is this still a Constitutional Republic?

    I feel kind of icky debating people on the Left– its like I’m back in junior high school again, and I didn’t much enjoy junior high school.

  2. I just wanted to point out – in no uncertain terms – the good doctor’s bigotry.

    The Dred Scott court showed it against blacks, he expanded it to gun owners.

Comments are closed.