What we have here is a failure to communicate

Posted on by

First I want to get something out of the way before I make my main points.

 

I’ve been laying it on Catherine pretty thick and she updated her blog post to include some of my comments such as suggesting she look up the definition of “shill”, and commenting on my equating our struggle for gun rights to other civil rights. I will partially concede one point to her. At least one dictionary defines “shill” merely as “to act as a spokesperson or promoter”. The definition I was working from required the person pretended no association with the group or organization being promoted. Except for the Merriam-Webster dictionary cited above all the other on-line definitions I found mention deceit (or similar such as “put under cover”) as a component of the definition:

 

 

 

Hence even though I promote the civil rights agenda of the NRA because I am open about being a (life) member of the NRA, an NRA certified instructor, and communicate with them fairly regularly I am not a shill of the NRA–except if you use Catherine’s and the Merriam Webster definition. Perhaps in our on-line war of words we should just drop the shill issue. We both have adequate justification for our positions and it’s a distraction from the important points.

 

The more important point is that despite being a lawyer and a BA in English magna cum laude she has a reading (and spelling but I don’t hold that against her) problem. For example she stated:

 

Some NRA proud propagandists (they displayed a badge stating “NRA propoganda” [sic] blogger)

 

But the actual badge doesn’t say that. The badge is:

 

Unorganized Militia Propaganda Corps

 

The badge does not say what she claims it says. Furthermore it does NOT have ANYTHING to do with the NRA. Not only doesn’t it say NRA, it is not affiliated with the NRA in any way other than there is a strong correlation between people that have those badges and a NRA membership.

 

Another example. She stated:

 

They only seek to ridicule viewpoints different from theirs in the most base and crude ways.  I will not engage in that.  See my comments.  That is my right.

 

She implies someone was trying to infringe her rights in some way. No. They, and I, tried to point out the flaws in her statements and I asked her Just One Question. She refused to engage on those issues and shut off the comments. Fine, it’s her blog she can do whatever she wants with it (within legal limits such as libel and certain limits on pornography, extortion, blackmail etc. which are not at issue in this case). As near as I can determine she had trouble reading the actual words said and imagined they said something completely different.

 

Because of her refusal to engage people did ridicule her and I did call her a bigot in regards to which had the following to say:

 

I have been referred to as a “bigot” because I have a different opinion. They equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights that African Americans had in this country, which is why I am a bigot?  Yet they say my view is narrow?  Such chutzpah to even to equate gun ownership with the struggle for civil rights.  That says a lot about just how extreme and fringe they are.

 

No. Not because she had a different opinion. It was because she without thought, is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from her own. She wants to ban “assault weapons” but refuses to address the facts they are probably protected by the Second Amendment, and restrictions on them have never been shown to improve public safety. Facts, as near as I can determine, are irrelevant to her beliefs and she continues to push her beliefs. That makes her a bigot.

 

In still another example that can be explained by her inability to read we have the issue of the D.C. v. Heller ruling. I gave her a link and quoted from it. This ruling clearly states the Second Amendment is a specific enumerated right that protects the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms. That means gun ownership is, beyond any doubt, a civil right. Either she cannot read what the ruling clearly states or something else is going on. In any case that I can think other than some sort learning disability it is further confirmation she is a bigot.

 

Also of note is that my posts regarding the bigot at hand generated some hate mail. It’s been so long that this really made my day:

 

From: Skujins Andre [mailto:askujins@shaw.ca]
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2009 2:43 PM
To: blog@joehuffman.org
Subject: Comments on: Shills

Boy your title says it all mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger.  What a  complete asshole.  Hope your dog gets shot by your drunk buddies.

 

First off, I don’t have any dogs (my wife and kids have two small dogs that I occasionally interact with when I go home to Idaho). And two, I almost never drink anything with alcohol nor do I hang around with friends that are drunk. So what is appears what we have here is another person that is willing to apply false stereotypes to someone they don’t know because of their bigoted beliefs.

Share

9 thoughts on “What we have here is a failure to communicate”

  1. “The badge does not say what she claimers it says. ”

    Joe, I pointed out the whole thing with the badge to her in the most civil manner possible. My comment was still deleted. The woman absolutely cannot handle discourse. I have to wonder how she acts in a courtroom. (assuming she’s a trial lawyer)

  2. *sigh* I never get any hatemail. I got a stupid comment from Catherine herself, so I guess that has to count for something, but I never get any honest-to-God hatemail. Guess I just need to try harder.

    I was kind of wondering about the whole patch thing myself… I mean, I certainly am not going to argue the whole “propagandist” thing – after all, I help run the bloody blogroll for that little group. But the NRA tie-in was a bit much – as you pointed out, those three letters do not appear in that sequence anywhere on the image. She basically equated guns to the NRA, just like other folks equate conservative to Republican, which is a faulty logical construct in either case.

    I am certainly not a psychologist (nor do I play one on television), but this really seems like a classic case of someone being unwilling to admit any error/mistake/wrongdoing. She said it, so it must be true. Unfortunately, there is little to no hope for those kinds of people… they are unwilling to compromise, unwilling to waver, and unwilling to even consider the alternative(s).

    I really do wonder how good of a lawyer she could be with the mentality she has repeatedly displayed.

  3. She’s probably employed as a lawyer by some government agency, which means that she probably doesn’t need to be competent, most likely she only needed to be a female body to get the job in the first place.

  4. I’ve found that the words “bigot”, not unlike the word “fascist” means any opinion that disagrees with someone on the left. I’m surprised you haven’t been called a “fascist racist” yet by her. Evidently the law school she attended was weak on dictionaries.

  5. Equating anything to do w/ firearms to the NRA is pretty much the default meme for anti’s. The perfect example is Ray Schoenke blaming the Zumbo affair on the NRA when they didn’t do anything for nearly a week afterwards. Facts/evidence mean nothing.

  6. I suggest that we leave her alone. I reviewed the blog and rustmeisters and the comments that were left. She is close minded. I would love to argue that “just one life” is not a good enough arguement for a society even if it was sufiicient for her.

    Ther are risks in life and in free society ther are more risks that a foolish, venal persom will destroy a life either accidently or purposely. The child case she presents is bad, but the case of a 2 year old dying by 12 years olds is tragic. Bad law is made because of tragic events. The 12 year old would be civilly liable because he is defined to be of the age of reason. The failure to secure the rifle is also an issue of negligent supervision and securing a dangerous weapon. So the parent would be liable in most civil courts.

    But we do not take way civil rights becuase of a singular event. That would punish the many for the fault of few. That is not reasonable.

    She has a personal animus against guns and she indicated it was because of an traumatic event. She is not rational and she states that clearly that it is her opinion and her blog and she is tired of being argued about whether she can justify that opinion or not.

  7. Almost without exception (I say almost, though I cannot think of any exception at the moment) when I express disagreement with a Lefty, the reply, “I have a right to my opinion” or something very similar, is used.

    I believe some people (a lot of people) have been raised in a bubble. They’ve never had to slug it out in a real debate, and so they’ve never developed the skills. Playing the victim card (implying that you’re violating their rights by disagreeing with them) apparently works so often that it has become a reflex.

    How dare you beat up on the fragile little flower when she obviously hasn’t the facility to stand up for herself. Why, you bigot, you.

    They’re fearful. She told you to shut up when she said she could get into the technical legalese, and you didn’t listen. That’s a signal that says the conversation has gone as far as it can go. She’s out of material.

    They’re fearful, and that makes them dangerous in a lot of ways, but it also makes them vulnerable.

Comments are closed.