A commitment to ‘Reasoned Discourse’

I’m sure no one will be surprised that Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson is now firmly committing herself to “Reasoned Discourse”:

After careful thought and reflection about the direction my blog has taken since I asked questions and got answers from the “gun guys”, I have changed the purpose of my blog. As stated in my last post, I have found that most of the comments were just not getting the two sides of this volatile issue to a place where a thoughtful discussion could take place. Though the title of my blog indicates that I would like to have a discussion, I am not sure that is possible.

But after spending the last few weeks reading and responding to the many comments written on my blog, I realized that, rather than coming closer to an understanding, we have become further apart.

[M]y intention for my blog will not be a discussion but rather a way to keep the issue front and center and to urge those who can do something about gun injuries and deaths to put this issue more towards the top of the agenda.

She is right, it isn’t possible to have a discussion with a bigot who is incapable of distinguishing truth from falsity. And we should not dignify her bigotry regarding a specific enumerated human right by engaging her on her turf.


12 thoughts on “A commitment to ‘Reasoned Discourse’

  1. Maybe she should consider this an example of when you get something you ask for which then it turns out not to be what you thought it would be. Though, I doubt she will be able to see how this example could apply to her major ambition.

  2. Whoa, whoa, whoa; no one said anything about rational. Reasoned discourse was the aim, and no specification as to the quality of the reasoning was given. But you never know, meyhap some forlorn ray of factual evidence or an errant splinter of critical thought will make her reconsider her position. And really, if you want to mess with your enemy, you do it where he feels safe, comfortable; you know, where they’re vulnerable.

  3. I’ve always been dubious of people who call for “open minds”. I especially detest a bumper sticker that asked the question “Why is it that the people with closed minds are the ones who open their minds the most?”

    To answer the question: someone who’s “closed” their mind on an idea likely concluded that it’s correct, and that it’s good, and they want others to know about it. If you don’t think an idea is correct and good, you won’t say anything about it!

    But, overall, it seems that those who call for an “open mind” are calling to be open-minded about something that they’ve closed their mind on. If you want them to open their mind, to consider your closed-minded idea, they get really offended.

  4. A thoughtful discussion depends on actual thoughts being formed, verbalized, and exchanged. I wonder what her position is on the death penalty and on abortion.

  5. Amazing, isn’t it, that the armies of the righteous have not also charged into her comment section to take up the banner of her cause?


  6. Ahhh, Ms.Peterson’s fweelings are hurt because the Big Bad Gun Owners picked on her! You, you, you’re all just a Bunch of Mean Haters bullying the Poor Witlle Brady’s! You should be ashamed, picking on a poor, defenseless Anti! Or not.

  7. Wow. In the space of my two-week vacation, that particular bigoted hoplophobe went from “Ladedadeda, I can convince the unbelievers!” to “Screw you all, I am taking my marbles and going home!”

    1. That certainly did not take long at all, and B. y’all ruin all the fun ;).

    I am not sure which is sadder, though – the fact that her beliefs are so weak that they cannot stand being discussed/questioned on her own forum expressly intended for that discussion, or that she honestly believes this will stop people from rending her idiocy to shreds. Definitely not the brightest bulb in the box, there.

Comments are closed.