Quote of the day—mikeb302000

Linoge, You and Joe are too strong for me. By that I mean a great compliment. Your knowledge of the subject is too great for me to compete with. I’ve said this to Kevin a while back. Yet, as prolix and fact-laden as you guys are, I don’t find the argument convincing. I honestly read what you write, but I cannot answer your first question about what it would take to convince me.

Comment on February 15, 2010 to Direct confrontation with the Brady Campaign
[mikeb302000 is one of the few anti-gun bloggers in existence. He used to frequently comment on here on my blog. I was one of the few bloggers that didn’t ban him.

He also doesn’t know how to determine truth from falsity.

A response such as his is fairly common when I debate this face to face. Those that remain stuck to their fallacious beliefs cannot tell me what it would take to change their beliefs and furthermore cannot tell me how they determine truth from falsity. That should be very telling.—Joe]


9 thoughts on “Quote of the day—mikeb302000

  1. In other words, his is a religious belief, a matter of faith. It is NOT a logical, rational, or arguable position. He is a proselytizer, a preacher selling redemption and a clear conscience, not an actual solution to a real-world problem.

  2. Joe,

    Just a quick note. I didn’t ban Mikeb302000 from my blog; I simply said he had to fess up to his firearm ownership, practices and experiences in the same detail he’s asked about ours.

    He is free to comment on my blog any time he fesses up but he is unwilling to do so. I assume it is due to his illegally owning firearms. His unwillingness to discuss his past, while stating that gun owners should fully disclose theirs & allow for mental health screenings, etc is typical of his mentality.

    • Likewise, I only “banned” MikeB insofar as I informed him that any future comment containing his seemingly invariably personal attacks, libel, innuendo, and/or accusations would be summarily deleted without mercy. Strangely, he never much commented on my site after that rule was laid down.

      Cannot say as though I am terribly surprised by that.

  3. Joe, I’ve been reading your blog for a couple years now but I cannot locate any descriptions of your mechanism of determination. I’m curious to know.

  4. It’s purely emotional. If you understand the mechanism of hypnotism, you’d have a better understanding of such behavior.

    “In other words, his is a religious belief, a matter of faith.”
    I think you have it, and at the same time you slander religion. However, there is religion on one hand, and on the other there is salvation, or a state of grace, which is not religion. Religion, that is, the chapter and verse, the preachers and the congregations, is *supposed* to be a means to a state of being. Once you’re there, you have no use for them. You’re never going to “reason” someone like Jesus out of being Jesus for example. And we know that you wouldn’t be able to torture him out of being Jesus, ’cause they tried that and failed.

    A similar process may be going on with the “religion” of communism, its chapter and verse being unnecessary at some stage. I don’t know. Maybe it doesn’t matter.

  5. Lyle, it’s more a matter of wrapping one’s self-identity around a belief system, to the point where the line between the belief and the self ceases to exist. If the very foundations and underpinnings of that belief system are shown to be false, the person who has wrapped their identity around said system has two choices; either admit they were wrong and disengage from something they have made a part of their being, or attack anything that might be perceived as a threat to that belief, and therefore, a threat to them.

    For the “True Believer,” pointing out that the sky is not, in fact, orange, and that water really IS wet, is not simply a contradiction of belief, but the next thing to a physical assault upon their person. For some, it’s MORE of an assault than any punch; you’re not just attacking their nose, but their judgement and intelligence. For them, there is no intellectual difference between showing them to be wrong, and pointing a gun at them; they perceive either as an assault upon their life.

  6. As I’ve said before, I don’t know that I can fault him too much for not being able to say what would convince him, because I don’t think I could say what would convince me that banning guns was the right thing to do, either.

Comments are closed.