Moms are afraid our children will be taken away and in the end, I think that’s the emotion that will win the debate.
Founder of Moms Demand Action and a board member for Everytown for Gun Safety
April 16, 2014
Can $50 Million Buy Michael Bloomberg Gun Control?
[There you have it. In their world view debates can and should be won on emotions.
Of course in her emotion fogged view of the universe she cannot comprehend the emotion of those that feel threatened that the government is going to restrict their ability to defend themselves and their children. So even if we were forced to debate strictly on an emotional battle field we have some powerful weapons and a lot of ammunition.—Joe]
Drill down that feeling she has, that her kids are going to be taken away.
Why does she feel like that?
Are her kids in a drug running gang?
Do they perform high-risk crimes like home invasions?
Do they possess firearms illegally and use them while intoxicated or high?
What other risks of being shot do they exhibit?
Why, as a mother, has she not protected her children from death by gunshots by making them stop their high-risk activity?
In other words, what is wrong with HER?
No, her end goal is to ban guns. Her reasons are unknown, and her words can’t be taken at face value.
Her emotional arguments are the same as any person stirring up genocide. The Jews were NOT the cause of the problems in 20th Century Germany, but emotional arguments lead to them being placed in camps.
The Educated people were NOT the cause of the problems with mid-20th Century Cambodia, but emotional arguments were used to send them to the killing fields.
Alcohol was not a serious problem in America in the early 20th Century, but emotional arguments were used to create prohibition.
Emotional arguments in a pre-information age WERE effective, and without a counter offensive they can STILL be effective.
“Moms are afraid our children will be taken away…”
Then they should fear Progressives more than anything on Earth. CPS, Boston’s Children’s Hospital, public education and Common Core, AND of course the Progressives’ battle against the right of self defense are all attempts to “take your children away”. Generally, when ever and where ever Progressive doctrine gets its way, stagnation, decline, and high crime rule. Just looking at the fact that Progressives believe there are far too many humans on the planet is reason enough to distrust any of them with things like issues involving personal safety.
Emotional arguments count with women.
Joe says he’s in love. How do you quantify that? Or maybe you don’t? Maybe, you don’t know what love is?
(Just trying to give you some perspective which seems to be sorely lacking with the analytical set.)
P.S. 53% of all voters are women. That’s a statistic you might understand.
So you’re saying women are mere slaves to their emotions, ignore reason, and can be led by the nose by emotional appeals? I seem to recall that being an actual argument made by opponents of Suffrage.
Seems kind of anti-empowering and anti-Feminist to me.
When women got the vote, the country started heading toward socialism, judging by the results. FDR used this with great effect. This problem is one of the reasons the founders did not allow women to vote. Debating women on the built-in problems with socialism is difficult, since they tend not to care so much for facts, but constantly go back to their emotional basis for it. Very frustrating to try to talk to someone who you know is smart, and then have them resort to emotional baggage when politics comes up. It’s like dealing with multiple personalities in the same body.
Frankly, I would very much prefer that some sort of testing on knowledge of history from the political viewpoint is required, to be allowed to vote in ANY election here. Yes, this would bar a great deal of people from voting. The lazy, the stupid, and the uninterested, would be kept from screwing up the nation. Still might not fix the problem, but it should help.
Oh, Ubu! So now Women can’t Think and use Logic, that they are Ruled by their Emotions?
Better not let Hillary and Michelle hear you say that.
What ubu is trying to say is that women are illogical and ruled by their emotions, except when it’s politically inconvenient.
Women aren’t illogical.
It’s seems that most of the men here pride themselves on using logic and facts only. That means they are only capable of using a certain percentage of their brain. The portion of the brain they can’t seem to use is the portion that deals with emotions.
Think this is BS? Nope. It’s science. http://bigthink.com/experts-corner/decisions-are-emotional-not-logical-the-neuroscience-behind-decision-making
Of course, if you read the article, you will discover that all decision-making is emotional, so you ARE using your emotions. However, the very fact that you can’t see that is your blind spot.
Umm, no. Yet another nice try and fail at an insult though.
What most, if not all, *people*, men and women, are capable of doing is recognizing when they are responding on pure emotion and tempering and correcting it with logic and reason; regardless of how it makes them “feel.”
For most of us it is part of growing up, we stop throwing tantrums as our brains develop and we realize that is a fruitless endeavor. Being able to *recognize* emotion and setting it aside to reason like adults isn’t the same as not *having* emotions or not “having access to part of our brains.”
I think it was Homer Simpson who once said, “Aw honey, just because I don’t *care* doesn’t mean I don’t *understand*.”
What you are overlooking is that some people do NOT grow out of thinking that throwing a tantrum works, because for them it does. Depending on the details of how they were raised, we usually think of those people as spoiled, or a princess, or a diva, or a rich kid, or whatever. You know the type. They don’t argue in the sense of using logic, facts, chains of cause and reaction, they browbeat, scream, ridicule, belittle, threaten, and appeal to emotion (fear, hatred, uncertainty, etc). They are adults in the physical sense, but not mentally.
“It’s seems that most of the men here pride themselves on using logic and facts only.” Assumption on your part, and wrong.
The point, which you keep missing, is that arguments like Ms. Watts (and virtually every argument on the left) is nothing BUT emotion. That’s because they have nothing else to use.
I’m thinking Hillary and M’chElle are happy that many women are that way. And all the demasculated guys trained to eschew rational thought as well.
What exactly is this “Moms Demand Action” thing, anyway? I thought I saw a listing for that on late night HBO.
I thought it was probably the name of a porno site but there were way to many words and not enough pictures and video for good porn so I only spent a few seconds there.
What M. Carberry said, the first time. I forsee the demise of MDA. They will go into the dustbin when their feminist/progressive supports erodes, and it is eroding every time they come off as airheads, which is each time they flap their yaps. The hardcore feminists can’t project emotion, and they can only narrowly support women who rely on it, and then only with condescension.
Unless she home-schools her kids she has already given them away – to the Gov.
I wonder if Shannon has got a case of…
Maybe who Shannon REALLY fears is MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry who said (in the network’s “Lean Forward” campaign):
“We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we’ve always had a private notion of children, your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”
Or to put it in Hillary’s lingo: “It takes a village to raise a child.”
Pingback: Moms Demand Action: Emotion Wins Debates |
Pingback: Moms Demand Action: Emotion FTW | The Truth About Guns
Pingback: Moms Demand Action: Emotion Wins Debates