Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Let's have a dialogue regarding American culture

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Let's have a dialogue regarding American culture
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Triban

Joined: 14 Jul 2009
Location: Suwon Station

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 6:06 pm Post subject:

Dayum, Fox got pwned.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject:

.38 Special wrote:

Selectively taking statements out of context an argument does not make.

1. Many people arbitrarily despise firearms as a fundamental political belief.

No, many people don't. No one is simply against firearms just because. They're against firearms because they're deadly weapons. There's nothing arbitrary about it, you're simply misconstruing them to make them seem irrational because of your own pro-gun views (which is why you didn't pair this statement with an assertion that some people were arbitrarily pro-gun).

.38 Special wrote:

2. It is fanatical and irrational to blame firearms for violence.

I agree. It's not, however, fanatical or irrational to condemn firearms for ensuring violence more often results in death or serious injury.

.38 Special wrote:

Quote:

But most Americans will know this: A gun can protect you, it can feed you, and it can kill you. This is no simple binary, and only those who are fanatically and irrationally against the existence of arms are foolish enough to believe otherwise.

No one is irrationally against the existence of firearms. There is some fanaticism, but said fanaticism is totally rational. Only an irrationally and fanatically pro-gun individual would characterize anti-gun sentiment as irrational.

.38 Special wrote:

Quote:

The only fanatic irrationalism I see here is someone calling it fanatical and irrational to be against guns. There are entirely rational reasons to be against gun ownership.

It would be lovely if you could come by and explain what you did wrong, but, as that is unlikely, I will run it out. Note the bold line. Now read the quote above it. What is fanatic and irrational? Denying the binary relationship of provider and destroyer inherent to firearms.

What is fanatic and irrational is your characterization of anti-gun individuals and your deliberate misconstrual of their case. No one is simply arbitrarily against guns, and only a pro-gun fanatic would even make such a claim.

.38 Special wrote:

Literacy is not an absolute value. It varies by degrees. As does illiteracy. Read, comprehend; this is the process of reading.

Keep trying to imply that I misunderstood what you said. It won't win you any points. I understand your case perfectly, and it amounts to a deliberate misportrayal of people who are against gun ownership, made in service to a clearly pro-gun agenda.

.38 Special wrote:

Quote:

.38 Special wrote:

That's because it is tied very closely to the concepts of good and evil, heroes versus villains, with great wars that consumed a majority's ancestors (some of whom are still alive). In American lore, a man either lives or dies by the gun. Also in American lore, the good guy with the gun wins.

You've clearly got a very romanticized view of these weapons.

You forgot to quote the line that immediately follows that:

Quote:

Both of which are patently false, of course, but that's lore for you.

I didn't quote it because it's irrelevent. You felt this lore was worth discussing, and as a result it clearly has an impact on your thoughts and feelings. As a result, your view of guns is romanticized. No doubt this romantic view of these weapons is also part of what causes you to attack those who are against them.

.38 Special wrote:

Scroll up. Read the thread title. Read the OP. Read the forward to my post. Repeat as necessary. That can apply to most of the things in your response. This is about American culture. This is not about me. This is not about you.

I disagree entirely, unless you're not an American. I, for one, am. Even if you aren't an American, you're still very representative of a subsection of American culture with regards to the topic of guns (especially with regards to your intentional mischaracterization of people who are anti-gun ownership). By discussing your views on this topic, we are in turn discussing a large portion of America's views on this topic.

.38 Special wrote:

If you would like an accurate, realistic treatise on firearms in the United States, you have come to the very wrong thread.

Well, at least we both agree your post was by no means accurate or realistic.

.38 Special wrote:

And remember boys and girls: Do not respond to something that you are not willing to first actually read. You know, like, read-read. Comprehension and stuff.

I understood 100% of your post. Especially the part where you misconstrued a group of people as "Irrational and fanatic individuals who are arbitrarily against gun ownership."

.38 Special

Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:56 pm Post subject:

We're only going to do this one more time, Fox. Then it's grow up or shut up, as your misdirected tirade against my description of common American culture isn't exactly the dialogue the OP had in mind.

1.

Quote:

The arbitrary hatred of firearms is arbitrary as it is not logical, nor is anything about firearms relevant to the hatred of them. Firearms are deadly weapons. But they don't hold a candle against the sun to automobiles. And I did not discount the possibility of being arbitrarily pro-gun, either. There are a great many who are arbitrarily for firearms as against, although they are much fewer than those who are against because those who are for firearm ownership are generally those who have actually used or witnessed firearms being used.

This has nothing to do with my views, and your ad hominem isn't doing you any favors in this argument. This has nothing to do with the actual use of firearms. Any belief unfounded in reason, logic, or experience is arbitrary.

2.

Quote:

I agree. It's not, however, fanatical or irrational to condemn firearms for ensuring violence more often results in death or serious injury.

[...]

No one is irrationally against the existence of firearms. There is some fanaticism, but said fanaticism is totally rational. Only an irrationally and fanatically pro-gun individual would characterize anti-gun sentiment as irrational.

You still don't get it. Firearms do not kill people. Cars do not drive to work. Firearms are fired and cars are driven. They do not possess free will. They do not influence the people that possess them. They are not magical. There is no evil ju-ju.

Firearms do indeed ensure a greater probability of death in any violent encounter. As do knives, baseball bats, and automobiles. This is not something idiosyncratic to firearms. Firearms especially among weapons, intended or improvised, are portable, and therefore more useful in offense and defense. To become so engrossed in the perception that firearms only harm, and therefore effect policy such that firearms can only be used to cause harm (i.e., to make firearm ownership a crime so that only criminals can own them), is fanatical devotion to a delusion and logical fallacy.

3.

Quote:

Many people are arbitrarily against firearms. At no point did I "construe" anti-gun folks as being totally arbitrary in their argumentation. You would be wise not to use a verb that can so easily be applied against the very same statement you use it in.

4.

Quote:

If you understand what I am saying so well, that many people are arbitrarily against something, but at no point did I say that a certain position was wholly arbitrary, then why are we still having this conversation, Fox? Need I implore you, once again, to READ what I wrote? That is, not to inject your own language into it?

I am somewhat curious what my "pro-gun agenda" is though. Am I indoctrinating the poor perusers of Dave's ESL Cafe with my horrible propaganda regarding American culture? Surely, now, they are misled into believing that Americans believe certain things regarding firearms.

5.

Quote:

.38 Special wrote:

Quote:

.38 Special wrote:

You've clearly got a very romanticized view of these weapons.

You forgot to quote the line that immediately follows that:

Quote:

Both of which are patently false, of course, but that's lore for you.

I wrote that many Americans, as a result of literature, film, and lore, have a romanticized view of firearms and their social utility. I wrote that this is a false perception. You claim that I have a romantic view of firearms. How does this make sense? How are you reading that correctly? What could this possibly have to do with my "thoughts and feelings" when relating a cultural survey? Does the fact that I do not share that cultural perception somehow influence how I reported it?

And to be absolutely frank, Fox, it is very obvious that I'm not attacking anti-gun people (except for the irrational, the fanatical, and the arbitrary fringe). To be certain, I am attacking the uncomprehending, the stubborn, and the vain. And I reserve the right to do so with as much prejudice as I see fit. There is neither excuse nor help for the willfully incompetent.

6.

Quote:

Nothing in my original post, if read objectively and comprehensively, is attacking either those who are for or against firearms. So no, this is not about you or me. This is about stereotypes, generalizations, and synopsis of views held by other people. Americans as a whole, as large groups, of cultures and subcultures, and not individuals. So disagree all you want, but I'm afraid your opinion of what this thread is about is only relevant to one person.

7.

Quote:

.38 Special wrote:

If you would like an accurate, realistic treatise on firearms in the United States, you have come to the very wrong thread.

Well, at least we both agree your post was by no means accurate or realistic.

At some point you must have so horribly misread my assessment of American culture as to believe it was meant to be realistic or accurate against a singular topic. How very inaccurate of you.

8.

Quote:

I understood 100% of your post. Especially the part where you misconstrued a group of people as "Irrational and fanatic individuals who are arbitrarily against gun ownership."

You clearly understood nothing, because you are still fixated on arguing about something that you had imagined I wrote. You may 100% understand what you believed I wrote, based on your misreading, but ultimately you are arguing against yourself using incorrectly paraphrased arguments from someone else. For example, the quote you attribute to me, I never said. It is a misread, misconstrued fallacy of your own invention. I'll make this easier for you. Compare:

What you claim I wrote:

Quote:

"Irrational and fanatic individuals who are arbitrarily against gun ownership."

What I actually wrote:

Quote:

The subject of the second sentence is "no simple binary." It is not "gun ownership." This is basic comprehension. Note the emphasis. My actual words say that "only those who are fanatically and irrationally against the existence of arms are foolish enough to believe otherwise." "Otherwise" is referring to the "no simple binary" in the preceding clause, which is the prevailing subject of the sentence. It must take substantial effort to so wholly distort what you read. Re-read my original post or do not again respond to it or others by me. I am done helping you argue against your imagined adversary that you project onto me.

Last edited by .38 Special on Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

youtuber

Joined: 13 Sep 2009

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:16 pm Post subject:

.38 Special and Fox, Isn't it just easier to phone each other up and argue rather than the tedious quoting and picking apart every little phrase?

.38 Special

Joined: 08 Jul 2009
Location: Pennsylvania

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:24 pm Post subject:

youtuber wrote:

.38 Special and Fox,

Isn't it just easier to phone each other up and argue rather than the tedious quoting and picking apart every little phrase? Laughing

If he listens as well as he reads, I'm afraid it would not be a very productive conversation.

As I said, the argument is finished. Let us all merrily return to our lately aborted dialogue on American culture. That is, let us discuss content and not delivery.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:34 pm Post subject:

.38 Special wrote:

Feel free to "shut up" as you put it any time you like. My opposition to your deliberate mischaracterization of anti-gun ownership individuals as irrational, arbitrary fanatics isn't going to change. I'm not asking for you to respond; no further explanation is required from you. You've said things I disagreed with, and I've criticized them. If you keep trying to justify them, I'll probably keep criticizing them.

.38 Special wrote:

There is something about firearms that induces the hatred in question. You yourself even point out that very thing: the fact that they are deadly weapons. You compare them to cars, but cars are tools designed for transport. Sure, it's possible to kill someone with a car, but it's not their purpose. Guns are designed to kill. Whether it's killing in self-defense, killing for food, or killing for other reasons, they're weapons and only weapons. It's entirely rational to be against them, and there's nothing arbitrary about it. Only a disingenuous, fanatically pro-gun individual would assert otherwise.

.38 Special wrote:

And I did not discount the possibility of being arbitrarily pro-gun, either.

But you didn't mention it, while you did mention -- in detail -- the anti-gun individuals. Your bias on the topic is clear, and it's a fanatical bias, as you'd put it.

.38 Special wrote:

This has nothing to do with my views...

It has everything to do with your views, which are indicative of many Americans' views, and thus relevent to the topic at hand.

.38 Special wrote:

... and your ad hominem isn't doing you any favors in this argument.

I haven't employed an ad hominem argument against you.

.38 Special wrote:

Any belief unfounded in reason, logic, or experience is arbitrary.

Fortunately no one has such a belief. People who are against firearms are against them for a totally logical reason: they're deadly weapons, by design.

.38 Special wrote:

Firearms do indeed ensure a greater probability of death in any violent encounter. As do knives, baseball bats, and automobiles.

I agree. However, knives, baseball bats, and automobiles all serve purposes independent of harming living beings. If we abolished cars, we'd give up far more than a tool for killing. If we got rid of knives, it would be hard to even eat and prepare food! Guns, on the other hand, are just tools for killing. As such, no, they're not comparable to the other things you listed here. One can be against guns while simultaneously being for knives, baseball bats, and automobiles without being inconsistent at all.

.38 Special wrote:

Many people are arbitrarily against firearms.

No, they aren't. They're against firearms for reasons. You might disagree with those reasons being sufficient to justify their beliefs, but that doesn't make their beliefs arbitrary. You're misconstruing anti-gun ownership individuals to try to make their case seem weaker than it is.

.38 Special wrote:

If you understand what I am saying so well, that many people are arbitrarily against something ...

I reject entirely this totally unfounded claim that many people are arbitrarily against firearms. You can keep saying it, and it will keep being wrong. You keep acting like I don't understand what you're saying, but I do. It's simply wrong. It's not hard to understand, it's just wrong.

.38 Special wrote:

Because saying and feeling are two different things. Simply put, I believe that while you intellectually understand this view is wrong, it still has sway over your heart. I admit this is a suspicion, but you're not likely to convince me otherwise after the way you've been speaking. You're very clearly not just pro-gun, but possessed of a negative view of people who are anti-gun. People like that are motivated by more than cold logic; there's emotion at work, and emotion on this topic is generally caused by romanticization of the weapons in question. I especially consider this true given you felt it was worth bringing up this "lore" in the first place.

.38 Special wrote:

And to be absolutely frank, Fox, it is very obvious that I'm not attacking anti-gun people (except for the irrational, the fanatical, and the arbitrary fringe).

As soon as you started using words like irrational, fanatical, and arbitrary, you started attacking anti-gun people. Try to qualify that with "Oh, I'm just attacking the fringe," all you like, but on the topic of gun control, there really isn't much of a fringe to attack. In particular, this idea that you're attacking the fringe directly contradicts your claim that many people hold beliefs you've classified as "irrational, fanatical, and arbitrary."

.38 Special wrote:

Nothing in my original post, if read objectively and comprehensively, is attacking either those who are for or against firearms.

I disagree entirely. Classifying people as irrational, fanatical, and arbitrary in their beliefs is an attack. You've tried to qualify that by claiming that such people represent a "fringe" of sorts, but it's nonsense you tacked on later to try to avoid criticism instead of having to retract. In the anti-gun ownership movement, there's very little real room for variation.

.38 Special wrote:

So no, this is not about you or me. This is about stereotypes ...

Funny you should mention that, I feel very much right now like you're literally acting out one of those stereotypes. As such, I feel perfectly comfortable addressing your views in representation of those stereotypical views.

.38 Special wrote:

At some point you must have so horribly misread my assessment of American culture as to imply it was meant to be realistic or accurate against a singular topic.

So, again, you reiterate that your commentary on guns isn't accurate or realistic. Okay, I agree: there's nothing realistic or accurate about the idea that there are many people who are simply arbitrarily against guns.

.38 Special wrote:

You clearly understood nothing, because you are still fixated on arguing about something that you had imagined I wrote.

Anyone who wants to see you use the words arbitrary, irrational, or fanatical in reference to a group of people who are against gun ownership can simply read earlier posts in the thread.

.38 Special wrote:

What you claim I wrote:

Quote:

"Irrational and fanatic individuals who are arbitrarily against gun ownership."

What I actually wrote:

Quote:

The bolded segment of your quote and my words match up almost perfectly (minus the word arbitrary, which you use later). You clearly state you consider those people to exist based on you reference to them, and you refer to those people in terms that can only be considered an attack.

.38 Special wrote:

Re-read my original thread or do not again respond. I am done helping you argue against yourself.

Keep portraying yourself as misunderstood, and I'll keep criticizing your ridiculous and unjustified categorization of a segment of the anti-gun population as holding irrational and arbitrary beliefs. We can do that as long as you like. I have to say, though, it's shocking to me that you seem to think you can simply order me not to respond. If you don't want to talk, then don't talk, but psychological ploys like this simply don't work.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:42 pm Post subject:

youtuber wrote:

.38 Special and Fox,

Isn't it just easier to phone each other up and argue rather than the tedious quoting and picking apart every little phrase? Laughing

I don't have private conversations with disingenuous people.

Bloopity Bloop

Joined: 26 Apr 2009
Location: Seoul yo

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:46 pm Post subject:

Chimichangas.

Perceptioncheck

Joined: 13 Oct 2008

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject:

Do you know what I really hate? "I could care less". I mean, if you could. . .then why don't you? Is this peculiar to the states or is it a North American thing?

djsmnc

Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:22 am Post subject:

Perceptioncheck wrote:

Do you know what I really hate?

"I could care less".

I mean, if you could. . .then why don't you?

Is this peculiar to the states or is it a North American thing?

I hear this one from English speakers of all nationalities, actually

roknroll

Joined: 29 Dec 2007

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:12 am Post subject:

Perceptioncheck wrote:

Do you know what I really hate?

"I could care less".

I mean, if you could. . .then why don't you?

Is this peculiar to the states or is it a North American thing?

For some reason, the first line reminded me of Jack Handey. Cool

Not particular to the US.

Here's a situation where it might make sense, in a Jack Handey way:

A has a penchant for talking about xyz. B has no interest in xyz and has heard it on more than one occasion.

A: Hey, did you hear the latest about xyz?
B: I've told you before, not interested, don't follow it.

A: It was great, you should've seen the way he got outta a big fix.
B: I could care less.

A: No, really. You should watch it sometime. Next week he'll be meeting his .....
B: I couldn't care less, STFU.

I could care less~ don't bother me with it
I couldn't care less~STFU Smile

but seriously, yeah it is a bit bothersome along with double negatives, tautologies and 'a variety of different mistakes' ( Wink

).

Last edited by roknroll on Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:52 am; edited 1 time in total

Koveras

Joined: 09 Oct 2008

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 10:03 am Post subject:

Perceptioncheck wrote:

Do you know what I really hate?

"I could care less".

I mean, if you could. . .then why don't you?

Is this peculiar to the states or is it a North American thing?

We say it in Canada too. I sometimes say it myself.

Fermentator75

Joined: 27 Jul 2009

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:44 pm Post subject:

Hey Fox, so what is your opinion on Obama's new health care plan? I couldn't care more or less.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:14 pm Post subject:

Fermentator75 wrote:

Hey Fox, so what is your opinion on Obama's new health care plan?

In short: a laughable failure at instituting any real reform.

rusty1983

Joined: 30 Jan 2007

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:33 pm Post subject:

Do we have to have a dialogue about it? It just ends up in pointless slanging

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe