It begins...

[Tyler-The-Piker]

 

[jamil]

I mean. Don’t sell yourself short.

 

[Tyler-The-Piker]

 

[cbhausen]

Derek Daly told me an Irish joke so I hope it’s okay to repeat it here...

What’s the definition of an Irish queer?

An Irishman who likes women better than booze!

 

[maxwelhse]

I'm part Irish, but only on the drunken side. Can confirm.

 

[Airtevron1]

Ever display a squadron patch but not be a member of the squadron? or would that be LARPing

I was staitioned at NAS Patuxent River MD. . VX-1 1983-1986. I wear that patch proudly, I earned it.

 

[printcraft]

I haven't heard it. Sure.

Joke best delivered in your strongest Irish accent...

Do you know what an Irish 7 course meal is?

A six pack of beer and a potato.

 

[BigRed]

That isn't nuance, is it? 'Cause I hate nuance, too

I do nuance.

0biden is a mother ****ing communist piece of ****.

See... nuance.

 

[Bennettjh]

Joke best delivered in your strongest Irish accent...

Do you know what an Irish 7 course meal is?

A six pack of beer and a potato.

My dad has always said a six pack and a bag of cheetos was his 7 course meal when he was younger.

 

[Sigblaster]

Deciding to reject an ideology isn't just knowledge. You don't just reason it. You take in new information and you have a pretty good sense nearly immediately whether you accept or reject it. You instinctively accept or reject new information before you have much time to actually think about it. This is a binary process. It's instinct. Input: Gun owners voted for Biden. Nope. Can't be. They must be traitors. They want to ruin the country. You guys likely reacted this way before actually putting any rational thought at all to it. And this is why all through this thread you guys kept insisting that those people had motives they've never expressed. You say "they want to ruin 'Murica!" You're interpreting their actions by your own imagination of what someone must have to think to do what they did, without any consideration for their own reasoning.

Their side is the same way. I mean we're all human, even Leftists. Barely. But ***damnit we had the chance to have what I believe would could have been an honest conversation with one of them and y'all couldn't handle it. Ya had to get it shut down. You had a chance to see how the other side, in the same way as you do, was judging YOUR speech and actions according to their own understanding of the world. But no. Zero rules broken, yet INGO cancel culture overruled. Thread locked. Yeah. I'm still torqued off about that.

The point of that thread wasn't to flip people to one side or the other. If you go into a conversation with the goal of flipping someone over to your side, you're likely gonna fail. You can't be persuasive enough to overcome instinctive rejection. Persuasion only works with trust. This isn't proselytizing Jesus here. The best you can hope for going into these kinds of discussions is to understand what and why the other person believes what they believe.

If you don't at least understand, then you'll go around ascribing to them words that they never said, beliefs they don't actually hold, or motives they don't actually have. This country is more divided than anytime since the civil war. It is what it is because people believe the worst about the other to a point where there is no reconciliation between the Left and Right. They think the right is all terrorists. The right thinks the left is all bat **** crazy woke people hell bent on destroying the US. There are some right wing terrorists. There are some left wing bat **** crazy woke people. But not all the right are and not all the left are, even though each believes the other is.

I think a Biden voting gun owner is foolish, bad, empowering some really bad people. But "bad" is a spectrum. One of those is better than a Biden voting woke ass bat **** crazy person hell bent on destroying the US. Don't make people worse than they actually are. At some point, when Biden signs legislation that makes them felons for owning their AR, will they decide that maybe being a team player isn't working? Can they ally with sane right wing people to fight it? Not if they only have their instincts, which tell them that you're all terrorists.

There's a lot of buckshot in this post. Since I seriously screwed up in my last game of darts, I won't be shooting for a while so I have some time to address some of it.

I have had many conversations with both liberals and conservatives over the years, involving many deeply held beliefs, and there is one eternal fact that is common to all of these conversations:

I can't logic you out of a place that your emotions got you in to.

The problem is, many people run on emotions now, and refuse to employ logic in their beliefs. I admit, in the past, I have behaved the same way. My beliefs were sometimes based on a gut-feeling, emotional position to an issue. One day, I had a sort of epiphany. It came to me on my own, without any external influence. I was typing a post on another forum, advocating for my Second Amendment rights, and how my gun ownership didn't harm anyone else's rights, and why should we let the government attempt to restricts those rights, and under what authority could they do so? Then it hit me: I was a proponent of minimal interference by the government in my life, while advocating for government interference in the lives of others on other issues. Interference which in no way affected my life, or my freedom.

It was in that moment that I realized I was crying out for liberty, while I held positions that denied liberty to others. How could I defend things like declaring that the government didn't have the authority to restrict my Second Amendment rights, while declaring that the government has the power to restrict who people could choose to marry? It was a pivotal event in my consideration of my positions on many issues. It was also a time when I found myself without a political party that fully reflects my position of a government with extremely limited powers.

I find myself most closely aligned with the Republican party, because they are less likely to institute gun control (unless they have the cover of a large number of Democrats voting with them), but let's be honest, the NFA, GCA, Brady, and the AWB would have all failed without Republican votes. But the Republicans are really the only option for people who hold their Second Amendment rights as the most important issue we face.

To get back to my point about emotion ruling some people's beliefs, I could give you many examples. I had a liberal neighbor who opined that doctors should work for free. If they were truly committed to their profession, they wouldn't charge anything for their services. I was dumbfounded by this assertion, until I realized that he and his wife were about to have a baby, and he did not have very good health insurance, so it was an emotional and very personal position, as well as a financial position. No amount of conversation or logic was going to pry him from that position. I have many more examples of things like that, from both sides of the political spectrum, but I won't bore you with them, espescially because the last dart tournament has ended and I will be up to shoot again soon.

The bottom line is, you can discuss the issues with the opposition in general, and Democrats in particular, but you can't wrench them out of their very emotion-based field of view, especially when they have so many online outlets where they can find comrades to reinforce their seriously f'ed up beliefs about the direction our nation should be heading towards.

In the end, it still boils down to this:

I can't logic you out of a place that your emotions got you in to.

 

[Sigblaster]

Joke best delivered in your strongest Irish accent...

Do you know what an Irish 7 course meal is?

A six pack of beer and a potato.

I always heard the joke that it was an Irish lunch.

 

[maxipum]

********. You'd probably have been a Tory, given that 97% did not participate in the revolution (though the 3%'er claim is likely historical ********).

Your sentiment, again, is part of the conflation of all things into that tidy us/them binary. Given your feedback in the post, you clearly did not understand what I said. But I don't think it's possible. So I'll just say this: What are those few people here who foolishly voted for Biden going to do when push comes to shove? What are YOU going to do? I strongly suspect that there isn't a lot of difference there when it comes right down to it.

Wrong, the difference is they voted for that dipshit knowing what is on the platform.

 

[jamil]

There's a lot of buckshot in this post. Since I seriously screwed up in my last game of darts, I won't be shooting for a while so I have some time to address some of it.

Well, okay then. With this reset I think we might be able to have a conversation. When you start a conversation with someone by calling them a liar, that's not going to be a conversation. It's going to be an exchange of snark. Don't call people liars unless you know their intent was to deceive. If you'd have just said you thought I was wrong, that's fine. We could debate that. Call me a liar and I'll treat you with the same contempt that you've shown me. You snark me, I'll reciprocate until you stop.

I have had many conversations with both liberals and conservatives over the years, involving many deeply held beliefs, and there is one eternal fact that is common to all of these conversations:

I can't logic you out of a place that your emotions got you in to.

You seem to be arguing against a position I don't hold. I have said enough times that my goal hasn't been to change their mind, that this should not still be a thing. But, let's talk about role of emotions and belief.

To change one's deeply held belief requires the person to trust the information contrary to that belief. But also, I think you're conflating two ideas. One is that emotion drives belief--which isn't true so much as that it can effect belief. What you already believe about how the world works (worldview) really drives your belief about new information. Worldview is driven by biology, experience, and yes, emotion has its influences too. But, you have to already have something to compare to to have an emotional response. You have some belief about how the world works. When you take in information relating to that, you have an instinctive response. Accept or reject. Emotion is a part of that.

Your instinct to call me a liar was an emotional response whether you care to admit it or not. You read something I wrote that just hit you wrong. It went against what you believed to be true. It was contrary to your worldview. So you reacted to it rashly. If you had reasoned through it, I hope your reasoning would have brought you to say it accurately, that you just thought I was wrong. I don't think you actually thought I was trying to deceive anyone with what I said. But you called me a liar which I'm sure you understood was inflammatory. So why would you do that? Because what I said invoked an emotional response. You wanted it to dig. Unless you want to claim that you didn't understand what calling someone a liar means. Emotion drives behavior but is only a component in belief.

The problem is, many people run on emotions now, and refuse to employ logic in their beliefs.

Now? Dude, this is human nature. Emotion goes back way farther than humans. It's not just now. And I hate to break it to you, but you and I both run on emotions as much as anyone. You think you're the rational one. Who doesn't think that? The people you're calling "enemy" think they're the rational ones, and that YOU are operating on emotion or ideology or whatever. Everyone has emotional responses to input that either confirms or contradicts our understanding. Emotion's role in belief is that it will help you to believe something when it makes you feel good (confirmation), or it will help you reject something when it makes you feel bad (contradiction).

For example, the virtue signalers feel good when people acknowledge their virtue. Posting blathery feel-good politically correct nonsense and getting likes for it creates a positive feedback loop to promote the belief. "It's....for the children." "Oh, isn't Tiffany so moral. I can't like that post enough!" "Ooh. Someone liked me. I must be on the right track. I'll post more...You evil white people, what with all your big trucks, HOW DARE YOU!" This is how Greta clones are born on the internet.

I admit, in the past, I have behaved the same way. My beliefs were sometimes based on a gut-feeling, emotional position to an issue. One day, I had a sort of epiphany. It came to me on my own, without any external influence. I was typing a post on another forum, advocating for my Second Amendment rights, and how my gun ownership didn't harm anyone else's rights, and why should we let the government attempt to restricts those rights, and under what authority could they do so? Then it hit me: I was a proponent of minimal interference by the government in my life, while advocating for government interference in the lives of others on other issues. Interference which in no way affected my life, or my freedom.

I've noticed that around age 35 people start having epiphanies. I interpret that as a natural reconciliation of one's youthful beliefs to experiential reality. Young people have all kinds of ideas, many of which are utter nonsense, and as youthful people experience the real world, the world tends to beat the idealistic nonsense out of them. Unless they're truly unhinged from reality, something has to give because their experience keeps telling them that some of their deeply held beliefs are all wrong. My son is early 20s. I can't wait until he's 35 or so because I'd like to have a conversation where he bases his part on reality. And it's not like that epiphany will lead one's worldview to a more objectively real one. It's that going through the first of many epiphanies tears down that initial youthful notion that our thinking is invincible. We discover that our deeply held beliefs can be completely wrong.

It was in that moment that I realized I was crying out for liberty, while I held positions that denied liberty to others. How could I defend things like declaring that the government didn't have the authority to restrict my Second Amendment rights, while declaring that the government has the power to restrict who people could choose to marry? It was a pivotal event in my consideration of my positions on many issues. It was also a time when I found myself without a political party that fully reflects my position of a government with extremely limited powers.

I've had the very same epiphany so we at least have that in common. But there's another one I hope you've had too. I've written on INGO many times that teams suck because the team requires you to hold team positions. So then you're not really free to believe, or at least express, all the things you discover are true or false about an issue. The team punishes you for aberrant views.

You've had this epiphany at least a little, because you have decided that team R doesn't represent ALL your beliefs. If the people around you are expressing terms in black and white, or **** on the fact that most issues are more complicated than a simple yes or no, then that's not free thought. I'm not going to be bound to team beliefs. I am free to agree or disagree with the team on any issue I think they're wrong about.

I find myself most closely aligned with the Republican party, because they are less likely to institute gun control (unless they have the cover of a large number of Democrats voting with them), but let's be honest, the NFA, GCA, Brady, and the AWB would have all failed without Republican votes. But the Republicans are really the only option for people who hold their Second Amendment rights as the most important issue we face.

I don't disagree with any of this. But rather than saying I most closely aligned with the Republican party, it's the party that I have less conflict with than the others. I mostly can't stand chamber-o-commerce type Republicans. I have the lest in common with them.

To get back to my point about emotion ruling some people's beliefs, I could give you many examples. I had a liberal neighbor who opined that doctors should work for free. If they were truly committed to their profession, they wouldn't charge anything for their services. I was dumbfounded by this assertion, until I realized that he and his wife were about to have a baby, and he did not have very good health insurance, so it was an emotional and very personal position, as well as a financial position. No amount of conversation or logic was going to pry him from that position. I have many more examples of things like that, from both sides of the political spectrum, but I won't bore you with them, espescially because the last dart tournament has ended and I will be up to shoot again soon.

That idea isn't based on emotion. It's based on a worldview which prioritizes the moral values of caring, fairness, equality over other moral values that we think are as important. I say "we" because I sense that we probably think the same way about this, that other people don't have a moral right to other people's labor. But progressive people think that it's more important that everyone should have the same outcome. It's not emotion. It's worldview. The emotional part comes into the picture in their reaction to you thinking otherwise. So I can see why you might think their belief is driven by emotion. Emotions are a reaction of input to what they already believe. Some people not having access to medical care, while the privileged do. Their worldview compares that and concludes it's immoral. They react to that with emotion.

And they're not wrong in their thinking. It is indeed unfair, but if we're using all our moral faculties, is it immoral that some people have and some people have not? In some cases, yes. But they seem to apply it to whole classes. It's collectivist thinking. But there's another moral in play that that progressives don't acknowledge. They're not considering moral reciprocity. A medical professional is entitled to receive just compensation for his labor. People aren't entitled to the labor of other people.

It's also reciprocally unfair to force the burden of payment onto other individuals in society. So they should not take resources away from the people who earned it with their own labor/ingenuity, and give it to those who didn't earn it. But we can sometimes over-prioritize that moral. There is a place in society for collective care for people who are truly needy. I just don't believe that's a government function. It's the moral responsibility of all people who have abundance, to help those who cannot help themselves. A moral society teaches its posterity to do that.

The bottom line is, you can discuss the issues with the opposition in general, and Democrats in particular, but you can't wrench them out of their very emotion-based field of view, especially when they have so many online outlets where they can find comrades to reinforce their seriously f'ed up beliefs about the direction our nation should be heading towards.

In the end, it still boils down to this:

I can't logic you out of a place that your emotions got you in to.

So now we're back to what I said at the beginning of this post. Somehow you've managed to think that I'm advocating that we try to convince the people who voted Democrat. I'm under no such delusion that I can convince people with mere words that I'm right and they're wrong. In a conversation about ideas, it's my responsibility to understand what people are saying. And that where I've had to read between the lines, I try to verify that I got it right. Not always so good at that. And it's also my responsibility to communicate my own ideas so that the other side understands what I'm saying. So that implies you have the same set of responsibilities as a communicator.

You have a responsibility to understand what I'm saying before you condemn it. That means you don't project your thoughts onto me, or at least after you've had your initial reaction--everyone has this--you then think about it rationally, and make sure I'm saying what you think I'm saying. Maybe you seek clarification that you've read between the lines correctly. And you make a good faith effort to take what I'm saying charitably. You also make a good faith effort to make sure I'm understanding you in a way that you'd agree with. Based on your post, I think you got my purpose and my message wrong here. You're not representing what I'm saying it in a way I'd agree with.

You guys keep making this about things it's not about. I have advocated that we should understand exactly what they're saying, and why they're saying it so that we can at least be accurate about what they're saying, instead of projecting conservative morals on them. Otherwise your enemy is the straw man you've imagined, more than it is the person who has a different worldview.

 

[jamil]

Wrong, the difference is they voted for that dipshit knowing what is on the platform.

Did you even know what was the subject of the disagreement? Your comment isn't relevant to that. But, it's worth discussing this. they voted for that dipshit knowing what is on the platform. They've said as much. And they also said that they don't believe it would happen. So what now? What is it that you're trying to say about that, that you think I wouldn't agree with?

So how about this. You tell me what you think I’m saying and I’ll let you know when you get it right. Because me just saying it only makes you guys project more.

 

[BigRed]

Joke best delivered in your strongest Irish accent...

Do you know what an Irish 7 course meal is?

A six pack of beer and a potato.

An oldy, but still one of my favorite Irish jokes:


An old Irish man went to confession in St. Patrick’s Catholic Church.

‘Father’, he confessed,
‘ it been one month now since my last confession… I was intimate with Nooky Green twice last month ..’
The priest told the sinner,
‘You are forgiven .. Go out and say three Hail Mary’s ..’

Soon thereafter, Another old Irish man entered the confessional

‘Father, it has been two months since my last confession. I’ve had s*x with Nooky Green twice a week for the past two months ..’
This time, the priest questioned,
‘Who IS this Nooky Green .. ?’

‘A new woman in the neighbourhood father, he replied. …
‘Very well’, sighed the priest .. Go and say ten Hail Mary’s’.

At Mass the next morning, as the priest prepared to deliver the sermon, a tall, a voluptuous, drop-dead gorgeous redheaded woman entered the sanctuary.

The eyes of every man in the church fell upon her as she slowly sashayed up the aisle and sat down right in front of the priest. Her dress was green and very short, and she wore matching shiny emerald-green shoes.

The priest and the altar boy gasped as the woman in the green dress and matching green shoes sat with her legs spread slightly apart, but just enough to realize she wasn’t wearing any underwear.

The priest turned to the Altar boy and whispered,

‘Is That Nooky Green …?’

The wide-eyed altar boy couldn’t believe his ears but managed to calmly reply,

‘No Father, I think it’s just a reflection from her shoes’ …!!’

 

[BugI02]

Did you even know what was the subject of the disagreement? Your comment isn't relevant to that. But, it's worth discussing this. they voted for that dipshit knowing what is on the platform. They've said as much. And they also said that they don't believe it would happen. So what now? What is it that you're trying to say about that, that you think I wouldn't agree with?

So how about this. You tell me what you think I’m saying and I’ll let you know when you get it right. Because me just saying it only makes you guys project more.

So, we were told Trump was just in it for himself or would turn authoritarian and we did not believe it

We were correct, and Trump did many great things for America

Xiden voters were told he would be a puppet of the left and would push gun control, but they did not believe it

They were WRONG

Seems like next time they should STFU and listen to the people who know how to judge a politician for a while

 

[jamil]

So, we were told Trump was just in it for himself or would turn authoritarian and we did not believe it

We were correct, and Trump did many great things for America

Xiden voters were told he would be a puppet of the left and would push gun control, but they did not believe it

They were WRONG

Seems like next time they should STFU and listen to the people who know how to judge a politician for a while

You dismiss some areas where Trump exceeded his power that you’d rightly be screaming about if Biden did it. So your ability to judge looks pretty biased to me.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You dismiss some areas where Trump exceeded his power that you’d rightly be screaming about if Biden did it. So your ability to judge looks pretty biased to me.

It comes down Trump not coloring as far or farther outside the lines than any other administration in recent memory compounded with doing things which have already proven beneficial. By contrast, the arm up Joe's ass has made it clear that intends to use overreach to infringe on our rights and steal our money to give to failed local and state governments along partisan lines. The arm has also seen fit to reverse Trump's policies simply because Trump no matter how many people are harmed. This includes but is not limited to executive ordering tens of thousands of jobs out of existence, flooding our country with potentially dangerous and potentially infectious illegal aliens, sucking China's [richard] instead of demanding accountability for wrong-doing directed against us and against others, rejoining the Paris Cash Vacuum, kissing Iran's ass, trashing the reasonably successful efforts toward a tolerable coexistence with North Korea, and returning the United States to a position of being respected, not to be confused with praise for dropping our pants and grabbing outer ankles.

But it's all good. No more mean tweets even if we are changing course toward the drain.

Let me clarify. I am not endorsing overreach but I am not holding Trump to a different standard than Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama. We either have rules or we don't, and since we have collectively decided that we don't, i am just going to be happy that Trump accomplished a number of things I consider important.

 

[BugI02]

You dismiss some areas where Trump exceeded his power that you’d rightly be screaming about if Biden did it. So your ability to judge looks pretty biased to me.

Sigh. And you over inflate things; like, I assume, your usual woody about diverting money to the wall, that Trump did, in order to hold them to be comparable to what Xiden has done and says he will do

I will grant that, SO FAR, some of the worst attacks on the bill of rights have not been done by EO but by Pelosi and friends, but I have no doubt Xiden will sign them if they reach his desk. How amped would you be at Trump if he was calling for the economic boycott of a state (GA) over a duly and legally passed law that he simply disagreed with?

You can't spin things to be Trump was the new Mussolini and then just ignore Xiden leading a full throated attack on half the bill of rights for no higher purpose than to attempt to ensure Democrats hold power in perpetuity

When are you going to admit that you were flat out wrong about Trump and that it looks like our worst possible expectations about Xiden are likely to be brought forth? You're pretty good at telling others to examine all the evidence and come to the best conclusion they can, so tell me - was Trump good for America or not? Does Xiden look like a disaster in the making or not?

Sometimes you remind me of the people who insist on a simplistic, one dimensional explanation for why the Civil War happened (:cough: Kirk :cough). Seems like a ground and lofty thinker would be less hidebound

 

[BigRed]

Sometimes you remind me of the people who insist on a simplistic, one dimensional explanation for why the Civil War happened (:cough: Kirk :cough). Seems like a ground and lofty thinker would be less hidebound

War of northern aggression, but excellent point nonetheless.