Not having updated this blog for an age, I've been intrigued to notice that the very small amount of traffic it's still been getting has been coming mainly from two reliable sources - people doing a Google search for the words 'there is always someone out there who will care for you' (an unwittingly inspired title for a blog post, just a pity about the contents), and referrals from the Gun Owners of South Africa site. So I must admit curiosity finally got the better of me and I couldn't resist having a peek to see what it was they said about me that has had such a...well, lasting impact. Could it possibly match the genius of the 'cockney bastard' jibe? Sadly no. All they said was this -
"14 April 2009 : An anti-gunner's position
Kevin over at The Smallest Minorty found an anti prepared to debate the gun issue with him. The anti came up with the following perfect cameo before he succumbed to mental exhausion :
'The difference in this debate is that I have been arguing on the basis of what I believe to be true, and doing my best to explain why I believe it. Kevin, by way of contrast, claims to be able to literally ‘prove’ his case beyond any doubt whatsoever by recourse to detailed statistical data.'
Yes. That's pretty much what we've been saying all along."
They really don't get it, do they? I think I'm going to have start adding footnotes to my rebuttals for slow learners. The point I was making is that, yes, people like Baker have indeed been saying they can prove it all along, and that is problematical for them because they have spectacularly failed to actually do so. (Did I really need to spell that out?)
After all, some people have been saying all along they can prove that Shergar shacked up with Lord Lucan in a bedsit in Peckham in 1983, but we've thus far been left disappointed on that score as well.
What's great about that part of the exchange with Kevin is that it proves just how intellectually deficient your position (that of anti-gunners) is.
ReplyDeleteHe has facts to back up his position, you argue based not on substantive facts but on your "beliefs" and "feelings."
Hello, Mike! Five months late, but who's counting?! I'm just glad one of the KBFC finally found their way to this post, I wouldn't like to think I'd completely wasted my time.
ReplyDeleteMy reason for writing this post back in August was that I just found it utterly hilarious that Kevin and the South African webmaster had so spectacularly missed the point about the comment they so triumphantly linked to. Clearly, even the explanation-by-numbers I've provided here hasn't proved sufficient in your case, but I haven't given up hope for your comrades yet.
The difference in this debate is that I have been arguing on the basis of what I believe to be true
ReplyDeleteThere's your problem. You debate based not on facts, logic, or any kind of objective truth, but based on what you feel and what you believe
As for "slow learners." You might want to look at yourself rather than accuse others of that.
In that way, your positions on gun control are just like religion. You believe therefore your belief trumps all reality.
"your positions on gun control are just like religion"
ReplyDeleteMirror, mirror, on the wall...