TexasCHLforum.com

Be wary of echo chambers. They can make moderation look like liberalism and the loudest idiot gains the most confidence.

Abraham wrote:Feewings, nothing more than feewings, trying to forget my feewings for clinton.

Sorry old chum, but feelings don't substitute for thinking.

Please, let me ask: Are you of the liberal persuasion?

You posted: " because on internet people are just going to jump on anything I say"

Wow!

Really?

On anything you say?

Why is that?

Are you a celebrity or something akin to that?

Not being snarky, just curious.

There's just no getting through to some of you is there? I did not say feelings substitute thinking. I don't understand what's missing here. Let me break this down to a few points:

1. My post had two instances of the word "feel" as highlighted by mojo84:

All I can say is I put my votes where I feel I must, based on both personal importance and compromise where I feel it is either unavoidable or unlikely to to truly occur.

2. In his response he attempts to argue that my usage of the word feel is in opposition to his approach of thought:

If I voted base on how I feel about this election and the two main candidates, I wouldn't vote. Neither candidate is anywhere near ideal in my opinion. However, based on what I know and think I have to vote for Trump. Sometimes as adults, we can't just go along with what we "feel". Sometimes we have to make hard decisions and do what is right based on what we think and know.

3. In my last post I explained that the word feeling does not exclude thought or reason by its mere utterance. Thinking and feeling are not mutually exclusive. They are not by necessity equal nor are they in opposition to one of another. In many instances, such as my usage in my posts, one is driven by the other.

Question: Are you arguing that any of this is untrue? Are you arguing that thought cannot result in a feeling? Or that my feeling the need to do something is inherently devoid of thought? I don't get it. What is being lost in translation here?

4. People will OFTEN jump on anything I say if it is in opposition to the majority on places like this forum. I thought that was very well illustrated by the hollow argument, hinged on a single usage of a single word that I explained above.

5. My political stances fall to the liberal side often. And often they don't. I thought this was clear in my previous posts. What is with the obsession with this?

Not really a question: Let me ask are you of the conservative perssuasion? Actually, I don't care because I'm not going to frame your entire political belif system based on the answer to some restrictive defenition.

Not being snarky or a diva but wow, really? I fail to see how the tone of your response is warranted. I have done nothing but try to avoid confrontation here and have only defended my rather moderate statements. All the while I say just leave me out of it. I only respond when someone tries to twist my words.

Ex: because I said "feel" i don't use thought or because I said everyone's going to jump on me I'm wow, really, a celebrity.

I'm done. Just done. This is getting ridiculous. I can't tell if this is trolling or just people who can't help it.

mojo84 wrote:

NiMexicatl wrote: I 100% understand where you're coming from. This election isn't ideal, for me or a lot of others. I struggle with the contradiction of my political stances and the anti-gun association that seems to be hard to avoid these days. All I can say is I put my votes where I feel I must, based on both personal importance and compromise where I feel it is either unavoidable or unlikely to to truly occur. I don't want this to be taken as a specific statment on the 2nd ammendment. It's just my approach in a general sense.

I try to make it as informed as possible. I try to urge moderation and education in my personal life. I've made the mistake of not being careful enough with my words on the internet before. I try to avoid it where I can, but admittedly that's not always the case.

Nuances of conversation can be lost on these forums, and a lot of people fall directly into attack mode when backed by the majority. So I'll stay out of this one and most others where I can help it.

If I voted base on how I feel about this election and the two main candidates, I wouldn't vote. Neither candidate is anywhere near ideal in my opinion. However, based on what I know and think I have to vote for Trump. Sometimes as adults, we can't just go along with what we "feel". Sometimes we have to make hard decisions and do what is right based on what we think and know.

We know Hillary's history and where she stands on most major issues. We know what Trump is saying his position is. That is what we need to make our decision on and do what is right for the country even if both candidates are less than palatable.

I also think a republican majority congress will be able to reign in Trump than they would Hillary. Hillary would just run over congress like Obama has.

I hope I spoke clearly enough so there are no nuances that get lost in my conversation as I do not intend this as nothing but a direct non beating around the bush pleading to vote based upon what you know and think and not so much what you "feel".

And this is why I try to stay out of it. I post something basically stating I have an opinion and respect yours, but want to stay out of the conversation because on internet people are just going to jump on anything I say.

You read too much into my choice of words. You're trying to discredit my point of view by implying I act on emotion instead of reason. An opinion is nothing more than a feeling backed (and sometimes not backed) by observation.

If someone tries to harm you or your family I would assume you would FEEL the need to act. And what drives this feeling? Is it a purely irresponsible, emotional drive that compels you? Is it not possible that you could logically conculed based on reason and observation that there is a need to act to prevent something bad and/or facilitate something good? And through this could be compelled to FEEL the need to defend someone or yourself? Is your action negated because you felt something?

I would argue that if you felt nothing about "things you know" that you would not vote at all, or respond to my post, etc.

Me stating that I feel the need to do something does not necessarily imply that it is without thought. Again, I have done my research. My conclusion is very different from yours. You can say what you want, I'm just not going to get into it. We both have access to all the same information. Do what you will with it and I will do the same.

I FEEL that often people make up their mind before they even start the conversation.

parabelum wrote:NiMexicatl,

It looks from few of your posts that you are reasonable , intelligent young fella. If you love your carry rig and your Sig, understand that the criminal witch (plenty of evidence to support this out there) will work steadfastly to strip that right you have to carry now away from you, and all of us here.

The entire Lib party is nothing more then subversive group that for hundreds of years sat on backs of slaves and minority groups. Working very hard to keep the ghettos nice and full.

Not to support one candidate who stands to preserve your 2A right is, at the very least, a slap to your reason and intelligence.

She is pure evil my friend.

I 100% understand where you're coming from. This election isn't ideal, for me or a lot of others. I struggle with the contradiction of my political stances and the anti-gun association that seems to be hard to avoid these days. All I can say is I put my votes where I feel I must, based on both personal importance and compromise where I feel it is either unavoidable or unlikely to to truly occur. I don't want this to be taken as a specific statment on the 2nd ammendment. It's just my approach in a general sense.

I try to make it as informed as possible. I try to urge moderation and education in my personal life. I've made the mistake of not being careful enough with my words on the internet before. I try to avoid it where I can, but admittedly that's not always the case.

Nuances of conversation can be lost on these forums, and a lot of people fall directly into attack mode when backed by the majority. So I'll stay out of this one and most others where I can help it.

Too many replies for me to respond to individually.

The supreme court appointment argument is a valid concern. However I seem to recall the current president considering a right leaning justice for appointment that Republicans seemed to not respond well to.

To be honest I don't keep up with politics as avidly as some others. I tend to do reasearch in larger blocks as opposed to day to day.

I can't respond to arguments about Hillary the murder primarily because the facts that I'm aware of just don't support that point of view as much as others here and else where seem to be convinced of.

I stated in my original post that relying on congress is more idealist than anything else. It is however the truth, just not the applied reality currently.

I'm not going to go back and forth on politics here. I have my reasons and believe me when I say I'm not uneducated or unrealistic. I'm not going to be able to convince the majority of people here or otherwise and there's too much hostility from people I don't know or care about when it's brought up on the internet for my taste.

I made a rather simple and unloaded response to the OP. I'd like to keep it that way. And stay out of the general side arguments.

To put it simply, I honestly don't think there's much at this point that can convince me to vote Trump. It's my opinion and I honestly don't see him winning this election.

As far as my support for the 2A, I think focus taken away from holding congress responsible is a step in the wrong direction.

If people (in a general sense) start putting the fear that they'll have to do their job and respect the best interest of those they represent and the constitution it is my opinion that restoration of gun rights will be better served. It's probably not a realistic picture any time soon, but I feel it's the truth.

Yes the president holds power and can drive issues to the fore front, but ultimately the bulk of this kind of thing is supposed to be shouldered by the ones we elect to represent us.

This country has a really good system set in place, based on a really good ideological foundation. It's sad to see the way it operates some times and how things as important as the 2A can be trivialised as debateble by some. I don't know what else to say other than it's dissapointing. As are a lot of things, but hey thats life.