TexasCHLforum.com

Middle Age Russ wrote:
Perhaps too often, I simply fail to engage in discussions with Antis. Of course, the attitude they usually bring to the discussion ("righteous" indignation that there can possibly be another perspective to consider) is not one I care to support by engaging them in debate. The "feelers" typically won't even try to debate and favor shouting down the opposition, using volume and the appearance of anger to carry the day. Such as these are not really worth the time to interact with since neither side will change opinions and all will walk away from the encounter feeling dissatisfied.

Here is the dilemma: In the case of the social media examples I gave, a local community group over 5,000 was being bullied by a couple of dozen Progressives. They would attack, en masse, any post that even smelled of a Conservative viewpoint. I really didn't expect to change any of THEIR opinions but we did have a sizable, non-participative audience, based on the "Likes". My personal opinion is that we lost the battle in higher education because we failed to engage, allowing the Progressives to take over an run (ruin?) everything. If it is just me versus one or even a couple of Progressives, I keep my powder dry. I agree with you- there is no point and nothing to be gained. All too often, however, the bullying robs others of the opportunity to hear a different perspective. Even now, I'll post a contrary viewpoint on Facebook when someone links an article that is blatantly false. Most of the Progressives who haven't unfriended me yet have figured out that I will challenge their MDA articles if they post then and that has pretty much stopped. I count that as a victory, if only a tiny one.

Flightmare wrote:I was having a discussion with a buddy of mine. His wife and her friend across the street are adamantly against HB 1911. Their arguments are the same as the police unions and other anti-2a groups.

My buddy and I came to the conclusion that people who are emotional and tend to base their decisions on emotions, occasionally have issues understanding logic and rational thought. Logical and rational people are often perceived as heartless by these same people.

I tend to think of myself as a logical person. If I form an opinion on a subject, it's usually fact based. If I am presented with facts that conflict with my position, I will reconsider my position. My buddy's wife on the other hand, has admitted to me that she is stubborn and would be proud to stick to her guns even if she was wrong. I don't understand this position. Can anyone else offer any insight?

I cannot offer much except my own anecdotes.

About three years ago, the Argyle school district authorized teachers carrying firearms. I've talked to a number of parents from that district who were thrilled with that change. On social media, another guy suggested that our school district adapt that same program. A firestorm ensued. He and I "debated" a group of about 15 fellow community members for several weeks, on and off.
1. Not one of them ever accepted any fact that we offered.
2. We talked about criminals being uncontrolled by laws or signs. Not one of our antagonists ever admitted the criminal do what they wish, when they wish. They stubbornly hold the adolescent position that nothing bad is going to happen here because we are a "safe community."
3. They refuse to believe that a teacher with a police background is capable of managing a firearm in an education environment. When the truth came out, they don't even believe that current licensed LEO should be allowed to have firearms in a school.

The passage of the Open Carry law started another local social media firestorm. Our local chief held public meetings to discuss the law, None of the critics of it who expressed their distaste would attend those sessions. One even said "all they are going to do is present the facts and I don't care about any facts." Of course, those discussions quickly unmasked the situation that the issue had nothing to do with OC and every thing to do with ANY carry by any one. No one, including LE should be allowed to carry guns. Not one of the antagonists ever took the bait on the question "what should we do with criminals who have guns?" I presented a WWYD situation to a mother with small children involving an armed criminal in her home. She was very happy with calling the police (unarmed as they might be based on her preference) and waiting for them to deal with the situation.

The thing that I've learned is that I have trouble being conflicted in my beliefs. Antis have no such problem. Contradictions among their feelings are simply not acknowledged and the conversation is quickly guided in a different direction.