Winning the Argument, Losing Our Way

 

Here we are again. Having the same argument we’ve had too many times before. And we most likely will have it again, won’t we? In today’s society, we are more mentally segregated than ever and increasingly stuck in echo chambers. The preachers on the left and the right preach the same old lines and everyone yells “amen” at the appropriate places in the sermon. It has become more important to convince ourselves that we are correct in our thinking than to provide solutions to our problems (or, in lieu of that, accepting that there are certain things we simply cannot change.)

The gun control/rights debate that will unfold over the next days and weeks will highlight the cognitive dissonance across the political spectrum.

If you argue with someone who is for a more liberal immigration policy, they will gladly point you to statistics that show that your chances of being caught up in the terroristic activities of an immigrant or first-generation American are infinitesimal. If you show that statistics also say the same thing about being caught up in a mass murder event such as what happened yesterday in Florida or Las Vegas, you’re obviously a paid tool of the NRA. Is it “risk assessment” or is it “if it saves just one life?”

An abortion rights advocate will argue against parental notification requirements under the assumption that such reporting will make it unlikely that young women caught in abusive home environments will get the help they need. But many of these same people have no problem with mandating that mental health professionals report their patients to the FBI or ATF for gun purchase checks. How many will seek help for depression or other mental health problems if they know it will end up in some government database? Is reporting a “suppression of rights” or “common sense?”

Humans are competitive animals. We all want to “win” the argument du jour. Even if we have to tie ourselves in logic pretzels to get there.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 30 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    EJHill: Is reporting a “suppression of rights” or “common sense?”

    This is a core problem. We are so caught up in our “pretzels” that we can’t rely on our common sense anymore. More than that, we are so worried about being “the bad guy.” How about just trusting your gut and doing the right thing? Thanks, EJ

    • #1
  2. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    EJHill: We all want to “win” the argument du jour.

    You know what’s funny, EJ?  Over the last couple of days I’ve been having a discussion / argument with a friend of mine in India who trains pastors for a living.  He posted something about women in leadership roles.  We discussed this, brought in various interpretations of various points in scripture, from various theologians.  Yesterday I arrived at a point where I didn’t want to discuss any longer, but it sort of felt like I was giving up.  I don’t like to give up, so I thought on this for a bit, then it came to me:  I was never trying to convince my friend of anything.  I was trying to convince myself.  That is, I was trying to get my self in alignment with what scripture was teaching.  And when I got to that point, I felt like further discussion was a waste of time.  I didn’t want to win that argument.  I just wanted to be sure I had it right, even if it meant disagreeing with my friend.

    After I came to that realization, I thought about it in a broader sense and came to the conclusion that you’ve stated.  So often we just want to win the argument, we aren’t all that interested in being correct.  There’s a lesson in there for all of us, I think.

    • #2
  3. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    The gun control/rights debate is, unfortunately, the wrong debate.

    We need mentally ill people control, not gun control.  We should be debating how best to control mentally ill people who are presenting threatening signs of impending violence. There used to be a dimension of law enforcement dealing with the “criminally insane.” The closest we now have to this are the civil commitment laws that extend confinement for certain sex offenders beyond their prison time, because they are deemed too dangerous and likely to re-offend if released. As far as I know, this is the only scheme for confining someone for their potential to commit crimes that has passed constitutional muster.

    Surely, there ought to be some debate about how to protect society beyond confiscation of every firearm in America.  The reports that the Florida killer had been reported as a threat to the FBI which had actually conducted some sort of investigation, the concerns in the school where he had been expelled for disciplinary reasons, and the rest of the sickening litany of signs this guy was seriously off and dangerous, make it all the more clear where the crux of the problem lies.

    Oh, and having some armed security at large “gun free zones” like schools wouldn’t hurt, either.

    • #3
  4. DocJay Inactive
    DocJay
    @DocJay

    I’m tuning out from this.  Maybe I reached peak slaughter or maybe it’s more than I want to think about.

     

    • #4
  5. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Spin: After I came to that realization, I thought about it in a broader sense and came to the conclusion that you’ve stated. So often we just want to win the argument, we aren’t all that interested in being correct. There’s a lesson in there for all of us, I think.

    I will admit I’ve been there on the immigration debate. I’ve had that “If it saves just one life” argument in these very pages. I’ve allowed myself to get sidetracked on the larger questions of sovereignty and the importation of cultures antithetical to our Constitution to argue a statistic. It’s a human failing.

    • #5
  6. KentForrester Coolidge
    KentForrester
    @KentForrester

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    EJHill: Is reporting a “suppression of rights” or “common sense?”

    This is a core problem. We are so caught up in our “pretzels” that we can’t rely on our common sense anymore. More than that, we are so worried about being “the bad guy.” How about just trusting your gut and doing the right thing? Thanks, EJ

    Susan, our pretzels?

    kent

    • #6
  7. Dorrk Inactive
    Dorrk
    @Dorrk

    Fritz (View Comment):
    We need mentally ill people control, not gun control. We should be debating how best to control mentally ill people who are presenting threatening signs of impending violence. There used to be a dimension of law enforcement dealing with the “criminally insane.” The closest we now have to this are the civil commitment laws that extend confinement for certain sex offenders beyond their prison time, because they are deemed too dangerous and likely to re-offend if released. As far as I know, this is the only scheme for confining someone for their potential to commit crimes that has passed constitutional muster.

    Agree, but here’s the tricky part: how invasive do you want the government to be when it receives reports that Person A is potentially mentally ill, and how do you prevent a system of proactive mental health alertness from being abused by people who have a personal/political axe to grind?

    • #7
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    KentForrester (View Comment):
    Humans are competitive animals. We all want to “win” the argument du jour. Even if we have to tie ourselves in logic pretzels to get there.

    Just quoting EJ’s post.

     

    • #8
  9. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    Dorrk (View Comment):

    Fritz (View Comment):
    We need mentally ill people control, not gun control. We should be debating how best to control mentally ill people who are presenting threatening signs of impending violence. There used to be a dimension of law enforcement dealing with the “criminally insane.” The closest we now have to this are the civil commitment laws that extend confinement for certain sex offenders beyond their prison time, because they are deemed too dangerous and likely to re-offend if released. As far as I know, this is the only scheme for confining someone for their potential to commit crimes that has passed constitutional muster.

    Agree, but here’s the tricky part: how invasive do you want the government to be when it receives reports that Person A is potentially mentally ill, and how do you prevent a system of proactive mental health alertness from being abused by people who have a personal/political axe to grind?

    I sure do not have any easy answer. I am mindful of how many centuries it took the common law to develop the various degrees of culpability, which vary with the actor’s mental state at the time of commission of criminal acts, and that was looking back at past actions. Benefit of hindsight, and all that.

    Our hurried world today works off those time-tested concepts in its criminal side, along with rights such as due process, presumption of innocence, and more. How one addresses potential as opposed to historical violence will take a lot more wisdom than I could possibly claim.  I just ponder how those common law results were and remain good enough to apply in the vast majority of cases; but do we have the patience, will and wisdom to develop an analogous rough consensus for dealing with preventive measures?

    • #9
  10. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Agree.  The public arguments we’re faced with after some incident are just national media spin and political posturing.  They are not serious.  If they lead to action it’s almost never good. We don’t have to wait for some tragedy to think rationally about these matters and do something.   We already know our mental health system is sick, and that many of our public schools are useless and dangerous.  But like everything else, mental health problems and education  take place in communities where real people live.  They are not Federal issues nor can they be.   There are no, repeat no, top down solutions to much of anything in a country of 300 million of the most diverse people on earth, and certainly not to what causes some kid to go berserk and murder a bunch of other kids.   Here I suppose we start by getting Federal and State governments out of education.  Let parents pick the schools they want free of PC and Federal mandates or educational establishment virtue posture of the day.  Parents, if given a choice will pick schools that educate their children and are safe.

    • #10
  11. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    KentForrester (View Comment):
    Susan, our pretzels?

    kent

    See my comment #8

    • #11
  12. Postmodern Hoplite Coolidge
    Postmodern Hoplite
    @PostmodernHoplite

    I Walton (View Comment):
    Here I suppose we start by getting Federal and State governments out of education. Let parents pick the schools they want free of PC and Federal mandates or educational establishment virtue posture of the day. Parents, if given a choice will pick schools that educate their children and are safe.

    Testify! I think this is a key element of any effective solution. Why can’t parents choose to send their children to schools that are capable of protecting them? If the government-run schools operating within the educational monopoly are incapable of providing basic security, then parents ought to be able to select schools that able to do so, without having to pay for it twice over.

    • #12
  13. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    Postmodern Hoplite (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):
    Here I suppose we start by getting Federal and State governments out of education. Let parents pick the schools they want free of PC and Federal mandates or educational establishment virtue posture of the day. Parents, if given a choice will pick schools that educate their children and are safe.

    Testify! I think this is a key element of any effective solution. Why can’t parents choose to send their children to schools that are capable of protecting them? If the government-run schools operating within the educational monopoly are incapable of providing basic security, then parents ought to be able to select schools that able to do so, without having to pay for it twice over.

    I have thought this for years in many contexts in which I believe kids are unsafe in public schools.

    Thank you.

    • #13
  14. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Spin (View Comment):
    So often we just want to win the argument, we aren’t all that interested in being correct.

    Our entire criminal justice system is based on this.

    • #14
  15. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):
    So often we just want to win the argument, we aren’t all that interested in being correct.

    Our entire criminal justice system is based on this.

    Right.  But I can see why, a little bit.  But when it comes to some political argument, it doesn’t really matter who wins or loses.  You win the argument?  So what?

    • #15
  16. E. Kent Golding Moderator
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    Fritz (View Comment):
    The gun control/rights debate is, unfortunately, the wrong debate.

    We need mentally ill people control, not gun control. We should be debating how best to control mentally ill people who are presenting threatening signs of impending violence. There used to be a dimension of law enforcement dealing with the “criminally insane.” The closest we now have to this are the civil commitment laws that extend confinement for certain sex offenders beyond their prison time, because they are deemed too dangerous and likely to re-offend if released. As far as I know, this is the only scheme for confining someone for their potential to commit crimes that has passed constitutional muster.

    Surely, there ought to be some debate about how to protect society beyond confiscation of every firearm in America. The reports that the Florida killer had been reported as a threat to the FBI which had actually conducted some sort of investigation, the concerns in the school where he had been expelled for disciplinary reasons, and the rest of the sickening litany of signs this guy was seriously off and dangerous, make it all the more clear where the crux of the problem lies.

    Oh, and having some armed security at large “gun free zones” like schools wouldn’t hurt, either.

    Mentally Ill control would mean disenfranchising Democrats and Progressives. Can’t have that.

    • #16
  17. George Townsend Inactive
    George Townsend
    @GeorgeTownsend

    EJHill:

    <img class=”alignright wp-image-495699 size-medium” src=”https://cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Yelling-300×207.png” alt=”” width=”300″ height=”207″ srcset=”https://cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Yelling-300×207.png 300w, https://cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Yelling-150×104.png 150w, https://cdn.ricochet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Yelling.png 400w” sizes=”(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px” />Here we are again. Having the same argument we’ve had too many times before. And we most likely will have it again, won’t we? In today’s society, we are more mentally segregated than ever and increasingly stuck in echo chambers. The preachers on the left and the right preach the same old lines and everyone yells “amen” at the appropriate places in the sermon. It has become more important to convince ourselves that we are correct in our thinking than to provide solutions to our problems (or, in lieu of that, accepting that there are certain things we simply cannot change.)

    The gun control/rights debate that will unfold over the next days and weeks will highlight the cognitive dissonance across the political spectrum.

    If you argue with someone who is for a more liberal immigration policy, they will gladly point you to statistics that show that your chances of being caught up in the terroristic activities of an immigrant or first-generation American are infinitesimal. If you show that statistics also say the same thing about being caught up in a mass murder event such as what happened yesterday in Florida or Las Vegas, you’re obviously a paid tool of the NRA. Is it “risk assessment” or is it “if it saves just one life?”

    An abortion rights advocate will argue against parental notification requirements under the assumption that such reporting will make it unlikely that young women caught in abusive home environments will get the help they need. But many of these same people have no problem with mandating that mental health professionals report their patients to the FBI or ATF for gun purchase checks. How many will seek help for depression or other mental health problems if they know it will end up in some government database? Is reporting a “suppression of rights” or “common sense?”

    Humans are competitive animals. We all want to “win” the argument du jour. Even if we have to tie ourselves in logic pretzels to get there.

    Very thoughtful piece, EJ. As conservatives, I believe that we know what works. But that shouldn’t keep us from listening to others. And the worse part is when people constantly interrupt, rather than letting the other person have his or her say. I just tune such people out. They are much more interested in themselves than in actually contributing to the dialog.

    • #17
  18. Derek Simmons Member
    Derek Simmons
    @

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    EJHill: Is reporting a “suppression of rights” or “common sense?”

    This is a core problem. We are so caught up in our “pretzels” that we can’t rely on our common sense anymore. More than that, we are so worried about being “the bad guy.” How about just trusting your gut and doing the right thing? Thanks, EJ

    “Common sense” is the “sense” common to the echo-chamber in which each of us chooses to live. It’s not a ‘natural law’ precept. “Common sense” is the POV your community has successfully inculcated in you. As the size shrinks and the differences increase between “my” community of choice–my “identity group”–and yours, what passes for “common sense” is one more thing that divides “me and mine” from “you and yours”.

    • #18
  19. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    We need more centralized government power run by experts selected by K Street and voting. That will fix everything.

    • #19
  20. Autistic License Coolidge
    Autistic License
    @AutisticLicense

    Try this out and let me know if it makes sense:

    We need state hospitals back.  Getting rid of them was a way to make the more tenderminded folks feel good about not having patients in ugly buildings.  But there are people out there who just can’t be kept housed anywhere else.  It needn’t be for a lifetime, so…

    We need commitment hearings back.  I don’t know the current law, but only a few years ago, someone who’d been creating a public nuisance could be examined at a public hospital and admitted involuntarily for up to 3 days.  Then, if it looked like they weren’t safe to be outside, a court hearing for a commitment to up to six months’ time was conducted and the patient was kept or let go.

    When someone’s committed involuntarily to a state hospital, it means they were considered dangerous enough to be detained involuntarily, were examined by psychiatrists who had nothing to gain by admitting them, and were protected by court procedure.  Therefore, they should also lose any gun license or permit and have to seek its reinstatement in a court.  This would keep their guns from being used in a crime or a suicide.

    Make sense?

    h

    • #20
  21. Front Seat Cat Member
    Front Seat Cat
    @FrontSeatCat

    Agree – what is lacking is compromise. Let’s use as many solutions as there are – I don’t want rapid fire weapons in society.  I get the 2nd Amendment but did our forefathers see modern society? Didn’t the Amendment serve to protect, not harm each other, hunt etc.? Does anyone carry an AK in their pocket or purse for protection? Give the teachers stun guns, employ ex-military, retired police etc., hold classes on bullying and cyber terror, have metal detectors at every school, if someone has been “banned” from a campus for bizarre behavior, can that info be given to law enforcement or social services? Mental health facilities are badly needed – hospitals churn out meds and push people out – that isn’t counseling.

    • #21
  22. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    Does anyone carry an AK in their pocket or purse for protection?

    Rifles are very rarely used in the commission of crimes.

    • #22
  23. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Front Seat Cat: Does anyone carry an AK in their pocket or purse for protection?

    I guess only deep pocketed people would conceal carry an AK47, especially since each of them are nearly three feet long.

    • #23
  24. Derek Simmons Member
    Derek Simmons
    @

    RufusRJones (View Comment):
    We need more centralized government power run by experts selected by K Street and voting. That will fix everything.

    Is that a prescription or a projection? 

    • #24
  25. Jim Kearney Member
    Jim Kearney
    @JimKearney

    Every time there’s a massacre and the perpetrator is caught, the public conversation should be about capital punishment, not gun control.

    • #25
  26. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    Front Seat Cat (View Comment):
    Agree – what is lacking is compromise.

    I disagree.  I cannot mount a Browning M2 on my truck, though I very much want to.  Not to hurt anyone, mind you.  Just for fun.  I accept that I cannot do so.  I further accept that in order to exercise my Second Amendment rights I must sit down at a computer and answer dumb questions such as “Are you a fugitive from justice?”  I always answer no to that one, just so you know.  And always wonder who answers yes.  I accept that I must then wait to ensure that the FBI thinks I am worthy of my Second Amendment rights.  Yes the very FBI is responsible for 17 people dead in Florida, because they ignored information that would have prevented the death.  Presumably they are too busy trying to figure out how to get Elizabeth Warren elected President.

    I’m glad we’ve reached this compromise.

    • #26
  27. Spin Inactive
    Spin
    @Spin

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Front Seat Cat: Does anyone carry an AK in their pocket or purse for protection?

    I guess only deep pocketed people would conceal carry an AK47, especially since each of them are nearly three feet long.

    And folks who don’t like quality firearms.  I mean, really.  the AK is the weapon of choice for tinpot dictators everywhere.

    I know, I know…thems fightin’ words!

    • #27
  28. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    I Walton (View Comment):
    There are no, repeat no, top down solutions to much of anything in a country of 300 million of the most diverse people on earth, and certainly not to what causes some kid to go berserk and murder a bunch of other kids.

    True.

    We are the third most populous country on the planet, with freer media than the two larger and a culture that is capable of acknowledging the depravity of man. The other two nations have neither. Which means we don’t get the stories from them, not because it isn’t happening there, but because they lack the reporting mechanisms.

    The top down solutions imposed in an earlier time are failing us.

    What struck me about this tragedy is something that I’ve noticed in our military. The active duty military has a suicide problem – our rate is about 25% higher than the civilian rate and the rate among our veterans is roughly double the civilian rate. To combat this the services have begun a relatively intensive campaign. They are focusing attention on looking toward short term behavioral changes in people as well as identifying marginalized or isolated soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines and reaching out to them.

    The second part is what is bugging me. These spree killers seem to be identified as isolated or marginalized, and everyone “knows it.”

    We face a mental health problem, not a gun problem.

    Lest you think I am soft on these people, this is my go to movie quote.

    Will Graham: This started from an abused kid, a battered infant… There’s something terrible about…

    Jack Crawford: What are you, sympathizing with this guy?

    Will Graham: Absolutely… My heart bleeds for him, as a child. Someone took a kid and manufactured a monster. At the same time, as an adult, he’s irredeemable.

    –Manhunter 1986

    • #28
  29. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Instugator (View Comment):
    These spree killers seem to be identified as isolated or marginalized, and everyone “knows it.”

    over at Instapundit.

    FLASHBACK: There’s a Way to Stop Mass Shootings, and You Won’t Like It.

    You’re not going to like it because it’s going to require you to do something personally, as opposed to shouting for the government, or anyone to “do something!”

    You ready? Here it is:

    “Notice those around you who seem isolated, and engage them.”

    • #29
  30. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Instugator (View Comment):
    These spree killers seem to be identified as isolated or marginalized, and everyone “knows it.”

    over at Instapundit.

    FLASHBACK: There’s a Way to Stop Mass Shootings, and You Won’t Like It.

    You’re not going to like it because it’s going to require you to do something personally, as opposed to shouting for the government, or anyone to “do something!”

    You ready? Here it is:

    “Notice those around you who seem isolated, and engage them.”

    If you want to understand the “nuts and bolts” of this get a book called Healing Developmental Trauma. On page 26 two researchers are mentioned. Dr. Drew Pinsky interviews them on YouTube. One way or another people need healing interactions with other people or things will go south. This is especially true if trauma was experienced between the third trimester and age 3.

     

     

     

     

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.