Bobic said:
Well yeah, I never claimed that they were helpful, far from it. But I don't see how this in any way connects to being disrespectful, disrespectful is in a totally different ball park.
And I'd argue you shouldn't condemn someone for something they can't control. You say you can apply 'simple logic' to defeat their argument, but of course you can. They can't, logic doesn't work against delusions, that's what makes them so delusional. Taking steps to educate them is the right path, though it will almost inevitably fail. You've just kind of got to take a live and let live attitude with them, like with your racist old Grandparents, arguing only entrenches people further into their beliefs, the best solution is to simply nod and politely change the topic.
But yeah, my main point was that it doesn't connect with disrespectfulness.
Respectfully, I have to disagree. The very core of philosophy is debate, and without it, it's extremely difficult for a culture to progress. To give you more background on myself, I am an American, a concealed-carry permit holder, and a gun owner.
I often meet people who are either undecided or fully anti-gun, in varying degrees of rabid devotion to the concept. To be absolutely honest, I enjoy talking to these people. I won't go into specifics of the conversations I've had, I don't want to derail the thread, but sufficed to say, many of these people were absolutely die-hard in their belief structure on the topic. No ifs, ands, or buts, guns are bad and you're a terrible person for owning a firearm or thinking otherwise. Rabid, rabid devotion. I still enjoy talking to them.
The first, and most important thing to remember is that you want to foster debate, not argument. They sound like the same thing, but are, in reality, very different; not only that, but they differ depending on each individual in the conversation. To sum them up simply, however, I like to describe them like this:
Argument can be described as the attempt of an individual to convince the other party that they are right. My idea is right, here are the facts, this is why my idea is right and yours is wrong. Debate, on the other hand, can be described as completely abandoning the idea of right and wrong, at least initially. Exploring the issue is the key. You've presented your idea, I understand it, now what would happen if we implemented it? What about these problems that might arise? I don't necessarily agree with this point of view over here, but it's something that someone could logically argue; what would be the counterpoint to that? So on, and so forth.
As I said, I've met many, many people who are anti-gun. Dozens, if not a couple hundred over the years, I've talked to, debated with, thought with; and many of them are not so anti-gun now. I cannot count the number of times I've heard the phrase, "Huh. I never thought of it that way.", or something similar. Education through intelligent discourse and debate is, I believe, the key to moving our society forward. These people that I've talked to, some just hadn't been exposed to a 'gun guy' outside of the rabid 'HANDSOFFMYGUNS' crowd. Some just hadn't thought much about it. Others had, but hadn't had someone come along that would say anything more than 'that's a stupid idea, and you should be ashamed of yourself for thinking it'.
I don't believe there is ever a point where one should stop talking to people and encouraging that kind of dialogue. I'm not saying you should badger someone who extremely set in their ways, but never write them off as completely done. Again, that kind of dialogue is unique to each person, but continue to be willing to talk to them, and eventually you may find the door to the intelligent discussion that might lead that delusional person to some sense.
Accomplish that, and we can continue moving forward as a culture, one person at a time.
