Continuing the discussion from In the 334 days of 2015, America has seen 351 mass shootings (and counting):
So I’ve been getting sick of the gun threads here lately. I decided to wade into one a little while ago and I decided to skip every single post that was an argument I’d heard before.
I ended up reading the joke posts and that was it. So I’ve come to a shocking conclusion: No one has not heard the arguments. No one has anything new to say about this. Yes, that means you. Personally. I know you think that you’ve got some extra special metaphor/thought experiment/gun-related fish pun that will blow people’s minds. The reality is that it’s going to be a retread of well-established tropes and the only minds it will blow are those of the people who agree with you.
With that, and the incalculable challenges of what I’m about to propose in mind, let’s settle this.
As much as I would like to put this whole matter to rest in favor of the results of a sumo-wrestling match between Wayne LaPierre and John Kerry, I suspect that this will not mollify people.
I want this discussion to be highly formalized. I propose the following rules:
#DON’TS:
-
No personal attacks. No veiled personal attacks. No veiled insults, and no insinuation. It’s not because this is fallacious reasoning. “You’re stupid, therefore you are wrong,” is a fallacious argument. “You’re stupid,” is just a potentially provable argument. Mostly, it’s off-topic. We can discuss other commentators relative intelligence in other threads.
-
No analogies. You are not permitted, for the purposes of this argument, to draw any kind of analogy to prove your point. Again, this isn’t strictly speaking related to fallacious reasoning. Mostly it derails discussion and quickly goes off topic. Suddenly the subject at hand becomes whether the analogy is apt, and all analogies break down at some point. It’s a waste of time, and your brilliant analogy never really was going to convince anyone anyway.
-
No refutation of others’ citations, without evidence to the exact contrary. You have to accept the facts and figures of any organization, researcher, or group not directly linked to a commentator. You can argue with an interpretation of statistics, but you may not claim that they were fabricated. This avoids a lot of wasted time. If you have a conflicting study, you must demonstrate that the study is somehow superior, but under no circumstances is researcher or organizational bias to be taken into account. Partly this goes to the ad hominem fallacy. That someone is passionate about a topic does not mean they are wrong about it. In fact, certainty breeds confidence. If I got into a passionate argument about what 2+2 equals, my passionate love of the number four will not mean my research and proof of this fact can be dismissed because of my bias. Another reason for this policy is to avoid lazy armchair dismissal of what is certainly an endeavor that took a lot more money and effort than you sunk into you comment. You’re not allowed to simply wave things off because you don’t like the messenger.
-
No statistical or scientific citation sourced from any major news organization. You can link to a news story about a study done by someone else, but news organizations suck at controlled studies and surveys as a general rule. Think about how often they throw something up where in the corner it states, “Not a scientific poll.” They are journalists, cite their stories, not their research.
-
No personal anecdotes. I don’t care about you.
-
No allegations or assertions of mental illness unless diagnosed by a qualified medical expert. (And no, not an expert on television who performed a distance diagnosis.) I think that’s an impeccably fair standard for diagnosis. Also, don’t assert that mental illness made anyone do anything without evidence that the action was directly controlled by the mental state. (Basically, if they can’t get a positive verdict with an insanity plea, we as a society decided they are culpable based on the standards for culpability in relation to mental illness.) This avoids extensive navel-gazing about whether or not someone was, or wasn’t, or could, maybe, possibly, likely, at some point, maybe presently but not before, be mentally ill. Frankly, you’re not a doctor, and if you are a doctor, you didn’t examine them.
#DOs:
-
Define your priorities for society; the broader the better. In a debate like this, it really comes down to what kinds of sacrifices you’re willing to make. If your priorities are “I don’t care how many people die as long as I can own guns,” then you don’t belong here. Seriously, what are you going to argue? Conversely, if your argument is “No one can or should own guns under any circumstance, because not one death is acceptable,” then you don’t belong here either. There is no debate to be had with these priorities. There’s literally nothing to argue. You have to state clearly what you consider acceptable. I recommend this be done in bold font, and any change in position also be done in bold font. You are not allowed to change your position on your priorities without stating so clearly and directly.
-
Leave the thread if you’re starting to get mad, frustrated, or angry. Drink some tea, read a book, pick lint out of your belly-button. Whatever relaxes you. Until you’ve calmed down, you don’t belong here.
-
Link that shit. Don’t just say, “a study found this, this, and this,” without linking directly to it if possible, even if it’s paywalled. You can certainly link to both a news story and the article if possible. Some of us have access to these resources and would like to read the whole thing instead FoNNBC News’s laziest summary.
-
Argue in good faith beyond reproach. Honesty is the best policy. If you know you were wrong about something, admit it. It doesn’t mean your whole position is demolished, and digging yourself into a deeper hole is often a lot worse for your argument than you realize. Of course, if you don’t know you’re wrong about something, this is impossible, but give it some effort.
-
Segregate opinion and personal history from argument. Sometimes I like to read about how people formed an opinion, or changed their mind. This history is never relevant to the strength of their argument, but it can be helpful to see where someone is coming from. This is a half-exception to the personal anecdote rule. Since this is extraneous to the argument, place it in a separate paragraph in italics.
-
Lead with a strong claim. This is more stylistic, but it is incredibly helpful. Saying, “Guns are bad but some people like them,” is not a strong claim. Saying, “Guns have killed X number of people and there is no alternative now but to place a tracking chip in the genitals of all gun owners,” is a strong claim, and a strong position statement. It has solid points that can be argued with.
-
Refuse to engage any argument made without sufficient citation. Bearing in mind DON’T #3, you are under no obligation to engage an argument based on an unlinked, uncited statistic or fact. If someone wants to claim X number of people killed by Y proves Z, then X and Y require citation. If nothing else, it keep people from assuming their facts are correct.
-
Read the damn rules. This includes the BBS Community Guidelines.
#Have at it!
