On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:02:08 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Bing" wrote in message
(snip)

I'm not worried about guns much at all. My own collection is of a size that
the news reports call a "private arsenal" when they talk about some gun
owner who goes berserk.

Since an arsenal can be defined as a "stock of weapons" that wouldn't be a lie.
Sometimes telling the truth selectively can be better than an outright lie.


Lots of things to fix that are at the crux of the biscuit. But, bring up
guns in any context and alluva sudden everybody's a statistician of sorts.
Gun crimes are easy to cite. The problems I stated are not so easy to
track
down.

Ah, but when Gunner et al. quote a statistic, you're supposed to BELIEVE it,
because it's a pro-gun statistic. People like Ford, in general (and I don't
know him so I can't say whether he's one of these or not) count on you not
checking out what they say. That's one of the methods Joseph Goebbels used
for the Nazis, if you've ever studied his work. That's how you perpetuate a
lie to serve your own ideological purposes.

What's wrong with the truth? Is it just too equivocal and boring these days?

Which truth? There are lots of truths to pick from. There are often SEVERAL
different truths to pick from in almost any situation.


I know you were arguing with Gunner not me. Sowee to step on yer post but
thought I might nudge it in another direction. Hope ya dont mind.

Not at all. I have my own ideology, which some people don't like. It's based
on the idea that the facts are more important and more valuable than
comfortable and unsupportable beliefs -- "I know what I believe," they say,
"and that's all that matters."

And an argument like the one you're making here is a legitimate one, while a
lie like Ford is perpetuating is not.

Where was the lie? If a statement is ambiguous that doesn't make it a lie if you
disagree with one of the possible interpretations of it.

It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler