How to tell the people from the furniture.

Yesterday or so while reading the archives of a blog I’ve taken a liking to I discovered a link to a woman who posts a blog by the name of “Blue Flypaper,” she goes by “True Blue.”  I read a few of her posts as well as her responses to various commenters before I lost any taste for reading further.  The sample size may have been small, but it was exceedingly consistent.  It is my fervent hope that this woman does not call the Pacific Northwest home, but by the same token, I don’t see many rational people hoping she’s in their metaphoric back-yard either.  This woman bothers me on deeply personal level.

It is not so much that I disagree with her opinions, of which there are a plethora to choose from, as I am horrified by how she holds them.  The application of critical thinking seems to be completely alien to this woman.  I would suspect that there are at least a couple topics where our opinions are more or less in line with one another, but there is no way I would ever willingly call attention to those intersections of commonality.  Any group that allows her to speak on their behalf will be the weaker for it for that one simple fact.

Let me illustrate my point, she responded to a couple commenters to a post where she was deriding a guy simply because he likes guns and believes they have a purpose.  Her rebuttal was,

“First. Are you folks going to tell me that there wouldn't be a loss less deaths in Iraq if guns were outlawed? I wish we weren't there (and it is an illegal and immoral war, if you don't beleive me as Cindy Sheehan, she should know!). Anyway, since we're there, the least we could do would be to implement some strict gun control measures so that people would stop getting shot. We've exported our gun culture to the Middle East, and don't tell me that it wasn't us. Because it was!”

Fair enough.  It’s an alleged argument of dubious merit, but about par for the course in conversation these days.  However, as it is an argument, let’s take it apart and see how it stands up to scrutiny.  Not too well as it happens.

The first statement is based upon two major assumptions; that guns are not outlawed and that guns are the cause of death in that country.  The first assumption, that firearms are not outlawed, makes no rational sense.  Before the US moved in to occupy the Iraq, the country was governed by a military dictatorship.  There is no way that the government would tolerate weaponry in the hands of normal citizens.  Since the invasion, the distinct potential of armed partisans looking to cause mischief is going to be high in the thoughts of both US armed forces and the current Iraqi government which means that guns are almost certainly illegal to possess.  Though I do not possess first-hand knowledge about the legality of firearms in Iraq, the odds are that the first assumption is incorrect.

The second assumption flatly ignores the number of people killed by stoning, hanging, and decapitation as a matter of public record, let alone the efficacy of explosives.  There is no indication that removing guns from the equation would have anything beyond a cosmetic effect.

A stated wish possesses no merit to an argument.

Next, we move right back to the earlier assumption about the legality of firearms in Iraq which has already been discussed to segue into a nebulous statement.  “Gun culture” sounds good.  It sits on the brain and tongue well.  What it lacks is definition and without those pesky minutia delineated to indicate what the term is supposed to mean, it’s a moot term and therefor irrelevant.

The juvenile tone of the concluding statement does little but further damage her prior claims.

If one endeavored to counter Blue’s claims with evidence in support of their contradicting views, she is quick to discount it.

“I love how gun control conservatives love to throw facts around! Fact here, fact there. Statistics here, statistics there. Sheesh, give it a rest!”

That’s because being able to produce evidence in support of the claims you are making demonstrates a foundation in reality.  Without it, all one has is speculation at best.  Regardless, unsupported statements are exercises of rhetoric and fiction.

There is a very definite pattern to Blue’s actions.  This is not atypical of her capacity to debate and as I mentioned at the outset, it’s this woman’s sharply limited cognitive abilities that bothers me.

1. Her opinions are inviolate.  Someone can ask her why she believes a particular thing, but there is no room for challenge.  If the reason is good enough for her, it is good enough for everyone.  Therefor, her opinions are maintained out of blind faith rather than formed out of reason.
   
2. When confronted with arguments she does not agree with, but cannot categorically refute, she either does the text-based equivalent of putting her fingers in her ears and talking over the other person until they shut up or dismissing it as some sort of nefarious “trick”.
   
3. On the occasions when she admits to lacking knowledge on a certain topic she wishes to speak about, she attempts to portray her ignorance as a virtue.

Although I really hate that I have linked to her site and could theoretically inflate her sense of self-worth with more traffic, I think it’s important to point out someone who has failed in their charge to be a rational adult human being.  Whatever merit her beliefs might have held is stripped away by her blind faith that feelings are paramount to logic.