What we have here is an inability to argue productively
Share
Tweet
Productive arguments are those in which the two opposing participants actually listen to each other in order to learn what the other is saying, thereby enhancing the ability to refute it.
But the trick is that the act of listening requires understanding the other viewpoint. When that happens in most situations, stances get modified, even if only slightly. Humans are not omnipotent, and quite of...
For access to this article please
sign in or
subscribe.
Reader Comments(1)
STEVEN PHILLIPS writes:
Scott, this is in response to the 2nd Amendment argument imbedded in your Op-Ed on July 21. On the Federal level, the Supreme Court of the United States has settled the debate over the meaning of the 2nd Amendment in the landmark case ''DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER'', decision issued on June 26, 2008. In that decision, the majority ''held that the Second Amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO POSSESS firearms and that the city's [gun restrictions at issue] violated that right''. The Court based it's finding on a very lengthy and thorough analysis issued with it's final decision. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the decision is irrelevant. This is settled U.S. law. With regard to firearms rights in this state, the State of Washington is governed and bound by Article 1 ''DECLARATION OF RIGHTS'', Section 24 ''RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS'', of the Washington State Constitution ratified in 1889. It reads in full, ''The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.'' The clear and unambiguous language of Section 24 should inform even the most casual of readers that the 37 Washington State Sheriffs who have pledged to defend our constitutional rights are doing exactly what we elected them to do.
07/22/2021, 1:22 pm