Arguing in Ignorance

I can't  help but notice that a lot of the most strident opinions I see argued on the net, and mostly on Facebook at that, are done in blistering ignorance.

This includes, I'd note, recycled "why this or that" items other people have prepared that are posted in as if they're really informative, just because they exist.

Make no mistake, arguments, no matter how self convinced, that are presented in ignorance, aren't very convincing except to the already convinced in ignorance.  These mostly reinforce a strongly held, but not very well examined, belief the poster holds.  They don't advance any argument at all for that reason.

For example, there's a lot of people who argue for gun control that are completely ignorant on firearms, the use of firearms, and even on actual crime rates. . .anywhere.  Given that, we get stuff that's really stupid like "Why Japan has a low murder rate and why we should adopt Japanese gun control".

Japan does have a low murder rate.  It also has a really high suicide rate.  It's also xenophobic,  homogeneous, and frankly fairly racist and has a culture that really accepts nearly complete control on what people will or can do with their lives in all sorts of ways.

That's not a model for anything other than Japan, accepting that its a model for Japan, which it arguably shouldn't be.

The same sort of "walk this way" mentality that allowed Japan to engage in regional murder and imperial expansion in the 1920s through the 1940s allows it to control who will own what and why in terms of firearms.  It also helps create a culture in which a lot of Japanese would rather be dead.  And the culture is so vastly different from the American one, where people feel that they get to do what they want with what they want, that it's not a model for anything whatsoever.

But people who don't use firearms adopt the model because, well, they don't use firearms and haven't though thought it out.

It isn't even really accurate.  There is, for example, a thing on "Why Japan has a low murder rate" circulating right now that urges the US to adopt the same policies in cartoon form, but it doesn't even have Japan's policies on guns down correctly.  It claims that after a very difficult process a Japanese person who has a need for a firearm that's demonstrated, and who jumps through all sorts of hoops, can get a shotgun or an "air rifle". Wrong.

First of all, the Japanese policy on guns is difficult, to be sure, but not as difficult as people who cite to it like to claim.  Japan does tightly restrict firearms ownership, but in terms of simply banning an entire class of sporting firearms, only handguns are actually banned.

And, fwiw, Japan is experiencing a growth in hunting (and fishing) as women in the country enter those sports.  So, cartoon circulators, you're way off the mark.

Citing to Japan in the US in any event makes about as much sense as me making suggestions for NASCAR and football, both of which I can't stand.  I can't stand them, and I don't understand them, which is why I don't make suggestions for football and NASCAR.

But I could.

And some do. I  know, for example, that football has a tragic concussion rate and there are those who really worry about it.  I worry about that some, as I know that young people play the game.

But I can't stand the game personally so I try not to spout off about it.  But, perhaps, I could say that "Japan has a low youth concussion rate?  Why? Well it doesn't let its youth play football.  Instead, they draw anime on their computers and briefly flirt with weird cuteness and a culture that approves of cartoon character that feature a superhero called "Rape Man".  Yes, that's what we should do too".

Does that make sense.  No, and while there is a Japanese cartoon character called "Rape Man" and the Japanese culture does (or perhaps did) have a weird thing for "cute", I'm sure it's otherwise way off the mark.

Just like it is to suggest that Japan offers anything to inform us about gun control.  The only culture that can inform u son that topic is our own.

That includes Australia, I'd note.

I also see a lot of citations to Australia as a prime example of what we ought to do regarding guns.  Well, actually Australia's murder rate is just about the same as the US one in the states with low gun control.

What?  Yes, that's right.  US states with low gun control have low murder rates and Australia with high gun control has low murder rates.  Which suggest that perhaps the murder rates in these two English speaking and European culture countries might be tied to something else.

Indeed, in stupid arguments, I recently saw a post by an Australian that if he lived in the US he'd carry a gun all the time as its so dangerous here. Well, Oz, just about as dangerous as Perth, actually.  I.e., not very.

Of course Americans have done a good job of making their own cities look horribly dangerous by portraying them that way on television.  Most aren't, however.  Big ones usually have a district that is, but most big cities everywhere do.  Even cities that are really dangerous, like Chicago, aren't as dangerous as television and the movies portray them.  According to television, for example, Chicago is in a four alarm fire all the time.

And while we discuss "something else" in terms of English speaking European cultured countries, I saw a headline posted on the net the other day entitled "Why Canada Does Things Better than The US".  I'm not sure I'd agree that Canada does do things better than the US, but if it does, perhaps having a more homogeneous culture that has less than 10% of the American population might have something to do with that. 

People hate it when you say that, and Americans particularly do as we like to cite to the claim that "we're a nation of immigrants" and "diversity is our strength" but in truth, while it doesn't say anything for or against our immigration policies, homogeneous nations with lower population generally do everything better, except (usually) accepting immigrants. Canada, which has done that, except not like the US, is an exception to that rule.  Anyhow, if the US had a population of 30 million rather than over 300 million, yes it too probably would be doing everything just super.  That's not an argument for or against anything, but when you argue "we're doing super" and you are a nation of low population. well. . . .

But you can't pat yourself on the back, if you are Canada, for that, as it looks bad.  "Yes!  Our climate and history means we've kept the population lower and less diverse!  Hooray for liberal us!"  No, you can't do that.

Nor can you pat yourself on the back, really, for "good old American know how".  While I see memes on that sort of thing all the time, the US became the powerful nation it is in large part because it had a combination of English Common Law (which we didn't think up), free market economics (mostly accidentally) and vast unexplored natural resources (which we didn't put there).  Almost all of the nations that have shared these benefits, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US have done super.

On another topic, I have a couple of friends who are really hostile to religion. They hate it.  They are also amongst those whose personal lives are such a titanic mess that they could best benefit from religion. . .any religion, as they've made such a dog's breakfast of their own existence.  And yet they'll blame religion for everything.  "Christianity is keeping people down!"  Hmmm, your string of failed relationship, broken marriages, and drug use might have something to do with keeping your economic status in the dumpers. . . just saying.

These folks typically have no idea what the tenants of any religion actually are. They just now that religions, at the end of the day, say that there's something greater than oneself out there, and they hate that idea more than anything else.  They often also tend to be fairly hostile to life, for one reason or another, but don't recognize that.

On that, an ignorant argument by anti life, i.e., "pro choice" people, will be, "oh  yeah, well you pro life people sure don't care anything about life outside the womb!".  That's complete bull.

If you look at it, the same people who are pro life tend to be radically pro adoption and very very frequently opponents of the death penalty.  They're likely more charitable towards the young in stress or need than anyone else.

Which brings up an ignorant argument from the last election cycle.  Last election cycle, as things began to go down the tubes for Hillary Clinton, people kept saying "she's worked her whole life for women".

I'm not sure what Clinton did for women, but quite frankly you can't claim to be a worker for the interest of women and also be an abortion proponent, as over half the babies killed in that process are female.  So, in reality, if Clinton worked her whole life for women, it has to be qualified as working for women who are born only.  It's a fairly significant qualifier.

Also as qualifiers, quite frankly are the zillions of simple minded heart warming stories that start of with some surprising fact and then take you to some amazing conclusions.  You know, "This boy was left in the woods. . . wolves found  him. . . but they brought him a burger from a Burger King dumpster. . . " and you go on to find its Bill Gates.  Hmmmmmm . . .probably more to that story. . . 

I guess the lesson in all of this might be this.

Facebook advocacy snippets tend to be dumb.