Inshallah Instructor Injures Individual

[Benp]

However, teaching is about determining which methodology is better than another and employing the best one, or a combination of good methodologies; that really should be obvious.

I see it as a roadmap to gun safety, whether you take one route or another it doesn't matter as long as you arrive at the destination. Now if someone is arriving at a different destination, then yes there is a problem.

 

[jamil]

That's an impossibility.


However, teaching is about determining which methodology is better than another and employing the best one, or a combination of good methodologies; that really should be obvious.

This is true. Coke is obviously, objectively better.

 

[Benp]

Well obviously!

 

[JettaKnight]

I see it as a roadmap to gun safety, whether you take one route or another it doesn't matter as long as you arrive at the destination. Now if someone is arriving at a different destination, then yes there is a problem.

Is teaching grammar a roadmap to better writing?

 

[Alpo]

NRA3 Grammar Nazi REPORTED!!!

 

[jamil]

Is teaching grammar a roadmap to better writing?

Not on the internet.

 

[ATM]

Ahhhh ... so now you don't teach them that only an unhandled gun is not dangerous? You just teach the other rules and hope they get it? I clearly misunderstood when you said:

Hopefully you can understand my confusion. In that case I'm back to disagreeing with you for failing to make that explicit.

Regardless of whether you teach it explicitly or simply hope people eventually come to that realization on their own, the presumption is ultimately that a gun should be handled as though it were dangerous whether you believe it to be loaded or not, true?

Teaching others is often much more than simply saying a thing explicitly, it is transferring the knowledge that will make them successful in reasoning their way to success themselves and testing to ensure that their comprehension and application are correct - there is no hope involved except for their continued success in applying and teaching what they have learned beyond the point where they get it right, but to the point they can no longer come up with a reason get it wrong.

Love the students more than yourself.

 

[cordex]

Teaching others is often much more than simply saying a thing explicitly, it is transferring the knowledge that will make them successful in reasoning their way to success themselves and testing to ensure that their comprehension and application are correct - there is no hope involved except for their continued success in applying and teaching what they have learned beyond the point where they get it right, but to the point they can no longer come up with a reason get it wrong.

Love the students more than yourself.

That's okay, ATM, when someone is publicly invested in an argument as you are it is hard to admit you were wrong. However you teach them Cooper #1 I am sure you do it well.

 

[ATM]

The confidence of your argument is irrelevant to the validity and truthful outcome of your argument. If it is only to get people to engage you in the way you want them to engage, it really hasn't accomplished that the way you wanted.

So about the other stuff. If the premise of your argument is true, it should follow that your conclusions are true. So for the valid parts of your arguments, you've tended to state a premise without establishing its truthfulness. That's not required to say it's "reasonableness" in subjective terms. But it is required for a valid argument to be true objectively. For the parts of your arguments that are invalid, I don't think I need to address those further.

So. Is it reasonable for you to be of the opinion that the NRA rules are better than the Cooper rules? Sure. In a subjective sense. Different strokes and all. But "reasonable" doesn't make it true. It is unreasonable to assert that your opinion is objective truth, because you've not connected the dots between your reasoning and reality. For that your premises need to be true, and your conclusions must logically follow. So here's the important question: As taught by equally effective instructors, will teaching the NRA rules produce more safe students than teaching cooper's rules? Those are the dots you haven't connected. You've given reasons why you think it should. But you've presented it as if it is a foregone conclusion. In a sense, you straw-man the opposing position rather than strong-manning it.

So. Here are my recommendations to improve your case.

1) Be more honest about the other side's case. Instead of blustering as a form of straw-man, you should strongman the argument. What I mean by that, the "bluster" part is where you seem to minimize the other side of the argument, and try to argue as if you've already have established your superiority, when you have not. This is a form of straw-man, much like the progressives do with non-progressives. The Daily Show does this, for example. It's their main shtick. I think you build a stronger case, a more objectively believable case, when you engage opposition on an equal footing, and pick the strongest parts of the argument to address. I think perhaps your ENTP traits, which are an overall strength in debating, may be a weakness in this area. You tend to minimize or deny when good points are made.

2) Be more honest about your side of the argument. You tend to state subjective things as if they're objective things, as if your statements stand upon their own merit, and are at face value without further need of support. To be taken as an objective statement, some things require further support than just reasoning alone. Without establishing that the facts within your statements are true, your argument doesn't necessarily produce a truthful conclusion. This should be obvious. I think I've touched on some examples of this previously. But then when people call you on it, you either deny, deflect or filibuster (I've explained what I mean by that). That's not being honest about your side of the argument. It makes it appear that you're trying to win more than you're trying to get to the truth. You seem to approach it as if you've already know the truth, that you're just trying to get everyone to agree with your truth.

3) Ask for only what you can prove is justified. You tell me that you don't need to prove that your premise is true, that you don't need to built a logical case why it's is true, that your reasoning alone is sufficient. I suspect this is because it's hard to do what I've asked. And I get that. But, because you want everyone to change to your way and stop teaching Cooper's rules, it puts a greater burden of proving the need. It requires your premises to be objectively true. If you want everyone to change, reason alone isn't enough, just as reason alone doesn't establish that "global warming" justifies mountains of life-changing regulations, and spending the people's money on green energy. With thinking people, it's harder for you to justify a change without proving the need beyond subjective reasoning.

So. My question for you to answer on that remains. The question is not, "is it reasonable to change?" Different people will reach different conclusions about what is reasonable to them. A more objective question would be, "as taught by equally effective instructors, will teaching the NRA rules produce more safe students than teaching cooper's rules?" If you can establish what is the truth for that question, then your conclusion of that logically follows.

tl;dr

This wasn't a hypothetical, jamil, I actually demonstrated the superior instructive/corrective application of the NRA3 over a reliance on old #1 specifically from my first post. That demonstration was completed by post #82.

It wasn't countered well, if at all. I was interested to see if anyone could counter what I accomplished, even as an exercise. They didn't.

Everything else has just been leaving what I accomplished to stand unopposed as an option for those who would like to test it further for themselves, possibly adopt it. It obviously works great.

I'm not limited to any particular debate framework, I was actually rather immune to most simple debate attempts. You offered nothing that would reverse, halt or even impede my advance, no challenge to what I'd done or suggested others could easily do if they want to eradicate the most common excuse for negligent gun handling as I do.

I tried to keep things interesting, and there's much more to consider, but there's nothing else for me to do with this thread. It stands as an example for consideration. I'll add it to my list of INGO argument matches for future reference.

I hope the readers were challenged to think.

 

[ATM]

That's okay, ATM, when someone is publicly invested in an argument as you are it is hard to admit you were wrong. However you teach them Cooper #1 I am sure you do it well.

I've enjoyed the discussions, but at this point, I can no longer come up with a reason to get it wrong.

 

[littletommy]

Wow, this has gone way beyond the point of anybody besides the few combatants giving a **** about either side of the argument. You guys need to find another hobby, geeze! And to think, we're all supposedly on the same side.

 

[Expat]

I just dropped in to see what littletommy had to say about all of this.

 

[littletommy]

I just dropped in to see what littletommy had to say about all of this.

Have you subscribed to my newsletter? If not, you're missing the best of the best!

 

[BE Mike]

Have you subscribed to my newsletter? If not, you're missing the best of the best!

I've got a bundle bet on who'll get the last word!

 

[ATM]

...it could be you.

word!

 

[ol' Huff]

But but muh Cooper metaphor!!!

 

[ATM]