You are asserting that "guns can be misused so they must be controlled" is the exact OPPOSITE of the argument the left uses?

If I parse that, its opposite is "guns can be misused so they must NOT be controlled." Is THAT what you think the Left argues?

Or “guns CAN’T be misused so they must be controlled.” I still don’t get it…

I’m confused…

Unless you are thinking I am saying YOUR argument is the gun control argument. I was not saying that, although I can see where you could be confused. I did not mean to imply that was what YOU were saying. I was just pointing out that it is the inherent “utility” of guns that leads the Left to call for controlling them.
CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day

In a gun control context, my arguement is:  Guns don’t kill, people do.

And that is exactly the logic the Left uses to argue for gun control. It can be misused so it must be controlled.

I’m all for letting people make their own choices, but I’ll also point out that tools can be used for selfish purposes when it is appropriate for the context.

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Toon of the Day

If it will cut a 2×4, it will also cut your hand off.

There are some tool-like abstractions that can form intent or initiate action (like governments, markets and software) as emergent behaviors.  Other tools, though, are only reflections of the tool’s user.

Thanks again for proving the value of your favorite line from Carnegie’s book. You are a virtual FOUNTAIN of demonstration of how "Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain, and most fools do." Carnegie would be proud to use you as a model to illustrate what he means.

As for the miniscule portion of your comment that actually merits a response, here’s my reply:

The original post that sparked this thread was specifically recommending that, among other things, people "fake an interest" in order to build a social relationship at work.

I didn’t start the "manipulation" suggestion ctl, the original poster did. All I said was that if you wanted to learn how to DO that manipulation, Dale Carnegie’s book was an excellent book to use. Then I pointed out how I PERSONALLY felt that such manipulation was unethical, and that when I needed people to agree to do something, I preferred to use rational arguments instead.

How you go from that to me being "exceptionally immoral" is downright laughable. Except, of course, that I tweaked your nose a bit with my comment about how you demonstrated (twice now in one thread) how your favorite Carnegie line was so true.

Notice how I haven’t felt a need to call you names or attack your morals or anything else. I tend to let people’s own comments do that for me. And in your case, thanks, you did an excellent job. If nothing else, your comments here provide an excellent example of what sort of social skills NOT to use. And it’s nice to see that you aren’t choosing to follow the Carnegie method in a manipulative manner (or any other manner I can see).

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Don’t flush Flipper down the loo?

Bingo. I recently saw a very interesting presentation on brainwashing techniques from a recovering cult member, and she pointed out that most brainwashing techniques (the ones that actually work, anyway) are no more and no less than the same things most socially adept people do every day. The intensity, the intent, and the results of interactions over a period of time are what causes it to be called brainwashing. Many conversations have an intent to persuade; brainwashing is merely very very successful persuasion.

I became an engineer, once a mid-level manager/group leader at a national lab & am not particularly social. It was reccomended to me that I particiapte in a team-work/personal interaction class based on Tabi Kahler’s "process communication model."  http://www.taibikahlerassociates.com/ PCM is based (I think) on  transactional analysis (I am not in anyway a psychologist) and remdined me a little of the Meyers-Briggs system for profiling personality types (which you can get/do online — MB is pretty "open source").   Kahler has kept tight control over the material as a business, and I think that is probably why the method is not as widely known/used as Meyers-Briggs.

The PCM material is very systematic and illuminating; it does not try to get to the "why" people act the way they do, but describes how people react and interact in a way that observably works.   I think the systems approach probably appeals to me as an analyst/synthesist.  And it was very useful. 

Any book on how to be a better person can also be used as a manual for how to appear to be a better person without really being one. The same is true of any book. Programmers can use a programming book to sound more knowledgeable without getting any better at programming, someone could use a book on locksmithing to bluff their way through pretending that they’re a locksmith, or perhaps to learn how to be a thief. There’s no possible book with a use that can’t also be misused.

So what proof do you offer that Carnegie’s book was meant to be misused, other than you personally being an asshole? I’ll certainly take your word for it that you would only misuse the book, but what proof do you offer that the author intended the book that way? Suppose, at least for the sake of argument, that I won’t accept the premise that everyone is at least as bad a person as you are; for all I know you’re exceptionally immoral.

Whether Carnegie said "you should only use these techniques when you truly care about people" or not is completely beside the point. The point is that his book is a manual on the manipulation of people to achieve your personal goals. Appealing to the "better nature" of people in order to justify the techniques might well resonate with people of a certain political persuasion, but in REALITY we all know that those techniques are not used in that manner by some people who read the book. Is it a majority who exploit the techniques to further their own personal goals? I guess you’ll have to decide that for yourself. All I know is that when I see people obviously utilizing those techniques, my first reaction is not “oh, what a kind and caring person.” And that’s not JUST because it’s usually a sales or marketing person.

It’s nice to see you demonstrate the meaning of your favorite line so well, btw.

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Horse painter goes international