Undisclosed.
I won't link them, they don't need any traffic from me. But, I did make a mistake today. I strolled (clicked?) on over to the CSGV blog to read the post where they 'out' those who had negative things to say about their candle lighting vigil.
I call this a mistake, because the quotes they pull tend to be tremendously out of context. When I decided to post a comment to point out that obvious error, I realized that commenting is disabled. Really? You're going to out people, using their real names and cities of residence, but won't even extend the courtesy of having an open dialog with those people?
OK, I can wrap my brain around the fact that they are desperate enough to be that hypocritical, they are desperate. I can wrap my brain around their being on the wrong side of the issue, not everyone has taken the time to study various issues from a truly neutral standpoint. I can even wrap my brain around their attempting to take a holier-than-thou stance, it IS, after all, what people tend to do when they do not have the moral high ground.
Where I have issues is with them claiming to be honoring those who have lost their lives to 'gun violence.'
Not only is their premise a bad premise, but the very act of mocking those killed in one incident in this fashion is appalling. Yes, I say they are mocking those killed, because they are using the tragedy to further their own agenda.
Let's think about this logically:
Step 1 - Define Vigil:
- A period of keeping awake during the time usually spent asleep, esp. to keep watch or pray.
- A stationary, peaceful demonstration in support of a particular cause, typically without speeches.
Step 2 - Determine their usage of it.
Clearly, they are not using the first definition, as they are not keeping watch over anything, and I have yet to hear any of them invoke the name of our Creator. At least, not in a vain fashion. So, let's look more closely at the second definition. "...support of a particular cause..."
Step 3 - Determine the intent.
What cause? If the 'vigil' is to 'honor' deceased, that's not a cause which needs much intentional support. Step 4 - Apply logic to the method.
Those who loved the deceased honor them as they deserve. Outside onlookers 'honoring' them tend to be a distraction, and a detraction, from any honor being given unto them.
Which means that there's another motive. Is it an attention getting motive, as Miguel suspects? I think that's a reasonable direction to go with this. So, really the 'cause' they are supporting here is drawing attention to themselves.
Alternatively, other motives could include, but are not limited to, the following:
Attempting to thwart their entrance into the dustbin of history.
Attempting to redirect attention from the REAL issue (crime) and topple a straw man they have built.
Attempting to gain monies from people who are too lazy to do the research behind the 'cause.'
Attempting to force themselves into current issues in order to 'feel better' about themselves.
Attempting to use a genuine tragedy perpetrated by a pathetic individual to further their own agenda.
Please, comment below with your own ideas of what their motives or goals could have been. I'm curious to see what we can come up with!
Redeemed Boyd,
ReplyDeleteI think they are trying to use emotional appeal to convince people to ignore the facts, to ignore the decisions in the Court cases, to the loss of liberty -- because they have nothing else to use.
It is an attention getting motive -- notice that they could have simply honored the victims without being interviewed, without naming their organization.
They didn't.
It is an attempt to gain monies not to change public opinion or engage in dialog. Notice how little of either they do.
They could have raised money for the families of the victims.
They didn't.
Nope, they want money to be able to convince a small portion of the country (state and federal legislation) to infringe on our liberty.
You're right. They don't dare to sit down and partake in reasoned discourse with anyone on our side, instead they (forgive the puns) chose to snipe us from their ivory towers, and deny us entry, mowing us down, as it were, when we attempt to bring reasoned discourse to them.
DeleteAttention Getting. Also I suspect you saw in the article how high on a pedestal they put Joan Peterson.
ReplyDeleteYou see, because she's a "Victim" we're not allowed to question her motives or her methods. That's "Insensitive", the same goes for these vigils. They're "honoring" the dead and pushing laws that would not have saved any of them, and likely would have ADDED people to the cause. (You'll note they chose me and several other bloggers....but they omitted bloggers like Robb Allen, Caleb Giddings, as well as the Cranky Chicks who noted tales of guns saving their lives. Victims are only useful if they're helpless)
They use the blood of the dead to further their cause, and then accuse us of disrespect when we call them on it.
She needs to take a note out of the books of people who overcome victim-hood. There are entirely too many examples throughout history of people responding to negative environments, situations, circumstances, treatment, etc. that not only overcome, but triumph beyond what most 'normal' people would do.
DeleteAnd her victimization is questionable at best.
The real world is a cruel place, and folks like this community try to make it better. People in hers try to bring everyone down to the lowest level of everyone, and make it an even playing field. Unfortunately the only even playing field at that point is a thick, steaming pile of ... swamp.
I overcame. It's very hard to change from "I hope they stop" to "it stops NOW!"
Delete