Comments on: The debate over the Virginia Tech debate

By: Joshua Claybourn

Joshua Claybourn — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:52:24 +0000

Eric: That appears to have been an update you added after I first read it. I have amended this post to reflect your amendment.

By: philosopher

philosopher — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:32:40 +0000

I’m glad you linked to the discussions at Volokh Conspiracy — I was very close to putting a link up to them on the earlier comment thread, in fact.
My short take on the question of what’s good/bad to do in the short-term aftermath of a disastrous event:
discussions = good;
serious, thoughtful, informed discussions = very good;
drawing quick political conclusions = bad;
passing legislation = very bad.

By: Eric Muller

Eric Muller — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:10:26 +0000

Joshua, you say that I “ignore[ ] an equal number of swift calls for greater gun control in the wake of the shootings.”
In truth, I equally condemned a “conservative/libertarian” post at Malkin’s blog and a “liberal” post at Americablog.
Go take a look, please, and then correct this post.

By: Brandon A

Brandon A — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:57:19 +0000

Facts are as subjective as the agenda’s themselves. Often times the most important questions in a situation arise from ignorant dialogue. It’s in darkness that we ask the most basic and important questions. The idea of saying you need to have all the facts in order to have a “healthy discourse” is the same as saying you can’t discuss a topic unless you know everything about it; an elitist fallacy that some debaters use to trump all agitators in every coffee house in the nation. Healthy dialogue creates enlightening on both sides of the debate which means both sides begin ignorant to some point.

By: Warren

Warren — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:56:38 +0000

My main objection to any pro- or anti-gun control debate was while the crisis was still ongoing. People were stepping up to microphones to open the discussion before the facts were even fully known. There was speculation about what kinds of weapons were in use, but nothing further was available. To begin a healthy discourse on any subject, the facts must be known. To engage in dialogue before one knows the facts only proves that one does not care about the facts.

By: Eric Seymour

Eric Seymour — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 17:06:30 +0000

I think what’s improper is to point to this tragedy and say “See? This proves we need to [insert policy proposal here]!” And there’s certainly some of that going on. But if instead the tragedy sparks people to have a meaningful discussion–which I think is what’s going on here on ITA–that’s a good thing.

By: Joshua Claybourn

Joshua Claybourn — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:47:17 +0000

For starters, many critics like Masson go beyond mere timing and critcize the positions as “agendas” as well, which was the main focus of this post, and also something Volokh addresses. But even on the issue of timing I’m not ignoring it. That’s why I wrote this: “…and some arbitrary moratorium on discussing such things is without merit.” (emphasis added) That’s not exactly “completely ignor[ing] it”. Volokh does go on to discuss timing in more detail, but he never reaches a conclusion. I do.

By: stAllio!

stAllio! — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 16:42:36 +0000

you’re missing the point. neither doug nor eric object to the subject being discussed in itself. what they both clearly object to is the timing: thirty-something people are dead, and it seems gauche to be having these types of discussions before the victims have even been identified. (and yes, it’s in poor taste regardless of whether pro- or anti-gun control forces do it.)
your volokh quote is peculiar, because the one sentence in the paragraph that you didn’t quote is probably the most important sentence in the whole post: ‘But the question is whether we should pause before engaging in such discussions; in Eric Muller’s words, “Let’s wait at least a day before trying to score political points, shall we?”‘
indeed, that is the question, and yet your self-defense has completely ignored it.