Tricia Wessels 
Member since Aug 6, 2015


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Dodging Bullets

Mr. Kelly,
Seemingly, your purpose in responding to Ms. Clarke piece was to inform her that her editorial lacked facts; was based on her "feelings"; and also to educate her (which I assume you wanted to do with facts, as that's the standard by which you attempted to critique her article). I believe you also mention that your goal was to educate without being disrespectful. You failed to do any of those things.
Where are the facts in your response that are supposed to educate Ms. Clarke (and the rest of us "singing handholding" Flyer readers)? The only ones I could find (and I am being very generous here) are:
1) "Human[s] will always kill one another." Okay, but I don't feel more educated by this statement. I certainly don't believe Ms. Clarke's article was based on her opinion that humans would no longer kill each other if it were more difficult for civilians to get guns (please point out to me where she said anything like that). In fact, she specifically explicates some reasons why humans kill, guns or not (mental illness, extreme religious views, etc).
2) 450k die each year from avoidable medical mistakes. Okay, I'll accept this as a fact, and I'll accept that it supports your assertion that it's sad when people die, especially when it's avoidable. Again, that's nice, but kind of beside the point. I am not more educated by reading that, and the "fact" doesn't really support your argument (which I'm still assuming is to respectfully educate us with facts that counter Ms. Clarke's opinion). Her opinion was not that avoidable death is not sad.
3) The Declaration of Independence clearly states we have the right to remove corrupt and tyrannical Government. Awesome fact, right? Who could argue with that?? But does it support your argument (as you describe it in the first paragraph of your response, and as I paraphrase in the first paragraph of mine)?? The short answer is no. The longer answer is still no. Are we to assume that you discuss this here as a call to action based on current gun control restrictions? Or are you trying to educate us on the fact that our Government is corrupt and tyrannical in general? As to the latter, that is much larger than the scope of Ms. Clarke's article (which is to what you were responding). As to the former, please explain to me (and our justice system) how you would define "corrupt and tyrannical." These concepts are not black and white, or concrete, or measurable. What parameters must we use to uphold the Declaration's directive with any semblance of objectivity?? I bet all of us would draw the lines of acceptable and unacceptable in difference spots, simply because applying that statement in any kind of tangible or real way is an extremely slippery slope.
4) There are unanswered questions and gaps in some of the mass shooting mentioned in the article. Well, okay, but you fail to link this back into your argument, so it can't effectively support it.
For someone who is trying to educate through fact, I certainly see a lot of non-facts, or--dare I say the "f" word--"feelings." Here are a few:
1) "I don't feel you have read or understand the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Declaration of Independence." There's that pesky "f" word again. Exactly what part of her editorial would make you feel this? Simply the fact that she doesn't come to the same conclusion as you (yours being that stricter gun control is a death sentence? No guns = death certificate)? Because I have read all 3 of those documents (and I have a sneaking suspicion she has as well), and I don't see where she displays a fundamental lack of understanding of their content. In fact, quite the opposite. She clearly implies an understanding of the difficulties our judicial system faces when trying to interpret the principles contained in these documents based on each principle's original intent ( see the part about Mr. Madison).
2) "Hitler could have been stopped " if civilians were armed with guns. Probably, I guess? But who really knows? This is definitely not a fact.
3) Your feeling that Ms. Clarke (mistakenly) accepts what she sees in mass media. Pesky "f" word. The fact of the matter is, you have no idea if this assertion is true or not. Beyond that, you point us all to an unnamed You Tube video to support you argument. So let me get this straight...I should trust your You Tube source, but definitely not CNN, MSNBC, or the like? How can you objectively say that?
4) You feel she is not aware that military at recruitment centers cannot be armed. First off, how could she watch all that mass media (as you accuse her of above) and not know that? Secondly, she clearly states that her viewpoint is based on civilian gun control. So your counter is clearly out of scope.

Finally, I would like to ensure that you understand what an editorial is; a standard definition of it is "an article written by or on behalf of the editor that gives an opinion on a topical issues." That's right, the dictionary said "opinion." Additionally, now that we have a better understanding of "editorial", I would like to ensure we also understand scope, as Ms. Clarke's opinions on Planned Parenthood are certainly outside of the scope of her piece. Finally, here's a fun fact: I don't know if I actually agree with Ms. Clarke's conclusion regarding gun control, but appreciated her perspective. Your reaction to it, however, was hypocritical, and a waste of my time.
/r,
T. Wessels

6 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Tricia Wessels on 08/06/2015 at 2:34 AM
ADVERTISEMENT

Collections

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
ADVERTISEMENT
 
© 1996-2017

Contemporary Media
460 Tennessee Street, 2nd Floor | Memphis, TN 38103
Visit our other sites: Memphis Magazine | Memphis Parent | Inside Memphis Business
Powered by Foundation