_________________________________
Several 'gun events' involving so-called assault weapons have led to the CA gun control acts.
This is reasonable, and seems likely, but I believe it to be unprovable.
?? - Weird statement. But believe what you like.
______________________________
State legislators have cited these incidents publicly as their reason for the 'laws'.
And of course if a state legislator says it, it must be a fact. I always trust what a state legislator says. That should be proof enough for anyone. Evidence? I suppose. Conclusive? Depends on how much you trust two things: a state legislator's self-understanding, and a state legislator's probity. Many people would claim that the intent to ban assault weapons was present in the legislators long before the 'gun events,' and that these 'gun events' were only pretexts for the legislation. This would seriously dispute the claim that the legislation was a "reaction" to the "events"--except as one "reacts" to an opportunity to do what one has long desired. And certainly this would not be an "extreme" reaction.
So-called 'conservative' fundamentalists are having extreme reactions to gun laws, not the socialist legislators who admitedly hate guns.
Calm down, -- you're confused about the arguments point.
_______________________________
Why 'conservative' fundamentalists support these acts is the question. Got any answers?
If I cared to take the time, I am sure that I could produce several possible "answers." But they would be nothing but conjectures that I would be unable to support with evidence. But if you read carefully, you will find that your question was in fact my question to you. In an earlier post, you said that this fundamentalist support was an "extreme reaction." Now, are you saying that you DON'T know what it is a reaction to?
No, as I explained, I agree with the author above:
"Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and immorality of today's world. The knowledge and technology explosion has left many people confused and afraid."
You believe that the legislator's actions were a reaction to the 'gun events' simply because they say so. And you are certain that the fundmentalist FReeper's posts were also a reaction...to something. But now you aren't sure what. Funny, I thought that the author of the article you posted WAS certain:
fundmentalists react to immorality and complexity--although he gave no evidence for this.
Exactly, but he did explain his theory:
"Their understandable longing for security leads some to look for a way to cut through the complexities of modern life and reestablish fundamental truths. Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth."
-- Your inablity to understand the authors opinion, or my agreement with his words, is regretable.
- I'd suggest that this inablity is a result of your own 'passionate commitment'. Try to control your emotions.
I wrote: This is reasonable, and seems likely, but I believe it to be unprovable.
You wrote: ?? - Weird statement. But believe what you like.
Consider the differences between "true," "plausible," "probable," and "provable." I find that statement to be plausible, perhaps even probable, but not provable. Reasons for human behavior are generally not provable. An example: Two men pass on a crowded street. The first waves at the second; the second looks the other way. Why did the second person look the other way instead of waving back? Was it because A) the second man was fearful? B) he thought the first man was trying to curry favor? C) he saw the first man as having inferior social status? D) he didn't recognize the first man? E) he didn't even notice the first man waving and just happened to look at something else? I'm sure that you could invent at least ten plausible reasons for such an event. Notice that in case E) his action is not a REaction to anything. If you wish, then, to prove that his action was a reaction, let alone an "extreme reaction," this would amount to disproving case E). If you asked him, this man might publicly claim that E) was the true case. Would that be proof? If you thought that A) was the correct answer, would that be proof? How would you go about the task of proving which reason was correct? I would suggest that such a proof would be impossible. The reasons for human behavior are impossible, or nearly so, to prove.
The author and you both claim to know the reasons for the behaviors collectively called "fundamentalism." And I claim that unless you have a private source of revelation, your guess as to what causes fundamentalism is nothing but a guess. And it smacks to me of the same kind of oversimplification of a complex universe that the fundamentalists are accused of.
Exactly, but he did explain his theory:
If by "explain" you mean that he proposed a plausible mechanism to show how fundmentalism might arise from a desire for certainty, I suppose he did. But you aren't suggesting that a plausible explanation is in the same league as evidence, are you?
Let me say it this way: others have already suggested that the theory of memes explains the growth of the Christian religion, including fundamentalism. If the specifics of this theory were in conflict with the assertion about "complexity and immorality," is there any evidence that the author gave, or that you can give, that would preferentially support your thesis over the theory of memes?
Or if someone suggested that there was a psychological phenomenon that was 1) pleasant, even addictive, and 2) more likely to be experienced in a fundamentalist context, and that this was the real explanation of the growth of fundamentalism, is there any evidence that the author gave, or that you can give, that would preferentially support your thesis over this one?
I continue in my claim that the reasons for most human behavior, and in this instance the reasons for fundamentalism, are unprovable. This should not be confused with defense of the actions of any particular fundamentalist group. If you believe that my argument is in support of the fundamentalist actions already mentioned, let me express my condolences for your inability to understand me, and discreetly suggest that:
this inablity is a result of your own 'passionate commitment'. Try to control your emotions.