Is it that scary to actually look at the facts?
Rather, I prefer to simply ask them to stop the name-calling and abandon the logical fallacies and explain their point of view. Many times I've found that their point of view is purely emotional and not based on facts, but I try to avoid resorting to their same tactics.
Makes sense.
But then again, I don't ask that question to their face, because while it IS a germane question (because if their response IS emotional, there is actually a good likelihood that it IS scary to them to look at the facts) attempting to convince someone who is having an emotional response by attacking their emotions doesn't work, and is actively detrimental.
So, I agree----but since I don't do that ("engage in the same "scaredy cat" name calling ....") I'm not worried about it making them more upset.
That being said---it really IS a good question. Because when someone is having a strong emotional response to something, often it really IS scary for them to attempt to think in any other fashion, and often any attempt by someone else to convince them in a manner that conflicts with their opinion IS actually very frightening to them, and they will react extremely emotionally.
An important question really is:
Why is it so scary for this person? For
this individual, why is there such an emotional reaction? Is it because thinking differently means they have to admit to themselves that violence exists? That humans beings perform it? That it can happen, and does happen, sometimes randomly? (Mostly not, really, but sometimes.) That they are defenseless against violence like this because they have not ever thought about it? What aspect is causing the emotional response?
(That last point, by the way, tends to be an underlying emotional theme with many people. They don't want to admit that violence is human-based, because then it could happen to them, but they have no defense against it, so they are vulnerable, but that is frightening, so they simply say that violence is object-based and if you just stay away from those objects or we can do away with those objects you'll be fine.)
Many people seem to think that if we can just get people away from guns, deaths won't occur. This of course ignores all prior research regarding violence--but many people really do hold emotionally to the idea that violence is object-based, and if we can reduce or remove those objects, violence won't happen.
All evidence and history to the contrary.
When discussing this topic with someone, finding what aspect of it is the frightening part that drives their opinion, and using _other_ avenues to discuss the topic often ends up making them start thinking without triggering that (often verbally violent) emotional response. (And if you hit that trigger, the discussion is over, because bringing up any aspect of the topic after that will garner that same response.)
So---while I don't ask them directly "why are you so scared by this" it is certainly true that I often attempt to find out what part of the topic causes them to be emotional, so that the discussion can be had via other avenues of thought.
All of the above translates to "I don't engage in name-calling, because it isn't productive. That doesn't mean the question itself, and its answer, isn't important."
