Posted on 08/18/2022 3:19:16 PM PDT by rebuildus
Hello Everybody!
Last night I welcomed comedian and long-time friend Marc Yaffee to my Old School LIVE show. I called the episode “FRIENDS Who DISAGREE.”
While I really appreciate Marc coming on, and think he did a great job, I felt most of the way through the show that I wasn’t doing such a great job myself! But what do you do–it’s Live–and as much as I may want to, I’m not going to edit my less than stellar moments out (it would have taken me all night!).
And I got some friendly, yet critical feedback from a good friend.
It was painful. I knew that by putting myself out there through my Old School site and especially through my Live streams, that there would be some growing pains. Last night those growing pains were more intense than I bargained for.
Yet somehow I know that the pain is good, and it is only the side of myself that is prideful and ego-driven that hurts.
“Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you.”
1 Peter 4:12 NIV The most important thing of all is that I was able to see many “holes in my game” that need improvement.
A New Path In inviting my old friend Marc onto the show, this was the first time that I’ve interviewed someone so philosophically different from me. In fact, that was part of the point, as I’d like to see more interaction between Americans who disagree with each other, as we’ve become so tribal in our behavior over the last few years.
I was under the illusion that I could pretty easily recall and articulate key facts to back up my positions, yet last night I found that for the most part, those facts were not coming out of me too smoothly.
I also realized, that when we see something clearly, not only do many others not see the same, but it is also not necessarily easy to get them to see what we are seeing. More is sometimes required, and that “more” is something I was largely unable to pull from inside to make my points.
I’m not someone who is terribly interested in listening to a lot of “facts” about any given topic, as that conversation can be awfully dry. It’s not that I don’t appreciate facts. It’s that sometimes mere “facts” get in the way of larger truths. There are people like Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens, and others who are excellent at communicating facts (often rapidly!)–but I’m not in that category.
I realize that I must become better at this, to broaden the base of people who I can get through to. At the same time, I also realize I likely will never be as good as these people at the art of recalling and reciting facts. We all have our talents, abilities, and likewise those things we are not so great at. It’s good that we know ourselves in this way.
Also, the people I’ve mentioned above likely work at retaining and reciting facts (as my friend pointed out) much more than I have interest in doing so.
Last night’s education was pretty thorough. Here’s some of what I learned:
*After many years practicing Christian meditation, which has been extremely helpful to my spiritual growth, I still have not fully developed the “presence of mind” to be as clear in my thinking while under the pressure of a Live show as I am alone in quiet surroundings. I believe that is coming! (“Patience, grasshopper!”)
*My recall of facts is worse than I thought, and I did not think my recall was that good to begin with!
*My knowledge of key facts and comparative numbers is not nearly what it should be. For instance, there are foundational pieces of knowledge such as the Constitution of the United States that I am not well versed in. Anyone who is interested in civics or politics–every U.S. citizen really–should have a working knowledge of the document that undergirds (or is supposed to undergird) all law in the United States.
*I also realize the limitation in using facts in a debate, as the person you are debating with often is familiar with a much different set of “facts”! This is a real problem in America and the world today.
Facts can be easily disputed unless certain things are in play:
*EVIDENCE: This can be from the testimony of an eye-witness, or often better–a video, photos, or audio. Of course, even direct evidence is not necessarily proof of a widespread issue, such as video of some illegal aliens crossing into the United States (in camouflauge gear!).
*Better evidence is video footage of a mass of humanity gathering together in a caravan with the clear intent to illegally cross the U.S. Southern border…
*I also realized last night that I do not demand a high enough standard of proof myself when I am already in agreement with someone’s position.
So what can I or others who seek to influence people do to more effectively get our point across?
#1: Become better informed (duh!). I have become too much a “commentator” and have partially taken off my “journalist” hat. This has contributed to making me less effective in the art of persuasion than I should be (by the way, I believe the art of persuasion is very important in this age where deception is so prevalent–so many are being deceived and destroyed).
#2: Look for proof or the best evidence possible when confronted by counter argument. I realize that there are limitations to this, as certain things are necessarily a matter of faith, such as the existence of God. Likewise, many things are invisible, such as radio waves or WIFI signals. We may not see them–but their POWER is undeniable!
#3: Finding believable sources whenever possible, such as databases that show hard information, such as OpenVAERS–a display of vaccine injury and death numbers both worldwide and in the United States and its territories. A dropdown menu shows the number of COVID deaths and injuries from the experimental “vaccine.”
A believable source regarding the danger of these shots, particularly for children, is Dr. Robert Malone, creator of the mRNA technology the shots utilize. Here is his statement / warning regarding their use.
Another important example is the obvious and successful attack on our election process that kept President Trump from being named the winner of the 2020 election. There are clearly two sets of “facts” regarding the widespread fraud that took place: One side is aware of the information, such as the excellent documentary movie on this subject produced by Dinesh D’Souza, 2000 Mules.
I have personally viewed the movie twice, as well as several others regarding election fraud and the 2020 Presidential election. I believe that any open-minded person who sees this information would be convinced that Joe Biden gained the ultimate seat of power through illegitimate means.
I asked my friend Marc if he had seen 2000 Mules, and he said that he had not. It’s hard to know what the evidence says if you have not viewed the evidence!
The argument made by those who say that widespread election fraud was not proved is primarily that the courts–including the Supreme Court–have ruled against it. The reality is that these courts have merely rejected hearing the evidence, because they have said the case has no “standing.”
Here is an article from Fox News: Supreme Court Declines to Hear Texas Election Suit.
And here is the exact quote in the article that explains WHY the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, which if won, would essentially nullify the Presidential election in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, and Wisconsin:
“The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” the Supreme Court’s order reads. “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
Fox News, Supreme Court Declines to Hear Texas Election Suit So, because the state of Texas filed the motion, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear it, which would have essentially nullified the Presidential election in four other states which would have reversed the results of the whole national election! While I can understand how the court can make such a ruling, clearly they did not make the ruling because the SUBSTANCE of the case was faulty!
I believe the ruling was most likely a “fig leaf” the Supremes could hide behind to avoid having to stand up and make the call they knew would be highly upsetting to this nation’s power structure and the rabble who enforce its bidding.
I also believe that many liberals hid behind the Supreme Court’s ruling because they did not want President Trump to be re-elected! (Duhhh… it’s human nature!)
#4 (In my continuing list of ways we as “influencers” of others can more effectively get our points across): Whenever possible, in the future I will consider MODERATING a debate between two “experts” for their respective and opposing positions. This allows the most credible arguments of opposing sides to be heard. The audience can make up their own minds about who and what is right.
One challenge in moderating between two opposing “experts” is that many social media and standard media platforms WILL NOT ALLOW ANY DEBATE on some issues, including the obvious fraud in the 2020 elections and the safety (or lack thereof) of the COVID “vaccine.”
Shouldn’t this tell us all we need to know when one side REFUSES to even debate issues?
Last night Marc attempted to explain the issue away by citing their possible fear of legal repercussions to a social media platform (by presenting possibly dangerous information), but this simply does not hold up, as free speech is a Constitutionally-protected right (and of course a God-given one). Open and vigorous debate can only HELP us find truth–not keep us away from it.
Regarding any supposed legal responsibility a social media platform like Facebook or YouTube would have for its users’ opinions, they are PROTECTED by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (of Congress), from ANY LIABILITY.
Some, including President Trump, have spoken out, saying that these companies’ legal protections should be stripped if they continue to CENSOR the posts of their users. I agree. They are clearly misusing the statute and abusing their users.
Conclusion Ultimately, no matter how well we put our facts out there, no matter how much evidence we present, no matter how compelling our presentation, there will always be a percentage of people who will not be persuaded, I believe primarily because many do not want to be persuaded.
We are creatures of the information we consume–but the flip side is that we consume the information we are already comfortable with. I wanted to go deeper with my old friend Marc about this point, but I fault myself–I stuck too close to my show “outline”–and we ended up talking way too much about President Trump. I had only planned to mention him in the beginning portion of the show since he is a point of contention between many Americans; because well-known Trump critic and vice chair of the “Select January 6 Committee,” Liz Cheney, had just been crushed in her primary election by a Trump-backed candidate; and because Trump is in the news because of the “raid” at his home–Mar-A-Lago.
But sometimes the best-laid plans…
I would like to go into more depth with Marc and other potential guests in the future to see–if possible–what it is that moves some people toward the Left, and others toward the Right. I believe I know some of these answers, and would like to know more. I believe it would be a useful discussion, and can serve to enlighten us as to just how we make certain “choices” in life.
In short, I believe many of our “choices” are pre-made for us.
Knowing ourselves and others is ultimately much more rewarding and useful than operating in “camps”–often created by third parties (elites) for “divide and conquer” purposes. I alluded to that last night. But of course there are many things that God gives us to see, that are not so easily explainable. And hence that challenge to explain to others in a way they can understand.
For all my talk about “explaining,” ultimately the real power is in what God allows us to SEE, if we are but willing to open our eyes!
To Your Health, Success, and Freedom!
Patrick
Patrick Rooney is the Founder of OldSchoolUs.com. He communicates clearly and fearlessly during perilous times about natural health, success, and freedom. To reach Patrick, email him at info@oldschoolus.com.
A reasonable debate requires good faith of all participants.
The left operates in bad faith—there is nothing to discuss with them.
True. You may have noticed that it is impossible to engage a liberal on climate change. The alarmists refuse to appear on the same stage as the scientists; and in the rare case when it happens(usually in UK or Oz or somewhere not in the US,) they end up making fools of themselves. So it goes with any issue of substance.
Many people are extremly gullible. Just look at how many accept Biden as legitimately holding office.
facts?
they operate on pure emotion
they have to lie about the facts to prop up their agenda
Many people are extremly gullible. Just look at how many accept Biden as legitimately holding office.
“If you say the word “Orange” very slowly, it sounds just like Gullible.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.