Why I've Stopped Arguing With Liberals

Every time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.

Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with one of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler.” Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.

Aside from being rhetorically hysterical -- and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis -- it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.

The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative -- one of the bad guys -- complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they -- being the good guys -- will decide exactly what that is.)

Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).

When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.

In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.

The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.

This may be my ignorance, but at one time i thought liberals were good. I thought they were the ones who saved lives......etc. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT TRUE. This open mindedness has gone too far. I was all for this open mindedness until now. People think that it's so important to enforce the right to die....and their rights that they choose to kill a handicapped person. THAT IS WRONG. Once again this may be my lack of education....but at least i'm seeing liberals for what they are or have become now. And there i am sure some liberals out there against this. So please no one get offended by what i say......basically......I think you are crap if you think this is right! All of you that don't, god bless you and if you aren't christian......may good come to you! This is not a "crazy christian" battle.........this is about humane people. Of course a lot of christians agree with this, but a lot don't at the same time. It's just sorting out the good from the bad in the world........and i have dropped frineds over this issue, maybe that's too much........but I don't see a person wit h a good heart saying this is right! Now for those that haven't watched enough on it.....i can see the idiocy. But those who have followed a lot of it......you better believe if you let this hitler do this and ok with it, you have no morals.

“Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?”

"Norway rats have been bred in scientific laboratories since the middle
nineteenth century. Artificial selection has elicited-partly
through unconscious choices by laboratory personnel-a strain of rats
that is calmer, tamer, less aggressive, more fertile, and with significantly
smaller brains than their wild ancestors. All this is a convenience
for those experimenting on rats.

In a now-classic experiment, the psychologist John B. Calhoun let
Norway rats reproduce in an enclosure of fixed size until the number
of occupants, and therefore the population density, was very high. He
made sure, however, to provide everyone with enough to eat. What
happened?

As the population increased, a range of unusual behavior was
noted. Nursing mothers became somehow distracted, rejecting and
abandoning their infants, who would wither away and die. Despite the
surplus of ordinary food, the bodies of the newborn would be greedily
eaten by passersby. An adult female in heat or estrus would be pursued
relentlessly, not by one, but by a pack of males. She had no hope
of escape, or even sanctuary. Obstetrical and gynecological disorders
proliferated, and many females died giving birth, or from complications
soon after. When crowded together, the rats lost their inclination
or ability to build nests for themselves and their young; their desultory
constructions were amateurish and ineffective.

Among the males Calhoun distinguished four types: the dominant,
highly aggressive ones who, although "the most normal," would occasionally
go "berserk"; the homosexuals who made sexual advances
to adults and juveniles of both sexes (but, significantly, only to non ovulating
females): their invitations were generally accepted, or at
least tolerated, but they were frequently attacked by the dominant
males; a wholly passive population that "moved through the community
like somnambulists" with nearly complete social disorientation;
and a subgroup Calhoun calls the "probers," uninvolved in the struggle
for status but hyperactive, hypersexual, bisexual, and cannibalistic.

(from Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan-Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors 1992 pages 184-185)
_________________________

http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:vjj8FGZBelYC:luna.cas.usf.edu/~miles/belchpt9.htm+%22behavioral+sink%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Animal study: Calhoun and the behavioral sink …. In his study rats were placed in a "perfect" environment, had adequate resources and were allowed to reproduce freely. The cage was designed so that 2 of the 4 rooms had only one entrance/exit, while the other 2 rooms had 2 entrances/exits. What happened was that in the 2 rooms with limited entrance/exit, a dominant male was able to maintain reasonable order, with limited crowding, normal feeding, socialization, and breeding. In the two rooms with multiple entrances/exits, no single male was able to maintain a normal dominance hierarchy, high density occurred, social order broke down, 4 classes of males developed (including marginally normal dominants, pansexuals, passive neutrals, and probers who were "hyperactive, hypersexual, homosexual/cannibals") and two classes of females (one abnormal in almost all manner, and the other marginally normal) occurred. Total chaos occurred in rooms 2 and 3. ….Would humans, if faced with such density levels act the same way?

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.