Posted on 03/28/2005 8:39:13 AM PST by srm913
Why I've Stopped Arguing with Liberals
by Pat Sajak Posted Mar 28, 2005
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.
Maybe, Pat, you should just tell them to buy a vowel.
I gave up "arguing" with liberals a long time ago. No sense in it.
You know you`ve won the debate when the socialist/neo-marxist left descend to name calling within the context of a debate with you,you know you`ve just won.Hands down,the debates over.
Obviously these people are woefully ignorant and live in a world of cliches. Ignorance of history,facts and just how much their livelihood depends on the rubes in the red states.
This article is hilarious! And so true.
The only thing I think he left out - or did I miss it - that when the liberal runs out of ideas, which is usually pretty quickly, they resort to name-calling.
By definition, logical argumentation requires reasoned and intelligent discussion by all parties involved in order to arrive at a solution.
As all liberal arguments are void of logic and intelligence, it is misleading to say that one can effectively "argue" with a liberal. Its more like shouting at a wall to get it to move.
My own personal rule is that I only argue with liberals if there is a third-party "moderate" listening to the exchange, who may be enlightened by watching the liberal morph into a wild-eyed emotional lunatic when confronted with a rational argument (or pointed question).
Hard to "reason" with hysterical children
Trying to sway a liberal with logic and facts is like Wrasslin' with a pig in the mud. You just get frustrated and dirty, but the pig enjoys it.
Of course, as a freeper once noted, you cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not use reason to get into in the first place.
Insults from the left are mere confessions, Pat.
By the way, the word, liberal, when used as a noun, is only properly used with a negative modifier, such as scum, or idiot.
As an adjective, liberal can not properly be used in conjunction with nouns such as friend.
Liberal friend, is therefore, is improper English. Idiot liberal scum, is quite proper usage.
See, it's simple.
Apparently, he has two too many liberal friends now.
This op-ed made my day. Liberals think they're the smartest people alive, and yet PAT SAJAK doesn't think they're worth the intellectual effort it takes to talk to them.
This isn't a dig on Pat Sajak. Just realize that he's had at least 10,000 conversations with people about CERAMIC DOGS. Now consider that nothing the left has to say right now can possibly compete with that for intellectual stimulation.
That's one of my favorite quotes on earth. It was originally penned by Alexander Pope, BTW.
My brother is a flaming lib,havn't spoken to him since before the election.I have nothing to discuss with him we don't agree on anything.Our parents are dead so no reason to talk to him
That depends. There are those of us who enjoy the argument, and deeply enjoy seeing a liberal reduced to a spitting, screeching, "Hitler!"-throwing lunatic for all to see. :-)
The reason I've pretty much stopped is that liberals can't argue concepts without feeling personally attacked. IMHO, this comes from the mistaken belief that right and wrong are personal, relative decisions.
LOL!
thanks for putting it in perspective.
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.