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.
Liberals are too stupid to know how stupid they are and there is no combating that. I don't argue with them but I still can't stand to be around them.
When I knew liberals were truly evil was when I saw the SEICUS (sex education) guidelines they tried to put into our classrooms. Teaching third-graders the joys of masturbation? Telling them homosexuality is normal? Even if you believed in those viewpoints, nine years old is too early to be discussing this stuff. FEH!
oooohhhhh!, so the liberals are the natural result of world overpopulation?.
"I find that when liberals no they have lost the debate they resort to one word: Halliburton. At that point I just laugh."
The Halliburton word comes up every now and then when I have political discussions with Mom. Unfortunately, I know very little about the company except that they are doing reconstruction work in Iraq and that VP Cheney was once on the board. Why does the left hold Halliburton up as the epitome of evil, and what are the arguments to debunk their position? Any links to articles would be appreciated.
Cheers!
I gave it up simply because they are simply incapable of logical thought. You can show them through court case, statistics, and physical evidence how they are wrong and it will do you no good. You may as well be talking to a fence post.
don't give up on them all...certain of them might be able to realize, eventually, that they've been laboring under a number of false premises.
Sputtering is a word I would use to describe the libs that I have debated. It's funny when they get attacked by the "Yeah-But" monster. Everything with them is, "Yeah, but this...", "Yeah, but that...". And, yes, it usually ends in some completely non-sequitir comment about something to do with 1) Nazis, 2) rednecks, and 3) "a crypto-facist metaphor" (which, really, is just some nifty phrase that they heard John Cusack or some other lefty crack-pot say in movie once).
The leftist who can't have a marginally meaningful conversation are scum. They should be locked up in mental institutions and studied in an attempt to figure out what actually goes wrong with human brain when subjected to 1) high doses of drugs, 2) incessant brainwashing from public school indoctrinaires and, 3) a complete and utter lack of moral guide of any kind.
I loathe them.
Many people who describe themselves as liberals and who will actually have an intelligent conversation only need marginal convincing that, in actuality, they aren't liberals at all and have been mis-labeling themselves for years.
"Facts are to the mind what food is to the body."
- Edmund Burke, conservative philosopher.
Once these "liberals" are fed facts, they are nourished with reality. And, amazingly, they see the liberal facade for the house of cards that has always been and always will be.
The biggest threat of this kind of thinking is that they actually believe that because you and I are so intelluctually inferior that we are incapable of making our own decisions. Therefore, they feel that there is nothing at all wrong with simply taking away your rights and choices and giving you what they feel you "need". Just as you would do if your widowed mother developed Alzhiemer's you would step in to take care of her affairs, the liberals view red staters.
And humans do this to themselves on a voluntary basis
I thought it was Thomas Malthus that ran that experiment - producing his "Dismal Theory".
My liberal Jewish m-i-l wants Terri to die because she hates the Schindlers and the Christian right because they want abortions stopped. She actually SAID these things.
It's a little bit ironic that a Jew would despise a person named Schindler.
Me too. I live in a conservative bubble.
I rather like it.
And inner-city gang members who live in large urban areas travel a lot? Are known for being widely read? Can speak multiple languages? And are known for making informed choices?
I have for the past couple years been a member of a so-called "rant" list with a group of people I share the love of in-line skating with. Last week I quit. I was basically the lone, lightning rod, conservative, Christian on the list and often beat back hypocrisy and ignorance, but the name calling, foul language, and blasphemy against my God took it's toll and I didn't want my in-box littered with it anymore. No more "casting my pearls before swine." I made the mistake of assuming that liberals were simply misguided, yet logical and could be led into the truth. I've finally decided they just don't get it and probably never will. I'm deeply saddened by this and need some new hope on this score.
“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?”
Is it politically incorrect to say, "For many in large urban areas, the next language in which they become fluent will be the first."
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.