Re: “I have no problem with people posting left wing articles and left wing comments. I have no problem debating with people who direct their lives by the twin principles of premeditated ignorance and practiced irrationality. I have no problem searching out the original truths proving the sound bites liberals use for their points are no more than mantras chanted for a godless orthodoxy. As far as I am concerned, bring it on. I and others will bury them.”
That is the benefit I get from FreeRepublic. The vigorous, but civilized debates help to clarify issues.
I work in a very liberal environment. From reading on FR, I sometimes have read the debate about the latest demo talking points and have been able to contribute opposing viewpoints to my colleagues’ discussions without animosity. Often it makes them THINK!
At work I avoid directly criticizing 0bammy because many see any criticism of him as an attack upon their race. However, one colleague and I had a long discussion the other day about the deleterious effect of ‘taxing the rich” upon the economy. He did not know that NY and NJ have had measurable deceases in the total numbers of “rich” taxpayers and that no, or low tax states have had increases in population. He seemed to agree that higher taxes may not the solution to the budget crisis. We talked about the increases in the costs of Medicaid and Medicare and how those costs were not anticipated at the time they were implemented.
We have had several conversations like that. He knows I am the “Conservative” in the office, but that we can talk about issues without rancor. I think he at least listens to our points of view and that plants a seed.
Because I have sometimes read Freeper dissections by you or others, of the Libtard positions on this forum, I can sometimes present a reasoned response to some of their talking points, even in areas with which I am not particularly well versed.
I fear that if FR becomes a site where thoughtful debate is stifled, because an issue is presented by a non-believer and he or she gets zotted, there will be no forum available to see all sides of an issue being discussed.
I have looked upon FR as being the “free market of ideas” I have enjoyed the discussions of issues in a civilized manner. (Thank you, Moderators!) Ad hominem attacks, the first technique of the Libtards, are usually not successful in mis-directing the debate. Some Freeper will weigh in with a reasoned comment that will encourage the thread back to the issue.
Does this new policy mean that Freepers who may agree with a non-orthodox position will be zapped? If so, I fear that our FRiends with whom I disagree may disappear and I will not have the benefit of seeing other Freepers disassemble their positions in a reasoned, mutually respectful manner.
Mr. Reagan’s comment “Now there you go again” comes to mind.” He disagreed with his opponents but never displayed a lack of respect for them. So too many Freepers. I hope we do not lose that civil disagreement and devolve into something resembling DU or KOS
As an organization, we cannot be both for and against homosexuality, abortion, big government, border and national security, etc. I don’t know about others, but if we must choose, I choose to be on the right side of each and every issue. Why should FR use it’s limited resources to allow liberals, homosexualists, abortionists, big spenders, big taxers, big government solutions advocates, gun grabbers, pacifists, isolationists, environmentalists, open-borders lobbyists, etc, ply their trade on FR?
What you say sends me to my original post below. When FReepers rely on their knowledge of specific areas, they can identify someone whose presentation is disconnected from objective information and provide them an unpleasant morning or afternoon suffering diminished self-esteem. After regularly encountering reason and research, they should vote themselves off the website, because affirmation is so vital to maintaining comfort within any mental disorder. (I did read the book by a professional psychiatrist or psychologist, which asserts liberalism, is a mental disorder.) As a result of this regular encounter with mental trauma, FR should not end up using it’s limited resources for liberals, etc, to ply their tawdry trade.
As you say the benefit to us also comes from helping to clarify issues. If something is important to me, I always try to ask, “Why do I believe that?” I don’t want to be in a position of having to take action and finding my moral and intellectual compasses spinning around in a circle like a magnetic compass at the North Pole.
I avoided that experience this spring when my wife and I changed churches. The pastor wrote a fifty page paper defining the operational plan for teaching and growth of our church, which relied on the Emerging Church and Seeker Friendly syndromes popular at many seminaries and with many mega-church leaders. After reading it twice, I wrote an 8 page rebuttal to myself beginning with my first reawakenings in college through C. S. Lewis to recent articles I read in World magazine. I found I had a better understanding faith relationship and the place of the church, than he had obtained by running off into that blind intellectual cul-de-sac. As a result I could be comfort able with our decision to leave a church we had attended since 1974.
“I have no problem debating with people who direct their lives by the twin principles of premeditated ignorance and practiced irrationality. I have no problem searching out the original truths proving the sound bites liberals use for their points are no more than mantras chanted for a godless orthodoxy.”
Correction to 579. This paragraph should have been attributed to Jim’s original post:
“As an organization, we cannot be both for and against homosexuality, abortion, big government, border and national security, etc. I don’t know about others, but if we must choose, I choose to be on the right side of each and every issue. Why should FR use it’s limited resources to allow liberals, homosexualists, abortionists, big spenders, big taxers, big government solutions advocates, gun grabbers, pacifists, isolationists, environmentalists, open-borders lobbyists, etc, ply their trade on FR?”
[Sorry Jim. I didn’t scroll all the way down after having copied and pasted during drafting]