Posted on 05/03/2016 5:25:07 AM PDT by rktman
Over the past few decades, I’ve made a conscious effort to avoid liberals. I realize it’s intolerant of me, but I find it next to impossible to associate with people who support the politicians I believe are actively and intentionally destroying America. Even I can only talk about baseball for just so long.
One of the few liberals I have retained cordial relations with is a former agent of mine. He is without a doubt the only agent I ever had that I liked. Believe me, in most cases, you really don’t want to be seen in public with these people.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
It’s the astonishing descent into vitriol and name-calling that repels me.
“Debating a liberal”
Good luck with that. Try ‘debasing’ them instead. It’s the only way.
You have to send them home practically bleeding from the ass before they’ll have any respect for anyone else’s opinion.
It's like playing chess with a pigeon. They crap all over the board, knock the pieces over, and still strut around afterwards like they won.
Which is what has been going on here, Trumpsters toward Cruzers and Cruzers towards Trumpsters, and it has made me sick here too. There are reasoned heads here on both sides, but they can't be heard over the vitriol and name-calling. We expect it from the left because to them feelings are more important than facts, and has been since the early 1800s and Romanticism, but we're supposed to be better than this.
The reality is that liberals LIKE the idea of socialism. They LIKE the idea of a planned society. They think their towering intelligence will give them greater power and influence in such a system.
They are conditioned to discount data inconvenient data, not because they don't believe it, but because admitting to believing it would hamper the advancement of socialism. They will no more concede the inconvenient facts, than a lawyer would admit his client is a guilty SOB.
Well said
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Sarah Cook
“The kind of man who wants the government to adopt and enforce his ideas is always the kind of man whose ideas are idiotic.” ― H.L. Mencken
“Yes," Vorkosigan agreed, "I could take over the universe with this army if I could ever get all their weapons pointed in the same direction.” ― Lois McMaster Bujold
“Thanks anyway,' Vanderdecker repeated, and wandered off to have a stare at the sea. It was his equivalent to beating his head repeatedly against a wall.” ― Tom Holt
Debate a Liberal? It’s like trying to kill an ant with a bowling ball.
Oh my goodness I was going to point that out! And some of the threads on the religious forum...my oh my! Although those have gotten somewhat better. It’s like a verbal boxing match.
However, if you are in the mood and have the time, arguing with a liberal can be great sport. Well, maybe if you're of a certain mindset. I admit I watch "fail" videos online too. Maybe it is a character flaw of mine but I find it funny when people do stupid things. So naturally arguing with liberals is just a verbal/written extension of watching other people fail. Watch someone try to skateboard off the roof, or have a liberal try to defend islam as a religion of peace...both funny, both going to end up with someone dazed and confused.
You must be prepared - not just by knowing your subject. Facts, figures, reason won't get you too far. You have to be prepared for the whole experience. This is actually where the entertainment value comes in. Merely crushing someone's position with logic and data isn't much fun and doesn't take too long. You have to be prepared for the typical tactics used by liberals in debates/arguments.
First, you are never going to debate just one issue. As soon as you pin a liberal down with irrefutable facts and logic, they will deflect off and change the subject. We see that even in the short example in this article. Nailed on bammy being raised a muslim, the liberal deflects off into a previous article, completely different topic - all just to put their opponent on the defensive. The author here artfully addresses that, then smoothly transitions back to the original topic. You really have 3 choices when such a tangent comes up. Allow the liberal to drift off into that area if you feel prepared to defeat them on that topic too. Or you can rebound them back into the original topic smoothly as this author did. Or you can simply call them out on the attempted topic switch, a more aggressive and confrontational approach. Somewhat related to this is the strawman fallacy. Liberals will keep trying to reframe the debate and steer you into having to defending something else.
There are a number of falacies in logical argument, and if you debate enough liberals you'll see nearly all of them hauled out and tried on for size. Some typical ones you should be prepared for:
Ad Hominem attacks. This is how you'll know you are winning an argument with a liberal. In particular, if this liberal is not a friend, expect them sooner or later (probably sooner) to get around to a very personal attack against you.
Bandwagon argument. Liberals buy in to the liberal agenda and outlook. They get cloistered and only really accept information from other liberals. Pretty soon they convince themselves everyone agrees and feels this way on a topic. So when you don't, they'll come at you with this bandwagon theme - "But *everyone* knows xyz..." So? Everyone knew the world was flat. Everyone knew man couldn't fly.
Similar to that is the appeal to authority fallacy. Rather than the masses, they'll simply pick one "expert" that agrees with them and use that example over and over. Experts are wrong all the time. Experts built the Titanic. Experts said we were entering an ice age in the 1970s. Experts said Verrazano Narrows bridge was a good design. But of course to a liberal, their expert is better than your expert.
They'll try to "appeal to the stone" - simply ignore and dismiss anything they disagree with. You'll see this often if discussing illegals. They simple ignore all the detrimental effects.
Another goodie liberals will trot out, probably as a side-effect of their bandwagon argument, is begging the question. Since they believe "everyone" knows xyz and agrees with them, many times their arguments simple start from the point of assuming their position is correct.
Then there's cherry picking. Just using the facts and tidbits that support their viewpoint. You'll see this is in the climate debate too.
Then there's the echo chamber fallacy. We see that in this article. The liberal refused to accept the author's information and instead came back with it labeled as "his opinion." Liberals rarely accept information from anyone other than other liberals. It conflicts with their own indoctrination and world-view. It starts to make their whole world view crumble.
Then there's the "Ergo Decedo" argument. Often tied in with the ad hominem attack. If you agree with someone, and that someone has ever said or done anything controversial then you are guilty too. "What, you raised your hand to ask a question? Hitler raised his right hand, you must be a fascist!" Yes, it really is that silly at times.
There's also the "goal post move." As you beat down a liberal with facts and figures they'll claim that doesn't really prove anything. "So what if socialism has failed before...So what if socialism has actually failed 100% of the time...it hasn't been tried everywhere by everyone yet!" Yes, really that simple. No amount of contradicting evidence is ever enough for the truly indoctrinated.
Oh, and one other popular one with liberals, the non-sequitur. Honestly, sometimes you just cannot fathom how their minds work, how they can link certain things together. Or we could toss in it's cousin the "red herring" - where they just pull in random sh... er "stuff" which kind of goes along with deflecting off onto other issues once they are losing on this one.
Debating a liberal = drilling a hole in water.
Waste of time. Part of the disease is the complete absence of accountability or even memory. Without actual events to tie an argument to, there is no argument. Only philosophy. I smile, nod my head and when they are out of range, laugh.
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. (in other words, don't argue with an idiot less you be mistaken for the idiot.)
Proverbs 14:7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
Which is what has been going on here,
Absodamnlutely. And the Bots just can't see it for what it is. Acting as bad if not worse than the typical liberals. Like I said, its become fairly apparent that a lot (a LOT) of people here are just a-holes, who, when pushed to a certain degree, just can't help themselves. Its been a sad and disheartening election cycle.
I love it - if they’re rude, call them out on it. If they don’t care, mock them ruthlessly.
LOL! I found at least one fatal flaw in your missive. That being....”As soon as you pin a liberal down with irrefutable facts and logic.......” Like that’s gonna happen. #factsdontmatter and #logicdontmatter. But, I agree that it can sometimes be fun to watch them make bigger fools of themselves than you originally thought them to be. Other times, without the “right” mind set going in, it can be frustrating as hell. But, I like the way you think.
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.