Bookmark
So if Obama's generals decide that gays and trannies "conform" to their version of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice then Mr. Deace is OK with that?
Years ago, Allan Keyes told the audience at a function I was attending this: “You’ll never win a argument you don’t make.”
Never forgotten that...
For instance, you'll often hear gun-grabbers say something like: “you don't need a gun like that for hunting”. If you respond directly to that statement (i.e. accept their premise), you've already lost. A better answer (no doubt, there are many better ones) would be: “So what? Where does the 2nd Amendment mention hunting?”
Another shifted premise I've noticed lately, has to do with the new e-cigarettes. Anti-smokers will say something like: “There's no evidence that these e-cigarettes help people quit smoking”. Again, so what? Hidden in that premise is the false notion that vaping tobacco is smoking. That's a duplicitous shifting of the definition of smoking. It's not smoking, it's vaping. There's no smoke involved — therefore, whenever someone uses an e-cigarette instead of smoking tobacco, he is smoking less. If they use e-cigarettes all the time, they have effectively quit smoking.
The Delphi Technique — What Is It? (Alinsky Method)
BLOGGER ^ | March 1996 | Lynn M. Stuter
Posted on Monday, June 20, 2011 4:35:21 PM by Jo Nuvark
The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face. In recent times, however, it has taken on an all new meaning and purpose. In Educating for the New World Order by B. Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is “…lay, or community, participation (in the decision-making process), while lay citizens were, in fact, being squeezed out.” The Delphi Technique is the method being used to squeeze citizens out of the process, effecting a left-wing take over of the schools.
How to Disrupt the Delphi Technique. http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/acf002.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2737378/posts
As a side note to never accepting the premise of your opponents arguments, that is why I participate in message boards. The message board medium gives me more time to consider what the opponent is saying and be more careful about how I reply.
good point.
I think that this is a good essay.
BINGO.
Most republicans don’t understand and don’t care about their own party’s values, much less America’s values.
Excellent essay.
Libs know this by nature. They never accept Conservative arguments. Never. Even when you lay it out for them step by step with a world of logic. If you ask them a question that requires a simple yes or no, they will not answer with a simple yes or no if it the answer would go against their belief system. They may give 5 minute answers, but they will never concede to your point. They will also never use Conservative terms. For example, they never talk about pro-lifers as pro-lifers but as anti-abortists or more preferably, anti-choicers.
Conservatives on the other hand feel like they have to answer yes and no questions with simple direct responses that so often cause them to fall right into the traps set before them by the Left. In so doing, they often end up be manipulated and accepting the premises of the Left unwittingly. Also, out of politeness perhaps, Conservatives will often use the terms of the Left. They will use the preferred “pro-choice” term that is nothing more than a euphemism for the brutal truth of slaughtering unborn children in their mother's wombs. In so doing they allow the other side to gain territory in the battle. Jesus told His followers to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. He did not allow those questioning Him to manipulate Him. He maintained control of the conversations and did not accept the false premises of his enemies. Conservatives need to do better on the wisdom part as well as the innocent part.
Bad premises, followed with perfect logic, yield bad conclusions.
Especially the premise that they’re “compassionate” and “tolerant.”
that should be lesson #1 but all too often gope candidates fail at this
Sometimes they (the liberals) get the premise right and the solution wrong and work this scenario in their favor as well. People who don’t bother to think for themselves hear the correct premise with a terrible solution and assume since the premise is correct the solution is correct as well.
Examples: the problem: promiscuous behavior in the young has increased; solution - more abortion, more birth control, less regulation of pornography, movie standards, etc.
the problem: unemployment and a welfare society with no work ethic - the solution: more government money handed out to enable the behaviors
There are other examples out there; this odious set up by the left is another example of how they are winning in the idea realm.
Examine your premises!
“Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument”
I decline to accept the premise of this argument.
They mostly set their premises on lies or imagined fabricated off the wall “if” stories, not true stories.
When they say “back in the 1800s they had laws...” is annhistoricist legal law argument that has nothing with true history which is events that lead to setting up laws.
This fair then or unfair now system is based in theirninner evil heart of revenge and reequalizing things.