- This topic has 4 voices and 17 replies.
-
Posts
-
OK, I admit I like a good debate, but I am having “problems” trying to maintain my civility towards the Left. And you know what? I don't care. They are so wrong, so dangerous, and so anti-everything that is correct and good that they don't deserve civility or to be debated academically. Really now, how many times have you presented UNDISPUTABLE facts to the Left but they still rejected those facts? Maybe I'm wrong with this attitude, or maybe I've just turned into a grumpy old man, but as far as debating them academically, it isn't worth the effort. Perhaps it is best to just ignore them or avoid discussion boards where these vile little creatures hang out, but I can no longer ignore them. (and besides, they aren't just on discussion boards) They pose too much of a danger to society.So don't mind me. I declare war on all these big government, Obama supporting, global warming alarmist, military-hating, anti-American morons! >:(/rant off
I agree that talking to the left is like pounding your head against a wall. Unfortunately this is not Stalinist Russia and we cant have them all shot so the only thing is to continue to debate and hope that presenting facts will eventually change their minds. If we get frustrated and stop talking to them then they have won by stifling their opposition. We must stick with trying to be civil and presenting facts. Eventually the truth will win out.
Indeed, I think that you should probably avoid engaging those people. They are entrenched in their ideas, and it will be rather unproductive and get you mad and render you demoralized trying to argue with them. The real engagement should be with those who are willing to listen….and they are out there. I think thy are often quiet, but they do listen.
Destroy them with facts, that's all you can do. Honest readers will be able to deduce whose argument won the day.
I will clarify one part of what I said. I say “avoid”, but this is generally speaking. After all, your efforts will be wasted and could have been used elsewhere.But sometimes the silent people I spoke of are reading what you say when you engage radicals, and so limited engagement is permissible. By "limited" I would suggest doing something like playing the part of skeptic without explaining your own position. This will expose those arguments as fallacious and will not require you to make some lengthy defense of your own positions which will drag you back into what you are trying to avoid in the first place - agonizing hair-pulling.
But sometimes the silent people I spoke of are reading what you say when you engage radicals
That's something I don't really consider a lot. Good point.And I like the DESTROY part too. ;DDo they stress me out? yes. Am I always angry when they say something stupid? Not always. However, when I say be uncivil, I don't mean name calling or insults (although, at this point, I don't really care). But I don't see anything wrong with being completely sarcastic and snarky towards those who chose to be fools.BTW, I'm not one who hides behind keyboards. How I act or react to the Left online is the same as in person (unless he's 6'5, 310 lbs 😀 )
Well, I can say from personal experience that online arguing often times leads nowhere and doesn't change people's minds (at least not the hardened folks who I argue with). But it does make me a worse person at times as I get drawn into it. So the way I see it, it's best to pick one's battles (I would add some relevant Sun Tzu quote here to reinforce my point if I had one handy). ;D
I am saying civility and destroy them with facts. the left are like mushrooms or bats, they dont particularly like having the light shined on them. So it is perfectly possible to use facts and be civil while still totally ruining their day.
Ski,Here is a perfect article that illustrates the approach I like to take to those on the left. It is excerpts of an interview Cheney did this weekend. FOX News Sunday Interview Incidentally, I am apparently one of the few Americans that likes Cheney. I think he has been a great vice-president and uncompromising of his principles. I think this quote at the end of the article says it I about what I look for in a politician.
"And frankly I would not want to be one of those guys who spends all his times reading the polls. I think people like that shouldn't serve in these jobs." /quote]
Too bad he's wrong about this:
Cheney said he supports Rumsfeld's successor, Robert Gates, "but I was a Rumsfeld man. I'd helped recruit him and I thought he did a good job for us."
I dont think he is right about everything, but as I have said elsewhere on this forum, I have to admire someone who sticks to their principles whether I agree with them or not. Constancy is one thing most politicians lack and it seems like those that have it are beaten up for it. For what it's worth, I thnk Cheney is right and history will vindicate them both. It is hard for us to see them objectively, but what will future generations think. Lincoln was widely reviled by a large segment of the popultaion during his administration as well. I think of the democrats today as being no different than the copperheads of the 1860's. They are willing to sacrifice their principles for what would be at best, a temporary peace. The copperjeads reviled Lincoln for being as uncompromising on the issue of union, just as the democrats today revile Bush for being uncompromising on the issue of terrorism.
