[Speed Gibson,
Thursday October 4, 2007 at 9:27pm]
Mission: Impossible
Gary Gross at True North tells how to win liberal friends and influence progressive people. He thinks he can reason with them. I don't.
Liberals have skillfully woven many layers of insulation from reality. They can hide from feedback in institutions like the media, academia, and many government agencies. There are few direct consequences of their foolish policies, or so they think. It's true: being liberal means never having to say you're sorry.
You can't win a debate with a liberal because they don't debate in the traditional way of developing a logical argument based on facts and stated precepts. No, "it's for the children" we're told regarding government run schools and increasingly socialist health care. "How dare you question my patriotism!" they blurt when cornered with their own testimony on Iraq.
In the final analysis, a liberal only listens to one person: himself. If there's going to be a debate capable of changing a liberal mind, you have to get that liberal talking to himself. The sooner you stop talking, the sooner that can happen. Making long, detailed analysis and arguments won't do it. That's what they're expecting you to do.
You need an intellectual rabbit punch, what Sheriff Buford T. Justice would call an attention-getter. That takes research, preparation, and practice as Gary correctly points out.
Thats how Briggs, Phelps, and Hunt did their IMF work, getting their victims to do their work for them.
Liberals have skillfully woven many layers of insulation from reality. They can hide from feedback in institutions like the media, academia, and many government agencies. There are few direct consequences of their foolish policies, or so they think. It's true: being liberal means never having to say you're sorry.
You can't win a debate with a liberal because they don't debate in the traditional way of developing a logical argument based on facts and stated precepts. No, "it's for the children" we're told regarding government run schools and increasingly socialist health care. "How dare you question my patriotism!" they blurt when cornered with their own testimony on Iraq.
In the final analysis, a liberal only listens to one person: himself. If there's going to be a debate capable of changing a liberal mind, you have to get that liberal talking to himself. The sooner you stop talking, the sooner that can happen. Making long, detailed analysis and arguments won't do it. That's what they're expecting you to do.
You need an intellectual rabbit punch, what Sheriff Buford T. Justice would call an attention-getter. That takes research, preparation, and practice as Gary correctly points out.
If you're right, this will be the first time in world history that socialized medicine has worked. What will your solution be doing right that every other attempt got wrong?
We were discussing illegal aliens, not immigrants. Does your argument depend on blurring the obvious differences?
I have asked you three times for even one medical study that justifies these smoking bans. Let the record show your inability to cite even one as conceding my point.Notice that each of these rejoinders has an annoying little challenge to their ego, so they can't just let it drop. In fact, they less they think of you, the more they'll be annoyed.
Thats how Briggs, Phelps, and Hunt did their IMF work, getting their victims to do their work for them.
My experience has been that there are both liberals and conservatives capable of making good arguments on various issues - and those that are poor.