Arguing with Leftists

[RickWhite]

There is no question that those on the Right are at a disadvantage when arguing with those on the Left. Those on the Right feel obligated to post well constructed, poignant arguments that are cohesive and accurate.

The Left on the other hand bears no such responsibility. Those on the Left, need only accuse the other person of being a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe or xenophobe, or of being narrow minded or ignorant. 99% of the time, this is how they respond to points made by the Right.

On occasion, those on the Left will evoke the old appeal to ignorance and demand to see studies when clearly either non exist or the topic is not one that can be proved by a study or at all for that matter.

Of course reasonable people know that many social issues and certainly most of the great questions can not be proved. But never the less, the Left will argue that if you can't show proof you must be wrong.

I've also noticed another tendency of the left. This is the tendency to chop up an argument into bite sized pieces and respond with mindless one line challenges to each statement made by the other person. The technique is to shatter the context of the person's argument and set up an pawn line of straw men based on numerous fragments of the other persons argument. Once this pawn line of straw men is created, they try to knock them down so it appears that they are proving their case when the reality is that they have failed to address a single key issue. This is what we see when we see heavy use of multi-quoting. Note that responses in multi-quotes are always responses to specific verbiage and never to the larger issues. This also makes it less likely the other person will respond in turn since once a post has been multi-quoted it is pretty much vandalized and very hard to respond to. This is a form of argument by verbosity in which an attempt is made to just over burden you opponent with meaningless straw men and make him quit due to time constraints.

Anyway, that is what it is like to argue with the Left. The one thing you will not see is a well conceived, well articulated argument. You will however hear charges that you are ignorant, hateful, racist, sexist, a bigot, a homophobe, etc.

 

[jrh72582]

There is no question that those on the Right are at a disadvantage when arguing with those on the Left. Those on the Right feel obligated to post well constructed, poignant arguments that are cohesive and accurate.

The Left on the other hand bears no such responsibility. Those on the Left, need only accuse the other person of being a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe or xenophobe, or of being narrow minded or ignorant. 99% of the time, this is how they respond to points made by the Right.

On occasion, those on the Left will evoke the old appeal to ignorance and demand to see studies when clearly either non exist or the topic is not one that can be proved by a study or at all for that matter.

Of course reasonable people know that many social issues and certainly most of the great questions can not be proved. But never the less, the Left will argue that if you can't show proof you must be wrong.

I've also noticed another tendency of the left. This is the tendency to chop up an argument into bite sized pieces and respond with mindless one line challenges to each statement made by the other person. The technique is to shatter the context of the person's argument and set up an pawn line of straw men based on numerous fragments of the other persons argument. Once this pawn line of straw men is created, they try to knock them down so it appears that they are proving their case when the reality is that they have failed to address a single key issue. This is what we see when we see heavy use of multi-quoting. Note that responses in multi-quotes are always responses to specific verbiage and never to the larger issues. This also makes it less likely the other person will respond in turn since once a post has been multi-quoted it is pretty much vandalized and very hard to respond to. This is a form of argument by verbosity in which an attempt is made to just over burden you opponent with meaningless straw men and make him quit due to time constraints.

Anyway, that is what it is like to argue with the Left. The one thing you will not see is a well conceived, well articulated argument. You will however hear charges that you are ignorant, hateful, racist, sexist, a bigot, a homophobe, etc.

If you want legitimate debate and are upset by the quality on this forum, then I would ask why the hell you continue arguing here. You want rounded debate, go to a fucking debate. They have them at every major college and most high schools all over the country. The season starts now and goes until March, so quit whining and go watch one. If you wanna participate, join an on-line debate site. There are plenty.

You may even like the national topics right now:

Policy: the US government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty

L/D: national health crises justifies compulsory vaccination

 

[doobnVA]

Generalizing might be fun for you, but it is never an accurate portrayal of anything.

The easter bunny gives children candy, does this mean ALL rabbits are hiding secret stashes of tasty confections?

It's even more ridiculous that you assert republicans are ALWAYS on the correct side of the argument. If that were actually the case, then why is the republican party shrinking? Are 80% of Americans completely witless, or is it perhaps time you took a step back and evaluated your own politics and consider that maybe it's YOU who is on the wrong side of the debate?

 

[RickWhite]

Notice the straw man arguments above. Two great examples.

 

[doobnVA]

Notice the straw man arguments above. Two great examples.

You're projecting again, Rick.

YOUR post was a straw man argument, not mine, not jrh's.

Seriously, why don't you just go away? If you're so much smarter than everyone here (which I don't think is the case at all...growing up in Detroit it's unlikely you even graduated from High School), then go find some place where everyone is as brilliant as you are and nobody disagrees with you.

I recommend the Fox Nation forums. You'll fit right in over there.

 

[jrh72582]

Notice the straw man arguments above. Two great examples.

Well, you've certainly proved your ignorance. You want a straw man, see your comments summarizing all Lefties in a fallacious manner. You're claiming we straw-man'ed you, but your comments single-handedly straw-man'ed every non-republican in America. Do you see the fallacy?

 

[Leothwyn]

RickWhite: have you ever considered taking up a hobby?

 

[PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1]

You must be getting paid for this through the RP, Your so hell bent on trashing the Left,,,Get a real job, and if your at work posting this you sould be fired! Damn man get a life!

 

[CrackerJax]

^^^^^^ like this post here....Lib's don't have defensible data which can be supported....hence the typical argument is personal or diversionary. It's an argument of deflection. Liberalism cannot withstand straight up scrutiny.

Liberals lost their guts on Vietnam and have never recovered form the guilt of killing millions in SE Asia.

 

[RickWhite]

You must be getting paid for this through the RP, Your so hell bent on trashing the Left,,,Get a real job, and if your at work posting this you sould be fired! Damn man get a life!

Damn it! I did forget to list garden variety insults. I'll have to edit my post later. Thanks for the perfect examples guys.

And you are right, I better quit posting at work before the boss finds out. Oh, that's right, I own the company!

 

[MexicanWarlord420]

Are 80% of Americans completely witless, or is it perhaps time you took a step back and evaluated your own politics and consider that maybe it's YOU who is on the wrong side of the debate?

America did vote Bush into office, twice..
err technically once.

Hey Rick, do you ever smoke with your employee? just curious

 

[PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1]

Damn it! I did forget to list garden variety insults. I'll have to edit my post later. Thanks for the perfect examples guys.

And you are right, I better quit posting at work before the boss finds out. Oh, that's right, I own the company![/QUOTE] what you did not qualify for a bail out

 

[PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1]

^^^^^^ like this post here....Lib's don't have defensible data which can be supported....hence the typical argument is personal or diversionary. It's an argument of deflection. Liberalism cannot withstand straight up scrutiny.

Liberals lost their guts on Vietnam and have never recovered form the guilt of killing millions in SE Asia.

well actually you say "Lost their Guts", I was in the Marine Corp,,I never lost my guts I'm here now

 

[CrackerJax]

I guess you think I meant you must have killed millions then also? Reading comprehension folks....

 

[doobnVA]

America did vote Bush into office, twice..
err technically once.

Hey Rick, do you ever smoke with your employee? just curious

You're right, but nowhere near 80% of Americans actually voted for Bush.

Only about a third of people actually vote, and a little over half of that 1/3 voted for Bush. That makes 1/6 of the population that is completely witless. About the same percentage that identify themselves as republican.

coincidence? You decide =)

 

[PeachOibleBoiblePeach#1]

I guess you think I meant you must have killed millions then also? Reading comprehension folks....

Wow, That's a twist of words, and what is this Buggs Bunny?
I speak honest and simple, There is no need to get into these HUGE debates, all they do is confuse the average reader, but I forgot we have this mix of words and twists of truth going on and it's alway's easy to say your right when you go in depth into some mind boggling speach, This is a Pot forum, with a politcs section, some people take advantage that's why I give my 2cent's.
I'ts OUR first ammendment right correct? or were you planning on trying to rid my voice too

 

[Leothwyn]

I've seen well constructed arguments, as well as ridiculously stupid ones, from both sides. I think anyone who can't see that is too far gone in their blind, partisan thinking. Seems like there are quite a few that fit that description here - left and right.

And, RickWhite - I followed your civil unions thread. Ignoring the opinions on that matter, and just considering how well constructed the points were in that thread, you didn't come out looking so good.

 

[CrackerJax]

average... define average.

If you wish to wear the entire liberal mantle upon ur shoulders.... It might be a bit egotistical of you.

Liberals lost their guts over Vietnam and have never recovered from it.... meaning they are a shadow of what they used to represent. Todays liberal isn't the liberal before Vietnam.

 

[fonzirellie]

There is no question that those on the Right are at a disadvantage when arguing with those on the Left. Those on the Right feel obligated to post well constructed, poignant arguments that are cohesive and accurate.

The Left on the other hand bears no such responsibility. Those on the Left, need only accuse the other person of being a racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe or xenophobe, or of being narrow minded or ignorant. 99% of the time, this is how they respond to points made by the Right.

On occasion, those on the Left will evoke the old appeal to ignorance and demand to see studies when clearly either non exist or the topic is not one that can be proved by a study or at all for that matter. So, if you are not able to provide some sort of premise to support your argument we are supposed to still believe you? Give some examples of these "unprovable topics".

Of course reasonable people know that many social issues and certainly most of the great questions can not be proved. But never the less, the Left will argue that if you can't show proof you must be wrong. See above. What is the past participle of prove? Knowing this will help you craft a better argument and also not sound like a tard.

I've also noticed another tendency of the left. This is the tendency to chop up an argument into bite sized pieces and respond with mindless one line challenges to each statement made by the other person. The technique is to shatter the context of the person's argument and set up an pawn line of straw men based on numerous fragments of the other persons argument. Once this pawn line of straw men is created, they try to knock them down so it appears that they are proving their case when the reality is that they have failed to address a single key issue. This is what we see when we see heavy use of multi-quoting. Note that responses in multi-quotes are always responses to specific verbiage and never to the larger issues. This also makes it less likely the other person will respond in turn since once a post has been multi-quoted it is pretty much vandalized and very hard to respond to. This is a form of argument by verbosity in which an attempt is made to just over burden you opponent with meaningless straw men and make him quit due to time constraints.

Anyway, that is what it is like to argue with the Left. The one thing you will not see is a well conceived, well articulated argument. You will however hear charges that you are ignorant, hateful, racist, sexist, a bigot, a homophobe, etc.

I gave up mid way through. As far as logic goes, you may be the one shoveling the most crap. I dont want to put you on the spot, but can you analyze and diagram one of these bogus arguments you speak of and prove that it utilizes the strawman fallacy to be more persuasive?

 

[RickWhite]

I've seen well constructed arguments, as well as ridiculously stupid ones, from both sides. I think anyone who can't see that is too far gone in their blind, partisan thinking. Seems like there are quite a few that fit that description here - left and right.

And, RickWhite - I followed your civil unions thread. Ignoring the opinions on that matter, and just considering how well constructed the points were in that thread, you didn't come out looking so good.

Maybe not to you. That thread was however an excellent example. I am glad you brought that up. If you followed it you probably noticed the reoccurring position of those opposing my point was appeal to ignorance (ad ignorantiam). This is when one side demands proof of a persons position when proof doesn't exist and won't exist for decades. Also, since the view that a traditional Mother and Father home is superior is the one that is generally accepted and because we are discussing the welfare of children, the burden of proof is on those proposing the change.

But really, the dynamic of the nuclear family is so complex and nuanced it is kind of silly to even look at it as an issue that can be tested with studies. There are entire books written on the nature of Male & Female interaction and the various ways that each compliments the other. These issues are almost more for philosophers, than scientists.

Another thing you may have noticed is how many people called me ignorant, evil and a homophobe. Fact is, I like Gay people and I want them to be happy and enjoy all the same rights as everyone else.

Philosophically, I am a firm believer that the nuclear family is the single greatest source of social health known to man and I think that far too much harm has already been done to this institution. I also believe this is largely a result of Leftist views with radical Feminism leading the assault.

I propose civil unions because I am concerned that a redefinition of marriage will cause more negative social proof with regard to marriage.

Really, what I was trying to convey were very abstract and complex ideas that I didn't expect many to understand. It is a pity that my ideas were met with such violent opposition before I got a chance to fully communicate them. But that is what I have come to expect when talking to those on the Left. The way they responded to that thread was more or less as I described above in the OP. Thanks for the example.