Kimato
Full Member
the greatest thing you will ever learn is just to love and be loved in return
Posts: 276
|
Post by Kimato on Feb 13, 2005 19:23:43 GMT -5
After years of debating with my liberal friends, I have realized that you need more than just morals and information to argue with a liberal. You need a few simple guidelines. Blessed be the day Ann Coulter's book went on the shelves, and even more blessed be the day I bought it. So now, I would share with my fellow conservatives some key points to remember when you are talking to a liberal.
1) Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to have them move out of their parents' home, get a job, and start paying taxes. But if this doesn't work, you might actually have to argue with a liberal.
2) Watch out for "Arab street" and the conspiracy theories. If there's one thing liberals love, it's getting the conversation off-topic.
3) They will refuse to actually argue, preferring to lead you around in a circle until you're tangled up in points that were never part of the conversation to begin with. So, in other words, they like to get you off-topic.
4) Be prepared to be burned at the stake for your "close-minded" views.
5) Get out the ritalin, because it's a bit like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.
6) When asked why they disagree with an issue or policy, the answer will probably be "it doesn't work." Example: "We don't use torture because it doesn't work." ---Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, former legal counsel to the CIA, the National Security Agency, and the State Department.
I'm sorry, but the last time I checked, torturing someone you know full well is withholding information works wonderfully. There are many good, sufficient moral reasons for not torturing prisoners for information. However, "doesn't work" is not one of those.
5) Don't surrender out of the gate. Never, EVER surrender to a liberal. If you give in, even a little, before the argument starts, it's always a lose.
6) Don't be defensive. Since the Republican party doesn't accept former Klansmen, murderers, or rapists, there is really no reason for you to be defensive.
7) Outrage the enemy. You can never say something too outrageous about a liberal, because it's all true.
8) Never apologize.
9) Never compliment a Democrat. Complimenting a Democrat is like asking to be insulted.
10) Never be gracious to a Democrat.
11) Never flatter a Democrat.
12) Do not succumb to bribery. Become a liberal and you will be lavished with great wealth. Nationally renowned liberal female journalists have been known to offer...er...favors...to elected officials just for keeping abortion on demand legal.
13) Prepare to have everything wrong you've done since you were five laid out for the world to see, along with a few things you HAVEN'T done.
14) Be prepared to be called ugly even as you are told people only listen to you because you are pretty.
15) You know you've become a die-hard conservative when liberals start calling you a f*g. Curiously, those liberals who scream constantly for tolerance always choose "gay" as their most searing epithet. Conservatives don't think homosexuals should get married. Liberals actually dislike homosexuals. (Examples of liberal defamation of conservatives based on sexuality are available on request, as are any other bits of information you would like for clarification on these rules).
-Kimato-
NOTE: Much information taken from "How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must) by: Ann Coulter. For a more complete education on this, please read the book for yourself. It is an eye-opener, a page-turner, and a knee-slapper all in one.
|
|
|
Post by Whitakker on Feb 13, 2005 22:47:13 GMT -5
Thank God someone else reads that book. I love Ann Coulter's book too. If I had one wish in the world, it would be to have dinner with her while discussing politics. With every paged turned in that book, you see clearly why this is the truth. The best part of it is: She actually researches what she writes about, something you will rarely if ever see from liberals.
GOD BLESS ANN COULTER!!
|
|
Rune
Junior Member
Posts: 186
|
Post by Rune on Feb 14, 2005 17:09:39 GMT -5
Liberals... *snicker snicker*... haha... hahaha.... *chuckle*... *snicker*...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Sorry, just had to get that out of my system.
|
|
|
Post by Whitakker on Feb 14, 2005 19:27:46 GMT -5
Never apologize, Rune. Remember? Rule #8 above.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Feb 14, 2005 19:58:22 GMT -5
While I'm shamefully swerving into #4, I just have to ask...
...isn't this a wee bit too close-minded?
The Garrison Keillor I read seemed to follow a remarkably similar mold as these Ann Coulter excerpts--both were unbased, biased, and painfully one-sided. There was no room for compromise, and there was no sense of communication between one human being and another. Instead, the books (Garrison Keillor at least) seemed nothing more than a drawn out hate-fest to help sway general popular opinion as quickly as possible.
I have been criticized repeatedly for my supposedly unbased and repetitive arguments, but I never dreamed that those that had attacked me in the first place would turn right around and plop the same flimsy nonsense on this site.
At the very least, a great deal of conservative wiggle-room has been obliterated by this disheartening topic.
#6's example in particular bothers me.
The woman quoted could just have easily have been talking about its level of political correctness than whether it worked physically. This excerpt is incomplete, and it would be interesting to see a copy of the statement with its surrounding text.
On the positive side, this is actually a superb lesson in the art of logical fallacy--while far too obvious to work on many, this is nevertheless an excellent illustration of "Ad Hominem" to the max.
I was saddened enough when I read this initial topic; after I read Whitakker's immediate response, I felt it was high time the human race recieved another Great Flood, and post-haste.
From what I saw of these rules, #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, and #15 seemed to not be researched at all, although perhaps I am blatantly misinterpreting Whitakker's speech. #6's example, as stated earlier in my post, is questionable at best.
The underlined statement presents the general impression of Whitakker being a brainwashed thrall with the approximite independent willpower of a tuft of grass. Perhaps this was a mistake of some sort, but if Whitakker is indeed considering every bit of this the truth, then I solemnly pray to my pagan gods that he never holds a political office.
Naturally this response is one-sided and slanted, but that hardly seems particularly grievous of me when you consider the simply awful post that began this topic. Sure, a great counterargument I'm going to hear is that this was simply "poking a bit of fun at the ho-hum liberal tradition," but if that is the case, then go have your fun off of this site. There are a lot of intelligent folks on Tales of Phantomile. It should only be expected that they would post reason, not trash.
|
|
|
Post by Whitakker on Feb 14, 2005 20:15:11 GMT -5
Nevertheless, Thanatos, I stand by what I say, and I shall not take back anything I said. This is what I believe. You can believe what you believe, and I pray to God that we can leave it at that. On a more ironic note, you say that the original topic was somewhere around the "Ad Hominem" logical fallacy, which means, "To the Man". You soundly denounce this. And then you turn around and make a direct insult to my intellect. What word comes to my mind when this occurs? Hypocrite, that's the word. You came extremely close to *audible gasp* flamingI for one have great respect for Kimato to create this thread, probably knowing full well that the very items she listed would be thrown at her face. My regards to her for having the wits to do that.
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Feb 14, 2005 20:41:57 GMT -5
Your point is good, and I saw this myself.
There is a subtle difference between what I wrote and what I had been denouncing previously, however.
This is not a direct insult to your intelligence. I speak nothing of Whitakker himself--instead, I merely present the impression your response made on me. There is a subtle difference. The tactic I employed was far more subtle than blatant hating. Rather, it was a focused deterrent, something which I had hoped would encourage you to reanalyze your situation with at least a photon's worth of new light.
In my mind, what I wrote is not Ad Hominem, and I would certainly never dream of actually flaming anyone, lest I be brought to trial myself.
I now eagerly await being accused of twisting words, and being told that this is a "common satanic liberal trick."
|
|
Rune
Junior Member
Posts: 186
|
Post by Rune on Feb 14, 2005 21:33:30 GMT -5
Lol Whitakker, I wasn't apologizing to liberals, just to everyone in general. OK, everyone that has posted on here so far knows where I stand, so I'm not going to bother with that. I really only have two things to say. First of all, Thanatos, I bothered to read what you put on here, but I want to ask a favor of you. Stay away from your very circular logic, that which we conversed over earlier today. "Bush is a bad president, because he's not a good president." Hmm... good point... wait, there is no point Lol. Also, I have a feeling that you try to confuse those you choose to come to verbal blows with by using what some may simply call 'big words'. Don't even go there. The ability to speak on a different intellectual level than some people and to possess a larger vocabulary than some does in no way make you right. Whitakker and Thanatos... stop using the stuff we learn in English! Use your own arguments, not Ms. Booth's or whoever else you might have's. Also, many times you will appear simply foolish by using something that anyone who is in or has had tenth grade English would know, especially when using the teacher's simple definition. (Ad Hominem? Come on.) However, I say all of this in good humor with no spite, because I'm an eternally happy person who believes that politics can burn in...... fire.
|
|
|
Post by Whitakker on Feb 17, 2005 17:43:38 GMT -5
Rune, those aren't Mrs. Booth's ideas. They are concepts that have been around for quite some time, and I'm sure that both Thanatos and I knew these concepts before we were taught them in that bore of a class.
Thanatos, I understand that you think that these things are too "one-sided". But when I think about it, I don't think I've ever seen or heard an open-minded liberal? Liberals say that they will listen, but then they won't even bear to hear one word that conservatives have to say. I find that interesting and humorously ironic. What think?
|
|
Rune
Junior Member
Posts: 186
|
Post by Rune on Feb 17, 2005 19:01:25 GMT -5
I never claimed that those were MS. (she's not married) Booth's ideas, Whitakker. I said that it is dumb to use something that you so obviously just learned in a certain class, as if you do not have arguments of your own. I did, however, say that it was a simple definition, when in retrospect, Ad Hominem very well does mean what you said when translated. Still, if you have to rely on vocabulary from English class to prove a point, then you obviously don't have much of an argument. And Whitakker, I know you didn't know that before you entered this class, don't try to act smarter than you are No offense, of course But if we are using what we are learning in English during first block, Whitakker, then I must say that your last post was a very broad and hasty generalization. Just because you have never met an open-minded liberal doesn't mean that there are not any. Also, by concluding that there aren't any since you haven't yet met any is very hasty and, in all actuality, very, very close-minded. Not to mention stereotypical. What think, Whitakker?
|
|
|
Post by Whitakker on Feb 17, 2005 20:06:43 GMT -5
Nowhere in that last post did I say there were absolutely no open-minded liberals, I only said that I had never seen one, and I highly doubt that I ever will. I never reached that conclusion. If that's what you read into it, then that's your problem.
And as for the things you referred to from English: I believe that if it makes my point reasonably clear, then I will use it, no matter how long I have known it to be, or if I just learned it a day ago. That's the way I work. I don't get caught up in "big words" to make my arguements sound better. I use what everyone can understand.
|
|
Kimato
Full Member
the greatest thing you will ever learn is just to love and be loved in return
Posts: 276
|
Post by Kimato on Feb 18, 2005 13:20:24 GMT -5
My dear Thanatos. This thread is not meant to open a debate on liberal vs. conservative. That is in another thread. However, consider your statements considered. And highly disagreed with. Ann Coulter's book is a very researched bit of material. Not only is it highly informative, but it is incredibly funny.
And yes, it is one-sided. Of course it is one-sided! Read the rules...specifically, #5 and #12. And this isn't all a direct quote. If I were to directly quote the rules, this would be a questionable length, considering this material came from the introduction to the book, which was of considerable length. However, if you would like to read the full introduction, see me for information on borrowing the book.
Be advised that if you are of liberal beliefs, you will be required to sign a contract saying that if my book is damaged, torn, burned, or inexplicably lost, you will be responsible for buying me a new one. -Kimato-
|
|
Kimato
Full Member
the greatest thing you will ever learn is just to love and be loved in return
Posts: 276
|
Post by Kimato on Feb 18, 2005 13:26:12 GMT -5
And as for Rune...I highly disagree with you. Though I don't ever agree with Thanatos on politics, and though I find his argument here rather unbased...there is nothing wrong with using a word you just learned in English to prove a point.
On the contrary, it is perfectly acceptable to use any and all knowledge that you have gained through a variety of means to prove a point, if it is being used correctly. For instance, I just learned in Biology that, from a biological standpoint, life begins at the moment of conception. Could I not use this in a scientifically based argument against abortion? Yes, I could, no matter how recently I learned it, as long as I understood the concept and could use it appropriately.
However, this thread is not about abortion, either, so I would request that NO ONE (Thanatos included) open a debate on that comment here. -Kimato-
|
|
|
Post by Thanatos on Feb 18, 2005 16:22:53 GMT -5
Fear not; tempting as it might be for me to start an abortion argument here, I think I have enough battles in the Politics section going already. Another one would be more than somewhat overkill. To Rune:This seemed like a very strange (as well as unnecessary) comment to make. Words act as weapons, and it is a wise individual indeed that attempts to store as many as these potential weapons as possible to utilize in debates much like this one. This is not to suggest that I am at all comfortable or happy with my own repertoire, however. A larger vocabulary also allows one to more readily flesh out specific points he or she is attempting to make, another effective characteristic in the debate. Lastly, rarer words and more eloquent usages of the English language act as somewhat of a deterrent to certain less-than-comprehensible people that might otherwise create unwanted chaos in the generally intellectual atmosphere we have strived to create within the Politics board. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Admittedly, pointing out logical fallacies I myself had only learned about a few days previous was rather low of me. Nevertheless, I was very much pleased when I was finally able to identify and specifically label weak bits of arguments that had plagued me for years. The ultimate point of learning is to in turn apply the recently gained knowledge. That is something to bear in mind. Lastly, I would like to state that my underlying point in replying to this thread (other than having a bit of fun in heated argument) was to illustrate that this was simply not the kind of thing that should have been posted in the first place. Sure, my liberal beliefs played a large factor in this, but I also felt that people on Tales of Phantomile were generally a bunch of very bright folks, people that would justify their arguments and not post what mostly amounts to a hate rant. I'm simply requesting that, in future, topics follow a formula that is fair to both sides of a given argument. Now, unless somebody posts something utterly stupid in response to what I have just said, I'm done with this topic. I've said my peace (or, as the case may be, war), and I've said a lot of it.
|
|
Kimato
Full Member
the greatest thing you will ever learn is just to love and be loved in return
Posts: 276
|
Post by Kimato on Feb 18, 2005 19:07:48 GMT -5
I am sorry to offend you, Thanatos. This is not meant as a hate rant. The cynicism was very much on purpose, but the underlying point of this thread in the first place was to prepare yourself for argument with those whose opinions oppose your own.
And if I hear you say one more thing about being one-sided, I'm going to...I don't know what I am going to do. I wouldn't want to be accused of being a terrorist...anyway...my point in this statement being, it's rather stupid of you to go on about conservatives being so one-sided, as you yourself are rather one-sided when it comes to...well...any argument you have against conservatives. The very nature of an argument is that two people are presenting one-sided points and trying to understand each other better. However, I am quite sure I will never understand you. -Kimato-
|
|