It has come to my attention that there are certain folks that sometimes have difficulty conversing with the liberal-minded without having the sudden urge to either barf, or become violent against the offending liberal. I totally understand.
So how, you may ask, does Doug deal with liberals without wanting to wrap my fingers around their throats?
First thing's first. When I have to confront a liberal I remember that the liberal bottom feeders of our nation do not fight fair, twist factual data to fit their argument, and tend to exist well beyond the realm of reason - - and as many of you have heard me say before, you can't reason with the unreasonable. So, since they fight unfairly with emotionally driven facts that are far from factual, I simply decide not to bring myself down to their level. Basically, I refuse to get down into the mud with mudslingers.
However, sometimes verbal or written interaction is necessary. This is when knowing the facts, and what you believe, are important.
The best weapon, however, is to simply refuse to recognize their idiocy. Sometimes it is best to refuse to respond in an argumentative way. Taking the high road has its advantages.
Just a thought.
26 comments:
Hi Doug,
I agree with you that taking the hight road is the best way, I try to but there are times when my day has not been going so well that it seems that it doesn't take me much to blow my cool.
I guess that is like most all of us humans that is why we are not perfect, we do try to do our best but there are every now and then stumbling blocks that seem to get in our way.
So best suggestion is: Just try to do ones best and try to improve, one could never ask for anything more.
"The best weapon, however, is to simply refuse to recognize their idiocy."
No on this you are wrong D.In MHO.
The best weapon is to hightlight their stupidity, so that those too clueless to get it the first time around get it one the second round.
Jenn,
Ok let us say for the sake of an example, lets say that you did do that to a Liberal? Do you think that you are going to change their point of view by making them look stupid?
I say that it is sometimes best to draw back to be able to come back and fight that argument again when there are more facts presented at a second time to make your case from.
I usually jsut pat them on the head as I do my five year old when he is playing with his imaginary friends. He is saying made up things to people who aren't really there, conducting activities that have no affect on reality. It is just cute, but absolutely make believe.
Isn't this analogy accurate?
So DG - are you just "handeling" me? Isn't that just a teensy, weensy bit patronizing, or even arrogent?
Are you saying our communications are only one-way? (I'm asking rhetoricly, as I don't actually believe that you just write me off...)
Doug,
You are absolutely correct on this.
We should all be able to take the high road and in my opinion your standards speak for them self.
Your a good man Doug.
No, kitty - DG said he prefers NOT to handle liberals. Leaving them to stew in their own, as it were. Jenn prefers to highlight the hypocrisy of the left, and Night Rider tries to ignore but will confront when needed.
I tend to do the same as Jenn - point out inconsistencies in the left, and go from there.
Speaking for myself, and for most liberals, I would rather DG answer my question for himself.
*****
And Rider, I believe, although I have no knowledge thereof, that you are a good man too, inspite of your temporary tirade against my existance and my oppinions.
Cary, if you think that Rider chooses to ignore me, than you are ignorant (root term - ignore) of the fact that Rider recently, well, shall we say, he did NOT CHOOSE TO IGNORE ME. I think even Rider will come to my defense on this one.
What spurned me to write this piece was a number of confrontations I have had recently with liberals, and a couple of e-mails from folks who read Political Pistachio (and folks I highly respect, BTW). Ignoring a liberal is often the way to go because I refuse to get down and dirty with them - - - BUT, sometimes ignoring them is not possible, so exposing them is definitely an option. Regardless, if I get angry or out of hand then it give the liberal fuel to point fingers at me. If I just present the facts and allow them to stew in them they either realize their mistake, go away, or respond with a more well thought of response. If a liberal is in your face (sort of like terrorists) then you have no choice but to respond to them, and to go on the offensive, but even then, one must be careful, because the slightest misstep will have them on you like flies on sh1+. Am I just handling you, Mudkitty? Certainly not, but that question confirms my statement that I wound up deleting by error regarding that sometimes Liberals come back with questions or statements with shock value designed to know you off balance (Am I a murderer? is another one of those). However, I do deal with you the same way I deal with most people that come against me: I try to be fair, provide the opportunity for your opinion, and set limitations so that you cannot get out of hand. Remember, this is a rightwing site with rightwing readers, and though I like you and think you have every right to believe what you believe, my conservative readers outrank you. Harsh, I know, but think about it: could I have it any other way? Remember this, as wrong as you think my points of view are, I think yours are just as wrong, and I am willing to defend my point of view if need be, and also remember, you are on my turf.
I'm not against you, DG, I'm against rightwing politics, the Bush Administration, and faulty logic. (You, I'm crazy about. And you're whole family.)
As for rank - I don't even think in those terms. I'm not competing with your other readers or posters. I'm communicating. If you think I'm harming your readership, then I would wholeheartedly recommend that you ban me, and I would support you in that endeavor, and I would never hold it against you. Because I am a liberal.
I feel that I have to clarify my meaning, I feel that mudkitty and any on the left have their right to their opinion and I will fight for their right to say that even if I don't agree with it.
I try to avoid any and all arguments that would cause nothing more than a rant or a tirade to happen if at all possible.
How ever I agree with cary's assessment of how I handle my dealings with Liberals, I choose to fight them on issues at a time when more abundant facts present them selves.
Because with out those facts out front in a given article with presented debate could turn into a rather - he said - she said type of argument another words kind of pointless.
So Rider, what was the deal last week then?
mudkitty,
I was just going through some bad times, and was not feeling much like debating issues I believe.
After all I did defend you before, so you should at least acknowledge that.
You know Kitty, if you ever, EVER actually explained your stance, and gave proof, facts and logical reasoning, you'd find people would be less likely to either ignore your juvenile rantings, or commence ad hominem attacks(note proper usage of ad hominem).
Shocking as this might sound, there are a small handful of liberals out there I call friend. We disagree 100% on politics, but they are able to "converse" and provide logical stats, proof and arguments. It's nice.
Try it sometime.
Rider, why do you think I still adore you? And anyway, I've defended you too.
(P.S. Rider - I never had the chance to actually read those comments, anyway. They were deleted before I had the opportunity.)
Jenn, I suggest you try the Oxford Dictionary sometime. An old one, preferably (with regards to the AH word which is banned here, last I heard.)
Rider, why do you think I still adore you? And anyway, I've defended you too.
(P.S. Rider - I never had the chance to actually read those comments, anyway. They were deleted before I had the opportunity.)
Jenn, I suggest you try the Oxford Dictionary sometime. An old one, preferably (with regards to the AH word which is banned here, last I heard.)
Oxford Dictionary:
ad hom•in•em /d hmnem; NAmE hm/ adj., adv. (formal) directed against a person’s character rather than their argument: an ad hominem attack
Note proper usage.
Exactly.
But the AH word is banned here? Am I not mistaken, DG?
Or not?
If the AH word is what I think it is, then no. I prefer no profanity. I understand that sometimes it pops out, or seems appropriate (I, on occasion use some words, but disquise them i.e. sh1+). If profanity were to break out rampantly on my site through the comments, I would be using the delete button a little more often. I believe in fair play, and expect folks to at least try to keep their standards relatively high. Thanks for asking.
DG, check your archives. You told me not to use the non-profane term "ad-hominem." Which I thought was odd for you.
Look, I understand if what you meant was don't use ad-hominem in general, and I might even agree with that. But you told me not to use the phrase "ad hominem." (Unless I misunderstood you - please clarify.)
One of my things is to bust people for using ad-hominem.
I don't recall banning the actual term, but the practice of making claims based on an attack against the character of a person is not allowed. This, then, spills into name-calling or unwarranted banter of a hateful nature (such as some recent events are testimony to on this site), and that means against anybody, incuding you. Also, let's keep the argument related to the topic (though some off-topic conversation is understandable such as Tisha's curiousity regarding Rider), and on topic using facts and figures, or commonly understood notions (i.e.: murder is a bad thing, etc.). Thing is, I shouldn't have to lay down any rules. Common courtesy for your fellow reader/commenter is all that should be necessary for everyone to enjoy the interactions that evolve in the comments section. by the way, due to recent spam I've been receiving, I am returning to word verification.
Ok, then DG - if I feel that someone is directing ad hominem at me, I can say "that is ad hominem" right? I just want to be clear on this.
I felt each comment was within acceptable perameters.
Post a Comment