32 Replies to “You Can’t Debate Eagles, When You’re Arguing With Turkeys”

  1. My experience is that for the most part leftists care about being seen as being the kind of people who have the kind of opinions that people like them are supposed to have. It’s just about social-positioning. That’s why they can’t debate; they don’t really believe any of the things they “believe”. (They don’t exactly disbelieve them either. They’re just operating on a different set of assumptions about how one should construct a world view.)

  2. The method of reasoning the captain is describing is called the Trivium method. I recently became aware of this from a site called tragedyandhope.com. Curiously I saw it on a site called zengardener again today. I am 57 years old, 6 yrs post sec and many years in politics and education factory (3 kids).
    The simple fact that as a deeply disappointed conservative, someone who reads 3 or 4 hours a day, and have for at least the last twenty years, I was completely unaware of this can only lead me to one conclusion: there is a conspiracy to dumb down the population and make reasoned discourse impossible. (lots of “private schools” use the trivium method.
    The problem is we are now (and certainly for a long time past) teaching entire generations what to think, not how to think. Both the “left” and “right” are equally guilty. I am not at all certain as to how to resolve the problem, but I’m confident that more of the same BS ain’t it. As I read recently, It isn’t the 1% who are the problem, it is the .0001%.

  3. In a debate, the assumption is that your opponent will provide logical, factual reasons to support their side. That cannot happen with a leftist.

  4. The proper method for “debating” a Leftist is to punch them in the face every time they open their mouth. After you’ve hit them five or six times you will have finally got their full attention, and then you can have a proper discussion about the subject at hand.
    I find a roll of dimes to be an excellent debating aid when discussing gun control with liberals. The Lousiville Slugger is also superb.
    See, its all about convincing the Leftist that you are serious about having the discussion rationally and not, as Black Mamba says above, just doing some pro-forma social positioning.

  5. 2 things to remember in a discussion such as this
    1) humans are basically emotional reactionaries, and the far the “left” you go the stronger this trend manifests it’s self
    2) when 2 ppl of unequal intellectual levels are debating, the person with the lower level believes they are equal to the other, while the upper intellectual level is usually frustrated by the inequality

  6. “A wise man said don’t argue with fools; cause people at a distance can’t tell who is who” – Jay-Z

  7. u and i are of kindred spirit
    you might recall my call for “smack a leftist day” way back when.

  10. Don’t argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

  11. Indeed, Mr. Homez sir. Hippy punching is never wrong.
    I should note at this time that if you aren’t willing to smack Mr./Mrs./Ms./Transwhatsit Leftist in the face five or six times, really frickin’ hard, then you shouldn’t even be talking to them. It isn’t the hitting that gets the job done, its caring enough to take the time necessary to instruct the ignorant.
    Random hippy punching, while it may be relaxing and enjoyable, does not necessarily forward debate in any meaningful way in and of itself. But it couldn’t hurt.

  13. The curious thing about this widespread ignorance among moonbats is that the internet is easily available to everyone. It takes little time to look up something but it seems that moonbats are both (1) lazy and (2) just look up sites that support their opinion. One only has to look at a site like WUWT or climageaudit to see what true rational debate looks like.
    Unlike the CAGW sites which just preach the watermelon religion and shy away from any hard work, people on WUWT will download freely available data, crunch the numbers themselves and point out the anomalies between raw data and “adjusted” data. One site that is begging for such treatment is the recently released addon to Google Earth which allows people to click on a large square which represents an input into climate models and get the “adjusted” temperatures for that grid. The first anomaly I noticed was that central BC has a huge rectangular piece of territory which extends from the US border to N. of Prince George. Anyone who’s lived in BC will immediately realize that homogenizing data for such widely differing climatic zones is simply useless. At least one can download the temperature “anomalies” and compare them with the raw data which is available on Canadian climate sites.
    The average moonbat would never think of things like this and seems incable of even using open source statistical and graphical programs to play with the data themselves. Such analyses provide objective facts and, if one was debating a rational opponent, one could discuss the mathematical and climatologic validity of the chunking and adjustment of data which had occurred. People on WUWT will get into quite heated arguments with one another and these debates are useful as they lead people closer to the truth.
    Moonbats start with preconcieved ideas and try to fit reality to those ideas. For them, their weltanschauung includes very little of physical reality as they are primarily city dwellers; an environment in which the unfit can thrive whereas they are ruthlessly eliminated in an environment that requires a better physical reality model than moonbats have.
    Calling one side emotional and another logical is invalid as emotion is fundemental in making decisions. D’Amasio showed that lesions in the R orbitofrontal cortex resulted in individuals who were very logical and could explain everything they needed to do but their lives were absolute disasters. Thus, the role of emotion is in gut feelings which is how the R hemisphere commmunicates holistic impressions of a situation to a person. The Iowa gambling test checks out R orbitofronal cortex functionality. The “emotion” that is most often described in moonbats and watermelons is the intense frustration they feel when they are unable to even begin to understand certain fundamental scientific and mathematical concepts which invalidate their arguments. Their weltanschauung has developed to deal with a social reality which is a subset of physical reality but they are clueless about this.

  15. The Captain is on to a very good point. Ideas like truth and fact are alien to the left. That is why, for example, the global warming fraudsters won’t debate with anyone, and prefer instead to be interviewed by those friendly to their cause. This is why, when you read the comments on leftist web sites, they are enough to make you ill. There’s nothing intelligent or honest about anything the left says or does.
    Peter said in his post above “The problem is we are now (and certainly for a long time past) teaching entire generations what to think, not how to think.”
    This is also very true. I find with my own children, who are in public school, that I have to constantly teach them how to think about the world around them, because the concept of actually *thinking* is not something that is nurtured in school anymore. Children are simply told what is “true”, and what is not.

  16. Assuming the Do-gooder has any interest in arguing, rather than posturing and shutting down debate.
    The take over of local councils, boards ,ect, has all used this technique, shoutdown, accuse and slander any who question.
    Lie by choice, never answer a question, spew prepackaged pap(talking points).
    It works, because reasonable people want nothing to do with cretins of this nature.
    Time is short enough already.
    Next the emoticons listen only to each other, repeating the pap,assume silence from the public means agreement.
    Too bad it really is festering rage, when civic discourse is deliberately cut off, a short term gain is made, long term it gets ugly.
    At best communication is only possible between equals.

  17. I believe the biggest reason why leftists are virtually impossible to argue with is pride (sloth being another of the deadly sins of which they are guilty). Leftists have so emotionally wrapped themselves in their faulty arguments and want to live in a world were identity politics are everything that when their positions are proven wrong, their egos cannot take the blow. They become defensive and illogical in a very short time.
    One thing that might snap them out of their utter wrongness (perhaps hippy punching) is letting them own their ideas. Let them foot the bill for a welfare reject. Let them live without electricity or natural gas during the winter. How well will they defend their values when they realise they’re crap?

  18. Conservatives can win all the debates they want to but in the end the Left will win at the policy level in our society because 2/3 of the people can just be bought with promises of free stuff*.
    That’s not happening now in Canada at the federal level because those 2 out of 3 voters are vote splitting due to there being too many federal parties, but if the Left ever gets their sh!t wired on tight the Right here is done to.
    *Marshmallow Experiment

  19. “Lie by choice, never answer a question, spew prepackaged pap(talking points).”
    Sounds like the media, polices, burokrats and a bunch of other guv depts.

  20. “Let them foot the bill for a welfare reject.”
    Joke is they already do, they just don’t know it. And you can’t explain it to them without the punching first, because as you say, sloth and pride.
    Personally I’d like to see your Toronto limousine liberal pay my propane bill this winter. Screaming would be heard all the way to Ottawa.

  21. I find it useful to distinguish between “debate” and “dialectic”. Debate should only be done with an impartial judge to decide who wins. Dialectic requires opponents who each seek the truth, even if it’s not their truth.
    It’s usually easy to determine early in a conversation which avenue you’re on.
    Unfortunately “dialectic” is a little used word.

  22. “My experience is that for the most part leftists care about being seen as being the kind of people who have the kind of opinions that people like them are supposed to have. It’s just about social-positioning.” — Black Mamba, 12:06 PM

    That, IMO, can’t be overstated: the notion that, on the broad left (or among “progressives”) there’s a generalized, often unexamined, one-size-fits-all cluster of opinions that good people are supposed to have. In a lot of cases, the people who hold these opinions don’t think of them as especially political. One sorta-acquaintance of mine, for example, (friend-of-a-friend kinda thing), after getting an earful from a rabid right-winger at a small house party, said in his defence “What you don’t understand is that I don’t consider myself a leftist.” He was a leftist, in the political positions he held, but he *genuinely* considered himself a “moderate” or “centrist” (a “Canadian”, in effect, although he didn’t use that word) and the more he talked the more evident it was that he held “the kind of opinions that people like (him) are supposed to have.”
    I think that one can and should debate, on the friendliest terms possible, with every leftist you’re on speaking terms with. I’ve debated lots of people who are either self-defined leftists (as in Vancouver, where I played music and did sound mostly in the leftier parts of town) or who simply hold common-wisdom positions that are in effect leftist ones, but without the self-applied moniker. While I agree with Cappy-cap that there’s no point in arguing (arguing privately, as opposed to, say, in back-and-forth op-ed column) with hardcore, radical, activist-type lefties (e.g. eco-nuts) whose heads are full of “factoids” that are all but irrefutable for the purpose of debate (unless you happen to have reams of pre-sorted-by-category factual evidence at hand), it’s been my experience (your mileage may very) that having amicable one-on-one debates with the “soft”, almost incidental leftists that Mamba referred to (a *huge* population, in Canada) who’ve absorbed their opinions by osmosis via CBC/CTV/Macleans, etc., can be quite productive if you adhere to the following:
    1. Be convivial and good-natured, and almost blithe. Never get angry, never typecast them as evil or bad, or stupid. Be friendly. This softens them up a bit, and helps them realize that there’s an interesting discussion going on, rather than an argument. If *they* suddenly lose their temper and start name-calling or shouting – which is often a gambit, or a form of self-defence – treat it not as an affront, but as an opportunity to demonstrate that your convictions/opinions aren’t borne of emotional incontinence, but of calm examination, and thoughts/ideas.
    2. If you can, find common ground at the outset and be willing to acknowledge – to grant them — the veracity of *some* of their statements of fact; make what sounds like a big concession early on, e.g. “As a society we have to help look after people who can’t look after themselves — the elderly poor, the disabled, the mentally challenged”, etc. This puts you on the same proverbial page, at least for a moment, before the conversation moves on.
    3. Give every appearance of taking their POV seriously; treat each matter under discussion (e.g poverty) as if it’s a highly interesting, chin-scratching topic with many different aspects/angles to it, rather than an either/or proposition. If they say, for example, that there are a lot of people struggling to make ends meet, nod your head heartily (“That is absolutely true. You’re 100%right“), and acknowledge that this is a real concern. Count to twenty before the word “but” leaves your mouth, then carefully and slowly and thoughtfully (and digressively) scroll through the proverbial rolodex of possible causes, only some of which are ascribable to the (typically single) cause they suggest: insufficient government funding.
    If you can get them to agree with the fact that some people are in dire straights because they have an alcohol/drug habit, for example, I find they often respond with “Yeah, I knew a guy who…” Don’t treat such an anecdote as an “Aha, gotcha!” or as a prima facie victory for whatever you’re arguing for (or will be arguing for a bit later), treat it as a mutual acknowledgement that it’s a complicated, multi-faceted issue, and that therefore no one-size (government-sized) solution that can address all such problems; if you can get them to agree that there are a variety of causes and solutions to particular problem, the door to an actual/real discussion/debate is open.
    If you can get to the point where there’s at least some degree of mutual acknowledgement that the world is kinda complicated and multi-faceted, it goes a long way towards obviating your most implacable, intractable foe: Question-begging assertions of “fact” — or as I call them, “conversation stoppers.”
    The level of blowback, of course, will be largely determined by how politically hardcore your interlocutor is, but if the person’s opinions are “the sort of opinions that people like them are supposed to have”, you can reduce their internalized level of social proscription against holding different views by simply engaging in friendly conversation.
    In cultural/political terms, THE biggest obstacle for conservatives is the largely unexamined “everybody knows” belief (as promoted 24/7, 365, either overtly or between-the-lines, by the news/entertainment complex) that conservatives are ignorant, hateful, and angry. Whenever you have a friendly conversation that proves that none of those are applicable in your case, you’re helping to change that culture.
    You should have discussions/debates with your leftist friends/family members.
    If you’re dealing with a radical, hardcore leftist, of course, all bets are off.

  23. You should have discussions/debates with your leftist friends/family members.
    How many converts can you claim?
    Face the facts, your ideology is not cool. Your “debates” with your friends and family have minimal effect. You lose. Nonetheless, thanks for the 1,2,3 steps.

  24. So much work, EBD. Hitting is better. ~:D
    “I think that one can and should debate, on the friendliest terms possible, with every leftist you’re on speaking terms with.”
    If you do, you won’t be on speaking terms for long. Their clan doesn’t tolerate dissension or difference. You, as a conservative, are the one brown pigeon in a flock of grey ones who will be pecked to death if the rest of them notice. I have seen it.
    If you need them to like you, you LIE with conviction and aplomb, or they will destroy you. If you don’t need them… the hitting.
    Ok, I’m mostly kidding about the hitting. Mostly…

  25. “How many converts can you claim?”
    4 or 5 that I’m aware of.
    “Face the facts, your ideology is not cool.”
    What ideology is that?

  26. Phantom, I was talking about the sort of people Black Mamba referred to in her first comment. There are people who know *nothing* about the facts behind the climate debate other than what they hear constantly on CBC/CTV, etc., and read in magazines like Macleans. Showing them the IPCC’s own figures (for example) can be a real eye-opener to them.
    Those who think that the relatives percentages on the left and right are set in stone, and that all discussions are therefore useless, should look at the constantly shifting levels of support (vote-wise) over the years between the three main Canadian parties.
    There are lots of people (“the flock” is apt) who it would be useless to try to talk to or debate with, but – again – there are a *lot* of people who simply a) want to be seen to hold the “correct” opinions, like good people (they’ve been told) are supposed to, and b) haven’t been exposed to opposing arguments on any given issue, often because (friendly) people don’t talk to them about the topics that are at issue.
    I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone whose views on all subject matters have remained the same throughout their lives. The change doesn’t occur in a vacuum, or exclusively through the media.

  27. EBD said: “I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone whose views on all subject matters have remained the same throughout their lives.”
    Its true that liberals can change their stripes. It has often been remarked that a violent mugging or a car crash can make a liberal dove into a conservative hawk. I used to see it a lot in PT patients. Almost nobody makes it all the way through an extended hospitalization and retains any respect for government workers.
    You know what the main features shared by muggings and car crashes are? Pain and humiliation.
    Because that’s usually what it takes to get through to the type of self-satisfied, lazy liberal pr1ck who’s happy to sit back and let Big Brother do all the work for them while they eat government cheese paid for with other people’s money.
    Hippy punching, EBD. Its the wave of the future.

  28. Do they have them camping out on their couches? How much gas can one get on an awareness activist’s “salary”?
    Hit them where it hurts for maximum loss of dignity, cash and sanity.

  29. “My experience is that for the most part leftists care about being seen as being the kind of people who have the kind of opinions that people like them are supposed to have. It’s just about social-positioning.” — Black Mamba
    Exactly… Their belief in what is ‘true’ is determined by the consensus of their social medial friends. They know how they feel, and don’t want those finely cultivated preconceived notions confused by any inconvenient facts. Their whole world is viewed through that filter.
    Trying to teach one of them to think logically and apply reasoning, is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
    “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” –Robert Heinlein

  30. “Logic meaning you have to be intellectually honest and adhere to associative rules and other logical concepts that ensure integrity.”
    Here is where the lefty axe-grinder creed (actually a mental disorder rather than a political orientation IMHO)fails in civil debate – they are, as a creed, predisposed to rebel against any form of order/rules/ethics, (they call this “progressivism”, but it is actually a susceptibility to sociopathy, but abnormal personality disorders abound on the left and are welcomed as “free thinking”) – therefore the disciplines demanded by logical discourse escape them – are actually rejected by leftist zealotry, because rules (even in mental/intellectual exercises)are simply NOT for them. “feelings”, abstract perceptions and nebulous constructs substitute for fact in leftyland just as ad hominem vitriol and circular argument substitutes for debate in their detached microcosm.

  31. “Face the facts, your ideology is not cool.”
    What ideology is that?
    Conservatism is considered by lefties to be uncool at best and evil at worst; And there’s simply no use trying to confuse them with facts.

  32. Aha, I get it now: You’re saying my ideology (such as it is) is not cool to them, i.e. to committed,politically active/aware self-defined leftists. You’re totally right, glasnost, it’s true.
    Again, though, when I say that it is possible to change people’s views, I’m not talking about the sort of self-defined leftists/activists who wear Che T-shirts, but rather about the (surprisingly large) number of people who incidentally hold what amount to leftist views because they’ve absorbed these views, as Canadians, through a sort of social osmosis. In my experience it’s just a fact that there are a lot of largely apolitical people – especially women, for some reason – who hold a kind of squishy, safe, MOR default view that they assume to be just “normal” rather than “leftist.”
    Take the sort of people who read grocery-store-checkout magazines like Reader’s Digest and Chatelaine (for example) that are considered to be thoroughly middle-of-the-road: They don’t think of them as political magazines, they read them with the comfortable, unexamined assumption that they’re merely light, non-contentious sources of normal, “Canadian” views/values.
    Writ large, this has a big effect on public policy and on voting decisions. Take AGW, for example: If you’re a largely apolitical person who doesn’t visit political blogs or do any research because you don’t have the time and/or inclination, and your only exposure to the topic is through the MOR magazines I referred to, or to CTV/Global, etc., including their putatively completely non-political chatty daytime celeb-oriented shows, it would be difficult, bordering on impossible, for anyone to come away holding the view that the theory is either false or grossly exaggerated, because the notion that *everyone* is lying when they say the science is settled would (quite understandably) seem implausible, bordering on impossible — unless/until they’re exposed (through conversation, and with follow-up sources) to a few key facts (including some of the IPCC’s own data) that they were never exposed to before. You’d be amazed at how many people have never heard of the medieval warm period, or of the little ice age(s), etc., etc., because these things are never mentioned – literally *never* mentioned – by their putatively apolitical sources of (“normal”, MOR) information.
    When people note that the left has won the culture war over the last twenty or thirty years, they’re largely referring to the social proscription against holding certain opinions. These proscriptions aren’t enforced on the street with brass knuckles, though; what has happened instead is that these proscribed views are “disappeared” in every “safe”, MOR, popular, putatively apolitical source.
    That’s why I think one should talk to people whose leftist/progressive, “common-wisdom” views are held incidentally or by default, and not because they’re self-described “leftists.” Taking the attitude that “There’s no point talking to you because you’re just a stupid idiot leftist who is completely impervious to logic or reason” is not just counterproductive, but also wrong.
    I think it’s very easy for us denizens of SDA (or of lefty blogs) to mistakenly assume that everyone has access to a variety of viewpoints, and that they’re been exposed to a variety of arguments/counterarguments en route to forming their opinions, but it’s simply not true.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation