What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[zeke]

Strange (IMO) argument you all are having over Red states and Blue states and their high school drop out rate.

None of our states have jack shit to brag about. Our students, compared to the people around the world they have to compete with, SUCK;.

25th in math. DO we need higher math in this changing world? Science is worse. Do we need science in this work world?

Hey, we can race each other to the bottom. And repubs would brag about it.

When I graduated from HS ('71), I was part of the number one educated high school student body in the world.

What the hell happened?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The most infuriating thing to conservatives when arguing with liberals is complexity. Conservatives tend to try to boil everything down to simplicity, the argument always starts when someone says "it's not that simple or clearcut."

lol you could make a book of conservative simple minded one liners.Yesterday I heard some conservative talk host give the retarded line 'Rising tides Lift all Boats".

That was actually a JFK line...

Jesus GOD, you're stupid. Just because JFK tried to annex it doesn't mean that saying doesn't FAR predate him, retard, and the economic concept it articulates goes back even farther.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government.

WHEN? It never happens. Conservatives are only for limiting ONE thing in government; liberals and Democrats.

No, we're for limiting lots of things. But it does happen that the fastest way to limit the things we don't like in government is simply to limit liberals/Democrats.

You might want to learn to tell the difference between conservatives and Republicans, by the way. Contrary to your "oh-so-complex" liberal beliefs, they AREN'T the same thing.

 

[Foxfyre]

The most infuriating thing to conservatives when arguing with liberals is complexity. Conservatives tend to try to boil everything down to simplicity, the argument always starts when someone says "it's not that simple or clearcut."

lol you could make a book of conservative simple minded one liners.Yesterday I heard some conservative talk host give the retarded line 'Rising tides Lift all Boats".

Yeah, we know how allergic leftists are to the idea of any universal truth older than the Communist Manifesto.

Hmmm. I wonder if TM thinks rising tides only lift some boats? In fairness to her, however, those tethered to a low lying anchor, like government, can indeed sink when the tide rises. All the more reason to view government 'benevolence' with a lot of skepticism because it can definitely anchor people to big government.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Strange (IMO) argument you all are having over Red states and Blue states and their high school drop out rate.

None of our states have jack shit to brag about. Our students, compared to the people around the world they have to compete with, SUCK;.

25th in math. DO we need higher math in this changing world? Science is worse. Do we need science in this work world?

Hey, we can race each other to the bottom. And repubs would brag about it.

When I graduated from HS ('71), I was part of the number one educated high school student body in the world.

What the hell happened?

As gov't involvement in education increases, the quality of student decreases.

 

[Foxfyre]

Strange (IMO) argument you all are having over Red states and Blue states and their high school drop out rate.

None of our states have jack shit to brag about. Our students, compared to the people around the world they have to compete with, SUCK;.

25th in math. DO we need higher math in this changing world? Science is worse. Do we need science in this work world?

Hey, we can race each other to the bottom. And repubs would brag about it.

When I graduated from HS ('71), I was part of the number one educated high school student body in the world.

What the hell happened?

Liberal Democrats took over the system.

 

[BluePhantom]

As such we are experts in long-term strategy and creating solutions to problems that address an issue in a such a way that the effect on other things is reduced. However, our focus on the large means we tend to miss the subtle nuances of specific situations and probably don't appreciate enough how out of balance an individual issue might be when placed side by side with a small number of similar issues.

Now that is funny. Must be thinking about the Republicanz and the Iraq war right there.
Well planned and looking out to the long term consequences. Made me spit my lunch.
Thanks.

Actually you are wrong. It's a perfect example. The long term consequences were that we preserved the petrodollar and maintained our hegemony on the oil trade (the commodity which has been in effect backing our currency after we went off the gold standard) and through it avoided total and complete economic meltdown. You think the economy is bad now? Wait and see what happens if we lose the petrodollar. It will make this economy look like a bull market. The only way to do that was to remove Saddam Hussein from power and the only way to do that was to have M1 Abrams knock on his front door and....ahem..."cordially invite him to depart", shall we say.

Also the manner in which we wage war now is negatively affected by liberal thought. We are so concerned now with how many civilians get killed in collateral damage that we try to fight a "humane war". Pfft....good luck. That means the rules of engagement for our soldiers is such that they are put in far more dangerous positions. So there again is an example. Micro-focused, idealistic liberals see civilians getting killed and screech like hell about the inhumanity of it. Liberals are willing to accept sacrificing the overall objective in order to address one minor element of warfare. To solve the problem and minimize civilian casualties means engaging in a strategy where we can't effectively and aggressively kill the enemy. Macro-focused, realistic Republicans look at it and say "hey we don't love the idea of civilians getting killed, but war is a brutal thing so we are willing to accept that situation (bummer though it is) in order to achieve the overall objective of dominating the enemy."

So there again we see that for a liberal the minor is more important than the major and for a Republican the major is more important than the minor.

 

[Bern80]

Since we are talking Math and Science. Which States perform the best in Math and Science?

Massachusetts
Minnesota
New Jersey
New Hampshire
New York

And which perform the worst?

Mississippi
West Virginia
Louisiana
Alabama
New Mexico

State Education Rankings: The Best And Worst For Math And Science

It looks like you're implying that poor performance in math is the result of large populations of blacks and Hispanics. All the states that do well are Lilly white and all the states that do poorly have lots of blacks and/or Hispanics.

really? a normal person would have said that poor red states perform poorly and wealthier blue states perform better.

but then again, you aren't exactly known for the sharpness of your mind.

Only if a 'normal person' is someone who believes there is a causality between how much money one has and how intelligent they are.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The most infuriating thing to conservatives when arguing with liberals is complexity. Conservatives tend to try to boil everything down to simplicity, the argument always starts when someone says "it's not that simple or clearcut."

Everything, no matter how complex, starts with simple principles. If you understand the principles involved in a discussion, the complexity later on makes more sense. If you disdain the basics, then any argument on complexity becomes little more than special pleading.

But what if the person you are talking to (say, the liberal) disagree with some of your principles?

What if their philosophy of government is a bit radical? What if their definition of "useful servant" is your definition of "overworked poor soul"?

What if they are brainwashed into thinking that you are an evil FOX propagandist that has yet to score your own radio talkshow? What then?

This is what makes this kind of argument so pointless and silly.

It is cool you can play with the different meanings of the world "Principle." If you are going to deliberately choose the wrong one, even though which definition is in use by context, then the whole discussion sinks into vituperation and name calling.

The principles of Division of labor, marginal utility, marginal revenue and marginal cost, consumption functions and other tools for economic understanding are quite distinct from personal principles of charity, compassion and brotherly love which vary from individual to individual.

If you want to play games of deliberate semantic obtuseness... go back to your sandbox. You are useless to the discussion and are a major source of pointless vituperative heat. If you want to be an adult and not engage in such stupidity, we might actually get somewhere.

 

[Foxfyre]

Everything, no matter how complex, starts with simple principles. If you understand the principles involved in a discussion, the complexity later on makes more sense. If you disdain the basics, then any argument on complexity becomes little more than special pleading.

But what if the person you are talking to (say, the liberal) disagree with some of your principles?

What if their philosophy of government is a bit radical? What if their definition of "useful servant" is your definition of "overworked poor soul"?

What if they are brainwashed into thinking that you are an evil FOX propagandist that has yet to score your own radio talkshow? What then?

This is what makes this kind of argument so pointless and silly.

It is cool you can play with the different meanings of the world "Principle." If you are going to deliberately choose the wrong one, even though which definition is in use by context, then the whole discussion sinks into vituperation and name calling.

The principles of Division of labor, marginal utility, marginal revenue and marginal cost, consumption functions and other tools for economic understanding are quite distinct from personal principles of charity, compassion and brotherly love which vary from individual to individual.

If you want to play games of deliberate semantic obtuseness... go back to your sandbox. You are useless to the discussion and are a major source of pointless vituperative heat. If you want to be an adult and not engage in such stupidity, we might actually get somewhere.

Which is probably the absolutely most frustrating thing about arguing with liberals. They too often cannot or will not discuss any topic at face value.

If they don't like your statement and have nothing with which to dispute it, they too often attack it with red herrings, straw men, and non sequiturs.

If they don't like your question, they too often change the question and then answer one they like better.

If they don't like your non partisan link, they too often ignore it and pretend it was never posted.

When you dispute the information in the links they post or the statements they make, they too often ignore that too and push on with ever more unsupportable propaganda.

Or some will demand that you substantiate your claims and blow off or ignore it when you do. And soon after will again demand the same information which will also be ignored and blown off. And after we finally weary of this exercise in futility, they feel righteous and declare themselves the winner.

I declare the winner the one who can coherently defend a point of view without using any ad hominenm, non sequiturs, red herrings, or straw men. I don't run across many liberals who can or will do that. Most conservatives can and many do. Which reinforces my opinion that conservatives are far more likely to be on the right track than are liberals.

 

[BluePhantom]

Which is probably the absolutely most frustrating thing about arguing with liberals. They too often cannot or will not discuss any topic at face value.

If they don't like your statement and have nothing with which to dispute it, they too often attack it with red herrings, straw men, and non sequiturs.

If they don't like your question, they too often change the question and then answer one they like better.

If they don't like your non partisan link, they too often ignore it and pretend it was never posted.

When you dispute the information in the links they post or the statements they make, they too often ignore that too and push on with ever more unsupportable propaganda.

Or some will demand that you substantiate your claims and blow off or ignore it when you do. And soon after will again demand the same information which will also be ignored and blown off. And after we finally weary of this exercise in futility, they feel righteous and declare themselves the winner.

I declare the winner the one who can coherently defend a point of view without using any ad hominenm, non sequiturs, red herrings, or straw men. I don't run across many liberals who can or will do that. Most conservatives can and many do. Which reinforces my opinion that conservatives are far more likely to be on the right track than are liberals.

Ahem...........WORD!

 

[Cecilie1200]

They're just too smart to be understood!!!!!

Well, if it's BRAINS that's making them incomprehensible, then they must all be geniuses the like of which the world has never before seen. Of course, the same standard would apply to my toddler, and at least HE'S cute and funny while he's spouting gibberish.

 

[Cecilie1200]

lol you could make a book of conservative simple minded one liners.Yesterday I heard some conservative talk host give the retarded line 'Rising tides Lift all Boats".

Yeah, we know how allergic leftists are to the idea of any universal truth older than the Communist Manifesto.

Hmmm. I wonder if TM thinks rising tides only lift some boats? In fairness to her, however, those tethered to a low lying anchor, like government, can indeed sink when the tide rises. All the more reason to view government 'benevolence' with a lot of skepticism because it can definitely anchor people to big government.

Well, following that analogy, I'd say the rising tide still lifts all boats, and the tether to a low-lying anchor then capsizes some of them.

 

[Chris]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

This, of course, is total bulshit.

Government is the only defense a citizen has against powerful corporations which have been shown again and again to steal, cheat, and lie to the point of polluting the planet and destroying the world economy. Why? Because the government is ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

And the conservatives want to let the unelected corporations run wild....

 

[BluePhantom]

Government is the only defense a citizen has against powerful corporations which have been shown again and again to steal, cheat, and lie to the point of polluting the planet and destroying the world economy.

You wrote the foreword for Mein Kampf, huh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating?

My guess?

Losing. Over and over and over and over and over again.

 

[Mad Scientist]

 

[candycorn]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

I think for the most part all liberals and conservatives do agree on those items you mentioned. Clearly there are fringe on both sides, but for the most part, we are in agreement.

The problem comes when we talk about how the government can be a useful servant to the people's needs. For example, as a liberal, I am in favour of temporary food stamps and student loans for college. Many "conservatives" are against both of those, claiming it leads to big government.

So what do we do then?

I asked a straight forward question about Obamacare. The part of the law that lets you keep your children on your work insurance until they are 26. It doesn't cost anyone other than you a dime.

You should have heard the hue and cry from the wingnuts about how it spelled basically the end of civilization.

Its easy to argue with conservatives; especially when they are wrong which is about half the time. Roughly the other half of the time, they're mis-representing the other side's position.

In truth most people I know are capable of holding more than one thought inside their head at one time; seeing the other side of the argument while espousing their beliefs. For whatever reason, the wingnuts here, by and large, are extremists idiots who live in various stages of self-denial about what "they" accomplished. On one hand it's sad. On another hand it's shocking that such self delusional people are out there and actually believe they hit a double when, in reality, they were born on 2nd base.

 

[Listening]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating?

My guess?

Losing. Over and over and over and over and over again.

Let me know when that fairy tale comes to life.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Government is the only defense a citizen has against powerful corporations which have been shown again and again to steal, cheat, and lie to the point of polluting the planet and destroying the world economy. Why? Because the government is ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

And the conservatives want to let the unelected corporations run wild....

Individual Rights are the only defense a citizen has against powerful Governments and Bankers which have been shown again and again to steal, cheat, and lie to the point of polluting the planet and destroying the world economy. Why? Because the government is supposed to protect OUR rights NOT their own self interests!

And the Liberals want to let the Government and Bankers just run wild....