Friday, June 21, 2013

How to Debate a Liberal (and Remain Friends)


Just in case my children come back from an institution of "higher" learning in twenty years and tell me they're Democrats, let it be known to all my posterity that I am not to blame.  If they return home for Christmas break and wish me "Happy Holidays," it won't because I forgot to mention the real meaning of separation of church and state.  If they demand that I give them money or lodging without the fulfillment of the promise of hard work and timely repayment, it won't be because I failed to teach them self-reliance and personal responsibility.  If they tell me that they've voted for liberals in the last election, it won't be because I didn't stress the importance of concepts such as limited government, fiscal responsibility, and originalist constitutional interpretation.  

It will be because they have failed to use their brains.

I recently posted on facebook a video in which a state senator from Louisiana discussed why he switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party.  In it, he cited the Democrats opposition to the civil rights movement, their support of the Jim Crow laws, their programs which are designed not to  help people, but to control them and concluded with an invitation to all in the black community to join him in switching to the party of freedom.  As you can see from my response below to some of my close friends, I am not shy about discussing my beliefs openly.  And my friends can take the heat.  They know I will debate the misguided tenants of liberalism as long as I live.  

But to my children, the moral of this story is to never enter into a debate with a radical liberal thinking you're going to change his or her mind.  If you're doing it to challenge yourself or hone your debate skills, fine.  But know that you may just be entering into a black hole of circular logic and purposeful blindness.  If this happens, it's best to remove yourself as soon as possible by changing the subject to something you both may see evenhandedly,  like pop culture or television.  

And children, never give in, be tactful, use emoticons and choose the RIGHT!  And if you ever fail to use your brain, I will still love you.  

Now THAT is unconditional love, people!  





Rachael Rawson Charles
Wednesday at 2:15pm via mobile · 
  • Amen. Great defense and explanation of the Republican Party. I don't know how one can disagree with this man, but then, I suppose half of the country does...

    Black Democrat switches to Republican
    Like ·  · Unfollow Post · 
    • Joseph Costlow This is why so many gay people are switching, too - right? Because civil rights are such a broad focus of the GOP. Right?
    • Adam Friedlander Whoa. Did you watch the video? His ONLY argument seems to be that the Republican party was awesome for black people in the 1800s. Am I missing something? Also, he seems to only be talking to black people, with the expressed goal of tricking them into thinking that the hundred year old "foundation" of republicanism should be appealing to them now, regardless of current policy. I am not commenting as to whether or not the party is good or bad, but this methodology seems incredibly dishonest, and all of his points seem irrelevant to...well...real life today. This really weirds me out. I am sure there are way way better arguments than this somewhere.
    • Travis Charles Couldn't disagree more. Only the first third of the video references the past. The rest is focused on the present. And he makes very strong current and relevant points about the black community today. As one who works and lives amongst the black community, I am firsthand witness to the effect that government dependence has had on them. They really need a revolution of people like him, but that is unlikely to happen as the lure of government handouts is too strong. Can't believe we were watching the same video.
    • Joseph Costlow Well, it's settled: I'm calling or writing all of my gay friends and letting them know that the GOP would be GO-Proud to support their civil rights - because they view everyone as an equal individual, and wouldn't let something like their own personalbeliefs or baggage get in the way of others' rights. Because that's them. That's who they are. A shining city on a hill of tolerance, equality, and equal rights for all of its citizens.

      They're so happy with the news! Half of them are laughing, and half of them can't hold back their sobs of joy!
    • Rachael Rawson Charles I knew I could count on you guys to respond!  Adam Friedlander, the only trickery going on is the Democratic Party continuing to insist that they actually care about people. It's preposterous, and all we have to do is go law by law, program by program, tax by tax and look at the dearth of improvements in the lives of the poor as a result. The one thing the top ten poorest cities in the country have in common is that they've all been run by liberals for the past 50 years or more! So in fact, there is quite literally nothing but honesty and realism in that video. But then, I know that anything based in reality "weirds you out." Joseph Costlow, to be fair, traditional marriage is the hardest issue for conservatives to defend, due in part to the successful hijacking of the debate by proponents of gay marriage, turning it into a question of "equality" and "civil rights" rather than a serious discussion of whether or not REDEFINING an age-old institution is a good idea. I have yet to meet a proponent of same-sex marriage who can define marriage in a way that a) makes it necessarily permanent (because emotional bonds wax and wane), b) limits it to two people, or c) can explain why marriage is different than any other type of contractual relationship such as a business partnership, and d) why the state has an interest in regulating marriage in the first place (children are the ONLY reason the state is involved.) That is a great discussion to have. If you're going to insist that everyone else in the country recognize same-sex unions as marriage, then let's at least define what marriage is. I am all for two people of any sex to commit to a loving relationship and enjoy life together, and that is legal in all 50 states if I'm not mistaken. But, the easiest way to shut down mature conversation is to label someone as a bigot or religious nut-job, and I guess you've been successful with that tactic. You're right, this debate is heavily influenced by religion for many, but it is certainly not dependent on it. Oh, and I have gay friends too! And they know me well enough to know that I believe discrimination in every form is vile and we still have a long way to go to expel it from our society. But I don't know any gay people who are consistently pushed to the back of the bus, prohibited from using straight people's bathrooms, denied jobs, or whose children are banned from playing with my children...nope, haven't seen that lately. And most conservatives I know, if faced with that kind of discrimination, would be first in line to put an end to it, as we so often have done in the past (to circle back to abolitionism.) But I appreciate your sarcasm 
    • Adam Friedlander Oy. Like I said - this wasn't a pot shot at your party, though those are extremely easy to take. I was simply pointing out that if you want to make a serious argument for switching from one party to another, you are far too intelligent to pick such a pandering, ridiculous, irrelevant, and racial video. I assumed I was actually missing something, and really wanted to know why you thought that was worth sharing. Instead, you attacked my party, with no defense of the video, and insulted me. Thanks for being clear that you agree that the video is ridiculous.  As to the gay marriage thing, it's not even worth discussing, so I'll just point out my happiness that in a few short years, the only remnants of your party's sentiment about gay marriage will appear in history books. Thank God for that.
    • Rachael Rawson Charles Oy is right. When you start off with "Did you watch the video?", questioning my intelligence from the beginning, I think we can dismiss with fears of potentially offending one another. Let's not be overly sensitive; you know I like to joke with you. Obviously I thought a little historical review of the Republican Party was relevant, or I wouldn't have shared. Other than pointing out that liberal policies simply don't do what they purport to do in helping people, he didn't do a great job of explaining his switch or change of mind, which was supposed to be his initial purpose. But I think history is always relevant. It's relevant that a good portion of the country doesn't even know which party freed the slaves or spearheaded the civil rights movement. No one went to see the movie Lincoln who probably needed to. So what if this guy is speaking directly to a particular audience? When the black community is being condescended to by a president who speaks to them in a fake black accent, telling them that the white people didn't come to the rescue after Katrina because they're black and the VP tells them conservatives would "put ya'll back in chains!," I think another viewpoint deserves a voice. Racist? Now that's the pot calling the kettle black- no pun intended. I'll be sure to point out when you are being exclusionary when you speak directly to a Jewish audience about relevant issues. About gay marriage, the one thing we can agree on is that it is inevitable. Now let's stop with this truly aggravating thread.
    • Adam Friedlander *Racial. That's the word I used. Racist has a different implication, as you pointed out. As to Jewish issues, I assume you mean Israeli issues, which I tend to post about - I don't think I am exclusionary about it, but please do point it out if I ever am. Also, I never questioned your intelligence (or connection to reality) - just your reasoning behind posting the somewhat bizzarre video. The ancient history of a party's policies is literally the most irrelevant thing I can think of when it comes to changing parties in 2013. My point wasn't to start some Facebook war, but to challenge you, as someone who usually posts intelligent arguments, no matter how much I disagree with them, on posting something that really doesn't come close to meaning what your post implies. I think the pot/kettle line may be, "I think we can dismiss with fears of potentially offending one another." I am sorry my initial post set you off in such a way. It was truly intended to be a "keep the opposition honest" type post, with my "did you watch" remark meaning "are you kidding me?", and nothing more.
    • Rachael Rawson Charles Fair enough. I like when you post about Israeli issues, because even though I'm not Israeli, I still care about them, kind of like when I watch videos invoking the black community. And yes, I can ALWAYS count on you to challenge me. Thanks for that!  I'm going to go watch some totally irrelevant History Channel show now, Vikings. Have you seen it?
      18 hours ago · Like · 1
    • Adam Friedlander I have not, but I will look for it post haste!  This is more like it. I can't watch any more Toddlers & Tiaras, or other shows on "The Learning Channel".
      18 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 1
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)