Tuesday, April 09, 2013

Arguing With Idiots...Or Liberals...

...wait, that was redundant...

I want to show you something that showed up on my Facebook page yesterday. It was written by someone who, I suppose, has no sense of irony, nor the same good sense of the sort one would typically expect to find in a brain-damaged Irish Setter. I don't know the person who wrote this, as he is a 'friend' of a 'friend' -- that is to say he is a Facebook 'friend' of one of my Facebook 'friends' who I have never met and wouldn't know if he walked through my front door bearing a bottle of booze and a box of connollis.

Which is what you're supposed to bring when you visit us here at Lunatic Central, as we have a lifetime supply of Xanax, already. But, I digress; for your reading pleasure, here is the offending Facebook post. I have redacted the offender's name, if only because from obnoxious tone and total stupidity on display, one's first reaction to this screed might be to call Homeland Security to report a possible new Al'Qaeda cell. Here it is, in it's full glory:

Don't like it, fuck you and please do the favor of de-friending me now before I say something you really dislike. Then again since the 1st was written 1st I think it does supersede the 2nd, just like when they wrote, Life, Liberty and PURSUIT of Happiness... In that order, not by chance..

And there it is in it's full glory: the hallmarks of the liberal (small 'l' intentional) style of argument which gets trotted out, oh...everyday...in an effort to have a 'civil discourse' on just about every topic under the sun.

Before I take those three lines apart rhetorically at the seams, I would like to first explain to you that it is perhaps possible for the person who has written this to believe that a) he is perfectly correct in all things re: his tirade, and b) saner and more caring of others than you are. For despite the obvious signs of mental instability, stupidity and poor (probably public school) education evident in that word vomit, I would bet dollars to douchebags that the person who wrote that believes in his heart of hearts that he is making a perfectly valid and logical statement, and that he is not an overwrought, overemotional idiot. If we who would reject his argument -- for whatever reason -- don't understand it, it is because we are not approaching the argument from the same place that he is.

Usually, I would say that place probably has at least one padded cell, or perhaps serves margaritas and angel dust as it's standard fare, but that's not what HE means when he might describe the origins of his point of view. For the person who wrote this, it is not important that his argument have some form of reasonable, factual underpinning; it is simply what he feels, and as we all know from being endlessly told by psychiatrists, politicians, TV personalities, Self-Help bestsellers, bureaucrats and other assorted morons, feelings trump reason.

His (the writer's) point of view is the proper and correct one because it is an expression of his feelings. As such, it does not require the encumbrances of having to be a reasonable and factual argument, nor does it need to take into account someone else's feelings. Heaven's No! By the etiquette of modern political and social debate, a person who begins an argument with a threat (you'd better de-friend me, if you don't agree! I can't stand people who may disagree with me on principle, and must be protected against those who offer a different point of view!) and an expletive (the exhortation to perform a physiologically impossible sexual act) needs to be accommodated, not debated. Why, his opinion is just as valid,. according to the Libtard, as anyone else's. In fact, it is more valid if we should feel exactly the same way, or if it is necessary to agree with his sentiment for political purposes, Any counterargument, therefore, is unnecessary and we should give him what he (and those who agree with him) wants for the sake of civil peace.

I mean, after all, they throw a tantrum...errr...Occupy Wall Street, or something.

It seems the subject has left him unhinged and you know what happens when unhinged people don't get what they want? Why, they might even arm themselves to the teeth and start shooting up an elementary school that they've just argued should be a gun-free zone.

He then compounds his initially stupid argument in the way that Libtards have done for centuries now, and makes it all about The Children. And here some context is necessary. That tirade above was posted over this photograph:

The Facebook Offender then captioned this photo with the following:

"Stop the World. the Teabaggers Want Off"

And yes, that is exactly how the caption was written, complete with poor grammar and lack of capitalization.

So now you know: the overheated meathead who thoughtfully wrote to inform that since I don't agree with his emotional, uninformed, near-menstrual opinion about Gun Control that I should not only de-friend him but go procreate with myself as well, is really on about disarming the population in the name of safer schools, despite the fact that some of the strictest gun laws in the world have made Chicago, Detroit and Washington, D.C. some of the unsafest cities in America. 

The only reason they don't have school shootings (thus far) in those cities is probably because the students are better armed (illegally) than any potential attacker, I reckon. But that is neither here nor there.

But anyway, let's start taking that deeply-felt opinion apart, and then we'll discuss how this is all part-and-parcel of the Libtard way of thinking and argument.

First of all, let's ignore the obscenity, for I am probably the foulest-mouthed person alive and I use this term at least forty times a day, myself. It doesn't exactly bother or offend me; I'm immune to the supposed powers of offense that these words once held. They are so commonly used nowadays that we have all been, to some extent, numbed by over usage. They no longer have the shock value or offensive capability they once had, much like the words "Nigger" or "Racist" once had. The fact of the matter is that the word, once deemed too dangerous and offensive to polite society, has been weakened by the iconoclasts who used it purely for effect for so many years.

And besides: I'm from Brooklyn...we use the F-word as a noun, verb, adjective, and sometimes, even punctuation. Ever hear the Brooklyn alphabet? It goes like this:

Fuckin' A, Fuckin B, Fuckin' C, etc, etc...

The second problem with those three lines is the part about de-friending him if you don't agree with him. Fair enough, he has the right to demand people de-friend him, and he has the right to become an island of deranged thought, living unexposed to the opinions and ideas of others. However, it seems such a short-sighted and self-defeating thing to me; Facebook is, after all, a social media, and the point of it (when it has one) is to create a network of friends and to communicate with them. If you were trying to make friends (for your cause) and influence others (who may not have been on your side, initially) you're probably turning them off. If the initial obscenity did not cause them to question you, your motives and your sanity before deciding to agree with or friend you, then the attitude of "I only want to hear what I want to hear" inherent in that statement is probably a deterrent to friendship or even commonality of thought.

The third issue is that the person who wrote this was taught history -- if he was taught history, at all -- very badly, and probably failed Civics, or any other course in which the object was to study (at least in a cursory fashion) the American Constitution and it's intent and meaning.

For a start, Amendments to the Constitution do not "supersede" one another on the basis of their numerical order. If that were indeed the case, then all we would have would be Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Religion, etc., and the rest of the Constitution would be null-and-void, and imagine the chaos that would reign? Why, Slavery would still be legal (it's the 13th Amendment, and therefore the Abolition of Slavery is not so important, or they would have made it First), and women would be prohibited from voting, since that one only comes in at Number 19. But then again, this sort of personality is perfectly (and miraculously!) capable of making an opposite argument when it suits their needs, and so his freedom to imbibe enormous quantities of of booze and make a complete and total fool (and public menace) of himself whenever he desires should definitely "supersede" my first amendment right to join MADD to keep people who could write this sort of stupidity off the roads.

This sort of argument is the kind one would typically expect to be made by a complete doofus. No, let me correct that: a drunk, insane, unwashed, drooling, hillbilly-inbred doofus. Wait, that's not fair to inbred hillbillies.

And then it gets better. Having shown his complete lack of Constitutional knowledge, he then furthers the sense that we're dealing with a complete ignoramus by mixing up the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence (the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness thing). it is a common mistake made by Libtards, because as we've seen over the years, they are both taught history very badly, or have a propensity to remember only those things that it is convenient for them to remember, assuming as they do that everyone else is a complete fucktard like they are and, therefore, the mistake will go unnoticed.

Of course, if one were to make the argument that the 'Right' of Unfettered Abortion was in direct contravention of the Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness thing, the good mouth-breathing little Libtard would blow a gasket, and accuse you all sorts of perversions and secret hatreds. Like I said, they remember what they have the 'Right' to or what the Constitution and other founding documents say only when it suits their needs, and have no issue at all with dispensing with both logic and a fair and equitable application of the rights and intents contained within those documents.

Mere words, after all, don't exactly matter to a liberal (small 'l' intentional); it's all about feelings.

In the exchange that followed that bombastic stupidity, it was pointed out to the Fur-Breasted Idiot that in calling for Gun Control as his right as a citizen, it is quite possible that he is suggesting that the rights of others be infringed for his personal comfort, or to suit his political agenda. He didn't care. When it was pointed out that as taxpayers, the people who pay for the school his children attend, have the right to put armed police officers or security guards in them in order to avoid a massacre, if they should so desire, he didn't care. After all, it's not really about rights, or the equal application of the same, nor truly about safety or defending children; it's about Him, and His Feelings. He feels, strongly, apathetically, non-committed, it does not matter because it is his feelings that we're really talking about, therefore, he has greater rights and can impose his world-view (no matter how constipated) upon everyone else.

I forget where I heard this, but it is one of those things that should be engraved in stone and posted upon every convenient vertical surface for everyone to see until the message eventually sinks in and becomes one of those unconscious cultural practices that rule our daily lives in complete invisibility:

One should never argue with idiots. They simply pull you down to their level, and then overwhelm you with superior weaponry.

Which brings me, at last, to an examination of the tactics inherent in such a public display of mental diarrhea. 

If you ever find yourself engaged in an argument with a liberal fucktard, just remember that he/she is probably making any argument based solely upon a formulaic system that was embedded within them in school, or through political indoctrination, and which begins upon the premise that whoever argues in this manner really has no valid point to make at all. He or she is simply doing what they have been subliminally trained to do, and does so for motives which they themselves barely understand, and are largely incapable of comprehending. They simply 'feel' they should make the argument because it is required of them. It is required they do this so that they are not ostracized in their little circle of friends, or be drummed out of their political tribe for breaking the rules.

The argument (the subject is largely unimportant) always follows the same formula:

1. Begin with an outrageous statement. It should contain an element of shock value, and it should be made passionately and emotionally. The statement must contain some indication of a dire threat (de-friend me, Children the Elderly and Dogs will starve, there will be great economic ruin, etc, etc.) if it is not taken seriously, or rather, swallowed whole and undigested. It must contain an aura of fear, envy, hatred, or the implied threat that if it isn't taken seriously, there will be unidentified 'repurcussions'. Usually, the outrageous statement is a complete fabrication, or an outright lie, but this does not matter; it is simply a table setter for what comes afterwards.

2. Should you be called out on your lie, or shown the fatuousness of your outrageous statement, insinuate that the person who disagrees with you is one or all of the following: too stupid to understand what you mean, too unsophisticated to divine the nuance in your argument, full of hatred, a demon walking the Earth, a racist/sexist/homophobe. Make at least one Nazi/Holocaust reference, and claim to have been 'taken out of context'.You will attempt to shame and cow your opponent into either giving his argument up, or leaving the field completely with a feeling of inadequacy.

3. When your opponent punches back twice as hard (as Saul Alinsky would say) and objects to being called a doofus, a rube, a hater or a racist, and points out that you're way off base in this regard, accuse him of 'incivility' and being an uncaring oaf. When your opponent shows himself to be none of those things, and shows that he has a greater grasp of the facts, ideas, concepts, and the point of the argument you started, attempt to change the subject.

One changes the subject in several ways, but the most common ways are to engage in a sophistry of moral equivalence, or the tried-and-true-but-oh-so-tired practice of pointing to the bad behavior of some on an (usually) unrelated subject, attempting to equate apples with oranges, to square circles, to pound square pegs into round holes, inject something that happened 50 years ago into the conversation, etc. Liberals call this "moving on", and it is the first indication that they have lost any argument; they abandon the current one, leaving it purposely unfinished until some future date when they hope that something comes along to bolster their point of view because they cannot win in the here-and-now, only to open up a new can of worms. 

4. Insist that you are right, even when you are obviously clearly wrong. Repeat your points constantly, no matter how invalid. Sometimes, the lie sticks if you repeat it often enough. Make appeals to ethereal, amorphous, unquantifiable and unanswerable 'authority' in support of your argument (, 'studies show...', 'public opinion is...', 'some polls say...', campus consensus, conventional wisdom). When this fails, attempt to turn concepts that you wholeheartedly don't believe in to your argument (God, the _____ community, 'Working Families', etc.) but which may strike a chord in your opponent against him, to throw him off guard. Deny physical reality. Question the subjective nature of 'absolute' truth. Defend the indefensible. Ignore the inconvenient. Soldier on as if you have the undeniable righteousness of whatever behind you,.and continue to beat your head against this particular stone wall until your opponent despairs of ever getting through to you. Orthodoxy trumps all. Orwell called this 'Protective Stupidity', the sense that truth does not matter -- and can be ignored -- when the need is a political or emotional one, and not a logical one.

By this time, one hopes, your opponents will be sick and tired of arguing with someone who obviously has not got enough brains to recognize his own stupidity, and goes home frustrated. Which is sort of a victory to these mean-spirited little cocksuckers.

5. If you STILL can't win the argument (because it's always about winning, not necessarily about being right), then simply disappear. Make like a hurricane and blow this scene. Never speak on this topic again. Fervently hope that in a few days, weeks, months, no one will remember what a pompous ass you made of yourself the last time around, so that you can then engage in another argument you can't hope to win at a later date. It is in this way that people like Rachael Maddow, George Stephanopolous, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama stay in power; they count on the short attention spans of the majority of the public (the sort that ascribes to an outrageous statement on gun control and individual rights that begins with "Fuck You!") to kick in. A month from now, no one will remember what you said on this or that subject, leaving you free to begin applying the formula to a whole new topic.

6. Resort to violence. Repeat cycle..

Now that you know how a libtard argues, you should be well-equipped to take on your empty-headed-little-Communist buddies at your next cocktail party, or Facebook flame war. 

UPDATE: Edited for grammar above! Sorry!


JD said...

You inital staement is funny ...
Defintion of Lunacy

1. insanity; mental disorder.
2. intermittent insanity, formerly believed to be related to phases of the moon.
3. extreme foolishness or an instance of it: The decision to resign was sheer lunacy.
4. Law. unsoundness of mind sufficient to incapacitate one for legal transactions.

Conservatives are much more likely to be the quoter's of the bible. The bible is the most NON logical , NON factual NON literal and NON scientific document ( comic book) to be massed produced.
As a result , those who use the bible as the back drop for thier argument are truly more prone to lunacy ( wouldn't you agree?!)

Matthew said...

No more insane than those who would insist that the Earth is rapidly becoming (alternately)a fireball or a refrigerator because of Western industrial process and the internal combustion engine, sans (non-doctored, peer-reviewed, unfaked) data that actually proves the theory.

I would suggest that while the Bible thumper's faith does, indeed, blind him to logic, it is also true that the liberal's (small 'l' intentional) faith is based upon all sorts of discredited (as in 'actually tried and failed'!)ideas, as well. Ideas such as Global Warming, Affirmative Action, Feminism, Socialism/Communism, collective security, The Welfare State.

I could go on, but that'll do to begin with.

The Bible-believing Conservative's problem is that he is often unable to separate their faith from their politics, often with ridiculous, self-defeating results (see: Todd Akin, how many Christians stayed home rather than vote for Mormon Romney, from last election cycle).

The liberal's (small 'l' intentional) problem is that his politics ARE his faith. The results have been demonstrably far more disastrous if you've read any history, whatsoever.

I can't prove that Christ walked on water, nor would I want to.I can prove that so-called liberals have killed, starved, bombed, imprisoned, raped hundreds of millions, and have destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions more, all in the name of egalitarianism.