Debating Charles Manson
There is a great editorial today by Leigh Scott at Big Hollywood where he explains how futile it is to attempt a debate with a liberal. Scott correctly points out that debating a liberal is akin to debating Charles Manson: it's simply crazy talk.
Keith Olbermann’s recent hour-long commentary was quite revealing. Like Michael Moore’s “capitalism hasn’t done anything for me” comment, the outpouring of support and sympathy for serial pedophile and admitted rapist Roman Polanski, and President Obama’s shenanigans at the U.N. and G-20, it drove home a simple, powerful point…
These people don’t know what they are talking about.
They do not know their kiesters from a hole in the ground. They are a few fries short of a happy meal and a few cards short of a full deck. Their phasers are permanently set on “clueless.”
Once you come to this realization, as many of us have, you are forced to approach their ideas and spokespeople from a position of reality. Not from some sanctimonious position of civility and “debate.”
For an actual debate, two things are needed. One, there must be a logical and factual distinction between two separate positions. Two, there must be equally matched participants, each one prepared and versed enough to intelligently present their side of the issue.
We don’t have that. We have one group of people who live in a fantasy world, full of twisted facts, backwards logic and wishful thinking. You can’t debate that. There is no factual, honest, or logical way to support their positions. It’s like arguing the best way to take a cross-country trip with a delusional Dungeons and Dragons geek. You want to reroute to avoid traffic on the I-10. He wants to “avoid the realm of the Bugbears.”
* * *
Imagine, if you will, a group of people who state that clouds are made of cotton candy. Children love cotton candy. In the sky, there is an unending supply of the sticky treat. To harvest the cotton candy, we must spend billions of taxpayer dollars to create machines that pluck the confection from the heavens. We must do this for the children.
“Ludicrous” states half of the population. Clearly, clouds are not made of cotton candy. In fact, we know exactly what clouds are made of. We also know the exact ingredients in cotton candy. The two are completely unrelated. Recipes and scientific data are presented to prove the case. To build a machine to collect non-existent cotton candy is a waste of money and resources.
The cotton candy cloud advocates respond. Anybody who claims that clouds are made of water vapor must want to hoard the cotton candy. They must benefit from the sales of cotton candy. Having free cotton candy would destroy their merciless pursuit of profits.
Oh, and obviously, they hate children and are probably racist.
This is what we are dealing with
By acknowledging and accepting these laughable, false and dangerous ideas as simply “the other side” of a logical debate we bestow a validity to them that is unwarranted and ultimately unfair. I scoff at people like David Frum who call for civility and intellectual debate.
Who do we debate? Where are the other intellectuals?
Debating leftists is like debating Charles Manson. It’s crazy talk. When you debate a leftist you never get to debate the policy. You debate their intended outcomes and their perception of who you are. That’s a serious lapse in logical and critical thought.
That last paragraph pretty much sums up the typical liberal position: while we are trying to debate the reality of an issue, they are too busy arguing intended outcomes and perceptions.
You can read the entire editorial HERE.