Stupidity is perhaps stronger and more dangerous than you thought

[Jeremy]

Not just ignorance, stupidity. I recently "lost" a series of arguments. I "lost" it because my "opponent" declared himself the winner while laughing, yelling, insulting and bringing some people he knew in on it. And this is not somebody who has his own political philosophy, so it's not like it was an argument that was based on opinion.... I was discussing facts, these are some of the things he had said:

- "When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and went to war, it was perfectly fine... in fact it was good" (which led to far more absurd statements - )
- "America should go to war as much as possible to get things done."
- "States can't just secede, the Constitution says how to secede so, the southerners should have followed it" (riiiight....) (the real reason why he brought up the Constitution is because I was using it the entire time while arguing. I used John Locke when debating secession so he called me a "f------ moron".
- "I hate George Bush." later... "What George Bush did was OK, I just don't like his personality"
- "I think we should get out of Iraq" later..."spreading democracy makes everything better. this is why the US should go to war"
- "Thomas Jefferson just plagiarized John Locke so you're an idiot for liking him."
- "Calvin Coolidge caused the Depression"
- "Not all criminals should have a trial. You're such an idiot."
- Then somebody else jumped in and said "yah, you're so stupid. The Constitution doesn't need to be followed all the time... like during a war."
- "Every single president has broken a law, so it's OK for presidents to break laws which is why Lincoln is not a bad president."
- "What if a terrorist said he seceded from the country, I guess he's off the hook."
- "Bill Clinton didn't lie about anything."
- "Seceding is treason and they should get the death penalty."
- "The founding fathers would probably hang you."


Yep, he did say that. (I did not exaggerate anything... in fact, I made it sound a lot better... you should have heard it). I take the stance of the founders and they would hang me. However, in reality... I didn't take any stance. I was simply putting out facts yet somehow I'm wrong. He swore at me most of the time. He didn't make one valid point. I wasn't even debating opinion... just using facts. This individual considers himself a "liberal" because "that means freedom" (lol... look at what he said though). I know this person is clueless... however he thinks is a very smart person. He insults people daily as his friends laugh with him.

And I "lost". I was called a stupid moron and was laughed at. Everybody else was clueless and said I was "destroyed" and "got owned"... this is probably because he was yelling, laughing, and declared himself the winner. Yup, I am the stupid one.

[pinkmandy]

You should invite him to the John McNeocon forums. He'd probably be very happy there and we could have a lot of fun. ;)

[berrybunches]

Reminds of my sisters friend, a college graduate 4.0 with honors saying things like

"choosing brands at the grocery store is a major cuase if stress for poeple, there should only be one brand per item"

or

"A North American Union would be good becuase it woudl make travel easier"
(yeah, I guess if you were the fortunate one to own the "one brand" of everything and coudl afford it)

or

"people need t o be controlled"

or

"the illegal aliens deserved to be here more than us"

Reminds me of Hitler: "What luck for rulers that men don't think."
Hopefully these people don't make it to the polls.

Things like this are very depressing

[berrybunches]

And you should ask him to come over here and prove how "smart" he is.

[Jeremy]

You should invite him to the John McNeocon forums. He'd probably be very happy there and we could have a lot of fun. ;)

He doesn't care about anything other than "winning" arguments and humiliating me. I could easily print him out a couple hundred pages of common sense and logic from hundreds of sources... he'd still call me an "f------ moron" because he's suppose to be "always right." ;)

He is also extremely irritating and continuously makes sexual jokes.

Oh, by the way... he once said that homosexuals should be killed. Yet he says he's a "liberal" in the way that it doesn't actually mean... which means... ya... what?. In other words he can't be taken seriously. Yet I "got owned". Numerous people told me that I got destroyed. This is what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:


Reminds of my sisters friend, a college graduate 4.0 with honors saying things like

Wow... as a matter of fact... this individual has went to all the "top classes" and thinks he's extremely intelligent which is why I'm "mush stupider than him and don't know anything about this". Elitists. Stupid ones at that.

When I tell him I've been heavily involved with politics for months now, so it's in fact me who knows what I'm talking about... he insults me somehow on that and everyone else praises him again.

[berrybunches]

He doesn't care about anything other than "winning" arguments and humiliating me. I could easily print him out a couple hundred pages of common sense and logic from hundreds of sources... he'd still call me an "f------ moron" because he's suppose to be "always right." ;)

He is also extremely irritating and continuously makes sexual jokes.

Oh, by the way... he once said that homosexuals should be killed. Yet he says he's a "liberal" in the way that it doesn't actually mean... which means... ya... what?. In other words he can't be taken seriously. Yet I "got owned". Numerous people told me that I got destroyed. This is what I'm talking about. :rolleyes:

Please tell me this person is still in high school

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Not just ignorance, stupidity. I recently "lost" a series of arguments. I "lost" it because my "opponent" declared himself the winner while laughing, yelling, insulting and bringing some people he knew in on it. And this is not somebody who has his own political philosophy, so it's not like it was an argument that was based on opinion.... I was discussing facts, these are some of the things he had said:

- "When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and went to war, it was perfectly fine... in fact it was good" (which led to far more absurd statements - )
- "America should go to war as much as possible to get things done."
- "States can't just secede, the Constitution says how to secede so, the southerners should have followed it" (riiiight....) (the real reason why he brought up the Constitution is because I was using it the entire time while arguing. I used John Locke when debating secession so he called me a "f------ moron".
- "I hate George Bush." later... "What George Bush did was OK, I just don't like his personality"
- "I think we should get out of Iraq" later..."spreading democracy makes everything better. this is why the US should go to war"
- "Thomas Jefferson just plagiarized John Locke so you're an idiot for liking him."
- "Calvin Coolidge caused the Depression"
- "Not all criminals should have a trial. You're such an idiot."
- Then somebody else jumped in and said "yah, you're so stupid. The Constitution doesn't need to be followed all the time... like during a war."
- "Every single president has broken a law, so it's OK for presidents to break laws which is why Lincoln is not a bad president."
- "What if a terrorist said he seceded from the country, I guess he's off the hook."
- "Bill Clinton didn't lie about anything."
- "Seceding is treason and they should get the death penalty."
- "The founding fathers would probably hang you."


Yep, he did say that. (I did not exaggerate anything... in fact, I made it sound a lot better... you should have heard it). I take the stance of the founders and they would hang me. However, in reality... I didn't take any stance. I was simply putting out facts yet somehow I'm wrong. He swore at me most of the time. He didn't make one valid point. I wasn't even debating opinion... just using facts. This individual considers himself a "liberal" because "that means freedom" (lol... look at what he said though). I know this person is clueless... however he thinks is a very smart person. He insults people daily as his friends laugh with him.

And I "lost". I was called a stupid moron and was laughed at. Everybody else was clueless and said I was "destroyed" and "got owned"... this is probably because he was yelling, laughing, and declared himself the winner. Yup, I am the stupid one.

With people like that you should just point out the contradictions in their statements. Also, if they like war so much, call them out on it don't let them be a chicken-hawk. If they haven't served in the military, which most of these people haven't, call up a recruiter with your friend's information and get the recruiter to start bugging the prick. If they don't join, kick him in the fucking balls. If they are female, kick her in the fucking balls.

[Jeremy]

With people like that you should just point out the contradictions in their statements. Also, if they like war so much, call them out on it don't let them be a chicken-hawk. If they haven't served in the military, which most of these people haven't, call up a recruiter with your friend's information and get the recruiter to start bugging the prick. If they don't join, keep him in the fucking balls. If they are female, keep her in the fucking balls.

Trust me, I have pointed out the contradictions numerous times. But I'm the one who doesn't know what I'm talking about, remember? :rolleyes:


Please tell me this person is still in high school

Yes, but he is graduating in a month. Close enough to college level. He's taken a college history class as well... this is basically a good example of why school doesn't really do a good job at educating people.

[sophocles07]

"Thomas Jefferson just plagiarized John Locke so you're an idiot for liking him."

^Point at which the speaker would have received a healthy portion of knuckle sandwiches.


"What if a terrorist said he seceded from the country, I guess he's off the hook."

What the fuck does this even mean?


"The founding fathers would probably hang you."

hahahaha

Oh my god


Where did you find this guy?


Please tell me this person is still in high school

Yea, I got a "hallway area"-before-morning-classes vibe from this report.

[Jeremy]

Where did you find this guy?




It's not that hard to find somebody like this. I suppose there are only two requirements. =o

1. They are the average person that knows nothing about these things.
2. They think they know everything and they are "always right". Everybody else is "wrong".

[Anti Federalist]

This is why there must be a seperation.

I (we) can't live with people like this person is going to grow up to be.

[freelance]

Not just ignorance, stupidity. I recently "lost" a series of arguments. I "lost" it because my "opponent" declared himself the winner while laughing, yelling, insulting and bringing some people he knew in on it. And this is not somebody who has his own political philosophy, so it's not like it was an argument that was based on opinion.... I was discussing facts, these are some of the things he had said:

- "When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and went to war, it was perfectly fine... in fact it was good" (which led to far more absurd statements - )
- "America should go to war as much as possible to get things done."
- "States can't just secede, the Constitution says how to secede so, the southerners should have followed it" (riiiight....) (the real reason why he brought up the Constitution is because I was using it the entire time while arguing. I used John Locke when debating secession so he called me a "f------ moron".
- "I hate George Bush." later... "What George Bush did was OK, I just don't like his personality"
- "I think we should get out of Iraq" later..."spreading democracy makes everything better. this is why the US should go to war"
- "Thomas Jefferson just plagiarized John Locke so you're an idiot for liking him."
- "Calvin Coolidge caused the Depression"
- "Not all criminals should have a trial. You're such an idiot."
- Then somebody else jumped in and said "yah, you're so stupid. The Constitution doesn't need to be followed all the time... like during a war."
- "Every single president has broken a law, so it's OK for presidents to break laws which is why Lincoln is not a bad president."
- "What if a terrorist said he seceded from the country, I guess he's off the hook."
- "Bill Clinton didn't lie about anything."
- "Seceding is treason and they should get the death penalty."
- "The founding fathers would probably hang you."


Yep, he did say that. (I did not exaggerate anything... in fact, I made it sound a lot better... you should have heard it). I take the stance of the founders and they would hang me. However, in reality... I didn't take any stance. I was simply putting out facts yet somehow I'm wrong. He swore at me most of the time. He didn't make one valid point. I wasn't even debating opinion... just using facts. This individual considers himself a "liberal" because "that means freedom" (lol... look at what he said though). I know this person is clueless... however he thinks is a very smart person. He insults people daily as his friends laugh with him.

And I "lost". I was called a stupid moron and was laughed at. Everybody else was clueless and said I was "destroyed" and "got owned"... this is probably because he was yelling, laughing, and declared himself the winner. Yup, I am the stupid one.

OMG! We're toast!

[Jeremy]

"What if a terrorist said he seceded from the country, I guess he's off the hook."

What the fuck does this even mean?


We were discussing people who provided terrorists with materials. I said they obviously need a trial. He said they don't deserve a trial because the Constitution doesn't apply to criminals. I said in America people are innocent until proven guilty. So where can he go now? He had to go back to the other argument we had about secession... and came up with the above statement... don't ask! =o

[acptulsa]

stormcommander, it does no good to hang around with terrorists. We appreciate you trying to infiltrate them and all, but these people are much, much too scary to be anything but terrorists, and you need to get the hell out of that situation!

[Nate SY]

I know how you feel man. The other day I actually got into an argument with someone because he said "Socialism isn't really bad, I mean everyone getting the same of everything would be great!" I argued with him for about 30 minutes and only ended up getting people to side with me when I said...

Me "So would you join a National Socialist party?"
Him "I'd love to join it!" (with a defiant grin on his face)
Me "Do you even know what Nazi stands for?"
Him "No, what does that even have to do with anything?"
Me "Nazi is short for National Socialist party..."
Him "Ah... shit." (grin slowly fades)

Basically the only way to bring stupid people to your side is to make the other stupid person look like a nazi/communist... I almost felt bad giving him such a low blow, but honest debate wasn't getting anywhere.

[sophocles07]

It's not that hard to find somebody like this. I suppose there are only two requirements. =o

1. They are the average person that knows nothing about these things.
2. They think they know everything and they are "always right". Everybody else is "wrong".

Actually, you’re right. You could go to the local supermarket, restaurant, or university and probably find people just as completely out-of-their-mind fucking stupid as the guy you’ve quoted.

I’ve had similar experiences (though I usually stop “debating” after a point).


We were discussing people who provided terrorists with materials. I said they obviously need a trial. He said they don't deserve a trial because the Constitution doesn't apply to criminals. I said in America people are innocent until proven guilty. So where can he go now? He had to go back to the other argument we had about secession... and came up with the above statement... don't ask! =o

[Admin- removed text]


Basically the only way to bring stupid people to your side is to make the other stupid person look like a nazi/communist... I almost felt bad giving him such a low blow, but honest debate wasn't getting anywhere.

Yea, I always have a feeling of slipping into a Giuliani-brand appeal to emotionalism when I have to depart from level-headed rationality in a debate. It works, but you feel the pangs of a Darth Vader thing coming on.

[mdh]

stupidity are more stronger!?!?

[Jeremy]

stupidity are more stronger!?!?

I was actually just about to edit that when I saw this :rolleyes:

[thx1149]

- "When Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and went to war, it was perfectly fine... in fact it was good" (which led to far more absurd statements - )
- "America should go to war as much as possible to get things done."
- "States can't just secede, the Constitution says how to secede so, the southerners should have followed it" (riiiight....) (the real reason why he brought up the Constitution is because I was using it the entire time while arguing. I used John Locke when debating secession so he called me a "f------ moron".
- "I hate George Bush." later... "What George Bush did was OK, I just don't like his personality"
- "I think we should get out of Iraq" later..."spreading democracy makes everything better. this is why the US should go to war"
- "Thomas Jefferson just plagiarized John Locke so you're an idiot for liking him."
- "Calvin Coolidge caused the Depression"
- "Not all criminals should have a trial. You're such an idiot."
- Then somebody else jumped in and said "yah, you're so stupid. The Constitution doesn't need to be followed all the time... like during a war."
- "Every single president has broken a law, so it's OK for presidents to break laws which is why Lincoln is not a bad president."
- "What if a terrorist said he seceded from the country, I guess he's off the hook."
- "Bill Clinton didn't lie about anything."
- "Seceding is treason and they should get the death penalty."
- "The founding fathers would probably hang you."


None of those things are stupid. It seems kind of arrogant to knock other people's views in favor of your own strong views, when you haven't even tried to understand their ideas. I'm guessing my beliefs lean more towards yours, but calling people on the other side stupid seems harsh.

I have neo-con friends. I often have disagreements with them on political matters. Their views are different, but does that make them wrong? This isn't simple stuff. Can a political idea be right or wrong, and if so how is that measured? What makes your decision to measure that more right than someone elses?

There is a core point that must be understood. It is the thing that separates all of our libertarian-like philosophies from the other sides. Libertarians and anarchists are individualists. They believe that when looking at government the individual should be the entity of the most importance. Most other philosophies of government are collectivist. They believe it is alright to sacrifice people and their liberties if it benefits the country as a whole.

There is no right or wrong here. Each side has it's pros and cons. Each side has it's reasons for believing what they believe. Now, go back and look at that list and try to pretend you believe that sacrifices can be made to benefit the group. Suddenly, things like suspending habeas corpus, or sending people into war doesn't seem as bad. Doing those things can have benefits.

Yeah, some of the things you mentioned may be absurd or silly, but ignore anything too ridiculous. For the most part I think your friends ideas are right in line with the general collectivist ideals. Most of the people in this country and even the world support those ideals on some level. We are in the minority. There is no right or wrong. The consequences of their ideals may seem horrendous to us through our eyes, but what they believe makes perfect sense through their eyes. There is nothing stupid about their beliefs. They have a different set of values.

[Anti Federalist]

thx1149 wrote:


There is nothing stupid about their beliefs. They have a different set of values.

Those "values", put into practice over the last century, killed a quarter of a BILLION people.

Those are values that are wrong, and I want no part of them.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Did they have any relation to these people? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0RH0cYs4lw&feature=related

[sophocles07]

None of those things are stupid. It seems kind of arrogant to knock other people's views in favor of your own strong views, when you haven't even tried to understand their ideas. I'm guessing my beliefs lean more towards yours, but calling people on the other side stupid seems harsh.

I have neo-con friends. I often have disagreements with them on political matters. Their views are different, but does that make them wrong? This isn't simple stuff. Can a political idea be right or wrong, and if so how is that measured? What makes your decision to measure that more right than someone elses?

There is a core point that must be understood. It is the thing that separates all of our libertarian-like philosophies from the other sides. Libertarians and anarchists are individualists. They believe that when looking at government the individual should be the entity of the most importance. Most other philosophies of government are collectivist. They believe it is alright to sacrifice people and their liberties if it benefits the country as a whole.

There is no right or wrong here. Each side has it's pros and cons. Each side has it's reasons for believing what they believe. Now, go back and look at that list and try to pretend you believe that sacrifices can be made to benefit the group. Suddenly, things like suspending habeas corpus, or sending people into war doesn't seem as bad. Doing those things can have benefits.

Yeah, some of the things you mentioned may be absurd or silly, but ignore anything too ridiculous. For the most part I think your friends ideas are right in line with the general collectivist ideals. Most of the people in this country and even the world support those ideals on some level. We are in the minority. There is no right or wrong. The consequences of their ideals may seem horrendous to us through our eyes, but what they believe makes perfect sense through their eyes. There is nothing stupid about their beliefs. They have a different set of values.

Shut up.

[acptulsa]

None of those things are stupid. It seems kind of arrogant to knock other people's views in favor of your own strong views, when you haven't even tried to understand their ideas. I'm guessing my beliefs lean more towards yours, but calling people on the other side stupid seems harsh.

Nah, saying the Constitution doesn't apply to criminals isn't stupid at all... :rolleyes:

So, the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment but doesn't apply to criminals, so we all have the right to be punished humanely until we commit a crime. Then we get punished some more, but inhumanely this time.

It's all so logical now. Who wouldn't go for a deal like that?!

[salsero96]

There is nothing stupid about their beliefs. They have a different set of values.


I disagree...

I have tried to have intelligent conversations with people like this numerous times.

IMO, these are NOT values! People who hold these beliefs are conditioned people who are too weak to think for themselves.

These are, by far, the worst type of people to attempt to have an intelligent discussion with. They can never back up their points, so they always try to belittle you with insults. If you make a valid point, they will either attempt to insult you or they will completely change the topic. They have such a limited knowledge of facts.

A person like this, has little or no real understanding of freedom and liberty. They have little or no real understanding of what communism is. They believe the media's depiction of what "freedom" is. They have been brainwashed to believe that this is the United States of America... we will always be free. We "are" freedom!

Recently, I was having a "conversation" with someone exactly like this. I explained how the war in Iraq and our occupation of other countries is causing the declining value of our currency. I mentioned that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional and needs to be overturned. I explained that the Fed is creating "Monopoly money". After mentioning these things, I was pretty much accused of being unpatriotic and a communist.

I left the conversation scratching my head. :confused:

[Paulitical Correctness]

I just LOVE the irony in the title.

<3

[acptulsa]

I just LOVE the irony in the title.

Oh for God's sake!

All the typos in the title indicate are why the ring of idiots think the head idiot beats stormcommander. Our man gives a damn, so when the head idiot runs his mouth in neutral about things that anyone with a clue would actually care about, stormcommander gets upset and the ring of idiots declares a winner--the winner being the calm idiot.

Hard to stay calm in the face of someone who's calling you un-American for defending the Constitution, I know, but that's how these arguments are won. So, yes, if you can have such a conversation with such an idiot and still be calm enough to type and spell with sufficient accuracy to keep our good buddy "Correctness" here off of his high, high horse, you can win those arguments every time. Ninja calm in the middle of the storm will help you win.

[Paulitical Correctness]

Oh for God's sake!

All the typos in the title indicate are why the ring of idiots think the head idiot beats stormcommander. Our man gives a damn, so when the head idiot runs his mouth in neutral about things that anyone with a clue would actually care about, stormcommander gets upset and the ring of idiots declares a winner--the winner being the calm idiot.

Hard to stay calm in the face of someone who's calling you un-American for defending the Constitution, I know, but that's how these arguments are won. So, yes, if you can have such a conversation with such an idiot and still be calm enough to type and spell with sufficient accuracy to keep our good buddy "Correctness" here off of his high, high horse, you can win those arguments every time. Ninja calm in the middle of the storm will help you win.

My God! I was just saying, it brought me a good chuckle. No harm intended, I read the quotes - they irritate me as well.

Settledown.:(

[Jeremy]

I didn't exactly understand the above post (edit: acptulsa's) because it has a few typos of its own, but I'll tell you that he was not at all calm. I was the calm one. :o

And yes, there is a typo in the title. The first title of the thread was "more dangerous and stronger", but I thought it would be better reversed... I just forgot to remove the "more". Sheesh :rolleyes:

[thx1149]

I disagree...

I have tried to have intelligent conversations with people like this numerous times.

IMO, these are NOT values! People who hold these beliefs are conditioned people who are too weak to think for themselves.


There definitely are a lot of people out there that are difficult to communicate with. If someone is attacking or making jokes, communication will most likely be in vain. If they already have a bias against what you are speaking about it's hard to hold any discussion. Many people have little interest in changing their beliefs or expanding their understanding of political situations in ways that go against their biases. That includes us. The Ron Paul folk hold no monopoly on intelligence or truth.

There is a point this and my last post is aiming for communicating. Many people here have at least thought a little bit about politics and made changes to their beliefs, but I am really worried about any sort of superiority complex coming of it. Everyone has their opinions and while opinions around here match up better with my biases, I still believe the opinions of others that disagree hold great worth to us. We can learn a lot more from intelligent and civil conversations with people that disagree than we can from talking to each other and reaffirming everything we already believe in.

Maybe this thread is about someone who wasn't discussing but was just being a jerk. In that case communication won't bare much fruit, but it can't hurt. Is the name calling really necessary though? Must we call them stupid?

I know you said "these are NOT values" but if you were talking to someone who was insulting, did you even get to the point of discussing their views on the issues? Behind it all they have beliefs and aren't they related to values?

[amy31416]

I didn't exactly understand the above post (edit: acptulsa's) because it has a few typos of its own, but I'll tell you that he was not at all calm. I was the calm one. :o

And yes, there is a typo in the title. The first title of the thread was "more dangerous and stronger", but I thought it would be better reversed... I just forgot to remove the "more". Sheesh :rolleyes:

I forgive you. :)

Carry on!


P.S. Everybody screws up this language, whether it's spelling, punctuation or grammar. Chill! He corrected himself.

[sophocles07]

Is the name calling really necessary though? Must we call them stupid?


Yes.

[TruthAtLast]

So where is the Liberty Defender's handbook to winning against ignorance?

We should have a guide to train supporters on how to react and win these types of arguments. We could have a Comment & Response for hundreds of topics. Then we can rank on how effective these techniques were.

[thx1149]

Yes.

Then how are you any different from the people that don't listen and instead just insult other's beliefs that violate their own? You really don't believe we should make an effort to be more civil than that? Based on your earlier "Shut up" response I'm guessing you don't. Care to elaborate on why? What do we stand to gain by insulting them? Is it better than what we lose by taking such a path?

[sophocles07]

Then how are you any different from the people that don't listen and instead just insult other's beliefs that violate their own? You really don't believe we should make an effort to be more civil than that? Based on your earlier "Shut up" response I'm guessing you don't. Care to elaborate on why? What do we stand to gain by insulting them? Is it better than what we lose by taking such a path?

I didn't say to their faces.

[thx1149]

I didn't say to their faces.

Somehow, I just don't find insulting people behind their backs any better, more honorable, or beneficial.

[sophocles07]

Somehow, I don't give a fuck.

[dude58677]

Yes, there are loads idiots like this on Yahoo. I asked if any of them read "The Revolution Manifestio" and they said that they didn't need to because they saw Ron Paul dbeate for 15 seconds before considering him a whackjob.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I told them, if you don't like the Bill of Rights then you can get out.

[Akus]

edit: title should read "stronger" not "more stronger"... won't let me edit the title at this point.....

Not just ignorance, stupidity. I recently "lost" a series of arguments. I "lost" it because my "opponent" declared himself the winner while laughing, yelling, insulting and bringing some people he knew in on it. ......


..............And I "lost". I was called a stupid moron and was laughed at. Everybody else was clueless and said I was "destroyed" and "got owned"... this is probably because he was yelling, laughing, and declared himself the winner. Yup, I am the stupid one.

How old is this "opponent" of yours, who "defeated" you in a "debate"?

[Akus]

Yes, there are loads idiots like this on Yahoo. I asked if any of them read "The Revolution Manifestio" and they said that they didn't need to because they saw Ron Paul dbeate for 15 seconds before considering him a whackjob.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

I told them, if you don't like the Bill of Rights then you can get out.
Pal, don't get mad at idiots, take advantage of them. I mean where would George Bush get if he were just cussing and fussing at stupid people? Nowhere. So, instead, he used them to get elected twice.

[spacehabitats]

There are people who only care about "winning" a discussion.
You will never win any debate with them so it is pointless to try.
It is called "Casting you pearls before swine."
At best it is a waste of pearls, tries your patience, and it annoys the swine.
At worst it allows them to feel smug

[sophocles07]

S m u g s w i n e

p a t i e n t p e a r l s

c a l l e d c a s t i n g

b e s t w a s t e

[Dequeant]

You're arguing in the wrong way.... Make their contradictions obvious to themselves.

Bring up Hitler invading Poland, and when he says it was bad, bring up the fact that we have the exact same justification for invading Iraq.....our "leader" wanted to....and not a single thing more.

Or ask him if he thinks we should be putting "terrorists" in secret prisons without trials (he will say yes)....then ask him what constitutes a terrorist, and who defines it. We've put Americans in those jails, what stops them from calling him a terrorist and putting him in jail?

If we don't follow the constitution during a war, and we haven't declared war since WWII, how do we define what is a war and what is simply a battle?

If he only dislikes bush's personality, ask him why the only civilian aircraft that flew on Sept 12, 2001 over America had Bin Laden's relatives aboard, leaving the U.S. for Saudi Arabia....with Bush's blessings.

I could go on all day.

[MMolloy]

So where is the Liberty Defender's handbook to winning against ignorance?

We should have a guide to train supporters on how to react and win these types of arguments. We could have a Comment & Response for hundreds of topics. Then we can rank on how effective these techniques were.

A Ron Paul Debate Handbook with the underlying assumptions for every argument that collectivist make laid out and then refuted... I like it!

It's really only productive to debate someone when you have an audience and then you should be making your points to them. Most of the time you won't and shouldn't be trying to get through to your opponent. (You read that right)

When you are having a discussion with a friend or acquaintance your approach will and should be different.

There are two competing world views: One puts the individual 1st and the other the collective. IMO you can find out quickly whether they are solidly in one camp or another by asking them: Do you believe that YOU were created in the Image and likeness of God (if they believe in a God... useful info either way) and that he created you as a UNIQUE individual? You could follow up with: Do you believe that God gave you certain unalienable rights? (athiest/agnostics can give you verbage for rewording the quesion for people with no belief in God)

When talking to a lot of people you have to start from the begining... probably not going to be fruitful if you don't have the time or patience to listen to them.

You could also take Dequeant's approach (I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth but only following along the same lines of reasoning):
List all the planks of the Communist Manifesto in question format:
i.e. Do you believe we should abolish private property... making all land public?


10 Planks of the Communist Manifesto
1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3) Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8) Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10) Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

[thx1149]

You're arguing in the wrong way.... Make their contradictions obvious to themselves.

Bring up Hitler invading Poland, and when he says it was bad, bring up the fact that we have the exact same justification for invading Iraq.....our "leader" wanted to....and not a single thing more.

Or ask him if he thinks we should be putting "terrorists" in secret prisons without trials (he will say yes)....then ask him what constitutes a terrorist, and who defines it. We've put Americans in those jails, what stops them from calling him a terrorist and putting him in jail?

If we don't follow the constitution during a war, and we haven't declared war since WWII, how do we define what is a war and what is simply a battle?

If he only dislikes bush's personality, ask him why the only civilian aircraft that flew on Sept 12, 2001 over America had Bin Laden's relatives aboard, leaving the U.S. for Saudi Arabia....with Bush's blessings.

I could go on all day.

I agree with you. A sort of socratic method of having them figuring out the flaws in their own ideas is a good technique. The questions you pose though do seem to have reasonable answers from the perspective of the other side. Here is some of what I have seen on those questions. I think some good discussion on the flaws in this way of thinking could be productive towards us all becoming better at helping others to notice their own flaws.

1. Comparison to Hitler invading Poland.. "Because he wanted to"
Any good Bush supporter will not buy into the "Because he wanted to" argument. The other side often argues that Bush had been given faulty intelligence. He believed there was a threat and there were WMDs based on the intelligence that was available to him and made decisions based on that information. The information may have been wrong, but that is what was available at the time.

As for staying there now, we broke it and so we have to fix. It's our responsibility.

2. Secret Prisons
I have been shocked by the responses I have gotten when asking people their views about the wrongly imprisoned people abducted by the CIA, placed in a secret military base, tortured, and then after the mistake was found abandoned in the middle of nowhere. Apparently many people believe if a few people get wrongly hurt it is still for the good of the country, and so justified. All of the people that were correctly imprisoned and all of the information that helped prevent future attacks that was gotten out of people there is seen as evidence that these secret prisons have been successful. A few good people being hurt in the process is a fair price to pay for what we gain. Compared to the number of our soldiers lost in Iraq that is nothing. People I have spoken to don't seem concerned that the soldiers were at least voluntary.

3. Constitution and War
I have seen very little concern for the constitution and found arguing that things are unconstitutional to be almost completely ineffective. They often just don't care. The constitution isn't that important to them. As for the Iraq war, I have talked to some people that believe that the congressional approval of the invasion was enough and that a formal war declaration wasn't necessary. When they don't believe the constitution is important I find it hard to argue much directly on that point.

4. Bin Laden's Relatives flying away
This is one I haven't talked to people about, but I suspect most people on the other side would just be very apathetic about it. I could agree that just because they are related doesn't make them criminals, but it definitely seems a bit weird that they were given special treatment and were not even questioned properly. This is a very strange issue. Unfortunately even if you win an argument on this one it's just a minor blemish on Bush himself and not a win at all for anything regarding ideology.

Any thoughts on better ways of arguing these sorts of things?

[sophocles07]

As for staying there now, we broke it and so we have to fix. It's our responsibility.


Wait...what?

[MikeSmith]

nevermind

[dude58677]

I agree with you. A sort of socratic method of having them figuring out the flaws in their own ideas is a good technique. The questions you pose though do seem to have reasonable answers from the perspective of the other side. Here is some of what I have seen on those questions. I think some good discussion on the flaws in this way of thinking could be productive towards us all becoming better at helping others to notice their own flaws.

1. Comparison to Hitler invading Poland.. "Because he wanted to"
Any good Bush supporter will not buy into the "Because he wanted to" argument. The other side often argues that Bush had been given faulty intelligence. He believed there was a threat and there were WMDs based on the intelligence that was available to him and made decisions based on that information. The information may have been wrong, but that is what was available at the time.

As for staying there now, we broke it and so we have to fix. It's our responsibility.

2. Secret Prisons
I have been shocked by the responses I have gotten when asking people their views about the wrongly imprisoned people abducted by the CIA, placed in a secret military base, tortured, and then after the mistake was found abandoned in the middle of nowhere. Apparently many people believe if a few people get wrongly hurt it is still for the good of the country, and so justified. All of the people that were correctly imprisoned and all of the information that helped prevent future attacks that was gotten out of people there is seen as evidence that these secret prisons have been successful. A few good people being hurt in the process is a fair price to pay for what we gain. Compared to the number of our soldiers lost in Iraq that is nothing. People I have spoken to don't seem concerned that the soldiers were at least voluntary.

3. Constitution and War
I have seen very little concern for the constitution and found arguing that things are unconstitutional to be almost completely ineffective. They often just don't care. The constitution isn't that important to them. As for the Iraq war, I have talked to some people that believe that the congressional approval of the invasion was enough and that a formal war declaration wasn't necessary. When they don't believe the constitution is important I find it hard to argue much directly on that point.

4. Bin Laden's Relatives flying away
This is one I haven't talked to people about, but I suspect most people on the other side would just be very apathetic about it. I could agree that just because they are related doesn't make them criminals, but it definitely seems a bit weird that they were given special treatment and were not even questioned properly. This is a very strange issue. Unfortunately even if you win an argument on this one it's just a minor blemish on Bush himself and not a win at all for anything regarding ideology.

Any thoughts on better ways of arguing these sorts of things?

Our foreign policy has led to blowback because.... so we should just capture bin Laden and in the long run so we don't have a blowback is not police in the world.

[RonPaulalways]

It sounds to me like he just used intimidation to try to make people agree wit him. That is the only point of laughing and swearing at someone during a debate.

[thx1149]

Our foreign policy has led to blowback because.... so we should just capture bin Laden and in the long run so we don't have a blowback is not police in the world.

I had an interesting discussion with a person with a lightly neo-con attitude a few months back. He didn't seem to think that blow back had a big effect on our problems. They weren't mad just because we were over there. It was almost like the "they hate us because we are free" attitude, but he had a better way of explaining it. It isn't just because we are free. They hate us because of our values and how globalization is forcing our values into their cultures. For example women's rights and the way women are allowed to dress could be a big issue. And even in their culture that is seeping in. People over there are seeing bits of us like that and starting to be influenced by it. Some people like what they are seeing and other people are disgusted by it since it is so contradictory towards what they believe.

This way of putting forth the "they hate us because we are free" argument is interesting. We can't throw it away as being complete nonsense. There is a point in there and it is something that people on our side should understand. The problem comes in that the people then ignore things like blow back and so it helps the logic follow that the terrorists are going to keep fighting us and that we must do whatever we can to stop them.

How would you argue this? My approaches have been to try to raise the concern that they may be ignoring blow back and that it is a real thing and may be of greater importance. On my side I've cited many of the statements of various terrorists and organizations that claim that our involvement in the middle east or Israel is their reason for attacking. That doesn't seem to be enough to convert someone though. Anyone have other thoughts on how to deal with this view?

[driller80545]

The effects of westernization on their culture is the result of our undue influence and occupation of the middle east. If we weren't there, we would not be negatively influencing their culture. This appears to fundamentalists as complete disregard and disrespect for their traditional lifestyles. So they "hate our freedom". This is the ultimate generator of blowback.

[BarryDonegan]

I had an interesting discussion with a person with a lightly neo-con attitude a few months back. He didn't seem to think that blow back had a big effect on our problems. They weren't mad just because we were over there. It was almost like the "they hate us because we are free" attitude, but he had a better way of explaining it. It isn't just because we are free. They hate us because of our values and how globalization is forcing our values into their cultures. For example women's rights and the way women are allowed to dress could be a big issue. And even in their culture that is seeping in. People over there are seeing bits of us like that and starting to be influenced by it. Some people like what they are seeing and other people are disgusted by it since it is so contradictory towards what they believe.

This way of putting forth the "they hate us because we are free" argument is interesting. We can't throw it away as being complete nonsense. There is a point in there and it is something that people on our side should understand. The problem comes in that the people then ignore things like blow back and so it helps the logic follow that the terrorists are going to keep fighting us and that we must do whatever we can to stop them.

How would you argue this? My approaches have been to try to raise the concern that they may be ignoring blow back and that it is a real thing and may be of greater importance. On my side I've cited many of the statements of various terrorists and organizations that claim that our involvement in the middle east or Israel is their reason for attacking. That doesn't seem to be enough to convert someone though. Anyone have other thoughts on how to deal with this view?

This is more complicated because it is on some levels true. The inspirational figures behind the radical islam movement definately tout this nonesense as propaganda, which makes it partially true, however there is no intellectual movement that can make a poor man train to be paramilitary spies and sneak across the world to America and make a terrorist attack. It has to be organized by something with power equivalent to a small nation, and requires the will of a lot of people. Those people have to be radicalized by a lost brother, mother, or some other military threat. so he is wrong in the sense that by itself that belief system would not motivate someone to suicide terrorism. The same can be said of many fundamentalist americans with religious backgrounds, yet they dont do suicide attacks on washington dc or hollywood.