You just can't win with a liberal

This is a discussion on You just can't win with a liberal within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; You can lead a liberal to the facts, but you can make 'em think . Brian...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 62

Thread: You just can't win with a liberal

  1. #46
    Member Array Benthic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pensacola, FL
    Posts
    330
    You can lead a liberal to the facts, but you can make 'em think.

    Brian

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Senior Member Array dcb188's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mid-Cape Cod, Mass.
    Posts
    861
    I just now thought of something. The next time a liberal starts criticizing guns, ask them how our forefathers won the Revolutionary War, with sticks?
    Surrounded and outnumbered, Marine Col Lewis Puller: "Good! We finally got 'em where we want 'em!" (Korea, 1950)
    __________________________________
    Right is Wrong and Wrong is Right.
    __________________________________
    Socrates : "Knowledge is knowing that we know nothing".

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    You will never convince a liberal of anything; they must always learn th hard way, and even then sometimes it doesn't take.

    The next time you debate your co-worker, spring this one on him: name one nation that has survived the scourge of liberalism. Just one.
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,229
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE CAN'T SEE THE TRUTH WHEN IT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM.
    Yes, but what you're failing to realize, is that they SEE THE TRUTH, but choose to ignore it. It's like when people leave their dog in the house all day long and go out to work or whatever for 10 or 12 hours. They know darn well that that they left the dog water, the dog is going to drink the water, and the dog is going to have to spring a leak at some point. Yet when they get home, who gets yelled at if the floodgates let loose? They're still going to blame the poor dog contrary to the facts that are indisputable and staring them in the face. That's the simple fact of the inner workings of a person that fails to comprehend and use logic and rational thought.

    For example, I had a rather lengthy email correspondence with an old friend that moved out to California last year for a good job offer. Part of what prompted this excruciatingly long email train was his difficulty in dealing with a particular person he was forced to work with regularly. See the last email(dated 2007/02/27) below:

    Sadly, after reading the "Law of Rationality", I begin to realize how often I catch myself in those "evasions" and on a regular basis which would be quite evident if you read enough of my posts...or anyone's for that matter.

    I was reading one of my favorite classic Logic texts, and I found a
    great definition of a crucial principle of communication with others
    (and self) called the "Law of Rationality."

    When the book was written (more than 60 years ago), this principle was
    so commonly adhered to; it is referred to as a "Law." Sadly, today,
    adherence to this "law" has degenerated in many people's mind to
    "Optional, to be followed only when I feel like it."

    Luckily, most people enforce the following "Law of Rationality" when
    dealing with other people about important issues in their lives. But,
    unfortunately, often many people hold themselves to an opposite standard
    when they are dealing with others.

    Personally, I have found that the people I like and trust the most are
    the people who, for the most part, adhere to the "Law of Rationality,"
    both with regard to others, as well as with regard to themselves.

    Profit,


    Michael

    P.s., I provided one detailed explanation of one of the more common
    evasions of the Law of Rationality, and a brief description of a couple
    of others. (Unfortunately, there are countless ways to avoid being
    rational, so if you would like a list of others, let me know.)




    "The Law of Rationality and Evasions Thereof"

    ...An argument is a discourse containing inference, in which we say,
    "This is so because of that." But the inference may be sound or
    unsound. We will be concerned with the principles of sound reasoning.
    Before proceeding to the principles, however, let us consider the aim of
    logical thinking and the manner which this aim may be frustrated.

    Every person who is interested in logical thinking accepts what we shall
    call the "law of rationality," which maybe stated as follows: We ought
    to justify our conclusions by adequate evidence.

    The meaning of adequacy will be explained in detail as we proceed. Let
    it suffice here to say that by "adequate evidence" we mean evidence
    which is good and sufficient in terms of the kind of proof which is
    required. There are occasions when we require conclusive proof, as in
    mathematics, and there are occasions when it is sufficient to establish
    the probability of a given conclusion, as in weather prediction. But in
    all cases the evidence must be adequate to its purpose. ...

    Though few, if any, will have the temerity or the foolishness to
    challenge the law of rationality, it is often evaded. Evasion usually
    occurs through carelessness, but it may also occur through design. In
    this section we shall note some of the typical ways in which the
    obligation to support beliefs by adequate evidence is evaded.

    In every argument we find the assertion of a belief, which we shall call
    "P," (for "probandum," or proposition to be proved). Someone says that
    P is true. When we ask the speaker, "Why," or "What reasons do you have
    for believing that P is true?" We ask for evidence. We then expect
    adequate evidence to the question at issue, and it should be good and
    sufficient evidence. In the rest of this chapter we shall be concerned
    with the evasion of the requirement that evidence be furnished. The
    proverb says that we ask for bread and were given stones. Paraphrased,
    we shall find that we asked for evidence and received [, instead, some
    form of a typical evasive pseudo-argument, such as the argument called,
    "the appeal to authority," "the appeal to emotion," "the appeal to
    ignorance," etc. etc.]

    1. The Appeal to Authority

    This evasion has the following structure: Jones says that P is true.
    When asked, Why? He answers, "Because X says so." Now, P (the
    probandum) should be proved by adequate evidence, but the fact that X
    says it is true is not evidence for its truth. The citing of authority
    in this bald manner is an evasion of the law of rationality.

    Now, to say that "the appeal to authority" is an evasion of the law of
    rationality is not to say that we are guilty of this evasion whenever we
    cite an authority for our beliefs. There is no doubt that sensible
    people must rely on authorities for many, if not most, of their
    important decisions and for the beliefs on which these decisions are
    based.

    When a physician tells us that we need an operation we relation his
    authority. We accept the authority of the weatherman that rain is
    probable. We have neither the time nor sufficient knowledge to
    investigate the evidence for all our beliefs. The point, however, is
    this: No belief is true merely because someone says so. It is true
    because of the evidence in its behalf. When we trust an authority, we
    merely place credence in the fact that he has evidence. And if we whish
    to know, rather than merely to believe, we should inquire into the
    evidence on which his conclusions are based. . . .

    In general, three questions should be kept in mind when considering the
    statements of an authority: Is the cited authority an authority in the
    specific field in which he has made his pronouncements? Does the
    authority have evidence to prove his statements? Do all qualified
    investigations agree on the general soundness of the type of proof
    offered? A great physicist may be an authority in the field of nuclear
    physics, but that does not qualify him to be dogmatic in the field of
    religion. A man may be very critical in one field and very uncritical
    in another. ...[W]e accept the statements of astronomers that the mean
    distance of the sun from the earth is close to 93 million miles, because
    they are authorities with respect to such matters, their evidence is
    available to all, and all qualified investigators agree on the soundness
    of their methods. We accept our physician's statements that we should
    take medicine for our ailments for similar reasons (or at least we
    believe these reasons to hold). But even the acceptance of competent
    authority is never a substitute for proof.

    When the authorities are in conflict, i.e., when "the doctors disagree,"
    tow courses of action are open to us. If the problem is a purely
    theoretical one, and we are not required to take immediate action, we
    should suspend judgment. If action is required, we should accept the
    authority who appears to be most competent and trustworthy.

    The appeal to authority is often call the "Argumentum Verecundiam," a
    learned-sounding Latin phrase which means the "appeal to reverence." A
    revered authority or tradition is often regarded as infallible, so that
    anyone who disagrees is in some sense disloyal to that which out to be
    revered. ...Reverence is not a substitute for evidential proof.

    The fact that "everybody knows that this is so" is no proof. The masses
    of men have frequently been mistaken. They once thought that the earth
    was flat. They still believe that the speed of falling objects depends
    on its weight. The voice of the people is not necessarily the voice of
    God on all questions.

    2. The Appeal to Emotion

    The structure of this evasion: "The proposition 'P' is true."
    Why?-Because I (or you) have strong feelings concerning it." But strong
    feelings do not constitute evidence for the truth of a proposition.
    The fact that people have emotional attachments to religious and
    political doctrines does not make the doctrines true.

    3. The Appeal to Ignorance

    [The structure of this evasion:] "P is true." Why? "Because you can't
    disprove it." This type of evasion often occurs in discussion which
    involve religious faith. ... [The] inability to disprove is not
    equivalent to proof. Only evidence gives us proof.

    (L. Ruby, "Logic an introduction," 131)
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  6. #50
    VIP Member
    Array atctimmy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NSA Headquarters
    Posts
    6,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Benthic View Post
    You can lead a liberal to the facts, but you can make 'em think.

    Brian
    I like that one.
    Mark Twain:
    The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a
    patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them.

  7. #51
    Member Array LiveLFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    183

    Liberals

    I swing more towards the Liberal/Democratic side of alot of political and "moral" issues.

    But with gun control.. I guess I see a different story. The thing is, people who argue based purely off "emotion" as alot of you have stated in this thread, shouldnt be allowed to debate(instead of argue).

    If they were on the debate team in highschool and they said "Thats how I feel", they'd of lost..

    Anyway, with the experiences I have been through, and how my father raised me(hes conservative, I turned out liberal), but he certainly taught me the importance of guns..

    I guess what I am getting at is don't lump all liberal or democratic thinking people into one group.

    We all aren't naive.

  8. #52
    VIP Member
    Array Thumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    7,242
    For me, trying to convert a liberal is like trying to chew sand!
    ALWAYS carry! - NEVER tell!

    "A superior Operator is best defined as someone who uses his superior
    judgement to keep himself out of situations that would require a display of his
    superior skills."

  9. #53
    VIP Member Array miklcolt45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    @ Wits' End
    Posts
    2,804
    Quote Originally Posted by Thumper View Post
    For me, trying to convert a liberal is like trying to chew sand!
    ...or nailing jello to a wall.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliott

    The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it.
    Albert Einstein

  10. #54
    Senior Member Array SCfromNY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,029
    Two comments on this thread.

    The gun grabbers do not only track "accidental deaths" but all deaths caused by firearms which at first glance is more accurate. However when listing the number of "children" killed they include everyone who is not yet 21. When you factor out the gang related deaths the result is under 100 per year as opposed to the almost 2000 reported.

    I used to attend health seminars for a related field. In 2003 (last year I have numbers for since I retired in 2004) there were 180,000 "MISTAKES" resulting in healthcare death. These do not count failed operations or natural say cancer progressions but actual doctor/nurse error.
    Registration: A prelude to Confiscation and Anarchy.

  11. #55
    VIP Member Array Paco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    McKinney, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by johnsr View Post
    a lib is being held up by a BG with a knife. Lib tells BG sure am glad you arent using a GUN. I hate those things.
    Or they would then try to understand what in their past made this person "need" hold them up with a knife, as they are being stuck. I'm sorry, I'll try to understand their plight as they are dropping to the ground.

    I like all the stats that have been given, unfortunately as it has been pointed out facts and stats don't matter. You may have better luck if you start crying and tell the lib that you feel better about yourself when you know you are protected against the criminals who have guns that are most likely illegal and unregistered.
    "Don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt

    -Paco
    http://www.shieldsd.net

  12. #56
    Member Array Cofaler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by JusticeDun View Post
    Liberals don't like to argue facts, just feelings.
    Libs seem to have the ability to create their own reality as it suits them. They don't like to be confused with facts.

  13. #57
    Member Array Slomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    37
    I am probably asking for trouble, but there has to be others like me, doesn't there?

    I am a liberal. I carry, 100% of the time. I own a variety of weapons from tactical folders to 1911's to 12 ga pumps.

    I train often (weekly) in unarmed and armed self defense.

    I served in the military.

    I hunt and fish and aggressively seek to limit corporate America's access to, and ability to damage our natural resources.

    I am a long-time (15 years) union member and now (past 15 years) white-collar worker.

    Don't assume that because I am a liberal that I won't defend my ( and your) right to bear arms and protect myself and family.

    My point is only that you can't assume that all "liberals" are against you and your reasonable belief that you are consitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms.

  14. #58
    Senior Member Array ElMonoDelMar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Champaign, Illinois
    Posts
    635
    Quote Originally Posted by Slomo View Post
    I am probably asking for trouble, but there has to be others like me, doesn't there?

    I am a liberal. I carry, 100% of the time. I own a variety of weapons from tactical folders to 1911's to 12 ga pumps.

    I train often (weekly) in unarmed and armed self defense.

    I served in the military.

    I hunt and fish and aggressively seek to limit corporate America's access to, and ability to damage our natural resources.

    I am a long-time (15 years) union member and now (past 15 years) white-collar worker.

    Don't assume that because I am a liberal that I won't defend my ( and your) right to bear arms and protect myself and family.

    My point is only that you can't assume that all "liberals" are against you and your reasonable belief that you are consitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms.
    I'm not as experienced in life as you are, but I am a gun-toting liberal.

  15. #59
    VIP Member Array Paco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    McKinney, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Slomo View Post
    I am probably asking for trouble, but there has to be others like me, doesn't there?

    I am a liberal. I carry, 100% of the time. I own a variety of weapons from tactical folders to 1911's to 12 ga pumps.

    I train often (weekly) in unarmed and armed self defense.

    I served in the military.

    I hunt and fish and aggressively seek to limit corporate America's access to, and ability to damage our natural resources.

    I am a long-time (15 years) union member and now (past 15 years) white-collar worker.

    Don't assume that because I am a liberal that I won't defend my ( and your) right to bear arms and protect myself and family.

    My point is only that you can't assume that all "liberals" are against you and your reasonable belief that you are consitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms.
    I would have to think that you and ElMonoDelMar are exceptions to the rule, at least in my experience. I also don't tend to carry lengthy discussions with many libs as they tend to start name calling and fighting with emotion when presented with the facts. Maybe I only meet the libs who are true morons and there are some actual "normal" libs out there. I mean there is at least 1 in Congress (Lieberman), maybe there are more but they just don't make the news or are drowned out by the ones that have been described in this forum.
    "Don't hit a man if you can possibly avoid it; but if you do hit him, put him to sleep." - Theodore Roosevelt

    -Paco
    http://www.shieldsd.net

  16. #60
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Distinguished Member Array Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    West Linn, Oregon
    Posts
    1,628
    Quote Originally Posted by Slomo View Post
    I am probably asking for trouble, but there has to be others like me, doesn't there?

    I am a liberal. I carry, 100% of the time. I own a variety of weapons from tactical folders to 1911's to 12 ga pumps.

    I train often (weekly) in unarmed and armed self defense.

    I served in the military.

    I hunt and fish and aggressively seek to limit corporate America's access to, and ability to damage our natural resources.

    I am a long-time (15 years) union member and now (past 15 years) white-collar worker.

    Don't assume that because I am a liberal that I won't defend my ( and your) right to bear arms and protect myself and family.

    My point is only that you can't assume that all "liberals" are against you and your reasonable belief that you are consitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms.
    You make an interesting point. I have always believed that one needs to define our terms when we engage in a debate to be sure we are discussing the same thing. Perhaps, what we need to do here is to define what we think we mean by the term "liberal." We might be somewhat surprised to discover that we don't all have the same definition.
    "It does not do to leave a dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him."

    J. R. R. Tolkien

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Richmond Liberal
    By Rock and Glock in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: July 16th, 2010, 11:24 PM
  2. A liberal news guy gets it!
    By swiftyjuan in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: December 15th, 2009, 12:59 PM
  3. Liberal or Conservative?
    By sisco in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: March 12th, 2007, 02:02 PM
  4. Oh god a liberal
    By nitrogen in forum New Members Introduce Yourself
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: January 16th, 2006, 10:00 PM

Search tags for this page

my colleague helga kuhse and i suggest that a period of twenty-eight days after birth might be allowed before an infant

Click on a term to search for related topics.