You just can't win with a liberal - Page 5

bluelineman · May 11th, 2008, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atctimmy

My co-worker then says to me "Yeah but we should still get rid of them anyway"

I wonder if he is also in favor of getting rid of the other 9 Amendments to the US Constitution? Or maybe just the ones he doesn't like.

"What is a moderate interpretation of (the Constitution)? Halfway between what it says and halfway between what you want it to say?"
Antonin Scalia

Slabsides45 · May 11th, 2008, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miklcolt45

For some, the answer is yes and no. Not natural selection, but selection by those who are smart enough to make those decisions. Then those who are useless, weak, unable to think could be done away with.

See below

Entire article can be found at: Posts by Bloggers at News Bloggers

I....I....auuughhh!

Guys like this are really frustrating. Makes me just wish his Mom had known what he was gonna degenerate into during his 28 day trial period...

Ford Truck · May 13th, 2008, 12:21 PM

To a liberal, reality is irrelevant.

DrLewall · May 13th, 2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atctimmy

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE CAN'T SEE THE TRUTH WHEN IT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM.

Simple, you can not argue with a fool.

dcb188 · May 13th, 2008, 02:51 PM

There is no talking with liberals. Period. If you have a gun here in gun country, people will ask you two questions: Is it loaded? and Why do you carry it?
It is a cultural thing. My dad was from Oklahoma and I grew up in Calif and lived in Texas for a long time and had a rifle when I was ten years old.
Here, if someone knew you had a gun, you would get the same looks as if you walked into a bar here and sat down with a flamethrower harnessed to your back ready for full combat outing, and just sat there. The exact same stares and fear and wonder.

Benthic · May 13th, 2008, 03:08 PM

You can lead a liberal to the facts, but you can make 'em think.

Brian

dcb188 · May 13th, 2008, 03:13 PM

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?

edr9x23super · May 13th, 2008, 03:15 PM

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.

packinnova · May 13th, 2008, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atctimmy

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.

Quote:

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)

atctimmy · May 13th, 2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benthic

You can lead a liberal to the facts, but you can make 'em think.

Brian

I like that one.

May 13th, 2008, 12:21 PM	#43
Ford Truck Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Franklin Township, Dekalb County, Indiana Posts: 20	To a liberal, reality is irrelevant. __________________ Then He said unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip, and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36 (KJ)

May 13th, 2008, 03:13 PM	#47
dcb188 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Mid-Cape Cod, Mass. Posts: 862	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".

May 13th, 2008, 03:15 PM	#48
edr9x23super Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Texas Posts: 961	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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

May 13th, 2008, 02:51 PM	#45
dcb188 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Mid-Cape Cod, Mass. Posts: 862	There is no talking with liberals. Period. If you have a gun here in gun country, people will ask you two questions: Is it loaded? and Why do you carry it? It is a cultural thing. My dad was from Oklahoma and I grew up in Calif and lived in Texas for a long time and had a rifle when I was ten years old. Here, if someone knew you had a gun, you would get the same looks as if you walked into a bar here and sat down with a flamethrower harnessed to your back ready for full combat outing, and just sat there. The exact same stares and fear and wonder.

May 13th, 2008, 03:08 PM	#46
Benthic Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Pensacola, FL Posts: 167	You can lead a liberal to the facts, but you can make 'em think. Brian