ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

The distaste for debate

It is interesting, is it not, how fear and loathing of debate pervades the Left:
Not to put too fine a point on it, professor McKenzie looked terrified. When this distinguished economics prof had invited me to give a lecture entitled “Is CO2 Mitigation Cost-Effective?” at Southeastern Louisiana University, the provost had called him in to ask why professors worldwide had written demanding that I be disinvited.

Disinvitation is a favorite debate-stifling technique of the left. A couple of years ago, when Prince Philip invited professor Ian Plimer to give the annual Duke of Edinburgh’s Lecture at Buckingham Palace explaining why global warming is a scam, the Children’s Coalition went into conniptions. Within weeks and without explanation, Ian was rudely disinvited.
Regardless of whether it is Al Gore, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, or the vast and corpulent mass of feminists, the Left has an observable tendency to shun debate.  They assert many different reasons for doing so, but the truth is always revealed by their seemingly contradictory willingness to debate the incompetent and the overmatched.

Contrast with this the readiness of those on the right, even the most hapless, to publicly engage with those with whom they disagree.  I don't think much of Gary North and his homoerotic arguments - no one actually wants to poke a "gun" in his rotund "belly" - but I do give him credit for being willing to at least attempt to engage my ideas concerning the intrinsically inimical nature of free trade.

One of the things that has been interesting to observe over time is the way that the heated attacks on me, both in public and via email, have all but disappeared even though my overall readership has never been larger.  Why is this?  My theory is this is because most of my critics, be they atheists, feminists, evolutionists, or free traders, have learned they simply cannot win in a direct confrontation.  They can't openly criticize my ideas because they have learned, much to their surprise, that they cannot adequately defend their own.

As Aristotle pointed out more than two thousand years ago, even at the rhetorical level, the side more closely approximates the truth will tend to win out, because it is easier to argue when your arguments are based on truth rather than falsehood.  Events will always ultimately prove the arguments of the global warmers, the godless, the female supremacists, the socialists, the Keynesians, and the monetarists to be false because their ideas are false.  This is why a good memory is one of the most lethal weapons against them and why it is so easy to win debates against them, as given enough time, they are going to contradict themselves. 

Why?  Because they have no choice.  Being false, their positions have to be dynamic, which means they can never hope for any significant degree of consistency.  This is why ex post facto revision and double-talk are the hallmarks of the Left, and is why the first thing Leftists do when they are in a position of power is to erase history and attempt to silence any voices capable of calling attention to their fictions and contradictions.

People have occasionally asked me how I so readily identify the weak points in an opponent's arguments.  It's actually very simple.  Look for the spin.  No matter what form it takes, the spin is only there to obfuscate the falsehood.  Expose that, and you not only expose the falsity of the argument, but also strike a blow against the credibility of the individual presenting it.  If longtime readers have learned anything here, I hope it is the ability to see through the incessant spin and strike to the heart of the deceit.

Labels: ,

91 Comments:

Anonymous GmbH October 10, 2012 7:07 AM  

This is also a fair explanation of the lack of "left" talk radio. Hard to run from callers and leave dead air.

Anonymous VryeDenker October 10, 2012 7:25 AM  

Well, leftists don't like a two-way conversation. They like to talk AT you. We have this chick on a particular South African radio station who is blatantly ultra-progressive. She cuts off anyone who dares contradict her or will even go so far as to argue with credentialed callers. Just this morning, she attempted to belittle a friend of mine who happened to phone in. This friend happens to hold a PhD on the subject and is around 50 years old with a proven track record.

Anonymous orlok October 10, 2012 7:27 AM  

"vast and corpulent mass of feminists"-it's word gems like these that make me love your writing so !! thanks mate.

Anonymous FrankNorman October 10, 2012 7:29 AM  

The Leftist unwillingness to give a fair hearing to opposing views can be explained in a few ways, none of them complementary to the Leftists.

For example: The reason a Leftist won't debate someone who could beat him is that Leftists don't care about what is right, only about who. A "debate" to them is a conflict to establish relative rank in the group. As if whoever wins the fight would get to be Alpha Male of the tribe and have all the females for himself.
Also - they don't believe in real external truth. Only about the fictions their tribe affirms as "truth". Fictions which they have built their social position in the tribe by being the loudest exponents of, and which they must therefore protect from falsification. If someone from outside is allowed to come in and knock the whole intellectual structure down, the Leftists don't see that as a learning opportunity for themselves - they see it as a loss of status.

That's one theory.

Anonymous Kickass October 10, 2012 7:31 AM  

Off to look up " inimical".

If you really want to see people foam, preach the Gospel. PZ and such are nothing compared to the enemies made when you do that. Of course, the victory much larger as well.

Anonymous zen0 October 10, 2012 7:40 AM  

Even the marketplace of ideas must succumb to central planning. It is for public safety, comrades.

Anonymous anon123 October 10, 2012 7:54 AM  

The Ilk also place a high entertainment value on the evisceration of fools.

Anonymous p-dawg October 10, 2012 8:08 AM  

They've read Sun Tzu and don't engage where they have no chance of victory. Actually, that's probably giving them too much credit.

Anonymous FrankNorman October 10, 2012 8:12 AM  

VryeDenker October 10, 2012 7:25 AM

Well, leftists don't like a two-way conversation. They like to talk AT you. We have this chick on a particular South African radio station who is blatantly ultra-progressive. She cuts off anyone who dares contradict her or will even go so far as to argue with credentialed callers. Just this morning, she attempted to belittle a friend of mine who happened to phone in. This friend happens to hold a PhD on the subject and is around 50 years old with a proven track record.


If you've read Orwell, you'll know that what Leftists are really concerned about is having power. All the ideas and causes are just means to that end.
And the more blatantly in defiance of external reality the Leftist's ideas are, the more empowered she would feel in being able to impose them on others.

Its the same mentality as some extreme Calvinist nutball preaching utter blasphemy from the pulpit, simply to prove to himself that the congregation are too much in awe of his supposedly superior intellect to dare contradict him.

Blogger Nate October 10, 2012 8:34 AM  

Speaking of debates that never seem to happen...

Blogger Lucas October 10, 2012 8:46 AM  

El Voxo hath spoken.

This is a great post.

Anonymous The Great Martini October 10, 2012 8:55 AM  

The Right and Left are both equivalent in their capacity to avoid debate that they don't deem worthy of engagement. I've been banned at both Rightist and Leftist sites, and it's all pretty much the same. Elitism governs it all. If a right- or left-winger is engaged in debate with a prominent opponent they will give them full stage and basically lavish attention on them. They'll even brown-nose while they're doing it. It's all a bit pathetic. If they are engaged with a "nobody," no matter how knowledgeable, erudite or intelligent, they will blow them off and ban them forthwith and not give them the time of day. Sad fact of life.

However, on balance, it's true that these day the Left tends to distance itself more rigorously from unwanted debate than the right. This is due to a spirit of the time, which seems to dictate more insanity from the Right than the Left. Such hasn't always been the case, but we seem to be going through that phase of the cycle.

Anonymous Stilicho October 10, 2012 8:58 AM  

OT (from Drudge link): If you ever had any doubt that public schools are anything more than prisons. Seriously, though, liberals think it's ok to force high school students to show an RFID implanted ID in order to vote for class president, but it is wrong to make voters in U.S. elections show an ID to prove that they are citizens and entitled to vote.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) October 10, 2012 9:05 AM  

OT: Stilicho, there was a link over at Drudge about the government's plans to have 30,000 drones flying over the US by 2020. Did you see that?

Blogger Lucas October 10, 2012 9:13 AM  

Vox,

Sorry for the OT, but what does it means "relictus culiae saecular" ?

Thanks.

Blogger IM2L844 October 10, 2012 9:14 AM  

Leftists worship at the alter of the perpetual cake with offerings of empty rhetoric. I usually find arguing with them mostly irritating, but I thank God for people like Vox who find it amusing. Not because the leftists will ever be convinced of the vacuousness of their positions, but because some of the onlookers might be.

Anonymous Stilicho October 10, 2012 9:19 AM  

Ben, yes, I did. Nate's gonna need a really BIG shotgun.

Anonymous Gamer October 10, 2012 9:19 AM  

It's the same reaction of Obama v. Romney Part 1:

The reason why is because they are "TOO SMART" to "DUMB IT DOWN" for the debate format. Plus they have the personalities of rutabagas.

My theory is that most Leftist have never had real jobs, in the private sector. They've spent all their time in academia, collecting entitlements and riding up the hierarchy.

Meanwhile, guys like Romney were out there selling and making deals (I'm not saying I'm a fan of Romney or anything, but is there any doubt Romney knows how to SELL an audience? Romney has closed deals and fired people in the real world. On stage at the debate, total Alpha, made Obama his bitch. Again, still not voting for Romney, but if you want an example of Alpha salesmanship, there you go.)

Anonymous JartStar October 10, 2012 9:21 AM  

The most common reply I've seen to Vox, when he is beating them soundly, is that he is just incapable of understanding the subtly of their position. When he points out that the odds are good that he is far more intelligent than the interlocutor, they generally claim he is blinded by his faith or ideology, and then simply disappear.

Anonymous Stilicho October 10, 2012 9:21 AM  

I'm sure there are some surplus Soviet AAA out there for sale cheap.

Anonymous DonReynolds October 10, 2012 9:25 AM  

Americans have a strong tradition in compromise and this puts them at a disadvantage when dealing with people who have no such tradition. Americans compromise in order to forge agreement or to create unity of purpose. Some of the newcomers have no such tradition and their language does not even have an equivalent word for "compromise".

When it comes to conflicts between Left and Right, the Left is always in favor of compromise. Why? Because they are happy to move this country to the Left one baby-step at a time. They call it Progress. The Right is always the loser when it comes to compromise. They are trying to defend a way of life and there is never an opportunity to un-do the compromises that led to where we are today. Compromise to the Right means they end up giving up a little more here and a little more there of what they believe in. There is no exchange. We never get something we want in return for the Left getting something they want. There is no trade or bargain. The exact compromise is simply a question of how much the Right is willing to retreat or leave behind.

Anonymous JartStar October 10, 2012 9:29 AM  

The more amusing path is the “George” way of debating. Simple spout rhetoric quickly and fill ones posts with so many lies that the other side loses interest and then claim victory.

Anonymous Curlytop October 10, 2012 9:36 AM  

JartStar October 10, 2012 9:21 AM
The most common reply I've seen to Vox, when he is beating them soundly, is that he is just incapable of understanding the subtly of their position. When he points out that the odds are good that he is far more intelligent than the interlocutor, they generally claim he is blinded by his faith or ideology, and then simply disappear.

Isn't this known as the Obama Tactic?

Anonymous VryeDenker October 10, 2012 9:43 AM  

Your president Obama's debating skills are too pure to be beheld by the lowly public. To paraphrase a description of Emperor Hirohito.

Anonymous Josh October 10, 2012 9:44 AM  

NateOctober 10, 2012 8:34 AM
Speaking of debates that never seem to happen


This.

Blogger Giraffe October 10, 2012 9:52 AM  

Well, there's always the anklebiters.

Anonymous Roundtine October 10, 2012 9:53 AM  

Re: debates that never happen.

I have a very long post up about inflation/deflation and government debt, taking the deflation side for now.

Fed and U.S. government policy is not enough to offset deflation

Anonymous duckman October 10, 2012 9:57 AM  

There is only one REAL question here: Is the complaining professor from a 14th- or 15th-rate Bible college? (I mean, really, how could he possibly be from both? Have two marginal institutions hired him?)

Anonymous Ulmer Miller October 10, 2012 10:08 AM  

One of the most entertaining presidential debates in recent memory... And funny too!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg

Anonymous The other skeptic October 10, 2012 10:12 AM  

On Topic, kinda, but what world does Jack Welch actually live on?


The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.


Well, if the gold was still in Fort Knox and if they ever bothered to audit it, maybe.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan October 10, 2012 10:21 AM  

I don't see anyone else making the observation - that lefty types seem to have a "feminine" way of thinking.

So I'll make it.

Man-boobed males who think like Chris Mathews cannot be persuaded, for their inner voice translates your argument into something else...usually the direct opposite of what you said.

We've all seen the photos of Conservative women contrasted with Liberal women. Pretty ladies vs. man jawed plain janes.

Does anyone know of a similar study for men? I swear to God I can look at a photo or meet a man and immediately guess with 80% accuracy whether he's lefty or righty.

The lefties tend to have that Krugmanesque whiny demeanor. Very popular in prison and at the NYT, although for different reasons.

I suspect it may be the amount of testosterone they get while in the womb, and the size of the scorpus callosum, which connects the two halves of the brain.

Solution: remove the vote from young people, women, and slouching, whiny, man boobed men.

Ship rights itself immediately.

Blogger Nate October 10, 2012 10:33 AM  

Roundtine

Is Check Kiting inflationary?

Anonymous VryeDenker October 10, 2012 10:33 AM  

Or, in other words, the vote should be taken away from everyone dependent on big government...

Anonymous The other skeptic October 10, 2012 10:33 AM  


Solution: remove the vote from young people, women, and slouching, whiny, man boobed men.


That ship sailed long ago.

In any event, with an aging population, surely that is happening, except for those over 90 who seem to remember FDR with fondness and think that the Dark Messiah is the second coming of FDR.

Anonymous Josh October 10, 2012 10:34 AM  

Solution: remove the vote from young people, women, and slouching, whiny, man boobed men.

And baby boomers. Before we set up the death panels for them.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 October 10, 2012 10:39 AM  

I have to disagree with your assertion that the Right is willing to debate Vox. More and more I am seeing conservatives stifle debate with their more libertarian counterparts. I've been banned from three different conservative forums for such reasons. I've heard Rush Limbaugh hang up on callers who challenged his notions of the USA PATRIOT Act. And let's not forget the RNC crushing the Ron Paul supporters at the convention this year.

Anonymous JP (real one) October 10, 2012 10:48 AM  

Speaking of Keynesians, here's some nice satire:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/10/04/satire-federal-reserve-announces-operation-zero-deficit/

Anonymous The other skeptic October 10, 2012 10:49 AM  

It's not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes.

It's not important that you be given options, but what options you are given. (Choosing between equally bad options is no choice at all, for example, between Mittens, The Dark Messiah and The Wrinkled Lizard Queen.)

Anonymous The other skeptic October 10, 2012 10:56 AM  

If you hold incorrect views, you will be disappeared

Blogger James Dixon October 10, 2012 10:57 AM  

> More and more I am seeing conservatives stifle debate with their more libertarian counterparts.

Tactics which work tend to be copied. The left has been successful, so their tactics are being copied.

Anonymous The other skeptic October 10, 2012 11:18 AM  

TPTB long ago realized that the appearance of change is what is important, because it takes the great unwashed masses a couple of generations to realize that each new game is rigged.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 October 10, 2012 11:19 AM  

Solution: remove the vote from young people, women, and slouching, whiny, man boobed men.

Young people tend not to vote, despite what you may think. Their vote is largely insignificant on a national scale.

The problem is not necessarily who votes, but the choices we are given. Vox proposed a modernized version of direct democracy (which is possible) where all people are given the chance to vote online instantly and the result determine the course of action. The inherent flaw in this design is that there has to be some leader somewhere who determines the questions to vote on. In software development, this is call user requirements. You can't write a program to tell you what your user requirements are, can you?

Another problem is that the Republic, at the national level, has become corrupted largely because the vote of the individual has become diluted. The House of Representatives has a size cap of 435 members, which is unconstitutional as there is supposed to one representative per 30,000 people. While the argument may be that Congress would get nothing done with 10,000+ people in the House, I'd argue that it is not necessarily a bad thing. On the other side, you have the Senate whose "representation" is further diluted by size of the State from which they are elected.

I agree that extending the right to vote to various groups of people has been a large mistake, mostly because I believe that the only people who should be permitted to vote are the people with no vested interest in the affairs of the State, that does not even begin to resolve the various problems inherent with what representative democracy has become in the United States.

There is no easy fix, short of total collapse, and even what happens next is probably less desirable.

Anonymous jay c October 10, 2012 11:28 AM  

OT?: I wouldn't want to be mistaken for a leftist. Christians and the Law, parts 1-13. More to come as time allows.

Blogger Nate October 10, 2012 11:33 AM  

We lost Mongo today boys. Throw one back for him.

Anonymous Hedley October 10, 2012 11:38 AM  

"Mongo only pawn in game of life."

Rest in peace, Alex.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan October 10, 2012 11:47 AM  

Josh, when you lash out at "boomers", you paint with a broad brush. There are female boomers and male boomers.

They vote differently. Much differently.

If your anger is due to the lack of children born to boomers; once again it falls on the boomer women. It was the boomer women who wanted to "find themselves" and have careers, while leaving the kids to tend for themselves.

Boomer men much preferred the traditional family structure. (and bigger families)

You speak out of ignorance.

Women have destroyed our country by electing feminist, spineless men to congress, and accomodating the gay culture and hollyweird. The result is broken families, illegitimacy, abortion, less religion, more dependency, and the general debauchery of our daughters and grandaughters.

Boomer men, if given a chance, would have elected more conservative, religious-based leaders, but our vote had been diluted ... long before we were born.



Anonymous Roundtine October 10, 2012 11:47 AM  

Is Check Kiting inflationary?

I'm not too familiar which check kiting, but as I understand it, for the amount of time the kiting is in operation it would be inflationary, then it ends in deflation.

Blogger JD Curtis October 10, 2012 12:06 PM  

This is why ex post facto revision and double-talk are the hallmarks of the Left, and is why the first thing Leftists do when they are in a position of power is to erase history and attempt to silence any voices capable of calling attention to their fictions and contradictions


A contemporary example (As if on cue)...

"
The State Department now says it never believed the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a film protest gone awry, giving congressional Republicans new fodder for criticizing the Obama administration’s initial accounts of the assault.

The State Department’s extraordinary break with other administration offices came in a department briefing Tuesday, where officials said “others” in the executive branch concluded initially that the protest was based, like others in the Middle East, on a film that ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad.

That was never the department’s conclusion, a senior official told reporters." Link

Anonymous Anonymous October 10, 2012 12:12 PM  

Mongo like candy...RIP Mongo.

Anonymous The One October 10, 2012 12:15 PM  

No man threatens the left!

You bring the the heads of lesser intelligences to my blog,
You insult my wife and threaten to steal my umbrella drinks.
Oh, I chosen my words carefully liberal,
Perhaps you should of done the same.

This is blasphemy, this is madness.

Madness... This is Vox Day!!!

Anonymous Josh October 10, 2012 12:22 PM  

If your anger is due to the lack of children born to boomers; once again it falls on the boomer women. It was the boomer women who wanted to "find themselves" and have careers, while leaving the kids to tend for themselves. Boomer men much preferred the traditional family structure. (and bigger families)

Boomer men so preferred the traditional marriage structure that that did absolutely nothing to save it!

Congratulations. You're a generation of geldings.

Now run off and die.

Anonymous Gerd October 10, 2012 12:33 PM  

You only have to look at out wonderful State Department and how the 9/11 Benghazi massacre has been spinned, spun and come undone!

Hit the road Barack, and doncha come back no more.

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 10, 2012 12:43 PM  

"...their positions have to be dynamic, which means they can never hope for any significant degree of consistency. ...the first thing Leftists do when they are in a position of power is to erase history and attempt to silence any voices capable of calling attention to their fictions and contradictions."

Well, there are contradictions, and then there are contradictions.

On the really base level, where leftists habitually do things like decree that "Monday will now be known as Thursday!" I agree.

On a more intellectual level, though, I'd just say, handle words like "contradictions" with care. Human affairs lack the purity of mathematics; just about any course of human action, no matter how wise or truthful, is going to result in "contradictions". Inconsistency is part of the price of admission of living on this planet as a hairless biped with enhanced cranial capacity. Like I say, certain types of "contradictions," if they're really genuinely heinous (and how do we know that? I don't mean that it's un-knowable, I just mean well, that that one's a ponder innit), need to be identified; but broadly speaking the idea of a contradiction is not something we should latch on to in human affairs as proof that another position is preferable.

Frankly I've stopped listening to leftists and I no longer know nor care what sort of gobbledygook they spout (except when I hear the word "equity" used, the hairs on the back of my neck still stand up automatically), but I'd remind you that there was a time not so long ago when the word "contradiction" was a favorite talisman among idiot Marxists for decrying whatever they saw as problematic with the world of people of who knew better than them. Books with titles like "The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism" were once all the rage; hey, I used to spend a lot of time sleeping with rich chicks who read them and believed that stuff.

When somebody points out a contradiction in my line of thought (I don't even use the word "argument" any more, even that seems too fussy) I don't feel backed into a corner. On the larger point, they may be right, they may be wrong, it all depends. My first reaction is simply, "So what else ya got?" Chuang Tzu is instructive on this sort of thing.

"Well if the weed ain't no good, man,
Ya still feel sad,
Go take a walk downtown,
Now you ain't doing so bad.
Not at all, not at all."

Anonymous Josh October 10, 2012 12:53 PM  

You only have to look at out wonderful State Department and how the 9/11 Benghazi massacre has been spinned, spun and come undone!

Hit the road Barack, and doncha come back no more.


Yeah, because Romney's hyper militaristic foreign policy is so much better than Obama's inept bumbling.

Anonymous Gen. Kong October 10, 2012 12:59 PM  

Frank Noman:
If you've read Orwell, you'll know that what Leftists are really concerned about is having power. All the ideas and causes are just means to that end. And the more blatantly in defiance of external reality the Leftist's ideas are, the more empowered she would feel in being able to impose them on others.

Exactly. Though they continually point fingers at the pathetic rump of Christianity, the true religious fanatics are leftists - more even than the wildest goat-humping jihadi in the Ummah. Orwell started out in their camp and became disillusioned after witnessing their typical behavior during the Spanish Civil War. That's a major reason his writing is so effective. The following snippet from 1984 speaks of what drives them.

There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.

Anonymous Roundtine October 10, 2012 12:59 PM  

Yeah, because Romney's hyper militaristic foreign policy is so much better than Obama's inept bumbling.

Romney said he wants to arm jihadists in Syria. I guess that's so they'll fire more missiles at Turkey and draw them into the conflict, maybe spreading the violence into Turkey. And if Turkey destabilizes and radicalized, the Kurds will be happy to blow the whole Middle East straight to hell. Not that it'd be their fault, but they have sizable population in Iraq, Iran and Turkey: they are the center square. And oh by the way, Golden Dawn is rising in Greece. They seem like they'd take a swing at Turkey if given the chance, and that would also piss of the Germans, so win-win there.......

Anonymous scoobius dubious October 10, 2012 1:06 PM  

I think you can make a reasonable anthropological case that Leftism has no real coherent intellectual basis, it's really just a concrete manifestation of historical Jewish antipathy and contempt for everything that's white, Christian, and European. It's a greatest-hits collection of Jewish hatreds, and they change and shift depending on whatever the target is at the time: it used to be this phantom thing called "the bourgeoisie," now it's just another phantom thing called "white privilege" or a lack of social justice and "equity" for the "Other" or whatever. It's sort of an intellectual computer virus that has leaped its bounds and infected lots of non-Jews who have no actual idea why the thing was originally created, or even what it is they're really harboring. The real banner of Leftism should simply read, "We Hate Christian White People, No Matter What".

Anonymous Gen. Kong October 10, 2012 1:14 PM  

The Great Martini:
The Right and Left are both equivalent in their capacity to avoid debate that they don't deem worthy of engagement. I've been banned at both Rightist and Leftist sites, and it's all pretty much the same. Elitism governs it all. If a right- or left-winger is engaged in debate with a prominent opponent they will give them full stage and basically lavish attention on them. They'll even brown-nose while they're doing it. It's all a bit pathetic. If they are engaged with a "nobody," no matter how knowledgeable, erudite or intelligent, they will blow them off and ban them forthwith and not give them the time of day. Sad fact of life.

What you say is true, but it is more importantly a demonstration of the uselessness of the terminology of right vs. left. 90% of what is routinely described as "right" in western societies is really a form of leftism which holds one or more unprincipled exceptions to the general leftist ideology. A typical example would be the Republican Chamber of Commerce types, who disagree with the leftist dogma of massive taxation and wealth transfer insofar as they are targeted directly, yet refuse to allow any significant debate about the insane open-borders policy within the Republican party. Likewise note the similar totalitarian antics in the Republican convention over the delegates from 4 states won by Ron Paul. These folks are invariably portrayed as being "rightist" by the Ministry of Truth and leftist Obamabots, but they are actually leftists who happen to disagree mildly with certain aspects of the faith. Ditto for Gary North.

Anonymous Gen. Kong October 10, 2012 1:21 PM  

Josh:
Yeah, because Romney's hyper militaristic foreign policy is so much better than Obama's inept bumbling.

Your first error is in assuming that D'Won on d'downlow actually has any control over foreign policy. Housenigga Hussein does as he is told, just like Mittens. The second point, which has only surfaced recently, is that Mittens' Bushevik Neo-Trottery on steroids could actually kill the beast faster than the bumbler. What not start a few more wars, plus some more campaigns in Africa and Central Asia to boot? Mittens and Weepin' Johnny could easily run up the bill into hundreds of trillions of banksta bucks. If your position is that "worse is better", Willard may well be the one.

Blogger Gilbert Ratchet October 10, 2012 1:26 PM  

For all his faults, Christopher Hitchens did not shun debate.

Anonymous Frederick303 October 10, 2012 1:58 PM  

Josh

I find the generic anger at Boomers kind of odd.

So a chap who was born in 1946 has the same values as a fellow born in 1964 (last official date I know for boomers last time I checked)? Hmmm the first was around for the summer of love (1967), the second came of age during the Regan revolution (1983), those two end points have very little similar in their youth, world view or upbringing expectations.

Back in the 1980s when being a DINK was cool, the boomer generation was said to be 1946 to 1961. Now the date is 1946 to 1964, why not make it a round 20 years and make it 1947 to 1965? So how do you view someone born in 1965, are they evil boomers or good generation x? How exactly do we go about defining this group?

What defines a Boomer other then the date of being born? If it simply the date born as the selection criteria why not select liberal secular Jews, social justice Catholics or Irish as your chosen “scapegoat” group?

If you view this arbitrary group as being selfish, would you go to a VFW and tell a 1968 TET vet that to his face? What have you done that gives you the right to sit on a pedestal to judge these men or any one for that matter?

Do you see what I am getting at? Your anger or at least displeasure seems to be ill placed and poorly thought out.

Regards

Frederick303

Anonymous Gen FedEx October 10, 2012 2:16 PM  

Back in the 1980s when being a DINK was cool, the boomer generation was said to be 1946 to 1961. Now the date is 1946 to 1964, why not make it a round 20 years and make it 1947 to 1965? So how do you view someone born in 1965, are they evil boomers or good generation x? How exactly do we go about defining this group? - F303

When did it change from 1961? - because I remember when I, er, uh when my friend was younger he wasn't a BB because he was born in 1964, and then they changed the rules on me, uh, him.

Bastards.

Blogger RobertT October 10, 2012 2:18 PM  

Yes these people you are talking about are not particularly bright, but they are not the bottom of the barrel. If you want to get a look at the bottom of the barrel, visit your social security office as I did this morning. I once visited the intake room at a jail. This is much unlike that. Three (only three) people sat behind bullet proof glass on one side of the room and the rabble was kept on the other side and funneled over one at a time. In between was a very intimidating cop who joked about nobody being able to see his "hardware' with him sitting behind a counter and warned people not to block his view out the windows just in case of a terrorist attack. The rabble themselves were the most low class, slobby, fat, ill kept, inarticulate people, apparently born and bred American, who could barely speak the language, but never-the-less spoke a lot and loudly. Thank God my profession shields me from regular contact with people like this. But I couldn't help thinking, if we don't get rid of Obama, the whole country will be just like this. Gathering for their free handout and criticizing a system that misplaced their check. I'm eagerly voting for the patrician Romney. I hope you do as well.

Blogger RobertT October 10, 2012 2:22 PM  

edit ... "not" (in place of "much") unlike that ... considering my ADD, i could use an edit button

Anonymous Josh October 10, 2012 2:30 PM  

So a chap who was born in 1946 has the same values as a fellow born in 1964 (last official date I know for boomers last time I checked)? Hmmm the first was around for the summer of love (1967), the second came of age during the Regan revolution (1983), those two end points have very little similar in their youth, world view or upbringing expectations.

Generational cohorts will tend to have the same worldview and same experiences.

Of course, you are welcome to play the NABBALT card.

Anonymous JI October 10, 2012 2:31 PM  

Cryan Ryan wrote:
"Solution: remove the vote from young people, women, and slouching, whiny, man boobed men."

Ha! I think you're onto something with this. Perhaps Vox, or someone more knowledgable than I, would know why the founding fathers of the US did not give women the right to vote. I suspect it was intentional and well-thought. But maybe I'm wrong, maybe it just wasn't a consideration in those days.

Anonymous jay c October 10, 2012 2:33 PM  

So how do you view someone born in 1965, are they evil boomers or good generation x? How exactly do we go about defining this group?

Generational divides aren't that clear cut. People put years on them for the same reason we put labels on groups of people: convenience. My siblings and I were all born from 60 to 70. My oldest brother is definitely a boomer. I'm definitely an Xer. The ones in between aren't so easy to pigeonhole.

Blogger James Dixon October 10, 2012 2:35 PM  

> Generational cohorts will tend to have the same worldview and same experiences.

Yes. But someone born in 1946 will have little in common with someone born in 1964. Their world views will be almost completely different. In that regard, he is correct.

The boomers have tried (largely successfully) to claim a large group of people who should never have been classified as boomers as their own.

Blogger IM2L844 October 10, 2012 2:38 PM  

How exactly do we go about defining this group?

It doesn't matter. Everybody gets their turn to be excoriated by a younger generation sooner or later and maybe deservedly so.

Blogger Tim October 10, 2012 2:53 PM  

Another interesting thing to do while debating the left is to listen for insults and name calling. Until I debated a liberal I was unaware that I was a racist, fascist, illiterate.

Anonymous Josh October 10, 2012 2:59 PM  

No one is denying that the lines don't get fuzzy around the edges. But it's a useful and convenient generalization.

Notice how butthurt the boomers get when someone says anything bad about them, on contrast to the ambivalence of an xer or millennial.

Anonymous Gerd October 10, 2012 3:11 PM  

I would rather have a self-made man than an affirmative action hire.

Ok Jump all over that!

Anonymous Vic October 10, 2012 3:26 PM  

I suppose the members of White Rose would be "butthurt" at being lumped in with the Nazis(if the latter hadn't slaughtered them). They were of the same generation and lived in the same country after all.

Blogger James Dixon October 10, 2012 3:39 PM  

> I would rather have a self-made man than an affirmative action hire.

I have a hard time accepting that the son of the governor of Michigan qualifies as fully "self-made".

I will acknowledge that he appears to have worked for everything he has, which is more than Obama has ever done.

Anonymous Idle Spectator October 10, 2012 4:22 PM  

I don't see anyone else making the observation - that lefty types seem to have a "feminine" way of thinking.

So I'll make it.


K-selection: masculine. r-Selection: feminine.

Politics coupled with Biology

The significance of this is that, if true, Conservatism likely evolved as a competitive, aggressive psychology, designed to compete for limited resources within our first home territory as it became overpopulated.

Liberalism, by contrast, likely evolved as a competing Darwinian strategy designed to flee from these violent competitions for resources, in search of freely available resources, in new uninhabited, untapped, territories. It was this bifurcation in Darwinian strategies which produced our species' ability to migrate to new environments and multiply with the aggression of an r-selected, invasive species, while still exhibiting the high levels of evolutionary advancement and adaptiveness of a less fecund, K-selected species.


Notice how liberals always tend to flock to condensed urban environments? Notice how women always vote so liberally with other people's money?

Fantastic website. Read the entire thing if you want to know all the current research.



I suspect it may be the amount of testosterone they get while in the womb, and the size of the scorpus callosum, which connects the two halves of the brain.

Corpus callosum. And most likely the amygdala is also involved.

The amygdala is for threat assesment, drug and alcohol usage, and sexual orientation among other things. Now you know why liberals tend to be so open minded that it is detrimental. Lack of proper threat assesment. On the other hand, you need some r-selection, else your society can stagnate. Conservatives are not exactly known for being open to experiences.

This is all brand new research out in the last couple of years.


Interesting Vox quoted this: "Disinvitation is a favorite debate-stifling technique of the left. A couple of years ago, when Prince Philip invited professor Ian Plimer to give the annual Duke of Edinburgh’s Lecture at Buckingham Palace explaining why global warming is a scam, the Children’s Coalition went into conniptions. Within weeks and without explanation, Ian was rudely disinvited."

This is the "Outgrouping" technique preferred by r-selection. It is covered on the website Vox.

We are barely scratching the surface here. I am interested in the amygdala vs. homosexuality connection. It would explain why homosexuals are so liberal.

Blogger ProNorden October 10, 2012 4:27 PM  

Sadly the Leftist aversion to forensic argument has also caused the scarcity of formal debates of any kind on college campuses. About a generation or two ago debates were an integral part of campus life and very well-attended by enthusiastic students and others of the community.
Nowadays the closest thing one can find usually is a "panel discussion" where either all are of various shades of agreement with each other or there's maybe one token Conservative to gang-up on.
Debate is such an essential part of the scholastic tradition, it really needs to be restored.

Anonymous Edjamacator October 10, 2012 4:49 PM  

I used to debate liberals but it soon became clear that they simply would not admit to error no matter how factual, clear and easy to understand the truth was. The instant their arguments were shown to be wrong, the insults would start to fly. It's pointless unless your goal is to sway those riding the fence and watching or to just amuse yourself. It became less and less amusing to me for the most part and I stopped doing it online. Face to face is much more interesting as in certain situations they can't insult you so you can at least watch them flail around and make an excuse to leave.

Anonymous Vic October 10, 2012 5:08 PM  

Thanks for the link Idle Spectator.

Anonymous Dr. Idle Spectator, Neuropsychology October 10, 2012 5:58 PM  

Narcissism and the Fractured Amygdala

It's interesting he also ties together Narcissistic Personality Disorder, the amygdala, and liberalism. All topics covered on this blog recently.

"The first time I realized he had real problems was the day after he did something weird right in front of me. The next day I asked him why he did it, and he looked at me confused. "I never did that! Not only didn't I do that... I would never do that!” His voice rose to a crescendo, his arms waved in the air, and his insistence, combined with the genuinely puzzled and confused look on his face, made me think he literally didn’t remember doing something very memorable the day before. Otherwise, how could he deny it, and think I would acquiesce?"

Actual, authentic (not just being what we call an asshole) Narcissists are weird people. It's like they are morally children in adult bodies. That sounds exactly like what a child would do.

"I DIDN'T STEAL THE COOKIE!!11!"
"But who did then?"
"I DON'T KNOW! SOMEONE ELSE!"

Children are narcissistic and 99% of people outgrow that. The 1% of people with NPD do not. Reality is what they say it is.


I cannot help but think of Barack "I won!" Obama.

Anonymous Frederick303 October 10, 2012 5:59 PM  

Josh,

You did not answer my basic question or even make an attempt to defend your position, other then to use the method of claiming to know my motivation in the matter (i.e. hurt feelings). How very liberal of you. Under the rules of this blog you have to put up or shut up. So I ask for the detailed answers to the following questions:

1) Do you assert that the fellows born in 1946 had the same upbringing and worldview as those born in 1964, (you seem to define them as the same cohort)?
2) If you do not see them as in the same cohort, exactly how exactly do you define a Boomer? Be specific.
3) If you view Boomers as being selfish and narcissistic, would you go to a VFW and tell a 1968 TET vet that to his face?
4) What have you done that gives you the right to sit on a pedestal to judge these men or any one for that matter? Or said another way, what sublime gift gives you the ability to gaze into their soul and know the essence of their character?

My point is not to get into a verbal battle or score debating points. Rather I see you engaging in a sort of “collective guilt” train of thought. I view that as being not all that helpful in any sort of approach to life.

Regards

Frederick303

Anonymous Josh October 10, 2012 6:40 PM  

1) Generally, yes. We're talking about generalities and probabilities, not inerrancy.
2) same generation. You could probably subdivide into early and late halves, not sure if that would be significant.
3) depending on the conversation, I might be tempted to tell him that his generation was selfish. He would probably agree.
4) pattern recognition. You talk of this judging business as if when I say the sky is blue, I am judging the sky. What if I said west Africans are good sprinters, women are more emotional, or Asians are good at math?

Anonymous Fredeick303 October 10, 2012 6:47 PM  

Josh

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I have to say you seem to have the courage of your convictions, you are consistent.

Might I ask how you see them as a "class" as being different from those that followed? I am really looking for the negative view that is common to this generation and its world view that you see somewhat adversely.

If it is simply selfishness, what argument could you put forward that would tend to indicate that the following generations are less selfish?

I ask as I do not see that, but perhaps I am missing something. This is an open question to see if there is a valid link that I simply do not see, not a gotcha.

regards

Frederick303

Anonymous A.Handle October 10, 2012 7:32 PM  

No wonder so many lawyers are leftists.

Anonymous A.Handle October 10, 2012 7:37 PM  

"Notice how women always vote so liberally with other people's money?"

Women are inherently leftist but when the men are that way well... see modern USSA for an example.

Blogger James Dixon October 10, 2012 7:54 PM  

> 1) Generally, yes. We're talking about generalities and probabilities, not inerrancy.

Yep, the world didn't change at all from 1946 to 1964. After all, it's not like television took off in that time frame or that rock and roll evolved, or anything important like that.

Blogger Doom October 10, 2012 10:34 PM  

You know you debate better than your leftist "friends" when they refuse to engage you with their stupid notions. Often times I hadn't even realized a debate had begun before I am told that 'we should discuss other topics'. I'm no ace, but even most academics are absolutely... out of their class with me... for their part. Sad really. My guess is most curious, self-taught eighth graders, certainly myself at that time, could shut them down. Certainly by ninth grade. My civics teacher tried to get the principle to tell me I couldn't argue (debate) in class... but he lost that one too. *grins*

Anonymous Anonymous October 11, 2012 1:20 AM  

while i agree with the article in the fact that leftists do not like to debate they usually lack evidence and reasonable coherent arguments. I do not think you can lump evolutionists into this group evolution is real and tangible and we can watch it happen and provide evidence to prove it. Evolution is the "how" we got to this point, why we are here is something that we as humans can't answer.

Anonymous FrankNorman October 11, 2012 6:40 AM  

Anonymous October 11, 2012 1:20 AM

while i agree with the article in the fact that leftists do not like to debate they usually lack evidence and reasonable coherent arguments. I do not think you can lump evolutionists into this group evolution is real and tangible and we can watch it happen and provide evidence to prove it. Evolution is the "how" we got to this point, why we are here is something that we as humans can't answer.


Lots of people here will disagree with you about the "evidence" for evolution, but that is beside the relevant point:
A Leftist who embraces "Evolution" doesn't do so out of intellectual conviction, but out of a desire to be One Of The Clever People.
Also, for them it replaces God, so they don't have to take Him seriously.

So when confronted with a non-believer in TENS, the Leftist response is likely to be an attempt at social shaming tactics, not intelligent discussion.

Anonymous Busy October 11, 2012 6:43 AM  

I do not think you can lump evolutionists into this group evolution is real and tangible and we can watch it happen and provide evidence to prove it. Evolution is the "how" we got to this point

The strength of your faith is inspiring, Anon.

Anonymous Beau October 11, 2012 6:44 AM  

Anonymous

I do not think you can lump evolutionists into this group evolution is real and tangible and we can watch it happen and provide evidence to prove it.


If you're going to make such a claim here, then pick a handle (You can select Name/URL and leave the URL blank). Anonymous comments get deleted. Surely you can pick a screen name? I wait with bated breath for the ensuing discussion.

Blogger Dave October 11, 2012 9:32 AM  

@FrankNorman - absolutely spot on.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts