Friday, October 05, 2007

Why debating a Progressive/Liberal is akin to bashing one's head against the wall:

Civilized debate: What the heck is that? What makes it civilized? Why would civilized people want to argue with one another? What’s the difference between a free exchange of ideas in a civilized manner and just bashing one another with insults and innuendo? Inevitably, during a debate, someone’s going to get their feelings hurt. More often than not, that person will be the liberal in the bunch because their lives are led and their decisions are made based not on reason or logic but rather upon how they feel. It’s what makes debating with a liberal so doggoned difficult. Their emotions are a hindrance to a free flowing give and take conversation. Sooner or later they will become offended and then everyone will have to spend hours trying to decide who the offending party was and by that time the subject has been lost. It seems to become a sub-topic every time a hot debate begins. Thin skinned people who are short in mental stature always seem to be gravitated toward popular topics that are being debated about and they lash out with pointless comments meant only to enrage either because their ineptitude and inability to keep up frustrates them or because they feel as though you have insulted them, the end result being the same, the conversation gets steered way off topic. Often times one will note that, mysteriously enough, these occasions seem to present themselves at a time when the liberal needs to dodge a bullet, so to speak.

Debate is healthy. Open dialogue with one’s opposition is mentally stimulating. Some find it entertaining. Others find it informative. But very seldom is one actually swayed in their opinion. If anyone is actually swayed it is not the participants but rather the silent observers and even this is a rarity. So, why? Why even bother? Is it for the satisfaction that you’ve outlasted your opponent? Is anyone so shallow as to think that because an opponent disengages that it means victory? Some, perhaps. For those, it is more about their word being last rather than being significant. But for me debate solidifies my resolve to constantly evaluate my position. Why do I believe the things I do? Can I articulate to another not only what I believe, but why I believe it? Can I be persuasive enough in my statements to give an opponent a moment of pause to consider their position? Can I glean from their responses anything that would give me pause to do the same? What can I learn from my opponent? Is he crazy, misguided, embittered, or have I misread him? It is easy for one to assume that those who are polar opposites or spectrally different are stupid. I’ve been guilty of that very thing on occasion. Recognizing the ignorance and bigotry of such an assumption it is for this very reason that I seek to engage those who see the world differently than I do. To seek dialogue with a person in an effort, not necessarily to sway their opinion but rather to understand them and their point of view is what freedom is all about. If, in the end, all we have gained is a little better understanding or tolerance for another’s point of view, was it not time well spent?

Unfortunately this endeavor is rarely successful for the traditional/conservative. I speak not from some random, arbitrary opinion but from experience when I say that debating a progressive/liberal point for point is almost impossible. Emotions absolutely cannot be put aside in favor of logic and reason in a liberal mind. They are a constant in the liberal equation. It is the progressive/liberal who leads the forefront of the professionally offended left. Seeking out new things to be offended by is their pastime. They are the inventors of “political correctness” which hinders if not prevents altogether, honesty and the free exchange of ideas. One can no longer call a “spade” a “spade” in the world of the progressive liberal. One must call a “spade” a “perfectly legitimate suit of color which is normal and equivalent in every way, fitting the lifestyles of some but not others that may or may not resemble the head of a shovel.” Often harboring a double standard, progressive/liberals are free to temporarily dismiss this practice to put you in your proverbial place so long as you are not a member of a protected class of peoples. If you are a white, male, Christian, you can be attacked and insulted with no preclusions whatsoever. You however cannot respond in kind lest you be labeled a racist, fascist, or a bigot. Any point you make that cannot be disputed with fact, will be summarily dismissed with prejudice. Their creed is:

“I am a proud liberal, free from the bonds of archaic religious practice. I am the “enlightened” and you are the blind. I am tolerant and you are a bigot. I am open-minded and YOU ARE WRONG!”
They are elitists in their own right. Believing themselves to be above reproach, they make no attempt to defend their position based on any accepted form of reason and logic for it is that “reason” and “logic” that they reject. They are self-appointed custodians of the unfortunate and downtrodden. They are Socialists in Democrat’s clothing. To engage in civil debate would mean that one would have to be open to receiving suggestions from another. Progressive/Liberals aren’t open to anything except slamming the door on Traditionalist/Conservatives. They are looking for conformists. Dissenting viewpoints need not apply.