Debating Charles Manson

There is a great editorial today by Leigh Scott at Big Hollywood where he explains how futile it is to attempt a debate with a liberal. Scott correctly points out that debating a liberal is akin to debating Charles Manson: it’s simply crazy talk.

Keith Olbermann’s recent hour-long commentary was quite revealing. Like Michael Moore’s “capitalism hasn’t done anything for me” comment, the outpouring of support and sympathy for serial pedophile and admitted rapist Roman Polanski, and President Obama’s shenanigans at the U.N. and G-20, it drove home a simple, powerful point…

These people don’t know what they are talking about.

They do not know their kiesters from a hole in the ground. They are a few fries short of a happy meal and a few cards short of a full deck. Their phasers are permanently set on “clueless.”

Once you come to this realization, as many of us have, you are forced to approach their ideas and spokespeople from a position of reality. Not from some sanctimonious position of civility and “debate.”

For an actual debate, two things are needed. One, there must be a logical and factual distinction between two separate positions. Two, there must be equally matched participants, each one prepared and versed enough to intelligently present their side of the issue.

We don’t have that. We have one group of people who live in a fantasy world, full of twisted facts, backwards logic and wishful thinking. You can’t debate that. There is no factual, honest, or logical way to support their positions. It’s like arguing the best way to take a cross-country trip with a delusional Dungeons and Dragons geek. You want to reroute to avoid traffic on the I-10. He wants to “avoid the realm of the Bugbears.”

* * *

Imagine, if you will, a group of people who state that clouds are made of cotton candy. Children love cotton candy. In the sky, there is an unending supply of the sticky treat. To harvest the cotton candy, we must spend billions of taxpayer dollars to create machines that pluck the confection from the heavens. We must do this for the children.

“Ludicrous” states half of the population. Clearly, clouds are not made of cotton candy. In fact, we know exactly what clouds are made of. We also know the exact ingredients in cotton candy. The two are completely unrelated. Recipes and scientific data are presented to prove the case. To build a machine to collect non-existent cotton candy is a waste of money and resources.

The cotton candy cloud advocates respond. Anybody who claims that clouds are made of water vapor must want to hoard the cotton candy. They must benefit from the sales of cotton candy. Having free cotton candy would destroy their merciless pursuit of profits.

Oh, and obviously, they hate children and are probably racist.

This is what we are dealing with

By acknowledging and accepting these laughable, false and dangerous ideas as simply “the other side” of a logical debate we bestow a validity to them that is unwarranted and ultimately unfair. I scoff at people like David Frum who call for civility and intellectual debate.

Who do we debate? Where are the other intellectuals?

Debating leftists is like debating Charles Manson. It’s crazy talk. When you debate a leftist you never get to debate the policy. You debate their intended outcomes and their perception of who you are. That’s a serious lapse in logical and critical thought.

That last paragraph pretty much sums up the typical liberal position: while we are trying to debate the reality of an issue, they are too busy arguing intended outcomes and perceptions.

You can read the entire editorial HERE.



5 thoughts on “Debating Charles Manson

  1. The only way to have a debate with a leftist is for you to be twice as stoned as the leftist, then and only then would everyone be speaking the same incoherent language.

  2. Most rank and file “liberal” fascists exactly meet Lenin’s definition of “useful idiots”. You can rest assured that their masters know exactly what clouds and cotton candy are, but simply emotionally manipulate the UIs for their own political ends. The UIs must be bypassed and their masters defeated, and neither reasoned with. Attempting to reason with these emotion-driven “proletariat” (and that includes by waving signs at teabag rallies) achieves nothing but to provide entertainment for everyone BUT the UIs and exhausts the resources of the consitutional opposition. The fascist vanguard-financiers must be hit in their pocketbooks as a mere starting point, otherwise they have no incentive but to simply keep doing what they’re doing and their victory is inevitable.

  3. Dittos – Scott is right. We not only have “one group of people who live in a fantasy world” but they are incapable of reasoning. It will be a monologue, a singe-participant debate. I stopped trying a while back b/c it’s just marching in place. The thing to do, like Levin says, is to beat them in elections. And I add, educate the young before they became brainwashed.

  4. This article states my opinion. I said it under the Moore post earlier.
    Talk to people and try to move the voice of this country to the right whenever you can.
    Ignore these America haters. I never spend one penny on them. If it is free on tv years later, I may look at it, but I never pay for it. I don’t want to add to the numbers in the initial audience count.

  5. This is what we are dealing with indeed.
    That’s why it is impossible to argue with any liberal. Try and talk sense to the global warming believers, or those who want all goodness to come from Washington.
    Try to argue with a Bush hater. Try to argue with a “War is not the answer” person.
    All I have to say is don’t mess with my cotton candy or my clouds.

Comments are closed.