Liberal Rhetoric 101: Condescension

"If you think X, you clearly don't understand Y at all!"

Ever hear that?  "You're stupid because you don't know how brilliant this liberal whatever!" Usually it is accompanied by either a quote about how much more they know than you (or the person they are quoting), or how much more educated they (or the person they are quoting) is, or how you're just plain dumb for believing whatever it is you believe.

It's a common debating tactic amongst liberals. Most of the time, they excuse it as "no, your points really are stupid so my condescension is validated." (I pretty much guarantee I'm going to get at least one of these via tweet or comment.) Liberals love to talk down to everyone. They're smarter than everyone, just ask them!

Often, this condescension is used in replacement of an actual argument. I spoke recently with an individual who was arguing with me for the need for hate-crime legislation. Ultimately, when I responded to all of his arguments, I was told he knew what he was talking about more than me because he went to law school. There was no need for him to provide actual evidence of the necessity of such laws when...you know...actions like murder and assault are illegal, regardless of the motive behind the crime. He knew better because he was a self-described expert. (By the way, to this day, I have no idea if this individual's legal expertise was in criminal law, real estate, or business mergers.)

Yet another condescender was a person who I've known for years. This individual always feel back on the typical liberal response of "LOL, that's stupid because reasons." When asked for evidence, I would further be told how I should accept what Expert X said, again, because reasons. (Please note that "because reasons" doesn't equal actual evidence, just a one-off bumper sticker quote.)  These arguments fall in the same category with the classic statement "Italians are never wrong, just ask one!"

Far too many Activist Liberals use this tactic as a shut-down. It's all about making you feel like you don't even deserve to debate with them. Ultimately, the answer is to walk away from these individuals. At Biblical Conservatism, repeated condescension will get you blocked as a commenter, both here at the blog and on our Facebook Page. In real life, it generally is best to just walk away. If someone won't debate with respect, it's not worth debating with them. Let them look like a jerk, then walk away.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: The Supreme Court Says...

This one comes from yet another conversation with my Twitter friend "Jeff." This time our debate was on abortion. This was his final response:

This is not "Jeff's" real Twitter page although it is his real tweet.
@UpstateMetFan is my Twitter handle, not "Jeff's"

"Jeff" has just demonstrated a class liberal rhetorical fallacy: The Supreme Court said X, ergo X is a fact.

For the record, my entire point to "Jeff" was moral, not Constitutional. I made the argument that abortion was immoral because it was destroying a human being. He relied on the classic liberal platitude of a woman's body and something about "forcing a woman to carry a fetus," ignoring the fact that she made a decision that caused that child to be conceived in the first place.

Back on the subject, the attempt at a shut-down argument using the Supreme Court is illogical and frankly ridiculous. Based on this logic, separate was indeed equal from 1896 through 1954. That's right, starting with the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, separate facilities, including schools, based on race was perfectly acceptable. By the logic "Jeff" is proposing, not only was this the legal and Constitutional policy, but it was apparently perfectly moral -- because the Supreme Court said so -- until Brown v. Board of Education overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

I choose the ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson because it has important MORAL implications, not just Constitutional ones. Unlike cases like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which dealt only with Constitutional issues, the case of Brown v. Board of Education dealt with a MORAL issue.  Regardless of what the Supreme Court said, separating people by race is morally reprehensible and absolutely wrong.  Brown v. Board of Education was not only needed to change the Constitutional policy but to restore moral practice to the United States. 

If we followed the logic "Jeff" applies, separate but equal was perfectly moral for 58 years, since the Supreme Court said so. Furthermore, if we followed the logic "Jeff" supports, black Americans who were held in slavery weren't a full person but only 3/5 of a person, because that's what was Constitutional until the 13th Amendment rendered Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution moot in 1865  and the 14th Amendment formally repealed it three years later in 1868.

The bottom line is this: While the Constitution is, in my opinion, the best governing document ever, it was imperfect in it's original writing and required amendments...28 to date...to adjust imperfections in the Constitution. More importantly, just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean it is a moral authority argument. Liberals may try to use a decision from the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution to answer a moral argument, but ultimately it is a sidestep, ignoring the moral argument entirely.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Static Budget Predictions

In his State of the Union address, President Obama proposed raising the Federal Minimum Wage from $7.25 an hour to $9 an hour. Liberals have, of course, trumpeted the idea as raising standard of living for the poor (a concept Biblical Conservatism refuted in Compassionate Intentions (No Results Required) a few weeks back).  Today we're going to focus on another claim liberals have made: Raising minimum wage will only cost employers X, and therefore shouldn't be a financial hardship!

Setting aside the fact that this claim ignores that employers rarely do what liberals say they "should" do because liberals often ignore the realities of human nature (which is subsequently why socialism and communism don't work and capitalism does, but I digress) -- this claim also uses the fallacy-ridden practice of Static Budgeting.

Liberals will tell you, using this principle that an employer with ten minimum wage employees who average thirty hours a week will only have to pay $525 more a week and that shouldn't require much of a price increase to compensate! 

Other than the fact that this "only $525 a week" is somebody else's money (therefore making it awfully easy for that liberal to make that claim) there is a second massive hole in this claim: it ignores the chain reactions within the price increase that a business owner has to plan for in raising prices to compensate for the new wages he is required to pay.  Let's bring up a few of these unseen potential costs:

• The business may not be able to swallow the increased costs and therefore may cut their employees' hours to compensate.
•  The above cut in hours could impact the quality of service for their customers. For example, a fast food restaurant who cuts customers will necessarily move more slowly in their food preparation. That means they will not only be able to serve fewer customers in a day -- which cuts their incoming revenue -- but they may also lose customers over that, further cutting their incoming revenue.
• The business will need to raise the prices of their product. When prices go up, many customers will buy the product less frequently. That means, again, a cut to incoming revenue.
• Some of the suppliers of the materials business owners require to supply their customers needs may also pay their employees minimum wage, which means that their operating costs may go up. 

These four  examples are not the entirety of the hidden costs of raising minimum wage. Each of these four are potential costs associated above and beyond the static prediction that liberals give considering ONLY the immediate cost of raising minimum wage -- the cost in the payroll ledger.

Liberals love to budget the projected costs of anything statically. They love to ignore the reactions that may happen in a free market that are catalyzed by the initial change.  They love to ignore the predictable market reactions to any change. It doesn't work that way. Liberals love to pretend that the laws of physics that also apply to a free market doesn't apply when they raise minimum wage, taxes, etc. don't actually apply. They expect their action to not set up a chain reaction.

Except that's what always happens. Static budget predictions never come true. There are just too many other things that effect the cost of a minimum wage increase, or tax increase, or healthcare mandate that aren't taken into effect. Business owners don't just compensate for the costs that will DEFINITELY happen. They compensate for the costs that COULD happen, because failure to do so could cause their business to collapse.

Ask yourself what THAT would do to people's "standard of living?"

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Theory Over Experience

"You're just going to have to trust me on this one...I'm the one with the degree in Economics, remember?"

This was an argument I once heard from a liberal when I had the audacity to question the predicted results of a minimum wage increase. The general point of this was "I'm an expert, you aren't, so my opinions are above your questions."

This is different from true expert testimony, by the way. A true expert, when giving testimony, has to do more than establish their credentials by their vocation or degree, at least with a person who does not know enough about them to trust them at their word.

Often times, it usually focuses on education, rather than real world experience. Academics (that is college professors or researchers) tend to think their book smarts far outrank the real-world experiences of others. To give an example, having a degree in Economics often gives a person knowledge of Economic theory, but given the diversity of theories it doesn't necessarily give them understanding of what actually works in the real world (often it doesn't, actually).  A person who has actually run a business understands more than a person who studies theories.

When it comes to the effect of a minimum wage increase on both the real spending power of a minimum wage employee as well as on the employer, I can claim real-world expertise. Why is that? Because I managed a national chain restaurant for a few years and oversaw a minimum wage increase. During that time, I saw the effect on pricing of our product and discussed how it effected some of my long-term employees (especially those who were actually making above the minimum wage because they earned raises).

I told this person that the real impact of the increase would be an economic drop because business owners would have to increase prices and cut hours. Further I explained it would be a real money loss to the employee who had already earned raises over minimum wage and a zero real dollar gain to those who were making the old minimum wage.

I was told my real-world expertise doesn't matter, because they had a study from an Economist that proved the increase was positive.  The Economist quoted hadn't run a business. They just knew the theory behind the increase.

It's the same mentality that claims that Keynesian Economics works based on theory. Keynesian Economics doesn't have real-world success stories, just failures. If we were applying real-world success to our choice of economic planning we'd follow a school of economic thought like Supply Side Economics or the Austrian School of Economics, both of which have seen historical success.

Bottom line is this: Real world experience means more than theory, because it's been exercised in practice.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Disagreement = Hate

You disagree with gay marriage? You must be homophobic! You disagree with illegal immigration? You must be racist! You disagree with spending trillions on welfare? You must hate the poor! Right? Right!

At least that's what liberals would have us believe. In short, to love a person, you must love their actions too.  Anyone who is a parent or indeed anyone who has a child in their life knows this is foolishness. I love my nephew, but that doesn't mean I love the smell of his diapers. When I was a child, my parents loved me. They didn't love the fact that I once forged my father's signature on a poor test that had been sent home to be signed.

There was a clear separation between the actions and the person. You can love your adult child while disapproving of the fact that they are living with their significant other while being unmarried. You can love the poor without wanting to give them government handout after government handout that encourages them to stay in poverty.

The same is true for issues like gay marriage. As those of you who read this blog know, I am opposed to gay marriage.* It's not a secret. That doesn't stop me from befriending a gay person in any way. Actually, my high school best friend is gay. (We grew apart due to distance, not due his preferences.)  He unequivocally knew how I felt about his lifestyle, but he also knew I was his friend and loved him like a brother.

Despite what liberals tell you, it is more than possible to love a person while disliking his actions. Jesus modeled this exact principle in the Gospel of John:

³ Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, ⁴ they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. ⁵ Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned.  But what do You say?”  ⁶ This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
 
⁷ So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ⁸ And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. ⁹ Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. ¹⁰ When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours?  Has no one condemned you?”

¹¹ She said, “No one, Lord.”

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - John 8:3-11

Jesus modeled precisely the OPPOSITE of this attitude of "if you disagree with a deed, you hate the person."  In fact, he demonstrated the principle of "hate the sin, love the sinner." Jesus explained the truth of this matter: You can love a person without loving their actions. You can love a person while disliking/disagreeing with their actions.


So why do liberals bring up this ridiculous accusation? Simple. They want you to be subconsciously forced to agree in action with their mentalities. So many people's decision to believe that "homosexuality is genetic" is based on this rampant claims of "hate!" despite the complete lack of any reliable scientific evidence.**

Add in the claim that being opposed to gay marriage is identical to being opposed to interracial marriage (and therefore being opposed to gay marriage is exactly the same as racism) and too many Americans have buckled, including far too many Christians, because they don't want to be considered "hateful."

As with most other Liberal Rhetorical claims, this one is about shutting down debate.  Yet the truth is it is clearly possible and reasonable to dislike a person's actions and still love the person.


* To be more specific, I am opposed to applying the label of "marriage" to homosexual unions. I respect the Constitution -- specifically the 14th Amendment's requirement of Equal Protection under the law -- so I also say that government should in no way hinder the creation of a similar union amongst homosexual unions with the same legal rights while noting that it isn't an identical union as marriage. To me it is no different than saying that my driver's license to drive a standard car is not the same thing as my friend's motorcycle license.

** Although the Drive-By Media takes any so called "study" (barely tested hypotheses, mostly), the vast majority of the respected Biology community has not even touched this issue, so drawing this conclusion is sophistry.  Furthermore, to claim that any genetic condition is therefore how God intended the person to be is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete lack of sin nature theology. Simply stated, when sin entered the world when Adam and Eve fell, so many issues began to enter human DNA. This includes but is not limited to genetic conditions like diabetes, auto-immune diseases, digestive disorders like Ulcerative Colitis and Crohn's Diseas; not to mention genetically inherited addictions like so-called "Crack Babies."

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Ganging Up On Opponents

Pop quiz for my conservative friends: Have you ever gotten into a debate, probably online, with a liberal friend? Has it ever been a one on one debate? Yeah, me neither.

Liberals use a similar convincing tactic that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses.  They gang up on an opponent, primarily using Appeal to Ridicule, but also just as often they use Argument from Verbosity or Elephant Hurling (throwing up dozens of arguments so that the opponent cannot get a solid foothold on the debate). 

Ultimately the goal of this tactic is, as most liberal rhetorical tools, to shut up your opponent. I dealt with this for years growing up, starting with 8th Grade Honors Social Studies. I was the sole conservative in the class, or at least the sole vocal conservative in class filled with good-intentioned, cockeyed liberals. Occasionally we'd end up in debates on modern culture, politics, etc. The teacher (who I will call Mrs. Z.) , in an effort to give all students a chance to talk, would attempt to let all have the chance to talk about their opinion. Unfortunately for me, that meant responding to about ten points when my turn came around. Thankfully, Mrs. Z gave me time to respond, but I still had to deal with ten issues. 

This continued for many years in school with the same cast of characters. The only exception was in AP History in 11th Grade where the teacher, Mrs. T, gave me and my conservative compatriots (I guess I convinced a few people along the way) equal response time. 

Then came Facebook and the Facebook Debate. Now I was entering in debates with multiple parties and finding myself ganged up on. One friend, who we'll call John, was fond posting statements and articles just to bait a debate...and John's liberal friends would join in on the attempted gang attack. This leads to one of two options.

Option One: Attack from two points. Reminiscent of Robert E. Lee at the Battle of Chancellorsville, the two liberals will give different attacks at the same time, causing their opponent to have to divide their attention (and search for sources). 

Option Two: The "Me Too" tactic. In this case, a less informed liberal will attach himself to the other, more informed liberal's argument and try to throw in a few other details in support or simply ridicule the conservative.

Ultimately, the answer to this tactic is threefold. One, take your time. Don't fight their fight. Respond as you can as thoroughly as you can. Two, call them out on this tactic and demand they give you the chance to respond. Three, bring in some help. Don't try to engage in a five on one debate. Bring in a friend or two to back you up. Even the odds, at least somewhat. 

In the end, liberal rhetoric isn't based on facts, so they have to use other tactics to win a debate.  Ganging up is a favorite. But, like all aspects of liberal rhetoric, we can defeat them with sound reasoning.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Verbosity

Debating with liberals, as we've discussed in our Liberal Rhetoric 101 Series, is fraught with tricks to hide the fact that the average liberal has few actual arguments to back up their arguments.  One of the biggest tactics is verbosity...simply shouting down your opponent.

It's happened many times in my own debate life. I remember one time when I was in high school I attempted to explain the conservative opposition to abortion to a girl I worked with at my part-time job.  We'll call her "Stella." I tried to explain to Stella that my concern that it may be a human life, and that human life was sacred, and that it wasn't ok to just destroy a human being for personal convenience. Her response? She shouted at me "Keep your laws off my body!" That was her ENTIRE ARGUMENT. Stella completely ignored the fact, central to my entire point, that the baby's body ISN'T her body.

Actually, I tried to explain that point. Stella simply repeated that it was her body and I had no right to say what she could do with it. She had no intention of engaging in a discussion of whether or not what she was saying held one ounce of water, which is particularly important since my argument centered entirely upon the idea that the unborn child, while residing IN her body was not in fact PART of her body, and she was in fact destroying SOMEONE ELSE'S body.  She had no intention or desire of discussing this topic with any level of logic, facts, or even hearing my opinions. She just wanted to shout me down.

(This person also felt she was a crusader for free speech, but had no problem with pulling my "Friends Don't Let Friends Vote Democrat" bumper sticker off my car. I bring this up because I want you to understand the level of logic...so none...she was working with when debating me.)

I tried very hard to explain that I had a deeper concern than her tropes about "a woman's body," specifically ensuring that no human being is destroyed indiscriminately.  I tried to explain my firm belief that it was not acceptable to destroy an innocent human being. Her response? "You're not a woman, so you don't have a say in this issue." Except it was more like "HOW DARE YOU! YOU'RE A MAN! YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND HOW A WOMAN WOULD FEEL SO SHUT UP!"

Right. In an issue pertaining to human life, only women get a say.  If I have a child and my wife wants to smother the baby with a pillow, I have no say, because I'm not a woman...because reasons. This is the logical equivalent if one is assuming that an unborn child is human. That's my concern. That is my reason. Stella, however, had nothing to argue with except for yelling catchphrases.

Unfortunately, the only way to combat verbosity is to simply refuse to debate if they don't stop shouting...deal with the first point they make without letting them change the point of the debate.

Liberal Rhetoric 101 in Review

Back in January, I started a series here at Biblical Conservatism on Liberal Rhetorical Tactics called liberal Rhetoric 101. Today, I want to briefly review what we've learned so far:

In our first topic, we discussed The Fallacy of the Single Cause, specifically discussing how liberals like to attribute the economic boom solely to President Clinton's 1993 tax incraese.

In Appeal to Ridicule, we talked about the liberal practice of insulting their opponent and making them feel stupid for daring to disagree with liberalism.  As if my examples within the article weren't sufficient, two liberals actually felt the need to prove my point for me!

In Political Correctness we talked about the liberal practice of controlling how people talk and think by saying certain words/ideas are off-limits because they're "offensive."

In False Equivalency, we discussed how liberals incorrectly compare something a liberal politician wants to implement to something that a historic conservative did that was successful.

In False Cries of Racism we talked about how liberals just cry "racist!" to stop debate.

In Memes we talked about liberal repetition of catch phrases that have no basis in truth so people begin to believe they are reality.

Finally, we discussed Compassionate Intentions (No results required), the liberal practice of focusing only on the intentions of a program and not the results of it.

We will continue our series Liberal Rhetoric 101 later this week. Thanks for reading!

Liberal Rhetoric 101: False Cries of Racism

Of all the liberal rhetorical tactics we've discussed, this one possibly is the most upsetting to me. We've all heard it: "You just don't like Obama because he's black!"

My response, as many of you have heard is this: "You're right! I don't like Obama because he's black.

And I didn't like John Kerry because he was black...wait, no...

And I didn't like Al Gore because he was black...wait...

Oh and I didn't like Bill Clinton and that was definitely because he was black...

Jimmy Carter? Sure didn't like him. Must've been because he was black...

Then there was Lyndon Johnson. Didn't like him because he was black right?"

Actually, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson all are/were white men. They were also liberals, just like Barack Obama. And that's the real reason I don't like Obama. I don't like liberals (in government).

Yet recently a coworker claimed (with 100% seriousness, by the way) that Michelle Obama "would be the next Jackie Kennedy if she wasn't black."

Right. Michelle Obama is missing out on something because she's black. Of course.

It can't be that Michelle Obama doesn't have the class and mild mannered grace of Jackie Kennedy, right? It can't be that Jackie Kennedy never tried to force parents to feed their children what she says is best for them? Or maybe because Jackie Kennedy didn't look down on everybody and expect us to generally let her run our lives?

Nope, it can only be because she's black. We cannot possibly have another reason for disliking Barack or Michelle Obama but the color of their skin.

As always, this tactic of Liberal Rhetoric is all about shutting down disagreement. Liberal arguments and talking points often have zero basis in fact. There is no history to back up Obama's Keynesian Economic policies or to suggest they would finally work this time. There's no history to suggest raising taxes won't stagnate the economy.  But liberals can't argue THAT point. They have to shut down the debate. So they call us racists.

When they do, just scroll up and ask them about John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson. All black men who we didn't like. Wait. Sorry. LIBERALS we didn't like (regardless of skin color). Because that's our real problem with the Obamas. They are liberals.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: False Equivalency

Recently on Biblical Conservatism, we talked about the liberal tactic of using Political Correctness to stop all arguments.  As always, when challenged, liberals try another tactic they love: False Equivalency.

It came up in the discussion after last week's post Liberal Rhetoric 101: Political Correctness. A conservative raises a legitimate complaint of something a liberal does or says. The liberal attempts to compare the mountain they made out of a molehill to a legitimate offensive taken by a conservative.

I have few things that truly offend me. One thing I do ask that people do when around me is refrain from taking the name Jesus Christ in vain. It's a matter of my faith. In turn, I always try to give the same respect to those of other faiths. Yet I've had this compared to saying the phrase "Merry Christmas" more times than I can enumerate (by people who, by the way, have no actual connection to a mentally disabled person).

It's a false equivalency in it's finest form. "All offenses are equal." If I'm somehow bothered by the word Christmas, it's just as bad as me using the name of God to curse.

Here's another fine example:

During World War II and the 1980s, the booming economy largely resulted from military spending aka government spending, ergo, it's the same thing as Obama's Stimulus.

Except for, you know, reality. For one, military spending is something the government is SUPPOSED to do. One of the primary purposes of government is providing for a common defense. Secondly, and this cannot be overlooked: military spending by government is purely done as a consumer.  Liberals like to prop up companies through "investing" aka spending money on future potentials. Military spending is buying existing products where private companies compete by creating the best product FIRST then attempting to win government contracts.

It's the difference between investment and consumption. When I bought a new car last year, I did not "invest" in Chevrolet. I bought a Cruze. I didn't buy it to help Chevy. I did it because it was the best car for my budget sold by the dealership I trusted. Also known as CONSUMPTION.

A third false equivalency perpetuated by the Left is calling the Occupy Wall Street movement "the liberal Tea Party."

Only a few problems with this: One, the Tea Party demanded that government leave them alone and become fiscally sound. The Occupiers wanted to be taken care of at the expense of somebody else. Two, the Tea Party always had permits. The Occupiers were illegally protesting without a permit. Three, there have been no reports of violence at Tea Party rallies. The Occupy movement was filled with reports of rape, assault, etc. Four, the Tea Party always cleaned up after itself. The Occupiers left a mess. Five, show me the Occupy candidates and how they were swept to power? Six, the Tea Party, despite baloney stories about the Koch brothers, was truly organic. The Occupiers were funded by George Soros.

I can go on and on with these false equivalencies. Bottom line, the Left doesn't live in reality, but tries to convince us they do by using these false equivalencies. Fortunately for the thinking conservative, it doesn't take much mining to uncover the truth in these claims.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Political Correctness

"If it bothers people, why do you have to say..."

(Insert Quasi-Offensive word here. Retarded. Christmas. Whatever. Pick One.)


I've been asked this when I use the word "retarded." For the record, I use it to mean "stupid," because I believe the word retarded stopped meaning a person with a mental disability YEARS AGO, and we only remember that it used to mean a person with a mental disability because the PC Police yell at us for saying it.

I've said for years that nobody gets upset at the use of the words "mad," "crazy," and "idiot." The first two used to mean a person who was legitimately mentally insane, the third used to mean a person with a mental disability.

So I've openly fought to let this particular quasi-offensive term evolve into yet another synonym for "stupid." (Notice I said "quasi-offensive." That's because I know there are things that are LEGITIMATELY offensive. Like when people use the name of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as a curse word, or when people use legitimate racial slurs.)

Yet one question I keep getting asked "If it bothers people, why do you have to say it?"

Here's why: I'm not willing to yield to political correctness and let the Left say "You've offended me! You must stop talking now!"  Which, by the way, is a tool the Left uses CONSTANTLY. They shut down debate using this methodology.

I was once scolded by a co-worker for referring to MYSELF as a "Guinea." For the record, and this cannot be ignored: I AM OF ITALIAN DECENT! Italians, at least in my part of New York State, use this term for each other ALL THE TIME! We've also been known to call ourselves Wops. No Italian cares, as long as it's a fellow Italian using the term. (PS - The person who was offended is not of Italian decent.) 

It's become a shut down statement. "You don't get to keep arguing. You've offended me." Translation, "I get to disregard your facts because they aren't PC."

Most of the time, if these people are genuinely offended it's because they've been TOLD to be offended. Liberals actually TEACH other liberals to be offended at things that, on their surface, aren't offensive. (Usually it's Activist Liberals teaching Neighborhood Liberals.)

Kind, well-intentioned Neighborhood Liberals buy into this out of a genuine desire to be nice and not hurt people. Activist Liberals use this to stop debate and discussion, with their unknowing Neighborhood counterparts backing them up because "it's mean to say retarded!" and "You offend people who don't celebrate Christmas so just say Happy Holidays!"

My friends, even though the intentions of our Neighborhood Liberal pals are genuinely trying to be kind, the Activist Liberals are using these good intentions to shut up debate. In the end, we must not let ourselves to taken out by red herrings and blocking tactics.

Liberal Rhetoric in Action: Appeal to Ridicule

Earlier this week, I wrote an article in Biblical Conservatism's series Liberal Rhetoric 101.  Specifically, I spoke about how liberals use ridicule rather than facts to shut down debates. As I wrote in the article:

You'd think if liberals were as intellectual as they'd have us believe, they would consider this tactic and perhaps stop their ridicule. Granted, some liberals may have read this post and actually adjusted their rhetorical habits. This I do not know. Two, however, I know did not. In fact, these two individuals actually PROVED MY POINT better than I ever could!

Names and images have been removed from these tweets/FB updates, save for my own Twitter handle, which is @UpstateMetFan. (All Tweets were screen-shots taken from Tweetdeck.)

By my count, this individual directly insulted me five times, ridiculed me six times for daring to even question Darwinian Evolution (even though this wasn't even the topic of the post but was simply an example of where liberals use Appeal to Ridicule), and rebuked me for daring to question the exulted scientific community five times. Also, and this will appear in a future installment of Liberal Rhetoric 101, there were four instances of the Fallacy of Consensus (essentially stating "everybody believes X so you should believe it too.")

Was this person the only one who chose to ridicule rather than debate? Why not it wasn't! We have another example, this time from my personal Facebook page (and not the Biblical Conservatism Page, which you should go like by the way because there's lots of fun information and other goodies available).




You might be tempted to think this was a clear setup. You might think this must be a joke, since this person used PRECISELY my words "LOL that's dumb because...(reasons)."  I assure you it isn't, because I know this individual personally...have for nearly twenty years. He'll probably even read this post. (Sorry man, you can't sent me up like this and expect no response.)

Once again, there is a lack of actual evidence or argumentation. Rather, there is a clear and obvious demonstration of the very principle I have mentioned. The argument begins with announcing how dumb I am, and then proceeds to give no actual argument except for "scientists agree so don't argue with the mighty men in lab coats" and "that point you referenced isn't real because reasons."

Honestly, it seems like many liberals still believe they are using a logical and legitimate form of argumentation. Thankfully, these two individuals have taken it upon themselves to prove my point in a far better way than I ever could on my own. Perhaps I should that them.

Liberal Rhetoric 101: Fallacy of the Single Cause

One of the things Biblical Conservatism has focused on as a running theme is liberal rhetoric and talking points. Today, we're going to begin a series talking about the actual rhetorical tactics used by liberals to formulate their arguments.

Our first issue is the Fallacy of the Single Cause. Specifically, a Single Cause fallacy is one where the argument is that "We did X (small thing) and thus Y (huge, overreaching thing) occurred!"

Let me give you some examples. A classic one is the Clinton Argument. We're seeing this argument brought up frequently now. The claim is that "Clinton raised taxes, and we had a booming economy and a budget surplus."  The use of this fallacy is simple: We are to assume BECAUSE taxes went up the booming economy and budget surplus happened. Economic history proves otherwise. There were a host of other issues, including the end of the Cold War, the internet boom, cuts in spending forced on Clinton by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress, and tax cuts that happened later (also forced on Clinton by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress) that deserve the credit long before an increase in taxes deserves it. (Especially because actual tax revenue went down after Clinton raised taxes.) 

Yet we are pitched the lie that "taxes went up, so did revenue, which lead to a balanced budget and a booming economy."

Another example of this fallacy is one that a friend likes to present: "There are more people who live below the poverty line in red states than blue states, therefore conservative government doesn't lead to prosperity as conservatives claim."

So much is wrong with this argument. First and foremost, the poverty line is a poor statistic. It's based on a national average median income of $50,054 per year for a family of four (we'll round that to $50,000 per year for simplicity's sake). The poverty line for the same family of four is $23,021 per year (again for simplicity's sake we'll call that $23,000).

There are so very many questions that aren't asked or even considered in this false claim. For one, the poverty line and median income are not adjusted for Cost of Living. Blue states, as a whole, have much higher cost of living than red states. Of the top ten most expensive states to live in, nine are blue states. The tenth is Alaska (which is a very unique state in terms of cost of living, as is Hawaii). All ten of the top ten least expensive states to live in are red states.

A family of four making $22,000 per year in a state like Tennessee has the same buying power as a family of four living on nearly $38,000 per year in Rochester, NY (where I live.) A family of four can certainly live on that income. That family is not below the poverty line in blue New York. Let's call the family in Tennessee the Fletchers and the family in New York the Flynns. The Flynns and the Fletchers can buy the exact same things with their respective incomes. Yet the red-state dwelling Fletchers are considered "below the poverty line." The blue-state dwelling Flynns are considered "above the poverty line."


This is just one factor that points out the false logic in this argument. There are many others. Liberals don't point it out. They simply repeat their argument. Ditto for the Clinton Argument.

As always, the solution is simple. We must break down these factors and force the liberal with whom you are debating to present a Prima Facie case (that is, present that their claim is true at first blush). Until they do that, it's nothing more than a false debate.

Biblical Conservatism Week in Review (Week of 12/10/12)

Monday, December 10, 2012 - Clinton Era Taxes? How About Clinton Era

The Democrat Party and President Obama keep pushing for Clinton Era taxes on the top 2% of tax earners as part of a Fiscal Cliff deal. They keep pretending this will help with our problem, as if our problem was insufficient revenue not surplus spending.

Let's set that aside for a moment. I have a different question: If they want Clinton era taxes, how about Clinton-era spending? Think about it, friends. How about we demand Clinton era spending if Obama wants Clinton era taxes.

For the record, Clinton era spending was forced by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Welfare reform, cuts to corporate taxes, etc, all was forced upon Clinton by Newt and the Republicans. That's what I've said for years was the real reason for the Clinton-Era boom, not, as has been falsely credited, the tax increases. (That is, and always has been, a Democrat red herring).

What would Clinton-Era spending look like, adjusted for inflation? In 2000, Clinton's final budget, spending was set at $1.8 Trillion. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $2.417 Trillion.  In 2012, the incoming revenues were $2.469 Trillion. That would mean a $52 Trillion SURPLUS, and that is without raising taxes!

Of course, doing this means admitting the real problem, and Democrats are not at all willing to do this...it's all about raising taxes because...ummm...reasons? Oh, right. It's because they know this is indefensible. Their focus isn't on real problem solving. It's on expanding liberalism. And that's the truth the Left doesn't want you to hear.


Thursday, December 13, 2012 - Barack Obama and the Kindergarten Compromise

Compromise. It's a word we've all known since early childhood. When two people have a disagreement, it's important to compromise, find a middle ground, one where both parties get SOME of what they want.

It's the word we keep hearing repeated in the Fiscal Cliff discussions. The Left and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media keep demanding the Republican party compromise and let Barack Obama raise taxes (even though it won't help an ounce in solving the problem).

It sure sounds like the GOP is the unreasonable one, right? They just won't compromise!

Except there's one problem: The GOP is trying to solve the problem. The REAL problem. Our massive deficits. President Obama clearly isn't interested in solving this problem, because he hasn't put forward any real solutions. Just "raise taxes on the rich" in amounts that will pay for the government to run for a whopping eight days. (We borrow 35% of our budget annually, which means we have to borrow money to cover just over 127 days a year. Obama has no plan to cover the other 119 days of borrowing.)  President Obama apparently is only interested in raising taxes to punish the wealthy. There is no other explanation.

This, of course, goes unreported in the Drive-By Media. They present it simply as two sides with reasonable deficit solving solutions that just need to meet in the middle to pass a compromise. It's a kindergarten mentality.  Too many Neighborhood Liberals and Moderates buy into this presentation of the story. Two sides, equally valid options, one refuses to budge.

They present the problem this way:

• The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
• The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone.
• The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners.
• A reasonable compromise is raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates for everyone else.

What's REALLY happening is a completely different problem. We have a spending problem. The nation is spends 35% more than we have in the bank each year.

The Drive-By Media is presenting this as if it were a kindergarten class compromise. Let's pretend there are two boys in a class. One is named Buford. The other is named Baljeet.  Here's how the Drive- By

So here's the problem and solution in brief form, as the Drive-By Media is currently presenting it:

• Baljeet is playing with a toy firetruck during the class' 30 minutes of recess. 
• Buford would also like to play with the toy firetruck.
• The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein each boy gets to play with the toy firetruck for 15 minutes of recess.

Except, that's not the REAL problem at hand. Here's what the problem REALLY looks like:

• Baljeet has lunch money.
• Buford wants all Baljeet's lunch money. 
• Baljeet does not want to give Buford any of his lunch money.
• The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein Baljeet gives half his lunch money to Buford.

Does anyone thing Baljeet would be wrong to refuse this compromise? Of course not! The compromise ignores the real problem!  The real problem is a bully is demanding something that isn't his from another child. Buford isn't entitled to Baljeet's money. Giving him what he demands doesn't solve the real problem, which is that Buford is a bully.

The fact is 100% of the lunch money is Baljeet's and none if it belongs to Buford. Buford has no right to take it. (Read into that what you wish.) The teacher isn't solving the problem. One side in this problem is very wrong, and his name is Buford. One side is very right, and his name is Baljeet,. Baljeet shouldn't be asked to enter into such a foolish compromise. The teacher should be fired for suggesting it.

That is precisely what's happening in our Fiscal Cliff debate. Here is the problem and solution in brief form:

• The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
• The nation has to borrow money to run the government for 127 days. That equals borrowing $1.3 trillion each year.
  
• The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners, which will raise a mere $85 billion each year. (This covers only 8 days of deficit spending.)
• The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone, because our problem isn't lack of revenue, but too much spending, and instead wants to cut spending.
• The Drive-By Media is saying "Just let the Democrats raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates on the other 98% of wage earners" as a fair compromise.

This supposed compromise ignores the real problem: Excessive spending.  A false premise is being presented as a red herring. The important detail of the real problem is being left out. The fact is the Democrats want to raise taxes because...ummm...uhhh...I don't know, reasons? Other than punishing the rich, there is no explainable reason. 

So what we have is a kindergarten view of compromise: Just have both sides give some. Forget what the two sides want. That doesn't matter. Just compromise. Even if one side's desires are beyond reason.
 

Dissecting Obama's Talking Points: Taxes (Part 2)

As offensive as this statement is to my sense of logic, the second part of Obama's talking point bothers me even more...the President's insistence that the wealthy "give up their tax cuts" makes me want to smack somebody. The attitude inherent to this is that the government is "giving" individuals money by "giving them a tax cut." Actually, friends, would you like to know how much of your paycheck is your money? Let's do an exercise:

Let's take a person in the top tax bracket, which is currently 35% (note that under Clinton, that tax rate was 40%) , who earns $1,000,000 income each year, Mr. John Q. Taxpayer.

According to President Obama, of that $1,000,000, that person owns $600,000 of it, the government owns $400,000 of it, and the government benevolently gives that person an additional $50,000 of it via a "tax cut."

Let me ask you a question: How much of that money ACTUALLY belongs to that person? (Hint: the answer is not $650,000 of it. It's also not $600,000 of it.)

Second part of the question: How much of that money ACTUALLY belongs to the government? (Hint: The answer is not $350,000. It's also not $400,000.) Are you ready to know the answer?

$1,000,000 of that money belongs to Mr. John Q. Taxpayer. Every penny of it belongs to Mr. Taxpayer. Now, does the government have the authority to take some of that money via taxes? Under our Constitution it does have that authority, and Mr. Taxpayer is required to pay that money as a citizen of the United States. But it's still the taxpayer's money. The government has the authority to tax, but it doesn't make it the government's money.

President Obama, however, believes not only that whatever portion of your money the government taxes belongs to the government, he acts like he believes ALL your money is the government's money. His entire attitude is backwards. That's why he thinks "tax cuts" (that are really set tax rates that have been in place eleven years, as we discussed Friday) "cost the government money." He sees letting people keep their own money as an expense for the government.

The only way confiscating less of a person's money costs the government money is if that money belonged to the government in the first place. That's like me telling Kellogg Corporation claiming me choosing to not buy Eggo Waffles costs them money. If the money doesn't belong to you in the first place, not getting that money from the person who it does belong to does not equate a loss for you.

Bottom line, and I cannot hammer this home enough: tax dollars are not the government's money. The government is granted stewardship over that money. This is not the same thing as the government owning that money. But as a liberal, Mr. Obama simply either does not or chooses to not understand this fact.