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."

iPhone: American Ingenuity that didn't need Government

Like so many other Americans, I own an iPhone. It's a tremendous device. It amazes me to no end that I carry with me in my pocket a little five ounce device that is significantly more powerful and capable than my family's first computer, which we got on Christmas Day of 1993.  (Back then, this computer was a technological marvel with it's 14k Dial-Up Modem, 300 MB of RAM, 2X CD-Rom Drive and Windows 3.1 Operating System.)

Then, (relative) disaster struck on Easter Sunday. I dropped my phone and it landed just right that the protective case didn't stop the large, spiderweb crack I got in my screen. Thankfully, I had purchased insurance on my phone and after paying the deductible and waiting a day for it to ship, I received my replacement phone.

I expected I would spend hours the day I received my replacement re-downloading apps, inputting passwords ad nausea, and resorting my apps into the convenient folders I'd set up, because I'm that OCD.  That's what I expected. It wasn't what I did.

Thanks to one of the many terrific features built in to the iPhone, I was able to backup all my apps and settings before activating my old phone. Once I turned on my new phone I merely restored the backup I had saved and BAM! my new phone began to install all my apps, photos, contacts, ringtones, notes, podcasts, you name it, right back on to my new phone while I worked. My new phone was in my hands at 9 am, and by noon it had re-downloaded everything for me and my phone was restored to it's former glory.

I'm continually amazed at the innovation and quality of American companies. Between my iPhone and my Kindle Fire HD Tablet, I've become a fully integrated modern computer device user. (Those who know me would think this is hilarious since I didn't even own a laptop computer until 2010, didn't have a tablet until I won my Kindle Fire in a contest this past November, and didn't have a smartphone until this January.)

Apple is an American success story.  It began, as we all know, in a garage by Steve Jobs and his partner Steve Wozniak.  It grew to provide personal computers, and later to revolutionize the smartphone and computer tablet markets with the iPhone and iPad.

When the original iPhone launched in 2007, the smartphone market was owned by Blackberry and it's primary competition was the Blackberry Curve 8300. The iPhone, in a sentence, blew the Curve out of the water. It was a level of technological achievement above competition that mobile phones haven't seen since.

Here's what was the most impressive thing about it: Apple Incorporated in general and the iPhone in specific did not require government "investment" or "stimulus." Despite what the Left and our President seem to believe, most major technological innovations in our country come from the private sector without government interference. (The majority of innovations that came from government came from the military, specifically products the military developed for it's own use and were adapted for civilian use -- see cellular phone, computer.)

As Ralph Waldo Emerson famously stated, "If a man can write a better book, preach a better sermon, or make a better mousetrap than his neighbor, though he builds his house in the woods, the world will make a beaten path to his door." With the iPhone, Apple did indeed build a better mousetrap, and the world did indeed beat a path to their door.  All without the help of government.

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.