Independent Enough To Achieve Anything
Political Commentary
Liberal Dogma: Explaining how Liberals personalize a political discussion
By Justin P. DePlato
Have you ever found yourself debating an issue, like abortion, or national security with a professed liberal? If so, then this article is a must read for you. Even if you are a professed liberal, you may find some value in understanding how your mind works.
I have found myself in the middle of many debates during my life. I tend to bring the political side out of people. And I must say I have enjoyed every debate or discussion I have ever had with someone. It does not matter whether they are conservative or liberal, educated or not, wealthy or poor, white or black, Christian or non-Christian, the importance of a debate is the discussion of ideas and concepts, not someone’s demographics. Often though, when I entertain a discussion with a professed liberal, the discussion seemingly falls through the cracks into a debate or often times into an argument. I find myself wondering why that occurs? Is it simply because a conservative and a liberal cannot have a calm coherent discussion because of their different views? Or it is because something else is going on? This short article explores why debates between conservatives and liberals tend to disintegrate into arguments. In order to examine how a conversation with a conservative and liberal disintegrates into an argument, I pose a hypothetical discussion as the basis for examination in this article.
Lets take for example, the issue of abortion. The parameters of the issue of abortion are as such, generally speaking, most conservatives would find themselves on the issue of abortion supporting the side of pro-life and conversely most liberals would find themselves supporting the side of pro-choice. The conservative would defend the child’s right to life, while the liberal would defend the woman’s right to choice, ignoring any right to the unborn child. The conservative would likely argue that an unborn child is a human being, and as such, has self-evident inalienable rights, just like any other human being, regardless of being born or not. The liberal would entertain the idea offered by the conservative, but would quickly argue that since the child is unborn, and is just a zygote we can not be sure that the child is in fact a human being and as such, we can not guarantee the child any rights (the liberal would actually use the pro-noun “it”, I just can not steep that low, so I wont).
Here, we begin to see the difference between logical conservative thinking and illogical liberal thinking. The conservative follows a linear thought process and rightfully defines the zygote as an unborn child, however, the liberal, seeing the flaws in their own argument, or lackthereof of fact, relies on fragmenting any definition of the zygote being a child and uses ambiguity as the starting point for their argument. In other words, the conservative relies on a logical definition as a starting point to build an argument, where as, the liberal strips away any logical starting point or definition so they can then define things as the argument progresses. Liberals strip away at the defining of the core issue in the hope the argument progresses in their favor. Now if this sounds confusing, good, because it is. We are dealing with liberal dogma, not something easily defined.
Let me continue to explain, once the conservative begins to paint a logical linear argument about how an unborn child is a human being, (not unlike any of the rest of us who at one time were just a simple zygote, left alone to the natural reproductive progress every time develops into a person), the liberal will begin to accuse the conservative of being intolerant to different ideas or insensitive to female rights. The liberal will introduce the idea of female rights as a way to muddy the water or confuse the actual issue being debated or discussed. In other words, the liberal sensing the rigidity of the conservative’s argument begins to personalize the debate. Liberals probably personalize things, especially in debates, because they realize the only way to attack the conservative, or in many cases just the logical argument being made in front of them, is to make the person making the logical argument feel guilty or insensitive. This my friends is what I call liberal dogma. Liberal dogma is the liberal strategy that when debating don’t attack the facts, don’t present a linear coherent argument, don’t define anything, don’t acknowledge facts, and above all never let reason be your main foundation or starting point in an argument.
Now, given the concept of liberal dogma, how does the debate on abortion always end between a conservative and a liberal? The ending is very predictable. The conservative will argue a logical case that the unborn child is a human being, thus deserving of inalienable rights, (an absolute truth). In doing so, the conservative will argue to kill the unborn child is not different then killing any other living person. This my friends is called murder.
The liberal, however, will muddy the water, cloud the sky and twist the can like it has never been twisted before. Instead of acknowledging the facts the conservative presented, like the one that a zygote, left to the natural course of reproduction, will inevitably become a human being (if not one already), the liberal will twist the logic saying, “We can’t be so sure that a zygote will in fact develop into a human being?” Of course we can be so sure, what else would the zygote end up being, an alien? In addition the liberal will start attacking the conservative saying things like, “ you are a male chauvinist, insensitive to the plight of the female cause, a defender of male privilege and female oppression”. And you as a conservative should respond back saying (after you scratch your head in amazement and confusion) “what does that have to do with the debate about abortion? We are not debating patriarchy, we are debating abortion”
If any of that sounds familiar to you, then I feel your pain. Neither of the claims aforementioned by the liberal is accurate in the debate over abortion. Abortion is about the aborting of an unborn child, that is the literal definition (you can look it up in Webster), then how can a liberal claim the debate is about male privilege or female oppression? My friends, that is liberal dogma and liberals do it so you the conservative, the logical one, the defender of reason, can feel guilty and insensitive, when in fact you are actually debating the issue.
The liberal is not debating the issue instead they are trying to spew their warped way of thinking on the rest of us! They are the intolerable ones, they are the insensitive ones, they are the illogical ones, and above all, they are the inaccurate ones. If a liberal wants to debate male privilege, then have a debate about male privilege. Don’t warp the debate about abortion into something it is not. The point is clear my friends, liberals make no sense, so when debating with them be very weary of the illogical personal attack tactics they will use, and when they do it, call them out on it and fight back! And by the way, if you are a pro-lifer you are not a male chauvinist or against the female plight, but I doubt liberals will ever understand that. Never ever let a liberal take ownership of words against you or make you feel guilty or insensitive, because you are neither. And for the record, no one owns words or language.
In conclusion, my conservative friends, never let the liberal dogma confuse you or dismay you. Remember, every time you enter into a debate with a liberal, liberal dogma applies, so don’t be stupid, instead be mindful, be careful and be ready to fight back. We, conservatives, are fighting the good fight, we are trying to educate people about issues, we are the tolerant ones, after all, if we are willing to debate a liberal, then we must be tolerant.
please email comments to Justin DePlato at info@metroconservative.org
No Bravery
By Justin DePlato
Plato once wrote, “The only end to war is death”. In other words, only the dead have seen the end of war. Such wise words, in ancient times, call attention to the vicious cycle and unending loom of war’s destruction and death; however, the loom of war and its destruction did not end with the decline of the ancients and Plato.
In contemporary times, still more words have been offered by wise men warning us about war; Thomas Jefferson, once wrote, “I Abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind”. Even more recently, Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, “I have seen war, I have been at war, I hate war”. Such strong words about war definitely echo, as we as a nation, deal with the ongoing war in
I think in order to answer the aforementioned questions, it is important to pose an even larger question, who really wants to fight this war, us as a country, our troops, or the Bush administration? Recent polls conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal may provide some important answers to our questions. The poll found 58% of Americans disapprove of the war in
The answer is, we are fighting a war our country does not want, but our President wants.
Considering the above answer we now can answer all the questions posed earlier. For example, our troops are still overseas fighting a war, because the president wishes them too. How many more troops will die, more troops will die until President Bush decides (his opinion) that the war is not worth fighting anymore.
Unfortunately, our army is not commanded by the will of the people, instead it is at the mercy of one man, our President.
Yes, the President should listen to the popular will of the people, but unfortunately when it comes to military affairs, he doesn’t have to. Nothing in the Constitution states that a President must withdraw troops when a majority of Americans are against the war being fought, so we are left hoping our President will make the right decision on our behalf and that takes bravery.
Our men and women fighting over seas exhibit immense bravery and valor. Our men and women at home who dream of the day their loved ones will be home exhibit bravery. Our sons and daughters who miss their fathers or mothers exhibit bravery. The greatest bravery is bestowed to those who have died while fighting this dark war, they are the epitome of bravery and their honor will live on long after their death.
But is our President brave? Is it brave to not admit mistake or defeat? Is it brave to mislead a nation about the reasons for provoking a war? Is it brave to watch our men and women die while not providing a resolution to the conflict? Is it brave to not permit the masses viewing of the caskets as they return to the
Considering the words of Henry Kissinger I wonder if the President is a brave man. Henry Kissinger once wrote, “ Leaders must invoke an alchemy of great vision”. Does President Bush invoke an alchemy of great vision? And if he doesn’t, should he be going around starting wars that a majority of Americans are not in favor of?
Do we see in the eyes of our President bravery, or shame?
The questions above are the questions we all need to answer. But more importantly are ones the President needs long self reflection over.
To conclude I am reminded of two very famous ancient Roman quotes concerning war. Tacitus, a famous Roman Senator and Historian, once said, “A bad peace is even worse than a war”. What if the “bad” peace our nation has established in
It is true that as long as there are standing armies in the world, wars will be fought. I just hope in the future we all have brave leaders who choose not to use them!
please email comments to Justin DePlato at info@metroconservative.org
Click Here to join our organization
No Bravery
By Justin DePlato
Plato once wrote, “The only end to war is death”. In other words, only the dead have seen the end of war. Such wise words, in ancient times, call attention to the vicious cycle and unending loom of war’s destruction and death; however, the loom of war and its destruction did not end with the decline of the ancients and Plato.
In contemporary times, still more words have been offered by wise men warning us about war; Thomas Jefferson, once wrote, “I Abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind”. Even more recently, Franklin Delano Roosevelt once said, “I have seen war, I have been at war, I hate war”. Such strong words about war definitely echo, as we as a nation, deal with the ongoing war in
I think in order to answer the aforementioned questions, it is important to pose an even larger question, who really wants to fight this war, us as a country, our troops, or the Bush administration? Recent polls conducted by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal may provide some important answers to our questions. The poll found 58% of Americans disapprove of the war in
The answer is, we are fighting a war our country does not want, but our President wants.
Considering the above answer we now can answer all the questions posed earlier. For example, our troops are still overseas fighting a war, because the president wishes them too. How many more troops will die, more troops will die until President Bush decides (his opinion) that the war is not worth fighting anymore.
Unfortunately, our army is not commanded by the will of the people, instead it is at the mercy of one man, our President.
Yes, the President should listen to the popular will of the people, but unfortunately when it comes to military affairs, he doesn’t have to. Nothing in the Constitution states that a President must withdraw troops when a majority of Americans are against the war being fought, so we are left hoping our President will make the right decision on our behalf and that takes bravery.
Our men and women fighting over seas exhibit immense bravery and valor. Our men and women at home who dream of the day their loved ones will be home exhibit bravery. Our sons and daughters who miss their fathers or mothers exhibit bravery. The greatest bravery is bestowed to those who have died while fighting this dark war, they are the epitome of bravery and their honor will live on long after their death.
But is our President brave? Is it brave to not admit mistake or defeat? Is it brave to mislead a nation about the reasons for provoking a war? Is it brave to watch our men and women die while not providing a resolution to the conflict? Is it brave to not permit the masses viewing of the caskets as they return to the
Considering the words of Henry Kissinger I wonder if the President is a brave man. Henry Kissinger once wrote, “ Leaders must invoke an alchemy of great vision”. Does President Bush invoke an alchemy of great vision? And if he doesn’t, should he be going around starting wars that a majority of Americans are not in favor of?
Do we see in the eyes of our President bravery, or shame?
The questions above are the questions we all need to answer. But more importantly are ones the President needs long self reflection over.
To conclude I am reminded of two very famous ancient Roman quotes concerning war. Tacitus, a famous Roman Senator and Historian, once said, “A bad peace is even worse than a war”. What if the “bad” peace our nation has established in
It is true that as long as there are standing armies in the world, wars will be fought. I just hope in the future we all have brave leaders who choose not to use them!
please email comments to Justin DePlato at info@metroconservative.org
Click Here to join our organization