The way liberals argue about gun control is to refer to the gun, not the person, as the criminal. This gives them emotional license to regulate and ban guns or magazines however they want, because anyone in favor of the gun rights is therefore in favor of the criminal. This tactic of demonizing and disregarding a political argument is designed to effectively shut down all opposition to liberal perspectives on the issues. If you identify, for example, the conservative position with the criminal’s position, you’ll never even consider their argument for fear you’ll be identified with the criminal.
This is similar to the gay marriage argument. Liberals refer to gay marriage as a civil right, therefore by that definition if you are against gay marriage you are against a civil right. This again gives them license to treat you and your arguments as bigoted, subhuman, and not deserving of any kind of respect or consideration. This results–intentionally–in scaring away all who might consider the position against gay marriage, but fear to be identified with an idea that is associated with a heinous social sin.
So how do you successfully debate with someone using this kind of tactic? Conservatives have to define the issue right from the beginning. Guns do not commit crimes, people do. Therefore, the argument for gun rights is not to be associated with the side of the criminal. Likewise, gay marriage is not a civil right, it is a lifestyle choice. Therefore, to be against the gay lifestyle is no more heinous than being against any other lifestyle such as that of a smoker or a vegetarian. Conservatives need to redefine the premise in order to win the argument, otherwise real political debates will cease to exist.
6 thoughts on “How Liberals Argue”
For the same reasons, this is why Liberals love to name call. If somebody is irretrievably stupid, their opinions can be dismissed without consideration. If their opponent is bigoted, they are morally superior and don’t have to justify themselves. And of course this makes weak conservatives cower, for fear of being labeled by people who don’t understand them.
Cool post. It’s interesting to break down the ways people argue—I actually find it quite fascinating.
Here’s a little “push back” from your writings. I would argue that, in American at least, lifestyle choices are synonymous with civil rights. If a law was passed that said I couldn’t be a vegetarian, I would consider that a restriction of my civil rights.
Really interesting way to think about it. I agree.
It’s very interesting how you have broken down how people argue from both sides (liberals and conservatives). Although, I would argue that the ability to marry whom you choose is a path to happiness which, according to the America’s Declaration, is something we are all entitled to. To oppose marriage equality on a religious basis would be to go against the 1st Amendment of our constitution, which states that the government cannot establish laws that pertain to one religion.
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson
Homosexuals have rights. Homosexuality does not.
Guns allow people to kill people en mass. More than knives or fists ever could. That’s a very simple fact.