Democrat Strawmen


America’s left, and its political wing the Democrat Party, have long felt the need to use strawmen to “argue” with debate opponents. One understands this, as their “thinking” is sometimes so ill-formed and unsupported by either logic or observation, that the deflections are vital tools in their debating “toolbox.”

Hillary did it, as she has done from long habit, in the Democrat “debate” of several days ago.

When asked something about “radical Islam” — two words that never shall escape the lips of the American left — she replied with all the bellowing sternness that is her trademark, “We are not at war against Islam,” she brayed, “and we are not at war against all muslims!”

Well!

The problem: Thing One — war against Islam– is something no one has ever suggested, or even implied. And Thing Two — war against all muslims — is something else no one has ever suggested or implied.

In other words, she didn’t want to answer the question so she dodged it with the typical Democrat tactic of trotting out a strawman. Of course she got away with it.

Why do they lie, evade, dissemble, distort, change the subject? Easy! Because they can.

No matter what tommyrot escapes the lips of prominent Democrat Party politicians, their worshipful lapdogs in the media simply look adoringly at them as if they had just said something transcendently wise and insightful.

Yet, let’s look at the question for a moment. The question — I don’t know the exact wording — was something on the order of “What are you going to do about radical Islam, and its ties to terrorism?” You know, standard-issue national security question.

Well, what about that? Everyone knows there is something called “radical Islam” out there. There are goons — apparently hundreds of thousands of them — who are willing to blow themselves and others up all in the name of “Islam.”

Are there, have there ever been, such things in Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism (yes: in a limited sense. Google “thuggee(1))? Shintoism? (Yes: Google “kamikaze.” Though, that was on a much more limited scale and context), Buddhism? Taoism?

How about these things:
• Al Qaeda
• Al Nusra
• Boko Haram
• Hamas
• ISIS
• The Muslim Brotherhood
• so many more…

Those are entire organized groups whose sole mission is to go out there and kill people who don’t believe as they do. Many of them are willing to strap bombs to their bodies, and to blow themselves up in support of their murderous mission.

Surely we can find such groups — with thousands of active members — in Christianity, and Judaism, and Hinduism, Taoism… (2), and Buddhism…

Oh. Oops. Nope. Nothing like that to be found. Just in Islam, where there are just lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of these goons.

The west does have such a death cult, it must be admitted. These are people who are unwilling to die for their religion, but are certainly willing to engage in wholesale slaughter for it — to the tune of 120 million or more in the last century alone!

That religion is, of course, socialism. There’s an important reason why socialism requires “atheism” on the part of its followers: It’s the only way to allow secular deity-figures — Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot — to order people to murder on their behalf. You can’t order Christians to set up gulags, or concentration camps, or gas chambers for crowds of people. They won’t do it. Try to order Jews, or Buddhists to set up vast institutions of slaughter and slavery. Good luck with that.

But you can order atheists, socialists — and muslims — to do so, and they just go out and do it.

The American left does the strawman thing with all issues.
• Disagree with welfare? You’re a racist, or you hate women and children.
• Are you pro-life? Well, you must hate women and want to enslave them.
• Think taxes are too high? Well, you just hate poor people and want them to starve. Or, you’re greedy and just want more for yourself.
• Think the idea of “gay marriage” is ridiculous?(3) You must hate gay people, you bigot!

We on the right have failed to come to grips with the left’s constant use of irrelevancies and strawmen. It’s important to note that all those strawmen accusations are irrelevant. Yes, I’m against how welfare is done today, and the extent to which it pervades society and generates ever greater welfare dependence. When I say that, and I hear, “You’re a racist!” in return, at least one correct response ought to be:

“So what! Even if I were, that doesn’t change the rightness of what I’m saying, and the wrongness of welfare. Even if I were the worst racist in the world, that wouldn’t change one iota whether my argument is correct. Now that you’ve had your fun calling me stupid names, go ahead and produce something that you think invalidates what I’ve said.”

We on the right should say some variation of that, as well as several others that I’ve catalogued in these pages, every time some nitwit on the left trots out one of their strawmen.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) – A mostly muslim death cult in the sub-continent of India-Pakistan. They were much more willing to make other people die than themselves, though. They did not have a suicide component.

(2) – See Note #1.

(3) – It is. Laughably so, even.

Advertisements

20 thoughts on “Democrat Strawmen

  1. You can’t order Christians to set up gulags, or concentration camps, or gas chambers for crowds of people.

    I am not quite sure if you write such things as a ”wind- up” or you are purposely lying or you truly are this ignorant.
    Whatever, I firmly believe you need to read some proper history books.

    1. Well, let’s see, JV — you can never know whether anyone is lying or not, so I advise you to stop any pointless speculation about it, and do as I do: I assume that a commenter says what he believes and believes what he says. Until that is, he gives me some indication that he doesn’t.

      Also, precisely why someone posts something is irrelevant. Is it really that difficult simply to address something without dipping into the perfectly irrelevant?

      My posts, and the viewpoints expressed therein, have all been consistent, so you have no indication that I might be lying. Next, I’ve done nothing more than disagree with you, and you then characterize me as “ignorant,” and “indoctrinated” and who knows what all else. I don’t care if you insult what I write, but insulting the writer is really stupid. I advise against it.

      Read this well, Ark — it’s an important lesson for life: It’s entirely possible for people to disagree with you in perfectly good faith, and from well-informed, educated viewpoints as well.

      Best,

      — x

      1. So therefore I shall take your word for it you are not lying. Fair enough.

        Read this well X-P Then you are simply blatantly and possible willfully ignorant.
        As I recommended – go and study some proper accounts of history. It will be good for you. A little humility and all that, yes?

        1. Okay, now that you recognize that one of your major premises — that I’m lying — was wrong, you should question which of your other premises are based on such substanceless foundations.

          Here’s one, right in this very post to which I’m replying: If I’m ignorant, you would have no way of knowing why. It would be perfectly impossible for you to know whether it’s willful or not.

          The assertion that I’m “ignorant” is, of course, debatable, but the assertion that I’m willfully ignorant is unknowable by anyone but me.

          Therefore, it’s a worthless assertion. I advise against making it at all in the first place.

          Best,

          — x

          1. I don’t need to question it, merely reevaluate it. And the conclusion based n the evidence is you are ignorant, as , in truth I have suspected all along. It’s not your fault. It’s because of indoctrination. But take heart, X-P; ignorance is curable – but please be aware – stupidity might not be, so if you recognize your ignorance there is hope.
            I’d offer a prayer, but well, you know, that’s just stupid.

            Best

          2. Lol! You do seem to like to unburden yourself of your dyspepsia, don’t you!

            I should simply leave this comment here, unremarked on, as a clinic on how to write a post designed to embarrass oneself.

            So I will.

            Best,

            — x

          3. Dyspepsia? Oh, you mean from reading [Deleted: mild profanity]!

            I often write from the belief that people lurk – there are quite a number of religious deconvertees who have claimed they seriously rethought their religious views after lurking on such blogs for a while.

            They felt unable to address the problems they were having with church or family.

            Believe it or not ,one even wrote on my blog and acknowledged it was through reading many of my religious posts and comments that pushed him to investigate and …wait for it … study. You could hardly credit it, could you? But some actual do, you know?
            Not you, obviously. Well, not yet any way.

            Anyhow, he( James 82 he was called) eventually ditched his religious beliefs, so I felt quite humbled and a little proud, when he mentioned this. He even said my “forthright” manner – ( He meant me calling religious [Deleted: profanity, gratuitous insult]) helped as well.

            So through interaction, the writing will reveal an awful lot to those lurkers.

            It is in the way one frames one’s comments, X-P.

            Do you fish, by the way?

          4. You said:

            Dyspepsia? Oh, you mean from reading [Deleted: mild profanity]!

            Response:

            Nope. Likely from being immature, but it’s not my place to speculate on your pooly-controlled temper.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:

            I often write from the belief that people lurk – there are quite a number of religious deconvertees who have claimed they seriously rethought their religious views after lurking on such blogs for a while.

            Response:

            I agree. I sometimes do the same thing. It’s why I don’t mind beating you up one side and down the other in this debate. Over and over and over again. And again. And one more time. 🙂

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:

            They felt unable to address the problems they were having with church or family.

            Response:

            Whatever. Fails Editing reason #13: Personal anecdote, of limited scope and extent. Impossible to know whether the people involved were sincere, or just trying to make you feel better, or simply easily duped chumps.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:

            Believe it or not ,one even wrote on my blog and acknowledged it was through reading many of my religious posts and comments that pushed him to investigate and …wait for it … study. You could hardly credit it, could you? But some actual do, you know?
            Not you, obviously. Well, not yet any way.

            Response:

            Same response as directly above.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:

            Anyhow, he( James 82 he was called) eventually ditched his religious beliefs, so I felt quite humbled and a little proud, when he mentioned this. He even said my “forthright” manner – ( He meant me calling religious [Deleted: profanity, gratuitous insult]) helped as well.

            Response:

            Same response as the previous two. Poor James 82 sounds like kind of a moron. I suspect that [Deleted: gratuitous insult] would find what you say quite persuasive.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:

            It is in the way one frames one’s comments, X-P.

            Response:

            Okay.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:

            Do you fish, by the way?

            Response:

            No.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            Best,

            — x

          5. We cant even say [Deleted: mild profanity]?
            How about Neurological breaking wind? [Editor’s note: Yes, that would be alright. I encourage clever euphemisms. However, get too cute, and you’ll violate Editing Reason #6: Tries too hard to be clever. A pet peeve of mine.]

            Are you actually allowed to edit my comments yet call one of my visitors a moron?

            Is it because he deconverted and you can’t handle this level of honesty or is simply because you are a [Deleted: profanity, gratuitous insults].

            No, I didn’t think you fished.
            Carry on …

          6. You said:

            We cant even say [Deleted: mild profanity]?

            Response:

            Correct: Please try to maintain some decorum. Those are the rules of this blog. We welcome all comments. However, we try to repel profanity and gratuitous insults. We also have a limid tolerance, as you know, for CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE. I need to edit very few people on this blog, and the only ones so far have been complete idiots. You would be well served not to join their ranks. You can control your childish instincts, please do so.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:

            Are you actually allowed to edit my comments yet call one of my visitors a moron?

            Response:

            I admit that I walked close to the line there. However, you will note that I said that your visitor “sounds like a moron.” Where I stepped, possibly, too close to the line was in the next sentence, where I said that “such morons would find what you say quite persuasive.”

            I went back and forth on that one, and finally submitted it because, while it seems to indicate that your visitor is a moron, it says that such morons would find what you say persuasive. In other words: morons of the kind that your visitor would be if, indeed, he was the moron you made him out to be.

            Bottom line: What I said was in-bounds, if just barely. However, in a gesture of good faith, I’ll withdraw the second phrase, and edit it out. I stand by the first phrase: Your visitor sounds like kind of a moron.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:

            Is it because he deconverted and you can’t handle this level of honesty or is simply because you are a [Deleted: profanity, gratuitous insults].

            Response:

            Is what because he deconverted? That he sounds like a moron? No. He sounds like a moron, because he found your grade school-level codswallop persuasive.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            You said:

            No, I didn’t think you fished.

            Response:

            Okay.

            – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

            Best

            — x

          7. My grade school codswallop.
            Lol..
            As opposed to your university grade [Deleted: profanity] … sorry, bovine excrement which no one finds remotely persuasive.

            Besides, I recently rebooted my blog and deleted all the previous post, some of which where highly informative, with lots of historical content about your religion.

  2. @X-P
    I think these two quotes for a fairly recent deconvertee will highlight more eloquently than I could ever phrase about the insidious nature of the religious indoctrination you and a great many others suffer from.
    And remember … KIA was like you. In fact probably worse, he was a minister.

    There but by the grace of the Internet go I also. I’m most thankful this holiday season for my family and life itself, but the information and knowledge available on the Internet that has led to my deconversion from christianity runs a very close second.

    I’m glad I finally woke up from the madness and delusion that is fundamental Christianity.
    -KIA

    So, you are not alone … and all jokes aside, if you want any sort of guide or links to genuine info. let me know.

    1. Lol! @Ark, you’re stretching thin one of my prime directives: presume that what is being said is sincere.

      The post you say was sent to you is in perfect Ark-Speak (Ark-Talk? Ark-Snark?). I mean, really: “madness and delusion?” That’s Ark-Speak.

      You really should grow up and stop this wacky over-the-top hyperbole. You and I both know that if you see a Christian coming down the street anywhere in the world, you know you have nothing to fear. Nothing whatsoever. If you deny this, then you’re laboring under some strong paranoia there. It’s interesting that Zande equates paranoia with religious belief, because one of the principal characteristic of the paranoiac is projection. The paranoiac recognizes his own shortcomings, and believes that everyone else has them too.

      Dislike Christianity all you want, but there is no milder, gentler, more peaceable, amiable or benign doctrine ever formulated in history.

      However, your premise is that it was someone else who sent you that plaintive text, so I’ll run with it, even though it sounds waaaaaaaaaayyyyy too much like you.

      Some observations:

      • The writer, KIA (presumably not “Killed In Action”), apparently has trouble thinking for himself. There hasn’t existed for three or four centuries, a Christian group of any size that one couldn’t just leave without repercussion or ill effect of any kind.
      • This phrase is pure Ark-Speak: “the information and knowledge available on the Internet that has led to my deconversion from christianity” (sic) Really, Ark? Someone else wrote that? Ooooooookay…
      • I worried about saying the following, since I still think it might be you, but I’m presuming that you wouldn’t post fraudulent posts (generous assumption on my part, since you appear to be a leftist!): KIA sounds like a moron. Just as your description of poor, sad James 82 made him seem like a total half-wit.
      • You couldn’t have the slightest possibility of knowing whether KIA is “like me” or not. That nonsense phrase is a key component of your post and is perfectly ridiculous on its face. It tosses the basic premise of your post — to “deconvert” me — easily into the toilet. You certainly do seem fond of posting things that are either patently untrue, or easy to debunk, or perfectly unknowable.
      • There was a funny commercial running here in the States. In it a girl says this: “It was on the Internet, it has (emphasis in the origial) to be true.” The rest of the commercial confirms that the girl is, indeed, an airhead. She sounds like your KIA dude.

      Listen, Ark… I’m trying to go easy on you. It’s entirely possible you had a bad experience with people who called themselves Christians. I can’t know, and I can’t tell, so adhering to one of my other prime directives (I have several) — attack what a person says, not the person…and don’t hold back — is sometimes difficult.

      Ark: The things you post are so far off-the-mark, so out in left field, so wacky, so lacking in understanding of Christian doctrine, and yes, dogma, faith, history and the entire Christian story, that criticizing you is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. However, as mentioned before, not everyone understands that I’m not attacking them when I criticize their posts. They misinterpret the criticism as a personal attack, and then launch their own personal attacks. You’ve hung in there with tenacity and persistence, if not reason and logic. I admire the persistence. The flailing I could do without. 🙂

      The point: there is no “madness and delusion” in Christianity, just in your howling, frenzied, frothing denunciations of imaginary fiends and chimeras that you seem to see in the Christian exhortations to love everyone as oneself, to love one’s neighbor and to love one’s enemies. Okay… so you go ahead and moan and wail away at the evil of unconditional love — two words that well sum up the Christian doctrine — and we’ll all sit back in amusement, wondering when you might stop taking yourself so seriously, grow up, get a life and come home.

      You’ll disagree with this, but I do love you, and I do wish for you and yours the very best, and I do wish for you an eternity of happiness and incomparable, immeasurable joy. I know how you can get there, but if you’re not open to it, then I can’t help you.

      I’ll leave you with this little thought exercise:

      Let’s say that in your country, wherever that is, a group or party calling itself: “Overtly Christian” somehow takes power and occupies the Executive’s office, as well as all chambers of the Legislature. (Trying to keep this as generic as possible.) Now, imagine what you’re feeling. Well, I can tell you: (1) Annoyed, (2) Ticked off, (3) Ready to figure out how to oppose this new régime with (4)social media, (5) blogs, (6) pamphlets, (7) flyers, (8) organizing, rallies, political movement(s), etc.

      Now, imagine you live in Red China (Yes, I still prefer that name. It’s perfect) and the same thing happens. Or, maybe you live in North Korea, or Vietnam, or Cuba… Now how do you react? Well, if you’re not in the streets dancing and shouting your exhilaration to the highest heavens, you’re crazy. 🙂

      The one reaction you don’t have in any country where my hypothetical happens is: fear.

      So, you think about that, and let me know what you come up with. If you respond that you feel fear, then I’ll leave you alone, because there’s something going on deeper in your psyche that makes you do your over-the-top denunciations of non-existent evils, and I’m reluctant to push at it.

      Finally, how do you know I’m not a minister? 😉

      Best,

      — x

      1. The point: there is no “madness and delusion” in Christianity

        Really? [Deleted: profanity]!

        Your entire [Deleted: profanity] is madness;
        madness, genocide, rape, murder, incest, and insanity.

        I mean come, do you know how fit those pigs would have had to be to run that far after JC banished the demon into those poor porkers?

        And what about the Pig Farmer’s livelihood, never mind animal rights abuse.
        Sorry, either those who wrote the gospels had an extremely vivid imagination ( they knew Jack about the local geography) or JC was simply a heartless SOB.

        I would surmise that your reply is typical of the blinkered indoctrinated fundamentalist type approach that is so prevalent in your religious drenched society. Especially in the [Deleted: gratuitous insult].

        Even Pres. George W chatted with his god on a daily basis – didn’t his god guide him?
        Naughty little warmonger that Yahweh is!
        😉
        I wonder what he whispered in dear George’s ear.?

        “Psst. Hey, George, you [Deleted: profanity]. WMDs. Got it? Good, now go and [Deleted: profanity] [Deleted: Racial slur] and ensure our oil supply is safe.”

        But have faith -as I know you do, either begin to look at religion and god belief in a more commonsense point of view, ie ditch it, or you might be looking at a M Muslim Pres in the not too distant future. Oh, the irony!
        Of the mark?
        Okay, let;s test this shall we?

        Are you a Creationist?

        Do you believe in the Flood, Moses, Virgin Birth.
        Oh, and if you are a minister, the gods help your parishioners.

        1. Lol!

          And with an illiterate, incoherent, foot-stomping, vein-popping, profanity- and racial slur-laced hissy-fit, the supposedly “sane” and “rational” Arkenaten surrenders.

          Atheists of the world! That is your champion! And he claims he’s persuading others! Of what? Of the “commonsense viewpoints” he so “rationally” advances. Well, if that’s true, then I guess there is a sucker born every minute.

          Best,

          — x

          1. So, irrespective of your amusement (or lack thereof) of my interpretation of George W chatting with Yahweh will you now please answer the questions posed?

            Let’s see if you are able to give a few straightforward answers.

            Off you go …

          2. @ x-P: “Atheists of the world! That is your champion! And he claims he’s persuading others! Of what? Of the “commonsense viewpoints” he so “rationally” advances. Well, if that’s true, then I guess there is a sucker born every minute.”

            “•The writer, KIA … apparently has trouble thinking for himself.”

            As always, bulls-eye on the analysis.

            I believe by now (based on the interaction I saw you had with said KIA on “zande arke” thread, you know that he actually exists.
            My prayer was that he[K] and others would see these threads (notably: atheist nutballs) and realize the great faith they’ve chosen to place in atheist buffoonery masquerading as ‘logic’, ‘science’, ‘intellect,’… thinking somehow that makes them the possessor of truth, wisdom and all understanding.

            The disdain with which they write about Christians having nothing but “faith” / “blind faith” in God &/ scripture is hilarious only because of the great irony that is totally lost on them – that they too must believe their doctrine (or whatever word is more palatable) by the same if not greater faith.

            How very religious of Arkenaten to celebrate his ‘seeming’ successful conversion of KIA and james82 to atheism.

            I can’t imagine anyone being proud of having Ark as their minister/high priest, for the very reasons you’ve highlighted. And only individuals who are very confused, and without the ability to think for themselves could listen to Ark and zande and conclude, “you know, that makes a lot of much sense.” …but then there’s that reminder of ‘a sucker born every minute.”

            Your comments (here & last 2 threads) have been rife with great wisdom, and my hope is that we lay aside pride – that seeks only to stir up strife – and receive what’s said with an open mind. At the heart of wisdom is the ability to hear.

            Thanks again.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s