|
I'm writing out a lengthy self-inquiry to the nature of my opinions, and that will be posted later. In the meantime, I simply want to know HOW I am supposed to be interpreting these people if not for the brazen stupidity that they are displaying. I'm not calling them frenzied ignoramuses because they aren't aligned with me, I am calling them so because their arguments are based off of UNREALITY. Am I supposed to be taking them seriously despite their lack of intellectual integrity? Even here on the TFP, you will not be taken seriously if you can't make points based on the same reality that we all share.
These people are not rallying because of taxes. They are not rallying because of debt. They are rallying because their representatives have polarized them against their opposition. They are rallying because they lost an election and now any decision that is not ideal is absolutely unacceptable. Regardless of the unrealized reality that these decisions are being made with their best interests in mind, they fight back even after learning that things aren't as bad as they thought.
No, I am not some government apologist. I am as skeptic as they come. I lean pretty close to the Libertarian platform on social rights, but I can't get over the moral obligation I have to look out for people less fortunate than me. I am OK with paying taxes as long as it goes toward making the world I live in a better place.
I don't agree with everything Obama does. He supports the Patriot Act, which is a huge privacy violation in my book. However, I cannot argue against healthcare reform. This may come as a surprise, but I am one of those uninsured. I'm afraid to get sick and I want change. I am happy with the proposed changes. These people are against the reform for FALLACIOUS reasons. I cannot sympathize.
So let's get back to me "marginalizing" the tea baggers. dk seems to think that I am railing on them because they disagree with me. I constantly maintain that it is not because we disagree. A disagreement would be along the lines of: I disagree with the need for war, but you think it is necessary in general. Let me tell you what is NOT a disagreement, but in fact a fallacy: I think the Iraq war was unnecessary, but you think the Iraq war was necessary because it put the clamps on the terrorists. You see, it is a fallacy because Iraq had absolutely no tie to any terrorists or any weapons of mass destruction. We knew this then and we know it now. So, I am not "disagreeing" with the tea baggers, they are basing their opinions off of fallacies. Their fallacies center around Obama's lack of credibility and lies that their representatives have told them about the health care reform.
I am not marginalizing people because we disagree, I am dismissing their INVALID opinions because they do not stand up to the test of evidence and proof.
|