Posted on 10/22/2009 7:33:50 AM PDT by ajernig
I bought Glenn Beck's latest bestseller, "Arguing with Idiots," for the young adults in my family who work in Manhattan. All during last year's presidential campaign, they'd moan about the "idiots" they worked with who knew nothing about how the government worked; nor could they articulate any reason for voting for Barack Obama other than "He's not Bush" or "It's time we had a black president."
Mr. Beck's book is highly entertaining and informative but, more importantly, it's also well researched. It's the title that bothers me, however, since I believe that just because people are not in agreement with me doesn't mean they're idiots.
(Excerpt) Read more at irishexaminerusa.com ...
Perhaps it would be better named “Arguing with the Foolish, Misguided, or Misinformed”
Sorry, but anyone other than a rabid leftist who voted for Obama is an idiot for doing it. And rabid leftists are idiots for being rabid leftists. Therefore, anyone who voted for Obama is an idiot.
How about, “Arguing with those Bozos”?
Give it time.
People who call us “mashed up bags of meat” are people who have no intent of dealing with rational arguments. They’re people who intend to get rid of us.
Quietly waiting in line for a turn at polite argument may not be wise at this point.
But it’s idiotic to advocate or accede to something you haven’t taken the time to examine in an intelligent way.. Why all the word-smything?
Our dear friends and loved ones can, in fact, be idiots. I have challenged several of my family members on their faith in the government and asked them to give a reason for their hope and faith. So far, not one has given a reason. They have no reason. It’s blind, stupid and unjustified faith.
We must value the truth about all else, even our loved ones, or our loved ones will destroy us all with their ignorance.
The word “idiot” came from ancient Athens. It was a descriptor of a person who was eligible to vote in the democracy, but did not care what went on in government.
The words is precisely what Beck used it for in his title.
Idiots are people who don’t know about government, don’t care about government, and don’t think that government is something that affects them.
Nice syllogism!
Loved ones or not, idiot is as idiot does. The author vives several examples of idiocy among his friends, and somehow still classifies those idiots as "intelligent".
They may be intelligent about something, but not politics. They may be brain surgeons, but if they admired Obama after reading "Dreams of My Father" and if they get their news from the NYT, they are idiots.
Maybe one should call an idiot an idiot to their face, but they are still idiots. Maybe one should say "you're priceless" as code for "what a f'ing idiot".
Agreed.
Yes, this is true. But the vast majority of those who voted for ZerO are idiots.
Beck’s title is tongue-in-cheek and an attention-getter. Coulter had similarly titled books such as “Slander: Liberal Lies...” and “How to Talk to a Liberal, If You Must”.
Personally, I like Beck’s title, because the “Idiots” to whom he refers are people who refuse to to debate the facts.
They are people who seem to either know very little regarding the subject they hold such strong opinions about OR they are people who purposely obfuscate the facts as facts would damage their argument and they know it. Facts are not their friends.
Either way, these people are “Idiots”.
They must be idiots because no matter how carefully real life is explained to them or what they can glean from history (although they probably don’t bother) they still don’t know how “government works” but think they do.
Sorry, but many normal everyday folks that I know personally, voted for Obama because he was black and they wanted to pat themselves on the back and feel good about that. They wanted to have something that they could point to and say “see, I’m not racist”.
If an individual has a thought process like that where it concerns the direction of the nation. Then yes, they are indeed an idiot.
How about this title, you idiot:
“Arguing with idiots for dummies” Too strong for ya?
How about...
“Arguing with dingbats for dingalings” Better? Still no good?
How about...
“Arguing with dumdums for stupid heads”
or
“arguing with boneheads for poopieheads”
How about you just shutup and don’t buy it.
Or we could use Biblical passages and call them fools (wonder if that would make this journalist happier):
A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion....If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet.
When it comes to liberal friends and loved ones, I don’t argue with their ignorance. I continue to be who I am, stand by my principles and show them that I’m human.
As time goes by I see dawn beginning to break in their eyes as they realize that they may have made a horrible mistake. I’ll be here to wish them a good morning. But as a whole group, yup, they’re idiots.
The author says referring to such people as "idiots" is wrong. A definition of an "idiot" is "a foolish or stupid person". The term seems completely appropriate to me.
I am almost persuaded.
In the end, however, I must continue to consider the bulk of the left to be idiots, doing what they're doing and saying what they're saying out of stupidity; for the only viable alternative for me is that knowing what is good and true, they are deliberately doing the opposite.
The stupid are worthy of our pity and help; the deliberately malevolent only of our contempt and ultimately exile or destruction.
Labelling them “ignorant” might be more accurate, although there is plenty of evidence to support “idiots” as well. I make it my business to research the background on anyone I might vote for, and would never consider voting for someone in complete ignorance. Unfortunately, many Obama voters did not see it that way.....
hh
Well then, maybe we could call them Cretins ... (Think “Well then, how about a Martini”)
I have had this same problem with highly educated professional friends...who say they won’t listen to any news outlet or read anything about 0bama..Nope,,just gonna listen to what HE says and then vote. These same people, this group of wizards of smart, still do not see the man for the RED that he is..they are still only too willing to buy into the Green thing the way Al Gore talks about it, and find excuses for the pummeling the CEOs got from the wonderful Lefties in Congress..It makes me sick.
They could listen to Lord Mockton and it still won’t sink in.The only time this bunch of smarties will get even an inkling of what has happened is when the goons pick their pockets.
Arguing with ignoramuses?
Arguing with morons?
Arguing with dim bulbs?
Arguing with the intelligence-challenged?
Thanks for clarifying that.
I like to point out to such individuals that it's just as racist to have voted for Obama because he's black as it is to have voted against him because he's black. That argument tends to piss 'em off.
Correcting client level ID-10-T errors in democratic systems?
I’d prefer: “Arguing with Enemies of the USA”
[Maybe one should say “you’re priceless” as code for “what a f’ing idiot”.]
In Texas we use “Bless you heart”!
The worst intellectual mistake a person can make is to assume that someone who disagrees with him is either ignorant or mentally deficient. It is a lazy form of argumentation and it smacks of hubris, i.e., an attitude of "my opinion is the only one that matters." If he is unwilling to even consider the fact that the opposition may have legitimate reasons for coming to different conclusions, then he best ask himself who the closed-minded bigot is in the situation.
This is not to say that all points of view are equally valid. In fact, in many (if not most) cases, there are clearly right and wrong answers. The key to effective argumentation is identifying why someone believes what they believe, so that one can appeal to them within their framework.
Of course, it is entirely possible that the other person is ignorant (either by happenstance or willfully so), or is mentally deficient (incapable of understanding, or just flat-out nuts). But it is important to determine this by examination, and not to merely assume it because of their conclusions.
Soros sold out his jewish "friends and relatives" to the NAZIs, and to their deaths, serving as a Hitler Youth, and went on to make his billions by destroying one nation's economy after another. Now he's working on the USA, the Grand Prize.
Leftists are like parasitic insects; like locusts that strip the produce from acre after acre; or ticks that suck blood from a host until they themselves explode; like termites eating away at the foundations of freedom and civilization.
Other than that, they're probably warm, fuzzy, and entertaining.
>>Beck’s title is tongue-in-cheek and an attention-getter.
Al Franken’s book: Rush Limbaugh is A Big Fat Idiot
(it was perfectly okay for him to use that word)
>>Franken has said that he chose to make the book’s title an ad hominem attack as “an ironic comment on the fact that Rush makes ad hominem attacks all the time.”
(Wikipedia entry on the book)
Well, there is certainly a lot of material for sequels.
I forgot about Franken’s book. How many copies did it sell? 250???
>>Idiots are people who don’t know about government, don’t care about government, and don’t think that government is something that affects them.
Unfortunately many idiots DID care enough to show up to vote. As for not thinking that government is something that affects them, remember this woman?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI
“I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car, I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage, you know? If I help him, he’ll help me.”
She evidently did care about what affected her.
Ok, the word “idiot” is from the Athenian definition. The vernacular use of “idiot” is different.
If she voted, then she is not an “idiot” by the Athenian definition.
But Beck was clearly using the Athenian meaning by saying that people who are “idiots” are those who are not politically aware.
“Arguing with the Evil and the Ignorant” might be a good title...
(Deep, heavy sigh) They are not idiots "just because they are not in agreement," the book is titled such because those who attempt to argue these points fail on the intellectual/fact basis, and continue to argue regardless you point out their factual error ... ie., idiots.
Thanks for that, I was not aware of the word origin -- makes Glenn's choice even more apropos.
No...the title is correct. They are not labeled idiots because they in disagreement with conservative thought. They are labeled idiots because of what they say and believe. Listen to their words. They truly are idiots.
It's the title that bothers me, however, since I believe that just because people are not in agreement with me doesn't mean they're idiots.Not always of course -- sometimes they're just hostile jerks, or in the vanguard of the gim'me generation, or bigots, or hateful a-holes, or racists, or unreasoning dolts, or drones, or...
The original definition of an “idiot” was that of an ignorant person who declined to take part in the governance of the city. It seems to me that calling leftist fools “idiots” seems fair in that they are willful ignorant of civics, politics, and current events. The only problem is that they vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.