Leftist Attacks: Labels Versus Rational Discussion and Disagreement

by Vic Landry
Clash Daily Contributor

The left has a tendency to affix  a label to the right’s opinion or position.  

According to the latest leftist rant, because I’m white, I’m automatically, privileged. I’ll admit to being white, sixty five, a conservative Republican and a member of the Tea Party.  I’m also well educated and a member of Mensa (society of people whose  IQ is in the top two percent.).

The IQ, I credit to my genes, I can’t take credit for that.  The education, however, I worked for.  I went to twelve years of public school,  four years of college and numerous courses for computers.  I paid for my education past public school myself by the GI bill and working eleven at night until seven in the morning in a plywood mill while carrying a full load in a state college.  Now, some wealthy Ivy Leaguer says I’m privileged.  

I’m disabled from two strokes, rely on the VA for my health care, can’t work, live in a “so called, mobile home,” drive a ten year old truck, and I live on Social Security.  The GI Bill and VA care I earned from serving on a diesel submarine and Social Security I paid for since I was fifteen working during the summer.  As John Houseman said in the old commercial, “I earned it.”  

Because I worked hard and earned what little I have, I’m happy with it.  I don’t begrudge anyone’s wealth, at all, and I don’t care what they say about me, no matter how vile, be it racist, sexist or homophobe.  I am a cradle Catholic and proud of it.  My faith is, totally, secure.

I’ve learned the difference between a personal attack and an honest discussion of a difference of opinion.  I will, gladly, discuss a difference of opinion but will not answer or respond to personal attacks.  An honest discussion of a difference of opinion will begin with, “I think or I believe…”  A personal attack will include, “You are…”  A discussion will follow, “I think or I believe…” with a rational statement of their argument.  As long as both remain calm and rational, a conclusion is possible.  If the conclusion is to agree to disagree, it is still a rational conclusion.  

The minute the discussion degenerates into childish personal attacks, any logical conclusion flies out the window.  I think the left’s propensity for personal attacks stems from their inability to think logically and only think emotionally.  They, wrongly, consider any difference of opinion as a personal attack and they respond in kind.  This response negates any possibility of a reasoned argument and precludes any rational conclusion.  Perhaps, because they can’t present any logical argument, this is their intent.  

This idea is bolstered by the left’s labels for any position they disagree with.  Any opinion but theirs, immediately, gets some label disparaging the person holding the position and calling into question his or her motives.    They cannot conceive of the fact that people can, honestly, hold different opinions.  This is political correctness gone wild.  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of thought and speech but political correctness flies in the face of the First Amendment.   What ever happened to the old saying, “I disagree with you but I will fight for your right to have your opinion?”

In my many years I have come to a
conclusion that one useless man 
is a shame, two is a law firm, 
and three or more is a congress.
 
— John Adams

Image: Courtesy of: http://roughlydaily.com/2013/03/03/the-first-human-who-hurled-an-insult-instead-of-a-stone-was-the-founder-of-civilization-2/

vic landryVic Landry is a Government Major, Mensa Member and Robertson, County, TX Tea Party President

image

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a comment

Please disable your Ad Blocker to leave a comment.

Trending Now on Clash Daily