Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
Like Tommy De Seno, The Logo finds himself in a lot of political skirmishes with those on the Pretty Far Left. They often take this form:
Young woman with clipboard, wearing Greenpeace t-shirt and standing outside Apple Store (Activist): Hello, sir. Do you have a few minutes for the environment?
The Logo: Sorry, I don't think I'm a good target for you.
Activist: Oh! That's too bad. May I ask why?
Logo: Well, I disagree with a lot of your positions.
Activist: Which ones in particular?
Logo: You don't support nuclear power, unless I've missed something. And weren't you involved in that plastic shopping bag ban?
Activist: Plastic bags consume huge amounts of oil, and they make up a big part of the giant trash whirlpool off Hawaii.
Logo: I thought it was something about killing seabirds.
Activist: That's right. Seals think they're jellyfish, and seabirds get tangled in them.
Logo: But I think the numbers Greenpeace used were based on false information.
Activist: Like what?
Logo: I'm not sure... I read it somewhere.
Activist: Well, it's hard to ignore that giant garbage dump in the middle of the ocean. Can I sign you up for a donation?
Logo: No, I'm pretty sure that there's some misinformation going on with that, and you'd have to change your views on nuclear power... [slinks away, muttering to self.]
That's how these things often go. She's armed with talking points, and I'm unprepared to really challenge her. What I'd have liked to have said was more like this:
...
Activist: Which ones in particular?
Logo (consulting iPhone): Your support of pacifism and your opposition to nuclear power, for starters. And you've been spreading disinformation to further your political goals.
Activist: Disinformation?
Logo: On your website's page about plastic bags, you state that "up to 1 million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals and turtles die each year as a result of plastic debris."
Activist: That's right.
Logo: Those numbers are based on a 1987 Canadian study that estimated that 100,000 marine mammals are killed each year by discarded fishing nets. In 2002, an Australian report misstated this as plastic bags, an error that was corrected in 2006. Why's Greenpeace still passing along this bad data, and basing legislation on it?
Activist: I don't know. What's your source?
Logo: The Times of London, March 8, 2008. Would you like to see the URL?
Activist: No, that's OK.
Logo: And then there's the matter of Greenpeace's co-founder, Patrick Moore. He wrote that he quit the organization because "Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas." This was in the Wall Street Journal in 2008. Do you want the URL to that?
Activist: Not really. Look, I need to be moving on. Have a nice day.
Logo: You too!
The Logo recognizes that we're not going to convert the Greenpeace activist (as Franco notes below, there are fundamental differences at work here), but we should want to plant a seed of self-doubt. And more important, we need to be persuasive to relatively apolitical observers: the mom waiting at the crosswalk near the exchange above; the relatives at the family barbecue overhearing an exchange between you and your left-wing uncle; the neighbor who asks your honest opinion about global warming.
What this requires is a concise, compelling and credible encapsulation of our political positions. In other words, an elevator pitch. Each encapsulation should be accessible from a handheld, and it should leverage the power of a community for its creation and maintenance.
You probably see where we're going with this.
Deferring further elaboration to future posts, it makes sense to start with some pilot efforts. We can work on them together, figure out the most effective format, and use the results as templates for what we hope will be a wide range of positions (some positions will be at odds, because conservatives don't hold uniform views -- that's OK).
But first: what are some arguments you'd like to win?
- Comment (62)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments:
Sep '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
dittoheadadt
Olive: What argument would I like to win?
The abortion argument, particularly when it comes to the Left's characterization of Pro-Lifers as "only" caring about the "fetus," and not about "the woman."
Feb 13 at 7:46pm
Instead, I think we need to challenge their views, with some point-blank questions that force them to consider their own irrational or indefensible views.
For a simple example, I ask them "If abortion doesn't kill a human baby, then why do you call for abortion to be safe, legal, and rare? I don't see anyone calling for tonsillectomies or nosejobs to be safe, legal, and rare? So why should abortion be rare?" They can't answer that question without conceding that the fetus is human! ยท Feb 13 at 9:32pm
When Scott Peterson killed his 8-month pregnant wife Laci around Christmas 2002 in California, everyone (including pro-choicers, I'm sure) wanted him tried for a double murder. (He did get tried and convicted for a double murder, first degree for Laci, second degree for Connor, the fetus.)
Suddenly, there were two entities, Laci and her fetus, that were thought of as humans that were murdered...
May '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
dittoheadadt
..."If abortion doesn't kill a human baby, then why do you call for abortion to be safe, legal, and rare? I don't see anyone calling for tonsillectomies or nosejobs to be safe, legal, and rare? So why should abortion be rare?" They can't answer that question without conceding that the fetus is human;
The desire for rarity can be justified by appealing to the fact that abortions are typically viewed as ameliorating previous mistakes. The pregnancy is considered an error and the abortion a solution. Abortions may be considered moral by pro-choicers, but avoiding the error that to some makes abortions necessary is even better. A car accident is often an error and repair is seen as a solution to the damage, albeit an expensive one. This doesn't mean that the desire to avoid car accidents is incoherent or contradictory. If we can avoid the mistakes, then the solutions (and their costs) can be avoided as well, and our scarce resources can therefore be used for other ends. By what reasoning to you attribute the desire for rarity to an acknowledgment that a fetus is human?
Edited on February 14, 2011 at 7:36amMay '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
I'm in the middle of writing a "pro-choice" member feed post for the future, so whoever is interested can take a stab at it when I post it.
May '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
dittoheadadt
fullfrontal
One can support a legal right that sanctions the performance of a specific act while simultaneously pursuing a state of affairs where the perceived necessity of exercising the aforementioned right is diminished. Take the right to defend oneself. The perceived necessity of exercising this right arises typically when one is subjected to some kind of duress from an assailant. Its no contradiction to lobby for the protection of such a right and to simultaneously campaign for an environment where violent crime is reduced. If violent crimes experiences a decline, then the exercising of the right to defend oneself will become comparatively less common. If a tragedy, error, or dangerous event is a sufficient condition for the exercising of a specific right, then making the latter less necessary by making the former less common is perfectly fine.
Oct '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
All well and good, Michael, but your answers don't address the fundamental question of "why?" with regard to the desire to make abortion rare. They address the idea of ameliorating a mistake, and that avoiding the mistake is better than fixing the mistake. But why is an accidental pregnancy a mistake that should occur rarely?
You used the example of a car wreck, and the significant expense incurred in fixing that mistake compared to not wrecking in the first place.
So what's the significant expense (e.g. the "cost") of getting pregnant accidentally? The physical toll it takes on the woman? (Is there really a physical toll?) The emotional toll it takes on the woman? (Is there really an emotional toll, and if so, why?, if a fetus is just tissue?) The financial toll it takes on the woman? (Is it really that expensive to abort a fetus?)
Are we to believe that abortion rights advocates are concerned with these facets of having an abortion? Or is there something else? Something about, say, the humanity of the fetus? Why is an accidental pregnancy such a mistake that it needs to be rare, and a constitutional right, to boot?
Oct '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
If we all brushed our teeth twice a day, we could make cavities rare. But many of us don't brush twice, and we get cavities. Is not brushing a mistake? Sure, but is getting a cavity that big a deal? No, you go to the dentist and get a filling. Minor inconvenience and expense. Mistake fixed, not prevented. No big deal. No need to call for making cavities rare or for making fillings a constitutional right.
Get pregnant accidentally. Get an abortion. Mistake fixed, not prevented. No big deal.
Or is it? Why?
May '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
To your first question, you are speaking with one. At the very least, an unwanted abortion is an inconvenience. Time and money spent on providing and/or seeking an abortion are resources that are forever lost and cannot be used by those who expend them upon any other endeavor. Assuming a self-interested mode of behavior, avoiding errors is superior to committing them and then incurring the costs to remedy them. I'm sure there are costs, both psychic and material, that are involved. Avoid the error and you avoid the costs. I don't make the concession that the fetus is a organism that deserves legal rights. Perhaps there are clumsy abortion rights advocates who have not thought out their position.
May '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
Getting a cavity, i.e., insufficient brushing, is an error since one determines via one's free will whether one will suffer from a cavity or not. It is better to use toothpaste and avoid a cavity altogether then to develop a cavity and then to incur the costs required to cope with the physiological problems caused by a cavity. Dentists are not cheap; toothpaste is.
There is no campaign to explicitly protect the legal right to pursue dental healthcare because there is no campaign to deny Americans that legal right. Of course, abortion is very different.
Edited on February 14, 2011 at 8:56amAug '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
outstripp: "The environment, the poor, women's issues, global warming, saving the whales; these are all Trojan Horses for a higher agenda: seizing power."
Bingo. We have a winner.
Aug '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
Kenneth I imagine a bunch of eastern pacific countries are using old fashion garbage barges and dumping everything at sea. The scrap market is pretty active right now though, so I would question new inflow numbers. So what's the solution ? Bottled water is a small number compared to soft drinks in PET bottles, Coke/Pepsi do lip service and rebuff any pressure. I don't see this getting any further than Kyoto. I have sizable doubts about the Great Garbage Patch, considering a total lack of photographic evidence of something supposedly as big as Texas. The credibility of that group further erodes most of their positions and press releases. Al Gore certainly has ruined the party for these activists. When did they overreach and start to blow it ?
Nov '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
Charles Lavergne
I saw this one covered at NRO. This talking point actually misstates the data which is that there is a positive correlation between intelligence and liberalism.This is actually to be expected in the United States because the more intelligent are more likely to question the default social position, which in the US is center-right Christianity. I would venture to guess that there is a positive correlation between intelligence and for instance Christianity in Japan, or Hayekian economics in Europe, because these positions deviate from the default.
This doesn't make sense to me, because in the educated circles I grew up in the default position was definitely secular liberalism. The people I grew up with were like sheep in their blind following of their peer group's ideas.
Edited on February 14, 2011 at 4:24pmMay '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
If we could win this argument with the American people, let alone liberals, much would change in consequence:
The purpose of government is to provide for basic internal security, transparency, and the defense of the Nation. It is NOT to identify and then fix all social problems, protect individuals from the consequences of their own stupidity or foolish actions, prevent one group from offending the sensibilities of another, or guarantee perfect equality of outcome.
The culture at large believes that the purpose of the government is to Find And Fix Problems. Until that is corrected, nothing will change.
Oct '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
Number one with a bullet: Keynesian economics, neo- or otherwise, is unscientific nonsense that is destroying the world. Austrian economics is a marked improvement, but its hostility to "mathematics" as opposed to "logic" (as if those were two different things, which they aren't) needs to be resolved.
Dec '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
I absolutely agree.
While I think there is no point in lowering ourselves to argue on a purely emotional basis, I do believe there is value in pointing out the humanitarian benefits in what are often colder arguments of logical consequences. (e.g. austerity, individual risk, taxation etc.)
I think that it's foolish for conservatives to cede the humanitarian ground to nanny-statists, who have been able to accomplish so little for minority groups, whose welfare they claim to champion.
Jul '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
Kenneth
But the problem is that their beaches are now polluted with trillions of plastic fragments too small to be cleansed.
It's not a matter of public or private; it's a matter of an overwhelming tide of plastic. ยท Feb 13 at 9:01pm
With due respect, Kenneth, balderdash.
Put a price on cleaning the plastic up and they will do so.
May '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
I've written a bit on Austrian methodology. Some are more opposed to the mathematical approach than others. Walter Block believes that there is a place for econometrics, e.g., to determine the magnitude of the elasticity or inelasticity of the demand for certain goods. Mises and Rothbard were the most opposed to the mathematical approach. Their argument, among others, is that economics does not possess quantitative constants quite like the natural sciences and that the dynamism of the market is best described with words, not equations or functions.
Jan '11
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
Charles Lavergne
Margaret Ball:
"Settled science" is an oxymoron.
Yes, I know, but what can you say that will penetrate the mind of a True Believer who keeps asserting "The science is settled?" You can take it as a given that anybody who makes this claim doesn't understand how science works... so how do you get through to them?
Nov '10
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
dittoheadadt
For a simple example, I ask them "If abortion doesn't kill a human baby, then why do you call for abortion to be safe, legal, and rare? I don't see anyone calling for tonsillectomies or nosejobs to be safe, legal, and rare? So why should abortion be rare?" They can't answer that question without conceding that the fetus is human!
The problem with this example, and others like it, is that this is just a talking point, propaganda intended to influence the wishy-washy, ungrounded types. The true believers don't worry about that. I guess if you are arguing with a wishy-washy type this could work, but the true believer already disagrees with the "rare" part.
I guess it could be useful to find out what sort of person you are dealing with.
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
I've been through that too, Logo! An environmentalist came to my office and asked for my office policy on recycling. I told him, "My policy is anyone caught recycling is fired." He was displeased.
Here's some issues I'd like the Ricochet noosphere to school me about:
1) The assertion that Obama's deficit only looks bigger than Bush's deficit because Bush didn't have the cost of the war in the budget and Obama does.
2) How much did the earth's temperature rise in the 20th Century (my reading suggests 1/3rd of 1 degree fahrenheit). How does that compare to other centuries?
3) "Official" global temperature readings since 1900. Who took them, who keeps the records, and how precise was the equipment? Are there calibration reports?
4) Has assassination ever been a successful political tool (meaning has any assassin acheived his desired result by the killing)?
5) Assuming the weather pattern accross the globe shifted to "warner." Wouldn't there be some winners as far as longer growing seasons and access to resources/tourism?
6) I say no limits on campaign contribs. Am I wrong?
7) Is American Idol fixed?
I'll have more.
Jan '11
Re: Which Arguments Do You Really Want to Win?
Tommy De Seno:
2) How much did the earth's temperature rise in the 20th Century (my reading suggests 1/3rd of 1 degree fahrenheit). How does that compare to other centuries?
3) "Official" global temperature readings since 1900. Who took them, who keeps the records, and how precise was the equipment? Are there calibration reports?
5) Assuming the weather pattern accross the globe shifted to "warner." Wouldn't there be some winners as far as longer growing seasons and access to resources/tourism?
Anthony Watts' site ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/) is a good place to find discussions of various temperature records and how some of them have been fudged to support the AGW hypothesis.
And yes, warmer and wetter periods have generally been pleasanter for humans than colder and drier ones. Plus, plants like carbon dioxide.
The Little Ice Age was spectacularly unpleasant for human beings compared with its predecessor, the Medieval Warm Period. I've read that some Alpine villagers called in bishops to wave a cross at the advancing glaciers that were destroying their homes. Unfortunately, glaciers are not vampires; the crosses had no effect.