Why do you think the lambasting is gratuitous?
The lambasting came across as gratuitous because, as I originally stated, the last paragraph drew a stronger conclusion about liberals than I thought was supported by what lead up to it. It seemed that your message was that liberals are a bunch of idiots, who BTW waste a lot of community resources, rather than there's a problem with the waste of community resources, which happens to come mainly from liberal causes. I got the impression that you were expressing your distaste for liberals rather than your distaste for the resource waste. It's a matter of tone and also my observation that you didn't demonstrate adequate basis for blaming the whole thing on liberals.
There is a reason why I moved from one side to another.
I understand where you're coming from. The fact that you went through a rational process and chose to be a conservative, that you are well educated in history, philosophy and politics, and that you have writing skill put you it a perfect position to make make quality arguments that could be convincing to liberals. It seems a shame to squander that on a rant that only speaks to the choir. It seems to me that if you want to persuade liberals, the best way is to find that hook, the switch that makes the light bulb go on, the fulcrum shift, and leave the rants to those who don't have so much to bring so much to the table.
Actually, most conservatives are embarrassed by Creationism, hate to be mixed up with bigots, and want to make clear that they personally have no love affair with guns. In other words, the ridicule is effective, and makes them self- conscious.
I suppose you could be right. It seems counter-intuitive to me. People tend not to be easily won over by those who start out by insulting or dismissing them. That usually makes groups stick together whether they embrace the fringes or not. And, if conservatives are so embarrassed by Creationism, they must be showing it by hiding their faces rather than arguing against those who push it.
Karen |
