I attended a breakfast at a local restaurant with men from a Baptist Church in “mostly” conservative rural western North Carolina.
The two men across from me were discussing some unfortunate event when I flippantly mentioned that someone will blame it on Trump or on global warming.
That perked up the as yet unknown liberal seated next to me who pointedly asked me – “so you don’t believe in global warming?”
I responded with “actually there is cyclical global warming, but unlike most on the left, I don’t think human’s have a significant impact. The solar cycles have much more influence.”
He persisted with “so you don’t mind industries that destroy the environment.” He mentioned and dwelt on decades-old deforestation from pollutants downwind from some factories.
“That is a bit of a red herring”, I answered. “I don’t believe in shutting down entire industries or depressing our economy based on half-baked environmental hunches. Yes, industries should be sensibly regulated, like the coal industry, with appropriate pollutant-trapping devices, but the Obama administration wanted to go to extremes based on overly presumptuous and arrogant ‘science’.” And the clincher: Pollutants from smoke stacks killing nearby vegetation has nothing to do with ‘global warming’ or ‘climate change.’ It is simply a poison applied to a plant, like a weed killer. Consequently, his challenging comments were ‘red herrings’ on several levels.
FYI: Lies behind ‘global warming’; False science behind ‘global warming’
Tactic One of Liberals: Red Herrings - something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. In this case it was an extreme, accusatory gesture.
This liberal’s “red herring” was an extreme absurdity, that I wanted to “destroy the environment because I didn’t believe in US human-caused global warming.” My rebuttal was the fact of the left’s actions to destroy industries based on overly-presumptuous and arrogant science. It is fact that Obama virtually shut down the coal industry for the sake of his dubious global warming presumptions.
A bit later the conversation drifted toward our little downtown, and the problem of parking. I mentioned a city parking lot that charges $3.00 per hour – and the likelihood that such charges hurt local businesses. I expressed hope the City would provide free parking to benefit businesses that already pay a fair amount of City taxes.
The liberal chimed in: “There are only 600 residences in the City that pay taxes – that’s too few to support that!”
I had to remind his tepid memory that 10 seconds earlier I was talking about businesses that pay taxes, not residences. He deflected from and twisted the meaning of my example.
Tactic Two of Liberals: Deflection – changing key words or ideas to discredit yours. Deflection is a diversionary tactic so that one’s own point of view, one’s facts, remain unchallenged and unquestioned. I was speaking of businesses paying taxes; he switched to word to “residents” paying taxes.
What made this experience less than warm and fuzzy was that this man has been in the area for decades, and had served on various boards and commissions for a number of years. The words “loud”, “arrogant” and “over-bearing” came to mind upon reflection of this unpleasant and challenging encounter.
These are the tactics of liberals.
Oh, I need to mention, while the outlying rural areas of the County are conservative, the little City itself is very liberal.
___________________
Lessons learned: Not all Baptists are conservative and little Cities in the country can be quite liberal.
No comments:
Post a Comment