When you need to smack a Freeper down ...

[Dogmudgeon]

The Freepers are in full Freep overdrive this week, protecting their Courageous and Beloved Maximum Leader and Savio(u)r George W. Bush from the slings and arrows of his own criminal stupidity. As a result, the smallest items may become flammable. They certainly have on DU, so you'd have to expect that actual right-wingers would be even more flammable.

There are many ways to "zot" Freepers, most of them rhetorical. These techniques are easy to find and learn, since they are strewn liberally across the Internets. But there's one method that stands out above all others when dealing with Freepers intent on transmitting the lie.

"You're gonna have to do better than that to convince me. Thousands of people are dead. It's not enough just to make an assertion and end it with a smug quip. Where did you find this information, anyway?"

It's a robust, but polite, form of the Citation War. Unlike most uses of Citations as verbal ordnance, you back this one up with what logicians call an argumentum ad Lotsa Dead People.

Here's the structure:

1. Express Doubt.


2. Note that thousands of people died and over $100 billion in capital has been lost.


3. Refute the Freepish method of "an assertion and a quip and a pat on the back".


4. Re-pose the challenge as: provide evidence or lose the argument.

I've found that most Freepers are unable to back any argument up with actual information, and their rhetorical support is usually limited to one well-formed defense. Everything after that is ridicule, disdain, or sputtering anger. It's always like that with bullies, of any and every ideology.

Once you've burned that hole into the Freeper's Engine of Battle, the other techniques can be used much more easily -- especially when you, yourself, have evidence of Bush's dereliction of presidential duty, of which there is plenty.

Good Luck and Good Hunting!

--p!

[Arkana]

1. It's the armored tank shell in our arsenal--the facts.

[Autonomy]

2. "argumentum ad Lotsa Dead People"

LOL I never learned that one in rhetoric class. But if that worked, then we'd be out of Iraq.

"Dead people" don't matter, unless they are 1. American, 2. White, and 3. a Democrat can be blamed for their death.

[mogster]

3. Talking points coming up

"The states run by republicans did OK, the state run by democrats screwed up"

I wonder if this is a point for the Bush-administration? I mean, apart from the natural reluctance they have towards democrats, of course. But premeditated? They knew for some time that the hurricane was gonna hit. Not long, just a couple of days. But they knew, and should be more apt IF they cared. I don't mean cared for the victims, but for their own reputation. I don't buy the 'unpreparedness' angle, it has deeper roots than that. Remember how fast they turned after 911?
This depends wether you're a LIHOP or a MIHOP, but they sure knew how to exploit that situation to the max anyhow. That is a FACT, we can say it for sure.

That's why Bush was late then, this is why Bush was late now: they needed to plan (or adjust plan in 911-MIHOP/LIHOP case) to act upon the events as they unfold. To merchandise on this, politically or economically, you need to have some sort of roadmap. I guess they didn't foresee the large impact it would make - media wise. Perhaps the warning time was longer back in 2001 - then also the media played along instantly because of the shock, and bought everything Bush did unconditionally. This all has a timeline, and now isn't then, even for the near-zombie American MSM.

Parasites that prey on catastrophes, wars and poverty. Charming.

[librechik]

4. sure, they lack evidence

yet they are convinced that their faith and their feelings will overcome any criticism with the romantic force of passion.

In short one can NOT have a logical argument with them, since they reject to one thing (evidence) that can differentiate between bullshit and truth.

At that point all you can say is you feel sorry for them.