11

What would you do? What would John Galt do?

Posted by dbhalling 10 years, 9 months ago to Politics
314 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

You walk into a small beach bar on the ocean and a guy is sitting there. You have met him at this establishment before so you sit down near him and strike up a conversation. This is the sort of bar where patrons generally talk freely amongst each other. The man was in politics years ago in Kansas and occasionally brings up political topics. You know that his opinions are all over the map and have even moved to the pool table in the sand in order to not listen to him before. You try to steer the conversation away from politics, but he is not deterred. Then he says:
1) He is for raising the minimum wage
What would you do?
2) He states that minimum wage will not affect unemployment and the law of supply and demand has been repealed.
What would you do?
3) Then he says Obamacare is great.
WWYD?
4) After explaining that the only areas were the cost of medical has gone down are those the government stayed out of (e.g., Laser correction surgery), he says we are the only advanced nation without nationalized health care.
WWYD?
5) Then he says kathleen sebelius, who is from Kansas, is a wonderful women.
6) Then he calls you a racist, because you state Obama has the same philosophy Stalin, Moa, Hilter, etc.
7) Then he states we should get rid of the Constitution.
WWYD?


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 10.
  • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I still suggest a second run through.. slower, to emphasize that you realize they didn't quite get it the first time. It's a lot for most to take in the first go around.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Winning? The only way to win is for him to go home look up the facts, hear some news story a year later, look up more facts, start to question things, and come to a conclusion on his own.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    He's not bullying, although he's advocating someone act bullying. Being polite is the best way to resist. Put a human face on the person wants men with guns to come harass. He's not actually using force yet. He's just talking about it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think it's very important. I would start with, "yeah, I hear you, but it's more complicated than that." That telegraphs you don't agree with everything. If he *asks*, though, now he's invited your opinion.

    If he persists with the "you're a racist" attack, I would just say, "I'm very sorry you think that," and then avoid the conversation b/c there's no point.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 9 months ago
    This is all assuming you have any interest in talking to him. I probably would just avoid the topic. But if I wanted to talk about it, you need to get him to look up the facts on his own and come to his own conclusion. It's unlikely he'll change his mind on the spot if he starts out so dogged. The fact he's thinking about it may mean he'll change his mind later.
    1) Ask him for anecdotes when he worked for min wage. Ask him if he's ever managed min wage people. If he talks about a low-margin industry, talk to him about how their margins related to min wage. If he talks about a high-margin industry, ask why he thinks they pay min wage? Ask how low he thinks they'd pay if it weren't for min wage and how high min wage could reasonably be. Listen and respond to human non-policy-related aspect of his anecdote.
    2) Ask him if he thinks there is some point where it would affect unemployment? Maybe he says $20/hr. Resist the urge to respond. He'll want you to argue or validate his claim, but just suggest maybe someone will think of a way to test his hypothesis. Don't give him the data of places that have tried it. Say nothing, and maybe he'll look it up for himself.
    3) PPACA: Just ask why. If he gives an example of one person who's better offer for it, acknowledge it. Ask how he would improve it from where it is? Ask about the nuts and bolts. If he says something like, "It just feels meretricious to have markets involved in life and death,." you could try a philosophical tack about how someone saving money by living a few stops farther from work is selling time with his family for his money, so not every time life and scarcity coincide is meretricious. That probably won't work. If he persists in emotionalism, just drop it b/c you're wasting his and your time.
    4) If he's intelligent, tell him that's an interesting point but you don't see what it has to do with the topic.
    5) I have no idea who she is, but I would ask if he's met her. Tell him about an anecdote when you met her or someone who worked with her.
    6) Ask him why. Racism is when you lump people of the same race together. Those people are different races, so on the surface this seems un-racist.
    7) Ask him why and what it would be replaced with. I think we have sort-of gotten rid of it b/c we don't follow it closely.

    If he's starting from different axioms, you can maybe plant seeds. Esp if you can hint, without rubbing his nose in it, that you can derive contradictory propositions from his axioms. If he has the same axioms/values, then it's a question of getting him to look up the facts (for himself) and gently correcting his logical mistakes. It helps if you admit to a mistake or tell about a time when you accepted a logical fallacy by accident.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The pauses indicated by the hyphens are key to getting the oath to sink in, almost like a multi-pronged hook into a fish.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's just so offensive coming from someone who worked for us. She saw day after day the hours we put in and what we had to do to keep the business profitable. It's funny how the left claims to be compassionate but they don't care how much they burden someone like me in order to be sooooooo compassionate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Okay..good one. Reciting the oath when a person reveals their irrational side is not a bad idea. Maybe say it twice...slower the second time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "'I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." That is the one-punch knockout.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by LetsShrug 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yep. And why don't THEY care the difference that it makes? That's the question that drives me insane to the point of cocooning myself off from the world as much as I can. There's something wrong upstairs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If you are angry when you write, at least you will start putting in reasons for that anger. Emotion is OK as long as is logically supported and does not master you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The best one-punch knockout in response to someone similar to the person db described is to quote the John Galt oath. "Fight for this world, in the name of the best within you. You will win when you are ready to pronounce this oath: 'I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.'"
    I would just quote the oath. The prior sentence was primarily to answer LetsShrug and dbhalling's question about what John Galt would have done.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by richrobinson 10 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I understand that Harry Truman used writing to calm himself down. Whenever he got really angry at someone he wrote them a letter and just didn't mail it. For him it was better to lose his temper writing rather than in person.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo