zeus Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 and initiated a conversation with my peers at university on relevant world issues. Plus I decided to actively join this forum, to give me some pointers - boy do I need those! Hitherto, I have only discussed politics and philosophy with my libertarian friends and parents. It was a heated discussion today, and to be honest, not really a fair fight. It was 4 against one, me being the one, but the others seemed eager to discuss these topics. They did not look at me as if I were a strange creature from an alien planet, and they are good people. However, I did not seem to be able to move them much in the right direction, rather I fear I might push people away if I do a poor job. Upside is, that there seems to be no lack of opportunities for a round of debate practice. Leftist people are quite predictable, when it comes down to it. To have control over the conversation seems like a must, how do you go about that? Do you practice a certain topic really well and lead them on? Also, hello to everybody from Denmark!
Quinton Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 Good for you. I always focus on morality. Most people argue emotionally, so I hit them emotionally. Get them to agree that the initiation of violence is a bad thing. Everyone agrees with this. And then keep pointing out how government initiates violence through taxation.
zeus Posted March 30, 2016 Author Posted March 30, 2016 Thanks for your reply. Yes, morality and basic principles seems to be the right place to start. To be honest, convincing them of Anarchism as opposed to a smaller state seems like a long shot. Emotions certainly was very ingrained in our debate. We touched upon natural rights a great deal and poverty, of course the obligatory one; "don't you care about the poor!" arghh I always get trapped on their ground, and end up arguing on premises that I don't hold to be true. You have to be wide awake not to get caught in that trap. I have some readings to do I guess.
Wuzzums Posted March 30, 2016 Posted March 30, 2016 I use the socratic method, wait until they contradict themselves (always happens), then I point out their inaccuracy, and then try to weasel in some volunatarist/libertarian ideals by suggesting some sort of solution. However recently I have become disillusioned with people and stopped wasting my energy with the message. I might add some principle or another in a conversation to see who bites. If they act interested and start asking me questions I try to show them the path, if not I move on. 1
zeus Posted March 30, 2016 Author Posted March 30, 2016 I like to think of it as a process of inception, just planting a seed. I write that I'm afraid to drive them further away by trying to hard. Yes, they contradict themselves and stop and don't know what hit them. It can go two ways from there, usually they get emotional. Humor seems to be the right way to go, it's just hard to incorporate. I will read up on the socratic method. Feels like a full time study to enlighten people, and I don't really have enough hours to day.
Recommended Posts