Freedom, Freedom, Freedom, OY!

This election season I managed to get into an unbelievable amount of arguments over political issues.  It seemed like every other day I was in one of these debates being told I was “going to hell” or “had no regard for human life” because of the stances I took: the points of conservatism and liberty.

Unsurprisingly, the people who gave me the most frustrations where those who had an actual idea of what government is and what it’s role should be.  These are the people (Ian, I’m looking at you) who had facts and data to actually “back up” their arguments, rather than hearsay and fabrications.

The rest of my opponents have managed to frustrate me not because they have a point, but instead because they consistently contradict their own arguments and have little or no understanding of what they believe in.

What is surprising, is that the majority of the uninformed people I argued with were members of the LDS church.  Every single one had backwards views on liberty.  Considering the church believes the constitution was written by divine intervention, that is disturbing on multiple levels.

The last person I argued with was Diego Carrión, self described conservative/crazy guy, is a friend of a friend (though I have met him) and a student at BYU-Idaho.  Read: Mormon.

The issue was Washington Initiative-1000: the right to assisted suicide by a lethal dose of medication.  The key parts of this proposition is who it covers: people who are terminally ill, mentally stable (note, not depressed), and have less than 6 months to live.

Why is this important?  His argument was over the sanctity of life – and how the state has to protect it.  By the way, him mentioning “the state” is key.  that proves he is not a conservative, but in fact a “neo-con” and a state-ist.  He should consider changing his “Facebook” political views section.

The hilarious part about his argument is he was trying to portray me as a liberal leftist, because I wanted to get the government out of people’s lives and I shouldn’t mention “liberty” in my arguments because libertarians want to raise taxes and bring more government control over peoples lives… or something…  I honestly have no idea.

Of course this was a fairly easy argument to win, he even admitted I had points and agreed with me on 90% of the arguments I submitted.  The key difference is he wanted “the state” to force his views on life & death on everyone else, yeah, some conservative.  The end of this argument was him resorting to ad hominem attacks when he realized he had no way of winning.  (just a note for everyone, if you resort to this type of argument, I won’t continue, period.)