Arguing with Idiots

Arguing with Idiots

(apologies to other authors who have used this title.)

So, I’ve been taking a break from political conversations for a while.  I’ve refrained from becoming embroiled in conversations on “controversial” topics for a few reasons:

1.  My wife gets burnt out hearing my ramblings.
2.  I’ve been told I seek out confrontation, and I’m attempting to prove otherwise.
3. Stupidity is so rampant that any attempt to shine the light of logic and truth only gets one flogged and demonized, and…
4. The system, as we will discuss, is so broken and is leaning so far over the cliff that arguing with the masses is akin to trying to verbally debate with the wind in a tornado.  Sometimes it’s better to take shelter, wait for the inevitable destruction, and be ready to rebuild after the masses have destroyed themselves.

Today, however, I stumbled upon a quick post by a friend of mine on Facebook.  He’s been dealing with some physical and financial issues lately, and has experimented with the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  Like it or not, Obamacare is the law of the land.  It was fraudulently forced upon the people of the nation by dishonest politicians who were supported by lazy politicians, who were elected by brainwashed, unwitting, self-absorbed citizens whose ignorance is only matched by their unwillingness to research facts from reliable sources (such as HISTORY and SIMPLE MATH). 

…but I digress.

I’m going to share screenshots from my phone of the conversation.  I’m doing this so I can’t be accused of taking anything out of context.  I’ve scribbled out the names of the participants so that nobody can sue me for publishing their names (a case they would lose on the grounds that they freely published their names, photos and comments on a public forum, but again, I digress).  Actually, I’m blotting out their names because when aided by a “cooling off period” and a little reflection, coupled with the logic I’m about to use, I’m hoping against hope that they have enough intelligence to be embarrassed by their own statements.

Here is the initial post.  Harmless enough and needing no rebuttal.

 As you can see, my friend is rightfully displeased with the cost of his government mandated, publicly subsidized coverage as provided through the "Affordable" Care Act, or Obamacare.  This is a very common issue, as vast numbers of subscribers are faced with dramatically increased medical costs from this "landmark legislation" that was touted to decrease the costs of healthcare for the average family by over $2000 a year.

The initial post was liked and responded to by numerous people, most of whom sympathized with his plight and/or criticized the legislation.  I began following the post after sharing a silly joke in an attempt to be the comic relief in a fairly somber conversation.  My joke didn't take a stand on either side of the issue, but was a random attempt to make my friend laugh.

Here's a small sampling of the kinds of comments my friend was receiving.  It wasn't a heated debate or argument.  It was just a group of people generally pointing out the folly of the ACA...and occasionally the President whose name is associated with it.

Then someone took issue with the comments you just read.  I responded with what I thought was a polite, but direct question.

This question has been asked many times in various forms by people who have yet to receive an adequate answer.  One radio talk-show host usually boils it down to "please tell me what percentage of my money you're entitled to."  I thought I asked it in as non-confrontational a way as possible (again, attempting to prove false the allegation that I enjoy conflict.) Bridget, an apparent fellow conversation follower, responded with the following opinion.  I tried to reply as nicely, yet truthfully, as I could.  

I think we can all identify with Bridget's position to an extent, if not necessarily her language.

My response was not intended in any way to be hostile to Bridget or her daughter.  Just a simple statement of facts and logic.  Bridget did not respond, so I'm assuming either she didn't disagree or didn't see the need to converse further.  (This is a lesson I am desperately trying to learn, as the voice in my soul when I become involved in a conversation like this usually says something like: "Wait, it's not worth it... Don't... Um... You should just... Oh, you're going to... Crap.  You are, aren't you?  This will not end well.")

Now, in case you've forgotten midst all my rambling, I asked Miranda to morally justify holding her fellow citizens financially responsible for her medical insurance.  The first clue that Miranda finds her own position weak is that she doesn't even attempt to answer the question.  She merely asks another question in an attempt to make herself appear victimized by her circumstances.  It's the equivalent of asking a child why he did something wrong and hearing the response "but HE did it first!"  The response doesn't answer the question.  It's a common smokescreen used as a tool to distract from the speakers inability to adequately respond.

In an attempt to get a clarification, I asked another question.  I've found I ask lots of questions.  If you ask enough questions, you'll: 

1. ...get the speaker to clarify his/her position to the point that, whether or not they can sway your opinion, at least they've fully explained why you disagree with them,
2. ...come to understand a different viewpoint, which you can ponder and process until you can decide whether to agree or disagree,
3. ...entertain yourself with the inability of the average person to formulate a well-thought-out position or adequately defend it, or...
4. ...give the speaker enough rope to hang him/herself by revealing how ludicrous, self-centered, and/or self-destructive his/her position is (thereby, vividly illustrating reason number three--as stated in the beginning of this post--of why I've been avoiding such conversations in the first place.)

Now, let's look at Miranda's math skills for a moment, shall we?  Miranda proudly stated that she works "50+ hours a week," lives in "KC," and divides her time among two jobs and college.  Now she's sharing her bills.  $614 in rent, $120 in car insurance, credit card bills from car expenses (also a symptom of the same "I have to have it now" mindset she'll display throughout this conversation...common among liberals and young college students). She also mentioned the $60 a month she is happy to pay for her health care costs, while apparently being nearly giddy about passing on the "$600 medical expenses" to the rest of us.  She's identified $794 of her income each month that goes to bills.  Granted, she's probably not enumerating all her bills.  That's fair.  But working two jobs, "50+ hours" a week and making "more than minimum wage by a lot" should be able to cover $794 with ease, since the minimum wage in Missouri just increased from $7.50 to $7.65 an hour.  That's a gross (at her figure of 50 hours, assuming she works six days a week) of around $1657 per month.  Take into consideration that she'll probably pay $39 a month in state tax and about $248.55 a month in Federal tax withholding.  

Granted, the balance of $575.45 is not a massive windfall of cash.  However, it is substantially more than a lot of families have left over at the end of the month.  Heck, half that figure dwarfs what I have left over at the end of many months! 

...yet again, I digress.

But Miranda said she makes "more than minimum wage by a lot," so the $575 would be a relatively conservative surplus from which she would purchase her food, fuel, utilities and entertainment requirements.  Meaning, her income should actually be "a lot" higher than the $1675 per month, right?  Yes, because $1675 is 7.65 per hour, 50 hours per week, figured on six workdays a week (since she mentioned that she has two jobs I figured she's probably not working just five days.  An admirable work-load for a full-time college student.)

(And wait... Didn't she say she was a student in Kansas City?  Why in the world is she bringing up the job market in and around Springfield??!! Could it be that she isn't actually in "KC?" Or perhaps that's where all her extra money goes... the three-hour commute from Springfield where she apparently works to "KC" where she apparently goes to school.)

...oops...another bunny trail.  OK, back to my subject. (We'll revisit basic math later.)

I appreciated Grant's response to her, which is why I included it in the screenshot and why I didn't blot out his name. (Actually, I just noticed that I'd forgotten to blot out his name and picture, but since I admire what he had to say and am praising it here, I figured he wouldn't mind.)

No, Miranda, I am not "presuming to know" what you spend your money on.  I'm simply looking at your words and numbers.  You should check your work, or did your college professors not teach you that?

Okay, okay... maybe it's unfair to hold Miranda to the same standards to which I hold myself.  Maybe.  But as of yet, I'm going by her word that she makes substantially more than minimum wage.  If I can support my family month to month by myself while making a a low-middle-class wage, surely she could support herself on two jobs, 50+ hours a week, making a lot more than minimum wage.  Surely, right?  (Okay, the voice in my soul is wanting me to apologize for sounding snarky...and I almost feel bad about it...but...nah.)

(Okay, yeah.  I'll admit this comment was snarky.  Probably shouldn't have said that.  I publicly apologize, Miranda.  No, wait.  Not really.)

So, wait.  Let's go back to something I asked her earlier, in light of what she says in this statement.  She chose to go to school in Kansas City (which, if her rent is any indication, isn't any more expensive to live in than Springfield), chose to make purchases on credit (whether for a car, car repairs, car accessories, or what, she wasn't clear), chooses to work at two jobs that don't offer healthcare (one of which, apparently by a shady "I'll cut you one hour short of getting benefits" method) even though last time I was in Kansas City I could've sworn I saw more than two businesses at which someone could work.  

...and somehow her choices are our financial responsibility.

...Oh, and I haven't had healthcare insurance for a long time.

But that's OK.  As long as Miranda has hers, and can morally justify my paying for it...and your paying for it...and your neighbor paying for it...

Alright, you're probably noticing that my patience is wearing thin with Miranda.  First of all, if you hadn't picked up on it, she's full of crap.  $1600 a month doesn't even come close to "50+ hours a week, working two jobs" and making "more than minimum wage by a lot."  It's actually less than minimum wage at 50 hours a week.  BUZZZZZZ!!!! (Go figure, a dishonest liberal...or one that can't do math...either way, that's part of the definition of liberal isn't it?)  I don't like people who are full of crap.  They smell bad.

And when she finished her last comment with "Soooooo..." she really ticked me off.  First of all, sarcasm has two purposes:  either to demonstrate your intellectual superiority over your listener or to bolster your otherwise weak position.  Miranda apparently can't do the most basic of math, follow the simplest of logic, or carry on the most basic of polite dialogue.  She, as they say 'round these parts, "done ticked me off."  Stupidity is often the loudest and most adamant of voices.

And then this horrible person (yes, I said it, and I mean it) boasts a second time about debts she is more than comfortable passing on to the shoulders of others.  Seriously, what kind of vile, putrid, pathetic human being is so blatantly comfortable about passing on his/her debts for someone else to pay?  The ultimate in selfishness and "I'll get mine, no matter who it hurts" attitude!

At some point, one has to realize that arguing with an idiot a fools errand.  

Sadly, idiots like Miranda make up a substantial percentage of our population: people who transfer the responsibility for their own choices onto the backs of everyone else.  

She doesn't like the word entitlement.  That's because the political term entitlement has a negative connotation, no matter which side of the political spectrum you're on.  The liberals haven't been able to find a way to co-opt that term and make it sound positive yet.  But, Miranda, if you feel entitled to an education and health-care, and who knows what other assistance you are getting, and you feel entitled to have your neighbors foot the bill, you have an entitlement attitude.  If you need further clarification, I'd be happy to buy you a dictionary to go along with the basic math book I'd like to send to you...at no cost to you.

I've gotten to a point where I'm not ranting and raving about politics and economics as much anymore.  You see, twenty or thirty years ago it was time for people to boldly and loudly scream about these topics.  Twenty or thirty years ago there was a chance of righting the ship and changing the direction of our nation. However, we've had more than one generation of students who have been spoon-fed the philosophies of Mao and Lenin all their lives. These philosophies have so invaded every aspect of our daily lives that we look to the government for every need we have.  Government has replaced our sense of hard work, accomplishment, and personal growth.  Government is our provider, protector, and educator.  

...and only a sad few seem to see a problem with that.

Our society is no longer approaching a cliff.  We stand with the tips of our heels on the cliff and the rest of our bodies leaning at a forty-five-degree angle over the edge.  The fall is inevitable.  The momentum is too strong, and changing the direction of a nation takes far too long.

I've gotten to the point that I am just bracing for the upcoming collapse, gritting my teeth in anger, rage, and a deep sadness at the death of America as we've known her, and preparing to dig out from the rubble and start over once the mass of idiots destroys itself.

Cynical?  Conflict-seeking?  No.  Realist.

And now for the apology.  I should not have used the word "idiot."  It has been my practice to avoid using inappropriate words to insult people.  I failed miserably in this post.  You see, "idiot" is actually a term used to describe those with diminished mental capacity, those with a naturally low intellect or with a condition impairing their ability to reason at the level of an average person.  My heart goes out to those people, and I apologize for accidentally insulting them by using this term when I should have merely said "liberal."