• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oftencold’s Rules for Superior Conservative Posting

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I originally made this for another site. I thought it might hold some small interest for some of the posters here


A helpful guide for serious Conservative posters, which may also aid Liberals and Independents

1. If someone is making a fool, ass, spectacle, or embarrassment of themselves politely stand aside and allow them to proceed.
Proper courtesy suggests that you might want to point out to your disputant that you have invoked this rule.
2. Return insult with amused derision.
Remember that if you are following the Oftencold Rules, your post is almost certain to be superior in nature to any negative responses it may garner. Consider your emotion-charged detractors to be amusing, slightly defective and over-stimulated children in need of guidance, correction, and chastisement.
3. Return courtesy with courtesy
This rule should be strictly observed, regardless of the degree of disagreement.
4. Try to take the High Road in all situations
It is acceptable to point out your detractors’ lack of intellect, poor reasoning skills, ignorance, apparent emotional state, and failure to grasp the issues. But be merciful and kind to those who are cordial, no matter how grievous the errors they express.

Never attack someone's family.
5. Remember that you wish to convince the “Unseen World”
Face it, as a Conservative, if you are serious about what you post, you have to accept that most of your detractors probably lack the mental agility to reconsider the nonsense that they're posting.

However, it is vital to realize that we are seen by the ghostly, multitudinous, unseen and unregistered visitors drifting through the web earnestly seeking understanding. Seen in that light, your posts become part of an archetypal dialog, a way of educating the lost, the ignorant, and the newly aware.

Who knows who will read your words and when? And who can predict their effect? While you generally must respond to contradictory posts, your target audience should usually not be the person unwise enough to dispute with you, but those that read the discourse.

Converting your opponent is secondary; they are a mere tool to express your superior position to others.

6. Choose your individual words with care
It is painfully obvious to the casual observer that the preponderance of wit, intellect, reasoning, compassion, and functionality rest squarely on the Right side of the political spectrum. In fairness, the Liberals have a lock on most of the spittle launching rage and self-absorption. This is incontestable.
However, we must never forget that there are young to be educated, political neophytes to be won over and perhaps most importantly, the occasional individual from the Left who has suddenly gained new insight and run screaming into the night.

These people need our help! And they must be shown that there is a clear difference between Conservatism and The Forces of Darkness, Chaos, Suffering and Loss, or Liberalism for short.

We cannot help them easily if we sound like our opponents! Every time we hear someone say that there is no difference between the Left and the Right, we should see it as a failure on our part to successfully evangelize.

Therefore, avoid frequent use of vulgar terms for body parts, references to private bodily functions, offal, excreta and what Terry Pratchett has called “women of negotiable affection.”

The mind of a Conservative is refined and polished, their words must be as well.

7. Do not insist on the last word in a thread.
Your Opponent will generally descend in a few levels of discourse into ranting, threats, insults, innuendo, name calling, fragmentary arguments, futile attacks on your character, spite filled ravenings and general drivel.

Allow other readers to see the point at which you ascertained that further discourse was pointless. This will cast the feeble nature of the Liberal argument into stark relief, akin to an embittered individual left to mumble to himself while more functional company has wandered away.

8. Retract, apologize or concede when you are shown that you are wrong or may have given unintended offense
This rule which may come to be known as “the Bitter Pill,” can do little to harm your reputation, and may do a great deal to enhance it. No one should be allowed to force its invocation from you. But you should know when its use has become necessary.

Apologies should be both posted, and sent as a private message.
9. Forgive
If conservatism is to triumph, and if that triumph is to lead to a better World, we must forgive those who trespass against us, have insulted us, abused us as the result of a defective mental state, made comments normally associated with the half hour before medication time in a ward for the treatment of violent psychopaths, and generally have in the past been far beneath contempt.
Always welcome a genuine convert as a returning Prodigal.
10. Document
If you are making a point that is alien to Liberals, (references to factual information for instance,) try to make it a practice to link to several corroborating sources. Educational sources and Liberal bastions such as the New York Times are generally to be preferred.
11. Strive for correct spelling and at least reasonable grammar.
We’re the smart ones after all, let's not let the Benighted forget that.
12. Never call a "lectern" a “podium!”
Sorry, it's a pet peeve.
 
Ironically, this is similar to the rules that I attempt to follow in my own postings.
 
Ironically, this is similar to the rules that I attempt to follow in my own postings.
Yip me too, and the tongue in cheek nicks at liberals aside, this is pretty obvious debate 101 stuff.;)
 
Yup, that's about what I try to do; exchange conservatism with centrism. I would put it slightly less pompously, though I do admire the masterful writing at display here.
 
Yup, that's about what I try to do; exchange conservatism with centrism. I would put it slightly less pompously, though I do admire the masterful writing at display here.
Pompously?



Pompously?!



I like it!


:mrgreen:
 
Dude,

You really like to hear yourself talk!

Some of the things you said I agree with (Rules #6-10), the others (Rules #2, 4 and 5), I found to be arrogant, conceited, narcissistic and hypocritical.

Oftencold's Rule #2:
Remember that if you are following the Oftencold Rules, your post is almost certain to be superior in nature to any negative responses it may garner. Consider your emotion-charged detractors to be amusing, slightly defective and over-stimulated children in need of guidance, correction, and chastisement.
"...almost certain to be superior..."

The only thing superior about that is the conceit at which it is stated. Did you ever think that the things YOU say ARE negative? That they DESERVE a negative response. Do you think that when you act like you are superior to someone else, they should say, "Thank you?" Or why would you think it wrong for someone to respond to your brazen arrogance by saying, "Who the hell are you to be talking?" When you treat someone as though they were less than you, and they react negatively, it might not be because they are children, but as a result of some crap you just said.

Oftencold's Rule #4:
It is acceptable to point out your detractors’ lack of intellect, poor reasoning skills, ignorance, apparent emotional state, and failure to grasp the issues. But be merciful and kind to those who are cordial, no matter how grievous the errors they express.

Never attack someone's family.
This rule is actually a violation of DP rules. It is "NOT" acceptable to attack another poster. You can attack what they say, or how they say it, but not them, themselves. I ought to know, I'm one of the biggest violators of that. But I do agree whole-heartedly about being "kind" and "cordial" as much as you possibly can. The problem is, you got a lot of pricks around here (and many of them are conservative, emotional pricks) that sometimes deserve the bad side.

This one I found quite hypocritical...
Oftencold's Rule #7:
Your Opponent will generally descend in a few levels of discourse into ranting, threats, insults, innuendo, name calling, fragmentary arguments, futile attacks on your character, spite filled ravenings and general drivel.
...you say your "opponant" will "descend" into "insults" and "attacks on your character", however, in your own Rule #4, it is okay for you to "point out" things that are insulting, innuendo and character attacks. What's good for the goose, is not good for the gander. I can't stand hypocrits. The door swings both ways in my world.

Rule #8 is a nice thing to say, but a hard thing to put into practice for some people around here. Others would rather die than admit they were wrong. As an example, all these conservative Bushies that defend every single thing this Administration has done, even if it is torture. Even when it has been proven he lied, they still act like he didn't. Even when you provide irrefutable evidence, they spin, dance and go to the most extreme excuses to make these actions seem okay. That has nothing to do with "emotional liberalism", but it does have something to do with the mental instability of many conservatives who can't see the forest through the trees.

Don't talk to me about which side is more emotional, this has nothing to do with sides.
 
ROFLOL!


Oh Billo, I never need to worry about the vagaries of surprise when you are around. It was your posts that reminded me that I had written this piece and sent me off to fetch it!

As I've taken pains to point out, I'm not arrogant, I'm informed.
 
Last edited:
ROFLOL!


Oh Billo, I never need to worry about the vagaries of surprise when you are around. It was your posts that reminded me that I had written this piece and sent me off to fetch it!

As I've taken pains to point out, I'm not arrogant, I'm informed.
In that case, you owe me a buck-fifty!
 
Interestingly enough, I use similar rules , though with a few alterations/additions, to defeat conservative posters, repeatedly. My method, Judo-debating allows them to often defeat themselves.
 
Interestingly enough, I use similar rules , though with a few alterations/additions, to defeat conservative posters, repeatedly. My method, Judo-debating allows them to often defeat themselves.
Then I look forward to our potential debates! They should be like the traditional debate in the House of Commons: elegant, well structured, using proper and refined English, and fairly dripping with venom.

Sounds like fun!
 
. . .
This rule is actually a violation of DP rules. It is "NOT" acceptable to attack another poster. You can attack what they say, or how they say it, but not them, themselves. I ought to know, I'm one of the biggest violators of that. But I do agree whole-heartedly about being "kind" and "cordial" as much as you possibly can. The problem is, you got a lot of pricks around here (and many of them are conservative, emotional pricks) that sometimes deserve the bad side.
Pointing out these things is not an automatic attack, by any means. One must be clever enough to know how to do so without violating the TOS.

Indeed it is almost a duty to point out some of these things to those who hold these traits but are unaware.
This one I found quite hypocritical...
...you say your "opponant" will "descend" into "insults" and "attacks on your character", however, in your own Rule #4, it is okay for you to "point out" things that are insulting, innuendo and character attacks. What's good for the goose, is not good for the gander. I can't stand hypocrits. The door swings both ways in my world.
But. . .my opponents usually do just this! If I chose to ignore observed facts, I might as well become a Liberal, no?

Rule #8 is a nice thing to say, but a hard thing to put into practice for some people around here. Others would rather die than admit they were wrong. . .
Thus, I wrote a guide. You see?
Don't talk to me about which side is more emotional, this has nothing to do with sides.
Of course it does-- it helps to define the sides. You really need to take a look at what differentiates the different positions.

You know, my user name doesn't just refer to the climate I live in, it expresses a way of thinking, and it is very, very powerful. I want you to take advantage of it for your own sake.


I wish you had elaborated on #5. In many ways it is the key to good Conservative posting.
 
Then I look forward to our potential debates! They should be like the traditional debate in the House of Commons: elegant, well structured, using proper and refined English, and fairly dripping with venom.

Sounds like fun!

We already tried that, once. You didn't survive my bite. :laughat::neutral:

There, was that venomous enough? :mrgreen:
 
Pointing out these things is not an automatic attack, by any means. One must be clever enough to know how to do so without violating the TOS.
So what are you saying? That it is okay to attack someone's character, as long as you don't get caught? Or your opponant is too stupid to pick up on it? If you have to resort to ad hominum's, you don't have an argument to defend.

Indeed it is almost a duty to point out some of these things to those who hold these traits but are unaware.
Do you not realize, these "traits" you feel the need to "point out", may be just your perceptions and possibly not as accurate as you think they are? You perceived I was emotional, but when I look back at the few words I have stated responding to your posts, I don't see what you are talking about. Can you give me an example of this emotional diatribe you are referring too?

But. . .my opponents usually do just this! If I chose to ignore observed facts, I might as well become a Liberal, no?
This is where you start to lose it with me. When you broadstroke a group as though "Liberals" are one entity. But it is damn convenient, isn't it?

Thus, I wrote a guide. You see?
I'll admit, you get Kudo's for that.

Of course it does-- it helps to define the sides. You really need to take a look at what differentiates the different positions.
What makes you think I don't? You seem to like jumping to conclusions.

You know, my user name doesn't just refer to the climate I live in, it expresses a way of thinking, and it is very, very powerful. I want you to take advantage of it for your own sake.
I don't take advantage of others. The way I deal with life, is to make life deal with me.

I wish you had elaborated on #5. In many ways it is the key to good Conservative posting.
I can do that. But I don't think it has anything to do with being liberal or conservative. It's very easy to put labels on people and call it a day. It's a technique people use as a way of avoiding a debate. All you got to do is label a person a "liberal", or his source "biased", or the way he said something as "emotional" and nuff said. End of argument. Everybody knows what you mean. He's wrong because he's a liberal, biased or emotional. He's not wrong because you failed to prove him wrong or specifically address what he claimed.
 
Last edited:
stuff ya rules up your arse smeg face :2razz:
 
So what are you saying? That it is okay to attack someone's character, as long as you don't get caught? Or your opponant is too stupid to pick up on it? If you have to resort to ad hominum's, you don't have an argument to defend.
I am saying, that pointing out obvious aspects of character is a valid layer in a political debate. A similar condition exists in science, as the nature, mental condition, preconceptions and limitations of the observer, are ultimately part of the event.

This analytical tool is not an attack, except to the deliberately duplicitous.

I have not slandered a thief if I announce the he steals things, nor the unlearned if I proclaim their ignorance.

How can a profound, well orchestrated deception for instance, be opposed without drawing attention to the character of the deceiver?

For example. Assume that Mr. X should announce that he will perform some charitable act, say build a hospital, if people will donate $50,000,000 dollars to him. Further assume that he produces a truck load of perfectly forged documents attesting to his goodwill and expertise in such matters. In fact, assume that Mr. X has constructed a near-perfect swindle.

Finally, in this example, assume that the only thing known of Mr. X outside of his prepared persona is that he is known to be an accomplished huckster and thief.

If it is disallowed to consider his character, then the swindle has a far greater chance of success than if people can use common sense and reject his pleas on the grounds that Mr. X is a scoundrel.
Do you not realize, these "traits" you feel the need to "point out", may be just your perceptions and possibly not as accurate as you think they are?
For a few seconds, then I am forced to conclude that I am correct. I have been at this sort of thing for a very long time. Considering people's thoughts and mental states is one of my main activities.

It's a burden I am willing to bear.

You perceived I was emotional, but when I look back at the few words I have stated responding to your posts, I don't see what you are talking about. Can you give me an example of this emotional diatribe you are referring too?
I had planned to make a little game out of creating a long list of examples. However, the first one I encountered was such a stellar display, that I have decided that it shall stand in for all the rest.

LINK

I have replied to this post its context. I will only add hear that I had experienced some anxiety that I might appear rude by not replying to the earlier post the example refers to in a timely manner.

Sadly, such consideration and decorum does not seem to be a shared trait.
This is where you start to lose it with me. When you broadstroke a group as though "Liberals" are one entity. But it is damn convenient, isn't it?
You do realize that this is a political debate forum, yes? It is customary to use such labels and assumptions in such a discourse.

Now, if we were sitting in someone's living room, and discussing personal interactions and problems, I would be more interested in nuance and fine differences of meaning.

Sadly though, as I take pains to point out to Statists, Socialists, Liberals, Communists, and other Fantasists, Government is a crude tool. This tends to limit discussions of its related issues to generalizations.

I'll admit, you get Kudo's for that.
Thank you.
What makes you think I don't? You seem to like jumping to conclusions.
You posts.

I maintain that no one can embrace modern Western Liberalism, if they are at once intelligent, informed, mentally functional and experienced in human affairs.

I have found that at least one of these elements must be deficient or entirely absent for such philosophy to be embraced.

This will of course seem arrogant to you, but it is simple cognizance to me.
I don't take advantage of others.
Oh? Really? Who makes your clothing? Do you buy products made in China? Have you ever accepted funds or benefits for which I was taxed?

Do you defend yourself from foreign powers, or do you allow soldiers to do that for you? Can we assume that your family never gives you aid, not even a little loan here and there?

And what about the many thousands who have died or been maimed these last few centuries, that you today should claim rights and liberty?

I could go on for some time, but I'd imagine that you get the point now, or you never will.
The way I deal with life, is to make life deal with me.
You must be remarkably young then. life has a way of letting us know how little we actually do control. I sincerely hope that your lessons in this matter will be gentle.
I can do that. But I don't think it has anything to do with being liberal or conservative. It's very easy to put labels on people and call it a day. It's a technique people use as a way of avoiding a debate. All you got to do is label a person a "liberal", or his source "biased", or the way he said something as "emotional" and nuff said. End of argument. Everybody knows what you mean. He's wrong because he's a liberal, biased or emotional. He's not wrong because you failed to prove him wrong or specifically address what he claimed.

Again , this is the nature of political debate. Labels are effective and proper if used honestly in such a discourse.

As far as calling a source "biased," well, if it is, it is. This is why I brilliantly suggest in rule #10 that Liberal-biased sources are to be preferred by the Conservative poster. I rather think that a Liberal poster would have a harder time utilizing the reverse case.

I do not rule out the possible truth of an argument because it has an emotional element, but I do accept the obvious fact that reason often suffers in the face of heightened emotion.

Thus in a serious debate about almost anything, but especially politics, excess emotionalism detracts for a fair exchange of views and ideas. So I helpfully point it out, that it might be corrected by the serious poster.


Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind.
--Terry Pratchett in Reaper Man
 
Last edited:
So what are you saying? That it is okay to attack someone's character, as long as you don't get caught? Or your opponant is too stupid to pick up on it? If you have to resort to ad hominum's, you don't have an argument to defend.

Do you not realize, these "traits" you feel the need to "point out", may be just your perceptions and possibly not as accurate as you think they are? You perceived I was emotional, but when I look back at the few words I have stated responding to your posts, I don't see what you are talking about. Can you give me an example of this emotional diatribe you are referring too?

This is where you start to lose it with me. When you broadstroke a group as though "Liberals" are one entity. But it is damn convenient, isn't it?

I'll admit, you get Kudo's for that.

What makes you think I don't? You seem to like jumping to conclusions.

I don't take advantage of others. The way I deal with life, is to make life deal with me.

I can do that. But I don't think it has anything to do with being liberal or conservative. It's very easy to put labels on people and call it a day. It's a technique people use as a way of avoiding a debate. All you got to do is label a person a "liberal", or his source "biased", or the way he said something as "emotional" and nuff said. End of argument. Everybody knows what you mean. He's wrong because he's a liberal, biased or emotional. He's not wrong because you failed to prove him wrong or specifically address what he claimed.

stuff ya rules up your arse smeg face :2razz:
Thank you Tool-Of_Mine, for so brilliantly illustrating rules #5, #6 and #11, as I invoke rule #1.
 
Thank you Tool-Of_Mine, for so brilliantly illustrating rules #5, #6 and #11, as I invoke rule #1.
So you simply refuse to answer the questions. I asked you a direct question and there is nothing in your rules #5, #6 or #11 that have anything to do with that. All you are doing is avoiding the issue. So why even log on if you have no intention of debating?

My bad! I just saw the post above. I retract the above statement.

What's that? Rule #8?
 
Last edited:
Interestingly enough, I use similar rules , though with a few alterations/additions, to defeat conservative posters, repeatedly. My method, Judo-debating allows them to often defeat themselves.
Interesting, what "conservative" have you defeated beside TruthDetector? :mrgreen: kidding, you seem more conservative than others I've met.

Anyway. How is there really any "defeat" or "victory" in political debate here? I mean, really, neither side is going to give up and if one feels like a fool, they'll just feed themselves more twisted information so as to debate smartly, but still be just as wrong. I have yet to see any sort of political conversion on this board, on any issue.
 
So you simply refuse to answer the questions. I asked you a direct question and there is nothing in your rules #5, #6 or #11 that have anything to do with that. All you are doing is avoiding the issue. So why even log on if you have no intention of debating?

My bad! I just saw the post above. I retract the above statement.

What's that? Rule #8?
LOL! Well done!
 
Back
Top Bottom