Total Posts:78|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What's The Cause Of Liberal Intolerance?

jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:10:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
As bonny ole Shakespeare might say, the fault, ye liberals, lies not in your too strenuously professed adoration of complete servility, your utter inability to produce but a mere cogitation sans some furtherance on behalf of the state, or within your ideology's inherent eagerness to stifle any contrariety or perceived "heresy" against your own peevish suppositions... Alas, my friends, I jest, for verily the aforementioned liberal characteristics be problems of mountainous proportions for any ideology.

Oh, and after giving it some serious thought, I've come to the conclusion that liberalism is a serious mental disorder and perhaps some kind of mental retardation. Me thinks this shocking conclusion necessitates a sub-topic of sorts: Is Liberalism a Form of Asperger's? (This will be dealt with after I sufficiently make the case that liberals are characteristically, almost by definition, intolerant. Stay tuned!)

Let us begin with an investigation of some liberal beliefs to prove that modern day liberals are intolerant practically by definition. First of all, let's contrast liberalism with libertarianism. Libertarianism is, very simply put, an ideology based upon the moral rule that every human being is entitled to his life and property, and assuming they don't infringe upon this right of others, no one has a right to take it away from them, no matter what. In other words: tolerance. Liberalism as we know it today is the antithesis of libertarianism. In other words: intolerance. While old school - and I mean old school - liberals believed in free markets, free speech, and free ideas, liberals today emphatically reject such tolerance.

Doubting the validity of man-made global warming, among many liberals, is akin to denying the existence of the Holocaust, if not even worse. Questioning the racial fairness of affirmative action in the presence of a liberal will lead the liberal to promptly shut down his mind to intellectual honesty, thus forcing him to think in the black and white terms of "good" or "bad", "pro-racial equality" or "pro-racism." Needless to say, questioning affirmative action makes you a racist and reasonable debate is next to impossible. Liberals also desire a totalitarian-like regulation of the media to silence free speech and broadcast only what they perceive to be desirable.

And on the subject of totalitarianism, consider George Orwell's 1984 - Big Brother is always watching you, in every way possible. You watch what he thinks you should watch, you hear what he thinks you should hear, you go where he thinks you should go, and you think what he thinks you should think - the parallels between Big Brother, his government, and what modern liberals consider desirable in an ideal society are striking indeed!

When society is controlled by liberals, the state regulates everything to the point that anything any of your 5 senses come into contact with must be deemed acceptable by the state beforehand. Be it through what you should be allowed to eat, what you're allowed to see or hear, or what you're allowed to say, you have no freedom or individual rights. Surely this is the opposite of tolerance.

What you're tolerated to eat - refer to the Food and Drug Administration's ban on the interstate sale of raw milk, aka milk that has not been pasteurized. Liberals and "progressives" have a long history of food regulation of course - look at the well intentioned but extremely misguided attempts at the beginning of the 20th century to regulate what the average citizen is allowed to produce, eat, and drink, through the federal government.

What you're tolerated to see/hear - I highlight this because the utter destruction of the First Amendment and the right to free speech, is crucial in liberal ideology. Take a took at the Alien and Sedition Acts perpetrated by big government liberals of the Federalist Party, signed into law by President John Adams in 1798. Of course, the acts were solely to "protect America from foreign enemies" but this involved silencing any critique of the all mighty government in the process. It is noteworthy that prominent libertarian Thomas Jefferson, co-founder of the Democratic-Republican Party and one of the most influential philosophers in libertarian thought, staunchly opposed the unconstitutional, totalitarian, and INTOLERANT actions, as did his largely libertarian, anti-big government, pro-tolerance party.

Now consider modern liberals, to whom my arguments are primarily directed. Is the philosophy behind the Alien and Sedition Acts not apparent in what modern liberals deem "hate speech"? The Alien and Sedition Acts are clearly in line with liberals' advocacy of highly regulated communications media, like TV show programs or talk radio, so that the only messages allowed to be broadcasted are the ones in line with their ideas. Conservative ideas are, needless to say, not allowed. But not only should conservative ideas not be allowed to be expressed in the media - liberals routinely defend speech codes in universities, thus disregarding the profoundly American right to free speech as protected under the First Amendment. Conservative speakers are often not allowed to come to speak at these predominantly liberal campuses and certainly would not be granted any respect if they did. Someone else pointed out in other thread the cases of a liberal audience shouting down a black speaker who dared raise an argument against affirmative action, and that liberal college students literally cut John Stossel's microphone when he suggested that having sex while drunk should not be qualified as rape. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly obvious that liberalism is synonymous with intolerance.

So far, I have addressed liberal intolerance and how it is undeniably rooted in their often totalitarian views which make no room for the rights of the individual and how they characteristically shut out any opposition to their opinions. I shall now briefly address the liberal characteristics which I believe lead to the conclusion that liberalism is indeed a form of serious mental illness, or at last bears important similarities between them and the mentally retarded. To illustrate this I will quote from my introduction: "...your adoration of complete servility, your utter inability to produce but a mere cogitation sans some furtherance on behalf of the state..."

Often, the mentally ill of all sorts rely on another party of some sort throughout their entire lives; they need to be fully taken care of by someone else in order to survive. Similarly, liberals rebel against individual responsibility and obligations that come with a normal human being's adulthood. Instead, they demand that the "parental" government take care of their each and every need from cradle to grave. Liberals, like the mentally ill and retarded, or at best like small children, fail to understand the train of thought of anyone but their own. They immediately close down their minds to contrary opinion when presented with sound, rational argument that might threaten their extremely limited point of view. As such, it is quite clear that liberals share distinct characteristics with the mentally retarded, in their reliance on other parties and desired lack of self sufficiency, their shirking of obligations that come with life as a normal citizen in the real world, and their apparent inability to respect or understand ideas that do not coincide with their own. If not the mindset of the mentally retarded it is certainly the mindset of the young, immature child. (I must now admit that I was joking about the Asperger's comparison, I think we all now where the parody comes from).

Conclusion located directly below.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:15:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

Liberals are characteristically childish and intolerant. They cannot function without assistance from government or at least don't want to, which leads to their advocacy of the totalitarian state systematically stripping away individual rights, not unlike Big Brother's government from 1984. They believe in minimal freedom of expression and the silencing of contrary thoughts – if this is not the epitome of intolerance, I must not really understand the meaning of the word. Are liberals by definition mentally ill or retarded? I'm not quite sure, but the similarities sure are striking and reveal some important fundamental flaws in liberal ideology. That liberals are childishly intolerant is really beyond reasonable doubt. But, of course, reasonable doubt is something that liberals aren't accustomed to.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:17:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Meh, all parties promote intolerance and hatred. The only solution to achieve peace and tolerance is that everyone shuts the fvck up and stops giving a damn and learns to use the philosophy of the dogs.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:24:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 4:17:43 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Meh, all parties promote intolerance and hatred. The only solution to achieve peace and tolerance is that everyone shuts the fvck up and stops giving a damn and learns to use the philosophy of the dogs.

My posts were not referring to any parties, but rather to an individual philosophy. While the Libertarian Party might promote intolerance and hatred, libertarianism promotes the exact opposite. The only solution to achieve peace and tolerance is that everyone learns the idea of individual freedom, because humans will always disagree on many things, unfortunately even on the ideas of individual and freedom, so complete peace and tolerance is essentially impossible. But then again, freedom is a relatively new idea, at least in the context of human history, so we can't really be sure. Maybe I should have made the case that liberalism is an evolutionary leftover. But anyway, it is undeniable that libertarianism is the ideology of peace and tolerance. And I believe I made a good case that liberalism, at its core and in its practical manifestations, is the antithesis of that. Don't "meh" me! =P
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:25:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 4:24:31 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:17:43 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Meh, all parties promote intolerance and hatred. The only solution to achieve peace and tolerance is that everyone shuts the fvck up and stops giving a damn and learns to use the philosophy of the dogs.

My posts were not referring to any parties, but rather to an individual philosophy. While the Libertarian Party might promote intolerance and hatred, libertarianism promotes the exact opposite. The only solution to achieve peace and tolerance is that everyone learns the idea of individual freedom, because humans will always disagree on many things, unfortunately even on the ideas of individual and freedom, so complete peace and tolerance is essentially impossible. But then again, freedom is a relatively new idea, at least in the context of human history, so we can't really be sure. Maybe I should have made the case that liberalism is an evolutionary leftover. But anyway, it is undeniable that libertarianism is the ideology of peace and tolerance. And I believe I made a good case that liberalism, at its core and in its practical manifestations, is the antithesis of that. Don't "meh" me! =P

***Sorry, should be even on the rights of individual liberties and freedom.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:58:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 4:25:40 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:24:31 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:17:43 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Meh, all parties promote intolerance and hatred. The only solution to achieve peace and tolerance is that everyone shuts the fvck up and stops giving a damn and learns to use the philosophy of the dogs.

My posts were not referring to any parties, but rather to an individual philosophy. While the Libertarian Party might promote intolerance and hatred, libertarianism promotes the exact opposite. The only solution to achieve peace and tolerance is that everyone learns the idea of individual freedom, because humans will always disagree on many things, unfortunately even on the ideas of individual and freedom, so complete peace and tolerance is essentially impossible. But then again, freedom is a relatively new idea, at least in the context of human history, so we can't really be sure. Maybe I should have made the case that liberalism is an evolutionary leftover. But anyway, it is undeniable that libertarianism is the ideology of peace and tolerance. And I believe I made a good case that liberalism, at its core and in its practical manifestations, is the antithesis of that. Don't "meh" me! =P

***Sorry, should be even on the rights of individual liberties and freedom.

My point remains, and I rest my case.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 5:31:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is a gigantic double standard that they have created, and they have been far better at marketing/manipulation than conservatives could ever hope to be. Keep in mind that truth is irrelevant to advancing an agenda, so keep that up front. So what the left has done is created acceptable and non acceptable intolerance, and Charlesb pretty much explained this. If you can deem someone as an oppressor, it's quite acceptable to hate them, or anyone who blocks the agenda, it's okay to hate them, but for all others its about fear and unquestioning persuasion.

But again, the left is superior at marketing their agenda and controlling the group think. Take Israel and the Jews; it's perfectly acceptable to hate Israel because they are an oppressor. Now i do believe that anti semitism is a contributing factor to the hatred toward Israel, but it's more within the psyche of those who are pushing the cause against Israel. Conservatives don't bother attacking on anything but their stance on Israel, and reasons why Israel should be supported. Compare that to illegal immigration. There are a variety of excellent reasons why a conservative or anyone should be against illegal immigration, and many conservatives are ready to back up their case against illegal immigration. However, the left responds not by arguing the points as conservatives do with Israel, no they call those who are anti-illegal immigration racists, and they hate people of color. They are made out as KKK followers or rednecks, and haters. This is an amazingly effective technique because the emotion trumps the rational argument, and immediately puts the conservative on the defense by asking him how many times he beat his wife today.

It is quite acceptable to be intolerant of hate, but to really use it as you want, you have to manufacture the hate put it on the party that opposes you and then make them squirm.

There is a reason why the left shies away from a site like this. In a rational and logic driven debate emotional pleas aren't terribly effective, and fact plus logic will rule the debate. Fact and logic is only a tool to be used in achieving an end, and distortions of facts and manipulation of logic is the standard MO - hence Howard Zinn.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 7:25:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 4:58:33 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:25:40 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:24:31 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:17:43 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Meh, all parties promote intolerance and hatred. The only solution to achieve peace and tolerance is that everyone shuts the fvck up and stops giving a damn and learns to use the philosophy of the dogs.

My posts were not referring to any parties, but rather to an individual philosophy. While the Libertarian Party might promote intolerance and hatred, libertarianism promotes the exact opposite. The only solution to achieve peace and tolerance is that everyone learns the idea of individual freedom, because humans will always disagree on many things, unfortunately even on the ideas of individual and freedom, so complete peace and tolerance is essentially impossible. But then again, freedom is a relatively new idea, at least in the context of human history, so we can't really be sure. Maybe I should have made the case that liberalism is an evolutionary leftover. But anyway, it is undeniable that libertarianism is the ideology of peace and tolerance. And I believe I made a good case that liberalism, at its core and in its practical manifestations, is the antithesis of that. Don't "meh" me! =P

***Sorry, should be even on the rights of individual liberties and freedom.

My point remains, and I rest my case.

No it doesn't, because you criticized parties, which my argument had nothing to do with, and if by parties you are also including philosophies/ideologies, you are incorrect because libertarianism does not promote intolerance and hatred. Also, though I disagree with your "only solution" of "everyone shuts the fvck up and stops giving a damn and learns to use the philosophy of the dogs", because ideally people should have the right to say what they want to say and to give a damn if they so please, so long as they don't intrude on the life and liberty of others. I know you may think it unlikely and perhaps utopian for that philosophy to really be prevalent in the world, but liberty is a very new idea in the context of human history, so I still consider the solution of liberty to be a worthy goal.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 11:17:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Jat93,

If you think that liberals (whatever one takes this to mean) are the only group consistently capable of being intolerant, I'd suggest, y'know, living in the real-world for a second. Sure, there may be hypocrites on the left who charge racism, or ignorance or whatever just to avoid an argument, but there is just as many on the right who will take any criticism of American foreign policy as "unpatriotic", or accuse criticisers of Palin/Bachman being sexist and so forth. There is no monopoly of hate, stupidity or ignorance on either side, and the fact that you seem to think so is because you're probably the type of person who you scorn, except you just do it from the right.

As for there even being a "left" in American political discourse, I highly doubt it. Sure, there's an academic left of anarchists, socialists, communists and so forth, but in Congress, maybe only Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich would be politicians who I would consider to be on the left. For people to think Obama is a socialist or a Marxist is far more indicative of their own leanings than it does to that of Obama. As Jon Stewart put it:

"At what point in the 3% tax rise does it become socialism?"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 11:28:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 11:17:16 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Jat93,

If you think that liberals (whatever one takes this to mean) are the only group consistently capable of being intolerant, I'd suggest, y'know, living in the real-world for a second. Sure, there may be hypocrites on the left who charge racism, or ignorance or whatever just to avoid an argument, but there is just as many on the right who will take any criticism of American foreign policy as "unpatriotic", or accuse criticisers of Palin/Bachman being sexist and so forth. There is no monopoly of hate, stupidity or ignorance on either side, and the fact that you seem to think so is because you're probably the type of person who you scorn, except you just do it from the right.

As for there even being a "left" in American political discourse, I highly doubt it. Sure, there's an academic left of anarchists, socialists, communists and so forth, but in Congress, maybe only Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich would be politicians who I would consider to be on the left. For people to think Obama is a socialist or a Marxist is far more indicative of their own leanings than it does to that of Obama. As Jon Stewart put it:

"At what point in the 3% tax rise does it become socialism?"

Do you really feel qualified to make an accurate evaluation of the American left, and those who dwell within our population of politicians?
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 11:37:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Innomen,

It's ironic that you cite anti-Semitism as part of the reason people criticise Israel (it probably is to some degree), yet in the exact same post, characterise the left as manufacturing the politics of hate to avoid argumentation. This is definitely an issue which some on the right do exactly what you and Jat seem to be accusing the left of doing - hiding behind the terms "racist" or "anti-semitic" when someone makes substantive criticisms of Israel. Just look at Finkelstein losing his job over criticising Israel as a case in point.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 11:42:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 11:28:01 AM, innomen wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:17:16 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Jat93,

If you think that liberals (whatever one takes this to mean) are the only group consistently capable of being intolerant, I'd suggest, y'know, living in the real-world for a second. Sure, there may be hypocrites on the left who charge racism, or ignorance or whatever just to avoid an argument, but there is just as many on the right who will take any criticism of American foreign policy as "unpatriotic", or accuse criticisers of Palin/Bachman being sexist and so forth. There is no monopoly of hate, stupidity or ignorance on either side, and the fact that you seem to think so is because you're probably the type of person who you scorn, except you just do it from the right.

As for there even being a "left" in American political discourse, I highly doubt it. Sure, there's an academic left of anarchists, socialists, communists and so forth, but in Congress, maybe only Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich would be politicians who I would consider to be on the left. For people to think Obama is a socialist or a Marxist is far more indicative of their own leanings than it does to that of Obama. As Jon Stewart put it:

"At what point in the 3% tax rise does it become socialism?"

Do you really feel qualified to make an accurate evaluation of the American left, and those who dwell within our population of politicians?

Sure. I'm pretty sure that you guys (when referring to the left) will mention Obama or Bill Clinton, but if terms like "socialist" or "marxist" have objective meaning (which they do), then these terms don't apply to pretty much most individuals in American politics. In fact, very few. The fact that liberals are seen as left at all is pretty astonishing, given that everywhere else, they would be somewhere in the middle.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 12:41:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 11:17:16 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Jat93,

If you think that liberals (whatever one takes this to mean) are the only group consistently capable of being intolerant, I'd suggest, y'know, living in the real-world for a second.:

If you can't tell, this is a parody thread making fun of Charleslb's long-winded rants about the evils of conservatism and libertarianism. Charles decided to liken the aforementioned groups as suffering from some mental disability like autism.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 1:10:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 11:17:16 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Jat93,

If you think that liberals (whatever one takes this to mean) are the only group consistently capable of being intolerant, I'd suggest, y'know, living in the real-world for a second. Sure, there may be hypocrites on the left who charge racism, or ignorance or whatever just to avoid an argument, but there is just as many on the right who will take any criticism of American foreign policy as "unpatriotic", or accuse criticisers of Palin/Bachman being sexist and so forth.

No, there are not. It don't know of anyone in the intellectual or political leadership on the right who refuses to debate, advocates that opposing speech prohibited, demands that faculty and speakers on campus must b conservative, tolerates harassment or violence against opponents, or systematically justifies class warfare or hatred. If you have examples, cite them. For example, who says that any critic of foreign policy is unpatriotic?
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 1:44:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 11:42:22 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:28:01 AM, innomen wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:17:16 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Jat93,

If you think that liberals (whatever one takes this to mean) are the only group consistently capable of being intolerant, I'd suggest, y'know, living in the real-world for a second. Sure, there may be hypocrites on the left who charge racism, or ignorance or whatever just to avoid an argument, but there is just as many on the right who will take any criticism of American foreign policy as "unpatriotic", or accuse criticisers of Palin/Bachman being sexist and so forth. There is no monopoly of hate, stupidity or ignorance on either side, and the fact that you seem to think so is because you're probably the type of person who you scorn, except you just do it from the right.

As for there even being a "left" in American political discourse, I highly doubt it. Sure, there's an academic left of anarchists, socialists, communists and so forth, but in Congress, maybe only Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich would be politicians who I would consider to be on the left. For people to think Obama is a socialist or a Marxist is far more indicative of their own leanings than it does to that of Obama. As Jon Stewart put it:

"At what point in the 3% tax rise does it become socialism?"

Do you really feel qualified to make an accurate evaluation of the American left, and those who dwell within our population of politicians?

Sure. I'm pretty sure that you guys (when referring to the left) will mention Obama or Bill Clinton, but if terms like "socialist" or "marxist" have objective meaning (which they do), then these terms don't apply to pretty much most individuals in American politics. In fact, very few. The fact that liberals are seen as left at all is pretty astonishing, given that everywhere else, they would be somewhere in the middle.

So i would debate you on this, because again i think you don't know what you're talking about. You know there are 435 members of the house right? You are familiar with them so well that you are willing to debate me on them? Do you know for example the politics of Ed Markey? Of course there are also our politicians in our states that are part of our political system. I think that you are probably far less aware of our make up than you think.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 1:51:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 4:15:09 AM, jat93 wrote:
Conclusion

Liberals are characteristically childish and intolerant. They cannot function without assistance from government or at least don't want to, which leads to their advocacy of the totalitarian state systematically stripping away individual rights, not unlike Big Brother's government from 1984. They believe in minimal freedom of expression and the silencing of contrary thoughts – if this is not the epitome of intolerance, I must not really understand the meaning of the word. Are liberals by definition mentally ill or retarded? I'm not quite sure, but the similarities sure are striking and reveal some important fundamental flaws in liberal ideology. That liberals are childishly intolerant is really beyond reasonable doubt. But, of course, reasonable doubt is something that liberals aren't accustomed to.

A more accurate diagnosis would be autism. Libertarians can have Aspergers.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 2:00:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 11:37:09 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Innomen,

It's ironic that you cite anti-Semitism as part of the reason people criticise Israel (it probably is to some degree), yet in the exact same post, characterise the left as manufacturing the politics of hate to avoid argumentation. This is definitely an issue which some on the right do exactly what you and Jat seem to be accusing the left of doing - hiding behind the terms "racist" or "anti-semitic" when someone makes substantive criticisms of Israel. Just look at Finkelstein losing his job over criticising Israel as a case in point.

Seriously? You really think that there is wide spread accusations from conservatives toward lefties of racism, i mean as a mode of operation? That's just ridiculous. I actually congratulate the left for mounting such an effective strategy against its opposition, because it is winning. When truth is optional, and pliable, you have a winning team.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 2:31:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 7:25:21 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:58:33 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:25:40 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:24:31 AM, jat93 wrote:
At 7/24/2011 4:17:43 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
Meh, all parties promote intolerance and hatred. The only solution to achieve peace and tolerance is that everyone shuts the fvck up and stops giving a damn and learns to use the philosophy of the dogs.

My posts were not referring to any parties, but rather to an individual philosophy. While the Libertarian Party might promote intolerance and hatred, libertarianism promotes the exact opposite. The only solution to achieve peace and tolerance is that everyone learns the idea of individual freedom, because humans will always disagree on many things, unfortunately even on the ideas of individual and freedom, so complete peace and tolerance is essentially impossible. But then again, freedom is a relatively new idea, at least in the context of human history, so we can't really be sure. Maybe I should have made the case that liberalism is an evolutionary leftover. But anyway, it is undeniable that libertarianism is the ideology of peace and tolerance. And I believe I made a good case that liberalism, at its core and in its practical manifestations, is the antithesis of that. Don't "meh" me! =P

***Sorry, should be even on the rights of individual liberties and freedom.

My point remains, and I rest my case.

No it doesn't, because you criticized parties, which my argument had nothing to do with, and if by parties you are also including philosophies/ideologies, you are incorrect because libertarianism does not promote intolerance and hatred. Also, though I disagree with your "only solution" of "everyone shuts the fvck up and stops giving a damn and learns to use the philosophy of the dogs", because ideally people should have the right to say what they want to say and to give a damn if they so please, so long as they don't intrude on the life and liberty of others. I know you may think it unlikely and perhaps utopian for that philosophy to really be prevalent in the world, but liberty is a very new idea in the context of human history, so I still consider the solution of liberty to be a worthy goal.

My point remains, I rest my case.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 2:42:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 4:10:55 AM, jat93 wrote:
Blahbedy fecking blah

Oh look, a troll, upon the grassy knoll,
How droll, so-so, and blinded like a mole.
His opinion's stolen
his momma's so callin'
his penis so small'in
his ego so swollen
a troll
so droll
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 3:21:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 1:10:23 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:17:16 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Jat93,

If you think that liberals (whatever one takes this to mean) are the only group consistently capable of being intolerant, I'd suggest, y'know, living in the real-world for a second. Sure, there may be hypocrites on the left who charge racism, or ignorance or whatever just to avoid an argument, but there is just as many on the right who will take any criticism of American foreign policy as "unpatriotic", or accuse criticisers of Palin/Bachman being sexist and so forth.

No, there are not. It don't know of anyone in the intellectual or political leadership on the right who refuses to debate, advocates that opposing speech prohibited, demands that faculty and speakers on campus must b conservative, tolerates harassment or violence against opponents, or systematically justifies class warfare or hatred. If you have examples, cite them. For example, who says that any critic of foreign policy is unpatriotic?

Well, if you watched Fox News during the last election, Michelle Obama was criticised for "not loving her country" from Hannity numerous times, Obama was criticised for his "apology tour" of Europe because he didn't believe in American exceptionalism, not wearing a flag lapel, was portrayed as some anti-American, communist who grew up, going to a madrassa - all of which was manufactured bs.

You had Michael Steele playing the race card when he had trouble, that crazy Sanchez guy saying that Jews run the media, Glenn Beck's daily conspiracies about Obama being a "racist", "communist", or "radical Marxist". You've got Bill-O' and his whinings about Soros and every year we get to here about how some small town is America is destroying traditional values of conservative Christians by something or other.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 3:34:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 1:44:34 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:42:22 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:28:01 AM, innomen wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:17:16 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Jat93,

If you think that liberals (whatever one takes this to mean) are the only group consistently capable of being intolerant, I'd suggest, y'know, living in the real-world for a second. Sure, there may be hypocrites on the left who charge racism, or ignorance or whatever just to avoid an argument, but there is just as many on the right who will take any criticism of American foreign policy as "unpatriotic", or accuse criticisers of Palin/Bachman being sexist and so forth. There is no monopoly of hate, stupidity or ignorance on either side, and the fact that you seem to think so is because you're probably the type of person who you scorn, except you just do it from the right.

As for there even being a "left" in American political discourse, I highly doubt it. Sure, there's an academic left of anarchists, socialists, communists and so forth, but in Congress, maybe only Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich would be politicians who I would consider to be on the left. For people to think Obama is a socialist or a Marxist is far more indicative of their own leanings than it does to that of Obama. As Jon Stewart put it:

"At what point in the 3% tax rise does it become socialism?"

Do you really feel qualified to make an accurate evaluation of the American left, and those who dwell within our population of politicians?

Sure. I'm pretty sure that you guys (when referring to the left) will mention Obama or Bill Clinton, but if terms like "socialist" or "marxist" have objective meaning (which they do), then these terms don't apply to pretty much most individuals in American politics. In fact, very few. The fact that liberals are seen as left at all is pretty astonishing, given that everywhere else, they would be somewhere in the middle.

So i would debate you on this, because again i think you don't know what you're talking about. You know there are 435 members of the house right? You are familiar with them so well that you are willing to debate me on them? Do you know for example the politics of Ed Markey? Of course there are also our politicians in our states that are part of our political system. I think that you are probably far less aware of our make up than you think.

What Governors and state legislatures you mean? I confess total ignorance on these things, insofar as I know they exist, but don't follow them at all. Wider, national issues, or even state issues covered nationally (like the Blago scandal), I might have some idea. But when folks say stuff like "Keep government out of medicare", and stuff like that, I don't need to be a founding father to know this is silly.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 3:37:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 2:00:19 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:37:09 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Innomen,

It's ironic that you cite anti-Semitism as part of the reason people criticise Israel (it probably is to some degree), yet in the exact same post, characterise the left as manufacturing the politics of hate to avoid argumentation. This is definitely an issue which some on the right do exactly what you and Jat seem to be accusing the left of doing - hiding behind the terms "racist" or "anti-semitic" when someone makes substantive criticisms of Israel. Just look at Finkelstein losing his job over criticising Israel as a case in point.

Seriously? You really think that there is wide spread accusations from conservatives toward lefties of racism, i mean as a mode of operation? That's just ridiculous. I actually congratulate the left for mounting such an effective strategy against its opposition, because it is winning. When truth is optional, and pliable, you have a winning team.

I'm not sure about it generally (although the sexism stuff with Palin in particular seems knee-jerk and constant), but on this issue, it is very common, particularly from the popularisers on the right - Hannity, Bill-O, and others.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 3:41:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 12:32:36 PM, belle wrote:
... i can't believe anyone took this post seriously. lol

Lol, that's because you're a libertarian, belle.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 3:46:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 4:10:55 AM, jat93 wrote:
As bonny ole Shakespeare might say, the fault, ye liberals, ...

Amusing. Belle may not appreciate your satire, as she's a humorless libertarian, but I found it to be a source of many laughs. Oh yeah, you're a "libertarian", I guess some of you do have a sense of humor. Or you were being ridiculous without intending to.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:31:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 3:37:49 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/24/2011 2:00:19 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:37:09 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Innomen,

It's ironic that you cite anti-Semitism as part of the reason people criticise Israel (it probably is to some degree), yet in the exact same post, characterise the left as manufacturing the politics of hate to avoid argumentation. This is definitely an issue which some on the right do exactly what you and Jat seem to be accusing the left of doing - hiding behind the terms "racist" or "anti-semitic" when someone makes substantive criticisms of Israel. Just look at Finkelstein losing his job over criticising Israel as a case in point.

Seriously? You really think that there is wide spread accusations from conservatives toward lefties of racism, i mean as a mode of operation? That's just ridiculous. I actually congratulate the left for mounting such an effective strategy against its opposition, because it is winning. When truth is optional, and pliable, you have a winning team.

I'm not sure about it generally (although the sexism stuff with Palin in particular seems knee-jerk and constant), but on this issue, it is very common, particularly from the popularisers on the right - Hannity, Bill-O, and others.

You'll need to produce some evidence to support that. Who did Bill O'Reilly call racist?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:43:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, if you watched Fox News during the last election, Michelle Obama was criticised for "not loving her country" from Hannity numerous times:

Are you blind or deliberately distorting the image of the other side of the media spectrum who mercilously accused Bush of everything under the sun?

Maybe the media outlets (plural) had a valid point of criticism with Bush, maybe not. Maybe the media outlet (singular) have a valid point with the Obama's, maybe not.

That's not really the point I'm making. The point is that you're being awfully selective in your condemnation. You're willing to sweep all the Left's mudslinging under the rug while hyper-focusing on the Right's penchant to do the exact same thing, especially when the Left has been dominating the media in sheer numbers for over 30 years.

You complain about FOX news, a tiny island in a sea of liberally biased media outlets.

Yeah, Fox is clearly biased towards rightwing agendas. I don't dispute that, and I don't like it. But are you willing to concede the notion that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, the BBC, on and on and on, etc, etc are manufactured under a liberal bias?

I don't trust a single outlet in existence, and I don't play favorites. But you, sir, are being very selective.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2011 4:46:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 7/24/2011 3:34:43 PM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/24/2011 1:44:34 PM, innomen wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:42:22 AM, unitedandy wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:28:01 AM, innomen wrote:
At 7/24/2011 11:17:16 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Jat93,

If you think that liberals (whatever one takes this to mean) are the only group consistently capable of being intolerant, I'd suggest, y'know, living in the real-world for a second. Sure, there may be hypocrites on the left who charge racism, or ignorance or whatever just to avoid an argument, but there is just as many on the right who will take any criticism of American foreign policy as "unpatriotic", or accuse criticisers of Palin/Bachman being sexist and so forth. There is no monopoly of hate, stupidity or ignorance on either side, and the fact that you seem to think so is because you're probably the type of person who you scorn, except you just do it from the right.

As for there even being a "left" in American political discourse, I highly doubt it. Sure, there's an academic left of anarchists, socialists, communists and so forth, but in Congress, maybe only Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich would be politicians who I would consider to be on the left. For people to think Obama is a socialist or a Marxist is far more indicative of their own leanings than it does to that of Obama. As Jon Stewart put it:

"At what point in the 3% tax rise does it become socialism?"

Do you really feel qualified to make an accurate evaluation of the American left, and those who dwell within our population of politicians?

Sure. I'm pretty sure that you guys (when referring to the left) will mention Obama or Bill Clinton, but if terms like "socialist" or "marxist" have objective meaning (which they do), then these terms don't apply to pretty much most individuals in American politics. In fact, very few. The fact that liberals are seen as left at all is pretty astonishing, given that everywhere else, they would be somewhere in the middle.

So i would debate you on this, because again i think you don't know what you're talking about. You know there are 435 members of the house right? You are familiar with them so well that you are willing to debate me on them? Do you know for example the politics of Ed Markey? Of course there are also our politicians in our states that are part of our political system. I think that you are probably far less aware of our make up than you think.

What Governors and state legislatures you mean? I confess total ignorance on these things, insofar as I know they exist, but don't follow them at all. Wider, national issues, or even state issues covered nationally (like the Blago scandal), I might have some idea. But when folks say stuff like "Keep government out of medicare", and stuff like that, I don't need to be a founding father to know this is silly.

You pull out a couple reps like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kusinich and think you have a grasp on the other 432 reps? I remember having a convo with a brit while on vacation last year who thought she really knew our politics, after 3 minutes of talking to her, i knew how woefully ignorant she was of what our poliitics were all about, although she seemed to know a lot about Sara Palin (who isn't even an elected person), but an intelligent conversation with her on American politics was pretty pathetic, and it was obvious that the British news is so off balance when it comes to this country. I already knew that the BBC was flatly anti-American, but i figured some accurate information would permeate your island.

You seem to diminish the impact of our state's politics, and they're hugely impactful on our country and the lives of the people that live here. Look at what's going on in California, get some understanding of the leftist policies that's destroying that state, and know that this cannot be removed from our overall political state.