PDA

View Full Version : Liberals


Bashaamo
05-09-2005, 01:16 AM
Hi. I’d just like to come out and say that all today’s liberals are hippocrites (I have yet to find an exception).

Let me set this up with a little personal story:

My school has a GSA (Gay-Straight-Alliance). My English teacher has this really large awkward podium. I was standing up there before class began reading a story someone wrote. My friend (who wrote the story) came up and stood next to me. I jokingly put my arm around him, and then in a gay accent I pointed to the class and said that everyone should join GSA (I am not a member of GSA, if I was I would be in for the ‘S’ section, and to say the least I am not a homophobe). I just did it to make a little joke, my friend got a kick out of it, and so did most of the class.

Then this girl walks up to me and starts biting that I shouldn’t make fun of the GSA or homosexuals. She is a member of the GSA which teaches acceptance of all people.

But this is coming from the very same girl who bashes Christians and God frequently, and will make comments like “People who voted for Bush are morons*” (*morons was not the actual word).

So how can someone claim to be for equality and acceptance, when they themselves aren’t. All the friggin liberals in my school think that it is ok to bash Christians and other groups, but if you make even a joke about gays it is some big “hate crime.”

And even on the larger scale, it is fine to respect the rights of atheist children, but what about the rights of theist children. Liberals sucks, the ACLU sucks.

“Liberalism is a mental disorder!” –Michael Savage

Anyone care to add or refute that.

Matt
05-09-2005, 01:43 AM
So your racking on all the Liberals because one girl was a ***** to you?

And Liberal is such a general term. I am for gay marriage and abortion, and don't think organized religion should be involved in politics. Actually I don't think it should exist at all unless there is no conflict over it. Now, I don't know what political category this falls under, but I don't want to get yelled at because of my views. Forget her, she won't impact your life if you ignore her.

!CeMAn
05-09-2005, 02:25 AM
... why didn't you just powerbomb that little girl into a pyramid of beer bottles? you'd be surprised just how many problems that solves :cool:.

seriously though, it might be a better idea to say to that girl what you said here:

So how can someone claim to be for equality and acceptance, when they themselves aren’t?

it sounds like your problem is with her and any hypocritical liberals in your school. until then don't make gay jokes, dude! what's wrong with you :razz:?

Sutiivun
05-09-2005, 03:55 AM
Eh, I myself am a Christian and yes I like Bush, but hey, don't judge everyone on one person's acts. She might not know that she's being kinda hypocrytic, but that doesn't mean all Liberals are crazy people that do everything opposite they say. :wink:

Kenny_C.002
05-09-2005, 04:37 AM
Overgeneralization. That's the one thing that 90% of the people in this world tend to show. It's hard to believe that there are other people within the outgroup to be right, and hard to believe anyone in the in-group to be wrong.

I've never seen a single "hardcore" supporter of Bush actually openly admit that Bush did something wrong and should be corrected. Similarly, I've never seen a "hardcore" Kerry supporter admit that Bush also did some things right. IMO you've found one of the "hardcore" supporters, which holds only a small fraction of the population. Remember that there are just as many Christians in Liberals in comparison to the Conservatives.

In a way, this is going into the psychology of things, and I don't feel like going into it much. But mind you that this is the exact feeling that will spawn a civil war in the States if this is to continue to esculate at this rate.

In a way, Bashaamo, your view of things is considered as discrimination against a population by use of a SINGLE example rather than the TREND OF THE WHOLE POPULATION. I won't say anything other that I've seen every single one of the "types", and I've seen enough proportions of the population to conclude that your observation is correct for the individual case, but not for the entire population.

“Liberalism is a mental disorder!” –Michael Savage

This man is wrong. It's like saying conservatives deserve to go into the mental institute for the same reason why Liberals should be in there. If that's the case, let's throw all of America into a large institution and be done with it. Again, I resent people who create these quotations, as it not only spawns more hatred and darkness, but also skews the truth from the eyes of the population.

Oh, if you want a less 3rd person perspective from me, I can do that too. :)

Alakazam
05-09-2005, 12:20 PM
Hi. I’d just like to come out and say that all today’s liberals are hippocrites (I have yet to find an exception).

Let me set this up with a little personal story:

My school has a GSA (Gay-Straight-Alliance). My English teacher has this really large awkward podium. I was standing up there before class began reading a story someone wrote. My friend (who wrote the story) came up and stood next to me. I jokingly put my arm around him, and then in a gay accent I pointed to the class and said that everyone should join GSA (I am not a member of GSA, if I was I would be in for the ‘S’ section, and to say the least I am not a homophobe). I just did it to make a little joke, my friend got a kick out of it, and so did most of the class.

Then this girl walks up to me and starts biting that I shouldn’t make fun of the GSA or homosexuals. She is a member of the GSA which teaches acceptance of all people.

But this is coming from the very same girl who bashes Christians and God frequently, and will make comments like “People who voted for Bush are morons*” (*morons was not the actual word).

So how can someone claim to be for equality and acceptance, when they themselves aren’t. All the friggin liberals in my school think that it is ok to bash Christians and other groups, but if you make even a joke about gays it is some big “hate crime.”

And even on the larger scale, it is fine to respect the rights of atheist children, but what about the rights of theist children. Liberals sucks, the ACLU sucks.

Although I think that your "joke" was offensive and in poor taste, the hypocrisy of the girl you have described makes me cringe.

“Liberalism is a mental disorder!” –Michael Savage

Anyone care to add or refute that.

Of course I'd like to refute it. It doesn't contain a shred of truth, and it does nothing but show the utter ignorance and intolerance of the speaker. It's that kind of asinine filth that should be nowhere near the OD. Do you really agree with that statement?

When someone says something negative about a group of people, I am of the opinion that in that we can assume that this someone is saying that this negative thing is true of a certain group of people, but not of others. Why? Because saying something about ALL of us doesn't really leave much room for debate.

Allow me to give you an example: "Bill Clinton is a liar."

If someone were to say that to me, I think its safe to assume that the person wasn't trying to communicate to us "most politicians lie", since that would make a discussion about Clinton's honesty meaningless, since he is only guilty of that which countless others are.

Bashaamo, when you make a statement like "all liberals are hippocrites" or "liberals suck", I assume that you say that because you believe that conservatives (along with other political groups) DON'T suck and aren't hippocrites. So I now pose to you the following questions:

-Are you really telling us that you think that ALL liberals are hippocrites who "suck", as you so elequently put it?

-You think that conservatives and other political groups are devoid of hypocrisy?

-Though I consider myself a moderate, given many of my political views, many on this forum would say that I am a liberal. Do you think that I am a hippocrite? Do I suck? Does Kenny?

Bashaamo
05-11-2005, 03:46 AM
Do you want another example?

Well a few days ago in Boston there was a ceremony at the holocaust memorial to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.

About 100 neo-Nazi’s showed up to demonstrate. Almost immediately a crowd dozens of times larger shows up to protest the protesters, trying to actually get at them and fight them. The Boston police had to step in and protect the neo-Nazi’s.

People were yelling at the police for stepping in and defending something that was “horrible” and “wrong.”

If you remember Massachusetts allows gays to marry, and month’s earlier one would have seen demonstrators protesting for gay marriage.

So if gays protest they are being champions of freedom, but if white supremacists protest then they are hateful and should not be allowed to gather. Shouldn’t everyone be given the same rights under the first amendment?

Apparently not. Hardcore Liberals (like the ACLU) seem to ignore the fact that the first amendment protects more than gays, atheists, and minorities.

And I’m not saying that I support the neo-Nazi (I think all Nazism is wrong), but they have just as much of a right to demonstrate as gays.

And yes I hold true to the above statements.

Kenny_C.002
05-11-2005, 05:27 AM
To begin. I'm NOT a Liberal (get me as far away from Martin as possible, even if he did do some things well. Then again, he's at the mercy of Layton to begin with...), rather I lean toward the NDP.

So if gays protest they are being champions of freedom, but if white supremacists protest then they are hateful and should not be allowed to gather. Shouldn’t everyone be given the same rights under the first amendment?

Apparently not. Hardcore Liberals (like the ACLU) seem to ignore the fact that the first amendment protects more than gays, atheists, and minorities.

I think Brian should handle this one in more depth, as I do not agree with gay marriage to begin with (note that I do not care about civil unions and the benefits).

However, I can pitch in that gays are not demonstrating for something that is harmful to others, and more importantly, they are no demonstrating something that is morally wrong by any circumstance. I don't recall gay marriage ever harming anybody (and no, psychology does not play a factor or a role in this, which was the main arguement in the past). And more painfully true, homosexualism and polygyny are common and accepted in most cultures (see Roman/Greek history, for example). It happens that right now the dominant culture opposes it, that's all. Again, this is not morally wrong when it is accepted in other cultures. Now race supremecy on the other hand is morally wrong by all standards (although it is sad that this is common among all cultures in a subtle fashion) and in any religion/culture, this is condemned.

In a sense, it's two completely different topics you're talking about, and not just the "hardcore" Liberals, but many of the normal people, will agree to that.

Now as for the minorities/majorities thing that you're talking about. Please expand on that. If you're talking about the "hardcore Liberals" don't think the admendments protect the majority, then I'd just straight up say that you're wrong. They do take the majority into consideration, but also just happens that the majority has the most that they can compromise to better the lives of others. It essentially becomes "stealing off the rich and giving it to the poor". Hey, why not?

mlugia
05-11-2005, 04:22 PM
Do you want another example?

Well a few days ago in Boston there was a ceremony at the holocaust memorial to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second World War.

About 100 neo-Nazi’s showed up to demonstrate. Almost immediately a crowd dozens of times larger shows up to protest the protesters, trying to actually get at them and fight them. The Boston police had to step in and protect the neo-Nazi’s.

People were yelling at the police for stepping in and defending something that was “horrible” and “wrong.”

If you remember Massachusetts allows gays to marry, and month’s earlier one would have seen demonstrators protesting for gay marriage.

So if gays protest they are being champions of freedom, but if white supremacists protest then they are hateful and should not be allowed to gather. Shouldn’t everyone be given the same rights under the first amendment?

Apparently not. Hardcore Liberals (like the ACLU) seem to ignore the fact that the first amendment protects more than gays, atheists, and minorities.

And I’m not saying that I support the neo-Nazi (I think all Nazism is wrong), but they have just as much of a right to demonstrate as gays.

And yes I hold true to the above statements.

Kenny makes excellent points (Which is why I <3 Kenny)
As well:

2 Examples, spanning at MOST 500 people out of a world populated by 6 billion, isn't good enough... Especially if your sample is NOT random.

For example, in the 1930s, I believe, there was a poll conducted on the US election. A record setting million+ people were surveyed, and it was predicted that so and so was going to reign as prez instead of Roosevelt (Again, it might not be roosevelt, but to the best of my knowledge, it was roosevelt vs someone), by a good margin to boot.

However, election results come back... and Roosevelt wins, with a margin even bigger than predicted.

What happened? Why wasn't the million people representative of the population? Because it wasn't a random sample. The sample was pulled out of Telephone books and country club member lists, and so on. However, what happened was that because at the time it was mostly the rich who had phones to begin with, the million people polled were primarily of one big group. It didn't represent the rest of the people of the US at all.

Your example is similar. You're calling all liberals of the world hypocritical on 2 examples, one of which is just 1 person, and the other of which are just protesters.

But what if the protesters (Who might not even be the same people as those who opposed the Neo Nazi march, and even if they are, they aren't hypocritical, as Kenny pointed out) were out protesting BECAUSE they were hypocrites? What if the cause-effect was not that

Liberal -> Protester -> Hypocrite, but rather
Hypocrite -> Protester -> Liberal?

It's hard to say, but if all the protesters (who turned out to be liberal) were out protesting because they were hypocrites, and all the good little liberals stayed home, then you can't group all liberals as hypocrites, after all.

To add on, 1 girl that you know does not represent 6 billion people. However, because you know her, the effect is maximized. If I randomly said "Oh, some kid in China is a hypocritical liberal", you probably can't say "OMG THAT MEANS ALL LIBERALS SUCK"

However, if I say something like "Oh, this kid named Ching chang chong who is a liberal in the province of Anhui loves to smoke, waste money, and once he protested one thing and hypocritically did something else.", you probably would end up using it as an example to back up your argument. Sure, we're still using the same person, but because you can visualize this person better as a real person, instead of being a statisic, it makes you think that he carries more weight into this argument.

Of course, there will be hypocritical liberals, there will be hypocritical republicans, there will be hypocritical dogs, but hey, we've all been hypocritical some point in our lives, and it should not be a representation of who we are, unless, of course, we could come up with a better proof than "That girl did it!"

(Too lazy to proofread, might have a few odd points in there that don't belong, bear with me)

Incongruity
05-11-2005, 09:05 PM
Bashaamo, all of your points have been proved to be moronic in the above posts, so either you can try to make a good point, or we can go onto an infinite chain of making you look ignorant, followed by you responding with recycled extrapolations. I'll continue the infinite chain.



The thing that's most noticably wrong about your entire argument is that it's just the whole other extreme. It's being radical yourself, which is stupid. The first ammendment certainly does protect all, but it does protect gays, atheists, and minorities, something that some conservatives don't seem to acknowledge. It protects everyone, but it doesn't only protect the majority. The thing that makes liberals so annoyed is that our current majority is attempting to pass unjust laws; as in those that affect the minority but not the majority.

Another extreme end of your argument is the "liberals all suck because of a few people" :rolleyes: This can easily be turned around to: All conservatives suck because Bashaamo made an ignorant case Everyone on pe2k sucks because one person on the forum was being zealously anti-liberal etc. etc. etc.



side note: Your joke was bad. Especially the part about the "gay accent". Total stereotype and overgeneralization. Depending on the situation, she may have also been right to bash Christians (although I believe Christians as a whole is another overgeneralization on her part). In that situation, I'd say both of you were smacktards.

Incongruity
05-11-2005, 09:54 PM
Anyone care to add or refute thatIf he was simply expressing an isolated incident, shouldn't have been in other discussion. It was posted to discuss.

edit: I don't see anyone getting angry either

silverfrost
05-11-2005, 11:22 PM
Yes, Ryu, they all sound absolutely furious. :rolleyes:

And Bashaamo- change this thread name to "The hypocrital liberals that I have known suck," do not generalize because of a couple or even many situations that you've encountered (you have not met every single liberal in the entire world), stop stereotyping, and I would consider seeing that you have a valid point.

mlugia
05-12-2005, 01:11 AM
To be in the Other Discussion forum, you need to realize others have different views than you are, and until they start calling you a motheringf- SOB, or excessive flaming occurs, there's really no role for a moderator to close a thread. It's a discussion after all. The best a mod can do is to tell everyone to take a step back and drink some iced tea...

Incongruity
05-12-2005, 01:16 AM
Several of these statements, in my opinion, sound pretty angry.
I'm not suggesting that they are furious, but merely suggesting that you all could tone it down.
On second thought, I'd rather have a moderator close this, although I doubt that will happen.
:rolleyes:

we can't even speak the truth on this forum anymore? His points WERE proven to be major overgeneralizations; something that is commonly associated with lack of mental capacity. Also, most debates on this forum do end up in that infinite cycle of stubbornness.

And you're beginning to become a g-modawannabe. Quit it, you're not gonna make it; especially if you debate a different topic from the subject at hand.


Anyways, state your views, or stop posting.


(edit: what I'm most curious about is why you didn't quote the "Liberals suck" part, which didn't insult the actions of a person, or the manner in which an idea was conveyed, but insulted actual people. There was more than the "liberals suck", though; there was the part about liberal hypocrisy, the satirization of sexual preference, liberalism is a mental disorder, the ACLU sucks, etc. In MY opinion, that sounds far more angry than anything else that was said)

Kenny_C.002
05-12-2005, 05:27 AM
Personally, I think that if you want to critisize Bashaamo, do it in a non-angry way. There are other ways to tell people you think that they are wrong, going gung-ho and spending ten minutes typing a five paragraph essay is rarely necessary.

Hmm? I think somehow you're interpreting this as us going after him like a pack of wild dogs at their prey or something. Strangely enough, I didn't see anyone writing 5 paragraph essays (and even at that, 5 paragraph essays are so high school level. XD) to go up against Bash, rather just separating ideas into different paragraphs for clarity.

However, those aside, we really didn't use any form of harsh language what-so-ever. Certainly when I say somebody's wrong, it's not intended as harsh language, but it certainly can be interpreted as such, as I do know any sort of negative comments can be interpreted as harsh language (for some reason). If you feel that we're using harsh language by your standards, sorry, but there isn't all that much we can do about it, since I'm already at the minimum level of harsh language to get my point across.

Also, my views are as follows: I will not state political affiliation or views, as they are likely going to be highly controversial, and I'd rather have people judge me on my actions rather than on political bases.

Other Discussion thrives on controversy IMO. Nothing better than throwing controversy around. Man, I remember how Crimson Spider and I were going back and forth with controversy like mad. Those were the days. ;)

Smurf
05-12-2005, 10:25 AM
lmao, for some reason I got a kick out of this. =P

Lets all be like me and just insult and hate everyone. Whether they be black, white, or purple, gay, straight, or zigzag, christians, atheists, monkey worshippers. =P

What I'm getting at is, just about everyone is a hypocrit in some way. Usually in more ways than one. =P It's not just some specific group that is, it's just that way. I have yet to find someone who has not contridicted what they have said. =\ Even I do it.

I'd make this longer somehow, going on about the 20th amendment and such, but I need to go to school. =P

mlugia
05-12-2005, 01:11 PM
To start with, I think that you shouldn't make assumtions that I am a g-modwannabbe. Making such assumptions are relatively unwise, espescially acting on them- it makes you appear accusatory.
Personally, I think that if you want to critisize Bashaamo, do it in a non-angry way. There are other ways to tell people you think that they are wrong, going gung-ho and spending ten minutes typing a five paragraph essay is rarely necessary.

Also, my views are as follows: I will not state political affiliation or views, as they are likely going to be highly controversial, and I'd rather have people judge me on my actions rather than on political bases.

Unfortunately, saying "I'm right you're wrong" is rarely enough to prove any point in a debate. Proof and reasoning must be used to effectively convince your opponent to see your point of view. It doesn't have to be a five paragraph essay, but if someone makes three points, you'd better have 3 paragraphs with your reasoning against each point present, instead of just going "Omg you're gay if you think ____, thus you are wrong and I am right ha ha loser" (Which may be shorter, but not as effective)

And don't be oversensitive in a debate forum. Like Kenny said, it's really hard not to sound harsh when you're arguing a point. No matter what you say, someone somewhere will think you're being angry. When in a debate forum, raise your standard for sounding angry, otherwise you'd think every post is written by furious bloodthirsty aliens from venus.

And Kenny, CS was the bomb at debating :D I remember debating with him in the strats forum about pokemon strategies, those were some heated and very good debates!

Loyal Arcanine
05-12-2005, 02:02 PM
Erm, Ryu Gaia, this is a debate. So that's how it goes. On-topic:

There is only one situation where you can say that a certain group sucks. That is not even if you have met every single person of that group on the world, because then you say these people suck because of who they are, not because of the group they're part of. You could say it when the ideas of a group are morally totally wrong; you can't even say it when you don't agree with all their points, because then you think they suck and others think they don't, so they don't suck by definition. At any rate, that is just to show your point isn't really ... "good". I'm not a liberal either.

Alakazam
05-12-2005, 06:27 PM
I'm not going to state any political view points here

If you don't have any political views to share, than why are you posting in a OD thread about politics?


To all people here bashing Bashaamo over this, you need to go far, far away, and GET OVER IT.
Bashaamo is angry over an isolated incident, and he thought it was interesting enough to share with you.
Whether or not you agree with him does not mean you should get so bloody angry.
I say that you all should drop it, get over it, and go play Pokemon or something. It's not worth it.

We need to go far, far, away? I think not. It seems that you don't like the OD very much, which is fine with me. However, be that as it may deal with it by not posting in this form, instead of flaming all of us.

No, he's not just angry about an isolated incident. He's making outrageous accusations that must be addressed....hence the entire purpose of this thread.

No offense, but if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, Ryu Gaia. If we're discussing religion or politics (as we often are in the OD) its bound to get intense.

Do you want another example?

No, not really. Do you really think that 2 petty examples proves your point?

If you remember Massachusetts allows gays to marry, and month’s earlier one would have seen demonstrators protesting for gay marriage.

...and where's the hypocrisy there? Massachusetts Supreme Court Judges ruled that not allowing same sex marriages is unconstitutional, and so it became allowed. However, most Massachusetts residents (being, for the most part, the social conservatives that we tend to be) were and still are, (myself excluded) are very much against it. Did the people change the legislation? No.

So if gays protest they are being champions of freedom, but if white supremacists protest then they are hateful and should not be allowed to gather. Shouldn’t everyone be given the same rights under the first amendment?

Both groups have the right to demonstrate, and should be allowed to do so. Whether or not we agree with the views of either group should be irrelevant.

And yes I hold true to the above statements.

Before I jump to any conclusions, since I find this statement to be extremely vauge, which of the following do you mean by the above statement?

1 ) that you indeed think that all liberals "suck"

2 ) that you answer "yes" to my above questions

JohtoTrainer
05-12-2005, 09:58 PM
One of the few things that truly frustrates me is why you people take my comment so seriously that you now consider me an enemy.
I have recieved a very unpleasant PM in response from ssk1911 after I asked that he try to avoid conflict with me (as up until now, the way he had treated me has been unfairly judgemental and rude). He told me that if I did not stop 'harassing' him, he would report me to a moderator. I am very, very disturbed by this.


If the frying pan is melting, take it off the stove.
I'll leave you to figure out what I mean by that, and it does hold some meaning (although it may be badly worded).

You didn't avoid conflict very well, since you kind of were asking for it :rolleyes:

I am Conservative, but Bashaamo, Conservatives and Liberals are all hypocrites. Conservatives bash gays and abortionists, and yet they are so terribly offended by Liberals bashing christians. Liberals bash christians but are so terribaly offended by Conservatives bashing atheists, gays, abortionists. :rolleyes:

JohtoTrainer
05-12-2005, 11:44 PM
I did not intentionally ask for conflict. All that I asked for was that people would tone it down when it comes to responding to Bashaamo's original topic. I noticed the replies that he was getting, and several were very... hmm, it is difficult to find a word to place here. I'm tempted to say rude, but that isn't quite the word, it was somewhat milder, yet still angry.

Anyway, if you need my opinion, it is thus: I do not judge groups of people based off of the actions of a single person, as doing such is wrong. Bashaamo made a rash descision by making a judgement as such, and although we all know he made a bad call on the situation, you should tell him what is wrong, and tell him not to do it, and if you are angry at him for what he did, do not show it in your post.

That is all.

- Ryu Gaia

You seem to not understand the point of the Other Discussion to board. It's to argue, discuss, debate. Not to make friends and agree with everyone. People have been alot worse to eachother in other threads (especially the George W. threads) then people are being to Bashaamo. Bashaamo was being very stereo-typical, and downright rude with alot of things he said. His "joke" was completely innapropriate to do in front of people while your supposed to be making a speech. Especially at a GSA meeting for the love of god. I don't see why you are saying stuff to sk and Zam when you should be saying it to Bashaamo for is comments like "Liberals Suck." Good Day.

JohtoTrainer
05-13-2005, 12:20 AM
The 'stuff' which you refer to is me asking you all to tone it down.
If this forum is for taking political views so seriously, perhaps I am not quite as suited for this place as I had thought. I did not come to these boards to make enemies, and when it comes to debating, I can be relatively competitive (ruthless, if you will).
Meh, he made a joke in bad taste, and he generalized liberals to a hypocrit he knows. That's pretty much all there is to it. Just tell him he's wrong, you don't need to make a fool of him.

You can't just tell someone they are wrong and not tell them why. :rolleyes:

I'd like to see someone try that in a debate match.

"Please debate gay marriage."

"I think that gay marriage is wrong and should not be allowed."

"You're wrong."

"I'm wrong, why?"

"I'm not allowed to say."

:eh:

JohtoTrainer
05-13-2005, 12:30 AM
The 'stuff' which you refer to is me asking you all to tone it down.
If this forum is for taking political views so seriously, perhaps I am not quite as suited for this place as I had thought. I did not come to these boards to make enemies, and when it comes to debating, I can be relatively competitive (ruthless, if you will).
Meh, he made a joke in bad taste, and he generalized liberals to a hypocrit he knows. That's pretty much all there is to it. Just tell him he's wrong, you don't need to make a fool of him.

That is what I was reffering to. You, telling us that we should just tell him he is wrong, instead of explaining why he is wrong.

thepokingmaster123
05-13-2005, 12:38 AM
People that are supporters of change, and want the world to go towards the better side.


Seee??? THATS LIBERALISM. Anything else is personal oppinion...

Alakazam
05-13-2005, 12:42 AM
If the frying pan is melting, take it off the stove.

The pan is cooking the meat it was created to cook. It is serving the purpose for which it was created, and I think it's doing so quite well.

Like I said, it does get intense in here, but it's not neccesarily a bad thing. Any anger or rudeness in this thread I see as warranted.

mlugia
05-13-2005, 01:09 AM
The cook who fries meat with hands instead of a pan shall suffer the burns.

Again, you can't argue a political point, especially one aimed at bashing others, without sounding angry. What're you going to say? "Bash, you're wrong. Why? Because (insert EVERY reason given here)."

And yet, someone will find it offensive, somehow. It's unavoidable. The best you can do is not to stir up even more anger, really.

And just a thought. A debate forum can and WILL be heated. And no matter where you go, if there's a debate forum, people WILL be political in there. Leave it in this forum before you exit the door, and the forum is well and fine. The problem will only really matter if people take the heat with them to the rest of the forum, which hopefully isn't happening here.

Kenny_C.002
05-13-2005, 02:07 AM
Alright, time for me to step in. Ryu, stop being so angry at everyone and flaming like mad, we're trying to keep a debate going here. If you don't have a point to make to support Bash or to counter Bash, then leave the thread.

Truthfully, not everyone's suited for OD political discussions (as you can see, not everyone's in OD), and quite frankly I can see that you aren't one of them who is suited, then I suggest just stop coming and leave it at that.

Beside that point, remember the golden rule (as many here are forgetting):
Leave everything in OD inside OD.

Don't take it to PMs, don't get angry at others at other sections just because of something in OD, post only if it's relevant to the thread, and please put the gloves back on when you leave OD.

Oh yeah, drop the stupid pan discussion, this is about Bash's views.

thepokingmaster123
05-13-2005, 02:36 AM
Ryu, as a friend, I must tell you to hold back. You keep restating yourself, and that does not seem to help. Please stop before you go too far!

Kenny_C.002
05-13-2005, 02:51 AM
The pan's discussion was about you, not Bash. It has no relevance to this discussion and thus I forbid it. If you want to continue the discussion, then start a new thread.

As I've been saying, we've been explaining to Bash why he was wrong the entire time in the least "harsh" manner as we can possibly do it, and I believe this concludes our little discussion here. Any other posts not involving this thread will be deleted without warning.

Bashaamo
05-13-2005, 03:35 AM
This thread is a classic!

I love it!

Seriously, one of my life goals is to piss off as many liberals as I can.

You want more examples?

Provide some counter examples first why don’t ya.

To put it simple liberals claim to be more tolerant of all groups, but are unwilling to accept opposing viewpoints. By definition a liberal should love a Nazi as much as gay man, and love a rich man as much as a poor man.

But the truth is that liberals only support the sides that are pro progressive and pro secular.

They will stop at nothing until we live a sanitized, politically correct world, void of all tradition and religion.

Truth is liberals, especially those ACLU bastards go much to far in there interpretation of the Constitution.

They constantly find things such as Ten Commandments statues, people praying in school, and the pledge of allegiance to be unconstitutional. This is what the constitution says about separation of church and state:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

How in the hell is a ten Commandments statue in front of a courthouse a violation of that. It is a friggin early example of written law, not a sign indicating which religion you should be.

And the trying to remove “Under God” from the pledge is absolute bullcrap. “God” can be defined in many abstract ways, and isn’t a sponsored establishment of religion. If anything it is a respect to the unknown forces that allow humanity to live as they do today, call it a supreme being or perhaps think of it as the “big bang.

So how can a liberal claim to be a constitutionalist when they make more of it than what it is? That’s hypocrisy at its finest.

-Bash

P.S. Sorry SK, I just can't take anything you say seriously. Someone who thinks that the mass murder of millions is an overated time in history should not be taken seriously.

Just so you know, I've marked down the warning for swearing and changed it to a less vulgar word.
- Kenny

Kenny_C.002
05-13-2005, 04:28 AM
This thread is a classic!

I love it!

Seriously, one of my life goals is to piss off as many liberals as I can.

Bad life long goal man. You're pissing off other Conservatives who're supposed to be on your side.

You want more examples?

Provide some counter examples first why don’t ya.

To put it simple liberals claim to be more tolerant of all groups, but are unwilling to accept opposing viewpoints. By definition a liberal should love a Nazi as much as gay man, and love a rich man as much as a poor man.

But the truth is that liberals only support the sides that are pro progressive and pro secular.

They will stop at nothing until we live a sanitized, politically correct world, void of all tradition and religion.

Truth is liberals, especially those ACLU bastards go much to far in there interpretation of the Constitution.

They constantly find things such as Ten Commandments statues, people praying in school, and the pledge of allegiance to be unconstitutional. This is what the constitution says about separation of church and state:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

How in the hell is a ten Commandments statue in front of a courthouse a violation of that. It is a friggin early example of written law, not a sign indicating which religion you should be.

And the trying to remove “Under God” from the pledge is absolute bullcrap. “God” can be defined in many abstract ways, and isn’t a sponsored establishment of religion. If anything it is a respect to the unknown forces that allow humanity to live as they do today, call it a supreme being or perhaps think of it as the “big bang.

So how can a liberal claim to be a constitutionalist when they make more of it than what it is? That’s hypocrisy at its finest.

First of all, you get a warning for swearing. This is not tolerated in PE2K (3 strikes and you're banned, so watch yourself).

As for all of these examples:
I did write an intricate report about the stuff, but it ended with this one simple conclusion...you've proven to us that Liberal extremists are hypocrits. So now you just have to show us how ordinary liberal people are all hypocrits to prove to me the rest of it.

All you need to do is prove this single statement to me
"All Liberals are hypocrits."

If you can by citing me an example of how the majority of liberals are hypocritical WITHOUT:
1. Deindividuation (this would include protests, which holds one of the major forms of deindividuation) or otherwise psychological phenomena that may cause a person to act against his/her nature
2. multiple examples of the same person to show that the nature of the person is hypocritical
3. counter all examples of non-hypocritical liberals that we have (I'll rip you to shreds if you say anything bad about my Latin teacher) by citing facts about those people, showing that they are hypocritical in nature

Then I will believe you. Heck, I'll give you a discount by you only having to show me that half of the liberal population is hypocritical in nature.

Of course, if you can really do that, I can just com back with the same reasoning that "All conservatives are hypocrits" by the exact same accounts.

Conclusion: Bash, You can't possibly back up your statements since we can just say it's "extremist movement", "this is a form of deindividuation",and "it's just that one person, not the population as a whole" and discard that entire arguement.

Of course, if you're just looking to piss people off, I'll gladly close this thread and give you a second warning.

As an NDP (I still don't like Martin all that much, stupid Liberal...), I rest my case.

mlugia
05-13-2005, 04:20 PM
Well, I'm more of a progressive conservative (cept that party went poof! And the Conservatives are too left winged for me...), cept being one wouldn't affect how bad your judgment is.

This thread is a classic!

I love it!

Seriously, one of my life goals is to piss off as many liberals as I can.

You do realize you just said "My thread is completely pointless because I have no real base to stand on. I just made this thread to sound like an annoying kid that most adults would love to slaughter"


You want more examples?

Provide some counter examples first why don’t ya.

When you get around to making GOOD examples, then maybe we'd counter them with counterexamples. Saying "Your mom is stupid because your dad wets the bed" doesn't need a counterexample to prove it wrong. It's already stupid enough to prove itself wrong.



To put it simple liberals claim to be more tolerant of all groups, but are unwilling to accept opposing viewpoints. By definition a liberal should love a Nazi as much as gay man, and love a rich man as much as a poor man.

By whose definition? Yours or mine? Where's your proof of this definition? You're putting words into a liberal's mouth.


But the truth is that liberals only support the sides that are pro progressive and pro secular.

They will stop at nothing until we live a sanitized, politically correct world, void of all tradition and religion.

Very good, now go out there and petition EVERY liberal to sign that they agree with your statement, and MAYBE you might have a point there. However, seeing that you can't...


Truth is liberals, especially those ACLU bastards go much to far in there interpretation of the Constitution.

First off, attacking the opposition via verbal abuse lowers the value of your argument straight away, no ifs, ands or buts. And what the hell is ACLU? All constipated legless Ursarings? And personally, if you ask me, I think religious people overly interpret the bible, but that in itself is a generalization, and has no validity in an argument.


They constantly find things such as Ten Commandments statues, people praying in school, and the pledge of allegiance to be unconstitutional. This is what the constitution says about separation of church and state:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

How in the hell is a ten Commandments statue in front of a courthouse a violation of that. It is a friggin early example of written law, not a sign indicating which religion you should be.

Not directly, but indirectly it does. Telling me that a child growing up in a family where the father abuses the mother does not have any effect on the child is pretty farfetched, isn't it? Besides, they're entitled to have their own views on each subject. Who gave you the right to oppose them? Especially if that isn't even a hypocritical act. It's just an opinion of most Liberals.


And the trying to remove “Under God” from the pledge is absolute bullcrap. “God” can be defined in many abstract ways, and isn’t a sponsored establishment of religion. If anything it is a respect to the unknown forces that allow humanity to live as they do today, call it a supreme being or perhaps think of it as the “big bang.

So how can a liberal claim to be a constitutionalist when they make more of it than what it is? That’s hypocrisy at its finest.

Define "More of it than what it is". What is it exactly then? How do you draw the line of being more than "it", and why is the line there? I don't think you can suitably come up with a reason. What're you going to say, really? "The line is there because non-liberals like me prefer it to be there"? That wouldn't make much of an argument, would it?


No offense, but when you're going to try to convince others of one of your ideas, it might be a better idea to plan out the argument instead of starting with "omg all ___ are stupid and sucky ___s"

Alakazam
05-13-2005, 04:59 PM
I'm not going to state any political view points here, but I do have one thing to say:
To all people here bashing Bashaamo over this, you need to go far, far away, and GET OVER IT.
Bashaamo is angry over an isolated incident, and he thought it was interesting enough to share with you.
Whether or not you agree with him does not mean you should get so bloody angry.
I say that you all should drop it, get over it, and go play Pokemon or something. It's not worth it.

Yes, that is flaming Ryu Gaia, whether you see it or not.

Seriously, one of my life goals is to piss off as many liberals as I can.

Bewtween this and your incessant evasion of my line of questioning, you have proven to me that you represent the most vile and narrow-minded ignorance that should be anathma to anyone with half a brain.

You want more examples?

If I didn't want more examples before, what makes you think I desire them now?

Provide some counter examples first why don’t ya.

Why don't I? Well, my reasons are two-fold. Firstly, I have no intention to begin citing instances of conservative hypocrisy because such a rant could be never-ending, and infuriate me in a way that I'd rather not be infuriated unless necessary. Why do I claim that it's unnecessary? Not only have you utterly failed to lead me to believe that you possess a shred of integrity or intelect, but you have also continuously ignored my posts in this thread. Such discussion would undoutedly go over your head, and there would be no point to it.

To refute your further "examples" would be an inexcusable waste of my time. If you'd like to engage me (along with the others in this thread) in an actual debate, than I'd be happy to continue. But if you insist on continuing to spew baseless and biased nonsense, you can count me out.

Neo Emolga
05-13-2005, 08:18 PM
In any case, I feel Bash is being overly biased. No one should ever assume that what one person says in regards to something is a universal absolute belief of the entire social group they belong to. Similar shared beliefs, yes, but they would have to be complete clones in order for their views to be totally 100% the same. Hence, you’re running into generalization now, and that becomes a problem, and is often the fuel for racism. Bush supporters probably don’t agree 100% percent with everything Bush does. They may not say it, but they would have to be completely blind in order for them to have zero dissonance with the candidate who they voted for. Was the war in Iraq really worth it? In some ways, yes, in other ways, no. It’s all a matter of making the best utilitarian choice to make sure the yielded good is greater than the yielded bad even after all consideration of all possible alternatives. The problem here is that so many groups think that choice is something totally different from what another group believes, and the definition of good and bad varies drastically among separate groups.

Even as a Conservative, I know that what one Liberal believes may not be universal among all Liberals. They share the same general beliefs, not absolute ones. Only when people are threatened under duress (like Nazis), and are forced to join or die does it become negative and destructive. Allow others to practice that which isn’t destructive (gay marriage) and condemn the practice of that which is destructive, and is know to be destructive from past occurrences (Nazism).

Let’s take your “under God” example. What do you think our founding fathers would have done with regards to that? They put it there in the first place, so why should we feel obligated to change it, and on what basis? Who feels the phase has become obsolete, isn’t real anymore, and/or don’t comply with the beliefs of other nationalities? Some people feel the phase “with liberty and justice for all” shouldn’t be there either. But my question is, what right do we have to change that even though it’s been practiced for centuries? And if we do allow the change of it, then we get the question of “what are the real traditions, foundations and essence of this country if it can be retyped without any strong and considerable thought and still continue to be a national practice?”

The problem is here when groups try to force their values upon others. Either you come and live in this country and prepare to accept the standards, laws, and foundation of this country and practice them for as long as you live here, or you get the hell out and go someplace else if you have problems accepting those terms. And you either love this country with all your heart and soul, or go and find some other country to live. But I’m tired of hearing people whine about how unfair it is here just because they’re unwilling to accept standards which have existed for centuries. Who are we to rewrite or self-interpret law and justice and tarnish it based on the views of one group and their self-gaining advantages of it at the detriment of others?

Needless to say, I’m tired of everyone being so damn selfish about incredible life changing decisions, but then again, that’s something that will exist for as long as humans do.

JohtoTrainer
05-13-2005, 08:24 PM
This thread is a classic!

I love it!

Seriously, one of my life goals is to piss off as many liberals as I can.

You want more examples?

Provide some counter examples first why don’t ya.

To put it simple liberals claim to be more tolerant of all groups, but are unwilling to accept opposing viewpoints. By definition a liberal should love a Nazi as much as gay man, and love a rich man as much as a poor man.

But the truth is that liberals only support the sides that are pro progressive and pro secular.

They will stop at nothing until we live a sanitized, politically correct world, void of all tradition and religion.

Truth is liberals, especially those ACLU bastards go much to far in there interpretation of the Constitution.

They constantly find things such as Ten Commandments statues, people praying in school, and the pledge of allegiance to be unconstitutional. This is what the constitution says about separation of church and state:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

How in the hell is a ten Commandments statue in front of a courthouse a violation of that. It is a friggin early example of written law, not a sign indicating which religion you should be.

And the trying to remove “Under God” from the pledge is absolute bullcrap. “God” can be defined in many abstract ways, and isn’t a sponsored establishment of religion. If anything it is a respect to the unknown forces that allow humanity to live as they do today, call it a supreme being or perhaps think of it as the “big bang.

So how can a liberal claim to be a constitutionalist when they make more of it than what it is? That’s hypocrisy at its finest.

-Bash

P.S. Sorry SK, I just can't take anything you say seriously. Someone who thinks that the mass murder of millions is an overated time in history should not be taken seriously.

Just so you know, I've marked down the warning for swearing and changed it to a less vulgar word.
- Kenny

That, just might be one of the DUMBEST things I've ever heard said in the OD.

You are pissing off more than just Liberals, like Kenny said. Your pissing ME off and I'm a pretty big Conservative. You are giving stupid examples that only show how a few Liberals are, not all of them.

Kenny_C.002
05-13-2005, 09:46 PM
Let’s take your “under God” example. What do you think our founding fathers would have done with regards to that? They put it there in the first place, so why should we feel obligated to change it, and on what basis? Who feels the phase has become obsolete, isn’t real anymore, and/or don’t comply with the beliefs of other nationalities? Some people feel the phase “with liberty and justice for all” shouldn’t be there either. But my question is, what right do we have to change that even though it’s been practiced for centuries? And if we do allow the change of it, then we get the question of “what are the real traditions, foundations and essence of this country if it can be retyped without any strong and considerable thought and still continue to be a national practice?”

The problem is here when groups try to force their values upon others. Either you come and live in this country and prepare to accept the standards, laws, and foundation of this country and practice them for as long as you live here, or you get the hell out and go someplace else if you have problems accepting those terms. And you either love this country with all your heart and soul, or go and find some other country to live. But I’m tired of hearing people whine about how unfair it is here just because they’re unwilling to accept standards which have existed for centuries. Who are we to rewrite or self-interpret law and justice and tarnish it based on the views of one group and their self-gaining advantages of it at the detriment of others?

Here's where we differ, Neo. In my opinion, I don't think it's any bad to include multiculturalism while maintaining the "structure" of the country. I can daresay that Canada's "culture salad" system is much better than that of the "melting pot" mindset of America.

The main thing is that you can love your country and still keep what is unique about you and your life. Nobody should have to sacrifice that basic right. So no, these standards should be changed for the better. Although it may seem that it isn't broken, but would an upgrade hurt anyone?

The truth is, we need to find the balance in "tradition" and "present". Such a balance does exist, and we Canada is one of the first to continue to perfect upon it. We don't force our major standards on others just so they can be accepted, rather we accept them and then have themselves learn the major values and traditions we have. This way we can enforce law but without sacrificing one's unique identity.

This is of course not without flaws,but I certainly believe it has fewer flaws than the "melting pot" stance.

Incongruity
05-13-2005, 11:48 PM
:rolleyes: Bash;

First, you bring in a topic from a different discussion (in an improper way at that; from what it seems, just to have an excuse not to respond to me)

If we're going by those standards, how can I take seriously someone who recognizes mass murders of one population, but not the mass murders of another. Oh wait, you're a conservative, you're allowed to do that.

I, myself, don't apply to any of that. If Neo-Nazis want to protest, go ahead; just don't kill or hurt anyone. This goes to all liberals too.

However, the atheist stance and the Christian stance are different. You cannot compare them as identical. The Christian stance (or if you wish to put it in a similar light, the religious stance) is a majority in America. Now, freedom of speech is certainly a right, yes? However, you cannot let the majority practice that right and not let the minority practice freedom from speech. (Which is why we're not forced to say the pledge of allegiance, so this is a moot point anyway)

Same goes for gays. You cannot allow straight people to marry, and not let the minority population marry. (edit: poorly worded) One cannot prohibit the minority from marrying, while allowing the majority to practice that right.


Although I personally believe Nazis should be able to march, they are not the same as gays. see, R.A.V. v. Wisconsin and Skokie v. Illinois (although, these cases do seem to violate equal protection under constitution IMO. But alas, in skokie, the Nazis were purposely trying to rouse anger). But prematurely prohibiting something is wrong. If one must judge, one should judge based on action and not though. While all action comes from thought, not all thought turns into action.

And this is why I frown upon "liberals" who say things like "Christians suck," as that is simply being radical and it is just another branch of conservatism.

Neo Emolga
05-14-2005, 12:51 AM
Here's where we differ, Neo. In my opinion, I don't think it's any bad to include multiculturalism while maintaining the "structure" of the country. I can daresay that Canada's "culture salad" system is much better than that of the "melting pot" mindset of America.

Even though America tends to think that everything is fine with our "melting pot" idea, realistically it's still a "culture salad." Entire neighborhoods are seperated based on income and race, as well as religion and social standing. You won't see poor people in the Hamptons, nor will you see anyone with a seven figure salary hanging out in a trailer park. Even though we may never perfectly mix, I still feel that everyone should follow the same laws, customs and norms that the country they live in practices. And if they're violated intentionally, then something should be done about it.

I, myself, don't apply to any of that. If Neo-Nazis want to protest, go ahead; just don't kill or hurt anyone. This goes to all liberals too.

Problem is, they are hurting people by protesting. Naturally, people feel the things they believe in and the things they practice according to their own social group are superior to the practices of other people. During World War II, the Nazis made it their goal to exterminate people of the Jewish religion because they felt they were expendable and would benefit everyone in the long run. But really, how realistic is this view anyway? Can you really put a price tag on human lives and measure them according to other lives and how much they're worth?

Problem here is people are easly forgetting how important it is to perserve human life, regardless of race or religion. When people simply forget about that and do whatever they want at the cost of human life, then something is definitely wrong.

Bashaamo
05-14-2005, 03:51 AM
I've decided to back off the "liberals suck" theme and the name calling, henceforth I will stop the slander.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Bigotry means intolerance.

Therefore someone who is free of intolerance is one who is a liberal in its most primal sense. By that established definition, a liberal should love the "bad guys" (nazis, KKK, bigots, religious extremists, idiots like me) just as much as they love everyone else.

Show me a nazi loving liberal and then I'll apologize for saying what I said. I bet you can't!!! Show me a liberal befriending a clansmen. Show me a liberal trying to help a white supremacist find a job. Look hard and you'll find a few at most, but for the most part a liberal will not accept an opposing viewpoint. PERIOD!

IMO Jesus of Nazareth was a liberal, becuase he had no hate in his life, but he definatly wouldn't want to secularize the world, so he doesn't suck :wink:

There are the facts Jack, and you can go and bash me till the cows come home. Go ahead, I welcome your hate, your just proving my point, liberals are idoits.

But in the mean time I think I'd like to just respond to a few of you, after all I haven't had a good laugh in while.

And BTW I don't know why people assume that I'm a conservatie, I've never said that. You don't even know me.

Kenny:

Sorry about the bad words, the other forum I use censors them, I assumed PE2k did the same, won't happen again.

It would be impossible for a scientific proof that every man/woman and child who calls himself/herself a liberal to be proven a hypocrite. I'm making fair generalizations based on my observations, research and observations of others, and by seeking other opinions.

It is fair to say that Americans like movies (even though some don't but most do).
So it is fair to say liberals a hypocrits (most are, maybe some aren't).

mlugia:

You do realize you just said "My thread is completely pointless because I have no real base to stand on. I just made this thread to sound like an annoying kid that most adults would love to slaughter"

Actually I never said that. And by saying that you have shown your own immaturity.

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberites Union (or the Atheist Chrisitan Loathers Union) they both mean the same. They'll stop at nothing untill it is illegal to say "God" and Gay men can marry little boys.

Give me an example of over interpretation of the bible, maybe a PM would be more appropriate for that.

Alakazam:

By your unwilligness to accept my "ignorance" you yourself are ignorat. Sound's very hypocitiacal.

Neo Pika:

Thanks for being the voice of reason.

However the "Under God" was added during the Cold War Era to show that the US was a nation of faith, in comparrison to the Communists of Russia.

I also agree with what you say

JT:

Thanks for your in depth reasoning ;)

Sk

Who said I'm a conservatie?

And I totally agree w/ you about the pledge. Don't want to say it? Don't! You don't have to whine about it and try to have "God" taken out of it. Just don't say it. You can never avoid the word "god."

But marriage is a union between man and woman, not man and man, woman and woman. I'm all for civil unions and equal protection. But why make a mockery out of one of humanity's oldest and most universal ceremonies.

Homosexuals and Nazis should have the same rights and privledges in regards to assembly. PERIOD.

Neo:

"Problem is, they are hurting people by protesting." But if you think about it, abortionits, homosexuals, antiwars, adn antigods, are all hurting someone when they protest. There might not be as much of a gruesome history behind them, but they can still cause pain.

===

Well that is that for now. I'll give you some time to work on that. You'll probably notice some spelling errors, I don't have time to spell check it.

-Bash

Incongruity
05-14-2005, 02:24 PM
Bash, meh, if you can assume that all liberals are hypocrites, judging from your actions, it can be assumed that you are conservative.

Anyways, we do allow Nazis to do plenty of things. Having the word "Nazi" somehow related to you doesn't damage you at all. We've got three presidents associated with Nazis.


But seriously, how can you give rights of assembly but not rights of marriage? You just say that "Oh, it's making a mockery of marriage." Please, you know very well that's denying the rights of a minority. Yet, right after, you said homosexuals and Nazis should have the same right to assembly. Who's to determine which rights to pass out and to whom?


I personally believe everyone should have the right to protest, and "emotional pain" is far too vague to determine. Not only that, it's a lawyer's term to get money.

But, you cannot argue Nazis with abortionits, homosexuals, antiwars, adn antigods.

Homosexuals: They have not hurt anyone. The only reason they might, is if a Christian was denying the rights of a homosexual, and disgusted that he was not allowed to deny a minority a right. In which case, the "hurt" party was in the wrong anyways. If you find guys making out with guys or girls making out with girls (in public) is disgusting, you have to realize it is just as disgusting for those of different sexuality. Now, if homosexuals were allowed to do whatever they wanted to, they would need no more protest, as they would be an isolated community doing whatever they wished

Abortionists: They are fighting for their own rights. This isn't for right of speech or right of hate, this is for a woman's rights. Rights are good, yes? The only reason for assembly and expression of speech is for an ultimate goal. Now, if abortionists were allowed to do whatever they wanted to, they would need no more protest.

Antiwars: Their ultimate goal is to stop wrongful war, to stop unnecessary violence. If this was achieved, there would be no unjust wars. The "anti-wars" would not need to protest.

Antigods: This I really don't like. If you're atheist, good for you. You're atheist. Don't be an atheist version of a fundamentalist/evangelist and invade on other people's rights. If you're trying to separate church from state, that is perfectly fine, but don't invade on rights. (However, an "anti-god" should not try to separate church from state, while allowing pure atheism to stay. As in, letting an Atheist club in a school, while not letting religious clubs).


Except for the "anti-gods", if the ultimate goal of those three groups was achieved, there would be no need for assembly or protest.

Now, if the Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white supremacists achieved their goals, there would not be isolation from society. These groups would not stay within their own circles, and practice their own rights by themselves, but their ultimate goal would be the right to violate another person's rights. This is why they are different.


But if we are keeping it to freedom of speech, expression, etc. I disagree with the precedents those supreme court cases set. Until they commit a crime, they should be able to say whatever they wish, as "emotional pain" is BS and we all know it.

Alakazam
05-14-2005, 03:04 PM
I've decided to back off the "liberals suck" theme and the name calling, henceforth I will stop the slander.

That's a wise decision. Perhaps you're not as immature as you appear to be.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

Bigotry means intolerance.

Therefore someone who is free of intolerance is one who is a liberal in its most primal sense. By that established definition, a liberal should love the "bad guys" (nazis, KKK, bigots, religious extremists, idiots like me) just as much as they love everyone else.

I apologize for having to go into semantics, but it appears that its quite necessary.

Bash, language is very subjective, and dictionaries are nothing more than history books. They explain how language has been used in recent history. Words mean different things to different people. Just because Dictionary.com defines a word a certain way doesn't mean that I (or anyone else for that matter) have to agree with it. So, unless you can get everyone else in this thread to agree with that definition, the rest of your post is rather meaningless, because you are assuming that all of us agree with dictionary.com as an objective source of definitions of words.

With that being said, I for one strongly disagree with your interpretation of the word "liberal". While you say that those who are described by that definition are liberal "in its most primal sense". In my opinion, the definition you've posted is that of a liberal extremist...and I find them to be just as disturbing as conservative extremists.

What you seem to fail to notice is that being liberal is not a binary thing. What I mean to say is that people aren't either liberal or NOT liberal. There are varying degrees of liberalism, just as there are with conservatism.

Show me a nazi loving liberal and then I'll apologize for saying what I said. I bet you can't!!! Show me a liberal befriending a clansmen. Show me a liberal trying to help a white supremacist find a job. Look hard and you'll find a few at most, but for the most part a liberal will not accept an opposing viewpoint. PERIOD!

As I've talked about above, the kinds of people that you're demanding we give you examples of are mostly extremists. Not being able to give you examples of such absurd things doesn't help your case one bit.

IMO Jesus of Nazareth was a liberal, becuase he had no hate in his life, but he definatly wouldn't want to secularize the world, so he doesn't suck :wink:

I agree that he was a liberal, but I think that you're making secularism analagous to "sucking" is a whole other debate.

There are the facts Jack, and you can go and bash me till the cows come home. Go ahead, I welcome your hate, your just proving my point, liberals are idiots.

Sorry to break it to you, Bashaamo, but there are no facts in your post. It's nothing more than opinion (and arrogance). ...and it seems that the more you post, the more it is you that comes across as an idiot :ermm: (no offense)

And BTW I don't know why people assume that I'm a conservatie, I've never said that. You don't even know me.

Though I've never called you a conservative, I understand why people would say that, given your obvious lack of comprehension of liberalism.


Alakazam:

By your unwilligness to accept my ignorance you yourself are ignorat. Sound's very hypocitiacal.

That doesn't even make sense. :rolleyes: Of course I accept your ignorance, do you find something wrong with trying to educate you?

Oh, and by the way, if anyone deserves to be accused of being a hypocrite, it's you. You complain about being labelled a conservative and then label me a liberal and accuse me of being a hypocrite. (which I defy you to explain)

Bashaamo
05-14-2005, 04:59 PM
I see the point your trying to make Alakazam, but I disagree. I'm talking about liberals. Not half liberals, not sort of liberals, not moderates, but LIBERALS.

And I'd just like to point out that I am a Reactionary (Regressive).

-Bash

mlugia
05-14-2005, 06:27 PM
Well, to start, how many "pure" liberals are you likely to find in this day and age? I'm aware that they exist, but really, we're probably not talking about more than a few thousand people, yes? Everyone has different beliefs somewhere. We may both think death penalty is bad, but then I might think eating animals is a sin while you won't. You know, that kind of thing. There's no such thing as being free from intolerance. Nobody's going to be tolerant of everyone. Even Zeus had fun smiting people, you know?

Anyways...
I've decided to back off the "liberals suck" theme and the name calling, henceforth I will stop the slander.


liberals are idoits.

Stop the slander, I see? O_o


mlugia:

You do realize you just said "My thread is completely pointless because I have no real base to stand on. I just made this thread to sound like an annoying kid that most adults would love to slaughter"

Actually I never said that. And by saying that you have shown your own immaturity.

The ACLU is the American Civil Liberites Union (or the Atheist Chrisitan Loathers Union) they both mean the same. They'll stop at nothing untill it is illegal to say "God" and Gay men can marry little boys.

Give me an example of over interpretation of the bible, maybe a PM would be more appropriate for that.

Believe it or not, whenever you say something, you do send off implications :o For example, if I say "Man, I'm full... But free samples! OMG I want!", I may not have said outright that I'm a cheap SOB, but I certainly imply it. Your posts prior implied that line. Of course you don't say things like that. No one's gonna say "I suck so ignore me", but there are some people who give off that kind of a message by their actions. And by pointing it out, I've told the truth, not immaturity. If I was immature I'd have gone "omg bash you are a fuking retard who should be shot and gutted because you are gay", but hey, I didn't :)

And since I don't live in the US, I've never heard of this ACLU, and so uh, you got a copy of their policy page on the net somewhere so I can verify this claim that they want to marry little boys? :s And that part about God being a forbidden word? :/

And as for overinterpretation of the bible, it was an example, and I don't believe a debate is necessary on that. Well, up to you, but I don't like debating religion, since I myself aren't a religious person.

Kenny_C.002
05-15-2005, 03:15 AM
It would be impossible for a scientific proof that every man/woman and child who calls himself/herself a liberal to be proven a hypocrite. I'm making fair generalizations based on my observations, research and observations of others, and by seeking other opinions.

It is fair to say that Americans like movies (even though some don't but most do).
So it is fair to say liberals a hypocrits (most are, maybe some aren't).

For the whole "Liberal/not half Liberal" event:
Uh...first of all, if you're talking about "pure" Liberals, we're not arguing with you. Those "pure" Liberals are known more as "extremists" for us, and they exist for each and everything. If you wish to claim that "Liberals are hypocrits", it is absolutely necessary to prove that this is true for all parts of the spectrum, as the term "liberal" defines anybody who identifies as liberal. If you just want to prove that "extremist liberals are hypocrits", I agree with you. ;)

Generally speaking, you cannot make generalizations based on observations and opinions, unless the magnitude of the sample size is large and either are unbiased/have a bias cancelling mechanism OR just for it to be random. Since this is right down my alley (scientific method), your hypothesis is that "liberals are hypocrits". In order for that to happen, the null hypothesis is "Liberals are not necessarily hyporcrits".

As for liberals themselves, I've only found a couple dozen liberals floating around (sheesh, it's like 90% of the students and 40% of the teachers in high school are liberals). From that sample, I found several hypocrits and the rest are all cool. Like you, my sample here is NOT random, and is subjected to confounding errors. My conclusions here state that most liberals are not hypocrits, which is the direct inverse of your conclusion. So let's assume that we both have confounding errors and we will conduct a new test.

Let's look here in PE2K. I'm an NDP, Mana's a Progressive Conservative, Zammy's the most Liberal guy we have, and there are several other people with different political standpoints (with some conservative). Of all of us, we can see that even in this sample of nearly random people (in political standpoint and in location), MOST of us refute that statement outright (I counted you, btw). Therefore, the null hypothesis is true for the "opinion" portion.

So it's fair for me, based on my observations, to say that most people are not hypocritical, and that hypocrits are determined by their early temperment, rather than their political standpoint.

btw, if you can find a primary journal on this on the internet (providing you have access to university servers and such) to prove me wrong, I will bow down and say you're right, with no questions asked. Unless that happens, I stand by my view that you are incorrect.

Even though America tends to think that everything is fine with our "melting pot" idea, realistically it's still a "culture salad." Entire neighborhoods are seperated based on income and race, as well as religion and social standing. You won't see poor people in the Hamptons, nor will you see anyone with a seven figure salary hanging out in a trailer park. Even though we may never perfectly mix, I still feel that everyone should follow the same laws, customs and norms that the country they live in practices. And if they're violated intentionally, then something should be done about it.

I agree that discrimination still exists in America nonetheless, and thus seperation from the out-groups between in-groups is bound to happen. What I feel is that we should agree to the same laws, as long as it follows basic morale code, and not based on certain religious beliefs (again, as I said, it has to incorporate all religious beliefs or none at all). Customs and values should not ever be forced onto people if they do not wish to according to their religion, after all, there is a freedom of belief. The norms aren't made for conformity here anyway. This is America, where individualism runs free.

Alakazam
05-16-2005, 02:23 AM
Just as an FYI to anyone who cares, I do actually consider myelf a moderate (as opposed to a liberal)

Well Bashaamo, judging from the replies in this thread, it seems like most of the opposition towards your first post were borne from misunderstanding. It appears that most of us disagree with your definition of a liberal. In other words, what you consider to be a liberal are what we consider liberal extremists.

So anyone who identifuies with the term "liberal" was / is offended by your opening post, and thusly you have insulted people that you didn't intend to (or, at least, I don't think you meant to)

I'm not going to argue semantics over our disagreement over the definition of a "liberal", but I do suggest that you again change the name of the thread from "librerals" to "liberal extremists". Though it may not be exactly what you'd call it, I think it would certainly minimize linguistic misunderstandings in the future within this thread.


And if you are just talking about people who are extremely liberal, than I agree with you that they are hypocrites (though I wouldn't go as far as to say that they all are, because I don't claim to know that), although I find your views towards liberals to be ignorant at best.

mlugia
05-17-2005, 01:35 AM
I agree, Azam. When I first read the thread, I thought it was a completely biased and undefendable opinion, partly because he seemed to group anyone who isn't conservative a liberal, and all liberals as hypocrites. However, while extremists can be hypocrites, it's not like all hypocrites are liberals, and that hypocrites come from everywhere.