Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do conservatives always think liberals should be tolerant of their beliefs but are never tolerant themselves?
I always see posts on here from conservatives saying: "Oh what a "tolerant" liberal.
I mean, seriously. You all think liberals should shut up and just tolerate your beliefs while you have no respect for our beliefs? Or while you all try to push religion into the government and stop gays and lesbians from marrying who they love?
For one, I know when I say something, people say "Wow. You are not a tolerant liberal."
Never claimed I was. As far as I know liberals here have the right to their beliefs and dont have to bend over backwards in order to please conservatives and be tolerant towards them. This is especially true when conservatives are not very tolerant of our beliefs. You want us to just sit back and tolerate you all when you have no have no intention of tolerating us?
So conservatives, why do you expect liberals to be tolerant when you obviously are not? Where did this whole slogan about "tolerant liberal" even come about?
There are so many "absolutes" in this post that it's almost nauseating. There are conservatives that are tolerant. There are liberals that are tolerant. There are folks on both sides that are sometimes intolerant. I can not think of any case where there is an absolute on this matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
Not all conservatives do it, first of all. There are many thoughtful conservatives here on this board who know how to have a debate.
Unfortunately, there are others who don't know how to have a debate. They can't come up with a decent explanation for their positions, so they come up with meaningless lines like, "I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant", or "Why are you trying to shut down free speech?" I guess they think that being liberal means we're not allowed to voice our opinions.
I'm all for free speech, and I don't condemn people for saying what they believe, but we have a right to an opinion too.
What's really bad is when they want to codify their beliefs into law, and then tell us that we're being "intolerant" if we disagree with them.
This is an excellent response from someone I've debated in these forums several times. In this case, I completely agree with what he's written, even to the point that I've "repped" him for this post. As far as I can remember, this is the first time we've agreed on something. With that said, it is healthy to be able to (politely) discuss our differences. If we do so, we might find that we agree on a lot more than we disagree on.
What I don't like to see, from either side of the discussion, is the attacks made upon others for expressing their views. From what I've seen, it seems there are more of these attacks coming from the left, though I've also seen them from the right. These do nothing but inflame others. If we really want to have a constructive discussion, we need to point out the flaws in the viewpoints of those we disagree with, by stating why we disagree, and on what basis. If we disagree based on anything other than personal belief or opinion, there should be facts to back up our position.
There is another thread on this forum about basically the same topic, but the OP posted it from the opposing viewpoint. It's been an interesting thread. Someone I disagree with said in one post that there should be mental evaluations conducted when someone tries to purchase a firearm. Later in the same post, in a different paragraph, the poster said something about being innocent until proven guilty. How this poster could say both of these things in the same post is difficult for me to understand. If we were truly innocent until proven guilty, then we wouldn't need to prove our innocence in order to purchase a firearm.
My linking these two items shows why I disagree with what the poster wrote. I don't have any need to attack them personally, even though I disagree with their positions. I simply state my reasons for disagreeing with what they said. Someone else I don't particularly agree with most of the time said it quite well: "Can't we all just get along?"
Let me ask you this - if a law was passed tomorrow stating that mothers could murder their 2 year olds, wouldn't you want it to be changed? Except a law like this would never pass.
That's how many pro-lifers including me (somewhat) see it. Ok.
Woman's life comes before fetus' life absolutely. Woman's convenience (I don't want to be pregnant anymore) coming before fetus' life really bothers me and, yes, I think it's murder and, yes, 60% of people in my state feel the same. 50% of Americans as a whole feel the same. There are some nutcases out there who think the fetus comes first. What happens if the pro life states get this fanatic? Then women will suffer like they always have in the hands of the law and men. They will die. Won't that be considered murder? Or is it ok because the fetus was saved and women are worth nothing?
Keep in mind, these are the percentages of people who want the laws changed. Far more probably do not the abortions are a "good thing."
I don't really know enough about Roe v. Wade to comment on that, but I do know that the term "activist judge" is used (mostly by conservatives) when a decision is made that they disagree with.
As it pertains to same-sex marriage, it's at least a little funny that conservatives complained about "activist judges" in Massachusetts and California and even called them "liberals" when most or all of those judges were actually appointed by Republican governors.
Many SC cases involve "writing laws from the bench," actually, but Roe v. Wade REALLY sticks out as one where that phrase is very much applicable.
As far as same-sex marriage, keep in mind you do have a Republican governor but he is a fairly liberal one. The same applies to Mitt Romney in his former status as governor of MA. Also, I'm not sure about CA or MA, but in TX even appellate judges are elected rather than appointed.
You just called half of all Americans "nutcases." Furthermore, I would never advocate forcing a woman to put her LIFE ahead of a fetus' life.
Nope. I called the people who think the fetus comes before the mothers life nutcases. Not people who are pro life just the extreme ones. Like Eeeee. I am sure remember..right?
Meanwhile YOU might not advocate a woman put her life before a fetus, there are some that do. What about states that have those kinds of people? as I said, women will die. What if pro life states pass laws like this?
Nope. I called the people who think the fetus comes before the mothers life nutcases. Not people who are pro life just the extreme ones. Like Eeeee. I am sure remember..right?
Meanwhile YOU might not advocate a woman put her life before a fetus, there are some that do. What about states that have those kinds of people? as I said, women will die. What if pro life states pass laws like this?
TLV, you do understand that almost all criminal laws are made at the state level, correct?
All 50 states, somehow, magically have laws making murder illegal, rape illegal, assault illegal, theft illegal.
I cannot imagine any state passing legislation requiring women to die for their unborn children. All state legislatures are at least fairly sensible.
But how much should liberals "tolerate" before they should be allowed to speak up about an issue? You see, by saying, "Oh, I thought liberals were supposed to be tolerant", you're basically saying that it's conservatives who should get to decide when liberals are justified in speaking up and when they are not.
When do liberals have a right to speak up? Only when conservatives agree with them?
Of course!
I'm just kidding, so no flames, please!
As I said earlier, healthy discussion involves respectful debate from both sides of the issue. The key is respect. It should be mutual. The OP stated so many things in a one-sided manner that the post was very inflammatory. This does not lend itself to healthy, respectful, discussion.
TLV, you do understand that almost all criminal laws are made at the state level, correct?
All 50 states, somehow, magically have laws making murder illegal, rape illegal, assault illegal, theft illegal.
I cannot imagine any state passing legislation requiring women to die for their unborn children. All state legislatures are at least fairly sensible.
Afo, what does criminal laws got to do with this?
I can see it happening. Some people are fanatics. They think the child is sooo important and women are nothing. I can see it happening. "I refuse to perform this surgery because I don't want to kill the child" all the while the woman dies or is dying.
I hope it does not get to this point but it might with the fanatic things I have seen. Not much you can do then. They got their way...even if it costs a womans life.
As I said earlier, healthy discussion involves respectful debate from both sides of the issue. The key is respect. It should be mutual. The OP stated so many things in a one-sided manner that the post was very inflammatory. This does not lend itself to healthy, respectful, discussion.
I certainly hope you said the same in EMOrocks thread when he posted a thread about liberals being intolerant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
