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.
When you use phrases like, "None of you", it suggests that intolerance isn't just a liberal characteristic. I think that intolerance is nothing more than defensiveness when someone feels attacked. When we think we're under attack, then we slip very easily into a friend/enemy, black/white, right/wrong mindset. But that's not a realistic mindset. We all disagree with our friends about some things, and surprise ourselves when we acknowledge how much we have in common with people we oppose. We know the world is not black and white, that there's a full-color spectrum out there. We know that there are only a few absolutes when it comes to right and wrong, that our actions have a context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strawflower
See, it's attitudes like these that don't get debates anywhere. By using words like "none of you" and "hardly such a thing" it only makes YOU look like the intolerant one. Perhaps if you could look past the so-called "evilness" of liberals, people would respect you more.
And DON'T respond to this with "but the liberals do it too!", because that again proves that you can't have a civil debate without putting the blame on others.
Ok, so which one of my points do you think that i've over-generalized on?
Both of you have engaged in "kill the messenger" but neither of you have debated the merits of any of my points on this thread.
Expand your point, and i'll be GLAD to expand on mine. I'm fit, willing, and able to debate any hypothesis you can throw at me.
Name one pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, pro marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, pro smaller government politician or public figure who is also open about their faith/belief in God/Jesus that you do not think is "stupid." Thanks
My point was quite clear. Neither you, nor Jack, have responded because it makes too much sense. I'll be glad to lay it out in easily understood terms if you require.
Ok, so which one of my points do you think that i've over-generalized on?
Expand your point, and i'll be GLAD to expand on mine.
Hey, AeroGuy, not trying to put you on the defensive. Just pointing out that when you use phrases like "NONE of you", that it's over-generalization.
I don't think the conversation is served when the topic is a false assumption. For example, the OP on this thread is an assumption that ALL liberals think the same and act the same. When confronted with a conservative who agrees on the points the OP cited, ALL liberals call that conservative "stupid."
But that's a false assumption. It's like having eaten one orange that is sour, a person then assumes that every orange is sour. All citrus fruit are sour.
The liberals who have responded to the OP have simply been trying to point out that liberals aren't all alike, and that for the most part, we don't think conservatives are all alike, that we don't automatically think that a conservative is stupid who agrees on the points cited, that we even have trouble thinking of someone who agrees on all those points cited, and when we do think of those people, that we weigh their intelligence not on those opinions but on other factors.
We're all people, all individuals. Liberals aren't subject to generalizations any more than conservatives are. And lumping people together in that "ALL" of you or "NONE" of you people way isn't going to add to the conversation, it's going to detract from the conversation. Don't you think?
I would not necessarily consider a politician like the OP described as stupid but I might consider him/her/it to be anti individual rights, except the right to be armed, anti big business (we would not have big government without big business approving), and suffering from the delusion that there is a God that cares. Not stupid but delusional.
My point was quite clear. Neither you, nor Jack, have responded because it makes too much sense. I'll be glad to lay it out in easily understood terms if you require.
Aeroguy, I'm afraid you're the one who's confused here.
Here's the original post:
Quote:
Name one pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, pro marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, pro smaller government politician or public figure who is also open about their faith/belief in God/Jesus that you do not think is "stupid." Thanks
I responded in Post # 23 by listing seventeen.
Maybe you could quibble and say that I failed to meet the challenge because I listed more than one and the challenge was to name exactly one but that would be a stupid argument.
The problem for you, though, is that you refuse to admit that I, and other posters here, met the challenge by listing conservatives as described in the original post that we do not consider stupid.
Hey, AeroGuy, not trying to put you on the defensive. Just pointing out that when you use phrases like "NONE of you", that it's over-generalization.
I don't think the conversation is served when the topic is a false assumption. For example, the OP on this thread is an assumption that ALL liberals think the same and act the same. When confronted with a conservative who agrees on the points the OP cited, ALL liberals call that conservative "stupid."
But that's a false assumption. It's like having eaten one orange that is sour, a person then assumes that every orange is sour. All citrus fruit are sour.
The liberals who have responded to the OP have simply been trying to point out that liberals aren't all alike, and that for the most part, we don't think conservatives are all alike, that we don't automatically think that a conservative is stupid who agrees on the points cited, that we even have trouble thinking of someone who agrees on all those points cited, and when we do think of those people, that we weigh their intelligence not on those opinions but on other factors.
We're all people, all individuals. Liberals aren't subject to generalizations any more than conservatives are. And lumping people together in that "ALL" of you or "NONE" of you people way isn't going to add to the conversation, it's going to detract from the conversation. Don't you think?
"None" may be a poor choice of words, but lets be honest here. The "culture" of this forum is such that conservatives believe in a "book of fairy tales" and liberals do not. Of course there is some middle ground to be found: There are liberals who are Christians. There are conservatives who are Atheists. But on the whole, the recurring theme is that conservatives must be bat shiit crazy to believe in something that liberals feel is not supported by science. And its nearly this fact alone that drives to the two sides to debate until the death the merits of our individual ideologies. This is not new theory. This is, and will continue to be, the mechanism that divides this country until the end.
Aeroguy, I'm afraid you're the one who's confused here.
Here's the original post:
I responded in Post # 23 by listing seventeen.
Maybe you could quibble and say that I failed to meet the challenge because I listed more than one and the challenge was to name exactly one but that would be a stupid argument.
The problem for you, though, is that you refuse to admit that I, and other posters here, met the challenge by listing conservatives as described in the original post that we do not consider stupid.
Run along now, little boy.
Yes, you did list conservatives that meet that definition in your eyes. I see that.
But in your follow up, I pointed out your view of conservatives trying to force orthodoxy into the society could also be applied to liberalism as well.
Instead of challenging me on the issue, you attack the messenger.
Are you going to answer the challenge to your point of view or not?
PS...i'm not "running along" anywhere. I'll be glad to debate you about any subject you feel compelled to bring forth. It seems the "running along" lies with you by your refusal to answer the challenge.
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.
Who's monitoring the TOS lately???
