Quote:
Originally Posted by dog8food
Why do they want to shut out certain speakers form college campuses?
|
If you're thinking of the Milo at Berkeley thing, you've got a lot to learn about 'ordinary' liberals and the Black Bloq types. The latter are the ones who started that vandalism and rioting, just like they started trashing that Starbucks and Bank of America on inauguration day and waylaid Richard Spencer.
Black Bloq is a group's name. It's a tactic - cause as much mayhem as possible with the goal of "smashing the system". Most of these types are anarchists, not liberals. Even the conservative political photoessay site zombietime.com shows that Black Bloc's been around for a long time - even as far back as the WTO protest in Seattle in the late 90s. Their strategy is parasitic: attach themselves to peaceful protests, then start rioting and vandalizing stuff. It's like certain legitimate conservative movements getting infested with white supremacists, antisemites, etc., thereby giving their protest movements a bad name.
BTW, the Black Bloq hates the "touchy-feely liberals" as much as they hate the conservatives.
Do liberals want to ban certain speakers from
public universities? I'm sure a few do, but there's always gonna be hardened ideologues in every group. I'm sure a few conservatives want to see feminist speakers banned from campus too, even if they are only a tiny fraction of conservatives. So the who wants to ban who stuff cancels out.
,
Most liberals don't want them banned, but they do affirm the right to protest outside the venue.
Quote:
|
Why do they want larger government intervention?
|
Depends on which sphere you're talking about. They're anti-interventionist with abortion, war on drugs, marijuana (perhaps small amounts of cocaine, though not all liberals go this far), bathroom rights, and such. Liberals ARE rather pro-interventionist when it comes to bringing about European or Canadian style health care to the US, regulating CO2 output, and the safety of consumer goods. I could say more, but my point is clear
Quote:
|
Why don't they give unborn babies the choice to live?
|
Because in the first trimester, if not the first half, of the fetus' existence, it's doesn't have any kind of cognition - a necessary element of personhood. More critically, fetus' at that stage have no capacity to feel pain and agony.
Quote:
|
Why do they support online free-speech filtering?
|
Done by
who? I'm not aware of any website that the US government censors from view of ordinary citizens. Stormfront? It's there if you want it. The Anarchist's Cookbook? Ditto. The only thing that might be filtered are kiddie porn sites - and even then I'm taking a huge risk by even suggesting that
that might be filtered by
the government. True, they arrest the site owners and people who upload the &^%$ (rightfully). But that's not
filtering.
Quote:
|
Why do they want to ban certain public uses of words?
|
"Ban" implies a
government law against the word. That is against the First Amendment - which does not ban private individuals or the society as a whole socially punishing people who use those words in public. It only forbids
the government from banning them.
Quote:
|
Why do they try and force guilt on certain people groups?
|
You mean conservatives aren't guilty of forcing guilt on women who get abortions, or even use 'morning after' pills? Or guilting people who express even sympathy for the plight of illegal or Muslim immigrants? Or who support feminism? Two can play at this game, as I just demonstrated.
Quote:
|
Why do they want guns taken away?
|
Perhaps it's because certain people have felony records or certain non-trivial psychological issues. On this note, Australia and the UK don't ban civilian use or ownership of guns completely - they just have tighter restrictions on gun ownership than the US. So I won't even entertain the old saw "they wanna take *all* guns from *all* people" !!
Quote:
|
Why must we agree with their ever-changing philosophies or be ridiculed, labeled, and punished?
|
Which of our philosophies have changed? Beyond this, change or not, if it's ok for the right to "ridicule, label, and (presumably socially) punish" the left, then it's equally ok for the left to do the same to the right. The only way out of this one is to make it socially unacceptable for anyone to "ridicule, label, and punish" anyone merely for their social and political beliefs (with the exception of clearly callously conscious desires to see anyone who is somehow 'different' to be demeaned, degraded, or otherwise indignified).
Quote:
|
Why do they want to force everyone to ideologically accept their many strange ways of life and love?
|
Because "strangeness" is a constitutional right
- so long as nobody's physical or mental well-being or essential dignity is degraded.
Quote:
|
Why won't they leave other people alone?
|
Again, two can play at this game. Why won't the conservatives stop shaming others for being somehow well outside traditional definitions of "normal behavior" or "respect-worthy person"? The difference is that liberals see nothing wrong with going against tradition as long as it doesn't attack the body, psyche, and dignity of others. Conservatives (well, too many of them) do insist that people hold to traditional defintions of "normal behavior" and "respect-worthy person" even when no hurt, harm, or degradation of others results from their "abnormality" or "disrespect-worthiness".
BTW, why won't religious proselytizers or door-to-door salespeople just leave
us alone as well?
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.
