5 Reasons Liberals Are Such Unpleasant People To Be Around

Post Reply New Topic

Marriage has legal and economic benefits that civil unions do not have. Secular traditionalists of this sort oppose it because of their irrational anxiety about change.

You're a psychic?

I don't find liberals unpleasant to be around. The family members on my dad's side are all liberal, and then my mom's side of the family is all conservative. All are decent people. They don't have the same opinions on a lot of things, but it's actually not because one side is stupid or evil. They just have different ideas about what would be most beneficial for the country. Both are right about some things and wrong about most things.

Honesty, the feud between the 2 main political parties is ridiculous. Both democrats and republicans spend more time attacking the other side than trying to come up with solutions. People feel the need to identify with their party so strongly that it prevents them from forming their own opinion sometimes. They just go with whatever view they think they should have on an issue and don't even question it. If people could step away from the political labels for a minute and just have honest discussions about issues, maybe people would be more receptive to other viewpoints. Instead it's this us vs them thing, no progress is made, just pointless mud slinging and name calling.

That said... gay marriage shouldn't even be up for debate. All people deserve the same rights. Lots of conservative, hardcore Christians recognize this and support gay marriage too... so clearly it's possible for something to transcend the political parties.

you must not have read the whole thread, or you would have caught dox's "proof" that some discrimination against gays is rational and therefore is legitimate fodder for debate with "intelligent" people, you know, the kind who can distinguish between rational discrimination against particular groups of people and irrational discrimination against particular groups of people.

Who would want to adapt to an ultra-conservative community?
Are you going to shake your tail feathers at the Pride parade in Frisco?

You're really not very good at this, are you? I'm debating a very narrow point concerning the blanket application of pejorative terms to people whom they do not necessarily apply to, which you answer with potshots and attempts to wind me up, which I suppose you must see as productive on some level. By all means knock yourself out, you wouldn't be the first and certainly won't be the last.

just keep telling me that i'm stupid in various ways and one day it will be true.

you keep saying you're debating, yet all i've seen from you is assertions that everything you posit is rational and anyone who doesn't understand and agree with you is obviously intellectually deficient. several people have taken your argument apart, to which your response is "you think i'm incorrect only because you are incapable of understanding my argument because you're too stupid." is this a new definition of debating we are not privy to, or are you labouring under a misunderstanding of how debate is supposed to work?

Agreed.

Normally I'm indifferent to liberals, but there are times they do come off as royal self-righteous a**holes. I've seen threads were they love to rip on conservatives, but heaven forbid someone who has conservative leanings does the same. And when they love to white knight about gays? Well that's only for certain gay people, and bonus points for those that have a chip on their shoulder. Those are the ones that they can patronizingly pat on the head and say "There there. We'll protect you and love you, because you are helpless and a constant victim. The system hates you, and so does family, friends and religion."

Then they love to gush about the destruction of the environment, while yet avoiding the big taboo of overpopulation and how they still enthusiastically contribute to it. Especially when it comes to 'passing on their genes.' Then it becomes 'evolution this' and 'biology that' and other 'scientifically' sanctioned reasons for why they keep on breeding instead of wrapping that rascal.

I could go on but I won't, I think I've said enough. Basically they shouldn't expect to dish it out without having being prepared to have their crap slung back at them in return. I can't tell you how many times they'll go on and on about conservatives, but horrors when a conservative fights back? Grab the lube because there's butthurt a' comin. Then they act all like they're innocent little angels and it's the conservative that's the meanie.

Like I said, normally I'm indifferent to liberals, but sometimes they do come off as patronizing and hypocritical. Conservatives definitely have their faults, but liberals need to acknowledge they aren't all kittens and sunshine either.

I am an environmentalist and also believe in population control,I think it should be mandatory that you can only have two kids.I'm not sure what bunch of liberals you are around,but it seems to me the conservatives in this area have larger families.

Any examples?


US conservatives have more children than US liberals. And it is directly tied to religiosity... see the second and third link below for details.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/04/2 ... al-States#
http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/08/democrats_have_.html
http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/08/bush_voters_hav.html
http://super-economy.blogspot.dk/2010/0 ... -than.html
http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/11/states- ... rtile.html

Summary: US states with high fertility vote Republican.

EDIT: Oh, and for the lulz:

Here are the 2008 and 2012 top 3 Republican presidential candidate children counts (ranked by delegates at the primary)

2008:

1. John McCain (7)
2. Mike Huckabee (3)
3. Mitt Romney (5)

Average 5.

2012:

1. Mitt Romney (5)
2. Rick Santorum (8*)
3. Newt Gingrich (2)

Average: 5.

*One deceased.

And here are the children count for the last 2 Democrat Presidents:

Barack Obama (2)
William Jefferson Clinton (1)

Average: 1.5

Last edited by GGPViper on 26 Apr 2014, 5:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ditto. i personally think people should only be allowed to have one biological child and if they want more they should adopt/foster, and to have any children in the home at all people should have to go through a long educational/registration process beforehand to qualify--i don't even see reproduction as a right but a privilege, but i know that view is not popular. i think people should have to prove they are capable of caring for children before they are allowed the privilege of creating and being responsible for a life. it's a policy that could all but eliminate child abuse (at least in the family home) if administered properly, but the logistics would be a challenge to set up to say the least and i know most people view reproduction as a human right and would defend it fiercely, so i can't call my ideas on the subject realistic or likely to ever be implemented.

i can't speak for other liberals** here, but my "white-knighting" of the LGBT community is motivated by the fact that my brother/best friend is gay and i happen to think he is just as human as i am and deserves the same rights that are granted to me under the law, including the right to marry.



** in my country the liberal party is actually more of a fence-sitting middle-of-the-road party, and parties like the NDP and Greens are the left on our political spectrum, so in that sense i am not a liberal in that i don't support the liberal party here in canada.

Did I tell you that you're stupid? I thought I told you that I don't approach you from an intellectual angle, how you chose to interpret it is on you. Just the same, it wouldn't hurt to say something intelligent once in a while, strictly for appearances sake.



I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where I signed up to teach a remedial debate class, could you point that post out to me? While you're at it, could you also link the post where I said that anyone who disagrees with me is intellectually deficient, I can't seem to recall making that statement, and it's not like you'd lie to try and score a cheap point...



Kindly link the posts you're referring to and explain how they refute my arguments; all I've seen has been straw men, circular emotional arguments, a baffling cloud of pseudo-intellectual BS, an attempted psychoanalysis by someone wielding a cherry picked dictionary definition, and, oh, argument by mockery of straw men.



Oh, mirroring. Haven't seen that one since high school psych; it didn't work on me then either.

I don't like this term "white kniGHTING!! !". The term is often deployed to try attach shame by ridiculing empathetic and social justice instincts. Anyone who does this is an a**hole in my opinion. Joining together in common cause makes us strong, and there's a lot of people who want to undermine that in any way they can.

Last edited by Stannis on 26 Apr 2014, 10:31 pm, edited 7 times in total.

honestly there's no point in me doing any of what you suggest, because myself and others have done so in this and other threads and you continue to ignore or sidestep the evidence they present you with while proclaiming yourself intellectually superior in what you think is subtle language in an attempt to circumvent the site's TOS. why present you with evidence you will simply ignore while claiming no one has shown you any evidence? i think someone else a few posts ago said something about this whole thread being ridiculous--i would have to agree with that (including your contributions as well as my own). i don't pretend to entertain the idea that i might actually be able to reach you with reason, which is why i talk to you the way i do. so let's just say that feeling is mutual.

also, i think the term you're looking for is "projection". it's very common for people who don't like certain things about themselves to see them (often mistakenly) in others and then focus their negativity on those characteristics in other people to avoid acknowledging them in themselves. you do like to bang on about how "unintellectual" and closed-minded i supposedly am. just sayin.

I thnk you hit the nail right on the head.
Very well said.