Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why does the left feel the need to attack others all the tim

Page 2 of 14 [ 218 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

10 Apr 2015, 11:53 pm

As far as the left attacking others is concerned, is that perhaps in large part the left defending certain groups like gays, blacks, women, etc. by attacking homophobes, racists, and misogynists?


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

10 Apr 2015, 11:55 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
sly279 wrote:
...the left always has to feel like they have to control everyone else.

True. They believe government control is the solution to everything. They are essentially totalitarians, and if they are not kept in check it will end in communism, nazism, or some other disaster.

If that is true, why doesn't The Right let gays marry? It's their freedom to marry if they choose. Why is it The Right always cries about individual liberty but is completely paranoid and intolerant about same sex couples and marriage? If you cater a gay wedding, it doesn't mean that you are the one who actually performed the ceremony wedding them. It's just an excuse for The Right to declare they want to control who gets married and who doesn't.


My personal opinion is that marriage is a religious issue and the government should not interfere. I am aghast at those on the religious right who want to turn over control of religious issues to the state.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "If you cater a gay wedding ...". What would catering have to do with controlling who gets married?

Tell me, please, who were the first two people to get married? And, if you will kindly recall, it wasn't too long ago, The Right were planning to stick their noses into The Marriage issue by forming committees on saving marriages that were ending in divorce. It was The Right who wanted to get involved in saving marriages. They sure didn't seem too concerned about leaving it to the Church then, did they? There was a Marriage Initiative in this very state I live in designed to keep people marrying and preventing them from divorcing, all done through government and the state so you can bet The Right has no qualm with this particular issue and, apparently, believes it is the government's job to get men and women married and keep them that way. It is only when a Democrat is in the White House do they start acting like government has no business in marriage, or when it's ssm.


When are you going to gain some reading comprehension. You act like I was trying to defend the right on this.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

10 Apr 2015, 11:57 pm

By the way, the first two people to be married? Biblically I would guess Adam and Eve since I think they were referred to as husband and wife although I have no idea who would have performed the ceremony.



Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

11 Apr 2015, 12:03 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
...why doesn't The Right let gays marry? It's their freedom to marry if they choose.

Nobody has a right to get married, and forcing religious institutions to conduct ceremonies against their convictions is an act of totalitarianism.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

11 Apr 2015, 12:04 am

eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
sly279 wrote:
...the left always has to feel like they have to control everyone else.

True. They believe government control is the solution to everything. They are essentially totalitarians, and if they are not kept in check it will end in communism, nazism, or some other disaster.

If that is true, why doesn't The Right let gays marry? It's their freedom to marry if they choose. Why is it The Right always cries about individual liberty but is completely paranoid and intolerant about same sex couples and marriage? If you cater a gay wedding, it doesn't mean that you are the one who actually performed the ceremony wedding them. It's just an excuse for The Right to declare they want to control who gets married and who doesn't.


My personal opinion is that marriage is a religious issue and the government should not interfere. I am aghast at those on the religious right who want to turn over control of religious issues to the state.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "If you cater a gay wedding ...". What would catering have to do with controlling who gets married?

Tell me, please, who were the first two people to get married? And, if you will kindly recall, it wasn't too long ago, The Right were planning to stick their noses into The Marriage issue by forming committees on saving marriages that were ending in divorce. It was The Right who wanted to get involved in saving marriages. They sure didn't seem too concerned about leaving it to the Church then, did they? There was a Marriage Initiative in this very state I live in designed to keep people marrying and preventing them from divorcing, all done through government and the state so you can bet The Right has no qualm with this particular issue and, apparently, believes it is the government's job to get men and women married and keep them that way. It is only when a Democrat is in the White House do they start acting like government has no business in marriage, or when it's ssm.


When are you going to gain some reading comprehension. You act like I was trying to defend the right on this.


It's The Right who want the state to butt out of marriage, right? They don't want the government saying who can and cannot marry, they want religion to decide it.

So, let me ask this again, who were the first man and woman to marry and pray tell what religion were they and tell me how you know they were genuinely the very first ones and then tell me who it was to join them in matrimony?



luan78zao
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

11 Apr 2015, 12:05 am

'That which I like is good, and should be mandatory; that which I dislike is bad, and ought to be banned.' This authoritarian mindset is now pretty much universal on the American left, and as others have pointed out, there are plenty of "conservatives" with the same basic attitude.

I've never understood this urge to control people, myself. Fortunately, left-authoritarian and right-authoritarian are not the only possible positions.


_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand


sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

11 Apr 2015, 12:07 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as the left attacking others is concerned, is that perhaps in large part the left defending certain groups like gays, blacks, women, etc. by attacking homophobes, racists, and misogynists?


yes cause anyone who disagrees with the left are homophobes, racists, and misogynists.

yep no blind hatred lying there. just the classic if you disagree with democrats you're a racist comment.



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

11 Apr 2015, 12:08 am

As measles continued to spread this February, Congressional lawmakers came together in bipartisanship to show strong support for vaccination:

http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousD ... ines/49959


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

11 Apr 2015, 12:09 am

luan78zao wrote:
'That which I like is good, and should be mandatory; that which I dislike is bad, and ought to be banned.' This authoritarian mindset is now pretty much universal on the American left, and as others have pointed out, there are plenty of "conservatives" with the same basic attitude.

I've never understood this urge to control people, myself. Fortunately, left-authoritarian and right-authoritarian are not the only possible positions.


(palm to face)


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

11 Apr 2015, 12:09 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
sly279 wrote:
...the left always has to feel like they have to control everyone else.

True. They believe government control is the solution to everything. They are essentially totalitarians, and if they are not kept in check it will end in communism, nazism, or some other disaster.

If that is true, why doesn't The Right let gays marry? It's their freedom to marry if they choose. Why is it The Right always cries about individual liberty but is completely paranoid and intolerant about same sex couples and marriage? If you cater a gay wedding, it doesn't mean that you are the one who actually performed the ceremony wedding them. It's just an excuse for The Right to declare they want to control who gets married and who doesn't.


My personal opinion is that marriage is a religious issue and the government should not interfere. I am aghast at those on the religious right who want to turn over control of religious issues to the state.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "If you cater a gay wedding ...". What would catering have to do with controlling who gets married?

Tell me, please, who were the first two people to get married? And, if you will kindly recall, it wasn't too long ago, The Right were planning to stick their noses into The Marriage issue by forming committees on saving marriages that were ending in divorce. It was The Right who wanted to get involved in saving marriages. They sure didn't seem too concerned about leaving it to the Church then, did they? There was a Marriage Initiative in this very state I live in designed to keep people marrying and preventing them from divorcing, all done through government and the state so you can bet The Right has no qualm with this particular issue and, apparently, believes it is the government's job to get men and women married and keep them that way. It is only when a Democrat is in the White House do they start acting like government has no business in marriage, or when it's ssm.


When are you going to gain some reading comprehension. You act like I was trying to defend the right on this.


It's The Right who want the state to butt out of marriage, right? They don't want the government saying who can and cannot marry, they want religion to decide it.

So, let me ask this again, who were the first man and woman to marry and pray tell what religion were they and tell me how you know they were genuinely the very first ones and then tell me who it was to join them in matrimony?


What? In what country do you live?

I don't know about elsewhere, but the religous right in the US wants the government to keep gays from marrying instead of leaving it up to religion.

There was even a Constitutional Amendment in Texas a few years ago defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Does that sound like wanting religion to make the decision? Not hardly. And for what it's worth, I do think that it should be up to religion, not the state, and voted against the amendment.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

11 Apr 2015, 12:11 am

sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as the left attacking others is concerned, is that perhaps in large part the left defending certain groups like gays, blacks, women, etc. by attacking homophobes, racists, and misogynists?


yes cause anyone who disagrees with the left are homophobes, racists, and misogynists.

yep no blind hatred lying there. just the classic if you disagree with democrats you're a racist comment.


But people who oppose LGBT rights are clearly homophobes, and those who oppose civil rights for racial minorities are clearly racists. There's no way to get around the moral defects of those standing against civil liberties.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

11 Apr 2015, 12:12 am

luan78zao wrote:
'That which I like is good, and should be mandatory; that which I dislike is bad, and ought to be banned.' This authoritarian mindset is now pretty much universal on the American left, and as others have pointed out, there are plenty of "conservatives" with the same basic attitude.

I've never understood this urge to control people, myself. Fortunately, left-authoritarian and right-authoritarian are not the only possible positions.

How is it that we are not controlled on some level? From the moment you are born, they are attempting to control you, starting with your parents. They try to mold you into someone who can function in society because they have these fears for your future and their hope is you will be able to get through life somehow so they teach you what they believe you need to know in order to live a half way fulfilling life in society. So this idea that we are not controlled is simply a lie. Everything we are it's because our parents and society has taught us what to be, what is acceptable, what will get us rewards and what will not. We are conditioned to do certain things, not do others. The ones who do the unacceptable things are punished. If the laws didn't exist, they would still be punished by other people who don't like what they do. That's part of being a human, isn't it?



Aprilviolets
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,184

11 Apr 2015, 12:13 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Vaccinations were created for a reason:

to prevent SERIOUS DISEASES.

If we don't vaccinate, we'll be back to square one. Kids would get polio again, as well as all those other lovely diseases like diphtheria.

Talk to someone who lived in the era before polio vaccination. You'll change your tune right fast!


I have an Aunt who had polio before the polio vaccination was available, she still has a calliper on her leg but she can still get around.
She made sure her children (who she adopted) had their vaccinations as she didn't want them to go through what she did.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

11 Apr 2015, 12:15 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
Vaccinations were created for a reason:

to prevent SERIOUS DISEASES.

If we don't vaccinate, we'll be back to square one. Kids would get polio again, as well as all those other lovely diseases like diphtheria.

Talk to someone who lived in the era before polio vaccination. You'll change your tune right fast!

people should not be FORCED to take them though that is what I disagree with. I get vaccines, I will fight to the death against forcing people to get them. just as I would for gay rights.

not everyone does it now and theres no polio. so this is just a emotional reaction trying to pass a law. laws should never be based on emotional overreactions.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

11 Apr 2015, 12:15 am

eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Humanaut wrote:
sly279 wrote:
...the left always has to feel like they have to control everyone else.

True. They believe government control is the solution to everything. They are essentially totalitarians, and if they are not kept in check it will end in communism, nazism, or some other disaster.

If that is true, why doesn't The Right let gays marry? It's their freedom to marry if they choose. Why is it The Right always cries about individual liberty but is completely paranoid and intolerant about same sex couples and marriage? If you cater a gay wedding, it doesn't mean that you are the one who actually performed the ceremony wedding them. It's just an excuse for The Right to declare they want to control who gets married and who doesn't.


My personal opinion is that marriage is a religious issue and the government should not interfere. I am aghast at those on the religious right who want to turn over control of religious issues to the state.

I have no idea what you are talking about with "If you cater a gay wedding ...". What would catering have to do with controlling who gets married?

Tell me, please, who were the first two people to get married? And, if you will kindly recall, it wasn't too long ago, The Right were planning to stick their noses into The Marriage issue by forming committees on saving marriages that were ending in divorce. It was The Right who wanted to get involved in saving marriages. They sure didn't seem too concerned about leaving it to the Church then, did they? There was a Marriage Initiative in this very state I live in designed to keep people marrying and preventing them from divorcing, all done through government and the state so you can bet The Right has no qualm with this particular issue and, apparently, believes it is the government's job to get men and women married and keep them that way. It is only when a Democrat is in the White House do they start acting like government has no business in marriage, or when it's ssm.


When are you going to gain some reading comprehension. You act like I was trying to defend the right on this.


It's The Right who want the state to butt out of marriage, right? They don't want the government saying who can and cannot marry, they want religion to decide it.

So, let me ask this again, who were the first man and woman to marry and pray tell what religion were they and tell me how you know they were genuinely the very first ones and then tell me who it was to join them in matrimony?


What? In what country do you live?

I don't know about elsewhere, but the religous right in the US wants the government to keep gays from marrying instead of leaving it up to religion.

There was even a Constitutional Amendment in Texas a few years ago defining marriage as being between a man and a woman. Does that sound like wanting religion to make the decision? Not hardly. And for what it's worth, I do think that it should be up to religion, not the state, and voted against the amendment.


So your suggestion is the state should stop issuing marriage licenses because even for church marriages that have nothing to do with the state, they must issue a license first. Your solution is for the state to stop issuing licenses and religious folk of all kinds marry others? Actually that isn't a bad idea at all.

State wants to blame divorce for all the problems in society but simple matter is the problems stem from not enough money. The main reason people divorce in this state is financial so it's easy to see the solution. Bring more money into the state, put it in their pockets, and everyone's happier. Give them more opportunities to acquire that money. It's not divorce that is the problem, it is lack of funding.



Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 11 Apr 2015, 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

Aprilviolets
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,184

11 Apr 2015, 12:17 am

sly279 wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
As far as the left attacking others is concerned, is that perhaps in large part the left defending certain groups like gays, blacks, women, etc. by attacking homophobes, racists, and misogynists?


yes cause anyone who disagrees with the left are homophobes, racists, and misogynists.

yep no blind hatred lying there. just the classic if you disagree with democrats you're a racist comment.


Some people tried to hold a rally against sharia law and FGM the other day, but the loony left turned up and caused a riot spitting, hissing and throwing horse dung calling them racists and islamaphobes. :roll: