5 Reasons Liberals Are Such Unpleasant People To Be Around

Post Reply New Topic

And if you'd stopped at one you'd want the rest of the world to be limited to one. If you'd stopped at three you'd want the rest of the world to be limited to three. You had no issues with being fixed so no one else should either. And they say conservatives are narrow minded and arrogant.

All true, but you have to remember that the only thing that I'm arguing here is that not all opposition to gay rights is homophobic in nature, and that not all opposition to gay rights is irrational, nothing more.

I don't consider that being narrow minded,more like thrifty.You don't keep more animals than you can feed,the planet can only "feed "so many.It only makes sense to me.I guess I won't be named ruler of the world anytime soon,so you don't have to loose sleep over it being implemented.
As for arrogant,ever met anyone from here who wasn't?

5 edits and you've still got that typo in the first sentence? I only mention it cause I saw you talking about obsessive editing the other day, and it's a funny typo to begin with.

Anyway, "white knighting" is one of the those troublesome words that's genuinely useful from time to time, but that I hesitate to use because of it's association with unsavory elements that causes people to make assumptions about anyone using the word. I think of it as an unsolicited and often undesired defense of a person who may have been handling things just fine, but the "white knight" in question thought they needed "rescuing" and heedlessly jumped in, which is kind of patronizing if nothing else. Further, the "knight" often obliviously jumps in without fully understanding the context of what is going on, embarrassing the person they're trying to defend and angering the person(s) who are now being attacked by the "knight".

By you own standards.


Other countries are more densely populated than the US. Go bother them. How did animals get brought into this?


After Nov. 2008 anything is possible.


I won't


Here as in from Arkansas? They've never struck me as being arrogant. Usually quite the opposite.

Oh I would bother the other countries,I would want this world wide.
Humans are animals,not good to overcrowd.
I don't think you have attended many "drinking "political debates here if you think the average Arkansan isn't pretty arrogant about their personal beliefs.Most are not soft spoken,you must be thinking of those sweet talking delta boys.

/\ This is our best bet for winnowing the population down to a manageable size.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sYSyuuLk5g[/youtube]

Yup,it'll happen sooner or later.Now there is a new tick disease that causes an allergic reaction if you eat mammalian meat.It was in the last Ark Farm Bureau magazine.

I don't think you really know anything about liberals other than what you see on right wing tv, hear on right wing radio and see on the right wing websites you have cached all over the inside of your internet devices. I don't think you are open enough to actually meet and interact with a liberal in your RL. You have some preconceived idea about who or what a liberal is from all of the nonsense you expose yourself to in media. Nothing of what I see you say about liberals on WP represents in any way how I think or see the world.

Substitute 'conservative' for 'liberal' and you could be describing most of your own posts here.

You beat me to it. I was thinking that very same thing.

Yes, that person is a psychic, you're a psychic, we're all psychics. It's a matter of opinion, just like your opinion was.

You seem to operate under the assumption that your opinion is actually proven fact. You can't really "prove" that there is such thing as "rational" opposition to gay marriage because what is considered "rational" is a completely subjective thing. From the perspective of a gay person, there is nothing rational about wanting to deny me the same rights as every other human being. You can call it "arguing semantics" if you wish, but for me it has nothing to do with semantics.

Pushing the pointless haggling over the definition of "homophobia" aside, I'm guessing Dox47's intended argument can be paired own to this...

People who don't believe in marriage equality for homosexuals do not necessarily arrive at their their beliefs due to personal hatred, fear, disgust, or bigotry towards gay people.

My answer is, so what. There are people who beat their children, not because they hate children, but because they believe corrective use of physical violence and fear/intimidation instills discipline and respect for authority, which better prepares children for a harsh reality. I'm sure men in other cultures have the same perfectly rational attitude towards their wives. They beat them out of love, not hate. It keeps them from running off and getting into trouble. You can make a cold emotionless argument for anything. Evil isn't always angry, frothing, rage, or open malice. Sometimes it's stubborn adherence to harmful ideas that marginalize and hurt certain groups of people.

If I was gay, whether someone opposes marriage equality out of bigotry/malice, or merely thinks the "definition of marriage" shouldn't be altered, wouldn't change my opinion of them much. If I'm being beaten down I don't really care about the sincerity or rationality of the ones doing the beating. If I am being hurt/marginalized by a certain group of people, I will tend to treat such individuals as if they were acting out of malice. It's just self-preservation.

No, actually, what he was doing was speculating as to the internal motivations of people he doesn't know but couching it as a proven fact, which is a bit different than stating an opinion, hence my response.



Give me an example of me doing this, with a link if you please, as I've patiently explained my reasoning ad nauseam and not simply dismissed anything out of hand.



Well, you're getting warmer here, but there is actually an objective standard for rationality, and some opposition to gay marriage does in fact meet that standard, which I've walked the thread through numerous times.



That's your opinion and you're welcome to it, but it does not change the facts on the ground, that there is such a thing as rational opposition to gay marriage; how you feel about it is completely beside the point.

Yes, that is the one and only point I'm trying to make here, and one that is completely tangential to the OP of the thread. Then again, the OP was pretty explicitly trollish, so perhaps that's a good thing...



All true, but not what we're arguing about here; if the argument was actually about gay rights and what they mean to people, as opposed to the discrete words used to describe the people who oppose them, you'd be on point, but it's just the words we're talking about here, or at least I am. You actually seem to have read the thread, so you know that I was directly challenged on two specific points: All opposition to gay rights being driven by homophobia, and the whether or not opposition to gay rights is categorically irrational, and those are the only two points I'm arguing about here.
You're throwing a 100mph fastball, but it's outside the strike-zone.



Again, nothing really for me to argue against there, I'm just pointing out that I'm approaching this debate from a hyper-technical angle, as it is a debate on the internet and thus not the real world and I can afford to be precise here, it's not life and death.

I must point out though, that assuming malice on the part of opposition is how partisanship gets so out of control, with conservatives accusing liberals of buying poor votes with welfare money and liberals accusing conservatives of wanting to see people die in the streets, all the while nothing gets done because no one will extend the modicum of good faith required for cooperation and actual understanding. I understand that complete detachment is not a realistic expectation of other people when approaching these questions, I just ask for enough of an open mind for a dialogue to occur.

Good to see you Marshall, it's been a while, truly.

Are you not doing the same thing? Can you read the minds of these people to know that they approach the subject from a place of reason? I know, I get it, they read that they should oppose homosexuality in an ancient book that they read and so they do. If that isn't the height of rationality, then I don't know what is.

And on that note, I think I'm done with this thread, the joy that it is. lol