WEEKEND TICKETS GOING FAST!

PRICES GO UP AT THE GATE

PURCHASE TICKET
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
Post Reply Why I Left the Left
423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 3 days ago , edited 3 days ago

Kerensa wrote:



Hard to say equal protection of all when you are literally allowing people to not be equally protected by proxy.


It's not hard to say equal protection. This is why we have the 14th amendment. It clearly defines equal protection.
3774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Kumamoto, Japan
Offline
Posted 3 days ago

OneEyedDragon wrote:


Kerensa wrote:



Hard to say equal protection of all when you are literally allowing people to not be equally protected by proxy.


It's not hard to say equal protection. This is why we have the 14th amendment. It clearly defines equal protection.


And it's working flawlessly. </sarcasm>
423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 3 days ago

Kerensa wrote:


And it's working flawlessly. </sarcasm>


Maybe we should revoke it and see where that takes us. sarcasm
316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / Seoul
Offline
Posted 3 days ago
'Public' political and personal opinions should be beneath society at this point. But what’s clear is that we now live in a world where differences of opinion lead to fights rather than conversations.

694 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 3 days ago

OneEyedDragon wrote:


Kerensa wrote:


And it's working flawlessly. </sarcasm>


Maybe we should revoke it and see where that takes us. sarcasm


Are you going to every single dead conservative-related thread and bumping them to the front page?
27397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 2 days ago

Kerensa wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I like Rubin's Report, I agree with everything he has said.


That's good. Practice what you preach.


Except my one problem with his video lies in bakers violating their conscience on the floors of religion. Hell, I'd argue that bigotry is an excuse in itself to discriminate, and we should not afford religion such big room to discriminate just because it is.

Yet I feel that if you, the individual, are not a business, such as a freelance wedding photographer, but own a business that cannot discriminate against black customers, than I feel it would be terribly inconsistent to allow them to discriminate against gay customers. It is not like both have their ties in religion at the height of these antimovements. My conclusion? Religion is nearly meaningless in this debate. Either you should be able to discriminate based on your bigotry, or you shouldn't be able to in most cases. Freedom is the basis for allowing discrimination, not religion. Religion is just a loopy loophole.


In this case, I argue against the ability to discriminate because I want the freedom of walking where I please in public places. Although his sisterhood of nuns is something I wholly agree with. I am not much of an expert in business law, though I would clearly make a distinction between individuals and businesses.


If you are liberal you'd give people the liberty to be ignorant bigots and reap the consequences of their actions.


Cool. To be a true liberal you must allow businesses to deny employment or goods/services to people because it "goes against their moral compass".

I get the argument, and I don't disagree; I just am very clearly aware that there are people in this country that will cheat the system so that they don't have to spend money on xyz because they literally just don't want to -- not because it goes against their religion or otherwise. Tax dollars are tax dollars that are broken up into fractions of a cent for this or that within the country and the whole point of taxes is you don't get to pick and choose where they go -- we have a government for that. Moreover, if we sit and say that, for example, a Christian can choose to opt out of their tax dollars assisting with necessary abortions (e.g. abort the fetus or parent dies, complications, or otherwise), how does one prove that is literally the reason why they don't want a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a cent from their yearly taxes going to that? The argument is just too silly.

And yeah, go to a different baker. I dunno - I've experienced racism and it seems pretty easy to preach and say, "yeah, if you're a true liberal you'd let people be ignorant bigots and reap the consequences by being racist/misogynistic/anti-LGBTQ, except the consequences would not be all that bad for them. I mean, this is America...

I would challenge you to try and counter your own arguments and think about the other side of the page. I respect others' opinions and I am a liberal - but I do not feel a true liberal would be okay with allowing people and business to be regressive in their practices (which is the very thing the video you posted was arguing about the left).


Nah no matter how much I think about it I can't find a reason to control or force someone how to act or feel unless they are laws made to preserve life. The liberty comes from the ability to choose to where you do business. A place that denies you service based on prejudice should be investigated. Like a gun store that will only sell to whites, or a local pharmacy that does the same. They most certainly must be put on blast. But if the shoe were on the other foot, would you want someone forcing you to discriminate? I think not. Laws that promote equality are essential but I just think there is something inherently wrong with forcing someone to do something if lives aren't on the line.

On a side note... if you vote republican in 2018 you support racists.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/20/dean-if-you-vote-gop-2018-then-you-support-racist-white-house
3774 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / Kumamoto, Japan
Offline
Posted one day ago

MysticGon wrote:


Kerensa wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:


MysticGon wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:

I like Rubin's Report, I agree with everything he has said.


That's good. Practice what you preach.


Except my one problem with his video lies in bakers violating their conscience on the floors of religion. Hell, I'd argue that bigotry is an excuse in itself to discriminate, and we should not afford religion such big room to discriminate just because it is.

Yet I feel that if you, the individual, are not a business, such as a freelance wedding photographer, but own a business that cannot discriminate against black customers, than I feel it would be terribly inconsistent to allow them to discriminate against gay customers. It is not like both have their ties in religion at the height of these antimovements. My conclusion? Religion is nearly meaningless in this debate. Either you should be able to discriminate based on your bigotry, or you shouldn't be able to in most cases. Freedom is the basis for allowing discrimination, not religion. Religion is just a loopy loophole.


In this case, I argue against the ability to discriminate because I want the freedom of walking where I please in public places. Although his sisterhood of nuns is something I wholly agree with. I am not much of an expert in business law, though I would clearly make a distinction between individuals and businesses.


If you are liberal you'd give people the liberty to be ignorant bigots and reap the consequences of their actions.


Cool. To be a true liberal you must allow businesses to deny employment or goods/services to people because it "goes against their moral compass".

I get the argument, and I don't disagree; I just am very clearly aware that there are people in this country that will cheat the system so that they don't have to spend money on xyz because they literally just don't want to -- not because it goes against their religion or otherwise. Tax dollars are tax dollars that are broken up into fractions of a cent for this or that within the country and the whole point of taxes is you don't get to pick and choose where they go -- we have a government for that. Moreover, if we sit and say that, for example, a Christian can choose to opt out of their tax dollars assisting with necessary abortions (e.g. abort the fetus or parent dies, complications, or otherwise), how does one prove that is literally the reason why they don't want a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a cent from their yearly taxes going to that? The argument is just too silly.

And yeah, go to a different baker. I dunno - I've experienced racism and it seems pretty easy to preach and say, "yeah, if you're a true liberal you'd let people be ignorant bigots and reap the consequences by being racist/misogynistic/anti-LGBTQ, except the consequences would not be all that bad for them. I mean, this is America...

I would challenge you to try and counter your own arguments and think about the other side of the page. I respect others' opinions and I am a liberal - but I do not feel a true liberal would be okay with allowing people and business to be regressive in their practices (which is the very thing the video you posted was arguing about the left).


Nah no matter how much I think about it I can't find a reason to control or force someone how to act or feel unless they are laws made to preserve life. The liberty comes from the ability to choose to where you do business. A place that denies you service based on prejudice should be investigated. Like a gun store that will only sell to whites, or a local pharmacy that does the same. They most certainly must be put on blast. But if the shoe were on the other foot, would you want someone forcing you to discriminate? I think not. Laws that promote equality are essential but I just think there is something inherently wrong with forcing someone to do something if lives aren't on the line.

On a side note... if you vote republican in 2018 you support racists.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/08/20/dean-if-you-vote-gop-2018-then-you-support-racist-white-house


I can't word it well enough, so I will quote a great philosopher instead.

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” - Karl Popper

27397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted one day ago , edited 9 hours ago


So zero tolerance for intolerance. It a slippery slope. Someone brought up in another thread criminalizing dead-naming or misgendering transgender individuals. Not tolerating that in the name of tolerance. Who draws the line and where does it stop? Sounds like a fast track to fascism to me. Where instead of being segregated by skin color you are segregated by opinion. That happens naturally. I don't think it needs to be reinforced by criminal law. As for letting small amounts of intolerance seep past so it can be beating into submission. I mean it's effective, sure. So who's the gatekeeper who decides it's okay?

But on the other hand most people would not tolerate someone proclaiming jihad on a street corner or tolerate speaking fondly about abusing child, or the disabled or the elderly.

I say still say let bigots be bigots.
423 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted one day ago

Kerensa wrote:

I can't word it well enough, so I will quote a great philosopher instead.

“The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.” - Karl Popper



LOL

That can't be nothing from the truth. In a free society, the battle of the best ideas take their place. If a free society, choose bigots over non-bigots so be it. No single person should dictate anyone's speech. And if you don't like it, guess what there are unfree nations around the globe. You can join those groups and see how you fair there. You have no clue how fortunate we have to have a system of democracy.
28309 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
50
Offline
Posted one day ago

Kerensa wrote:
I get the argument, and I don't disagree; I just am very clearly aware that there are people in this country that will cheat the system so that they don't have to spend money on xyz because they literally just don't want to -- not because it goes against their religion or otherwise.


This line seems off to me. While what people believe they ought to do and what people actually want to do are different occasionally, I don't think we can draw a line between the two from the outside, at least through the law. Maybe in some extreme cases like claiming that my religion prevents me from paying taxes, but most times the religious or ideological excuse is brought up, it is for a truly controversial issue like abortion, and if your adherence to your moral compass is as strong as it theoretically should be, what you ought not to do and what you do not want to do would be the same. We can't really ignore the excuse unless you can prove the person using the excuse is mentally insane.
VeggyZ 
3340 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / North Dakota
Offline
Posted 9 hours ago , edited 8 hours ago

DevinKuska wrote:

I get what your saying, but consider this. People are sick of Democrats and Republicans failing them year after year. So this last election half the country voted for someone who was neither and has a reputation for being an effective businessman. He had no political track record so nothing to look up there. Now we have a president who cant seem to keep his mouth shut. As far as his track record so far... his accomplishments vary depending on your personal.political point of view.

My point is sometimes you get screwed no matter what you pick.


Try to keep in mind I'm not saying some of these specifically about you yourself, so don't take offense if I make generalizations, because your response actually seems like one of the few reasonable ones I get on these forums --- just a little disclaimer before I begin.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but as far as him "keeping his mouth shut" - almost everything he says is blown so out of proportion it becomes irrelevant. Other countries aren't reacting with a TINY FRACTION of the outrage that the anti-trumper Americans are - and you know, he has a right to speak out about some of this stuff. He NEEDS to have his opinion known, even if it's one people don't want to hear. He may not be the best man for the job, but he said that himself like 20 years ago in an interview with 60 minutes when he was asked if he'd become president - he said "no. Only in the event that no one suitable comes along" - and here we are now.

They say everything he says is so out of line and so absurd, but then they only have one or two little quotes, the same ones, every time, that are also often misrepresented - and video footage edited to make him look like a stammering idiot. When you compare all of that, to what he actually says during his full speeches to the American public it's like watching a different person. The level of lying about him and twisting of his image is out of line regardless of the fact that he'll run his mouth - most of what he says IS true and has a point, regardless of what snopes says. (I have to wonder why people have so much faith in a clearly partisan fact-finding group in the first place, but ill leave that discussion for elsewhere.) I can't fathom why people would turn to someone else's opinion on a man to form their opinion on him, instead of turning to the man himself to form that opinion. And unfortunately, there are a massive amount of activist types satisfied with doing just that - and have not even HEARD HIM SPEAK about the crap they reference out of context.

And as far as policy? He's done his job. And people bitch about it - it gets tiresome. He literally can't do anything right and that isn't because HE HIMSELF can't do anything right, it's because people won't ALLOW IT. That's not how this country is supposed to be, and if our founding fathers saw the state it was in today, and the way the public's opinion is so easily swayed by the media and paid spokespersons, they would be embarrassed and probably quit making this country then and there.

I'm being serious now - people need to give up their disillusions about him, their preconceptions, and look at what he's doing. Because no one (no one that is speaking out, aside from people like myself) seems to be paying any attention to it - or even caring for that matter. As I've stated elsewhere, that kind of attitude helps no one. When he makes a mistake, I have no problem admitting he made a mistake and unsurprisingly he doesn't either - he's a lot more humble than people suggest he is - and one arrogant quote doesn't change who he is and what he does on a daily basis.

The level to which people are judging this man is unfair in every possible spectrum - they're calling him LAZY for God's sake. LAZY? Creating so many jobs, lowering the national debt by hundred(s) of billions, reviving the energy sector and the manufacturing, actually influencing countries to move back here and influencing investors to invest in AMERICA again - none of it is enough. What they can't possibly attribute to Obama - they try to underplay and pretend it's not an accomplishment at all. Everyone deserves an opinion, but some carry more weight than others - and it makes me feel ill to see so many people so hateful of someone they don't know, and didn't care about a year ago, based on things that were never proven and known to be untrue before they were even said - and the only reason they ever were, was so people would reject him in the reactionary phase - a phase a lot of people still have not gotten out of.

All I'm asking is for people to look at what he's doing, and give him credit where it's due. The mere notion that OBAMA is responsible for the energy / manufacturing market and investment in US stock is absurd, and it has changed substantially SINCE Trump was elected.

It's no exaggeration to say that almost NO ONE who criticizes him has actually tried to look into his accomplishments, and google and the like have done their best to hide positive results - results that were all over just a few months back when I would search for what's happening. There's been a clear change, it's violating ALL of our rights, and that I can see only one person is fighting that - Trump.

I'm not trying to say he's perfect. He's a man - but so many are not giving him a chance - and his accomplishments have been great REGARDLESS of your political views. The national debt? Jobs? Investing in America? That's good for EVERYONE, and EVERYONE should be giving credit where it's due. That they're not is very disheartening. It literally does make me feel depressed, and so many that I talk to (on the internet, specifically) are unwilling to even consider the other side. I'm not implying that of YOU because your response was actually constructive, but in general? The critics are die-hards, and they don't even care to see the positives.

If Trump made them millionaires somehow, they would still find a way to turn it against him. And there are still people who dare to claim coverage on the man has been fair and un-biased ... really now... no one believes that one, but that doesn't stop them from saying it. Though I have been hearing a lot less of those claims lately for very obvious reasons.

I was considered "liberal" before all this bullshit from this election, and I had never aligned with any political party - I merely watched. I am now (as well as almost everyone else) being forced to "pick a side" and I don't like it. But I'll be damned if I EVER support a side that refuses to give a man who says he's trying to help them, and whose actions show he IS DOING SO, a chance. Not in my life.

I certainly hope Antifa does get designated a terrorist organization officially - because the shit going on now, has to stop. It has to stop or you, and I, and everyone we know are going to suffer for a bunch of young impulsive punks whose professors convinced them they're entitled to something for nothing - and it doesn't work that way anywhere else in the world - except failing communist nations - and look how that's turned out for most of them - it hasn't at all.


MysticGon wrote:

I say still say let bigots be bigots.


Some people certainly are bigots, but...

It would also help if people tried to remember that a "bigot" is not simply someone with an association to a group that has a "bigot" associated within - nor is it someone who simply disagrees with a person who considers themselves "tolerant" - these are all preconceptions until the person themselves has proven it to be true. These words are thrown around a hell of a lot, and have been thrown at me - and I'm not even going to bother going into details on who I've dated, or been friends with, what races they were, and what religions. I'm most definitely not a bigot - but according to the left, I most certainly am - because "Trump" is a bigot - also by the same association. That kind of cycle is a farce, it has no basis in reality.


runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
I grew up in a Democratic household. My Dad and Mom taught me that Republicans were the rich elite oppressing the working man.



Rujikin wrote:
Now I'm a Trump supporter.


You think you were brainwashed into believing Republicans were rich elite and now you support a man that lives in a literal gold gilded penthouse? Who then proceeded to install other wealthy plutocrats into key government positions they aren't remotely qualified for? It's kind of hard to take your Journey(tm) seriously given where you ended up in comparison to where you claim you started.





Did the purpose of him saying that completely pass you by or what?

-someone being wealthy does not make him evil or a bad person - that's the point he was trying to make, and is meant to point you to the ACTUAL BRAINWASHING. You can't use the fact that he's successful as a reason he's a bad person. I don't understand what kind of backwards thinking this kind of insinuation comes from but I think you should do some reflecting on wealth and why people work at all. By such logic, everyone who isn't simply leeching off of the tax money that would NOT EVEN EXIST if not for those evil people with wealth, would be evil and greedy as well.

That's nothing but a bullshit stereotype - there are evil rich people, and good ones too. There's not a chance in hell you're not actually aware of this fact, too. Liberals use this misguided stereotype all too often. About the only stereotypes I see these days that are ACTUALLY TRUE are the stereotypes about the "tolerant left" ...... far more coherent than that argument, at least.
1544 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 7 hours ago
I also used to be part of the left.As a matter of fact,I used to be an sjw.I watched the young turks religiously.I don't know what the turning point was, but I started agreeing less and less the left.I don't know where I fall politically now,but I think I most identify with classical liberalism.
520 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 7 hours ago
The problem with a healthy democracy is that it requires a discourse amongst opposing views. Theocracy and tyranny only allows one view. The lack of tolerance from the left in this regard, illustrates the moral bankruptcy of their position. The left is bored with democracy.
To state another obvious point, our civil liberties are meaningless if they don’t protect unpopular views. It’s not the mob but the mob’s targets that need protection. More relevant is the principle that large mobs are more dangerous than small mobs, and likely to harbor more psychopaths. And any shortage of opponents will always be corrected by expanding the definition.

"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it"
H. L. Mencken
1642 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 6 hours ago , edited 6 hours ago

DengekiFugu wrote:

The problem with a healthy democracy is that it requires a discourse amongst opposing views. Theocracy and tyranny only allows one view. The lack of tolerance from the left in this regard, illustrates the moral bankruptcy of their position. The left is bored with democracy.
To state another obvious point, our civil liberties are meaningless if they don’t protect unpopular views. It’s not the mob but the mob’s targets that need protection. More relevant is the principle that large mobs are more dangerous than small mobs, and likely to harbor more psychopaths. And any shortage of opponents will always be corrected by expanding the definition.

"The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it"
H. L. Mencken


Stuff like the above is why it will not change because those on the right will always lie about the left and say it's the democarts that are refusing to work with the GOP. In reality it's always the opposite take one issue health-care.
ACA Affordable Health-care act. A year and a half of debate 100s of Gop demanded amendments added, hundreds of bipartisian committee meetings. The Democrats BENT OVER BACKWARDs for the right-wing and GOP going even against their progressive wing on a few issues. The GOP gain power do they do the same? Nope. Not one Democrat amendment, Not one bipartisan committee meeting. In Fact they even lock out members of their own party for the Creation of there bills. Hell Trump and others on the right-wing still blamed the Democrats for the bill failure after they locked them completely out of the creation process. They went so far as try to abuse reconciliation to try an pass it with a bare minimum vote. A move even there own parties parliamentarian said would not be within the rules.
runec 
34895 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 6 hours ago , edited 6 hours ago

DengekiFugu wrote:
Theocracy and tyranny only allows one view. The lack of tolerance from the left in this regard, illustrates the moral bankruptcy of their position. The left is bored with democracy.


In what reality? Because it's certainly not this one. -.-




First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.