• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

5 Ways to Turn a Liberal Into a Conservative (At Least Until the Hangover Sets In)

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,284
2
76
Bullshit. Pure, 100%, Grade-A bullshit.
Here we have an example of the refusal to accept the goodwill of an opponents argument. Detrimental to progress when it comes from either side of the aisle.

Hey at least liberals are immune to that sort of thing right my conservative friend?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
I am perfectly happy with your admission that you believe BBQing jews is not wrong, but condemning women for having children they cannot afford is.
Of course you can't admit that when you said that rules make right you condemned the Jews and millions of other lives. Your ego will not admit the monstrousness of your thinking. So come on, show me proof of the good. Your first definition was a disaster. Or fess up and tell us that the good is the good if that's your opinion. And what kind of monster condemns other people on opinion?

No the reason you can't think straight is because you don't want to. You are afraid of what you would see.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Of course you can't admit that when you said that rules make right you condemned the Jews and millions of other lives. Your ego will not admit the monstrousness of your thinking. So come on, show me proof of the good. Your first definition was a disaster. Or fess up and tell us that the good is the good if that's your opinion. And what kind of monster condemns other people on opinion?

No the reason you can't think straight is because you don't want to. You are afraid of what you would see.
I believe I clearly explained why putting jews in the oven would be bad.
 

JulesMaximus

No Lifer
Jul 3, 2003
74,171
626
126
Here we have an example of the refusal to accept the goodwill of an opponents argument. Detrimental to progress when it comes from either side of the aisle.

Hey at least liberals are immune to that sort of thing right my conservative friend?
Except that you didn't make an argument. You just threw out a biased opinion as though it were fact when it was really nothing more than a bunch of sweeping generalizations.

And I'm fairly moderate actually. Registered as a republican but I didn't vote for one in the last presidential election. Probably not going to vote for one in this election either.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
I believe I clearly explained why putting jews in the oven would be bad.
How would it be bad if it's legal? You said that the good is rules but unfortunately the law is man made and subject to human foibles. So the law can't be the good. What is the good. All I want is for you to prove to me there is a good. It is certainly not law. What is it other than your opinion of what it is? This is good and that is bad and blah blah blah. Prove the truth of what you say.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
How would it be bad if it's legal? You said that the good is rules but unfortunately the law is man made and subject to human foibles. So the law can't be the good. What is the good. All I want is for you to prove to me there is a good. It is certainly not law. What is it other than your opinion of what it is? This is good and that is bad and blah blah blah. Prove the truth of what you say.
I see no reason to prove to you there is good and bad. Especially considering that since you wrote a 13 point post on why shaming women who have children they cannot afford is bad. So clearly you believe there is good and bad.

It seems to me that you are just engaging in a little misdirection, because your definition of bad is indefensible(see also where you defined killing jews as good).
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
I see no reason to prove to you there is good and bad. Especially considering that since you wrote a 13 point post on why shaming women who have children they cannot afford is bad. So clearly you believe there is good and bad.

It seems to me that you are just engaging in a little misdirection, because your definition of bad is indefensible(see also where you defined killing jews as good).
I wrote 13 points which you did not understand regarding condemnation which you think is good so I knew right away that you have no ideas what is good and bad because you don't really know what they are, but think you do. I asked you, therefore to prove to me what you think is good is good so that I will know you are right about condemnation and of course you can't do it because you have no idea what the good really is.

And as regarding my definition of bad as being indefensible, I told you before I gave a 13 point defense of why I am right, that you would be incapable of understanding it because you have a conservative brain defect. But as in law, a philosophical defense presupposes what 'rational people would agree on'. The conservative brain defect is a specific defect in the capacity to reason.

I have, for example, asked you to define the good but you won't because you can't. You already failed once saying that law is justice and where law says it's OK to fry Jews then it must be OK. It was under your definition of good, not mine, that made the killing of Jews good. This is why I waste my time with you, because you're a dangerous monster. Your blind Nazi racial hatred of the Jew just takes a different form, condemnation of poor pregnant women. You are horribly ugly but you do not see it and that is why. You are full of hideous pride.

So come on. Knock off the bull shit and prove to me there is a good. No more misdirection. The arrow points straight to a proof you have you can define the good. We need something on which your opinions become authoritative. What rock of truth have you found to rest upon other than, that is, the conservative brain disease known as truthiness, the use of nerves in the stomach to detect what would make you vomit. Show me something you can use your mighty intellect for other than to deflect, which, of course. I know you'll do anyway.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
I wrote 13 points which you did not understand regarding condemnation which you think is good so I knew right away that you have no ideas what is good and bad because you don't really know what they are, but think you do. I asked you, therefore to prove to me what you think is good is good so that I will know you are right about condemnation and of course you can't do it because you have no idea what the good really is.
It is wrong to use children as hostages to force people to give you money.

That is why it is ok to condemn women you have bastard children.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,816
3,623
126
It is wrong to use children as hostages to force people to give you money.

That is why it is ok to condemn women you have bastard children.
Hehehehehe You are saying that the good is to condemn what is wrong which is exactly what I asked you to prove rather than restate. I told you that condemnation isn't good and didn't even God Himself warn you what would happen if you judge others? And don't weasel out by picking an argument about judgment because judging is the first step in condemnation.

You can't see it but what you do again and again is state that good is good and bad is bad if it's your opinion. But because your opinion is just your opinion and right only to you because it' IS your opinion, you are what is called a bigot, a person who is certain he is right based on unexamined assumptions. You are incapable of reasoning out why you believe what you do because what you believe you believe without reason.

But relax, you will never see this so there's not much point in continuing. You will or will not look at yourself.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Hehehehehe You are saying that the good is to condemn what is wrong which is exactly what I asked you to prove rather than restate. I told you that condemnation isn't good and didn't even God Himself warn you what would happen if you judge others? And don't weasel out by picking an argument about judgment because judging is the first step in condemnation.

You can't see it but what you do again and again is state that good is good and bad is bad if it's your opinion. But because your opinion is just your opinion and right only to you because it' IS your opinion, you are what is called a bigot, a person who is certain he is right based on unexamined assumptions. You are incapable of reasoning out why you believe what you do because what you believe you believe without reason.

But relax, you will never see this so there's not much point in continuing. You will or will not look at yourself.
Hehehehe

You suggest Evil cannot see Good or Love let alone issue it.

You ask Evil to be divided against itself and fall into the abyss.

Evil feeds off evil and love off love. They cannot coexist in the same person at the same time... One has and requires Ego while the other does not.

You ask Evil to provide an answer to what Good is and that requires Evil to examine the properties of Good using an Evil foundation. Evil can only provide an answer that is Evil which is seen by Evil as Good. And likewise Love or Good can only provide an answer to what is Good by what is seen by that person as Good...

It rests within the person. When Evil and Good look at the same thing they will provide opposite answers... They are not in conjunction with each other.

Since both parties (good and evil) have only their own frame of reference how can either convince the other that they are wrong... ??
It rests with some other frame of reference that both agree is Authoritative....

It is easy if both good person and evil person are... say, Christians... They can look to what Love (Jesus) said is good... and what Love said was evil... He even said one must be 'born again'... which presumes a spiritual death of the ego.. Only then can the person attain Love within...

IF they are of dissimilar realities then Evil can't look to the same source as Good... Evil looks to what perpetuates their Evil and their Ego sustains that... And, so too does Good look to what sustains itself sans the Ego...

They will forever maintain their different conditions... Only difference is that Love has no ego to feed while evil will is always hungry.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,732
13,844
136
I dont see anything about using children as hostages.

But I do see a similar problem. The Ultra Orthodox jews are making life choices that impose a significant burden on the rest of Israel to support them. This is wrong.
Yet you assert that poor Americans are using children as hostages, even though they have many fewer children. Welfare allotments everywhere depend on the number of children-

“Families here have 10 or more children, on average,” says Yehiel Sever, a spokesman for the community.
In either case, you seem to advocate that letting them kill the hostages is the answer. Children don't get to choose their parents.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Yet you assert that poor Americans are using children as hostages, even though they have many fewer children. Welfare allotments everywhere depend on the number of children-

In either case, you seem to advocate that letting them kill the hostages is the answer. Children don't get to choose their parents.
Sound like the "We dont negotiate with terrorists" concept to me. Why? Because it encourages terrorism.

And if you want to keep poor kids from starving. It seems like the best solution is to keep people from having more kids than they can afford.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,732
13,844
136
Sound like the "We dont negotiate with terrorists" concept to me. Why? Because it encourages terrorism.

And if you want to keep poor kids from starving. It seems like the best solution is to keep people from having more kids than they can afford.
Obviously, then, the place to start would be in providing education, contraceptive services & abortions to all

Contrast that with abstinence only sex ed, whining about "paying for sluts to get birth control" & absolute opposition to govt funded abortion...

Lots of young families who seemed to be doing well have fallen into poverty in the crash of the greatest financial flimflam in history, the Ownership Society. What seemed reasonable circa 2005 didn't turn out that way, did it?

Well, except for the Lootocracy, who are doing better than ever.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Obviously, then, the place to start would be in providing education, contraceptive services & abortions to all

Contrast that with abstinence only sex ed, whining about "paying for sluts to get birth control" & absolute opposition to govt funded abortion...

Lots of young families who seemed to be doing well have fallen into poverty in the crash of the greatest financial flimflam in history, the Ownership Society. What seemed reasonable circa 2005 didn't turn out that way, did it?

Well, except for the Lootocracy, who are doing better than ever.
Except for the fact that we are not a nation of children(and children shoudnt be having sex anyway). People are responsible for their own actions. If you want to have sex you pay for it. If you expect to be given money for having sex you are worse than a whore (whores only get money from people they are providing a service to).

I propose we loan women the money necessary for an abortion at a 5% interest rate + say 0.1% of all future income she makes. This is the same deal as the bail out for Goldman Sachs. Even Occupy Wall Street couldnt complain about those terms.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,732
13,844
136
Except for the fact that we are not a nation of children(and children shoudnt be having sex anyway). People are responsible for their own actions. If you want to have sex you pay for it. If you expect to be given money for having sex you are worse than a whore (whores only get money from people they are providing a service to).

I propose we loan women the money necessary for an abortion at a 5% interest rate + say 0.1% of all future income she makes. This is the same deal as the bail out for Goldman Sachs. Even Occupy Wall Street couldnt complain about those terms.
You propose hogwash & denial. What about meaningful sex ed? What about the idea that if don't want as many welfare children to feed, clothe, house & educate that providing their mother with contraceptive services might be a whole lot cheaper, and free of the judgmental ravings you espouse?

Other than for the disabled, welfare isn't for adults, but rather for children who have literally no say in the matter at all. Or are you espousing some version of ancestral sin doctrine? That children should suffer for the sins of their parents?

If you are, it seems pretty twisted to me.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
You propose hogwash & denial. What about meaningful sex ed? What about the idea that if don't want as many welfare children to feed, clothe, house & educate that providing their mother with contraceptive services might be a whole lot cheaper, and free of the judgmental ravings you espouse?

Other than for the disabled, welfare isn't for adults, but rather for children who have literally no say in the matter at all. Or are you espousing some version of ancestral sin doctrine? That children should suffer for the sins of their parents?

If you are, it seems pretty twisted to me.
So now you are using children as hostages to extort contraceptives.

Liberals have promoted for nearly half a century choices (divorce, having bastard children) that lead to child poverty.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
If the government is to provide free contraceptives to women so they can have sex, should they also provide prostitutes to men, so they can?
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,732
13,844
136
So now you are using children as hostages to extort contraceptives.

Liberals have promoted for nearly half a century choices (divorce, having bastard children) that lead to child poverty.
Liberals "promote" divorce? Really?

And it's conservatives who promote having bastard children so they can have people to denigrate.

It's tough to preach against sin when there are no suffering sinners, so a supply must be created at any cost to satisfy the feelings of moral superiority that Righties crave so desperately. Therefore, we have abstinence only sex ed, damaging attitudes about contraception, and a ban on abortion funding.

If you had nobody to look down on, you'd have to look at yourself, at what you believe, at your faith in false judgmental attitudes.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Liberals "promote" divorce? Really?

And it's conservatives who promote having bastard children so they can have people to denigrate.

It's tough to preach against sin when there are no suffering sinners, so a supply must be created at any cost to satisfy the feelings of moral superiority that Righties crave so desperately. Therefore, we have abstinence only sex ed, damaging attitudes about contraception, and a ban on abortion funding.

If you had nobody to look down on, you'd have to look at yourself, at what you believe, at your faith in false judgmental attitudes.
We have a ban on abortion funding because Republicans consider abortion murder.

No one has ever gotten pregnant from abstinence.

And Republicans never promote having bastard children. 100% BS.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
So you're saying we should hire gigolos for women, or what?

Otherwise, your argument is still absurd.
You are saying we should purchase contraceptives for women so they can have sex.

Why cant they either?

1.) Practice abstinence.
2.) Buy their own birth control
3.) Make their boy-friend/husband buy it for them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS