• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Liberal Tolerance is a Total Fallacy

boomerang

boomerang

Lifer
I ran across this this morning after reading a thread here created by one of our brain-dead leftists. A thread in which he tried desperately again and again to control what was said and thought.

This gave me a big laugh so I thought I'd share it.

Liberal Tolerance is a Total Fallacy

Look at how ridiculous this is.

Manny Pacquiao has been banned from The Grove, a “shopping and entertainment resort” in Los Angeles. The reason? Because he is opposed to gay marriage, and committed the UNFORGIVABLE CRIME of speaking his mind.

The Grove issued the most hilariously hypocritical statement about this EVER. They said, “Based on news reports of statements made by Mr. Pacquiao we have made it be known that he is not welcome at The Grove and will not be interviewed here now or in the future. The Grove is a gathering place for all Angelenos and not a place for intolerance.”
Can you even believe that? He’s not allowed to go to a public mall because they do not tolerate intolerance. Pacquiao’s opposition to gay marriage stems from his religious beliefs, which are apparently not tolerated by those tolerant liberals.

So I have a question. Will every single patron of this mall be required to fill out some sort of questionnaire to gain entrance? Because I GUARANTEE YOU that Pacquiao is not the first person to visit there who has been against gay marriage. How on earth will The Grove continue to not tolerate intolerance if they’re not checking with every single customer how tolerant they are? Will they start hanging signs outside their entrances which clearly state that intolerance will not be tolerated on the premises?

Liberals – THIS is the kind of stuff that makes us mock you. FYI.
Click to expand...
 
If you want to silence a piont of view, you are intolerant of that view. Claiming to be tolerant while being intolerant is stupid.
 
Sort of like how saying right-wing or left-wing blogs not being hugely biased or wingnuts are intelligent is a logical fallacy. 😛
One of those intolerances is definitely worse than the other.
Can you even figure out which one?
 
Last edited:
thoughtpolice.jpg
 
This is a textbook example of a straw man argument.

Step 1: Invent a position that's easy to argue against and ascribe it to your opponents -- the more generic the position and the more widely you can ascribe it the better. In this case: "liberals claim to be 'tolerant' so that means they have to accept what anyone says or does without taking any action".

Step 2: Find an example of your target group violating the position that you just invented and ascribed to them.

Step 3: Mock and/or deride them for not living up to the position that you created and assigned.

It's a strategy that works well for the less discerning.

PS There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
PS There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.
Click to expand...

You are correct, provided the person doing so does not claim to be tolerant of the views of others. If they do, they are obviously a liar. No one who is intolerant of the views of others is tolerant of the views of others.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
This is a textbook example of a straw man argument.

Step 1: Invent a position that's easy to argue against and ascribe it to your opponents -- the more generic the position and the more widely you can ascribe it the better. In this case: "liberals claim to be 'tolerant' so that means they have to accept what anyone says or does without taking any action".

Step 2: Find an example of your target group violating the position that you just invented and ascribed to them.

Step 3: Mock and/or deride them for not living up to the position that you created and assigned.

It's a strategy that works well for the less discerning.

PS There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.
Click to expand...

Perfect example of Karl Rove's playbook too....

I will be the first one cheering when that little prick kicks the bucket. 😉
 
cybrsage said:
You are correct, provided the person doing so does not claim to be tolerant of the views of others. If they do, they are obviously a liar. No one who is intolerant of the views of others is tolerant of the views of others.
Click to expand...

1. Has this shopping mall claimed to be tolerant of everyone's views? Or is that something some blogger invented in order to attack them -- or even better, all "liberals", probably without actually knowing the beliefs of whoever made the decision?

2. I can be tolerant of the views of others and still not want to associate with them. For example, I think someone has the right to say, hate Jews. But if I find out you hate Jews, I'm not going to have anything to do with you.
 
I really wish people would stop making decisions based on a 2000 year old book of fairy tales that was FORCED onto their forefathers at the end of a gun. People need to wake up.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
1. Has this shopping mall claimed to be tolerant of everyone's views? Or is that something some blogger invented in order to attack them -- or even better, all "liberals", probably without actually knowing the beliefs of whoever made the decision?
Click to expand...

A pertinent question.
 
Some of you guys are already starting to take this thread too seriously. But then again, that is the nature of the beast.
 
boomerang said:
Some of you guys are already starting to take this thread too seriously. But then again, that is the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't find it a big stretch of the imagination to suspect that the thread title and linked piece in the OP are your opinion.

Had you posted something contrary to your position on the ideological scale it would've been more interesting.
 
dawp said:
private business, they can do what they want.

isn't that those on the right always say?
Click to expand...

That only applies when it fits their agenda.

As for the taking it too serious, my post about the religious texts was in response to the article claiming Manny's stance is based on his religious beliefs, which were forced on his great, great grandparents at the end of a gun many generations ago.
 
Germany faced a similar dilemma. After 50 million deaths, they decided to make membership in the Nazi party illegal. They decided to outlaw a party that would outlaw freedom if it came to power. We have not done that here. Maybe when 50 million gay people die of bigotry we will finally ban the Republican party.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
This is a textbook example of a straw man argument.

Step 1: Invent a position that's easy to argue against and ascribe it to your opponents -- the more generic the position and the more widely you can ascribe it the better. In this case: "liberals claim to be 'tolerant' so that means they have to accept what anyone says or does without taking any action".

Step 2: Find an example of your target group violating the position that you just invented and ascribed to them.

Step 3: Mock and/or deride them for not living up to the position that you created and assigned.

It's a strategy that works well for the less discerning.

PS There's nothing wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.
Click to expand...
Nice post outlining boomer's MO. :thumbsup:
 
Moonbeam said:
Germany faced a similar dilemma. After 50 million deaths, they decided to make membership in the Nazi party illegal. They decided to outlaw a party that would outlaw freedom if it came to power. We have not done that here. Maybe when 50 million gay people die of bigotry we will finally ban the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Only 50 million more to go. Maybe you should start a counter to keep track of all the gay people the Republican Party kills 🙄
 
They tried to say in a nice way that this guy was bad for their business and they therefor did not want him around.

Is that simple enough for the rest of you that didn't get it the first time to understand?

Your assertion that "Liberal Tolerance is a Total Fallacy" represents a cognitive failure at best, or a willful fabrication intended to disparage others. Either way, it reflects poorly on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top