Liberal Tolerance is a Total Fallacy

[zsdersw]

True, but it was still an accurate answer to the question posted about leftists. I'd call the question answered honestly by werepossum.

If you agree that political donations alone do not define someone's ideology, how can they be used to determine that those who made the decision at The Grove are leftists?

 

[werepossum]

I don't actually think political donations alone define someone's ideological standing. I think they are opportunistic, not idealistic.

You do have a point. Billionaire developers, like others with significant interests at stake, tend to donate to both sides to cover their bases. It's unusual that someone like Caruso would start donating to only one party, but possibly it's because he's going after some big state money and California is Democrat-ruled. Or maybe he is gay and, seeing actual movement on gay marriage, has decided to go all in with the Dems. But for whatever reason, Caruso has switched from being mostly Republican but playing both sides, to being all Democrat. He may not be truly left wing, but for the moment he's definitely playing the part.

Caruso may also be looking to dive further into politics. As a billionaire developer he stands to be savaged by the left. By moving firmly into the left and running as a Democrat, he avoids that attack and also greatly increases his chances with the California electorate.

 

[monovillage]

If you agree that political donations alone do not define someone's ideology, how can they be used to determine that those who made the decision at The Grove are leftists?

Because they were made to appease or be attractive to those they want to influence.

 

[zsdersw]

Because they were made to appease or be attractive to those they want to influence.

That's an example of being opportunistic.. not idealistic.

 

[monovillage]

That's an example of being opportunistic.. not idealistic.

Are they mutually exclusive?

 

[zsdersw]

Are they mutually exclusive?

Yes. They're pretty much opposites.

An opportunist changes direction with the wind.. an idealist doesn't.

 

[monovillage]

Yes. They're pretty much opposites.

An opportunist changes direction with the wind.. an idealist doesn't.

I disagree, idealists can be opportunists with the best of them. I still think the question was honestly answered by werepossum.

 

[zsdersw]

I disagree, idealists can be opportunists with the best of them.

Then they're not idealists.

I still think the question was honestly answered by werepossum.

That's fine.. you have as much of a right to be wrong as anyone else.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Some people weren't born with the ability to ignore without the advent of technology. Must have been tough as a kid.

I still read your stuff, even though you rarely have anything important to say.....


[shrug]

 

[cybrsage]

Awww.

So in your own personal universe, the one only you live inside, if you are intolerant of something you are not intolerant of something.

Gotcha. Your masters are proud that you refuse to think for yourself and only believe what they tell you to belive. Others, not so proud of you.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Idealist = Standing behind an idea, way of being or particular bent. Subject oriented.
Opportunist = Objective oriented by whatever means necessary.

An Idealist may change WHAT they are supporting, but they have a gist or leaning behind it. They want things done a certain way.

An opportunist sees an OPPORTUNITY and takes it, to further their cause, regardless of the steps necessary to actuate it.

There is a diff. And the pure forms of both are impractical.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'll try again, though I have no idea why.

There is a difference between not being tolerant of someone because of who they are and being intolerant of someone because of what they choose.

Gay people are gay because they are born that way. (If you disagree with this and you're heterosexual, try forcing yourself to be attracted to members of the same sex.) Black people are born black. People from country X did not choose where they were born.

On the other hand, people do get to choose what they want to believe, what they want to say, and how they want to act. And deciding to not want to associate with them on the basis of those decisions is not in any way equivalent to deciding not to associate with them on the basis of how they look or where they come from.

So, sorry, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that you don't want to have someone who is intolerant of gays be on your property.

tl;dr -- this thread is a big steaming pile of BS.

 

[cybrsage]

I'll try again, though I have no idea why.

There is a difference between not being tolerant of someone because of who they are and being intolerant of someone because of what they choose.

You are correct, but in both cases you have something being intolerant. If someone is being intolerant, they are not being tolerant. If someone is intolerant, they are not tolerant.

So, in short, if someone is intolerant of something, they are not tolerant. To claim tolerance while being intolerant is to lie.

 

[jackstar7]

So in your own personal universe, the one only you live inside, if you are intolerant of something you are not intolerant of something.

Gotcha. Your masters are proud that you refuse to think for yourself and only believe what they tell you to belive. Others, not so proud of you.

To be clear, I understand your rhetorical sideshow jerkoff session perfectly. But I hope you keep going until you finish.


Holy cow! I made it into your sig? Ker-sploosh for me!

 

[Charles Kozierok]

So, in short, if someone is intolerant of something, they are not tolerant. To claim tolerance while being intolerant is to lie.

That's true if and only if one claims to be tolerant of everything.

Did anyone do that here? Has anyone done that ever?

This is the reason thise whole thread is itself fallacious. It is a straw man construct where one person assigns a belief to others without evidence and then attacks them for it.

The mall in question did nothing hypocritical here unless they previously claimed that they were tolerant of all viewpoints and would not discriminate on that basis. But there's no evidence that they did that, so this is just more typical right-wing dishonesty / inability to understand simple concepts.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Tolerant =/= universally accepting.

Post #266 and we still cannot accept that?

 

[xBiffx]

That's true if and only if one claims to be tolerant of everything.

Did anyone do that here? Has anyone done that ever?

This is the reason thise whole thread is itself fallacious. It is a straw man construct where one person assigns a belief to others without evidence and then attacks them for it.

The mall in question did nothing hypocritical here unless they previously claimed that they were tolerant of all viewpoints and would not discriminate on that basis. But there's no evidence that they did that, so this is just more typical right-wing dishonesty / inability to understand simple concepts.

I think you are missing an entire point here. How can someone honestly call out another for their intolerance if they themselves are intolerant of something? It doesn't have to be intolerance/tolerance of the same issue/subject either for their to be irony in that logic.

For example, that is sort of like calling out a racist for hating black people when you yourself hate Catholics or Jews. Wouldn't that be just a little hypocritical even though one is racially motivated while to other is religious in nature? Both are forms of intolerance and morally speaking one doesn't really have room to speak ill of the other without looking like a hypocrite.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think you are missing an entire point here. How can someone honestly call out another for their intolerance if they themselves are intolerant of something?

Because, as I already said, there's a major difference between being intolerant of someone based on who they are, and being intolerant of their behavior.

For example, that is sort of like calling out a racist for hating black people when you yourself hate Catholics or Jews.

No, it is not.

It is like calling out a racist for being intolerant of black people and then saying that you will not associate with that racist because you are intolerant of racist behavior.

Which -- guess what! -- nearly everyone does.

 

[Ninjahedge]

You do not get it CK.

In order to be critical of a racist, you have to still accept what he is doing, otherwise you are hypocritical.


Wanna go out and beat some babies later?

 

[IGBT]

not having a moral core is a liberals definition of freedom. so they will tolerate anything that corrupts moral behavior i.e. do it in the road. thus the emotional agony of liberalism. They are always looking to lower the bar on acceptable behavior and don't want to be judged by their reckless results and outcome.

 

[UberNeuman]

this whole thread is a total farce.... a playground for fucking honesty-bankrupt republican ideologues....

\but, hey - I tolerate you.....

 

[UberNeuman]

So now begs the question: what is it that right-wingers believe the left should "tolerate"?

 

[nehalem256]

Gay people are gay because they are born that way. (If you disagree with this and you're heterosexual, try forcing yourself to be attracted to members of the same sex.) Black people are born black. People from country X did not choose where they were born.

This would appear to be not entirely true, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation#Twin_studies

Also, see the rise of homosexuality in prisons. And the number of homosexuals who got married and had children(implying heterosexuals sex).

 

[monovillage]

I'll try again, though I have no idea why.

There is a difference between not being tolerant of someone because of who they are and being intolerant of someone because of what they choose.

Gay people are gay because they are born that way. (If you disagree with this and you're heterosexual, try forcing yourself to be attracted to members of the same sex.) Black people are born black. People from country X did not choose where they were born.

On the other hand, people do get to choose what they want to believe, what they want to say, and how they want to act. And deciding to not want to associate with them on the basis of those decisions is not in any way equivalent to deciding not to associate with them on the basis of how they look or where they come from.

So, sorry, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying that you don't want to have someone who is intolerant of gays be on your property.

tl;dr -- this thread is a big steaming pile of BS.

Only your contributions to it.

 

[cybrsage]

That's true if and only if one claims to be tolerant of everything.

Did anyone do that here? Has anyone done that ever?

Then you admit it is not wrong to call you intolerant but it IS wrong to call you tolerant.

For to be tolerant, one cannot be intolerant.