Liberal Tolerance is a Total Fallacy

[shira]

Please stop, you're scaring me.

Btw, you only think you know what I think. Your post is irrational because it's based on assumptions you've made that fit your agenda.

Why don't you tell us what you think? And why didn't you answer my two initial questions?

 

[boomerang]

Why don't you tell us what you think? And why didn't you answer my two initial questions?

Here's an answer to your two initial questions. Pay attention.

The article that I found humorous, in the context that I used to preface it, is not about gay marriage. You have misconstrued it such that you believe it is. The article is about how too many leftists have no tolerance for intolerance. Because they have no tolerance, they act in an intolerant manner when faced with intolerance. What is implied in the article that I guess went over your head is that a true liberal, although they may not agree with specific words or actions, will live and let live. This situation, his being barred from The Grove, occurred because he voiced his opinions. The overreaction is what is humorous.

Now comes the lecture. We are able to hold and voice opinions in this country. That right has not yet been taken away. Barring an individual from the The Grove for voicing his opinion is childish. That's pretty much what it boils down to. He can say what he thinks and he can think as he pleases. The management of The Grove can do the same. Here's the important part. Those of us that wish to can laugh and make fun of the situation! We're allowed to do so!

If you can't understand what the article is about and look at it with tunnel vision seeing only your issue with the viewpoint of Mr. Pacquiao, you can do so. I respect your right to do that. I am not going to sick the thought police on you. It sounds as though in twenty years you're hoping the thought police are in full force. A progressive you are, yes, yes.

So, you want to know what I think. Anyone who has payed any attention to me would know as I have made them known before. But I will share them again.

Regarding homosexuality, I just don't care. If men want to rub their men parts against other men or women want to rub their women parts against other women, I just don't care. It's their business. If they're not infringing on me, so what?

If they want to get married, get married. Once again, if they're not infringing on me, so what?

You'd do well to rethink what you've been taught and yes, it's what you've been taught. Your cookie cutter view of those that think differently than you does not and never will serve you well. What you've been taught is intolerance. And we come full circle...

Liberals – THIS is the kind of stuff that makes us mock you. FYI.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The article is about how too many leftists have no tolerance for intolerance.

As has been pointed out numerous times already:

1. You don't know if they were "leftists" or not.

2. Claiming that leftists are "tolerant" and therefore have to accept anything and everything is a straw man.

3. The idea that being tolerant of others' sexual orientation means you have to be tolerant of bigoted views towards sexual orientation is a fallacy.

4. There's a difference between being intolerant of someone's inherent attributes, such as sex, race, color, national origin or sexual orientation, and being intolerant of someone's behavior or opinions.

Now comes the lecture.

Address the flaws in your position and then maybe -- just maybe -- I'll be willing to consider listening to your "lecture". Until then, no thanks -- so far I see nothing in your posts more intelligent and more worthy of consideration than the average nonsensical rambling on conservative talk radio.

 

[boomerang]

As has been pointed out numerous times already:

1. You don't know if they were "leftists" or not.

2. Claiming that leftists are "tolerant" and therefore have to accept anything and everything is a straw man.

3. The idea that being tolerant of others' sexual orientation means you have to be tolerant of bigoted views towards sexual orientation is a fallacy.

4. There's a difference between being intolerant of someone's inherent attributes, such as sex, race, color, national origin or sexual orientation, and being intolerant of someone's behavior or opinions.



Address the flaws in your position and then maybe -- just maybe -- I'll be willing to consider listening to your "lecture". Until then, no thanks -- so far I see nothing in your posts more intelligent and more worthy of consideration than the average nonsensical rambling on conservative talk radio.

Thanks for helping me make my point.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If that's all you have to say in response to my post, I think you got your point maker and makee reversed.

As I said at the start, this entire thread is just a simplistic straw man.

 

[boomerang]

If that's all you have to say in response to my post, I think you got your point maker and makee reversed.

As I said at the start, this entire thread is just a simplistic straw man.

Any chance you've looked at post #14? This thread went way farther than I had ever anticipated. It's nothing more than poking fun at those with philosophical differences. You and many others have taken it way too seriously. You want me to argue a point that is not serious to begin with. Yourself and many others don't get it. But I get that.

These type of posts are done here by the left leaner's towards the right all the time. I rarely get involved because they don't warrant a response. I can take it light heartedly for exactly what it's worth. We all see facets within the ideologies of those whose viewpoints don't align with our own that we find humorous. Most of us are up for some humor at their expense.

You, for whatever reason felt a need to respond to a reply I made to shira. OK... You felt the need to reiterate what you've said before in the thread and felt the need to address me directly. Fine. I'll say it again, you're taking the whole thing too damned seriously. Shrug it off and go out into the sunshine and embrace the day. This is an internet forum. It's meaningless.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I didn't realize that calling people "brain dead" and attacking them with false claims about their beliefs is what passed for humor in your culture. My apologies.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You'd do well to rethink what you've been taught and yes, it's what you've been taught. Your cookie cutter view of those that think differently than you does not and never will serve you well. What you've been taught is intolerance. And we come full circle...

Well said. :thumbsup:

 

[zsdersw]

To my knowledge, no one has answered this question: "How do we know those who made this decision at The Grove are 'leftists'?"

It seems a highly pertinent question in an article that's mocking leftists.

 

[jackstar7]

To my knowledge, no one has answered this question: "How do we know those who made this decision at The Grove are 'leftists'?"

It seems a highly pertinent question in an article that's mocking leftists.

Naw, man, don't you see? It's, like, all a joke, man. You asking that question means you're taking it all too seriously, brah. You gotta lighten up and let people just insult swaths of people without being called out on their bullshit...because it's totally funny!

Yeah! Ha ha ha! Funny!

 

[cybrsage]

4. There's a difference between being intolerant of someone's inherent attributes, such as sex, race, color, national origin or sexual orientation, and being intolerant of someone's behavior or opinions.

True, the first is being intolerant of others and the second is being intolerant of others. They are vastly different.

If you are intolerant of XYZ, you are not tolerant.

 

[cybrsage]

You were the party claiming the existence of "soul", an unprovable assertion. When called on that, you attempted to put the burden of proof onto the other side, as is your usual dishonest method.

Not at all, quote where I said he had to prove anything? Stop using your usual dishonest method of "I am going to quote one thing and then pretend you said something else" that is so typical of the lefties here.

 

[cybrsage]

Tut tut. I know the word quite well. I'm bigoted against active ignorance for one thing.

Your intellectual dishonesty at trying to brand people with a stigmatized word while actively removing the context to differentiate rational intolerance from the irrational is disingenuois trolling to stymie efforts to simply express an opinion. I imagine you are for gay marriage, but you just enjoy winding people up.

If you are intolerant of ZYX, you cannot claim to be a tolerant person. This should be obvious. What part of it do you not understand?

Here is an example:

You were hit with a water ballon. You are now wet. A wet person is not dry. In this example, wet is intolerant and dry is tolerant. Wet is the opposite of dry and intolerant is the opposite of tolerant.

Do you still not understand?

 

[Ninjahedge]

Today, 09:40 AM
This message is hidden because cybrsage is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 09:42 AM
This message is hidden because cybrsage is on your ignore list.

View Post Today, 09:45 AM
This message is hidden because cybrsage is on your ignore list.



Hahahah! You are so right man!!!!





>wark<

 

[cybrsage]

I feel sad for those who have to censor others to feel better about themselves.

 

[xBiffx]

I feel sad for those who have to censor others to feel better about themselves.

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

 

[cybrsage]

This message is hidden because xBiffx is on your ignore list.

Sorry, could not resist.

 

[werepossum]

If this same shopping center issued a similar statement about a public figure who stated that he was opposed to marriages between between blacks and whites would you hold the same opinion? How about if a public figure opposed equal rights for Jews?

What you don't understand - what right-wing extremists are unable to understand - is that opposing same-sex marriage is just a bigoted, just as outrageously iniquitous, as opposing miscegenation or being anti-Semitic.

You THINK that opposing same-sex marriage is a reasonable position. Just wait 20 years and see how those who continue to oppose same-sex marriages are viewed.

His point was clearly the irony of intolerance in the name of opposing intolerance, NOT the particular view. It's not even a difficult concept. Please try to keep up. And maybe slap whomever removed the training wheels from your mind - you weren't nearly ready.

 

[werepossum]

To my knowledge, no one has answered this question: "How do we know those who made this decision at The Grove are 'leftists'?"

It seems a highly pertinent question in an article that's mocking leftists.

Um, because when rightwingers exercise intolerance it's because they aren't Christian enough or insufficiently anti-abortion - or even pro-gay marriage. Gay marriage is far enough down the list of rightwing priorities that by the time they got around to banning people who were anti-gay marriage they'd have already banned half the city.

Interestingly enough, billionaire developer Rick Caruso owns the Grove and used to give more money to the RNC, if not to individual Republican candidates. He's a pretty well known developer and a big philanthropist who normally works well with (and contributes to) both sides, so unless he's coming out of the closet I doubt this came from him. Although - he's consistently been a big Dreier supporter, and while the Congressman's voting record on gay marriage has been more nay than yea, there have been persistent accusations that Dreier is gay. Maybe Caruso knows him better than I think.

 

[jackstar7]

If you are intolerant of ZYX, you cannot claim to be a tolerant person. This should be obvious. What part of it do you not understand?

Here is an example:

You were hit with a water ballon. You are now wet. A wet person is not dry. In this example, wet is intolerant and dry is tolerant. Wet is the opposite of dry and intolerant is the opposite of tolerant.

Do you still not understand?

Awww. Keep going. I think you've got plenty more of these horrifically awkward analogies to stumble through.

Tolerance with context removed: idiotic.


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

 

[zsdersw]

Um, because when rightwingers exercise intolerance it's because they aren't Christian enough or insufficiently anti-abortion - or even pro-gay marriage. Gay marriage is far enough down the list of rightwing priorities that by the time they got around to banning people who were anti-gay marriage they'd have already banned half the city.

Pretty specious reasoning, to me.

 

[werepossum]

Pretty specious reasoning, to me.

Then I'll give you Rick Caruso. His political donations for 2011 and 2012 were exclusively Democrat. His political donations for 2010 were exclusively Democrat with the notable exception of David Dreier. You have to go back to 2009 to find any political donations to any other Republicans.

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Caruso&fname=Rick

Caruso used to be principally Republican (even a Romney supporter) in political outlook, but he's since shifted to exclusively Democrat. That's kind of the definition of left wing.

 

[zsdersw]

Then I'll give you Rick Caruso. His political donations for 2011 and 2012 were exclusively Democrat. His political donations for 2010 were exclusively Democrat with the notable exception of David Dreier. You have to go back to 2009 to find any political donations to any other Republicans.

http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Caruso&fname=Rick

Caruso used to be principally Republican (even a Romney supporter) in political outlook, but he's since shifted to exclusively Democrat. That's kind of the definition of left wing.

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

 

[xBiffx]

I think they are opportunistic, not idealistic.

I think you just described the majority of people involved in politics these days.

 

[monovillage]

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

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