Liberals increasingly wary of Mormons in office, study shows

[cybrsage]

Are you going to reach a point where context matters? Or just continue your selective framing of arguments so that you appear to be a partisan hack? Because that's how you look based on what you write.

Just curious if you'll ever stop.

I see another idiot who says being intolerant means you are tolerant. You also say being up means down and being wet means dry? Or is it only with things you want to pretend you are while doing the exact opposite of what is needed to be what you pretend you are?

 

[cybrsage]

Mix one part troll-like thread title with 2 parts straw man arguments and you get one fine piece of cybrsage conjecture pie!

See when you cherry pick poll data, and take a narrow view of that cherry picked data, you end up with this kind of nonsense.

Nothing like a small survey sample to validate your foregone conclusions.

If you both have a problem with the study, contact the writer. I doubt either of you will, it requires actual work. It is far easier to rage on an Internet forum. Right?

 

[cybrsage]

You're lying again.

No. It really is impossible to be an intolerant tolerant person. If you are intolerant, you are not tolerant. I know, you are too "smart" to understand something to easy and basic, right? Right?



You're lying again. At this point you are willfully spreading misinformation by claiming I said "an intolerant person is tolerant" when I said nothing of the sort. Deliberate misinformation is a violation of forum rules.[/QUOTE]


Now you are being purposefully deceitful and spreading misinformation. You lie and say I quoted you saying that. This is obviously wrong, but being deceitful and spreading misinformation is your modus operandi, so I am not surprised by it.

 

[cybrsage]

c: If someone is intolerant, they are not tolerant. The two terms are opposites...you cannot be both.

M: Certainly you can be both. You can be intolerant of Mexicans and tolerate black people nicely as just one of a huge number of examples.

If you are intolerant of Mexicans, are you a tolerant person?

 

[cybrsage]

So what does (falsely) believing in Victory Mosques make someone?

Oh hai! CowardtheCat returns! Gain enough bravery to ask Blix why he lied to the UN?

 

[actuarial]

Your study shows that moderates and conservatives are also more intolerant, so you may want to change your thread title.

Note for conservatives the increase isn't statistically significant, but to say its showing more tolerance is just not true.

 

[cybrsage]

Your study shows that moderates and conservatives are also more intolerant, so you may want to change your thread title.

Note for conservatives the increase isn't statistically significant, but to say its showing more tolerance is just not true.

If you have a problem with the study, contact the author...I am simply providing the study.

I agree, conservatives are intolerant...as are liberals. NO ONE is tolerant...not even Ghandi was tolerant. We have many who pretend to be tolerant while saying the views of others must be silenced and stopped, though.

 

[actuarial]

If you have a problem with the study, contact the author...I am simply providing the study.

I agree, conservatives are intolerant...as are liberals. NO ONE is tolerant...not even Ghandi was tolerant. We have many who pretend to be tolerant while saying the views of others must be silenced and stopped, though.

I don't have a problem with the study. I read the study, and you are misquoting the results. The increase in tolerance is for evangelicals, and it does not state their political affiliation. For conservatives, it shows they are less likely to vote for mormons since 2007 (just like for liberals).

The study simply does not say what your thread title implies.

 

[cybrsage]

The change for evangelicals (who are mostly conservatives) and the non-evangelical conservatives are within the margin of error of the data. The change for the liberals is not.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Offering up Romney as the "Mormon for President" poster boy is what tainted the stew, not vice versa. If it were Huntsman, for example, I doubt we'd see the same result, at all.

Tolerance? Tolerance is putting up with the usual false attribution & tedium of "They're just as bad!" from people who think that winning is the same as making sense or being honest.

 

[jman19]

Using the faith of the Republican Presidential nominee as a guidepost to how tolerant Liberals are vs. Conservatives is just plain dishonest.

 

[Moonbeam]

If you are intolerant of Mexicans, are you a tolerant person?

That is not the issue nor anything like what you said:

c: Liberals becoming more intolerant, Conservatives becoming more tolerant

M: This is a general statement in which you assert that the general level of any intolerance liberals have is increasing and any general level of intolerance Conservative have is decreasing.

This, in and of itself, is meaningless as somebody pointed out. Liberals may be increasing from zero % intolerant to 1% intolerant and conservatives decreasing from 100% intolerant to 99% intolerant, a possibility so likely you could have never intended it. What you meant to imply is that conservatives are becoming less intolerant than liberals but then you pull your bate and switch:


Quote:
The GOP’s all-important social conservatives may be getting more comfortable with Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith -- but liberals are increasingly wary about the candidate’s religion in the run-up to November, according to a new study.

The study found anti-Mormon attitudes have increased since Romney's 2008 presidential bid and are highest among liberal and non-religious voters. Their discomfort could pose a problem for the Republican candidate in November.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz1xsTKAmVb

So all this implied by your thread title switch in general tolerance turns out to only apply to Mormons ans the words used were weren't tolerance and intolerance but comfort and discomfort. So your thread title contains two lies.

c: Oh tolerance, why are you and liberals such strangers?

M: And here we see you say that liberals are 100% intolerant because they and tolerance have never met. Lie number three.

So you didn't post that liberals are becoming more uncomfortable with Mormons perhaps having to do with finding out more about how strange and deviant from main stream Christianity they may be, you said this possibly very rational information based discomfort was intolerance. So the proper analogical question you would need to ask to make it proper to this situation would go something like this:

If person A is more uncomfortable with party X, due possibly to information they have found out about X, and anally retentive B has just taken an enema, is person A more uptight than person B?

In short you were using intolerant comparatively not definitionally. Everybody knows that two intolerant people can be more or less intolerant, particularly around some particular issue. When you ask why liberals and tolerance are such strangers your intent is apparent especially so when discomfort was the theme.

Now let's just say that liberals have become more intolerant of Mormons, you have yet to establish they are any where near as intolerant of them as conservatives are, making them more intolerant in this one particular case, much less more intolerant generally.

 

[cybrsage]

That is not the issue nor anything like what you said:

Yes, it is. Here is what you said:

c: If someone is intolerant, they are not tolerant. The two terms are opposites...you cannot be both.

M: Certainly you can be both. You can be intolerant of Mexicans and tolerate black people nicely as just one of a huge number of examples.

So I ask you again:

If you are intolerant of Mexicans, are you a tolerant person?

 

[Bowfinger]

Yes, it is. Here is what you said:


So I ask you again:

If you are intolerant of Mexicans, are you a tolerant person?

antisocial personality disorder (formerly called sociopathy) - a condition characterized by repetitive behavioral patterns that are contrary to usual moral and ethical standards and cause a person to experience continuous conflict with society. Symptoms include aggression, callousness, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, hostility, a low frustration level, marked emotional immaturity, and poor judgment. A person who has this disorder overlooks the rights of others, is incapable of loyalty to others or to social values, is unable to experience guilt or to learn from past behaviors, is impervious to punishment, and tends to rationalize his or her behavior or to blame it on others.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Here's a recent example of that conservative tolerance:

A black kid asks his mom, ‘Mama, what’s a democracy?’

“‘Well, son, that be when white folks work every day so us po’ folks can get all our benefits.’

“‘But mama, don’t the white folk get mad about that?’

“‘They sho do, son. They sho do. And that’s called racism.’”

http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlo...black-dialect-joke-a-hit-with-ozark-tea-party
Tolerant and hilarious.

 

[actuarial]

The change for evangelicals (who are mostly conservatives) and the non-evangelical conservatives are within the margin of error of the data. The change for the liberals is not.

If the change is not statistically significant then why does your thread title say conservatives are becoming more tolerant? That is not supported by the study you linked. The percentage of conservatives saying that they would be less likely to support a mormon has increased.

Your thread title is not accurate, unless you're one of those people who feel that becoming more intolerant makes you more tolerant.

 

[trenchfoot]

Hey, I figured it all out. The OP is just showing us how well he can impersonate Romney starting a thread in ATPN about liberals becoming more intolerant whilst conservatives are becoming more tolerant.😀

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Oh hai! CowardtheCat returns! Gain enough bravery to ask Blix why he lied to the UN?

Hmm, didn't you just return from yet another temp ban for personal attacks, and you go right back and do it again? Man, that is smart.

I don't have to ask Blix anything, I and others have PROVED you 100% wrong with multiple links to all official reports admitting that the US was wrong, and that no WMD were found. Hell, even Bush and Cheney have admitted they were wrong. But not you, LOL.

But it is really ironic that one of the most intolerant posters here on AT is trying to accuse others of intolerance.

After all cybr, didn't you compare building a Muslim cultural center in NYC to building a white supremacist center at Auschwitz? Gee, that is pretty intolerant.

Or how about calling that Muslim cultural center a "victory Mosque" and saying it shouldn't be built? That is outright bigotry, discrimination against thousands (tens of thousands?) of peaceful innocent NYC Muslims.

So given you are so intolerant yourself, why are you complaining about something that you are proud to do yourself? Doesn't make sense.

 

[cybrsage]

antisocial personality disorder (formerly called sociopathy) - a condition characterized by repetitive behavioral patterns that are contrary to usual moral and ethical standards and cause a person to experience continuous conflict with society. Symptoms include aggression, callousness, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, hostility, a low frustration level, marked emotional immaturity, and poor judgment. A person who has this disorder overlooks the rights of others, is incapable of loyalty to others or to social values, is unable to experience guilt or to learn from past behaviors, is impervious to punishment, and tends to rationalize his or her behavior or to blame it on others.

I am glad you found professional help and have received your diagnosis, but please do not continue to try and derail the thread - that is against the rules.

 

[cybrsage]

So given you are so intolerant yourself, why are you complaining about something that you are proud to do yourself? Doesn't make sense.

No complaints...but at least you are not as stupid as your are cowardly. You understand that it is not possible to be an intolerant tolerant person.

 

[Matt1970]

Even though this study favors my side I take these for what they are worth. 99% of the time if you set out to do a study like this than you will find the data to prove your hypothesis one way or another and blindly overlook data that contradicts your study.

 

[Moonbeam]

Yes, it is. Here is what you said:

So I ask you again:

If you are intolerant of Mexicans, are you a tolerant person?

First of all I would like to repeat what Bowfinger posted:

"antisocial personality disorder (formerly called sociopathy) - a condition characterized by repetitive behavioral patterns that are contrary to usual moral and ethical standards and cause a person to experience continuous conflict with society. Symptoms include aggression, callousness, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, hostility, a low frustration level, marked emotional immaturity, and poor judgment. A person who has this disorder overlooks the rights of others, is incapable of loyalty to others or to social values, is unable to experience guilt or to learn from past behaviors, is impervious to punishment, and tends to rationalize his or her behavior or to blame it on others."

It strikes me that it fits you well and is aptly placed to describe you bizarre behavior in this thread.

Now, keeping in mind that your question has nothing to do with anything you posted nor excuses any of the lies you tried to put over in your OP, let me point out that I already answered your question.

I said in the post to which you responded: "Everybody knows that two intolerant people can be more or less intolerant, particularly around some particular issue. This means that a person who is intolerant of something is intolerant, but supplies additional information pointing out the lie in your OP, that we never know anything about a person when we describe them as intolerant unless we also identify that to which they are intolerant. A person might be intolerant of a certain drug, or perfume, or pain, things that carry not the slightest moral reprobation.

So the issue you continue not to address is your lying in your OP, that the reference you gave was not to intolerance but comfort zone, and that liberals are more tolerant than conservatives, even by definition. It's one of the characteristics that define what liberal means. And it is still true, no matter how you want to dissemble, that a person can be intolerant of one thing and tolerate almost everything else. Such a person would be defined as tolerant. If tolerant couldn't be a general term it could not exist, because everybody is likely to be intolerant of cyanide gas.

 

[p0nd]

It's just a semantic game. The virtue of "tolerance" is totally dependent on what is or isn't being tolerated. (Not even sure how being willing to vote for Romney is a sign of tolerance to begin with anyway).

Say somebody is intolerant of racism and racists. Technically you could call them intolerant and be right, but there's nothing wrong with being intolerant of bigotry.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

No complaints...but at least you are not as stupid as your are cowardly. You understand that it is not possible to be an intolerant tolerant person.

Care to comment on your Victory Mosque bigoted remarks? I mean really, you are a prime example of intolerant and bigotry.

And interseting that our resident bigoted troll has is now thread-crapping and derailing his own thread, in viollation of forum rules.....keep on cybr, you'll be temp banned again (that will be what, 3 times already in 6 months here?) and sooner or later permabanned to add to your growing collection of forums you have been banned from. Already been banned from two others right? So you would hit the trifecta when you get banned here.

Curious, as someone banned from at laest two other forums, how do you manage to think that you are somehow tolerant? I mean, this is at least the third time you are trying to get banned, do you somehow think that everyone else on the internet is somehow wrong, and you are the only one right? LOL

Maybe one day, you will find a forum that won't ban you, and you will be set. You can always hope!

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Curious, as someone banned from at laest two other forums, how do you manage to think that you are somehow tolerant? I mean, this is at least the third time you are trying to get banned, do you somehow think that everyone else on the internet is somehow wrong, and you are the only one right? LOL ...

The answer lies within the definition of his personality disorder:

antisocial personality disorder (formerly called sociopathy) - a condition characterized by repetitive behavioral patterns that are contrary to usual moral and ethical standards and cause a person to experience continuous conflict with society. Symptoms include aggression, callousness, impulsiveness, irresponsibility, hostility, a low frustration level, marked emotional immaturity, and poor judgment. A person who has this disorder overlooks the rights of others, is incapable of loyalty to others or to social values, is unable to experience guilt or to learn from past behaviors, is impervious to punishment, and tends to rationalize his or her behavior or to blame it on others.
​

Note the bolded. It fits Cybrsage like a glove.