It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Liberal Bigotry

page: 29
45
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Right, I hear you ... but to the degree that one can "hear" something in another's online voice ... I think some of these folks are actually AFRAID that we are going to try to force them to marry us in their church and possibly attend the reception orgy.


Well yeah, many of them willingly let themselves be brainwashed by the right wing media to the point that they actually BELIEVE that the "gay agenda" is trying to abolish Christianity and all they hold dear. Why else invent some derogatory term like "gay agenda"?


It's FEAR. It's like they see the fight for equal rights (like, not being arrested for being gay, not being removed from the military for being gay, marriage equality) is all directed at them personally, as a challenge to their beliefs, rather than our own natural human and American desire to be treated equitably before the laws as Citizens of this country.

They aren't really that self-centered ... are they?


It certainly is a hypocritical argument... Flip the argument around and say that giving homosexuals equal rights results in Christian persecution makes it seem like this is a bad thing. Though, never mind the fact that persecution exists in the first place enacted by them. This is why I don't believe any Christian going on and on about being persecuted. Most Christians don't know what it feels like to be persecuted in this country. Though it appears to be their favorite pastime to pretend like they are.
edit on 1-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I understand what you mean. I just find it rather insulting the way mystik put it together. Being a little conservative, it felt personal him calling all conservatives primitive and fearful and I don't feel that way whatsoever. I don't think ill of liberals either. Just don't agree on things is all. If there was a study like he linked but opposite I would also think it is bunk. Too many varieties of people with different experiences and different thinking/ideas to label a large group in such a negative way.
I'm not trying to be confrontational *shudders*, sorry.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Cherry0

Well, don't take it personally, it wasn't intended to be a personal attack on anyone.

Scientists have long wondered what makes people lean to traditional values or socially liberal values. If you read my other posts you'd see that I said that conservative-thinking people are NEEDED in our society, as they keep progress from happening to rapidly with disastrous results.

I wonder if we took MSNBC and FoxNews and put them on two tv's side-by-side, which network would use more language designed to instill fear? I'd be interested in the results of such a study.

If you keep up with the "meme wars" on the internet a conservative meme is probably how Obama is destroying America or how this or that is lost. That's fear right there, loss and destruction.

A liberal meme on the other hand usually pokes fun at the logical fallacies or incomplete information being disseminated by a conservative.

Either way, I hate memes. I hate, hate, hate them. They just prove we've become a 2-second attention span nation.

Liberal or Conservative ... you have to admit those memes are annoying. That's something we can be bi-partisan about.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Yes, that is true. Unfortunately it is nothing we can change, at least as long as the internet is around. I just like to see healthy debates with mutual respect. That's why I HATE watching the news. Especially Bill O'Reilly. I've read one of his books before but when I see him on his show, I can't even get through one debate. It infuriates me. Even if I was to agree with any of his points it is embarrassing. All the yelling and interrupting and insults. Bleh.

Sorry for going a bit off topic OP.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Cherry0

No worries! I have a LOT more respect for all of us here on ATS than the garbage arguments/temper tantrums I see around the internet. We're kind of a unique breed here.


We all have more in common than we realize I suspect...we all ended up on here!

EDIT: And I think it's really quite healthy for us to be having these kinds of discussions. Imagine having decisions being made and we the people not being allowed to discuss the implications of them? We're pretty lucky that we can discuss our views, values, hopes and ideas.
edit on 1-7-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Cherry0

1. The idea that anyone is, other than ideologically, 100% liberal or conservative, or more exactly, that there are only two modes of understanding ... is merely a part of the "big lie" we've all been fed.

2. "Primitive" in this neurological sense means "older" I would think, and it is just a fact that the older parts of the brain are linked to earlier periods in evolution.

I'm not being "confrontational" either ... just talkin'



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, and we still have those older parts of our brain for a good reason -- they keep us alive. Some of their functions include breathing, heartbeat, ect. We would have lost them along the path of evolution if they weren't important to keeping our species alive. They work in concert/combination with the newer brain structures.

As I've said...

We may not see eye-to-eye, but both "sides" need each other. The liberals need conservatives to slow them from racing ahead to fast before considering the consequences, and the conservatives need people to nudge them out of stagnation.

It can be frustrating, but discussions just like this expose people on both sides to alternative views they might not get sitting around surrounded by like-minded people.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I agree with you 100%.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: darkbake
What is the definition of a bigot?


noun
1.
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


Liberals have that down these days. They go a step further than disagreeing with people with other opinions, and basically try to make those opinions illegal. It should be okay to be against abortion, to be against gay marriage, to like the confederate flag, to be in denial of climate change - these are all opinions that people should be allowed to have.




There is no punishment for people who have ignorant views.

.



That's the point right there. WHO gets to say what view is ignorant? You?


Its a view. Why is it ignorant? Because it doesn't match your view?

Liberals tend to LABEL people that don't believe the way they do as bigots with no repercussion. If a conservative tries to label anyone it is automatic bigotry because you should never label anyone. See the double standard in that?



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Rocker2013

Employers can also fire people who don't agree with their conservative political viewpoints. I've seen it happen. Do you agree with this?


UMmm and a company has never fired a person because they would not follow the liberal views of the company?

Seen this happen too.



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

... and there's no "double standard" in implying that liberals are the only folks who label others?

For real?

Opinions are not facts. All opinions are not equal, at least in terms of their accuracy. An opinion is either based on reality, provable evidence, or not. When an opinion demonstrates an absence or dearth of factual evidence or underpinning, it is perfectly reasonable to refer to it as "ignorant."



posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I consider myself strongly left-leaning.

I do believe in people having personal freedom, although the main question lies in situations where personal freedoms collide, like the whole gay marriage thing - religious freedom vs personal freedom.

I personally try to make my decisions based on the principle that anyone can do whatever they want, as long as it does not affect others directly (physically (health-wise) or emotionally (word-wise ala insulting or relieving anger at someone) or at least try to minimise the effect on others, if there are no immediate alternatives. Generally, I try to be as tolerant as possible towards others. I dont give a damn what religion someone is, as long as they do not push it directly on me, that I had to live according to their religion. The fact that you are against abrtion should not prevent my girlfriend from getting one if she wants. Same applies to gay-marriage, let them do what they want, it does not harm you directly.

When it comes to the Confederate flag, personally I do not care, it is just a flag after all, nothing else.

Personally I try to live according to such beliefs. I am a smoker, yet I never smoke near other people, unless they are smokers as well. I just find some designated spot or some zone which is far from others. When it comes to transport, I try to minimise my car-trips (have some eco-car, power is unpractical imo, too much exhaust) , only when in a real hurry or have too much stuff to carry or a long ride, otherwise I just use public transport, bike or walk. Generally I walk around 5 miles a day, if not more. I try to minimise my effect on others and generally expect others to do the same.
edit on 2-7-2015 by Cabin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I tried this logic with a very liberal colleague. I asked her if she was truly an accepting, non-discriminatory person, should she not accept those with conservative, Christian values? She then asked me if she should accept the opinions of those who want to lynch African Americans. And that's how quickly the rhetoric escalates....conservatives are immediately equated with violent bigots. Unbelievable the level of hypocrisy.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:13 PM
link   
....Okay. Firstly, I'm not American. So, for some that'll discount my views from here on, but anyway....

I realise that in America "liberal" is used as an insult by many like the classic Bill O'Reilly "Left Wing Loon" attack. I've never understood that anyway as one of the founding tenets of the US is liberalism! Liberalism is effectively the first level of personal freedom! I thought that was celebrated there, not that anyone ever mentions it....

However, discard social connotations and cultural associations (that largely appear on republican TV shows and blogs) for a second and consider actual meanings of words and terms on the political spectrum/ axis.



How can you be an intolerant liberal person? It is an oxymoron.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: yes4141

How can you be an intolerant liberal person? It is an oxymoron.


Because things like right/wrong, logic, and prudence take a back seat to hysteria and controlled opposition politics.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Rocker2013

See?

There's the bigotry.

It's not just that we have opinions. It's that they're "ignorant" and "stupid" and therefore it gives the rest of society the right to openly punish us for having them and you think that's right. That's intolerance.

To people like you, we don't simply disagree. We are evil for not thinking exactly as you do.

Just to support you further... Bigotry like that even prevents some from reading the real information given to them. For example, the OP claimed to be more liberal, or left leaning rather than conservative. Still, being that the OP criticized liberal bigotry, surely he must a right-wing conservative... O.o
edit on 732015 by JohnFisher because: auto-correct. changed "brunch" to "being".



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: darkbake
a reply to: Rocker2013

Employers can also fire people who don't agree with their conservative political viewpoints. I've seen it happen. Do you agree with this?


UMmm and a company has never fired a person because they would not follow the liberal views of the company?

Seen this happen too.
As I think was his point. Can't be mad about conservatives doing it and be OK with liberals doing the same exact thing. I might be completely mistaken, but I think I'm context the two of you are actually arguing the same case... Then again, I did skip lots of pages on this thread and didn't have an opportunity to read many more of his posts.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Cabin
a reply to: darkbake

I consider myself strongly left-leaning.

I do believe in people having personal freedom, although the main question lies in situations where personal freedoms collide, like the whole gay marriage thing - religious freedom vs personal freedom.

I personally try to make my decisions based on the principle that anyone can do whatever they want, as long as it does not affect others directly (physically (health-wise) or emotionally (word-wise ala insulting or relieving anger at someone) or at least try to minimise the effect on others, if there are no immediate alternatives. Generally, I try to be as tolerant as possible towards others. I dont give a damn what religion someone is, as long as they do not push it directly on me, that I had to live according to their religion. The fact that you are against abrtion should not prevent my girlfriend from getting one if she wants. Same applies to gay-marriage, let them do what they want, it does not harm you directly.

When it comes to the Confederate flag, personally I do not care, it is just a flag after all, nothing else.

Personally I try to live according to such beliefs. I am a smoker, yet I never smoke near other people, unless they are smokers as well. I just find some designated spot or some zone which is far from others. When it comes to transport, I try to minimise my car-trips (have some eco-car, power is unpractical imo, too much exhaust) , only when in a real hurry or have too much stuff to carry or a long ride, otherwise I just use public transport, bike or walk. Generally I walk around 5 miles a day, if not more. I try to minimise my effect on others and generally expect others to do the same.

I'm impressed how this thread went from fighting to discussion. What I would like to suggest to you is to remove that "affect others emotionally". People are too fickle and soft now-a-days to NOT affect them emotionally. I would suggest that people need thicker skin and accept that there will always be others that won't like or accept them. So long as there are no attacks, no physical, financial, etc. crime...we can all get along. And besides...the law is there for everything non-emotional already.
edit on 7/3/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2015 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

But in every meaningful sense, at least thus far, the ACA has met the test of Constitutionality and is the law of the land.




If that were true, why has it been modified every time it goes to SCOTUS?

There was no non-severability clause built into the ACA. That means when one part is deemed illegal/unconstitutional and struck down, the entire law is supposed to unravel.

If our judicial system was working the way it was supposed to, the ACA would have been rendered null and void when the SCOTUS struck down the Medicaid expansion to the States. It should have been struck down when the penalty was changed to a tax (since taxes cannot originate from the Senate.) It should have been thrown in the dumpster when it was determined it trampled on religious liberty.

Instead, we are being subjected to a modified law that was not approved by legislators nor signed in by an executive.

Mr. Ketsuko
(hands the keyboard back to his wife)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 26  27  28   >>

log in

join