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.

 

The problem I see with the Liberal Movement.

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Speech, as far as the government is concerned, only pertains to the government infringing speech. It has nothing to do with social or economic consequences to your speech.


Free speech pertains to everyone who believes in human rights. It is a fundamental human right, or it isn't, one or the other.

Free speech, as defined by the government, is the ability to say anything without fear of repercussion from the government. Somewhere along the line this definition got distorted to what you are saying now.




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Liberal democracy is the best form of government we can have. Unfortunately, people don't seem to want to find that balance. Here in the US we have too many people that lean way too far one way or the other. They toe the line for whatever set of opinions they've been told to have. We had issues in the past where people leaned way too far to the right and they had a lot of influence. Now today, people lean way too far to the left and they have the most influence instead. Both operated on abusing peoples' emotions and manipulating their opinions through fear. Candidates pander to this by pushing their opinions to the extreme just to grab those few extra votes because they don't care about the people, only about winning and how large their donations can get.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
a reply to: ScepticScot




Yes they are, so the idea that we can protect people from the consequences of their free speech, including economic consequences is nonsense.

Free speech is not being able to say whatever you want without consequence. So claiming that at those consequences are an attack on free speech is clearly false.


No, I do not think we can protect people from the actions of others, but we can promote certain principles such as free speech, because being the basis of a free society, the principle is more important than how you or I react to what is being said.

Free speech is being able to say what you want without consequences. That's what free speech means. The arguments are explicit in all the works in favor of free speech, so I will not bother restating them here.

Principles work like morals or fundamental ideas. We hold them true of everyone, even for our enemies and those who think differently.


You don't see the inherent and rather obvious contradiction of that position?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Free speech, as defined by the government, is the ability to say anything without fear of repercussion from the government. Somewhere along the line this definition got distorted to what you are saying now.


Do you believe in human rights? Because it is a fundamental human right. Also, freedom of speech isn't just defined by governments.
edit on 6-7-2016 by TheTory because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




You don't see the inherent and rather obvious contradiction of that position?


Why don't you point it out to me?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Just a thought... but if I go to a Trump rally and voice my support for him and either coming or going get physically assaulted because of my views I would consider that an assault on free speech.

Just my odd thought...

eta: If I physically get attacked because of my views that is a group of people trying to stifle my speech in a literal form.. and most of them were claiming to be bernie supporters.
edit on 6-7-2016 by Irishhaf because: additional thought



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Crazywok



One of the few 'liberals' I respect on ATS.

Shame they are so few and far between.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Not everyone is perfect. You can't expect everyone to be altruistic or have the best intentions at heart. That doesn't mean the philosophy is flawed though.


Nor does it mean that these "imperfect" liberals should be ignored or discarded as not being a part of the group, nor does it negate the flaws that are in the system from the start.


I'm saying that it is impolite to insult someone just because you disagree with their beliefs. It is common courtesy to show the opposite side of the debate argument respect so that you can eventually come to an agreement. I see in this day and age, such things have gone out the window in favor of people like you defending the idea of insulting people just because they can.

It's actually kind of funny that you are calling someone immature because he can't take an insult when it is even MORE immature to insult the person in the first place.


Maybe, but what is an insult to one person is using appropriate language to another. I have referred to people on ATS as "ignorant" on more than one occasion, but that is in an effort to let them understand that they are lacking information--it's used in the strictest of ways. But the vast majority get hurt feelings, and I fail to see how that's my problem. When speaking on the internet, people get misinterpreted all of the time--if we can't get past a few little names in order to hold an intelligent debate, then maybe the topic of debate is a little too mature for those people, ya know?


I can think of plenty of "monikers" to call conservatives that I think would fit well. Many of which post on ATS, but I try not to do it instead opting to use reason, evidence and logic to present my points instead of immaturity.


And I can think of quite a few monikers (it is a word...no need for quotations) to call both parties, but I try not to. But, of course, as with anything in life, sometimes generalizing and even stereotyping has its place in a discussion, so even that's not a hard rule.


Well then maybe we should consider rewriting the Amendment so that it is more encompassing? Did you ever consider that these special considerations exist because of loopholes in the Amendment?


There are no loopholes in the amendment. We should not rewrite the amendment. It seems that you missed my entire point of citing the amendment.

The amendment (I just didn't feel like that was said enough).


No it doesn't. It is a violation of the first amendment. It NEVER. I repeat NEVER, makes sense to violate the first amendment. I don't care how scared you are of being attacked. We shouldn't be compromising our rights for safety. This is forefather beliefs 101. Hell Ben Franklin talked EXPLICITLY about it. Denying immigration to muslims because of terrorism is the textbook definition of tyranny.


Ummm...it does no such thing as violate the first amendment. The code that governs immigration explicitly states that the president can halt immigration for ANY REASON at ANY TIME. And quite honestly, I'm not scared about being attacked, but it's the nations FIRST duty to protect its citizens, not play halfway house to the world.


This is called a tu quoque (you too) fallacy. It's ok because someone else does it too. No it isn't. Don't excuse your behavior because others do it. Just acknowledge the problem. Deflecting blame by pointing out other guilty parties doesn't forgive the original guilt.


That's not what I did--I noted that there are people in all camps that do it, but that there are sometimes truth behind the things that are said, even if they are said in a less-than-cordial way. That has nothing to do with justifying anything.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: crazyewok

You started this in "the Mud Pit."

Do you intend it to be a reasonable discussion of your points, or just another variation on a "liberal bash-fest"?


liberal bash-fest?.....on ATS?....nah, never, ever happens....31 republican governors, the entire congress controlled by republicans.....can't you see it's the liberals that are the real problem?...they are the only ones making all the laws, right?....the conservatives have absolutely nothing to do with any type of legislation anywhere in the U.S......all the problems are created by liberals...c'mon gryph.....you know the drill here by now....


Liberalism is a political philosophy, not an American political party. "New liberals" are not liberals, for they erode liberal values.


Thats pretty much the point I was trying to make distilled down into Two sentences.




posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

If a child told you he hated you and never wanted to speak to you, would you punch him in the mouth as hard as you can? That's pretty much the way I see ISIS' ranting and raving when it comes to the West. Sure they can hurt us, but relatively their attacks are like beestings and cannot ever hope to topple our society. Also, hitting back will only do more damage than good.


Bee stings do add up.

And there is more ways to fight a war than just military action. Economic war can be pretty effective.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Classical Liberals are great. They believe in egalitarianism and equal opportunity. You nailed it on the head.

I stand firmly against the modern liberal, and I will not stop. They are racist violent nutjobs that have no respect for anything.

They use mental gymnastics in order to lie to themselves and everyone else in the world.

It disgusts me.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I'm with Winstonian here - I am mostly libertarian in my views. As such I agree with classic liberals on many things. I diverge from them when it comes to things like gun control and affirmative action, but I agree on issues like separation of church and state.

On the other hand, the new "safe space" liberals that are emerging from our colleges, modern feminazis, and the SJWs that are pouring out of Tumblr are just scum and need to be opposed at every opportunity.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: crazyewok

If a child told you he hated you and never wanted to speak to you, would you punch him in the mouth as hard as you can? That's pretty much the way I see ISIS' ranting and raving when it comes to the West. Sure they can hurt us, but relatively their attacks are like beestings and cannot ever hope to topple our society. Also, hitting back will only do more damage than good.


Bee stings do add up.

And there is more ways to fight a war than just military action. Economic war can be pretty effective.

What about trying to encourage peace and cooperation so that it is harder for these fanatics to recruit new members? It's hard to fight against something that treats you nicely all the time as opposed to bombing your section of the world every 5 years or so.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Nor does it mean that these "imperfect" liberals should be ignored or discarded as not being a part of the group, nor does it negate the flaws that are in the system from the start.

I'm not the one that made that argument; in fact I'm in agreement with what you said here. It was another poster who said that these people weren't really liberals.


Maybe, but what is an insult to one person is using appropriate language to another. I have referred to people on ATS as "ignorant" on more than one occasion, but that is in an effort to let them understand that they are lacking information--it's used in the strictest of ways. But the vast majority get hurt feelings, and I fail to see how that's my problem. When speaking on the internet, people get misinterpreted all of the time--if we can't get past a few little names in order to hold an intelligent debate, then maybe the topic of debate is a little too mature for those people, ya know?

Look. We both know there is a fine line between being intellectually critical of someone and insulting them. This is a line that we all struggle to know. Yes, it can be argued that one can call someone ignorant and them not mean any harm by it. I do it a lot myself, but when you start making up slurs for the other side of the argument that that side doesn't use among themselves, then you ARE insulting them. There is no way around it.

So stop being obtuse here. You know damn well when you are insulting someone versus trying to be critical of them. If you call me a libtard or a say I have mental problems for being a liberal. THAT is an insult. That is what I'm talking about.


And I can think of quite a few monikers (it is a word...no need for quotations) to call both parties, but I try not to. But, of course, as with anything in life, sometimes generalizing and even stereotyping has its place in a discussion, so even that's not a hard rule.

So you don't think that there are people on the right who take it too far, far too often then?


There are no loopholes in the amendment. We should not rewrite the amendment. It seems that you missed my entire point of citing the amendment.

The amendment (I just didn't feel like that was said enough).

Do you honestly believe it is impossible for an Amendment to have loopholes? Because that's a very naive belief.


Ummm...it does no such thing as violate the first amendment. The code that governs immigration explicitly states that the president can halt immigration for ANY REASON at ANY TIME. And quite honestly, I'm not scared about being attacked, but it's the nations FIRST duty to protect its citizens, not play halfway house to the world.

WHEN IT APPLIES TO A SPECIFIC RELIGION IT DOES!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


Besides if the government TRULY cared about protecting its citizens as much asl the people scared of muslims say that it should, it would be cracking down on gang violence and trying to help Mexico and Central America tackle its cartel problems. But we talk about Muslims instead because they are the political hotpoint these days, even though deaths to Muslim terrorism is statistically near 0% chance of being killed stateside. It has nothing to do with Americans being in danger, but all to do with political posturing and warhawking.
edit on 7-7-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Except that I wouldn't necessarily call him a liberal. He's more of a libertarian.

I suspect his liberalism is a product of life in the UK.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yep. I see your logic.

Bring in the religion and then tell them they can't practice it despite the first amendment.

Makes perfect sense!



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What are you talking about? That wasn't my point at all. I think you need to go drink your morning coffee.
edit on 7-7-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

If the alternative to 'Liberalism' is hatred against women, gays, immigrants, people with physical disabilities, people who disagree with you, people who look different than you, lower income Americans - you know, all of the people the current presumptive GOP candidate for the The Presidency has been screaming about for over a year now, I'll stay Liberal all day, every day. These posts about the decline of civilization due to Liberals are a joke. Every generation thinks the same thing. There are essays about this very thing going back to ancient Rome. Older people want things to stay the same. Younger people want change. Nothing new. You have grand kids? In 40 years they'll be complaining about the exact same thing - change. But, scream as you might, change is inevitable.



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Look. We both know there is a fine line between being intellectually critical of someone and insulting them. This is a line that we all struggle to know. Yes, it can be argued that one can call someone ignorant and them not mean any harm by it. I do it a lot myself, but when you start making up slurs for the other side of the argument that that side doesn't use among themselves, then you ARE insulting them. There is no way around it.

So stop being obtuse here. You know damn well when you are insulting someone versus trying to be critical of them. If you call me a libtard or a say I have mental problems for being a liberal. THAT is an insult. That is what I'm talking about.


I get that--my whole point that that too many people take even factual words used correctly as being insulting, and it gets tiresome and is, IMO, becoming an internet epidemic and is further an indication as to the declination of communication in modern times.


As for your parameters for what is an insult, I think that you're wrong--it's not necessarily the word used, but how it's used and with what intent. Take the "N" word--used pervasively toward each other by the race that it is meant to insult. Women use "bitch" all the time talking amongst themselves.

The reality is that I'm not being obtuse in any way, but I'm pointing out the difficulties in communicating with people, and the facts are that too many people get their feelings hurt when there is often times no ill intent contained in the statement. But I do agree that these juvenile nicknames like "libtard" have no place in adult conversations.


So you don't think that there are people on the right who take it too far, far too often then?


Of course I do. I'm intellectually honest.


Do you honestly believe it is impossible for an Amendment to have loopholes? Because that's a very naive belief.


No, and that's not what I said at all--I did, however, specifically note that there is no loophole in the amendment, plain and simple. But what happens is that you can get activist lawyers and judges and administrations who create loopholes via arguments or rulings or executive orders/policies, and then that's where things start going down hill, and loopholes that didn't exist when said amendment was written and ratified now contains fabricated loopholes.


WHEN IT APPLIES TO A SPECIFIC RELIGION IT DOES!


See my description above about policies that create loopholes and cause problems. But remember that both the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, apply to people who are already here, not random people from other countries. This is why I believe that there is no conflict between the First Amendment and halting immigration for certain people, especially when the policy governing immigration explicitly gives the president exactly that authority.

Nothing is prohibiting the free exercise of religion just because we don't let someone into the country--they are free to practice said religion in their home country or anywhere else (unless prohibited by law where they are, I guess...but that's not our fault nor is it our job to affect that in any way). I'm sure that seems callous to you, but I'm just arguing purely on the basis of what can and cannot happen, not what should or should not happen.


Besides if the government TRULY cared about protecting its citizens as much asl the people scared of muslims say that it should, it would be cracking down on gang violence and trying to help Mexico and Central America tackle its cartel problems. But we talk about Muslims instead because they are the political hotpoint these days, even though deaths to Muslim terrorism is statistically near 0% chance of being killed stateside. It has nothing to do with Americans being in danger, but all to do with political posturing and warhawking.


I don't disagree with this at all, but in the light of what's going on around the world (most recently, in Nice, France), it's intelligent to try and avoid these problems from all fronts. No policy or law or wall or gun ban will fix everything--hell, it probably won't fix anything, to be honest, because the evil heart is not affected by laws--but the bottom line is that it is perfectly legal and responsible for a president to halt immigration to certain peoples if it is known that there are terrorists or anyone with ill intent infiltrating these groups.

The reality is that we can't vet these people properly because their home countries keep such piss-poor records on their people. Should we ignore that and just let everyone come in because it makes certain ideologies have a warm, fuzzy feeling?

(sorry for the very delayed response--I was out on vacation)



posted on Jul, 15 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
No, and that's not what I said at all--I did, however, specifically note that there is no loophole in the amendment, plain and simple. But what happens is that you can get activist lawyers and judges and administrations who create loopholes via arguments or rulings or executive orders/policies, and then that's where things start going down hill, and loopholes that didn't exist when said amendment was written and ratified now contains fabricated loopholes.

This may just be semantics, but I don't see such a thing as a fabricated loophole. I see it as an interpretation that presents a loophole that wasn't thought about before.


See my description above about policies that create loopholes and cause problems. But remember that both the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, apply to people who are already here, not random people from other countries. This is why I believe that there is no conflict between the First Amendment and halting immigration for certain people, especially when the policy governing immigration explicitly gives the president exactly that authority.

This is actually one of your "fabricated loopholes". There is no point in the Constitution where it specifically says that the rights outlined within it are only granted to current residents of the country.


Nothing is prohibiting the free exercise of religion just because we don't let someone into the country--they are free to practice said religion in their home country or anywhere else (unless prohibited by law where they are, I guess...but that's not our fault nor is it our job to affect that in any way). I'm sure that seems callous to you, but I'm just arguing purely on the basis of what can and cannot happen, not what should or should not happen.

Not letting them into the country is against the spirit of our Constitution because it prohibits them from worshiping their religion here. Any careful study of our forefathers and their beliefs would show this easily.


I don't disagree with this at all, but in the light of what's going on around the world (most recently, in Nice, France), it's intelligent to try and avoid these problems from all fronts. No policy or law or wall or gun ban will fix everything--hell, it probably won't fix anything, to be honest, because the evil heart is not affected by laws--but the bottom line is that it is perfectly legal and responsible for a president to halt immigration to certain peoples if it is known that there are terrorists or anyone with ill intent infiltrating these groups.

No what's intelligent is finally understanding that there is no such thing as perfectly safe. We will always be slightly exposed to danger. And trying to curtail rights to stamp out statistically minuscule events from happening is SUPER counterproductive.


The reality is that we can't vet these people properly because their home countries keep such piss-poor records on their people. Should we ignore that and just let everyone come in because it makes certain ideologies have a warm, fuzzy feeling?

Vet what people? Which people do you think aren't being vetted exactly?




top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join