betsy Posted October 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 (edited) "Liberalism" is basically a stance that treats the individual among ALL people as justly significant regardless of one's accidental inheritance. The faults that exist in it is precisely the same fault in the "conservative" camp. It is the GROUPS with power who always take president over the individual simply because their cohesiveness and the numbers of those involved. As such, the 'faults' present in the "liberal" camp is of a CONSERVATIVE form in that they represent a belief in preserving distinct status for some CULT(ure), Religion, or some form of Inheritance 'rights' that they believe are of their own particular in-group alone. The only reason these conservatives exist at all in the "liberal" camp is that they UTILIZE it by collecting others from other similar 'conservative' interests who believe they are intrinsically more worthy than others. To any present FORMAL 'conservative' group, the represent some general power or relatively fewer powers of Nationalistic assholes in sync with these other ones stealing the 'liberal' political side. So please....give us all a break. Your own formal present majority of "conservatism" is not only no different, it is WORSE by the fact that it is both as discriminatory AND in a highly more advantageous position than the rest of the collective ones robbing the LEFT. That is, they actually believe precisely in the same exact policies you do other than they don't have the present power. For those on the sincere "liberal" side, if you are not one of these collective Nationalists, please take careful notice at what is going on. We need to take the reigns of power to get every individual treated fairly. The opposing factor in the 'conservative' side is actually the "libertarians", who at least have some similar rational interest in the individual. So we should also try to encourage them too to defeat the Nationalistic Cultish groups of the Right-wing parties so we can at least have any government better than these segregationalistic discriminatory hateful Nationalists all taking notice and ruining it for us all! Watch the video, and listen to what Maher and Harris are saying. Edited October 1, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 1, 2016 Report Share Posted October 1, 2016 That's a claim being made. Books have been written about it. It's up to you if you want to respond seriously, or not. If only liberals are the ones responding........based on what is being claimed, should I expect a serious discussion? I just did a quick scroll....someone brought up Christians again! Some of the liberal responses actually prove what the book(s) claim. The claim is that liberals have a mental disorder because some of them believe things that are contradictory? But it's easy to find examples of conservatives who hold beliefs that are contradictory as well. I guess everybody has mental disorders? I gather this is a book written by a fake psychologist being hawked on WorldNutDaily? I think getting one's news from WorldNutDaily might also be a sign of mental disorder. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Mayers Posted October 2, 2016 Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 Watch the video, and listen to what Maher and Harris are saying. I'm familiar with their views. Your links are problematic and I warn others NOT to use them!! As to Harris' take against Muslims, this is distinctively different than to the nature of the Palestinians. The Israelis, if you want to treat this issue fairly, are MORE troublesome simply because given BOTH groups of people as being Nationalistic, arrogant, and hateful of the non-favored peoples, only the Israelis are the ones in ACTUAL power. This makes their relative capacity to 'appear' less overtly violent misleading. Liberals are not all uniformly of character any more than conservatives are. But the point about the problems there are about how normally one's wealth makes them tend towards non-Nationalistic fervor but yet this is NOT happening with the Israelis. This is a serious red-flag that they, and NOT the Palestinians are at fault. It is already default to assume ANY more impoverished groups, such as the Palestinians, will end up using more desperate tactics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 The claim is that liberals have a mental disorder because some of them believe things that are contradictory? But it's easy to find examples of conservatives who hold beliefs that are contradictory as well. I guess everybody has mental disorders? I gather this is a book written by a fake psychologist being hawked on WorldNutDaily? I think getting one's news from WorldNutDaily might also be a sign of mental disorder. -k What conservative principles are contradictory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 (edited) I'm familiar with their views. Your links are problematic and I warn others NOT to use them!! As to Harris' take against Muslims, this is distinctively different than to the nature of the Palestinians. The Israelis, if you want to treat this issue fairly, are MORE troublesome simply because given BOTH groups of people as being Nationalistic, arrogant, and hateful of the non-favored peoples, only the Israelis are the ones in ACTUAL power. This makes their relative capacity to 'appear' less overtly violent misleading. Liberals are not all uniformly of character any more than conservatives are. But the point about the problems there are about how normally one's wealth makes them tend towards non-Nationalistic fervor but yet this is NOT happening with the Israelis. This is a serious red-flag that they, and NOT the Palestinians are at fault. It is already default to assume ANY more impoverished groups, such as the Palestinians, will end up using more desperate tactics. I just clicked on them to see what's wrong with them.....nothing's wrong with the links! What's problematic about the links? Is it because you can't refute them? Wait a minute.....are you being a liberal by being devious - attempting to CONTROL what people should read? <slap forehead> Gee, even the term "liberal" goes against that. They're the ones who try to control how we should live our life - from what we eat, to what we say, and do. I wouldn't be surprised if someone already reported this thread and demand that it be locked. How can someone described as liberal, be so controlling? Strict? Authoritarian? Putting regulations, is an obsession to a liberal. The rest of your post, is irrelevant. One thing that seems to be consistent with liberals - they're a wasteful lot! Liberals also tend to waste too many words without saying anything relevant. Edited October 2, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 2, 2016 Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 What conservative principles are contradictory? As I mentioned earlier, how freedom-loving small-government supporters who want to outlaw hijabs and marijuana? How about the small-government, freedom-loving Republican Party platform calling for the government to fight pornography in their 2016 platform? How about small-government, freedom-loving Rick Perry's repeated efforts to fight to keep sodomy a crime during his time as Texas Governor? How about other freedom-loving small-government conservatives who also stand firm behind anti-sodomy laws? How is possible to reconcile the ideas of "freedom" and "small government" with criminalizing what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted October 2, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 As I mentioned earlier, how freedom-loving small-government supporters who want to outlaw hijabs and marijuana? How about the small-government, freedom-loving Republican Party platform calling for the government to fight pornography in their 2016 platform? How about small-government, freedom-loving Rick Perry's repeated efforts to fight to keep sodomy a crime during his time as Texas Governor? How about other freedom-loving small-government conservatives who also stand firm behind anti-sodomy laws? How is possible to reconcile the ideas of "freedom" and "small government" with criminalizing what consenting adults do in their own bedrooms? -k How is outlawing hijabs and marijuana contradictory to conservative principles? Speaking of marijuana, it's contradictory for liberals to want to legalize it, and yet penalize those who fancies sugary and fatty foods! Darn, liberals even want more injection sites for drug addicts! How's fighting pornography contradictory to conservative values? Don't you know there are victims in pornography? From the people who are forced to participate in degrading sexual acts, which include children btw.....to minors being corrupted by them! Btw, another liberal contradiction is legalizing prostitution (and viewing prostitutes as trade workers), and yet making it illegal to buy their service! The people who buy a prostitute's service are the ones being penalized! That's twisted! Just like their twisted rationale of wanting to have a gun registry that doesn't work, of wanting to disarm people by making it illegal to carry guns, like as if criminals would be minding the law and wouldn't be carrying guns anyway! Furthermore, what's that in BC? Liberals think there's nothing wrong with a woman who wants to trade off sex for cash - and yet, liberals are up in arms against women who want to trade sex for shelter! Well, free rent amounts to cash, doesn't it? BC even got watch dogs to make sure women aren't getting into these kind of deals. Liberals really get rabid whenever a Christian refuses service to homosexuals, and yet liberals doesn't think there's anything wrong about Islam's view of homosexuals......they want to let thousands of Muslims in (which will no doubt be infiltrated by radicals like the one who massacred gays in Orlando) even if they know vetting has to be improved. Liberals claim to be progressives....yet they are in fact, regressives! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash74 Posted October 2, 2016 Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 How is outlawing hijabs and marijuana contradictory to conservative principles? Speaking of marijuana, it's contradictory for liberals to want to legalize it, and yet penalize those who fancies sugary and fatty foods! Darn, liberals even want more injection sites for drug addicts! How's fighting pornography contradictory to conservative values? Don't you know there are victims in pornography? From the people who are forced to participate in degrading sexual acts, which include children btw.....to minors being corrupted by them! Btw, another liberal contradiction is legalizing prostitution (and viewing prostitutes as trade workers), and yet making it illegal to buy their service! The people who buy a prostitute's service are the ones being penalized! That's twisted! Just like their twisted rationale of wanting to have a gun registry that doesn't work, of wanting to disarm people by making it illegal to carry guns, like as if criminals would be minding the law and wouldn't be carrying guns anyway! Furthermore, what's that in BC? Liberals think there's nothing wrong with a woman who wants to trade off sex for cash - and yet, liberals are up in arms against women who want to trade sex for shelter! Well, free rent amounts to cash, doesn't it? BC even got watch dogs to make sure women aren't getting into these kind of deals. Liberals really get rabid whenever a Christian refuses service to homosexuals, and yet liberals doesn't think there's anything wrong about Islam's view of homosexuals......they want to let thousands of Muslims in (which will no doubt be infiltrated by radicals like the one who massacred gays in Orlando) even if they know vetting has to be improved. Liberals claim to be progressives....yet they are in fact, regressives! You are so right about these things Many on the right want to ban everything and send more people to jail for taking part and those on the left only want things highly regulated turned into a giant bureaucracy so more people can be on the government payroll . On the right it is all about holding on to Christian values while on the left it is bashing those values unless it is in the name of Islam. A very good argument you made there Betsy. The only fair thing to do is ban all religion. It is the only sensible way for us as a species to move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 2, 2016 Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 How is outlawing hijabs and marijuana contradictory to conservative principles? You guys say you're champions of freedom, yet you want to tell a grown woman what she can or can't wear? You guys say you're champions of small government, yet you see a state role in deciding what kind of headwear is ok or not ok? And you don't see a contradiction? Really? I find that really interesting. Perhaps Doctor von Quack has a point after all. Speaking of marijuana, it's contradictory for liberals to want to legalize it, and yet penalize those who fancies sugary and fatty foods! Not sure what liberals want to ban sugary or fatty foods. I've heard of campaigns to get school vending machines to stop selling junk food, but never an outright ban. Freedom-loving conservatives will go to the wall to defend peoples' rights to smoke whatever they want, provided it's tobacco, and to use whatever inebriating substance they like, provided it's alcohol. Darn, liberals even want more injection sites for drug addicts! Gosh, not sure how we got from marijuana to safe injection sites, unless you're under the impression that marijuana is injected. Support for safe injection sites is due to the evidence-based conclusion that safe injection sites stop preventable deaths and offer a path to treatment for addicts. How's fighting pornography contradictory to conservative values? Don't you know there are victims in pornography? From the people who are forced to participate in degrading sexual acts, which include children btw.....to minors being corrupted by them! You guys say you're champions of freedom, yet you want the government to be able to decide what people can or can't read and watch? You say you're believers in small government, yet you see a government role in deciding what people can or can't read and watch? And you don't see a contradiction? Who is being "forced" into anything? We already have laws against sexual exploitation of minors which are vigorously enforced, sometimes overly-vigorously. And existing laws can also be used to protect people who've been forced into sex acts through whatever means. Most of the performers in the sex entertainment business are there of their own volition and are paid pretty well for it from what I hear. You want to tell a grown woman she can't dance naked on stage for money, or be photographed nude for money, or have sex on film for money? You're the freedom-people? You want to dictate what consenting adults can view because somebody's grandchild might get "corrupted"? You're sure you're the freedom people? Btw, another liberal contradiction is legalizing prostitution (and viewing prostitutes as trade workers), and yet making it illegal to buy their service! The people who buy a prostitute's service are the ones being penalized! That's twisted! Just like their twisted rationale of wanting to have a gun registry that doesn't work, of wanting to disarm people by making it illegal to carry guns, like as if criminals would be minding the law and wouldn't be carrying guns anyway! Furthermore, what's that in BC? Liberals think there's nothing wrong with a woman who wants to trade off sex for cash - and yet, liberals are up in arms against women who want to trade sex for shelter! Well, free rent amounts to cash, doesn't it? BC even got watch dogs to make sure women aren't getting into these kind of deals. Pornography? That's a public health crisis! Action needs to be taken! Guns? We have to live with these thousands of deaths, because freedom. Not a contradiction? As for prostitution... receiving money for sex has been found to be constitutional. Paying money for sex has also been found to be constitutional. One thing that hasn't been found constitutional is walking up to people on the street and offering them money for sex. So if you're wondering why the "johns" are generally the victims of stings, that's why. As for the idea of providing prostitutes safe, legal places to ply their trade, that's somewhat like the safe injection sites: it's based on the idea that the problem won't go away but could be handled in a way that results in better outcomes for everybody. Liberals really get rabid whenever a Christian refuses service to homosexuals, and yet liberals doesn't think there's anything wrong about Islam's view of homosexuals......they want to let thousands of Muslims in (which will no doubt be infiltrated by radicals like the one who massacred gays in Orlando) even if they know vetting has to be improved. Personally I think Islam is stupid and wrong about just about everything, particularly the idea of stoning gay people to death. However, I also know that not all Muslims have the same views, and that childish ideas like "ban them all!" or "send them all back!" or "make them convert!" aren't solutions to anything. Liberals claim to be progressives....yet they are in fact, regressives! All of them? -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted October 2, 2016 Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 Based from the convoluted rationale given by a lot of liberals, I tend to think that there is some truth to what some psychologists/psychiatrists claim. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/56494/#mFuB7mdTB0yi3Fd7.99 This video of Maher, Harris and Affleck.....the first few minutes point to the "failure" of liberals. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60 Supporting your argument that liberalism is a mental disorder by linking to a celebrity video doesn't do much for me except to say that you need to improve your critical thinking. Do you know what critical thinking means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cum Laude Posted October 2, 2016 Report Share Posted October 2, 2016 Supporting your argument that liberalism is a mental disorder by linking to a celebrity video doesn't do much for me except to say that you need to improve your critical thinking. Do you know what critical thinking means? Do you? Reading your posts makes me ask the question to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Wikipedia has a wonderful and highly accurate definition of liberalism vs conservatism aka right-wing and left-wing. Come, choose your side! Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality. They typically involve concern for those in society whom they perceive as disadvantaged relative to others and a belief that there are unjustified inequalities that need to be reduced or abolished. Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) Wikipedia has a wonderful and highly accurate definition of liberalism vs conservatism aka right-wing and left-wing.I don't consider it to be accurate at all. It reads like a caricature written by a left winger for left wingers. To be specific: conservatives want to see social equity and reject social hierarchies. they differ from liberals in that they measure social equity in terms of equality of opportunity - not equality of outcome. Conservatives also more strongly believe in individual rights and are suspicious of attempts to limit rights in the name of the 'collective'. The latter tendency is not 100% since conservatives also tend to believe that laws should be enforced and are more supportive of maintaining tradition for the sake of tradition. That said, conservatives are more likely to agree to a live and let live approach to tradition than liberals who tend to want to the power of the state to force traditionalists to accept new terms decided by liberals. Edited October 4, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 I love the conservative ideals of individual liberties, smaller governments and free markets. Unfortunately though it's all just so much pie in the sky given influence of social conservatives, military enthusiasts, powerful corporations and lobbyists. I submit that nothing will work as advertised until such time as we can limit the ability of lobbyists and the lobbied to operate in secret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 I don't consider it to be accurate at all. It reads like a caricature written by a left winger for left wingers. To be specific: conservatives want to see social equity and reject social hierarchies. they differ from liberals in that they measure social equity in terms of equality of opportunity - not equality of outcome. Conservatives also more strongly believe in individual rights and are suspicious of attempts to limit rights in the name of the 'collective'. There's a difference between equality and equity. “Equity is the process; equality is the outcome". You could argue that left-wing politics is more focused on equality, whereas right-wing politics focuses on equity. So that doesn't disagree with your point. Social equity still leads to social hierarchies, notably economic hierarchies, which conservatives see as natural and just, and there's nothing wrong with that view. Conservatives believe hard work, creativity, talent, good decision-making etc. should be rewarded and the opposite leading to worse economic/social outcomes. Another example is school: a right-wing position would want the intelligent and hard workers to pass, and the lazy and less intelligent to fail where appropriate. Some educators on the far left have adopted policies so that no students fail in order to "spare their feelings". Here's the wikipedia definition again, which I still think is accurate, even if it misses some details/aspects in its brevity: Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 In regard to the OP, many liberals think conservatism is a mental disorder and vice versa, even if they don't outright say it. Liberalism and conservatism are such polar opposite worldviews that they often fundamentally don't understand each other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) Equity is the process; equality is the outcome". You could argue that left-wing politics is more focused on equality, whereas right-wing politics focuses on equity. So that doesn't disagree with your point.Well the terms are reversed. I meant to say "equality" not "equity". "equity" has become a political word synonymous with the rationalizations that left wingers create to explain why given the same opportunities there are always unequal outcomes. Another example is school: a right-wing position would want the intelligent and hard workers to pass, and the lazy and less intelligent to fail where appropriate. Some educators on the far left have adopted policies so that no students fail in order to "spare their feelings".This is accurate. This also spills over into crime where right wingers want criminals punished first rehabilitated second but left wingers seek rehabilitation first and punishment second. Here's the wikipedia definition again, which I still think is accurateI don't because it implies right wingers do not believe in equality makes no mention of the belief that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the collective. If anything with its unnecessary focus on hierarchies it suggests right wingers don't care about individual rights which is completely false. Edited October 4, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 I don't because it implies right wingers do not believe in equality makes no mention of the belief that the rights of the individual are more important than the rights of the collective. If anything with its unnecessary focus on hierarchies it suggests right wingers don't care about individual rights which is completely false. Tell that to gay people who fought for equal rights. They weren't fighting the lefties! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) Tell that to gay people who fought for equal rights. They weren't fighting the lefties!The left wing agenda on gays had little to do with equality. They wanted to tear down the traditions of society which viewed marriage as a compact between a man and a woman. If it was simply a question of equality then civil unions which were legally the same as marriage would have been an acceptable outcome. One of the problems with politics is people often hijack words to disguise other motives. Edited October 4, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Tell that to gay people who fought for equal rights. They weren't fighting the lefties! Yes they were....Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms explicitly excluded sexual orientation rights for political expediency. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 They wanted to tear down the traditions of society which viewed marriage as a compact between a man and a woman. Your response is the definition of right-wing politics from Wiki that MG posted to a tee! I bolded the pertinent parts. Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,typically defending this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be viewed as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) Your response is the definition of right-wing politics from Wiki that MG posted to a tee!I did not dispute that right wingers value tradition. The issue with the definition is its entire focus is on hierarchies while ignoring the fact that right wingers strongly believe in equality and individual rights. The differences come from how one defines equality. With gay "rights" a civil union equal to marriage would be equality but that was not good enough for left wingers who also seek to destroy traditions. Edited October 4, 2016 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 I did not dispute that right wingers value tradition. The issue with the definition is its entire focus is on hierarchies while ignoring the fact that right wingers strongly believe in equality and individual rights. The differences come from how one defines equality. With gay "rights" a civil union equal to marriage would be equality but that was not good enough for left wingers who also seek to destroy traditions. Separate but equal has been quashed as "equal" by the courts many times. How was marriage destroyed? That's pure hyperbole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 The left wing agenda on gays had little to do with equality. They wanted to tear down the traditions of society which viewed marriage as a compact between a man and a woman. If it was simply a question of equality then civil unions which were legally the same as marriage would have been an acceptable outcome. One of the problems with politics is people often hijack words to disguise other motives. Leftwingers wanted gay couples to have equal rights as straight people, which also meant gay marriage. People who were against gay marriage don't care about traditional definitions, they just think gay love is unnatural and immoral therefore don't want these "weirdos" to be married and turn their society into weirdo-ville. Giving only "civil unions" to gay couples is like telling black people they can go on the same buses as white people but they have to sit at the back. To say the leftwing agenda was not about equal rights but some scheme to destroy traditions is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 4, 2016 Report Share Posted October 4, 2016 Separate but equal has been quashed as "equal" by the courts many times.The courts are political actors too. But this is not the thread to re-hash the gay marriage issue. The point is people can believe in equality while wanting to see traditions preserved. There is no rational argument to suggest that civil unions could not be equal in every way to marriage. The "separate is not equal" argument is a rationalization rather than a statement of truth. How was marriage destroyed?I said the *tradition* was destroyed. Not marriage. There is a difference. And the tradition was destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.