Already did.
I can prefer not to live with dogs in my home without hating dogs.
I prefer they live outside, separate from me inside.
Does that mean I hate dogs?
No.
Liberalism is Dead and Evangelicals Don't Deserve It Anyway
- Thread starter Traditio
- Start date
- Status
I can prefer not to live with dogs in my home without hating dogs.
I prefer they live outside, separate from me inside.
Does that mean I hate dogs?
No.
Other's pets/animals don't affect you on the collective, social-economic scale. Quite incomparably simplistic in this context.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Don't you have the right to not engage if you don't want to?
Trad is not required to answer every post make to him anymore than you are.
One can argue if the data he produces can be proven as true or false evidence, but he does not have to change his 'opinion' of the data.
People read data differently and come away with different opinions of the conclusions of the data.
You will think you gave a valid conclusion to the data, and so will others, even though the conclusions are different.
Free speech includes everything except violence.
with a few exceptions
It ends at the call for it.......
Sure, though Trad is not being passive here. Don't be fooled otherwise.
It was an analogy of how one can want to be separate without hating.
Preferring to be separate does not automatically equate to hatred.
A simple one at that.
glorydaz
Well-known member
What I find odd is that people need to be told these things. :think:
Ahh, so you prefer he be passive in order to have the right to free speech.
I agree with some of what Trad says and I disagree with some of what Trad says.
I don't discard everything he says just because we disagree on some points.
He gives his perspective of why he thinks he right, and I give perspective on why I think I'm right.
We might have some impasses, but we might also have some perspectives that are strongly agreeable.
What is boils down to is, "We don't like this group's speech so we are going to deny them free speech and deem them unlawful hate criminals".
And Trad has made the point that if one group can make that decision for another group, then what is to stop some other group from coming along and doing that to your group?
It's a good point to consider.
How would you answer it?
What's your line in the sand that would deem such as overblown and unfair to label a group as hate criminals?
I know of a said person that thinks it needs to be told fifty times a day in every thread.
Sure.
But some SJW will come along and claim that my analogy is really my way to equate non-whites as dogs.
Thus is the new breed of logical arguments these days.
Sometimes I can only sigh, and sometimes it cracks me up!
So when folks try to use that kind of logic, I sometimes just like to mess with them and throw exaggerated assumptions right back in their face!
And then get my jollies watching them complain about how hateful I am, while I complain right back at how hateful they are.
And it becomes a battle of who can come up with the most outrageous assumptions.
Nobody really wins, it's just ping ponging.
And at times it can be very entertaining.
At the implied afflicted suffering to ALL parties involved.
Well, .......
Can we say that about the colonists protesting with threat of war to separate themselves from King/Queen rule?
I'm not so sure what you say can be an iron clad standard, as there is a time for hate and there is a time for war, as well as a time for love and a time for peace. Ecc 3:1-8
What does that look like in practical terms.
Give me a scenario.
It'd serve you well to search for that tableau yourself.
Today, that would be the complement, since dogs are the most high and sacred today, followed by cats and then rabbits. Unless you talk to the cat-people who take an Egyptian attitude towards cats,
Many more and more think dogs are superior morally to white people, or all people, So, for non-white people to be the dog ideal would make them equally sacred.
glorydaz
Well-known member
You got that right....spare the pets but kill the unborn babies. Talk about an upside down world.
"...of literally any sort"? Strawman, much? The ideal in question is a peculiarly modern one, but it's not THAT modern. We're talking about the social principles of classical liberalism, principles which were deemed so necessary after the 30 years war.
Again, I certainly agree with what you are saying, and I affirm wholeheartedly that freedom of association is an integral part of the liberal ideal (which, for the record, is why imposing anti-discrimination laws on businesses is illiberal).
But that strikes me as beside the point. What good is a de iure liberal society if the vast majority of people in that society are illiberal?
That is literally the sole argument that leftists have in favor of imposing anti-discrimination laws on businesses.
And this isn't an abstract academic consideration. Look at how hate speech laws are being applied in Europe, and look at the "misgendering" law in California.
What you are saying is the rejection of the liberal ideal. You say "Nazi," I say "protestants," Republicans say "left wing protestors," and leftists say "transphobes." You can't pick and choose which ideas are and are not acceptable. Either all ideas can be expressed or not.
But I don't think you like where the "or not" leads
I'm not necessarily claiming that it does. But it is a curious fact.
At the very least, Trump voters are, and 81% of evangelicals voted for Trump.
See here:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/8/16270040/trump-clinton-supporters-racist
And also here:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/9/15592634/trump-clinton-racism-economy-prri-survey
You've fundamentally misunderstood my point. I am not claiming that, in fact, there is a problem of welfare queens who are black.
What I am claiming is that the right wing anti-welfare point of view, in particular, when accompanied by complaints about "welfare queens" is itself motivated by racism, if only by unconscious bias.
See here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-benefits-study-says/?utm_term=.448e7ebce182
And here:
https://apnews.com/fbd5d3c83e3243e9b03e46d7cb842eaa
Let's be clear on what I am and am not saying:
I am not saying that right wing policies are inherently racist.
I am not saying that the "philosophy" which underpins right wing views is inherently racist.
I AM saying that, in fact, people are generally motivated to hold those views based on racism and in-group preference, even if that racism is at the level of unconscious bias.
If the United States were an entirely white nation, I have no doubt that there would be way fewer economic right wingers around.
In terms of political policies, the only "racist" view that I hold (with the possible exception of views I hold with respect to the Jews...and my views on immigration) is that there needs to be a white ethnostate, and my reasons for so holding are fundamentally non-racist, as I'll explain later to Kmo.
Which, of course, is why it's utterly bizarre that they should be so triggered by my comments about Jews.
Right winger: "Let black people starve in the streets...but don't you dare use the n-word or say bad things about Jews!"
1. How could support for the war on drugs be based on a "principled opposition to the ceding of power to an inexhausibly power hungry federal apparatus"?
2. Their economic views could be, but it's generally not. These people are generally deeply racist.
It COULD be. But it's generally not. Where was the right wing outrage over Melania Trump's possibly working in the US without the proper documentation? Are these right wingers concerned about white or Asian illegal immigrants?
Is that why they want to build a wall?
Because I know why I want that wall.
Last edited:
- Status