5 Reasons Liberals Are Such Unpleasant People To Be Around

Post Reply New Topic

I have lived in Texas with no problem, Oklahoma Bible belt with no problems, Arkansas KKK land, no problem. Indiana (very Conservative), Florida panhandle (scorching red, Conservative utopia) no problem. It is no problem for a Liberal to coexist. It is Conservatives who are incapable of coexisting with anyone who is not exactly a mirror of themselves. I think pretty much everyplace I have ever lived in the US has been a Conservative arena. That is probably the main reason I am not a Conservative voter, even though I probably live a more conservative lifestyle than any Conservative on this website.

Where did that picture come from? Honestly, If were the manager of that establishment and an employee showed me a credit card receipt like that I'd have that pastor's sorry ass 86d for life.





That's because populist conservatives are butthurt, angry, insecure losers who failed in life and wanna blame their failures on "commie pinko stinko liberals". A lot like Jim David Adkisson(who opened fire at a Unitarian Church in Knoxville, TN). Liberals are the perfect scapegoat for people like this: Their old fashioned traditional values did not help them rise above their circumstances but they believe they're entitled to something for singing praise to the status quo.

Last edited by Don_Pedro_Zamacona on 25 Apr 2014, 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I don't need to read the whole thread. I read, "I instead argued that religious opposition to gay marriage is not necessarily irrational or homophobic, a distinction that he is smart enough to understand, if not endorse," and that was all I needed to read.

Why should a religious person care if I marry another man or not? It doesn't affect them in any way, it doesn't harm them in any way, in fact it's really none of that person's business. The only reasons I can come up with for someone being opposed to gay marriage are all irrational as far as I'm concerned...and some might say the result of fear (or fear of the unknown perhaps).

The intended purpose of this thread was just ridiculous. I discovered that by reading the original post. I only responded to your posts because they were pointed out to me by a friend. I have no interest in reading the rest of this thread to be honest. lol

ah,so you have been with someone before.

Because religion is much more than a set of theistic beliefs and a moral code for individuals on how to live their life and treat others, it is a social institution that is used to legitimize that status quo and enforce the social norms by claiming that(the social norms) are the mandate of the Divine.


However, marriage in the US is a secular institution. Nuptials can certainly make their wedding a religious ceremony if they choose to, but it is unconstitutional to make a marriage license contingent on being a member of a church or any kind of religious congregation. Religion inculcates revulsion and disgust towards those whose behaviors are against religious precepts(as homosexuality is condemned as a sin by the Holy Bible) and people act on these induced feelings to enact policies that deny equal rights to people who are "iving in sin". The difference between bigotry and discrimination is that the latter is an active version of the former.

It is rational in the framework of religion for religious officials and organizations to refuse to condone or officiate religious marriages to those who do not follow the principles of their religion, but to attempt push their religious beliefs on others by use of the law is nothing more than rationalization. Religion is not rational because it has no regard for consistency, logical soundness, or emprical testing of its own teachings. It's based on intuition and faith. Religion inspires their antipathy, and they seek to enact laws that cater to their antipathy.

How do you know that if you haven't actually read it? Handy trick, that.



But if you'd read the rest of the thread, then you'd know that the context of that post was a challenge to separate opposition to gay marriage from homophobia, which I've undertaken in a Devil's Advocate fashion, as I'm actually a strong supporter of gay rights, which does not stop me from defending people from the charge of homophobia when it is not appropriate.



So your reasoning went "I can't think of a rational reason, therefore there cannot be one"? Do I need to point out the problem there?



While the original purpose of the thread might be silly, in order to understand the debate under way, you do need to go back and actually read through the posts, otherwise you're operating with incomplete information, which makes replying to you redundant as I've already answered your points earlier in the thread.

not that it's any of your business, but that was 12 years ago. your fascination with my love life is getting quite disturbing and creepy. back off.

I've met nice liberals, and I've met liberals who are jerks. Similarly, I've met nice conservatives, and I've met conservatives who are jerks. While I may agree with liberal values more than conservative values, ultimately I can't really say that liberals or conservatives are better people than one another. People are people, some are nice, others not so much.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzGnX-MbYE4&feature=kp[/youtube]

Not, "I can't think of a rational reason, therefore there cannot be one", more like "the things you are calling rational reasons don't strike me as overly rational." Must be a difference in perspective, I guess.

I'm using a highly technical definition of the word 'rational', seeing as how this is basically a semantics argument. Janissy also took a few stabs at it earlier in the thread, and IIRC her versions did not rely on religious convictions. Let me repeat, I'm not arguing against gay rights in any way, merely against the blanket application of the terms 'homophobic' or 'homophobia' to any and all opposition to gay rights whatsoever.

I get what you are arguing, you are saying that a religious opposition to gay marriage isn't necessarily homophobic, and what I"m arguing is that what you are saying is not homophobia sure looks a whole lot like homophobia from where I'm standing.

Show me a real example where opposition to gay marriage isn't homophobic and then maybe I'll agree with your argument...but probably not.

I recall you using the word antipathy when describing these hypothetical religious people who supposedly aren't homophobic, but most definitions of the word homophobia I've seen usually include feelings of antipathy.

"Religion inspires their antipathy, and they seek to enact laws that cater to their antipathy."

Secular traditionalists who believe marriage means a very specific thing, and that gay unions should get a different name but the same treatment under the law.

Marriage has a connotation that domestic partnership will never have. My relationship with my wife would not be the same if we had to settle for it being called anything other than a marriage in the eyes of not only the government, but also in relation with our peers. Calling someone your spouse packs a whole lot more in the realm of emotion and commitment than calling someone your domestic partner. I think it's a fair guess that gay couples probably feel the same way. Incidentally, if someone tried to deny my wife and I the right to call our relationship a marriage would definitely incur my wrath, therefore, I can understand the hostility felt by gays when they're told they can't call what they have a marriage.

Dox, I think the term for this is intellectual bullying. You don't come off very well in this thread.

This entire thread is a joke.

Well at least we do not believe that those that disagree with us will be tortured for eternity ( hell). There is a difference between believing that one is right ( dont we all? We would not have our beliefs if we thought we were wrong!) and issuing threats.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-per ... 35201.html
Also, since liberals want more taxes on themselves to help the poor and homeless, shouldn't that be considered altruistic even if one does not believe in government helping its citizens? Even if such an attitude is confused thinking ( I think it is not) , that does not mean it is an uncharitable attitude.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M
Supply side Jesus is the Christ for conservatives. Since his beliefs are the opposite of Christ's one can say that conservatives worship the anti-Christ!

Did you bother to read any of the posts that lead to that one? Because that post did not come out of the blue, it was a response to a whole series of sarcastic little taunts from someone with an axe to grind, and it was further replying to a post that contained no actual argumentation, just naked assertions and provocation, making the observations accurate.

But then again, I remember you, you're the one who doesn't like to actually defend what they say, preferring to hit and run and actually getting upset when called out on unjustifiable positions, so forgive me if I don't put a lot of weight behind your judgment.