Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

A few pages ago, this topic specifically was warned to stick to debating the election. Abortion may be a key issue in it after all, but everyone seems to have decided to debate the most contentious part of this debate you could have possibly chosen.

Is there any point in discussing a non-contentious subject?  Surely it being contentious is what makes it an important issue.

[mainiac]

A few pages ago, this topic specifically was warned to stick to debating the election. Abortion may be a key issue in it after all, but everyone seems to have decided to debate the most contentious part of this debate you could have possibly chosen.

Is there any point in discussing a non-contentious subject?  Surely it being contentious is what makes it an important issue.

Well the good news there is that any subject debated in this thread is sure to become contentious in short order.

[Lord Shonus]

"Being fine with sex"

Only between a man and woman.
Who are married.
To each other.
For the sole purpose of procreation.
In the privacy of their own bedroom.
In the missionary position.
With the lights out.
After this one I usually veer into humor because shits already gotten absurd.

Blindfolded, with as much clothing as possible, through a hole in the sheet.
Alright, I'll stop

I think you're confusing republicans with hasidic jews, I they those two groups are buttbuddies, but there is some difference.

You DO know that that "hole in the sheet" thing was purely anti-semetic propaganda and has never been actually practiced, don't you?

[Kogan Loloklam]

And until wannabe Senator Akin is forcibly Medically Raped, we will never know if he really believes what he says about the sanctity of a unborn child

I'd forgive him his statements if he were, and didn't abort. One thing to claim what he does when he never has to worry about facing it himself. Another thing entirely to put his life on line for his values.

[kaenneth]

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win

[mainiac]

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win

This attitude really pisses me off.

Think this through for a second.  What are the odds that the two sides are equally to blame?

[Sirus]

http://reason.com/archives/2012/08/20/the-wrong-side-absolutely-must-not-win

This attitude really pisses me off.

Think this through for a second.  What are the odds that the two sides are equally to blame?

Pretty sure that was the joke.

[mainiac]

What are the telltale signs that it's ironic?

[Sirus]

Wait a second here. Were you trying to say that "yes, both sides are equally to blame" or "one side deserves more blame than the other"? Because I think our humor wires got crossed somewhere along the way.

[mainiac]

Dude, the odds that both sides are equally to blame and neither is at fault?  Try looking just through american history and see how rare that was.

[Sirus]

Have some perspective, perhaps? Just about every conflict in history has been driven by one side thinking that the other was at fault.
As much as I hate to risk a Godwin, let's look at WWII. Hitler thinks that the Germans deserve Austria, Poland, etc, because the Germans are awesome and it's all payback for the unfair (in his mind) Treaty of Versailles anyway. The Brits and French think that Hitler is getting too power-hungry and try to shut him down. Bam. Conflict. Each side thinks the other is in the wrong.

Let's face it, American politics rarely play nice. If you honestly think that the Conservatives spend their days plotting evil things to do to the liberals, while the Liberals spend their days caring for old folks and reading to terminally ill children, then you've badly lost your sense of perspective. The point of the article was the show that both sides are busy attempting to demonize the other while making excuses for their own, something that very few of us (myself not included) are exempt from.

[mainiac]

Have some perspective, perhaps? Just about every conflict in history has been driven by one side thinking that the other was at fault.
As much as I hate to risk a Godwin, let's look at WWII. Hitler thinks that the Germans deserve Austria, Poland, etc, because the Germans are awesome and it's all payback for the unfair (in his mind) Treaty of Versailles anyway. The Brits and French think that Hitler is getting too power-hungry and try to shut him down. Bam. Conflict. Each side thinks the other is in the wrong.

Each side thinks the other is in the wrong but one side is far, far more in the wrong.  I'll just outsource this one to George Orwell: http://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/pacifism/english/e_patw
Edit: This is not the George Orwell essay on pacifism I was thinking about.  There's another one out there.
Double Edit: This is the one I was thinking of: http://georgeorwellnovels.com/reviews/no-not-one/

Insisting both sides are wrong is even less justified in a democratic election because in a democratic election we don't kill each other.  Insisting both sides are wrong just favors the side that actually is.  Yes there are limits on power and respecting the minority and all that but that doesn't mean you should equally blame the relative villains and the relative good guys.

And I'll say that there's a chance that I'm wrong about everything.  I've been wrong about a lot of things in my life.  But I'm still going to try my best to support good causes.  If everyone does that it improves our odds of getting good government.

[Glowcat]

Let's face it, American politics rarely play nice. If you honestly think that the Conservatives spend their days plotting evil things to do to the liberals, while the Liberals spend their days caring for old folks and reading to terminally ill children, then you've badly lost your sense of perspective. The point of the article was the show that both sides are busy attempting to demonize the other while making excuses for their own, something that very few of us (myself not included) are exempt from.

Funny, I seem to recall plenty of cases where liberals had no compunctions about shunning people who step out of line for what they've done. Do you have any specific examples to the contrary?

Conservatives don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs. They also, unlike what I've noticed from liberals, tend to enter anti-opposition mode anytime one of theirs is being called out on something they've done and try to deflect with poorly reasoned accusations of "liberals do bad things too! (we just don't have many non-manufactured examples, but they exist, so shut up forever)".

[Sirus]

Each side thinks the other is in the wrong but one side is far, far more in the wrong.

Except from the perspective of the other side, you are the one in the wrong. You can scream at the folks on the other side until you're blue in the face, and they'll insist that they are right and you are wrong. Whether it's abortion or gun control or even which Star Trek series was the best, you'll each be convinced that My Side is flawless in all respects (except when they aren't, but hey everyone makes mistakes) and the Other Side is wrong in every possible way (and should be treated as such, no exceptions). Sorta like the two of you are doing right now.
By the way, the Orwell thing? I realize it was written at the height of WWII, but "if you are not with me, you are against me" is an idiotic way to see the world. The world is not black and white. I figured that was fairly common knowledge in this day and age.

Conservatives don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs.

Really? I mean, really? You don't see how that's any different from something like, say, this?

Homosexuals don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs.

Both statements strike me as total bullcrap from where I'm sitting.

Do you have any specific examples to the contrary?

Afraid not, though the recent Biden "chains" comment might come close, and even that is a stretch. What exactly would I input in Google looking for examples, anyway? "liberals not decrying their own"?

try to deflect with poorly reasoned accusations of "liberals do bad things too! (we just don't have many non-manufactured examples, but they exist, so shut up forever)".

I'm gonna assume that that's not some sort of insinuation, because I realize that I can have a quick temper and want to avoid launching some sort of flame war.

[Glowcat]

Conservatives don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs.

Really? I mean, really? You don't see how that's any different from something like, say, this?

Homosexuals don't need to plot to do evil. Their world-view is so completely warped in its favor that they do evil by accident, i.e. following the logical consequences of their beliefs.

Both statements strike me as total bullcrap from where I'm sitting.

Which is why specifics matter. Why does person A believe X, why does person B believe Y. There are certain beliefs that are either factually incorrect or provably harmful to wider humanity with very little granted in return besides the satiation of somebody's ego. I don't see what your point is other than people believe different things.

Do you have any specific examples to the contrary?

Afraid not, though the recent Biden "chains" comment might come close, and even that is a stretch. What exactly would I input in Google looking for examples, anyway? "liberals not decrying their own"?

If you can't provide examples your ideas are less clear. It's easy to toss out "YOU'RE ALL RIGHT AND WRONG" but those words don't actually mean anything without concrete substance behind them.

try to deflect with poorly reasoned accusations of "liberals do bad things too! (we just don't have many non-manufactured examples, but they exist, so shut up forever)".

I'm gonna assume that that's not some sort of insinuation, because I realize that I can have a quick temper and want to avoid launching some sort of flame war.

I was specifically speaking of how conservatives respond to whatever the latest kerfuffle is, but I also find your claim was poorly reasoned. Is that flame war material to you?