'Liberal' in America

[mcbigski]

Don't worry, just wait til his next post. You gotta learn that trying to reason with mcbigski is akin to reasoning with a brick wall built by hateful, stubborn ignorance.

Here we go again...I'm hateful, stubborn, and ignorant, because I don't toe the lefty line, and instead believe that from where we are now, smaller government would be less oppressive, make us more prosperous, and be a more responsible choice for posterity than crushing debt. Anyone else see what I meant about lack of tolerance for controversial speech?

I dunno, about 200,000 jobs bigger?

....

Shall I go on?

Aren't we agreeing on the facts of that part, though disagreeing on the wisdom of having done such?

I know what you meant. Obviously only an insane person would think that liberals are pro fetus extermination, if we take those words at face value.

The point I and others have made in this thread is that it's impossible to engage effectively about complicated issues with someone who decides to use such hyperbolic language. And that people who do use language like that aren't interested in engaging to begin with. I shouldn't have to give you the benefit of the doubt when listening to you. You could have said that liberals are "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" even, and I would have said, yup. Instead you come out dick swinging with PRO FETUS EXTERMINATION, just to show that you're only about division instead of debate. You're not interested in being taken seriously, so I won't.

Oh, mcbigski. I'm so glad you're around so I never have to challenge my own caricaturized view of right wingers.

Caricatures are what you guys seem to look for here, no wonder you find them. Shael says, if I understand him correctly, that he knew exactly what I was saying, and even agrees with my assessment on a factual level. But saying it in a non euphemistic way runs afoul of the thought police, apparently. (Incidently, I'm tepidly pro fetus extermination at the behest of the would be mother.)

Also Shael, it also seems you're objections to hyperbole are tending to go only in one direction in this thread. I suppose we all have our blind spots.

[Asarlai]

Words like 'being' and 'entity' imply self awareness which is an even bigger can of worms than sentience. Having human DNA doesn't make a life valuable, nor does having a human body. The mind is what we value, the body is just a fancy case.

Person-hood is a philosophical concept that cannot be objectively defined, and thus makes a poor basis for laws on what is or is not murder. At what point of mental retardation is someone no longer a person? Up until one year of age, baby humans and baby chimps are intellectually similar; does that make it okay to kill the baby human or the same thing as murder to kill the baby chimp?

[The Iceman of the North]

Person-hood is a philosophical concept that cannot be objectively defined, and thus makes a poor basis for laws on what is or is not murder. At what point of mental retardation is someone no longer a person?

What a strange opinion. An (alive) person is any human being having been born, and is still alive. Why is that hard to define? Mental capacity have never been part of the definition of a person.

[Asarlai]

What a strange opinion. An (alive) person is any human being having been born, and is still alive. Why is that hard to define? Mental capacity have never been part of the definition of a person.

Well, humans fit that definition because they are a sentient race, and so any other sentient being would be a person, while there is much argument as to who exactly (even within humanity, see opinions on age, race, illness) qualifies as a "real" person.

The fact of the matter is, "person" is not a scientific term, and so cannot be properly used as such. "Human" (as in "human rights" as in "rights innate to our humanity") is, in fact, a scientific and clearly measurable term, and thus is preferable in affixing technical definitions.

[awesome possum]

And the inverse is true of Bush, who the left constantly tried to paint as a rightwing nutjob; he was anything but.

No, he was just in the pockets of the rightwing nutjobs.

Here we go again...I'm hateful, stubborn, and ignorant, because I don't toe the lefty line, and instead believe that from where we are now, smaller government would be less oppressive, make us more prosperous, and be a more responsible choice for posterity than crushing debt.

If you truly believe I implied you contained any of those qualities solely because you "don't toe the lefty line" then it just kinda proves the point. I guess I should have also added "victim mentality" to the list, as you've ignored all other criticisms of your posting style to attempt to play martyr from the most caustic of the criticisms.

Anyone else see what I meant about lack of tolerance for controversial speech?

Having the silly things you tend to say called out is in no way lack of tolerance.

Aren't we agreeing on the facts of that part, though disagreeing on the wisdom of having done such?

I suppose, though it was my impression you trotted out Reagan as indicator of a president who didn't increase the size of the government.

[Smashing Young Man]

No, he was just in the pockets of the rightwing nutjobs.

A difference without distinction, even if true. He made a few forced concessions to his base, just as all presidents do. I've said it before: I understand the strategy behind painting a moderate like Bush as far to the right—it serves to move the middle ground by which we judge such things further to the left.

[Asarlai]

A difference without distinction, even if true. He made a few forced concessions to his base, just as all presidents do. I've said it before: I understand the strategy behind painting a moderate like Bush as far to the right—it serves to move the middle ground by which we judge such things further to the left.

You're talking about Bush II, right? I don't see how he's moderate... He slashed taxes for the wealthy, massively deregulated the economy, and alienated all rights and liberties granted under the Constitution, in the name of his War of Terror. All of this after being rejected by the majority in an election, yet still taking power thanks to a broken system that allowed the fellow with the most votes to lose.

If, however, you are talking about Bush I, then yeah, he was fairly moderate in comparison.

[mcbigski]

If you truly believe I implied you contained any of those qualities solely because you "don't toe the lefty line" then it just kinda proves the point. I guess I should have also added "victim mentality" to the list, as you've ignored all other criticisms of your posting style to attempt to play martyr from the most caustic of the criticisms.

Let's narrow the approach here. Demonstrate how I'm hateful. Direct quotes from me would be especially helpful here.

[The Iceman of the North]

Well, humans fit that definition because they are a sentient race, and so any other sentient being would be a person, while there is much argument as to who exactly (even within humanity, see opinions on age, race, illness) qualifies as a "real" person.

The fact of the matter is, "person" is not a scientific term, and so cannot be properly used as such. "Human" (as in "human rights" as in "rights innate to our humanity") is, in fact, a scientific and clearly measurable term, and thus is preferable in affixing technical definitions.

Could you find any dictionary that defines "person" as a "sentient being", and not an "individual human being"?

[Brienne the Beauty]

If there were still slavery in the US today, freeing those slaves would hardly be considered a "liberal" act. It would be considered "the only way to act."

You'd like to think so, but a lot of yesterday's "crazy out there liberal ideas," like freeing the slaves, are tomorrow's, "only moral thing to do."

I'd put "legalizing gay marriage" in this bracket. To liberals it's the "only moral thing to do", but for conservatives it is a "crazy out there liberal idea." In 20 years time it will be the "only moral thing to do" and conservatives will be falling over themselves to claim that they supported it all along.

If slavery still existed and was still a major economic force, few conservatives would countenance freeing the slaves in the middle of the worst recession for many years.

[awesome possum]

A difference without distinction, even if true. He made a few forced concessions to his base, just as all presidents do. I've said it before: I understand the strategy behind painting a moderate like Bush as far to the right—it serves to move the middle ground by which we judge such things further to the left.

SYM, I'm sure you truly believe Bush was a moderate, and I believe this shows just how far to the right you lean.

Let's narrow the approach here. Demonstrate how I'm hateful. Direct quotes from me would be especially helpful here.

Nah, not going to do that. If the '08 and '10 election threads hadn't been deleted I'm sure I could find a veritable goldmine, but since they have I'll just point to your history of defending (and at times using) the hateful rhetoric of the tea party. And didn't you once compile a list of reasons defending the far right belief that Obama was evil (several of which were quotes of less than one sentence taken completely out of context)?

The onus is on you to prove wrong the several people who called you out for your posting style, because you do bring up good points. You can be reasonable and produce intelligent discussion, but then you pepper in these statements that just make you seem completely off your rocker.

[Swordfish]

Interesting piece, Swordfish. Who is that blogger/commentator?

I have no idea. I think, as you likely know, the article is mostly bombast. But hidden in there are a couple really interesting points. Namely, the lefts hatred of the libertarians seems... Strange given how many core principles they agree on. Whether or not the explanation is what he says it is is certainly up for debate, but it does make some degree of sense.

The idea that Obama is some radically leftist socialist commie is one of the most laughable tropes ever. I think that post made an excellent argument to back that up.

I think Obama is a pragmatist who want to seek re-election and wants statues of him erected around the world hailing his accomplishments. I think that is his true ideology as opposed to being a tried and true liberal or conservative or anything else. Heh, I actually think that Romney is quite similar in this regard.

I would agree with that. Obama is a politician first, and everything else comes a distant second.

[Smashing Young Man]

SYM, I'm sure you truly believe Bush was a moderate, and I believe this shows just how far to the right you lean.

Or it shows how far to the left you lean. See how that works? A never-ending battle in American politics is the quest to redefine the middle.

[sologdin]

a moderate like Bush

compared to attila. otherwise, his only moderation was his few years in AA.

[Shryke]

I have no idea. I think, as you likely know, the article is mostly bombast. But hidden in there are a couple really interesting points. Namely, the lefts hatred of the libertarians seems... Strange given how many core principles they agree on. Whether or not the explanation is what he says it is is certainly up for debate, but it does make some degree of sense.

Liberals/Progressives/Lefties and Libertarians don't really share that much in common though.

Libertarians are, perhaps philisophically, aligned on a variety of social issues. Or course, at the same time they are also diametrically opposed on a variety of social issues.

In terms of what Libertarians actually support, it's an end to the drug war, massive deregulation and avoid talking about the other stuff or voting on stuff related to it.

There's really not much overlap.

[TrueMetis]

The fact of the matter is, "person" is not a scientific term, and so cannot be properly used as such. "Human" (as in "human rights" as in "rights innate to our humanity") is, in fact, a scientific and clearly measurable term, and thus is preferable in affixing technical definitions.

The scientific definition of human would include several other species though.

H. antecessor

H. cepranensis

H. erectus

H. ergaster

H. floresiensis

H. gautengensis

H. georgicus

H. habilis

H. heidelbergensis

H. neanderthalensis

H. rhodesiensis

H. rudolfensis

H. sapiens idaltu

H. sapiens sapiens

All of these species are human, most would not be afforded the same rights as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

[felice]

And the inverse is true of Bush, who the left constantly tried to paint as a rightwing nutjob; he was anything but.

From my point of view, Obama is a rightwing nutjob; Bush was far worse.

the lefts hatred of the libertarians seems... Strange given how many core principles they agree on.

The trouble is the left sees the consequences of libertarian economic policy as diametrically opposed to those principles.

[Asarlai]

The scientific definition of human would include several other species though.

H. antecessor

H. cepranensis

H. erectus

H. ergaster

H. floresiensis

H. gautengensis

H. georgicus

H. habilis

H. heidelbergensis

H. neanderthalensis

H. rhodesiensis

H. rudolfensis

H. sapiens idaltu

H. sapiens sapiens

All of these species are human, most would not be afforded the same rights as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Human refers to the species Homo Sapiens, not the entire Homo genus.

[TrueMetis]

Human refers to the species Homo Sapiens, not the entire Homo genus.

Wrong, every species in the genus Homo are human. The genus uses the latin Homo, which means human, not the Greek Homo meaning same.

[Galactus]

Here we go again...I'm hateful, stubborn, and ignorant, because I don't toe the lefty line, and instead believe that from where we are now, smaller government would be less oppressive, make us more prosperous, and be a more responsible choice for posterity than crushing debt. Anyone else see what I meant about lack of tolerance for controversial speech?

No, you are being called hateful, stubborn and ignorant becuase you associate with people who want to oppose giving equal rights to homosexuals.