What are your thoughts, Zoe, on that resolution? After all, you’re in the Bay Area, aren’t you?
[QUOTE=Zoe]
Why does it bother the conservative if the liberal is arrogant? Arrogance is just feelings and thoughts – not actions. Would conservatives want to control these feelings and thoughts?
[/QUOTE]
I’ll leave thought control to you guys. After all, it wasn’t conservatives in Berkeley who didn’t want people talking to a scawy Marine recruiter.
I should have made it clear that my comment was directed to you, Mr. Moto.
But the topic of this thread says that conservatives want liberals to tolerate their hatred. Does your response mean that you don’t hate us or that you don’t care whether we tolerate your hatred. Come on, now…
What do you mean “southern white state”?
Alex Haley, Tina Turner, Morgan Freeman, Bessie Smith, Harold Ford, Jr., Aretha Franklin, W.C. Handy and Isaac Hayes have all called Tennessee home. And that’s just some of the well known blacks from West Tennessee.
To say that Tennessee is “white” because it voted for Hillary makes as much sense as saying it is “female” because it voted for Hillary.
Mr. Moto, I’m afraid that I must admit to not having checked your link yet. Somehow I suspect that it has to do with a recruiter in public schools. I could be wrong. I’ll be Bach…
I will have to rely on someone’s summary of the resolution to the Berkley City Council. Can’t do the PDF. Too many downloads for the little memory I have left.
But I am puzzled about why a resolution to a city council would bother you. Were they trying to keep a military recruiter off campus? Were these students who filed the resolution? If so, I’m surprised they had to go all the way to the City Council.
Were any students kept from going downtown to the recruiter’s office? Were students free to file a resolution with the City Council requesting that recruiters be allowed to come to the campus to mix and mingle with the students?
On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the reputation of recruiters on the matter of integrity with 1 being “no integrity at all”?
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
because, as a reknown progressive liberal state, they’re voting is equivilant to a Tennessee or other southern white state who chose hilary over obama. It’s like what I said in here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9446328&postcount=81
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see the irony, either. It implies progressive liberals are like trained seals which, while not ironic, is simply inaccurate.
Remember what was said on Election Night, Nov 2006? “The Republicans did not lose control of Congress…they just didn’t get as many votes.” Excuse me? Talk about being a whiney loser! I forget what boy blunder said that, but man…can they spin the shit into shine-ola! 
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
It is a stupid argument. However, it must be noted that “tolerance” for the political left is generally just a pose that falls apart at the barest challenge.
[/QUOTE]
Mr. Moto’s link refers to the Berkeley City Council’s condemnation of Marine Recruiters as long as they maintain their discriminatory policy against homosexuals. There are also sections on wars of aggression and deceptive recruitment practices.
The resolution does not include the word tolerance. It contains no language advocating across-the-board tolerance: that would be incoherent. Mr. Moto’s contention is wholly unsupported.
As it happens, I oppose BCC’s policy. But it seems to me that Mr. Moto’s characterization smacks of hallucination and an aversion to the calm weighing of policy options.
So although he started with, “it’s a stupid argument,” he followed up with a similar example – the leftist intolerance of discrimination. I guess if that city with a large homosexual population were REALLY tolerant, they would welcome the people who discriminate against them. Right.
But conservatives can point out transgressions like these, because they have no pretense to morals or ethics and can’t get called out themselves. Now, if they positioned themselves as being more moral or Christian or something, and acted the way they do, they’d be in a world of hurt.
[QUOTE=Measure for Measure]
The resolution does not include the word tolerance. It contains no language advocating across-the-board tolerance: that would be incoherent. Mr. Moto’s contention is wholly unsupported.
[/QUOTE]
No it isn’t - I said the resolution wasn’t tolerant of the Marine Corps. Would you disagree with that?
And Zoe, they want to kick the office out of town entirely. Does that sound tolerant of other viewpoints to you?
So you continue to make the argument you admitted was stupid. In this case, you’re actually complaining that the “tolerant” aren’t tolerant of “different opinions” which are to systematically discriminate against a large part of their own population. Well, golly, I guess they’re pwned. I guess the REAL way to fight discrimination is to show how tolerant you are of bigots by gladly facilitating any kind of systematic discrimination you find. Perhaps they should reinstitute segregated schools, just to show the segregationists that they’re loved and understood.
First, tolerance “of other opinions” isn’t a major or minor plank in any kind of leftist platform if there is one. Racial and religious tolerance, yes. Moral ambivalence and relativism, no. That’s why I suggested it is a fallacy of the ambiguous middle. You take a word out of one context and try to cram it into another one.
The argument can probably fit into several different logical fallacies (I might have a go at that later). But I think it can be quite simply addressed by drawing a comparison such as:
“If liberals are so damn tolerant, they should tolerate having pins pushed into their eyes”
[QUOTE=elmwood]
I can’t fit my intended title into the space given, so I’ll rephrase it.
All too often, I hear conservatives make the argument that “If liberals were so tolerant, they should also tolerate and embrace the Republican Party, prayer in schools, groups that hate gays, the idea of nuking Iran …” You get the idea.
What kind of logical fallacy is this? (Posted in GD and not GQ, because it seems to have the potential to start some sort of GD-ish discussion.)
[/QUOTE]
I would say it is an example of the following:
***Inconsistency ** - When making any kind of argument, you simply must be consistent. Even one inconsistency in an argument will make it crumble and fall apart. An example, “Everything must have a cause. Therefore the Universe must of had a cause, and that cause is God.” This argument is inconsistent, because it says that everything requires a cause and then implies that God is uncaused. If everything needs a cause, God does too. And if you want to argue that everything but God needs a cause, you better be able to justify that premise. *
If Liberals are tolerant they must be tolerant of all ideas and beliefs. Since they don’t tolerate certain conservative positions, they are not tolerant.
False Dichotomy or Excluded Middle - This is very similar to the Either-Or fallacy. It involves considering only the two extremes of a continuum of intermediate possibilities. Example, “Everyone is either good or evil”.
Liberals must be tolerant of all things or they are not liberal.
The fallacy is ‘false framing’. The question is better framed, “if liberals are so tolerant, they should tolerate the expression of ideas that differ from theirs on topics that are important to them” instead of automatically characterizing it as “hatred”.
I realize that some liberals essentially have no other arguments, but the public discourse would be the better for it.
“Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people.” It’s an overstatement, but at any given time, there are a half-dozen threads on the SDMB showing that it contains an element of truth.
Regards,
Shodan
[QUOTE=Shodan]
“Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people.” It’s an overstatement, but at any given time, there are a half-dozen threads on the SDMB showing that it contains an element of truth.
[/QUOTE]
Now, now. Come on, the truth is that conservatives are bad people who also have bad ideas.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
It is a stupid argument. However, it must be noted that “tolerance” for the political left is generally just a pose that falls apart at the barest challenge.
[/QUOTE]
Shorter Mr. Moto:
It’s a stupid argument. I’ll go ahead and make it nevertheless.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
The fallacy is ‘false framing’. The question is better framed, “if liberals are so tolerant, they should tolerate the expression of ideas that differ from theirs on topics that are important to them” instead of automatically characterizing it as “hatred”.
I realize that some liberals essentially have no other arguments, but the public discourse would be the better for it.
“Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people.” It’s an overstatement, but at any given time, there are a half-dozen threads on the SDMB showing that it contains an element of truth.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
Conservatives love to tell liberals what (and how) liberals think, but I’ve never really met one who spends five minutes listening to a liberal to figure it out. They learn everything they “know” about liberals and liberalism from each other, taking the form of oversimplistic chunks of conventional wisdom like the one you spew here.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Shorter Mr. Moto:
It’s a stupid argument. I’ll go ahead and make it nevertheless.
[/QUOTE]
No.
The argument was that if liberals were tolerant, they ought to do this, this and this.
I’m just saying liberals simply aren’t that tolerant, and I’m not demanding that they do anything.
[QUOTE=cricetus]
Conservatives love to tell liberals what (and how) liberals think, but I’ve never really met one who spends five minutes listening to a liberal to figure it out. They learn everything they “know” about liberals and liberalism from each other, taking the form of oversimplistic chunks of conventional wisdom like the one you spew here.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I’m posting here. If I wasn’t interested in hearing from liberals, I’d head for another board.
So there - you’ve met one at least. 
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
No.
The argument was that if liberals were tolerant, they ought to do this, this and this.
I’m just saying liberals simply aren’t that tolerant, and I’m not demanding that they do anything.
[/QUOTE]
So the liberals don’t tolerate bigots, and the conservatives do. Glad to hear there’s room in the big tent for the bigots.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
No.
The argument was that if liberals were tolerant, they ought to do this, this and this.
I’m just saying liberals simply aren’t that tolerant, and I’m not demanding that they do anything.
[/QUOTE]
I’m progressive and I am not that tolerant. I don’t see why this is a problem. I am quite tolerant of the views and opinions of others, but I feel quite strongly that many of them should never be implemented on any planet that I call a home.
I am uncertain how “tolerance” became synonomous with garbage in, garbage out, but evidently it has.