Now I have a great image of this! Thanks, Hentor.
Well, you clearly don’t get it, as you cop to. There’s a difference between, say, tolerance for people of color and tolerance for racism. If you can’t see it, then there’s really no helping you. An exaggerated version of this conversation would be this:
Conservative: All them Jews is evil. Gas 'em all!
Liberal: Fuck you! You’re a racist ass.
Conservative: Why are you so down on me? Hating Jews is my chosen lifestyle. I thought you liberals were supposed to be tolerant of all lifestyles.
Liberal tolerance is not about tolerance of stupidity. It’s not automatic knee-jerk tolerance. SA, please tell me you’re smart enough to see the difference.
Tolerance is also action, as well as attitude. For instance, come the Revolution, and we put Tom DeLay up against the wall, he might very well ask for a last cigarette. Normally, I don’t approve of smoking at public ceremonies.
But I expect I will be tolerant.
Sounds reasonable enough, but it seems that many liberals define “stupidity” as “any and all social and political views to the right of Ted Kennedy.” That’s when many (if not most) liberals are seen as intolerant–and not just by fanatical conservatives.
Got any examples?
Au contraire, mon LHoD. If only liberals were imaginary (with a few notable exceptions), I would be quite pleased.
The liberals you describe are imaginary. And you’ve got the cite you asked for. Be pleased.
Daniel
As much as I’m sure Cervaise appreciate your attempt to ride to his defense and provide a cite (which he has apparently been unable to do), I would contend this in not the cite requested. His accusation was:
“He regularly spews statements that can be grouped and paraphrased as, ‘I will imagine you engaging in some negative behavior, and then condemn you for it’.”
Note that your so-called cite demonstrates neither regularity nor condemnation. I will acknowledge imagining negative behavior.
It’s not difficult. 
- So is it your claim that you would see such behavior on the part of leftists as laudable, or at least morally neutral? If you do not claim that, do you even claim that your cited statement could be read as at least morally neutral toward leftists? Because I certainly read an implied condemnation of these imaginary leftists, inasmuch as you suggest they would be more willing to save the life of a person if the person were less worthy of being saved.
- You asked for “cite,” not “cites.” I gave you what you asked for. I’ll leave it to you to dredge through your posts further back to find further examples of you doing this; I’ve certainly seen you do it a lot in the past, and that’s part of why I’ve tended to write you off.
- Yes, I’m sure your mind has no trouble imagining negative behavior. While that is certainly an interesting comment on your mind, it says nothing about the people in whom you imagine this behavior.
Daniel
Fuck you, fuckhole. I have a fucking life and I don’t spend every fucking minute on these fucking boards waiting to fucking respond to your every fucking nugget of conservative whorebaggery.
Now, however, I am here. And indeed, the statement quoted by LHOD is precisely what I would have given as merely your latest example of this shitty tactic. It is exactly what I say it is: “I will imagine you engaging in some negative behavior, and then I will condemn you for this imaginary action.”
The fact that none of your tighty righties have seen fit to rise to your defense should be all the evidence you need of your obnoxious and intellectuallly bankrupt debating style.
Fuck off.
:: yawn ::
This is getting silly, but I’ll soldier on and slog though yet another of your erroneous posts.
You can read what you like. Some will read humor, some will read accuracy, some will read deliberate obtuseness, some will read insult. I can’t help what you read into my posts.
In the first place, Cervaise’s accusation was plural; clearly this calls for plural cites. I’m not much inclined to go searching for my own, thank you very much.
Not only imagining it but recognizing it as well. There’s plenty to go around.
Relating back to the comment in the earlier thread: I must confess that I have searched high and low and can not seem to find an example of a convicted murderer on death row that happens to be in a persistent vegetative state that Liberals have been fighting to keep alive. Anyway, let me know if you find anything.
Fuck, fuck, fuckety, fuck, fuck. What a brain you are!
“Tighty righties?” How dare you, sir? Why, you bigoted piece of shit! You libs – always accusing those on the right of being tight. Do you not recognize that we are all our own individual selves and don’t march in lockstep like you loony lefties? Boy, talk about prejudicial stereotyping and downright falsehood. I demand you retract your unsubstantiated accusation of tightness, not only on my behalf but on the part of all righties everywhere.
I would further point out that we tightie righties rarely come riding to each others’ defense. For one thing, it isn’t usually necessary as we are usually more than capable of holding our own in these types of threads. For another, we are very much in the minority around here and the odds of one rightie happening on the thread of another is small, and even if he did, he is likely involved in fighting ignorance himself in other threads and doesn’t have the time to get involved in mine. And for another, it would only result in their being subjected to the same pile-on and who has the time.
Cheers. 
Little late in the game here, but I’m just posting to say I like the OP. I can never quite manage to articulate my liberalism, but the OP did a good job.
SA, I’d have to say you might be met with less vitriol if you just left the smilies out of your post. You come across as extremely pedantic and childish when you use them.
Thank you for your solicitude, Munch. I’m just trying still to interject a little humor and light-heartedness into the thread.
Well, that and letting Cervaise know his little rant fell on amused ears.
Sure, but you can clarify.
Is it your claim that you would see such behavior on the part of leftists as laudable, or at least morally neutral?
If you do not claim that, do you even claim that your cited statement could be reasonably read as at least morally neutral toward leftists?
That’s two simple questions. Instead of turning this into a pissing match, how about you answer these questions honestly and with some introspection? If you answer “yes” to either of these questions, I’ll withdraw the accusation and admit that my post was erroneous; but I ask you to answer the questions honestly.
Okay, so now we’re talking about “recognizing” negative behavior. Does this mean that in the example given, you’re not just imagining thing?
Daniel
Yeah, Starving Artist, what of it?
Why are we all held responsible whenever any liberal anywhere does or says something wrong or stupid? Is the reverse true? Do we get to hold you personally responsible for every moronic thing that Ann Coulter or Bill O’Reilly spews? Do we get to hold you responsible for Terry Schiavo being used as a political football when there’s genocide going on in the Sudan and Ethiopia? After all, aren’t those lives as well?
Besides, half the things you throw fits about consist of liberals refusing to “tolerate” something immoral. Clue-in: none of us ever swore to be morally ambivalent. The left does not believe that people have some inherent right to act immorally without facing judgment for it. It’s not our fault if your feelings get hurt because sometimes our moral judgment gets used on conservatives.
That’s not to even touch on something you do - along with many other conservatives here, but it really does seem to mostly be you. “Yeah, but if [ridiculous hypothetical situation], you just know that the liberals would be [absurd hypothetical course of action].” You did it in one of the recent Terry Schiavo threads - apparently, if she were a murderer (?!) the Democrats would be clamoring for life support to continue. Is making up hypotheticals and then blaming us for them really a valid style of argument?
I’m willing to dig through your posts and put together a full-scale pitting if you like. I don’t usually do that, because firstly I’m nice, even if I don’t always seem like it, and also it seems like a lot of work that wouldn’t accomplish much. I just hope you realize that not everyone who disagrees with you - heck, not everyone who dislikes you even - is motivated by the politics you seem to see behind everything. I’d be happy to have you around if you didn’t engage in these styles of nonargument, because the political-types (of any flavor) who put forth cogent, worthwhile arguments are few and far between. (And if you doubt my sincerity, you’ll see that I’ve spent more time condemning the jackasses on my side than the ones on yours.)
But so far, in this thread, you’ve been making excuses rather than recognizing the fact that you sometimes engage in partisanship rather than debate. I hope you are willing to, at some point, more carefully examine your own actions and honestly decide if they were positive or not, rather than simply make excuses or shout tu quoque; it’s hard to live an examined life, but it’s worth it.
Fair enough. Unfortunately, too many liberals label any belief or approach that doesn’t match their progressive orthodoxy as ‘stupid’. If more liberals were able to shed their condescending attitudes and air of superiority, perhaps more non-liberals would be more willing to listen.