You aer correct - I often find it difficult to read some of the whoppers you people come up with and keep from giggling.
Then I am sure you can cite all the times I said that I hoped some prominent liberal public figure died a painful death, just like liberals have done about Tony Snow and Ronald Reagan and Dick Cheney and George Bush.
If you can’t, then you would be a liar. Whether that makes you a bad person I leave up to the reader. It certainly makes you a figure of fum to those with some kind of perspective.
Every time I think “Well, that’s the most retarded thing I’ve ever seen here…” someone comes along to top it.
Not everyone is entitled to respect. What they are entitled to are their rights. No one is infringing on your rights by pointing out that your argument is retarded, both because you’re still being allowed to voice it, and because you have the option of changing it should you happen to notice that it’s retarded.
As much as it pains me to say it, I’m with Shodan on this one.
Wishing death on people is morally wrong. Celebrating people’s death* is morally wrong, as is celebrating their permanent crippling. It’s just another application of the golden rule, really. Would I like it if conservatives joked when famous liberals died? No? Then I shouldn’t make fun of conservatives when they die. Let’s not be dicks together!.
*With the obvious invocation of the Hitler exception.
In this thread about a funny sign on a gas pump one of our resident liberals has to chime in with:
Because we all know how badly liberals are persecuted around here, even in threads where politics aren’t mentioned. Keep on fucking that chicken, Boyo Jim.
And then there’s the following in a thread about bullshit news media coverage of Brad Pitt’s daughter
Now where the fuck did that come from?! Don’t these idiots have a summit to protest or something?
I have no idea who Glenn Beck is… I get the feeling I may be the only one on this board who has no clue who he is…and probably the only one who doesn’t care, either.
ETA: Was he an astronaut?
No…no…nevermind…I don’t care.
Yes, count me among those that are quite surprised to find that “respect” is one of the inalienable rights that we all have as citizens. I blame my high-school civics teacher for this glaring omission in my education.
Right - only those that agree with you - I think we have already established that as the liberal definition of what they mean by tolerance and valuing diversity and so forth.
Which is fine - we have established that you don’t really mean anything in particular when you make claims about how you respect others and value diversity and all that. It’s just political cant.
Hypocrisy, in other words - like Clinton promising an ethical administration or John Edwards spouting off about how commited he is to his Christian faith while fucking women other than his dying wife (cite).
No, it just means that I tolerate some viewpoints and not others. This is self-evidently true. But my lack of tolerance for some beliefs means exactly bupkis except in my own life.
Really? Tell me another one. I don’t have to tolerate what I believe are affronts to my values any more than you do. But what I do have to tolerate are innate human characteristics about which we have no control. This is the substance of liberal claims for tolerance. I don’t tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, etc despite the fact that no doubt, legions of nonwhites, females, and homosexuals don’t agree with me on anything and everything.
I’m certainly not going to let some reactionary tell me that liberalism perforce implies total suspension of values and judgment in the name of some bullshit abstraction like “tolerance.” Who the hell are you to tell me what my liberal values must be? I’d tolerate you for being an half-Eskimo transsexual but not for holding toxic beliefs by choice.
As a conservative, I agree*. But then I’m a Canadian and it might not count.
*Except for #5. Don’t really know who Glenn Beck is, but there are some ‘human’ beings who I’d be quite glad to see bricked up in their tomb long before they actually officially qualify for it.
I’m aware of those threads and I whole-heartedly disagree with you. I’m sure Tony Snow was a decent family man and I support his right to speak openly in public and I certainly strongly disagreed with his politics but… the reason I didn’t give a fuck about his getting cancer was his lying with every breath to the American public about the horse shit and damage his administration was doing. I think what he did was morally wrong and I disliked him for that and not that he was a Republican. Same for Glenn Beck - spout off all you want but god damn it stop fucking lying while you do it!
Your tortured version tolerance is a curious thing indeed.
No it isn’t. It’s dickish sure but not morally wrong. Plus I could care less about republicans wishing death on me if all they are doing is saying it. Anyway, this issue is about liberals tolerance/no tolerance. I don’t think the golden rule really fits in.
Wait, we’re talking about tolerance and respect now? When did that happen? When I joined in the conversation, we were only talking about tolerance. When did respect show up to the party? And who invited it? I know I didn’t - I’m a liberal, and I’ve never claimed to respect all other opinions. My friends and family are all mostly liberals too, and I’ve never heard that from any of them, either. Where did you get the idea that liberals think everyone should respect everyone else’s opinions? I find it difficult to believe you got it from a liberal, bceeause in my experience, that’s not a position that any liberal holds. In particular, I find it very difficult to believe you’ve ever heard a liberal demand that others respect and tolerate differing opinions. Because that seems kind of contradictory to me. If I respect something, I don’t have to tolerate it, do I? Tolerating suggests disliking something, but allowing it to continue. For example, I don’t respect Glen Beck. He’s a congenitally dishonest half-wit. However, I tolerate his having a TV show, because my liberal principles include a strong support of free speech.
No, you’re still wrong. Tolerance, as I’ve explained above, means allowing someone to do something you dislike, because you don’t have the right to stop them. As a liberal, I don’t tolerate gay rights, I support gay rights. Indeed, I occasionally exercise gay rights. When I’m talking to a homophobe, I’ll argue that he should tolerate gay rights, because even though he doesn’t like gay people, the application of the principles underlying a modern liberal democracy should require one to allow gays to live their lives unemcumbered by prejudice.
That’s what tolerance means: “I don’t like what you do, but I’ll defend your right to do it.” Naturally, this cannot be universal. I can argue that someone should tolerate homosexuals, and that one should not tolerate axe murderers, because there’s a good argument to be made that homosexuals do not harm other people, and should therefore be left to live their lives as they see fit, which does does not apply to axe murderers.
Yes, but as I’ve demonstrated, the qualification here does not alter the meaning of the word. You’ve been confused by this, because you don’t understand what the word “tolerance” means. That’s alright, though. We’re here to fight ignorance, after all.
Not everyone is entitled to respect. Again: Liberals do no believe that everyone is entitled to respect. Liberals do believe that there are certain beliefs and actions that should be tolerated, regardless of how one feels personally about those beliefs or actions. Tolerance, incidentally, does not mean, “Not saying bad things about it.” Again: I can tolerate Glen Beck being a moron on television. That tolerance does not preclude me from calling Beck a moron. Nor does it obviate me from saying mean things about him when he suffers a personal misfortune. If I respected him, then it would be a different story. But being a liberal does not require me to respect everyone.
No, that wouldn’t make him a liar, because he did not accuse you of gloating over the deaths of liberals, he accused you of thinking that liberals are bad people. Those are two different claims. One can certainly think that someone is bad, but still feel empathy for them when they suffer a misfortune. This is a non-political position. One does not have to be liberal or conservative to feel this way, and feeling that way does not correlate with liberalism or conservatism. Some liberals gloat when bad things happen to conservatives. Some conservatives do the same when a liberal is hurt. And some conservatives and liberals think that doing this is wildly inappropriate, no matter how much you disagred with the person being harmed.
