Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why is there so much liberal hate?

Page 14 of 49 [ 776 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 ... 49  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

05 Jul 2012, 7:45 pm

Delphiki wrote:
Joker wrote:
Yes he is and I am sorry for my NT statement. Just thought since your profile said. Nerotypical I thouht you where not a Aspie. But it's good you are 8)
Why does it matter? People that are not autistic are just as welcome here as people that are autistic

Never said it did your attempts at drawing me into a arugement will not work sunshine :wink:



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

05 Jul 2012, 7:45 pm

Raptor wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
It's not that they don't care about personal attacks, but that personal attacks and inflammatory BS get overlooked since most of the focus is on bigotry. Anyways, I'm not talking about merely criticizing a belief. That's allowed under PPR's rules. But once it gets personal and inflammatory that's when it's against the rules. I know for a fact mods tend to respond to reports more so than surf through PPR themselves but I'm talking about the focus. Anyways I don't think reporting some of the blatant trolls here will do much since they've overstayed their welcome long long ago. I thought I'd leave the forum completely, but all I needed was a little break. I can live with the fact that people in general are arrogant s**theads, even though I didn't think I could stand it before. So I don't think I'm going to bother reporting people for the most part.


I was told by a mod that PPR is challenging to moderate.
Politics, philosophy, and religion, especially politics and religion, are subjects that are pretty much assured to get fights going.
It's not always cut and dry as to what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to attacking a belief.
Treat it like a food fight and just roll with it........ :D
Yep, that's why I'm back. I figured I might as well not bang my head against a brick wall all the time. I could understand that the line between attacking a belief or a person is blurry but it baffles me that the blatant trolls here lasted this long.



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 05 Jul 2012, 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

05 Jul 2012, 7:48 pm

Raptor wrote:
Vigilans wrote:

Quote:
I appreciate that you are willing to engage in an actual discussion


Given the alternative I bet you do. :P


I spoke too soon


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 182
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

05 Jul 2012, 7:49 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Raptor wrote:
Vigilans wrote:

Quote:
I appreciate that you are willing to engage in an actual discussion


Given the alternative I bet you do. :P


I spoke too soon
:lmao:


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

05 Jul 2012, 7:52 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
Raptor wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
It's not that they don't care about personal attacks, but that personal attacks and inflammatory BS get overlooked since most of the focus is on bigotry. Anyways, I'm not talking about merely criticizing a belief. That's allowed under PPR's rules. But once it gets personal and inflammatory that's when it's against the rules. I know for a fact mods tend to respond to reports more so than surf through PPR themselves but I'm talking about the focus. Anyways I don't think reporting some of the blatant trolls here will do much since they've overstayed their welcome long long ago. I thought I'd leave the forum completely, but all I needed was a little break. I can live with the fact that people in general are arrogant s**theads, even though I didn't think I could stand it before. So I don't think I'm going to bother reporting people for the most part.


I was told by a mod that PPR is challenging to moderate.
Politics, philosophy, and religion, especially politics and religion, are subjects that are pretty much assured to get fights going.
It's not always cut and dry as to what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to attacking a belief.
Treat it like a food fight and just roll with it........ :D
Yep, that's why I'm back. I figured I might as well not bang my head against a brick wall all the time. I could understand that the line between attacking a belief or a person is blurry but it baffles me that the blatant trolls here lasted this long.


PPR is a good containment area for them.
Ban them and all it takes for them to come back is another IP address which just about anyone has.



Last edited by Raptor on 05 Jul 2012, 8:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

05 Jul 2012, 7:56 pm

Raptor wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
Raptor wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
It's not that they don't care about personal attacks, but that personal attacks and inflammatory BS get overlooked since most of the focus is on bigotry. Anyways, I'm not talking about merely criticizing a belief. That's allowed under PPR's rules. But once it gets personal and inflammatory that's when it's against the rules. I know for a fact mods tend to respond to reports more so than surf through PPR themselves but I'm talking about the focus. Anyways I don't think reporting some of the blatant trolls here will do much since they've overstayed their welcome long long ago. I thought I'd leave the forum completely, but all I needed was a little break. I can live with the fact that people in general are arrogant s**theads, even though I didn't think I could stand it before. So I don't think I'm going to bother reporting people for the most part.


I was told by a mod that PPR is challenging to moderate.
Politics, philosophy, and religion, especially politics and religion, are subjects that are pretty much assured to get fights going.
It's not always cut and dry as to what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to attacking a belief.
Treat it like a food fight and just roll with it........ :D
Yep, that's why I'm back. I figured I might as well not bang my head against a brick wall all the time. I could understand that the line between attacking a belief or a person is blurry but it baffles me that the blatant trolls here lasted this long.


PPR is a good containment area for them.
Ban them and all it takes to for them to come back is another IP address which just about anyone has.


QFT.



bizboy1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA

05 Jul 2012, 7:57 pm

Lord_Gareth wrote:
noname_ever wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
Joker wrote:
marshall wrote:
Joker wrote:
Liberals tend to pass really stupid laws and. They want the governemant to take care of them. Instead of being self-relaint and take care of themnselfs.


Economic depressions are times when people are fearful. In times like this, preaching the "every man for himself" philosophy is like pouring salt on an open wound. It's like taking a knife to the very fabric of society. There is no such thing as being self-reliant unless you choose to go live in the wilderness and grow your own food. It's a myth.


Not so I am a very self-reliant independent person I take care of myself. It's called working having a job doing what it takes to provide for your family. With out having unlce sams help.


Hi again. Three job household. Without government assistance my wife and child would be dead in the streets, as would I.

Does it hurt, being so stupid all the time?


It was you and your wife's decision to have a child. Before calling someone stupid, look in the mirror.


A few points:

1. My son was conceived during a much better time in our life, financially.

2. He still defeated three forms of birth control to enter the world.

3. Even if we didn't have our son, our current options would still be homelessness or starvation.


You have given me the impression that you bear no responsibility for your actions. Having sex, protected or unprotected, carries the risk of getting the female partner pregnant. Maybe instead of having sex you could have done something more productive. You talk like you have no option: either homelessness or starvation. Yet, if you took responsibility, you would be able to function without living off the government.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

05 Jul 2012, 7:59 pm

Sex is incredibly productive, I recommend you try it before knocking it


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 182
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

05 Jul 2012, 8:02 pm

Vigilans wrote:
Sex is incredibly productive, I recommend you try it before knocking it
Want to top off your calorie-burning romp in the hay right? Reaching orgasm can burn an additional 60 to 100 calories, Lieberman says. So why stop after just one?
http://www.everydayhealth.com/sexual-he ... g-sex.aspx

That seems pretty productive if you want to burn calories.


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

05 Jul 2012, 8:09 pm

Sex is great having a kid too soon. Well that can still be a good thing. I would love nothing more then to me a father some day. Since my old man was never their for me.



thewhitrbbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,124

05 Jul 2012, 8:11 pm

I hate both. :)



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

05 Jul 2012, 8:12 pm

bizboy1 wrote:
Yet, if you took responsibility, you would be able to function without living off the government.


They have three jobs - and support dependants. As far as I can tell you have no dependants at all, and probably just one job. Perhaps your parents are even helping you out. Are you sure you understand what it is to be responsible?



thewhitrbbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,124

05 Jul 2012, 8:17 pm

A social safety net is acceptable. The economic and social cost of homeless people exceeds the cost of providing support services.

My complaint is things like that newspaper headline going out where the Govt says "We are proud to be offering the highest number of food stamps ever" and then on the same page a clip where the government says "please don't' feed wild life, they become dependent."

A safety net should be aimed at getting people off of it. In my experience, the liberals I know never seem to want to do that. Anytime I propose ideas, they come up with a reason why it won't work (usually based off of one or two special situations) or automatically accuse me of wanting to see starving children.



bizboy1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 945
Location: California, USA

05 Jul 2012, 8:18 pm

LKL wrote:
bizboy1 wrote:
Lord_Gareth wrote:
Joker wrote:
Liberals tend to pass really stupid laws and. They want the governemant to take care of them. Instead of being self-relaint and take care of themnselfs.


Hey, moron - liberal here. I work two jobs. My wife is also employed. We still don't make a living wage - we can't afford even cheap rent and utilities on top of groceries, maintenence, and Just Plain Living Life. Programs like food stamps and cash assistance help ensure that we don't have to choose between homelessness and starvation, which would be our choices if we were forced to be "self-reliant".

Why don't you do your research on what liberals actually want before you run off at the mouth like an idiot?


If you're working two jobs and your wife works and you can't afford rent and food you're doing it wrong.
Look at some of the numbers before you make statements like that. They're freely available; how about you mitigate your ignorance before jumping in again, eh?


Try to write something useful next time. Say he and his wife make $8.00 an hour. Then if they are working full-time, for simplicity we can say there is 16 hours a day worth of labor. That is $128 dollars a day. So take $128x 5 days a week = $640 a week. $640 times 4 weeks = $2560. Assuming $1000.00 rent, that's $1560 left over for food, clothing, entertainment, etc. $8.00 an hour is really low and you're not going to have a fun life living on it. Usually people who make minimum wage are low-skilled or young adults preparing to enter the work force. I think it's a fair assumption to assume full employment. If full employment is not the case, then there really isn't an argument here. You could leave your current job and work at a fast-food joint and be largely better off. See the things liberals tend to fail at is compromise. You're going to live frugally with this type of wage. You won't be able to eat out every day, shop at Urban Outfitters, drive a prius, etc. The goal would be to work hard and get a better job. Getting government benefits will make your standard of living even higher but as a result you'll likely be unmotivated to step up the ladder.



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

05 Jul 2012, 8:20 pm

thewhitrbbit wrote:
A social safety net is acceptable. The economic and social cost of homeless people exceeds the cost of providing support services.

My complaint is things like that newspaper headline going out where the Govt says "We are proud to be offering the highest number of food stamps ever" and then on the same page a clip where the government says "please don't' feed wild life, they become dependent."

A safety net should be aimed at getting people off of it. In my experience, the liberals I know never seem to want to do that. Anytime I propose ideas, they come up with a reason why it won't work (usually based off of one or two special situations) or automatically accuse me of wanting to see starving children.


It's less expensive (in the short term) to have a social safety net that just pays people off, but doesn't provide any signifigant employment resources, treatment services, and so on. Since politicians campaign on slashing costs ....



HisDivineMajesty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,364
Location: Planet Earth

05 Jul 2012, 8:24 pm

edgewaters wrote:
The rise of neo-Nazism in Europe is relevant to a discussion about immigrants, ethnic minorities, and figures like Anders Breivik - which were all topics that came up.


That you brought up, yes, when I was discussing actual problems. Neo-nazism isn't actually a problem here. Islamic fundamentalism (reported Al-Shabaab branch, recent threats from fundamentalists, murdered a film maker who insulted Muhammed), and gang culture (1165 different gangs, 65 of them actively involved in serious crime, counted just this year on a population of seventeen million) are both problems much worse than neo-nazism. In fact, I'll make this even more interesting. The main group causing trouble for jews? It's not neo-nazis, but muslims. They're continuously harrassing and threatening jews. A lot of European far-right parties, meanwhile, insist on protecting the jews. Geert Wilders is married to a Jewish Hungarian woman.

edgewaters wrote:
You only protested when the historical context and political reality was brought up, and now you're scrambling to get both of these issues off the table. I can understand why. They certainly are "inconvenient".


I don't get what you mean by that. You can discuss anything with me - I'll always win in the end. Your style of writing, meanwhile, is very liberal. Aggressive, lightweight in terms of argumentation, and full of rom-com moralism.