Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

True but most Liberals tend to just Stereoptype Christians in America because their the mayjority. But then again Christians tend to make them self look like a total arse most of the time to.

My parents are Christians who are liberal, impossible!

fixed the major error in my statement

Last edited by Delphiki on 07 Jul 2012, 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

My mother like me is a political independent' Don't know my father so I have no clue what his political views are.

More like liberals screech and point fingers at the Christians over comparatively insignificant flaws in an effort to draw unfavorable attention to the Christians and put them on the defensive while Islam continues to infect the western world. Call it a diversionary tactic of potentially (to put it mildly) catastrophic proportions.
And again:
It wasn't Presbyterians that brought the WTC down.
It wasn't Catholics that bombed the USS Cole.
It wasn't Baptists that bombed the American and French barracks in Beirut.
It wasn't Methodists that were responsible for the Madrid train bombings.


Islamic Terrorist Attacks - Wikipedia

But hey, those are insignificant little things when compared to the butthurt those horrible Christians have done with a little gay bashing here and abortion protesting there, right?

How are my arguments fallacious? What I'm saying is that there is no universal, absolute morality. Killing children isn't wrong. It's perceived to be wrong by large parts of the world, but then again, not by other parts of the world. In some cultures, children can be legitimate targets for torture and murder during blood feuds. Current ones are often islamic, but some parts of Africa are known for having tribal warfare in which children are legitimate targets. In North Korea, meanwhile, children can be imprisoned, sentenced and executed in some rather disturbing ways depending on their family ties.

Saying this is just one madman, and that this doesn't happen on a large scale elsewhere, and that his actions are therefore inherently immoral according to almost everyone in the world is ridiculous.



Get your eyes checked. I'm not moving the goalposts - I'm just discussing along as the discussion goes along. My first post was about liberals, and now we're discussing the American Civil War while I'm being accused of supporting Breivik's actions after I was compared to Hitler. Goes to show what legitimate discussions can become if you give people time and internet. What I have noticed, though, is that my posts have been structurally misinterpreted by liberals. Don't infer anything. Respond to the exact thing I'm saying. If you need to wonder about what I meant, don't respond to it, because you will be wrong. What I say is what I think, and you should not look for explanations beyond that.



And blood feuds, and islamic terror, and tribal warfare in Africa at this very moment. It's even rather hard to imagine Breivik's was the worst massacre that week. I remember reading about it from Germany, where I was on a holiday, and thinking "would that have been news at all if it had been yet another sectarian conflict in Nigeria or Sudan killing a hundred and thirty people instead of just over seventy in Norway?"

Thing is, morality isn't universal. If you live in the west, chances are you'll consider your own society one of the most enlightened in the world. However, if you go to an islamic country, they'll tell you what you're after isn't better, and they'll probably add that their way is better. Truth is, there is no universal set of morals that applies, or should apply. Thinking there should, or even that there is, is a conservative point of view in itself.



If a source is wrong, point out why it's wrong instead of saying you disagree and it could be wrong.



Look at my statement about you guys reading things into things I say. The second half is pure speculation, and didn't have to be included. It cost me ten seconds of my life to read, and another twenty to respond to.



Which is completely irrelevant to what I claimed and what's backed by actual sources. My claim was, literally, that it was just a minority of the inhabitants of the colonies actively supporting the rebels, and therefore it wasn't the type of popular uprising it's often claimed to be.



I'm not at all sure why this is relevant. What Breivik did - killing dozens of young politically-active people - is unique for the western world, but would go largely unnoticed in Africa. What he did is not a metric for determining anything, and I don't remember saying that. However, what he did is not unique, even in today's world. It is, though, unique for western standards, because for the past decades, western nations managed to get past the point of murdering and looting each other every other decade.



That's not at all what Breivik's explanation was. It is, though, part of the explanation for islamic terrorism. Some say people will be less inclined to insult the prophet Muhammad if a film maker in the Netherlands was murdered for insulting the prophet Muhammad. And indeed, I've seen very few drawings of Muhammad in my life, "out of respect for islamic faith" while a clearly-christian Jesus is shown being raped by a catholic priest on public media, so it's probably working. Ironically, the last time I saw a drawing of Muhammad, it was a muslim-drawn one, which pretty much undermines the way fundamentalists are seriously threatening the rest of the world until they murder each other on a larger scale than they are doing now.

Last edited by HisDivineMajesty on 07 Jul 2012, 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Indeed. I'm so sick of these religious wars and I refuse to take sides in the christian-muslim clash. These 2 are rival religions are expansionist and that is the fact of the matter. I really wish that Russia's next leader will be a hard-line soviet style communist(Putin is NOT a communist FYI) who restart the cold war abroad and drive the orthodox church back underground at home(along with stamping out chechen terrorism and separatist ambitions).

So you want another Christian holocaust happening in Russia Stalin had Chritians killed off for his political motives along with many many Jews ect. Wanting Russia to be Communist again is insane.

History will show you Communism is a epic fail.

[quote="HisDivineMajesty"][/quote]

wow

let me ask you this, do you think all muslims fit the stereotype you have put forth?

or all african nations?

Muslims in African nations are not like the ones in Arab nations. So the stereotype he thought up doens't stand.

I must ask the same question.
Remember that Hitler and the Nazis were not Muslims, that the Romans were not Muslims, that a vast numer of the Chinese that committed genocides were not Muslims. And I can keep going. Evil exists in all pockets of humanity, and people of every religion or lack of can descend into madness.

QFT.

Yes but in the past few decades the Chinese, Nazis, and Romans haven't done much in the form of genocide.
With that said I'm more concerned with a dirty bomb in the hands of an Islamic terrorists than the Luftwaffe strafing my neighborhood with an Me-109.

Their are Christian Terrorists in American Kights of The Ku Klux Klan and the new KKK. No terrorist is good their all equally evil.

I worry about nuclear weaponry in the hands of ANY fanatic, religious or otherwise.
You only seem worried about certain fanatics. I'll leave it at that.

Let me start by questioning your reading comprehension skills. No, I don't. I know one muslim who's broken all stereotypes. What you shouldn't forget, though, is that his type is rare - he's well-educated and from a wealthy Moroccan city, while most Moroccans who come here are from the religiously-conservative countryside, and are often ethnic Berbers - a problematic group even in Morocco. Most muslims we receive are not that well-adapted, don't speak two European languages adequately before ever having visited Europe, and aren't inclined to adapt all that quickly. In fact, the second and third generation are usually worse rather than better.

As for African nations, I didn't claim them to be the same. Some are relatively succesful, like Namibia (it's like a European city, only warmer!) and most of North Africa before the 'Arab Spring'. However, in some parts of Africa, there is a pattern of ethnic, tribal or sectarian warfare. Examples include Nigeria, Sudan, the area between Mali and Libya, large parts of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, parts of Uganda, and the political part of Zimbabwe.

Yes but they are a far lesser threat than the people I'm talking about.
By comparison I'd rather have a cold than lung cancer.
I don't know how many different ways I need to explain that or if I should even bother.