25 Oct 2019, 2:50 am
25 Oct 2019, 5:08 am
cyberdad wrote:
Persephone29 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Could of fooled me.
I agree. Whatever Ezra is, he is a pretty clear Trump supporter. That means he's going to share a lot in common with, and share common cause with, other Trump supporters. We can still note tendencies in Trump supporters that we see in Ezra.
I think this is very common for young white men, to see themselves as completely independent and as someone who must be considered completely independently of any social or cultural factors.
His stubbornness in this regard can make conversation with him frustrating.
Boom!
Your second sentence captures the self-centredness of the average Trump voter very articulately
Racist stereotypes...
Actually defines implicit bias beautifully
How is it self centered to have a belief or system of beliefs that seem to be helping half the US population? That's what the Liberal belief system is based on. The Liberal belief system doesn't help everyone, it helps nothing but the lower-socioeconomic. And in truth, it will only help the lower socioeconomic until they run out of everyone else's money. So, in the end, it will help some for a while and none in the long haul. Just like in Venezuela... Just like in the UK. The only reason Canada and Australia haven't been effected yet is because it's impossible to overload their country's land masses, not because the land is uninhabitable, but because migrants have standards and want to kick back and be taken care of, instead of fighting the cold, the heat, or struggling.
Cram enough people into a small or large space and you will watch socialism fail again and again.
How did you like it when quite a few of the members of the GOP stormed the stacked Liberal impeachment hearing? I liked it. At least someone was representing 1/2 of the other...
25 Oct 2019, 5:12 am
25 Oct 2019, 5:47 am
25 Oct 2019, 6:34 am
25 Oct 2019, 6:41 am
EzraS wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Being conservative and against liberalism doesn’t always equate to liking Trump.
I sometimes see conservatism and Trump as being mutually exclusive concepts.
I sometimes see conservatism and Trump as being mutually exclusive concepts.
Let's say that there were some anti-Catholics in a sub-forum saying a bunch of anti-catholic stuff. It's likely that I would argue against them if I did not agree with what they are saying. But I am definitely not a Catholic. Nor am I even pro-Catholic or an apologist for the Catholic church. But I would argue with anti-Catholics if I disagreed with what they were saying.
Catholicism would just be subject matter to me, rather than something I am devoted to or aligned with. Some anti-catholics would probably say, "well if you're not pro-catholic, why are you defining them?" And the answer is that I'm not, I just disagree with what you have to say about them. And also "how come we never hear you say anything negative about the Catholics? Well than would likely weaken or even defeat the stance I have taken.
I can understand that. I myself am obviously not religious, but I fully support a person's religous rights and it really irks me whenever I hear people talking s**t about Catholics (as if Protestants are really any better in terms if the bad things they do
).I would defend any religion, even a religion I disagreed with. Because I firmly believe in religous freedom.
25 Oct 2019, 7:36 am
TW1ZTY wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Being conservative and against liberalism doesn’t always equate to liking Trump.
I sometimes see conservatism and Trump as being mutually exclusive concepts.
I sometimes see conservatism and Trump as being mutually exclusive concepts.
Let's say that there were some anti-Catholics in a sub-forum saying a bunch of anti-catholic stuff. It's likely that I would argue against them if I did not agree with what they are saying. But I am definitely not a Catholic. Nor am I even pro-Catholic or an apologist for the Catholic church. But I would argue with anti-Catholics if I disagreed with what they were saying.
Catholicism would just be subject matter to me, rather than something I am devoted to or aligned with. Some anti-catholics would probably say, "well if you're not pro-catholic, why are you defining them?" And the answer is that I'm not, I just disagree with what you have to say about them. And also "how come we never hear you say anything negative about the Catholics? Well than would likely weaken or even defeat the stance I have taken.
I can understand that. I myself am obviously not religious, but I fully support a person's religous rights and it really irks me whenever I hear people talking s**t about Catholics (as if Protestants are really any better in terms if the bad things they do
).I would defend any religion, even a religion I disagreed with. Because I firmly believe in religous freedom.
Right. I just picked anti-catholic because it came to mind. Could be anti-anything.
Lets say someone was saying Hitler was really Irish, I would argue against that. Or that his generals stabbed him to death, I would argue against that. Or that he could transform himself into a vampire bat, I would argue against that. I would not be arguing in favor of Hitler, but rather arguing against what they were saying.
Last edited by EzraS on 25 Oct 2019, 7:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
25 Oct 2019, 7:39 am
EzraS wrote:
TW1ZTY wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Being conservative and against liberalism doesn’t always equate to liking Trump.
I sometimes see conservatism and Trump as being mutually exclusive concepts.
I sometimes see conservatism and Trump as being mutually exclusive concepts.
Let's say that there were some anti-Catholics in a sub-forum saying a bunch of anti-catholic stuff. It's likely that I would argue against them if I did not agree with what they are saying. But I am definitely not a Catholic. Nor am I even pro-Catholic or an apologist for the Catholic church. But I would argue with anti-Catholics if I disagreed with what they were saying.
Catholicism would just be subject matter to me, rather than something I am devoted to or aligned with. Some anti-catholics would probably say, "well if you're not pro-catholic, why are you defining them?" And the answer is that I'm not, I just disagree with what you have to say about them. And also "how come we never hear you say anything negative about the Catholics? Well than would likely weaken or even defeat the stance I have taken.
I can understand that. I myself am obviously not religious, but I fully support a person's religous rights and it really irks me whenever I hear people talking s**t about Catholics (as if Protestants are really any better in terms if the bad things they do
).I would defend any religion, even a religion I disagreed with. Because I firmly believe in religous freedom.
Right. I just picked anti-catholic because it came to mind. Could be anti-anything.
Lets say someone was saying Hitler was really Irish, I would argue against that. Or that his generals stabbed him to death ala Ides of March, I would argue against that. Or that he could transform himself into a vampire bat, I would argue against that. I would not be arguing in favor of Hitler, but rather arguing against what they were saying.
So you play Devil's Advocate?
25 Oct 2019, 7:45 am
TW1ZTY wrote:
EzraS wrote:
TW1ZTY wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Being conservative and against liberalism doesn’t always equate to liking Trump.
I sometimes see conservatism and Trump as being mutually exclusive concepts.
I sometimes see conservatism and Trump as being mutually exclusive concepts.
Let's say that there were some anti-Catholics in a sub-forum saying a bunch of anti-catholic stuff. It's likely that I would argue against them if I did not agree with what they are saying. But I am definitely not a Catholic. Nor am I even pro-Catholic or an apologist for the Catholic church. But I would argue with anti-Catholics if I disagreed with what they were saying.
Catholicism would just be subject matter to me, rather than something I am devoted to or aligned with. Some anti-catholics would probably say, "well if you're not pro-catholic, why are you defining them?" And the answer is that I'm not, I just disagree with what you have to say about them. And also "how come we never hear you say anything negative about the Catholics? Well than would likely weaken or even defeat the stance I have taken.
I can understand that. I myself am obviously not religious, but I fully support a person's religous rights and it really irks me whenever I hear people talking s**t about Catholics (as if Protestants are really any better in terms if the bad things they do
).I would defend any religion, even a religion I disagreed with. Because I firmly believe in religous freedom.
Right. I just picked anti-catholic because it came to mind. Could be anti-anything.
Lets say someone was saying Hitler was really Irish, I would argue against that. Or that his generals stabbed him to death ala Ides of March, I would argue against that. Or that he could transform himself into a vampire bat, I would argue against that. I would not be arguing in favor of Hitler, but rather arguing against what they were saying.
So you play Devil's Advocate?
I'm not sure if it would be devil's advocate because I would not be taking Hitler's side. I would just be disagreeing with what they were saying about Hitler because I considered it untrue, or inaccurate, or unproven etc.
As a matter of fact being a Lord of the Rings geek I recently argued with someone about Sauron .
25 Oct 2019, 7:50 am
EzraS wrote:
TW1ZTY wrote:
EzraS wrote:
TW1ZTY wrote:
EzraS wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Being conservative and against liberalism doesn’t always equate to liking Trump.
I sometimes see conservatism and Trump as being mutually exclusive concepts.
I sometimes see conservatism and Trump as being mutually exclusive concepts.
Let's say that there were some anti-Catholics in a sub-forum saying a bunch of anti-catholic stuff. It's likely that I would argue against them if I did not agree with what they are saying. But I am definitely not a Catholic. Nor am I even pro-Catholic or an apologist for the Catholic church. But I would argue with anti-Catholics if I disagreed with what they were saying.
Catholicism would just be subject matter to me, rather than something I am devoted to or aligned with. Some anti-catholics would probably say, "well if you're not pro-catholic, why are you defining them?" And the answer is that I'm not, I just disagree with what you have to say about them. And also "how come we never hear you say anything negative about the Catholics? Well than would likely weaken or even defeat the stance I have taken.
I can understand that. I myself am obviously not religious, but I fully support a person's religous rights and it really irks me whenever I hear people talking s**t about Catholics (as if Protestants are really any better in terms if the bad things they do
).I would defend any religion, even a religion I disagreed with. Because I firmly believe in religous freedom.
Right. I just picked anti-catholic because it came to mind. Could be anti-anything.
Lets say someone was saying Hitler was really Irish, I would argue against that. Or that his generals stabbed him to death ala Ides of March, I would argue against that. Or that he could transform himself into a vampire bat, I would argue against that. I would not be arguing in favor of Hitler, but rather arguing against what they were saying.
So you play Devil's Advocate?
I'm not sure if it would be devil's advocate because I would not be taking Hitler's side. I would just be disagreeing with what they were saying about Hitler because I considered it untrue, or inaccurate, or unproven etc.
As a matter of fact being a Lord of the Rings geek I recently argued with someone about Sauron .
I think that's what makes it being a Devil's Advocate. You argue against an opinion not because you side with the opposition, but because you want a thorough anaylsis of the whole situation.
25 Oct 2019, 7:56 am
25 Oct 2019, 8:01 am
kraftiekortie wrote:
I’m a staunch individualist.
I see Political Correctness as a lobotomy-type device meant to quash individualism.
There are liberals who aren’t stupid enough to ride the PC gravy train.
I see Political Correctness as a lobotomy-type device meant to quash individualism.
There are liberals who aren’t stupid enough to ride the PC gravy train.
I'm learning not to be that way myself.
25 Oct 2019, 8:44 am
25 Oct 2019, 8:47 am
25 Oct 2019, 8:53 am
25 Oct 2019, 8:56 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Vance tells German leaders to let populist opinions in |
15 Feb 2025, 3:39 pm |
| Trump’s Department of Justice |
10 Dec 2024, 2:49 pm |
| What was that reason for voting for Trump, again? |
16 Feb 2025, 8:34 pm |
| Trump says he is the retribution against women. |
09 Dec 2024, 11:25 pm |
