Total posts: 2,613
-->
@FLRW
Making history. I'll credit you as a contribution to it.
Created:
Posted in:
If vampires are evil, so are sharks, lions and bears.
They're no more evil than natural pedophiles and child lovers.
But understand you cage pedophiles like those creatures you have in your zoos.
You even visit the pedophiles.
How many agree?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
I believe you never know. Many politicians don't know and will try the possibility of liberal or democratic votes anyhow in a campaign.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
Of course not, they're liberal.
Created:
-->
@RemyBrown
Jokes on the person that told me he was losing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
It's a sharp way to not lose pro choice voters. It's about the votes. He's thinking as a politician.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
To take anybody words seriously is going by followed actions to those words .
Created:
Posted in:
Is the sexual intercourse between man and woman the standard and foundation of all of sexuality?
You either conserve this or liberate to fun less boring new and improved sexualities. Give no thoughts to agendas, propagandas or brainwashing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Hey just play into the word play. Jesus did liberate. Just not the way these reprobates are doing today as the scripture say, calling good evil and evil good .
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
He was the way the truth and the life. So you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free(liberated). He whom(liberal )the son shall set free(liberated) shall be free(liberated) indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
They prove their atheism so I have no onus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Why would I prove something you already say you are?
Created:
Posted in:
Atheists would be best served being liberal.
Undeniably so.
Voting liberal, liberals are without God, right.
Notwithstanding a god that agrees with liberal thinking.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"You then said that liberals support a couple of those things. I agreed that many liberals support a couple of those things. You then say "well why don't you believe I heard people say this much longer list of stuff". How am I supposed to take you seriously?"
Makes no difference whether you do or not. You believe what you believe.
"I don't know how this keeps going over your head. It is not even debatable that it is your interpretation. That is an objective fact. You are repeating back to me what you think they said in your own words. That is, by definition, your interpretation. What are you even arguing about?"
I'm telling you. I don't have to argue. I'm telling you it is not my interpretation. You're arguing with me that it is when you have no proof of what I heard. You're seriously going to presume what somebody heard wasn't what was heard without you even hearing it for yourself. You can't dictate somebody else's experience.
It's like saying somebody told me what that person saw and I say "no you didn't see that". "You didn't see it that way". "Let me tell you what your perception was of what you saw." "This is how you perceived it......".
How am I going to be able to declare that and I'm not even a witness myself there to see it?
Your arrogance is blinding you to the point of unbeknownst foolishness . Don't ever dictate somebody else's experience. Making a fool out yourself. Your experience and what you agree with or accept or align with does not supercede or dictate the experiences of others to make it align with yours.
"we agree on something. You have provided 0 evidence. I therefore have very good reason to question you about your lack of supporting evidence. "
You go passed questioning. You reject without evidence.
"because Im not the one making claims. You say X,Y, and Z are true. I say "prove it". It's your job to prove that what you are asserting is true. It's not my job to try to find evidence for you."
You are to be neutral like I said. You neither accept nor reject. You say "I don't believe or disbelieve, it could be or may not be your interpretation ". It's not THAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION. See, because I'll make you prove it. You haven't proved one iota. You can want it to be all you want. Wanting and wishing is not proving. Wishful thinking.
"All I've seen you do is say "liberals said this". And when I ask what liberals? What exactly did they say? You can't or wont answer."
I've heard liberals say they support same sex marriage and transgender rights. I heard what I heard. Trying to impose on what I heard like you know all things is foolish.
"You want to paint all liberals with one brush based solely on people you won't name and quotes you won't provide."
You don't know me. You don't know what I want.
I'll suggest you look up Jesse Lee Peterson liberal interviews on the fallen state . Start there if you're really that interested.
"What If i started saying "conservatives are evil because they said gay people should be killed. I won't tell you which ones said it. But all conservatives must be like that though".
I'm not assuming all. You didn't say it. You're projecting on me what you think I'm doing with liberals. You go by implications with me so you assume I go by implications with liberals shaping my own interpretation.
I can't dictate what liberals mean by the words they use. So you don't dictate what my own words mean.
"is that a real question? Do you really not understand what being open to something, but not for it is? If my wife said "we should but another car" and I'm like "I don't know if we need another car". I'm not for it. I'm willing to hear her out to see why would we need one. Once she makes her case I might agree, I might not."
Ok I don't know about your example. Sounds like you're just undecided, don't know what stance to take with all the consulting, whatever. First it's " I don't know" then " not for it", then " I hear you out", then "I might agree, I might not ". You made shipwreck of an example. Just wishy washy .
Just because you don't need something, it doesn't mean you're not for it necessarily.
A clearcut example. I don't need any more food in my refrigerator. But I'm for eating. I got to eat to live. I'm not for animal cruelty, I'm not open to being a carnivore.
There is no basis to be open to something I'm not for or never be for. Maybe you can understand in that frame of reference. I'll never be for it. Why would I be open to it?
Liberals open to and for change. Whatever way you want to flip it.
"because this is what intellectually dishonest people do. You have no idea how many people believe what you think "liberals" believe. It could be 100 million, it could be 0. You have no clue. But you want to argue like it's a sizeable group even though you have nothing to support it. Crap like that is how people fall down the conspiracy theory hole. "
Don't worry about the numbers or size. Make it light on yourself.
"of course you can. But what you "have" is nothing. It is your own personal opinion backed up by nothing at all. Oh i'm sorry, there's all those "liberals" you heard, but don't know who they are and can't quote. "
Whatever you say, chief.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"many do. some don't. saying all liberals believe any specific thing would be a lie. "
So you do believe liberals believe this so it shouldn't even be hard to accept that I heard them, THE ONES THAT I'VE HEARD, THE ONES THAT I'VE HEARD, so we got that clear, say that which you believe they support.
"I already have. Unless you are quoting someone's words verbatim, then you are giving your interpretation of them. You heard their words. You decided what their words meant. Then you repeated back your interpretation of what their words meant. You could be right. You could be wrong. But I can't know for sure. "
You're double talking here. You ought to be in line with just being neutral instead of saying it's my interpretation just flat out.
"my response isn't opinion. It is describing why your core argument is wrong. You are trying to argue that all liberals believe specific things because you supposedly heard some liberals say it. But you can't quote them. So obviously what you are repeating is not exactly what they said. It is your opinion of what they said."
We're going in circles. I've said what I said. You're being hypocritical saying I'm giving my interpretation of what somebody has said while you're actually doing it to me off what I said.
"except you make grandiose claims based on what they said. Like if someone said "i support abortion rights" and you go "See! he supports aborting babies after birth!!". those are not the same thing."
I would say the person said "i support abortion rights" .
"I am being neutral. you are making extreme claims. You have absolutely 0 evidence to back them up. A neutral party would absolutely question you about that. "
Well being that I have 0 evidence that you know of because it's been made evident to me, you don't have evidence for the counter either, so why reject ? You don't accept nor reject, that is being neutral my friend.
"you aren't though. You are making claims as to what liberalism is. that's not a messenger. And since your claims are extreme and inaccurate, it certainly isn't neutral either. "
See how you continue to reject what I say. That's not neutral. It's not "maybe you are a messenger, perhaps not , I don't know, can't say one way or the other". It's " no you're not, no you're not". Just step outside yourself and just observe yourself.
"ok, let's clarify. If I said "Dogs are the worst pets". Do you think I mean specific dogs? Or do I mean all dogs? I didn't say the word "all", but my sentence clearly implies it. You didn't say the word all either, but your sentence implied it. And if you didn't mean all, then this whole discussion is pointless. If your point is that there are a few liberals with extreme views, then I agre."
Are you asking for my answer or are you just going to say what you think on everything?
This is what I don't do with the liberals I hear. I let them tell me what they mean. I don't go by any implications. I keep saying it as I been consistent the whole time not turning loose from it. I go by their exact words.
"you are incorrect. There is a difference between being open to something and being for it. Being willing to change if the circumstances warrant doing it, is not the same thing as being for change. "
So I can be open to something while not being for it. What would be the point for me to be open for something I'm not for?
Have you ever heard of people criticizing liberalism as a bunch of confusion?
"ok, so you aren't talking about all liberals, you are only talking about the tiny number you have heard speak? Great! then your point means nothing. Yes there are some extreme liberals. Just like there are some extreme conservatives. If that is all we are talking about, then why are you bothering to say it?"
I didn't say tiny or a lot or any of that. I don't know why you're scared to just leave it non specific. Also I can say what I have applicable to the topic like everybody else. I believe the topic was related to liberals so I gave my input on the topic regarding what liberals have said whether you accept it or reject it .
Created:
-->
@Double_R
"So you're against sex anytime it's not with the explicit intent to create a child? So a couple in their 50's who is done with children is in your view "leaving the foundation" if they decide to have sex?"
Well.....ya see now......ya know .
"What stipulations?"
Well .....
"No one is criticizing their experiences. We're talking about why it's ridiculous to pretend there is a meaningful parallel between what happened to the slaves and what's happening to anyone in America today."
I can't call what other people experience ridiculous or how they're treated. It's there experience, not mine.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
"They're not leaving the foundation behind, the issue is that they have a different foundation altogether. They disagree with you that sex must be between a man and a women, that's the whole point.
Nothing about that is 'change itself must be the goal'."
The foundation of sexual reproductive organs is with sexual reproduction. So once you leave that, you left the foundation. Using organs in a different way is change .
"So you're ok with it being legal to own other people as property?"
It depends whether the exceptions are made or not like I said. Don't just leave it broad as legalizing slavery which still is legal. But there are stipulations to it.
At this point you're just playing word games. Slavery has a definition, and not getting called back after a job interview isn't it. People liken modern day oppression to slavery all the time but they do it as a metaphor, no rational human being thinks what's happening to any minority group (at least in the US) today is anything like what happened to most black people prior to the mid 1800's. It's just silly to pretend there's any comparison.
Like I said if people still feel them and theirs are being oppressed, unjustly incarcerated and everything brought on them as being the vestiges of the past still affecting them, i.e. , reparations, they have a right to their experience. I can't speak on their experiences in a country with a particular victimizing history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Are you against non person animal cruelty/violence?
Yes or no.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"I don't just accept it because you haven't quoted them."
Probably won't accept it regardless. Do you not believe liberals support same sex marriage, abortion, transgender rights?
" You have given me your interpretation of their words. "
Prove it. This is bias to say it's my interpretation when you haven't verified what I heard exactly.
"It would be extremely odd for multiple people to phrase their beliefs in identical words. So i find it to be extremely unlikely that lots of people have described their beliefs exactly that way. Which means you are lying to me. You are inferring their meaning and repeating back to me what you inferred. You are then denying that is what you are doing."
Ok I acknowledge your opinion. That's all , however bias, ok.
"We have. we have been talking about proof what liberals believe. IE what ALL liberals believe. Even if you can prove to me that 1 or 10 or 100 liberals believe that, it does nothing to prove that this is what liberals believe. It just tells me what those specific individuals believe. "
Let's just leave it at what I say or said. I've heard liberals say what they believe. At the minimum that means more than one. I've heard these people say what they say. So it's not really much to discuss on the thing. Somebody just telling you what that somebody heard. It's like an "ok" and move on really.
"Liberalism is for evolving and changing just about accepting anything new". You are defining what liberalism is. you aren't saying what specific liberals believe. you are trying to say all liberals are like this. That is bullshit.
I said quote where I said ALL LIBERALS. That didn't say "all liberals" in that statement did it? This is where my EXACT WORDS ends and YOUR interpretation/reading ALL LIBERALS in there begins. Gotta be careful with exact wording.
There ain't no TRYING to say . I either used those exact words or I didn't.
"lol I've already done that. Some conservatives believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote. But that doesn't mean all conservatives believe that. It doesn't mean that is what conservatism is. So why are you trying to define liberalism by the actions or beliefs of a few people? If that is how it works, then I can say conservatism is for pedophiles, anti-semites and misogynists. "
I think I said this already. I'm not defining anything. The liberals are and I'm telling you what they are saying. Do what you want, whatever, but I encourage you to be neutral. Don't have a bias because you haven't heard what I heard or you heard different or know of different things concerning liberalism and therefore just automatically dismiss what I'm saying because it cuts against the grain making it my words against them and them superceding me. Where I'm just acting as a messenger. Don't vilify and dismiss the message just because you merely disagree.
Again, stop reading the word ALL into things. Get the context, let it fly where it don't apply. Just because there's more than one that is applicable, it doesn't necessarily mean all. People have a tendency to jump the gun assuming that a broadly nonspecific statement always means every single one . But the key there is nonspecific. So I'm not making specific. That means no specific number which would include not specifying every single one in all not specifying all.
"Liberalism is about being open to change. "
So in a yes or no specific answer, yes, liberalism is for change. Can't be open to it if not for it. It's not a trick question. Yes, liberalism is for change.
"lol you are defining terms that apply to 10's or 100's of millions of people and saying "stop reading the word all into this". Do you not see how that's dumb? You want to define a broad term that applies to huge numbers of people, but you only want to define that term by a handful of people that you get to pick. "
My friend, do yourself a favor. Stop putting numbers and all into this. I have said no numbers, I have not said all. This is you reading this into this then trying to argue with it. You're arguing with your own interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
Are you against non person animal cruelty/violence?
Why?
Does it matter the particular species?
Has anyone have any views or thoughts on purported fake animal rescue platforms?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
"This is the game folks."
So how are we supposed to play the game trying to get ahead?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
"Forget about taxes on tips, the left doesn’t even want you to get tips. "
Is that why you're conservative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
All facts that are known or taught.
In pertinence people of course. Remember it was mentioned about striving for things, right.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"Because if those weren't their exact words, then you are inferring meaning from their words. Thus what you infer is your perception which could be radically different from what they actually believe or meant. "
Nope I go by their exact words which would include their exact words to their meanings and definitions to their words. I don't know if you just don't want to accept that I go by exact words as oppose to other people particularly on this platform.
You may not believe me but I am the individual that will do the most to listen to exact words and not read into things. If you follow my debates, you'll see I quote exactly what people say and argue based on using the individual's own words. I don't hardly try to even rephrase or contrive an interpretation. This is what I stress many of you to do is to go by exact words.
Maybe you don't believe these type of people exist. I don't bother with the existence part. I just declare what I hear or read which is exactly by the way and report so and so said this, wrote that, believes this, argues that.
"why would that matter? You are saying all liberals believe specific things. If you haven't heard from all liberals, you obviously cannot know that. The best you can say is the handful of people you've heard talk about it believe those things."
Why would it matter? Are you playing dumb?
Have we not been talking about proof?
Please quote where I said "all liberals". See this is what I'm saying. You're telling me about my perception and you have your own of my words instead of going by exact words of mine. This is case and point right here . Then you continue to contradict yourself arguing for saying things with proof behind them but have I no proof for a tiny or handful. You have no proof I've heard a "handful". You're not committing to your own talk points.
"I'm not the one generalizing, you are. you are saying "all liberals believe this". your proof is the tiny sample of people you've heard from on whatever right wing podcast you referenced. If you want to say all liberals believe something, the onus is on you to prove that. And there is no way you could possibly do that because there is vast differences in what different liberals believe. "
You're not being honest here. Either that or ignorant, one of the two. Maybe you don't realize your hypocrisy, but you're being more assumptive then factual. Just straight up .
"ok, you said "Liberalism is for evolving and changing...". you didn't say "some liberals believe in". You said that is what liberalism is. that is a lie. That might be what some liberals believe, but you cannot make such sweeping declarations about what liberalism is based on the opinions of a couple of people. there are "conservatives" who don't think women should be allowed to vote. Should I say that Conservatism is for suppressing women?"
You don't know what you're talking about. Actually pay attention to what you're saying. You say that is a lie in that what liberalism is , then turn around and say "might be what some liberals believe". If that's not what liberalism is, how might there be this is what some believe?
Further to that, I didn't say that's all what it is. I didn't even say that's what it is there. Again paying attention to exact words. I specifically said what it is for which is evolving and change.
So if this not true? This would mean liberalism is not for change. Is change something that occurs with a thing to liberate or be liberated?
You have to stop reading the word "all" into this . You can't quote it so don't read it.
As far as for conservatism, do your research, find out and you get the answers to your questions about conservatives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
I'm just backing up my point that you agree with it.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
"Please explain how "change is not the goal" = "looking for constant change"."
Basically liberals are more open or always open and progressive so much so that they leave the foundation and fundamentals.
i.e. the acceptance of same sex marriage leaving the fundamentals of sexuality between man and woman alone.
"Owning people or the law to make it legal didn't have to change. Just the way ownership was ran needed to be changed or reverted really."
"What are you talking about?"
I'm talking about the law of slavery didn't need to change or end except the way it was ran.
"Besides it is highly disputed that slavery ever ended anyway."
"No, it's not. Why would you say something so ridiculous?"
It's because there are people apparently you're just learning this now that believe slavery has never ended but transitioned. Now these are typically minority groups speaking this so it's understandable from their perspective they'll feel this way seeing prisons filled with a lot of their own. Seeing a lot of their own hunted and shot down behind a so called traffic stop by a suspected "race" soldier. Experiencing discrimination still, being not called back from an interview or job application. Even when hired, kept at the lowest role in the company as if they're still out in the field while the higher ups sit back on their porch.
Anyway, if you think slavery is just ships, whips and shackles, you're more conservative than liberal.
If not mistaken, conservatives are the ones that tend to gaslight, marginalize or euphemise the past and say "pull yourself up by your boot straps, the man ain't holding you back".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No, no, no. He has his own mind.
Just agree for once and leave it at that.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
"lol you're describing how you perceive them. "
You're not acknowledging what I'm saying. I'm not perceiving. I'm listening to the person or persons exact words. You make a point about me hearing every single one when you haven't confirmed whom I've heard express their own views.
"And unless you have heard every single liberal in the world say that, then you can't say that is what liberals believe. The best you can say is that a tiny percent of liberals believe that. "
That is not the best because I don't know if there is a tiny percent. You talking about proof but contradict yourself with these statements.
"and if you told me about specific people who said those things and provided proof, I would believe that's who they are. But that is not "liberals". that is the specific people you are talking about. That's like saying all Republicans are pedophiles because a few of them have been convicted of it. That wouldn't be fair would it?'
Nobody said ALL did they? I'm talking about whom I've heard which is more than one making it plural. You can take it or leave it. It doesn't negate what these people believe in.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't have to choose how to perceive. I just listen to every word they use and hear them explain it and it's just as definitive as that.
If people believe in what they do , that's them. I'm not disputing it. If you don't believe me or them, ah well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
No because my point was just about having his own mind so you took this miles away from my destination of the point I was making.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I don't strive for facts. But according to the facts there are things I and people should strive for .
You continued to say according to your opinion of what people should strive for. I was asking according to facts, you didn't know.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So you're liberal looking for constant change while claiming liberal is actually conservative.
Owning people or the law to make it legal didn't have to change. Just the way ownership was ran needed to be changed or reverted really.
Besides it is highly disputed that slavery ever ended anyway.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Definition comes from the liberals themselves and their views.
If you listen to interviews with liberals, particularly the ones that Jesse Lee Peterson has interviewed, you'll know.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
So republicans are not liberal now .
If they were you'd be Republican.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Do you believe in more things changing or remaining as is or reverting?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Ok so there may as well not be two distinct political parties.
Liberalism blurs the lines. Conservatives are not liberal. They believe in conserving, not progressing.
Liberalism is for evolving and changing just about accepting anything new that comes along like same sex marriage, abortion, permitting illegal aliens, allowing transgenderism, pushing it on children, allowing transgender restrooms, transgender locker rooms and in military and sports.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Thank you he's in a class all by himself, including his mind too, you know you made my point. Don't even go into the pretense.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So republicans can be liberal.
Created:
-->
@FLRW
Right so liberals are progressing changes things which is the opposite of Republican. But you call it evil even when you agree with leaving some things as is.
So I rest my case there .
So I rest my case there .
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Is republican the opposite of liberal or the same?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
Even Ali looked like he was done for before he took out Foreman, so it's not over til it's over buddy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Who else has been like President Trump as president in the White House?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Oh ok. Well not changing things leaving as is as you believe in is republican policy.
Created: