There’s nothing rational about conservative gay-bashers.
While my cousin was going through hell trying to live a lie and had a very tragic coming out this jerk was our senator.
A Republican senator pleaded guilty earlier this month to a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge stemming from his arrest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, according to state criminal records.
Roll Call newspaper reported Monday that Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho was apprehended June 11 by a plainclothes police officer investigating complaints of lewd behavior in an airport men's room.
I remember clearly Craig using some of the exact same attacks being made here all the while living a double life.
Whenever some conservative goes off on an anti-gay rant now I just assume that they're only trying to deny their own sexuality and appear straight to others out of fear. It takes actual courage to take the steps people like my cousin did, to me they are much better citizens and people than those who are trying to demonize them based on lies not facts.
The basic lies here are that LGBT is a choice, the only choice is whether to be open or closeted about it. And that people being open about an inherent part of their nature are somehow a threat to all of society. The only threat here are lies that as they grow bigger and bigger threaten to consume us all as they are rapidly doing.
Three words I'd never thought I'd say - Donald Trump president. That's what this kind of insanity has brought us to.
At this point, it would be nice for webplodder to describe what he thinks “liberal” means. On many published scales, liberal appears in the center, a balance of authority without authoritarianism and an acknowledgment of conservative values like tradition, but with an open mind to new data. webplodder seems to define it something like, screw whatever you want, but let’s let him say what he thinks.
That’s what I take a liberal to be, someone who looks at the evidence and makes a balanced opinion based on it and policies that reflect that.
Not someone out to coerce people into lifestyles that aren’t just destructive to them but society as a whole.
webplodder has basically said that gays have destroyed society in the past.
Is too much liberalism in some western societies giving rise to damaging trends that undermine the cohesiveness of such societies in terms of gender roles and sexual preferences that have, in the past, usually accompanied a disintegration and ultimate end to a healthy, functional social and political system?
Where is the evidence of that as well, and I don't mean a story from the Bible. Part of the reason that I and many other have had such a negative opinion of LGBT is that we were taught from a very early age that it is the worst of sins and that god destroyed entire cities because too many people there were gay.
Is all this just based on religious teachings?
Can you back you assumption with any facts?
I know of nothing that "too much of" brought down any social of political system.
What about pornography, promiscuity, families where both parents are working, leading to lack of child rearing, drug addiction, Anorexia nervosa, obesity, cosmetic surgery, unrestricted immigration, lack of strong male roles, rampant advertising, debt, crime, etc?
Why did Trump get elected? People had had enough of the liberal elite.
Either that or the electorate is just plain stupid. I assume the latter. They're looking for a magic cure to the country's ills--one that doesn't hurt--at least not the 1%. By the time it comes to pass the US economy will be in much worse shape than it is now, to say nothing of its standing on the global stage.
I see, so just because democracy doesn't work as you would like it to work the people who voted for Trump are automatically stupid.
Strange reasoning.
I suggest that your cousin had not found the right male partner and, therefore, jumped to the conclusion she could never form a sexual relationship with a man. People, whether male or female, possess different qualities and to come to the conclusion that you cannot form a deep, sexual and emotional relationship with a man and consequently look to another woman, is a false assumption. Your cousin may have experienced some kind of traumatic event involving a man, I don't know, but you can have a relationship with anybody, as long it is the right person, male or female. It is not a question of sexual orientation but of emotional orientation.
You're problems go much deeper than not understanding politics, history or sexuality. You just don't care about others. You can actually learn empathy, but people usually have to be first forced into it, by being diagnosed as psychopaths. You can't accept that someone Doug was close to actually had the feelings he reports her having. What would it take? How could you get inside her head enough to know what she is experiencing? You don't make the first step to try to answer that.
Having empathy for someone doesn't just mean you take things on face value but trying to really understand what is making a person so unhappy. Sympathy without understating is not a lot of use.
This is why too many liberals are misguided.
At this point, it would be nice for webplodder to describe what he thinks "liberal" means. On many published scales, liberal appears in the center, a balance of authority without authoritarianism and an acknowledgment of conservative values like tradition, but with an open mind to new data. webplodder seems to define it something like, screw whatever you want, but let's let him say what he thinks.
I entirely agree with the definition of liberalism you have given, however, much of what you call 'new data' is not really legitimate and is only too readily swallowed up by bleeding-heart individuals who like to feel they are 'doing good.'
I prefer the concept of 'tough love' which suggests the need to help people but not necessarily in the way they think they need help. This is just giving in to self-indulgence. You wouldn't keep giving in to the demands of children when to do so would not be in their best interests, would you?
That's what I take a liberal to be, someone who looks at the evidence and makes a balanced opinion based on it and policies that reflect that.
Not someone out to coerce people into lifestyles that aren't just destructive to them but society as a whole.
webplodder has basically said that gays have destroyed society in the past.
Is too much liberalism in some western societies giving rise to damaging trends that undermine the cohesiveness of such societies in terms of gender roles and sexual preferences that have, in the past, usually accompanied a disintegration and ultimate end to a healthy, functional social and political system?
Where is the evidence of that as well, and I don't mean a story from the Bible. Part of the reason that I and many other have had such a negative opinion of LGBT is that we were taught from a very early age that it is the worst of sins and that god destroyed entire cities because too many people there were gay.
Is all this just based on religious teachings?
Basically, if people are allowed to 'do their own thing' to the nth degree it upsets the integrity and cohesiveness of society as a whole. This leads to differentiated groups in society that have less in common with one another as time goes by, leading to conflict and a lack of a common value-system. This can be seen where mass immigration has taken place creating ghettos which tend to become somewhat isolated from mainstream society leading to crime and discrimination. It also exacerbates class differences where common values do not correspond enough to encourage agreed perceptions about how society should work. No man is an island and what people do always creates ripples of consequences that affect the whole world. Global warming is one notable example of this.
Basically, if people are allowed to ‘do their own thing’ to the nth degree it upsets the integrity and cohesiveness of society as a whole.
And also creates countries that have no homosexuals, because they magically start conforming to society or just seem to disappear.
Just as in medieval times we had the Inquisition, which was the church's moral thought police.
The 1578 edition of the Directorium Inquisitorum (a standard Inquisitorial manual) spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur (translation: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit")
At this point, it would be nice for webplodder to describe what he thinks "liberal" means. On many published scales, liberal appears in the center, a balance of authority without authoritarianism and an acknowledgment of conservative values like tradition, but with an open mind to new data. webplodder seems to define it something like, screw whatever you want, but let's let him say what he thinks.
I entirely agree with the definition of liberalism you have given, however, much of what you call 'new data' is not really legitimate and is only too readily swallowed up by bleeding-heart individuals who like to feel they are 'doing good.'
I prefer the concept of 'tough love' which suggests the need to help people but not necessarily in the way they think they need help. This is just giving in to self-indulgence. You wouldn't keep giving in to the demands of children when to do so would not be in their best interests, would you?
Says he accepts new data, then makes a blanket dismissal of "most of it". You are a worthless mass of flesh and bones webplodder.
This can be seen where mass immigration has taken place creating ghettos which tend to become somewhat isolated from mainstream society leading to crime and discrimination.
You don't read books do you. Ghettos cause discrimination in the same way goose barnacles turn in to geese.
Basically, if people are allowed to 'do their own thing' to the nth degree it upsets the integrity and cohesiveness of society as a whole. This leads to differentiated groups in society that have less in common with one another as time goes by, leading to conflict and a lack of a common value-system. This can be seen where mass immigration has taken place creating ghettos which tend to become somewhat isolated from mainstream society leading to crime and discrimination. It also exacerbates class differences where common values do not correspond enough to encourage agreed perceptions about how society should work. No man is an island and what people do always creates ripples of consequences that affect the whole world. Global warming is one notable example of this.
People should be allowed to do their own thing, as long as it is not disturbing, unjust or hateful to others, as seen by simple human common senses. Diversity is strength, as long as it does not encourage some people to remain in their wrong cocoons. Examples of wrong cocoons: 1) in many cultures women are treated like objects as opposed to humans, 2) in some cultures, practice of religion involves disturbing noise everyday and blocking facilities such as roads for weekly large prayer gatherings, 3) in some cultures taking and giving bribes have become too normal.
And also creates countries that have no homosexuals, because they magically start conforming to society or just seem to disappear.
Like Nazi Germany where gays were also sent to the death camps.
Of course that didn't keep reported bi-sexuals like Herman Goering from still having sex with men. Apparently in Goering case it was less than willingly on the part of junior officers that were ordered to his hunting lodge for a weekend that included a bit more than shooting stags from some of the accounts.
Or quite possibly Hitler himself. Almost all of the commanders of the armed wing of the Nazi party were gay from Ernst Rohm on down. Rohm was the only Nazi leader that referred to Hitler by name, to all others he was mein fuhrer. Of course Hitler eventually decided to try to wipe out homosexuals in Germany just as he did with other groups targeted in the Holocaust. This is why hate based politics is so dangerous, once it gets rolling it rapidly spins out of control.
Of course drug addiction was also a capital offense in Hitler's Germany although the entire Wehrmacht was on crystal meth throughout the war and Hitler was a heavy drug user including meth and cocaine. It's probably why he became even more irrational as the war went on.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/sep/25/blitzed-norman-ohler-adolf-hitler-nazi-drug-abuse-interview
The book in question is The Total Rush – or, to use its superior English title, Blitzed – which reveals the astonishing and hitherto largely untold story of the Third Reich’s relationship with drugs, including cocaine, heroin, morphine and, above all, methamphetamines (aka crystal meth), and of their effect not only on Hitler’s final days – the Führer, by Ohler’s account, was an absolute junkie with ruined veins by the time he retreated to the last of his bunkers – but on the Wehrmacht’s successful invasion of France in 1940. Published in Germany last year, where it became a bestseller, it has since been translated into 18 languages, a fact that delights Ohler, but also amazes him.
It’s not only that he is – as Der Spiegel helpfully pointed out – a non-historian (the author of three novels and the co-writer of the Wim Wenders film Palermo Shooting, this is his first work of nonfiction). It’s that there was anything new to be said at all. Arrange all the books that have been written about the Nazis end to end and they’d be longer than the Spree.
“I guess drugs weren’t a priority for the historians," he says. “A crazy guy like me had to come along." Still, crazy or not, he has done a remarkable job. If Blitzed is gripping, it is also convincing. Ian Kershaw, the British historian who is probably the world’s leading authority on Hitler and Nazi Germany, has described it as “a serious piece of scholarship".
Hypocrisy seems to be a big thing with conservatives and the more extreme they are the bigger the hypocrisy.
One of the reasons they likely hate liberals is that they are willing and able to point out this hypocrisy often in very entertaining ways. Like Bill Maher who is an artist at this.
Here’s Bill detailing just how hypocritical republicans are compared to Democrats.
Why do we even “debate” with these people anymore when almost everything that comes out of them is manufactured to deceive not inform. This entire thread illustrating this completely.
Lying with full conviction is still lying.
The United States was founded on liberal ideals. The Constitution documents liberal ideals. Anyone who doesn’t like liberal ideals should move to a country without them. Here are the 25 most conservative, intolerant, and polluted countries in the world. Let us know which conservative paradise you’d like to move to and be sure to keep us posted on your progress. The Most Conservative Countries in the World Yemen is the most conservative country on the planet, according to Movehub. It came in last place in the WEF Gender Gap Report, performed badly on personal rights, corruption and access to education in the Social Progress Index, and came 150th in the Environmental Performance Index. You’d do well there. Maybe we can take up a collection to pay your way.
For people with a lot more sense, try this: The World's Most Tolerant, Progressive, and Eco-Friendly Countries
The United States was founded on liberal ideals. The Constitution documents liberal ideals. Anyone who doesn't like liberal ideals should move to a country without them.
United States was founded on classical liberalism, which is better known today as libertarianism. Modern progressive politics would be alien to the founding fathers.
Basically, if people are allowed to ‘do their own thing’ to the nth degree it upsets the integrity and cohesiveness of society as a whole.
And also creates countries that have no homosexuals, because they magically start conforming to society or just seem to disappear.
Just as in medieval times we had the Inquisition, which was the church's moral thought police.
The 1578 edition of the Directorium Inquisitorum (a standard Inquisitorial manual) spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur (translation: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit")
Nobody is suggesting we go and round-up people who's lifestyles some of don't agree with, that would like a police state. What I am saying is too much freedom should not be encouraged and be see to be frowned upon if it leads to unnatural practices.
At this point, it would be nice for webplodder to describe what he thinks "liberal" means. On many published scales, liberal appears in the center, a balance of authority without authoritarianism and an acknowledgment of conservative values like tradition, but with an open mind to new data. webplodder seems to define it something like, screw whatever you want, but let's let him say what he thinks.
I entirely agree with the definition of liberalism you have given, however, much of what you call 'new data' is not really legitimate and is only too readily swallowed up by bleeding-heart individuals who like to feel they are 'doing good.'
I prefer the concept of 'tough love' which suggests the need to help people but not necessarily in the way they think they need help. This is just giving in to self-indulgence. You wouldn't keep giving in to the demands of children when to do so would not be in their best interests, would you?
Says he accepts new data, then makes a blanket dismissal of "most of it". You are a worthless mass of flesh and bones webplodder.
That's not very nice.
Anyway, data should never be pre-judged, that is the point I was making. We have to evaluate it in terms of how much good or otherwise it is telling us it is showing.
The United States was founded on liberal ideals. The Constitution documents liberal ideals. Anyone who doesn't like liberal ideals should move to a country without them.
United States was founded on classical liberalism, which is better known today as libertarianism. Modern progressive politics would be alien to the founding fathers.
I think they would be appalled by the extreme practices we see going on today.
