I don't know the platforms of your parties in Japan...
but I seriously doubt you're doing a reliable comparison by equting being a liberal with hand-outs.
What you call "hand-outs" many others consider to be tools to succeed.
I can't believe society is fair enough to allow ANYONE who tries and works to succeed. I know too many people who work hard and get steamrolled. Society should help everyone, that includes giving a hand up to people who can't give themselves one.
I don't know the platforms of your parties in Japan...
but I seriously doubt you're doing a reliable comparison by equting being a liberal with hand-outs.What you call "hand-outs" many others consider to be tools to succeed.
I can't believe society is fair enough to allow ANYONE who tries and works to succeed. I know too many people who work hard and get steamrolled. Society should help everyone, that includes giving a hand up to people who can't give themselves one.
If that makes sense. It felt like I was just babbling when I was writing that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahahahaha, BULLSHIT!It is not moral to discriminate against people. It is not moral to start unjust wars. It is not moral to force people to live a screwed up live because you care more for a parasite in their body than themselves.
Conservatives are not moral.
Not only because there are no objective morals, but also because they are hateful, against freedom, bigoted and...dare I say it, yes I dare, cause it is true...stupid.
Now if you talk about some special kind of conservatism that happens to be liberal actually, then I agree with you. But conservatives as they are in the US should be lined and shot and we could have one big party for the rest of our lives.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Case in point: Ted Haggard is a conservative. Where is his moral superiority?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You really beleive that load of garbage ? 😬
The conservative party is responsible, has been responsible, for far more suffering, death, and corruption than any Liberal party to date....explain that my "moral superior"
Come on Feceman, u aint THAt stupid.....
You are my moral superior in no way....what have you DONE that puts u up there ? What have you done for anyone that gives you the right to call yourself my moral superior ?
How do you know what kind of life I have lived, what I have done for people ? Did you know I put the problems of others before myself ? Did you know I have risked my life to save another ? Did you know I have forgiven my trespassers my entire life ? I have forgiven the bigots and ignorant idiots who have stepped on me, bullied me, insulted me, who even went so far as to attack my family...I have forgiving these people, not only that...I have helped some of them out of hardships you cannot even imagine out of my OWN expense...
I ALWAYS give money to beggars....whether i trust them or not...Sure, i can be an ******* sometimes..but i never attacked anybody.....in the past 5 years I can honestly SAY i never hurt anybody...not directly anyway...
And YOU are my moral superior simply because you beleive in the Good Lord Jesus Christ, and because you stay true to superficial traditional values ?
Originally posted by Kinneary
Which is exactly what I was pointing at. If you want to help someone, you give them tools to succeed. You don't give them hand outs. Giving a bum money is not smart. Giving a family WICA stamps that they can buy Cheetos with is not smart. It's liberal policies such as these that simply alienate me from the entire party. I can agree with a lot of their individual rights stances, but their economic ones have almost ensured I will never vote for them.And please, everyone who's been talking about how conservatives (which I'm not) are greedy grubby bastards who hate all non-christians yadda yadda, don't get all pissy by my post.
The give a man a fish argument. While there is certainly a lot to be said for it the fact remains it is not as clear cut as that.
As far as I know there is no nation on earth with an unemployment rate of "zero" - there are never enough jobs for everybody. And when there is, well, we fall into minimum wages minefields, with incomes far below living standards. People can be employed yet still be below the poverty line, hence people having to take three to four jobs to get by - in Australia people can have a job, but if their earnings are below a certain mark they will receive government assistance in line with their needs.
Which of course leads to education so people can get better jobs. Of course the time people are learning is time they aren't working, so it is a tricky balance. In Australia the government offers chances for career relevant education as well as putting money towards those doing it (as well as things like grants for small and new businesses till they get on their feet, subsidies, assistance for those undertaking apprenticeships as well as essentially free training for the long term unemployed etc.)
Likewise - single mothers/fathers who are in that position for whatever reason who lack the furnaces to pay for day care/nannies/etc and thus must work less to look after children...
Because the world is hard. And then there are people who need far more help, including the homeless who range from the ill (mentally and otherwise) who can't just be told "get a job ya bum", those who have worked hard and fallen on bad luck (and it happens) and who are unable to pull themselves up again without aid and so forth.
In the end it is about balance - insuring they survive long enough to have a chance to become productive little cogs. And since money makes the world go round invariably the government has some responsibility to insure its citizens aren't starving.
Originally posted by FeceMan
It is not moral to support organizations like NAMBLA. It is not moral to abort a fetus. It is not moral to claim tolerance but have no tolerance for certain groups of people. It is not moral to show preferential treatment to a group of people basedon their race.
Oh no. OOOh no. You are far to rational to believe that. What you seem to be doing, with NAMBLA certainly is the whole "OMFG!!! You don't support the War in Iraq - you want the terrorists to win."
There is a difference between saying "While I do not agree with what they (NAMBLA) advocate, freedom of speech means they can express their views. And if they cross the line the law is in place to protect society" and "I am liberal. I support NAMBLA!"
I consider myself more then a little liberal, yet I don't support the "man/boy love association." But I realise they can express their opinions, and since I still put a little faith in humanity I feel secure knowing their political aspirations will be shot down again and again.
As to abortion - quite relative, as you seem to be proving here.
As to showing a preferential treatment to a group of people based on their race - well heavens me, that is certainly nothing conservatives have ever done, is it? If I'm not mistaken there is still parties in South Africa, conservative parties, who mourn the passing of Apartheid. But what does that mean? Nothing really.
What group, exactly, aren't liberals tolerant of? And are you honestly telling me conservatives have't experianced more then a little "preferential treatment" of a certain group/gender/race/religion in the past? And possibly even up till this day?
It is not moral to generalize.
You seem to do it a little yourself... you must admit.
That probably stopped when he began having an affair.
Yes, he should never have been married in the first place. He should have accepted his sexuality instead of living a lie in a position of power. I can't help but wonder if society had been different Haggard might have ended up a warrior for equality and equal rights between homosexuals and heterosexuals rather then a loud mouthed preacher who lied and cheated and influenced the minds of many against gays.
He got what he deserved, and his small minded congregation, well, I like to think it rocked their world and even now they lay at home at night thinking "oh my, what if Geoffry, my husband, is like Ted Haggard."
Because if they are being all paranoid about one another it is less paranoia they are inflicting on the world.
Ah, yes. If the liberals were in charge, we wouldn't have had to deal with WWII and we'd be speaking German. DAMN THOSE CONSERVATIVES WITH THEIR NAZI-KILLING!
Yes... because every soldier who enlisted willingly, and every politician who opposed them - well my, they were all conservatives. Where as the liberals sat at home saying "Hitler and his conservative, brutal ideas aren't so bad. Lets just let him go about his business."
Sorry, it is just an odd ahistorical post that.
Tsk, tsk. It's not the person that is morally superior, it is the ideals.
All this seems to prove what I was saying. Perspective. Point of view. Subjectivity. Liberals have morals/ideals. Conservatives have morals/ideals. Neither can claim objective moral superiority, only subjective. As you abortion quip earlier shows.
Oh, I'm not. I'm not anyone's moral superior. I do, however, make an attempt to be moral...which puts me above those who say that morality is in the mind of each person.
Good for you. Your have what you think is right - does everybody think like you? No. Does that mean everyone who doesn't think like you is morally bankrupt? No. Might that in turn mean that it is possible for people to have different moral make up? Like say one person who believes it is right for the government to terminate the life of an unrepentant murderer where as another person believes calling, whoever does it, should be avoided, and thus the death penalty also bad?
After all morality when it comes to death - isn't that a pickle. It is wrong to kill... but are there circumstances where is is acceptable, necessary etc? Throw that into the middle of a philosophy 101 class and watch personal morality shine.
Originally posted by FeceMan
It is not moral to support organizations like NAMBLA. It is not moral to abort a fetus. It is not moral to claim tolerance but have no tolerance for certain groups of people. It is not moral to show preferential treatment to a group of people basedon their race.It is not moral to generalize.
Aw, that's so cute. You really believe that, don't you?
Look everyone...look, a liar! Isn't it greatr?
Liberals do not abort Nambla. Liberals do not abort fetuses (they are for the choice, because a prengancy can screw up the life of actual living people and well...a fetus is jsut a bunch of parasitic cells). What groups of people do Liberals not have tolerance for? Do liberals deny Conservatives any rights that don't harm others? Do they? No? Oh right, they tolerate them, I forgot.
Of course not, since there are no moral absolutes. But because I personally agree let me rephrase, there are some conservatives that are hateful, bigoted, against freedom and stupid...and sadly they are appaarently the elite of the Republicans at the moment as well as a very obvious and loud mouthed part of the population.
Yes...I do actually believe that.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Oh no. OOOh no. You are far to rational to believe that. What you seem to be doing, with NAMBLA certainly is the whole "OMFG!!! You don't support the War in Iraq - you want the terrorists to win."
There is a difference between saying "While I do not agree with what they (NAMBLA) advocate, freedom of speech means they can express their views. And if they cross the line the law is in place to protect society" and "I am liberal. I support NAMBLA!"
I consider myself more then a little liberal, yet I don't support the "man/boy love association." But I realise they can express their opinions, and since I still put a little faith in humanity I feel secure knowing their political aspirations will be shot down again and again.As to abortion - quite relative, as you seem to be proving here.
As to showing a preferential treatment to a group of people based on their race - well heavens me, that is certainly nothing conservatives have ever done, is it? If I'm not mistaken there is still parties in South Africa, conservative parties, who mourn the passing of Apartheid. But what does that mean? Nothing really.
What group, exactly, aren't liberals tolerant of? And are you honestly telling me conservatives have't experianced more then a little "preferential treatment" of a certain group/gender/race/religion in the past? And possibly even up till this day?
You seem to do it a little yourself... you must admit.
Yes, he should never have been married in the first place. He should have accepted his sexuality instead of living a lie in a position of power. I can't help but wonder if society had been different Haggard might have ended up a warrior for equality and equal rights between homosexuals and heterosexuals rather then a loud mouthed preacher who lied and cheated and influenced the minds of many against gays.He got what he deserved, and his small minded congregation, well, I like to think it rocked their world and even now they lay at home at night thinking "oh my, what if Geoffry, my husband, is like Ted Haggard."
Because if they are being all paranoid about one another it is less paranoia they are inflicting on the world.
Yes... because every soldier who enlisted willingly, and every politician who opposed them - well my, they were all conservatives. Where as the liberals sat at home saying "Hitler and his conservative, brutal ideas aren't so bad. Lets just let him go about his business."Sorry, it is just an odd ahistorical post that.
All this seems to prove what I was saying. Perspective. Point of view. Subjectivity. Liberals have morals/ideals. Conservatives have morals/ideals. Neither can claim objective moral superiority, only subjective. As you abortion quip earlier shows.
Good for you. Your have what you think is right - does everybody think like you? No. Does that mean everyone who doesn't think like you is morally bankrupt? No. Might that in turn mean that it is possible for people to have different moral make up? Like say one person who believes it is right for the government to terminate the life of an unrepentant murderer where as another person believes calling, whoever does it, should be avoided, and thus the death penalty also bad?After all morality when it comes to death - isn't that a pickle. It is wrong to kill... but are there circumstances where is is acceptable, necessary etc? Throw that into the middle of a philosophy 101 class and watch personal morality shine. [/B]
Look everyone...look, a liar! Isn't it greatr?
Liberals do not abort Nambla.
Liberals do not abort fetuses (they are for the choice, because a prengancy can screw up the life of actual living people and well...a fetus is jsut a bunch of parasitic cells).
What groups of people do Liberals not have tolerance for? Do liberals deny Conservatives any rights that don't harm others? Do they? No? Oh right, they tolerate them, I forgot.
Of course not, since there are no moral absolutes. But because I personally agree let me rephrase, there are some conservatives that are hateful, bigoted, against freedom and stupid...and sadly they are appaarently the elite of the Republicans at the moment as well as a very obvious and loud mouthed part of the population.
Yes...I do actually believe that.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Nonsense. There are objective rights and wrongs.No, shit, they don't. Which is why it exists.
Oh, wait, in being "for choice"--unlike those antichoice bigots--they support the killing of fetuses.
We are hardly tolerated. They manipulate
"But because I personally agree, let me rephrase: there are some liberals who are hateful, bigoted, against freedom, and stupid...they just hide it well."
Yes, you do.
No. How should there be? Where do they come from? What are they? Why are they objective? Can they be changed?
They have a right to exist. I don't support them, but I support freedom of speech, I support general freedom. Just like conservatives have the right to exist, so does NAMBLA.
No, they support the choice. They can be against it personally. And even if they do...so what, it is a ****ing fetus. I eat 3 every morning. Not human of course, because they are needed to help actual living beings.
Yes you are. Your ideas aren't liked maybe. But you are tolerated. Just like NAMBLA and Nazis.
I agree.
Yes I do.
whats morality have to do with homosexuals? nothing about this repeated point is relevant to anything pertaining to marraige issues exclusive to gay people.
some here feign understanding and seem to be needing assurance that they wont have to see any gay whores make a mockery of marraige. but why? why is it that when heterosexual whores make a public spectacle at defiling marraige (often while having and attempting to raise chilren) its not relevant as well?
massive double standard. its shameful to keep hammering that point knowing just what it is.
just because some of you were raised brainwashed about teh evil gheys all your life, that doesnt mean you are moral and pious.
imho its the purest of evil motives to demand laws pertaining exlusively to repressing a portion of the population based on their very being, because they are deemed as offensive. all this based on localised political preference which is branded "morality" and thus worth any gospel.
Originally posted by FeceMan
I fail to see where I indicated such a viewpoint.
As in "You aren't saying NAMBLA should be shut down and its supporters fed to the wolves - you must support it! And ergo you must support man/boy love!"
Which is ridiculous.
And there's a huge difference between "supporting an unjust war" and "supporting the war." See how easy it is to make one out to be the bad guy?
And what the hell? Once again - there is a difference between saying "Freedom of speech - these guys can express their opinion" and "I support them."
What that has to do with just/unjust wars is beyond me.
I don't believe that abortion is relative.
Not abortion itself, but rather the belief a women should have the choice or not. Relative. If it wasn't relative abortion wouldn't be about and there wouldn't be so much passionate debate about it.
I'm kinda, you know, talking about in the US.
Because like, you know, US conservatives are in a class of their own and in no way similar in political stances to conservatives elsewhere. But a liberal, well, they are the same no matter where they come from.
They do not tolerate Christian evangelicals.
I don't remember the last time a liberal suggested anything bad happen to Christian Evangelicals. And I suspect there is a difference in saying "these Christian Evangelicals are loud mouths trying to influence masses of people with doctrine that is not to the benefit of all" and "I hate Christian Evangelicals. They should be shut down."
"Small-minded." That's a new one. It's usually "close-minded" and "ignorant."
The way they behave, and the way they went on over this, makes me think their minds are sufficiently underdeveloped to warrent "small-minded." Am I being intolerant? No - just saying it like I see it. They are intolerant, they are unforgiving and they are unrepentant in this (at least the ones who got on TV to go on about how shocked and hurt they were by Haggards betrayal.)
They, of course, were not all liberals. However, were our modern society to be involved in a war like WWII, I do not doubt that liberals would oppose it and conservatives would support it.
No, you have you definitions wrong - liberal does not mean pacifist. Nor does liberal necessarily mean isolationist. I am pretty sure you will find that in times where it is necessary liberals will support action - including war. However the fact they dislike the Iraq, and it's frankly horrific handling (along civilian deaths in 2006 tally being over 26,000, plus the 3000+ soldiers being dead - and for what?) shouldn't end up "I bet you would have let the Nazi's win as well."
Because as I said - ahistorical.
Nonsense. There are objective rights and wrongs.
And what are they? So much is grey - yes, there are things large enough, obvious enough that they are almost black and white. But not everything. Not everything is clear cut. As you said - there are (pretty much) objective right and wrong - but not everything, not by a long shot.
I don't belive anyone who doesn't share my beliefs is morally bankrupt. I do believe that many conservative beliefs are more noble and righteous than liberal beliefs.
Such as?
No, shit, they don't. Which is why it exists.
The KKK exists - do Liberals support them? Neo-Nazis groups exist - do liberals support them? There are Christian groups who want prayer reintroduced into schools - do liberals support them? The list goes on -"support" is different from "freedom of speech."
The law exists to make sure all they do is talking, and while their views wont appeal to many liberals, the idea of going after them for what would be essentially thought crimes are also negative.
Originally posted by Kinneary
Why are people still saying things like 'it's not moral to do this or that'? Morals are subjective. Your morals may not be theirs, therefore what they're doing is moral according to their beliefs.Stop saying it.
Which is essentially what is being said - a phrase about conservatives having moral superiority crops up, the conversation moves onto how morals are subjective, both liberals and conservatives possessing morals, and the idea of superiority being purely subjective.
At which point Feceman brings in particular examples of liberal "moral inferiority." That is liberals support NAMBLA (as proven by the fact it exists), support abortion and likely would let the Nazi's win if we had to fight them today.
Originally posted by FeceMan
It is not moral to show preferential treatment to a group of people basedon their race.
Or thier sexual orientation
Originally posted by FeceMan
Ah, yes. If the liberals were in charge, we wouldn't have had to deal with WWII and we'd be speaking German. DAMN THOSE CONSERVATIVES WITH THEIR NAZI-KILLING!
Hitler is considered far-right last time I checked...so are most racists....
Originally posted by FeceMan
Tsk, tsk. It's not the person that is morally superior, it is the ideals.
Oh you mean like voting for the Death Penalty, praying to Jesus, supporting lack of Gun control, and forcing women to give birth every time she is pregnant ?
Oh wait...I forgot about accumulation of oil at the expense of people's lives....and utilizing hypocritical and judgemental propaganda to keep power...not to mention making sure the poor stay poor and the rich get richer.... 😬
Originally posted by FeceMan
I don't care.
Ofcourse you don't....you only care about your own ideals, your own morals, your own perceptions of what should and shouldn't be, and f*ck how anyone else feels.... 🙄
Originally posted by FeceMan
Oh, I'm not. I'm not anyone's moral superior. I do, however, make an attempt to be moral...which puts me above those who say that morality is in the mind of each person.
And what attempts do you make to be a better person ?
Do you honestly beleive that praying to Jesus every night makes you a better person? You honestly beleive that voting Republican, and casting judgement upon others makes you any better ?
Please....
Why don't you stop wasting time on KMC, and go DO SOMETHING beneficial for people....why don't you give away all your possessions like St. Francis did ?
Why don't you go help cure the sick and raise the impoverous like Mother Teresa tried ?
Why don't you try fighting for the poor and lifting people's rights like Clinton did ?
No...instead you sit around on ur fkn chair, bashing other people, telling us how you follow a higher morality..and support the same party who wanted to imprison Nelson Mandella for life...
How you support a man who shot another man in the face....how you support a greedy money hungry son of a ***** like Bush who is responsible for MOREEEEEEEEE fkn deaths than we can imagine....
even BEFORE he became president... !
You truly beleive that because you are Conservative, that your path is superior to the rest of ours ?
Typical bullshit hubris....
Go and keep supporting the Heterosexist, mildly racist, bible-thumping, face shooting, money hungry, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-infiltration sons of bitches that you idolize so much...
Me....
I'll try actually being a better person MYSELF than supporting a group of rich wealthy con men just to validate myself....
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
As in "You aren't saying NAMBLA should be shut down and its supporters fed to the wolves - you must support it! And ergo you must support man/boy love!"Which is ridiculous.
And what the hell? Once again - there is a difference between saying "Freedom of speech - these guys can express their opinion" and "I support them."What that has to do with just/unjust wars is beyond me.
Not abortion itself, but rather the belief a women should have the choice or not. Relative. If it wasn't relative abortion wouldn't be about and there wouldn't be so much passionate debate about it.
Because like, you know, US conservatives are in a class of their own and in no way similar in political stances to conservatives elsewhere. But a liberal, well, they are the same no matter where they come from.
I don't remember the last time a liberal suggested anything bad happen to Christian Evangelicals. And I suspect there is a difference in saying "these Christian Evangelicals are loud mouths trying to influence masses of people with doctrine that is not to the benefit of all" and "I hate Christian Evangelicals. They should be shut down."
The way they behave, and the way they went on over this, makes me think their minds are sufficiently underdeveloped to warrent "small-minded." Am I being intolerant? No - just saying it like I see it. They are intolerant, they are unforgiving and they are unrepentant in this (at least the ones who got on TV to go on about how shocked and hurt they were by Haggards betrayal.)
No, you have you definitions wrong - liberal does not mean pacifist. Nor does liberal necessarily mean isolationist. I am pretty sure you will find that in times where it is necessary liberals will support action - including war. However the fact they dislike the Iraq, and it's frankly horrific handling (along civilian deaths in 2006 tally being over 26,000, plus the 3000+ soldiers being dead - and for what?) shouldn't end up "I bet you would have let the Nazi's win as well."Because as I said - ahistorical.
And what are they? So much is grey - yes, there are things large enough, obvious enough that they are almost black and white. But not everything. Not everything is clear cut. As you said - there are (pretty much) objective right and wrong - but not everything, not by a long shot.
Such as?
The KKK exists - do Liberals support them? Neo-Nazis groups exist - do liberals support them? There are Christian groups who want prayer reintroduced into schools - do liberals support them? The list goes on -"support" is different from "freedom of speech."The law exists to make sure all they do is talking, and while their views wont appeal to many liberals, the idea of going after them for what would be essentially thought crimes are also negative.
Which is essentially what is being said - a phrase about conservatives having moral superiority crops up, the conversation moves onto how morals are subjective, both liberals and conservatives possessing morals, and the idea of superiority being purely subjective.At which point Feceman brings in particular examples of liberal "moral inferiority." That is liberals support NAMBLA (as proven by the fact it exists), support abortion and likely would let the Nazi's win if we had to fight them today.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Or thier sexual orientation
Hitler is considered far-right last time I checked...so are most racists....
Oh you mean like voting for the Death Penalty, praying to Jesus, supporting lack of Gun control, and forcing women to give birth every time she is pregnant ?
Oh wait...I forgot about accumulation of oil at the expense of people's lives....and utilizing hypocritical and judgemental propaganda to keep power...not to mention making sure the poor stay poor and the rich get richer.... 😬
Ofcourse you don't....you only care about your own ideals, your own morals, your own perceptions of what should and shouldn't be, and f*ck how anyone else feels.... 🙄
And what attempts do you make to be a better person ?
Do you honestly beleive that praying to Jesus every night makes you a better person? You honestly beleive that voting Republican, and casting judgement upon others makes you any better ?Please....
Why don't you stop wasting time on KMC, and go DO SOMETHING beneficial for people....why don't you give away all your possessions like St. Francis did ?Why don't you go help cure the sick and raise the impoverous like Mother Teresa tried ?
Why don't you try fighting for the poor and lifting people's rights like Clinton did ?
No...instead you sit around on ur fkn chair, bashing other people, telling us how you follow a higher morality..and support the same party who wanted to imprison Nelson Mandella for life...
How you support a man who shot another man in the face....how you support a greedy money hungry son of a ***** like Bush who is responsible for MOREEEEEEEEE fkn deaths than we can imagine....even BEFORE he became president... !
You truly beleive that because you are Conservative, that your path is superior to the rest of ours ?
Typical bullshit hubris....
Remember when I said I didn't think I was morally superior to anyone?
GUESS WHAT? That didn't change, ooh, you so smart!
Go and keep supporting the Heterosexist, mildly racist, bible-thumping, face shooting, money hungry, pro-gun, pro-death penalty, pro-infiltration sons of bitches that you idolize so much...
Me....I'll try actually being a better person MYSELF than supporting a group of rich wealthy con men just to validate myself....
Originally posted by FeceMan
I wasn't really saying that. I was saying that it was immoral even to allow such an organization to exist.
I don't know if it really works like that. I'd think immorality would come about through immoral action and/or immoral intent - as long as NAMBLA are only talking then they aren't harming anyone. Just like that case in Europe of a group who tried to get into government to legislate the age of consent way down. They have their right to express their opinion, that is freedom of speech.
At least one of you three alluded to the war in Iraq. Sorry if you weren't the one.
I did, but not in that fashion. I have heard the "black and white" thing in that arena before. "Don't support the war then one supports terrorists." "Don't support shutting NAMBLA down? Then you are supporting them." It just doesn't work like that.
I was, you know, talking about liberals in the US, too.
Of course, but I don't think the stances of liberals and Conservatives are completely unique to say the US. Different slants based on context yes, but not compleltly out of the ballpark.
American Civil Liberties Union.
Examples? I have gone to their site, and looked around, getting statements like this:
"The ACLU is a strong defender of the right of religious organizations and individuals to express their religious beliefs in public. The ACLU is opposed, however, to the government sponsoring, endorsing, promoting, or financing religious symbols. The government has no right or authority to decide whose religious symbols should be promoted and whose should be ignored. The ACLU is currently contesting the federal government's eminent domain seizure and continued display, following a court order, of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross in San Diego. The ACLU supports an easy resolution to the Mt. Soledad controversy--privately raised funds should be used to move the cross to a religious site, thereby saving the Latin cross and respecting the Constitution. "
Which doesn't sound so unreasonable, nor really that intolerant.
Then I saw the list of issues ACLU is concerned with...
"Criminal Justice Death Penalty Disability Rights Drug Policy Free Speech HIV/AIDS Human Rights Immigrants' Rights Lesbian & Gay Rights National Security Police Practices Prisoners' Rights Privacy & Technology Publications Racial Justice Religion and Belief Reproductive Freedom Rights of the Poor Safe and Free StandUp/Youth Voting Rights Women's Rights"
Unless you can point me in the direction of their intolerance I tend to get lost in their apparent goal of "equality for all".
Yes, and the actions of you all make them think your moral compass is sufficiently underdeveloped.
How exactly? Closeted gay lives the fantasy of being a highly influential, conservative anti-gay advocate, then literally screws up and falls from grace. His congregation are horrified at how insidious gayness is, getting its claws into there anti-gay hero. Now they probably think it is curable because Haggard disappeared into the dessert for a while before emerging again, acting as if he had shaken of the spectre of gayness. As such they will go on with an even more odd view of homosexuality when the next hero of their cause emerges from their fold.
Yes... I can see how his detractors are the morally underdeveloped ones, and not the prune people of Haggard #9 (I swear, how do congregations like that get so many old people?)
If we took "doves" and "hawks" from today and put them in the situation of the world in the 1940s, there would be one group supporting the war and the other group protesting about it.
I thought that was politics! I mean if the population can be split on war, so to can the politicians. But to be honest I know of very few liberal leaning people (from Australia at least) who would have objected to taking a stand against such a situation. But there will be people who object on principle. I don't think you give liberals much credit.
I know in Australia a few years back there was some violance going on in one of the areas close to us. The nation had just voted in independance and pro-Indonesia militias were venting their spleens - the conservative "Liberal" party actually advised weighting in this case for more global concensus on the matter (that is hoping the US would go in with them) while it was the liberal Labor party that was saying we should be getting our troops in there quicker. But then again maybe the Labor party just had it's blood up or something and it was a one of thing.
(Yes, the "conservative" party in Australia is called the Liberal Party, where as the Labor Party is actually "liberal" in stance.
No, I do believe everything is objectively right and wrong. What it comes down to, however, is picking the thing that results in the most right/the least amount of wrong.
Thus it is a shame people have different opinions on what qualifies as "most right/least wrong" - does the end justify the means? Cruel to be kind? Necessary evils?
Being against spontaneous fetus termination, against affirmative action, for capital punishment, and upholding the intent of the First Amendment.
Hmmm - two things that are highly contentious (AA, abortion) and capital punishment which is of course completely moral.
I wonder if any innocent people have ended up on death row... according to a quick Internet search yes... yes they have. I wonder if any have been executed? Who knows. Still, if they were it would one of those necessary evils I'm sure. Terminating fetus - bad. Terminating murderer (or we hope he is) - good. Hmmm, in the past apparently a disproportionate numbers of black people were given this sentence compared to whites. Oh well - nothing questionable about that.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Hitler was a socialist.
He was also a Christian jawdrop
And no his ideals were FAR RIGHT......
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes.
Glad you admit it, pro-gun pro-death penalty boy...you, like most conservatives, are truly fond of violence, aren't you ?
Originally posted by FeceMan
OHH SNAP I C WHT U DID THRE
DID JYA ?!
Originally posted by FeceMan
It seems that you've got the general idea, but that's not the whole of it.
Such arrogance coming from a hypocrite..but what more can I expect ?
Originally posted by FeceMan
By trying to remain sanctified.
By...... doing....what...exactly ?
And honestly, I'd rather have a morally troubled outcast save my life and help me out, then have a self-righteous hypocrit sit in the background and bash and judge me all day....
Originally posted by FeceMan
No, I do not.
Then what exactly makes your path the right one ? Can you factually back it up ?
Originally posted by FeceMan
I like my things, Mother Teresa wasn't the saint everyone makes her out to be, and Clinton is a bad person.
Mother Teresa and Clinton have more "good" in thier eyelashes than you have in your entire body.
Secondly, Clinton was a Saint compared to fkn Bush and Cheney
Third, you still didn't answer my question...Why don't you got out and try doing good works like your savior Christ, instead of sitting around all day damning others and telling the rest of us how immoral you beleive we are ? 😬
Originally posted by FeceMan
I do not bash anyone, save, perhaps, for you.
Bashing is certainly a Christian characteristic, aint it ?
Originally posted by FeceMan
Remember when I said I didn't think I was morally superior to anyone?
Yes, but your claim your path is superior to ours...even though those who support your path have done horrible things
Originally posted by FeceMan
Oh, just shut the hell up, why don't you?
Oh the DESPARATION in your argument..... 🙄
Is that what you resort to ? You know what I said is true....my bashing of your Conservative party is no exxageration....any idiot who has google can see that for themselves.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Faith without works is dead...but I also think that the opposite is true.
Your thoughts are not fact. Works are far greater than Faith, because works actually ACHIEVE something....Faith just sits there and casts self-righteous illusions.