Right Wing Repugnants Once Argued Moral Grounds For Impeachment

[NiftyNiblick]

Right wingers have no concept of what morality is.
They are victims of evolutionary retardation.
They're somewhere around lizards, perhaps, although that might be disparaging toward lizards..

 

[LV426]

I can admit some things are black and white. Hating people is an example.

Right, and Conservatives hate gays.

Liberals hate Conservatives for hating gays.

These are the same?

 

[cawacko]

They were you stupid asshole.

Gavin Newsom was the first mayor in the country to allow gay marriage.

Do you think Prop 8 would barely pass in 2018 the way it passed in 2008?

Newsome have been but he's not the whole state. And didn't the courts shoot him down as well?

It's funny. Newsome is the only politician I have ever donated to. Guess that makes me more tolerant than almost everyone.

 

[LV426]

ou make the mistaken assumption that the only reaction to a person hating gays is to hate them in return.

We accommodated them throughout Bush the Dumber and Obama. We let Conservatives have their pity parties. We let them have their wars. We let them have their discrimination. We let them rebrand to teabags. We let them rebrand again to MAGA. We've reached the point now that after nearly 20 years of accommodation, they only get more intolerant.

There's no way to reach those people. They're never going to change. They would have by now. I'm done waiting for the least educated, least groomed, most insipid among us to play catch up with the rest of the 21st Century.

I've reached my limit -as have most progressives- with accommodating self-entitlement. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's valid. Just because you hate gay people doesn't mean it's a legitimate position to have.

 

[cawacko]

Right, and Conservatives hate gays.

Liberals hate Conservatives for hating gays.

These are the same?

Define hating gays

 

[Flash]

So we should accommodate people with intolerant views because if we don't, they're just going to dig their heels in deeper? Are you kidding me? That plays right into the victimhood they assume for themselves. It's the 21st century, the time for coddling racists and bigots is over. We coddled them throughout Obama and they responded with Trump.

"Look what you made me do" doesn't work as a legitimate defense for wife-beaters, so why would it be a legitimate defense for bigotry and intolerance?

I'm not sure you mean by accommodation and I don't think anybody was coddled under Obama (except insurance and drug companies). I don't know the alternative to how racists are being treated. We already have laws prohibiting discrimination so there is not much to do legally. Are you going to force them to change their attitudes? That didn't work out so great in 2016.

You seem to want confrontation. Perhaps hate is not the best way to fight hate. Obama and Hillary did not favor gay marriage as late as 2012. Did you hate them?

 

[cawacko]

We accommodated them throughout Bush the Dumber and Obama. We let Conservatives have their pity parties. We let them have their wars. We let them have their discrimination. We let them rebrand to teabags. We let them rebrand again to MAGA. We've reached the point now that after nearly 20 years of accommodation, they only get more intolerant.

There's no way to reach those people. They're never going to change. They would have by now. I'm done waiting for the least educated, least groomed, most insipid among us to play catch up with the rest of the 21st Century.

I've reached my limit -as have most progressives- with accommodating self-entitlement. Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean it's valid. Just because you hate gay people doesn't mean it's a legitimate position to have.

Why did you support a president who was against gay marriage?

 

[LV426]

Assume a person is a good friend or close family member who you care about but had never discussed this topic. You lean this person hates gays. Do you now hate this person?

Yes. I've shut out family members since Trump because they support discrimination and intolerance of (insert minority group here, Trump's insulted them all). Blood is not thicker than water, and accommodating racist and idiot relatives just because they feel bad when they're derided for being intolerant bigots is a waste of time and all it does is further feed the narcissism and self-entitlement victimhood they have cast for themselves. What do these people have to be intolerant about? Nothing.

So no, I am not going to casually shrug off bigotry. I am calling it out now. If you don't like being called out for being a bigot, don't be a fucking bigot.

It's really that simple.

 

[LV426]

I did not say the inherent position of conservatives is intolerance, so intolerance is not just on one side

Yes, it is only on one side, bro!

Only one side hates the gays.

The side you're defending by trying to draw a moral equivalence.

The reason their intolerance is inherent is because nothing a gay person does causes a bigot to be a bigot. It's an inherent hatred they have that wasn't caused by any action taken by a gay person.

To you, that's the same thing as hating someone for being a bigot.

So you are defending intolerance by trying to cast reactions to that intolerance as intolerance.

It's the Tolerance Paradox, and accommodating racist stupidity is how we ended up with Trump.

 

[LV426]

If a liberal hates somebody because they own a gun, the intolerance is just on the liberal side.

Again, you're describing a reaction while trying to cast it as inherent, that way you can make the shaky moral equivalent argument.

No one's born a gun owner. It's a choice you make. So you have to be able to be tough enough to face the public and moral consequences of that choice.

 

[Truth Detector]

Right wingers have no concept of what morality is.
They are victims of evolutionary retardation.
They're somewhere around lizards, perhaps, although that might be disparaging toward lizards..

Liberals are the party of morality now? STFU, seriously.

 

[LV426]

Trying to justify hate because it is for a better cause is creating the same problem. You can hate an attitude without hating a person holding that attitude.

No you can't.

You can't separate the politics from the personal when what we're talking about -bigotry- is entirely personal.

 

[LV426]

Whether two things are equal does not mean they cannot not both be bad.

So it's bad to be intolerant of intolerance?

That's what you're arguing, by the way.

 

[Truth Detector]

Yes. I've shut out family members since Trump because they support discrimination and intolerance of

More likely they kicked your ignorant ass out.

 

[LV426]

You are proclaiming yourself essentially superior and more tolerant because you are a political liberal and justifying your hate on those grounds. Yet the people you claim are superior are no different than anyone else

No, what happened was you tried to whatabout, forgot that the thing you whatabouted over was a decade ago, and are now trying to save face by shitting forth a vague and generalized argument so you don't have to admit that "intolerance" and "intolerance of intolerance" are not morally equivalent.

 

[Flash]

Liberals would agree they are intolerant of hate speech. Why aren't you?

So once again, you're trying to say "intolerance" and "intolerance of intolerance" are the same thing. That way you can make a false equivalency in order to cast yourself as some sort of moderate trying to figure it out, when all you're doing is accommodating inherent intolerance among Conservatives.

Liberal "intolerance", by your own admission, is a reaction to something else. So liberals are reacting intolerantly to intolerant speech by Conservatives.

So how are they equivalent?

Because free and open debate should not be limited because it might hurt somebody's feelings. I hope people don't use such language, but I would not limit it and those who do want to choose what constitutes "hate speech."

You are intolerant of hate speech yet argue that we should hate people that have offensive views. You are promoting the same thing you argue against.

And I did not say liberal intolerance is necessarily a reaction against something else. They may be intolerant of things they do not like which are not reactions. The inherent intolerance comes from both liberals and conservatives equally. Only excessive partisanship sees one side as more intolerant than the other---we simply choose which intolerance we prefer.

 

[Truth Detector]

Because free and open debate should not be limited because it might hurt somebody's feelings. I hope people don't use such language, but I would not limit it and those who do want to choose what constitutes "hate speech."

You are intolerant of hate speech yet argue that we should hate people that have offensive views. You are promoting the same thing you argue against.

And I did not say liberal intolerance is necessarily a reaction against something else. They may be intolerant of things they do not like which are not reactions. The inherent intolerance comes from both liberals and conservatives equally. Only excessive partisanship sees one side as more intolerant than the other---we simply choose which intolerance we prefer.

At some point you are going to realize that you are arguing with an idiot who only wants to drag you down into the circle of stupidity where they feel the most comfortable.

 

[LV426]

Says the guy who would probably still be telling us socialism/communism is the future until its total and utter failure

So this is a perfect example of what I was talking about before, about poor Conservative judgment.

No one is arguing for Communism, and you are dishonestly lumping Communism in with Socialism, when the two are wildly different. And even then, Democratic Socialism is different from just Socialism. So you're a very lazy person and I think that comes from your poor judgment, and the fact that people throughout your life have accommodated your poor judgment so much to the point where you have unearned entitlement. That's usually the fault of the parents, who raised shitty kids to become shitty adults. You are basically arguing that you can't be expected to know the distinctions and differences between Communism, Socialism, and Democratic Socialism, so you just lazily try to lump it all together and foist it as a straw man on those you argue with as you help make the very point I was making in my post for me.

For you to admit that the three are not the same would be an admission that your judgment is poor. So poor that you can't be expected to be able to distinguish between different systems and ideologies. However, you present the argument in a way that is self-entitled. Such that I have to respond to your shitty, poor judgment of a post instead of you doing the work of not writing a shitty, poor judgment of a post in the first place. So once again, it becomes an accommodation of you. In this case, I have to accommodate your poor judgment, laziness, and/or ignorance. Well, I'm not going to do that. If you think Communism and Socialism and Democratic Socialism are all the same, then you're a fucking idiot who deserves derision for your shitty judgment and moral character.

No apologies necessary.

 

[cawacko]

LV, here's some history for you (since we're going straight tribalism here). You keep asking why the 2008 Prop 8 vote is relevent ten years later. Because liberals proclaimed themselves tolerant then just as you, and they, do today. But clearly liberals weren't tolerant at the time. Nor were Clinton and Obama when they ran on a platform against gay marriage.

So you are continually referencing hate for gays well here you have it. People hating gays while claiming to be tolerant.

 

[cawacko]

So this is a perfect example of what I was talking about before, about poor Conservative judgment.

No one is arguing for Communism, and you are dishonestly lumping Communism in with Socialism, when the two are wildly different. And even then, Democratic Socialism is different from just Socialism. So you're a very lazy person and I think that comes from your poor judgment, and the fact that people throughout your life have accommodated your poor judgment so much to the point where you have unearned entitlement. That's usually the fault of the parents, who raised shitty kids to become shitty adults. You are basically arguing that you can't be expected to know the distinctions and differences between Communism, Socialism, and Democratic Socialism, so you just lazily try to lump it all together and foist it as a straw man on those you argue with as you help make the very point I was making in my post for me.

For you to admit that the three are not the same would be an admission that your judgment is poor. So poor that you can't be expected to be able to distinguish between different systems and ideologies. However, you present the argument in a way that is self-entitled. Such that I have to respond to your shitty, poor judgment of a post instead of you doing the work of not writing a shitty, poor judgment of a post in the first place. So once again, it becomes an accommodation of you. In this case, I have to accommodate your poor judgment, laziness, and/or ignorance. Well, I'm not going to do that. If you think Communism and Socialism and Democratic Socialism are all the same, then you're a fucking idiot who deserves derision for your shitty judgment and moral character.

No apologies necessary.

You won't say how old you are. My guess is young so don't remember the '80's but I do. I remember people on the American left espousing communist economic ideology and beliefs. You don't hear it anymore because it was such a failure.

And yes I understand communism, socialism and democratic socialism. Democratic socialism has become the more "acceptable" term since outright socialism Venezuela style again completely failed.

But I will never apologize for being a capitalist. But you keep working on finding the "perfect" socialist mix.