Liberals who aren't liberal

RobertKK · 08-06-2019 2:17pm

A society needs the right mix of liberalism and conservatism. Nothing extreme on either side. When we get extreme liberalism or conservatism, it isn't good, it may appear good to some who are a bit extreme on either side, but when the imbalance becomes too strong, it leads to a counter reaction.
An example would be the very liberal response to the migrant crisis, one could argue a country like Germany with Merkel was being compassionate, but the lack of controls on the immigration led to a rise in the far right, it was used by people in Brexit referendum.
Of course Germany and the EU reacted to this, but it was after the damage was done.
We need a balance between things viewed as liberal and conservative, when it goes out of balance the consequences are usually negative.
So while the topic is about illiberal liberals, the problem exists of being too liberal or too conservative is in my opinion bad for society.

Hedgelayer · 08-06-2019 2:31pm

Billy Mays wrote: »

No not really

Can you link us to some data showing most liberals are divorced or seperated?

Cheers in advance

We all have equal abilities to observe with our own intellect.

You don't have to go and do the research, it's quite obvious these liberals are all on their own.

Very rarely you'll see a liberal husband tag along with the support of his liberal wife....

I think you know I'm right, but you're just being pedantic by asking me to search for stats and data....

Nice try though....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-06-2019 2:53pm

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Billy Mays wrote: »

No not really

Can you link us to some data showing most liberals are divorced or seperated?

Cheers in advance

We all have equal abilities to observe with our own intellect.

You don't have to go and do the research, it's quite obvious these liberals are all on their own.

Very rarely you'll see a liberal husband tag along with the support of his liberal wife....

I think you know I'm right, but you're just being pedantic by asking me to search for stats and data....

Nice try though....

So, 'no, I cant" then?

How many liberals do you know?

Nobelium · 08-06-2019 2:56pm

RobertKK wrote: »

A society needs the right mix of liberalism and conservatism. Nothing extreme on either side. When we get extreme liberalism or conservatism, it isn't good, it may appear good to some who are a bit extreme on either side, but when the imbalance becomes too strong, it leads to a counter reaction.
An example would be the very liberal response to the migrant crisis, one could argue a country like Germany with Merkel was being compassionate, but the lack of controls on the immigration led to a rise in the far right, it was used by people in Brexit referendum.
Of course Germany and the EU reacted to this, but it was after the damage was done.
We need a balance between things viewed as liberal and conservative, when it goes out of balance the consequences are usually negative.
So while the topic is about illiberal liberals, the problem exists of being too liberal or too conservative is in my opinion bad for society.

The crux of the problem is a lot of people are no longer examining each issue and deciding the best solution on it's own merits. Instead they have devolved their thinking to the divide and conquest strategy of "team left" or "team right" and have no interest in determining the most optimal/effective solution, regardless of it being so called left or right.

Hedgelayer · 08-06-2019 3:38pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, 'no, I cant" then?

How many liberals do you know?

A few too many to be honest.

They're ok socially and say if you meet them now and again and don't talk about anything to do with social justice or environmental issues you'll get some common ground.

But nearly always the conversation goes paps of Anu up....

When they start to try to convert people who don't give a toss about social justice....

Instead of learning about why people are different they're just fight or flight.

It's not hard to accept some people are right leaning, but these justice warriors are warriors that's for sure....

A lot are unemployed too and wasters.
Accidemically intelligent and have the ability to be productive and add something to society.
But sadly they can't blend in with the average person.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-06-2019 4:04pm

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, 'no, I cant" then?

How many liberals do you know?

A few too many to be honest.

They're ok socially and say if you meet them now and again and don't talk about anything to do with social justice or environmental issues you'll get some common ground.

But nearly always the conversation goes paps of Anu up....

When they start to try to convert people who don't give a toss about social justice....

Instead of learning about why people are different they're just fight or flight.

It's not hard to accept some people are right leaning, but these justice warriors are warriors that's for sure....

A lot are unemployed too and wasters.
Accidemically intelligent and have the ability to be productive and add something to society.
But sadly they can't blend in with the average person.

I asked how many? The only answer I need is a number.
Even a rough one.

Hedgelayer · 08-06-2019 4:37pm

Ok there's Emma, Stephen, Stephanie, Billy, Joy, two Kierans, Andrea, Lesley, Debbie and her partner don't remember his name....

Say 11 off the top of my head.
I've missed a few alright.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 08-06-2019 5:02pm

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Ok there's Emma, Stephen, Stephanie, Billy, Joy, two Kierans, Andrea, Lesley, Debbie and her partner don't remember his name....

Say 11 off the top of my head.
I've missed a few alright.

Grand, so. Nowhere near enougjt to make a representative statement then. That's that agreed up, so.

Hedgelayer · 08-06-2019 6:36pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Grand, so. Nowhere near enougjt to make a representative statement then. That's that agreed up, so.

Some of them don't know each other but they're all very similar with their style, bitterness towards their exes, and hatred for Donald Trump right wing politics and the Catholic church

So I think you're wrong there.

So we have to disagree on that sweet heart....

Hedgelayer · 08-06-2019 6:49pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I asked how many? The only answer I need is a number.
Even a rough one.

By the way are you a liberal ?

Wouldn't being a moderate be more common sense ?

paw patrol · 08-06-2019 7:15pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh it's easy to determine what he is concerned about: Does he highlight crimes against children or rape when they're not committed by Muslims? No.

Does he highlight crimes by Muslims when they don't involve rape or children? Yes.
And so on....

Keep dissecting the things he highlights and you'll see he only highlights crimes by Muslims and doesn't highlight similar crimes by white people. So it's clear he sees Muslims as the focus because that's what his followers want To hear. Bad news about Muslims.

If he was highlighting rape and crimes against children across the board even when it doesn't suit him to do so (such as the EDL members who were merrily abusing children) then it would be much more likely he cares about protecting children. But clearly he cares only about highlighting Muslim crimes, not the not the victims. His behaviour makes clear his priorities.

You responded to the part of the post that had nothing to do with the thread topic. Anything about the thread?

You missed the point that in these cases the agents of the state protected the abusers because of fears that people would realise that some of the newer members of british society has odd views about white girls.

Perhaps with the exception of politicans in the past never had the UK seen such protection or refusal to act.
That in itself should have led to hangings.

They even had an MP (Naz Shah Labour) attack the victims retweeting a tweet telling the victims to "shut up for the sake of diversity",

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4299167/corbyn-ally-shares-message-telling-rotherham-sex-abuse-victims-to-be-quiet-for-the-good-of-diversity/
there was an extra level of abuse here and the state/media was no advocate.

It's insane that you would find fault with a man defending and highlighting systematic child abuse...its kinda like you think it should have been kept on the "qt" and damn him for his actions. Otherwise there is no reason to your comments.

So take you bullsh8t elsewhere you are clutching at straws . Robinson did good in that case. Deal with it.

recedite · 08-06-2019 7:54pm

Nazir Afzal, the Crown Prosecution Service’s lead on child sexual abuse came out with a few strange comments too.
In advance of any prosecutions, he had already decided that there was no religious or cultural link involved. It was all to do with "the night time economy"

There is no religious basis for this...Where there is involvement of Asian men or men of Pakistani origin, he points to a practical, rather than cultural explanation – the fact that in the areas where grooming scandals have been uncovered, those controlling the night-time economy, people working through the night in takeaways and driving minicabs, are predominantly Asian men. He argues that evidence suggests that victims were not targeted because they were white but because they were vulnerable and their vulnerability caused them to seek out “warmth, love, transport, mind-numbing substances, drugs, alcohol and food”.
“Who offers those things? In certain parts of the country, the place they go is the night-time economy,” he says. “Where you have Pakistani men, Asian men, disproportionately employed in the night-time economy, they are going to be more involved in this kind of activity than perhaps white men are. We keep hearing people talk about a problem in the north and the Midlands, and that’s where you have lots of minicab drivers, lots of people employed in takeaways, from that kind of background. If you have a preponderance of Asians working in those fields.

One question though. Where are all the Chinese rape gangs preying on underage white girls? If any ethnic group works more nights, its the Chinese.

SEPT 23 1989 · 08-06-2019 10:21pm

Bobblehats · 08-06-2019 11:32pm

Send liberals to Liberia. That’ll learn ‘em

ILoveYourVibes · 08-06-2019 11:35pm

Bobblehats wrote: »

Send liberals to Liberia. That’ll learn ‘em

Dear Liberia ...i would die for her!

Bobblehats · 08-06-2019 11:37pm

Liberian girrrl..

DrPhilG · 09-06-2019 12:07am

Sonics2k wrote: »

Yeah, that guy isn't a "liberal". He's a piece of ****.

He may estue to being one, but he's probably one of those absolute **** bags who goes on about "straight privilege" and ****e too.

You know my post history, and you know I'm a liberal person, but people like that are the worst.

They're like, the Tucker Carlsons of the Republicans. The worst examples.

I saw a clip of Ben Shapiro the other day, he summed it up well.

He stated that there is a clear difference between a Liberal and a Leftist/Leftie. A Liberal is a good person who he disagrees with on political opinion. A Leftist on the other hand is a vocal minority lunatic who screams hatred, shouts down debate and tries to censor all who disagree.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 09-06-2019 3:06am

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Grand, so. Nowhere near enougjt to make a representative statement then. That's that agreed up, so.

Some of them don't know each other but they're all very similar with their style, bitterness towards their exes, and hatred for Donald Trump right wing politics and the Catholic church

So I think you're wrong there.

So we have to disagree on that sweet heart....

What, that 11 people constitutes a representative sample? Ok then....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 09-06-2019 3:09am

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I asked how many? The only answer I need is a number.
Even a rough one.

By the way are you a liberal ?

Wouldn't being a moderate be more common sense ?

Am I a liberal by your definition, or the real definition? If the former, you'll need to clarify what that actually is.

ILoveYourVibes · 09-06-2019 3:21am

DrPhilG wrote: »

I saw a clip of Ben Shapiro the other day, he summed it up well.

He stated that there is a clear difference between a Liberal and a Leftist/Leftie. A Liberal is a good person who he disagrees with on political opinion. A Leftist on the other hand is a vocal minority lunatic who screams hatred, shouts down debate and tries to censor all who disagree.

Ben Shapiro is very interesting. I don't agree with him on most things. But he often less far right than people think.

I have zero idea what I would call myself. And my opinions are not often based on logical but personal experience.

ILoveYourVibes · 09-06-2019 3:31am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Am I a liberal by your definition, or the real definition? If the former, you'll need to clarify what that actually is.

Liberal used to be for liberty consent of the government and quality before the law.The rejection of authoritarianism. That can be less authoritarian forms of policing. Police having guns might be considered authoritarian.

It favors independent judiciary.

Its divided (very vaguely) into moderates and progressives.

Moderates verge towards elitism (the elite reach the top etc ) and progressives focus on universalism (making suffrage and education universal).

There are different liberal economists ...John Keynes is probably the most famous. He believed budget deficits were a good thing. He thought it stimulated the economy and that govts should intentionally do it.

Sonics2k · 09-06-2019 5:07am

DrPhilG wrote: »

I saw a clip of Ben Shapiro the other day, he summed it up well.

He stated that there is a clear difference between a Liberal and a Leftist/Leftie. A Liberal is a good person who he disagrees with on political opinion. A Leftist on the other hand is a vocal minority lunatic who screams hatred, shouts down debate and tries to censor all who disagree.

A valid point, and quiet accurate. The problem though, truthfully, is that in most online discussion (and it's gotten very bad on boards the last few years) is the attitude of 'de libruls' pretty much shuts down any and all discussion.

"PC gone mad" is usually used by those who find out it's not okay to call people a queer or ****** for a laugh. It's also a tired complaint as it's literally been a buzz phrase since the 1960's.

In my time here I've been called both a leftie liberal, and yet somehow a right wing conservative.

The narrative has very much become, you're with us, or you're against us. There's one view or another.

Have a read through the London bus attack thread, and instead of people talking about the vicious attack on two innocent women, there's shots at Muslims, claims it's a false flag, homophobic attacks don't happen and a lot more. It's an absolute train wreck of a thread.

I'm a liberal in the sense I believe in universal healthcare and basic housing. But in turn all working citizens get access to private (better and bigger) housing and the industry regulated by the Government.

BalcombeSt4 · 09-06-2019 7:03am

Mutant z wrote: »

There seems to be a trend of those who claim to be liberal but are completely intolerant of those who dont share their own world outlook. They are liberal as long as you agree with them but if anyone so much as strays from their own group think they are attacked, slandered and censored. Why are so many self proclaimed liberals in favour of tighter censorship laws and clamping down on freedom of speech, which is an essence of a true liberal society. Surely being liberal means supporting free speech whether you agree with it or not. The fact is liberalism is about supporting free speech and expression and opposing censorship which is the exact opposite to what so many who claim to be on the liberal spectrum have proposed. It seems liberalism has been hijacked by SJWs and college students, in favour of identity politics which is anything but liberal. Its time real liberals stood up and defended the true liberal values of freedom of speech and democracy.

Liberals have no spine.
Asquith backed down from the alliance of Carson, The UVF & the Tories to put Home Rule on the shelf.
David Llyod George was the last British Liberal to do anything of note, who passed the Liberal Welfare reforms & helped to create the foundations of a welfare state which Labour did in the post-WWII government.

Liberals in America have gone so far over to the right it's basically a one party system, with a radical faction (Republicans) & a moderate faction (Democrats), there's no working class party or party for working class people like Labour in the UK.

recedite · 09-06-2019 9:15am

Sonics2k wrote: »

The narrative has very much become, you're with us, or you're against us. There's one view or another.

Have a read through the London bus attack thread, and instead of people talking about the vicious attack on two innocent women, there's shots at Muslims, claims it's a false flag, homophobic attacks don't happen and a lot more. It's an absolute train wreck of a thread.

You're right on the first point, but you need to look in the mirror.
I have read the bus attack thread, and none of those claims exist in it.
The counter claims exist alright - there are plenty of strawman arguments in other words.

Sonics2k · 09-06-2019 9:26am

recedite wrote: »

You're right on the first point, but you need to look in the mirror.
I have read the bus attack thread, and none of those claims exist in it.
The counter claims exist alright - there are plenty of strawman arguments in other words.

Really?

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

Because of religious beliefs

(check his post history)

Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »

It’s the BBC they ain’t going to mention the Religious angle

Birneybau wrote: »

4 lads arrested, one had been speaking Spanish. But sure, religion of peace...

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/07/two-women-left-bloodied-in-homophobic-attack-on-london-bus

Sultan of Bling wrote: »

Will be the official religion of all Europe soon enough.

Nikki Sixx wrote: »

My feeling is that this was a gang of scumbags, who are used to bullying, humiliating and intimidating people. Had they not stumbled upon the lesbian couple, they would have harassed somebody else. They are just out to create general mischief, but I'm sure anybody who was "different" would have been a target. I don't feel they sought out homosexuals, but targeted them as they woul a "nerdy" teenager.

That's literally just from the first 6 pages after a very, very quick glance.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-06-2019 9:43am

paw patrol wrote: »

It's insane that you would find fault with a man defending and highlighting systematic child abuse...its kinda like you think it should have been kept on the "qt" and damn him for his actions. Otherwise there is no reason to your comments.

So take you bullsh8t elsewhere you are clutching at straws . Robinson did good in that case. Deal with it.

I never said I found fault with his highlighting the Rotherham rape gang. I said his concern isn't with rape or protecting children. His concern is highlighting crimes committed by Muslims. His followers want to hear about Muslims in a negative light and he provides what they want.

So just to clarify, you saying "It's insane that you would find fault with a man defending and highlighting systematic child abuse...its kinda like you think it should have been kept on the "qt" and damn him for his actions. Otherwise there is no reason to your comments." is a strawman because I didn't say those things.

My point is that he's not like an investigative journalist, trying to protect children from whoever threatens them. He's only interested in crimes committed by Muslims.

I'll go as far as to say that if all circumstances were the same and there was a white British rape gang in Rotherham that wasn't being tackled by police, he never would have gotten involved. His concern isn't children or rape. His concern is negative news about Muslims because his followers enjoy that.

Again, you've focuses on a TR point which has nothing to do with the thread. Because you used a strawman argument I needed to clarify my position. But it's got nothing to do with the thread topic.

We got on to this because TR, the supposed champion of free speech, walked up to and punched a man who was exercising free speech by calling him a wanker ( I think).

His MO is to play the victim about being silenced by the state and YouTube etc, and his followers think that's wrong. But TR goes out of his way to walk up to a man using free speech uses violence to silence him. And his followers think he was right. Incredible

I dread to think what state the world would descend into if TR got the kind of free speech he lives by. "Nobody should silence me, but I (and my pack of thugs) will use violence against someone who says things I don't like"

Hedgelayer · 09-06-2019 9:49am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Am I a liberal by your definition, or the real definition? If the former, you'll need to clarify what that actually is.

Look it, I've not time for sociopathic conversation or dealing with narcissism.

Trying to distort people's reality....

Your definition or the real definition, that's a very sociopathic response to a question.....

I think we're reading from a different script, if you cannot answer a simple question we'll leave it there sweetheart.

recedite · 09-06-2019 10:06am

Sonics2k wrote: »

Really?
That's literally just from the first 6 pages after a very, very quick glance.

The first 2 links mention "religion". No mention of muslims. All the major world religions are classified as "homophobic" nowadays. Look at Israel Folau, the Australian Rugby player sacked for quoting on his own social media account a verse taken directly from the bible.

Your 3rd link "4 lads arrested, one had been speaking Spanish. But sure, religion of peace.." is actually one of those strawman posts I referred to.
If you can't even tell the difference, its no wonder you completely misunderstood most of the thread.

Your 4th link..

"My feeling is that this was a gang of scumbags, who are used to bullying, humiliating and intimidating people. Had they not stumbled upon the lesbian couple, they would have harassed somebody else. They are just out to create general mischief, but I'm sure anybody who was "different" would have been a target. I don't feel they sought out homosexuals, but targeted them as they would a "nerdy" teenager."

...is a very calm and reasonable post. It absolutely contradicts your claim that "It's an absolute train wreck of a thread".

Anyway, if you have anything else to add, please take it to the other thread.

recedite · 09-06-2019 10:10am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I dread to think what state the world would descend into if TR got the kind of free speech he lives by. "Nobody should silence me, but I (and my pack of thugs) will use violence against someone who says things I don't like"

You really shouldn't use quotation marks when you are just making up stuff. Quotation marks are used when you are quoting something the person has actually said.

El_Duderino 09 · 09-06-2019 10:20am

recedite wrote: »

You really shouldn't use quotation marks when you are just making up stuff. Quotation marks are used when you are quoting something the person has actually said.

Lol. You're right. I used the wrong punctuation. It should have been a paraphrase rather than a quotation.

Everyone loves learning about grammar. Thanks.

Brian? · 09-06-2019 10:34am

DrPhilG wrote: »

I saw a clip of Ben Shapiro the other day, he summed it up well.

He stated that there is a clear difference between a Liberal and a Leftist/Leftie. A Liberal is a good person who he disagrees with on political opinion. A Leftist on the other hand is a vocal minority lunatic who screams hatred, shouts down debate and tries to censor all who disagree.

Some more intellectual gold from Ben Shapiro.

You think that’s summed up well? You honestly think every left wing person is a lunatic?

Brian? · 09-06-2019 10:38am

recedite wrote: »

You're right on the first point, but you need to look in the mirror.
I have read the bus attack thread, and none of those claims exist in it.
The counter claims exist alright - there are plenty of strawman arguments in other words.

You haven’t read that thread very well then. On the first page some commented that the bbc weren’t covering the “religious aspect”.

On the 2nd page someone pointed out it was a robbery and the fact they were lesbians was incidental.

Both complete bull****.

KikiLaRue · 09-06-2019 10:39am

Nobelium wrote: »

Note how you've tried to dodged the question. Care to actually answer it ?

I did answer, if you’re not smart enough to understand the answer I gave, I’m not going to waste my time breaking it down for you.

Sonics2k · 09-06-2019 11:14am

recedite wrote: »

The first 2 links mention "religion". No mention of muslims. All the major world religions are classified as "homophobic" nowadays. Look at Israel Folau, the Australian Rugby player sacked for quoting on his own social media account a verse taken directly from the bible.

Your 3rd link "4 lads arrested, one had been speaking Spanish. But sure, religion of peace.." is actually one of those strawman posts I referred to.
If you can't even tell the difference, its no wonder you completely misunderstood most of the thread.

Your 4th link.. ...is a very calm and reasonable post. It absolutely contradicts your claim that "It's an absolute train wreck of a thread".

Anyway, if you have anything else to add, please take it to the other thread.

You absolute what? How can you possibly ignore the very clear jabs at Islam there?

You think those same comments would have been made if it was immediately confirmed to be a group of white Christians?

Speaking of Israel Folau, I seem to remember an awful lot of the same people we're talking about on the bus attack thread decrying that a good Christian man should have his freedom of speech suppressed.

Funny that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 09-06-2019 11:42am

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Am I a liberal by your definition, or the real definition? If the former, you'll need to clarify what that actually is.

Look it, I've not time for sociopathic conversation or dealing with narcissism.

Trying to distort people's reality....

Your definition or the real definition, that's a very sociopathic response to a question.....

I think we're reading from a different script, if you cannot answer a simple question we'll leave it there sweetheart.

Seeing as can't actually define the word 'liberal' as a noun, I think your right and we should.

Wanderer78 · 09-06-2019 11:45am

Brian? wrote:

You think thatâ€™s summed up well? You honestly think every left wing person is a lunatic?

I'm not all the well to be fair, still a happy lunatic lefty though

Hedgelayer · 09-06-2019 2:20pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Seeing as can't actually define the word 'liberal' as a noun, I think your right and we should.

I love when a discussion can end amicably.

I totally agree with your response.

Thank you.

Junkyard Tom · 09-06-2019 2:55pm

I used to think liberal just meant having a live-and-let-live attitude - more of a personal thing. Liberal in a political context is everyone to 'the left' of that little ****bird Ben Shapiro?

DrPhilG · 09-06-2019 5:17pm

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Ben Shapiro is very interesting. I don't agree with him on most things. But he often less far right than people think.

I have zero idea what I would call myself. And my opinions are not often based on logical but personal experience.

Same here. I don't class myself as any title, nor do I want to. I would of course be classed by most as a right wing Conservative, yet many right wing Conservative would view me as too Liberal! And I'm perfectly happy with that opinion because I feel that sticking to the every right wing Conservative notion "just because" is a ridiculous standpoint.

That's why I like Shapiro. I find that most of his views stem from a logical point of view rather than just looking at what the Liberal opinion is and doing the opposite for the sake of it, which far too many on the right seem to do.

In other words Shapiro's views come from his logical opinion, not just driven by a hatred of the left. Of course many disagree with his logic, which is fine. But if it is based in logic, argue the logic. If it is based on a blind hatred of the left, what's the point.

He also made a very good point (which I have argued with a few people since) about how too many on both the left or the right, are guilty of demonising the opposition. For example (I think he used Milo as an example) many on the right see those on the left as thinking and believing as they do because they are bad people.

For example they say the left are in favour of abortion because they are sick and want to kill babies, which is just stupid. The fact is that they are pro choice because they don't see it as "killing babies", but that it is a fundamental woman's right.

In the same way, many on the left see the right as horrible oppressive nazis who want to repress woman's rights. This is also daft. Anti abortion campaigners do so because they believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent life.

So the reality is that both pro choice and pro life movements believe what they do out of good and sound motives. Neither side is evil or bad, they just have a difference of opinion which should be respected. So each side painting the other as "bad" is childish and illogical and each side should be able to have an adult conversation about it without resorting to abuse.

DrPhilG · 09-06-2019 5:19pm

Brian? wrote: »

Some more intellectual gold from Ben Shapiro.

You think that’s summed up well? You honestly think every left wing person is a lunatic?

Seriously? I make a point about how it is wrong to say that every left wing person is a lunatic and you interpret that as me saying every left wing person is a lunatic?

There are people with right wing opinions. Then there are far right hateful pricks.

There are people with left wing opinions. Then there are far left hateful pricks.

Ben Shapiro made the point to his right wing listeners, that they should recognise that difference, rather than just painting all liberals with the loony brush.

How is that not a positive approach?

Brian? · 09-06-2019 7:19pm

DrPhilG wrote: »

Seriously? I make a point about how it is wrong to say that every left wing person is a lunatic and you interpret that as me saying every left wing person is a lunatic?

There are people with right wing opinions. Then there are far right hateful pricks.

There are people with left wing opinions. Then there are far left hateful pricks.

Ben Shapiro made the point to his right wing listeners, that they should recognise that difference, rather than just painting all liberals with the loony brush.

How is that not a positive approach?

Liberals are not left wing. They're certainly further left when compared to the likes of Shapiro.

There are plenty of sane left wing and even far left people. Yet you're happy for Shapiro to classify them lunatics.

Sonics2k · 09-06-2019 7:22pm

DrPhilG wrote: »

Same here. I don't class myself as any title, nor do I want to. I would of course be classed by most as a right wing Conservative, yet many right wing Conservative would view me as too Liberal! And I'm perfectly happy with that opinion because I feel that sticking to the every right wing Conservative notion "just because" is a ridiculous standpoint.

That's why I like Shapiro. I find that most of his views stem from a logical point of view rather than just looking at what the Liberal opinion is and doing the opposite for the sake of it, which far too many on the right seem to do.

In other words Shapiro's views come from his logical opinion, not just driven by a hatred of the left. Of course many disagree with his logic, which is fine. But if it is based in logic, argue the logic. If it is based on a blind hatred of the left, what's the point.

He also made a very good point (which I have argued with a few people since) about how too many on both the left or the right, are guilty of demonising the opposition. For example (I think he used Milo as an example) many on the right see those on the left as thinking and believing as they do because they are bad people.

For example they say the left are in favour of abortion because they are sick and want to kill babies, which is just stupid. The fact is that they are pro choice because they don't see it as "killing babies", but that it is a fundamental woman's right.

In the same way, many on the left see the right as horrible oppressive nazis who want to repress woman's rights. This is also daft. Anti abortion campaigners do so because they believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent life.

So the reality is that both pro choice and pro life movements believe what they do out of good and sound motives. Neither side is evil or bad, they just have a difference of opinion which should be respected. So each side painting the other as "bad" is childish and illogical and each side should be able to have an adult conversation about it without resorting to abuse.

Just to quickly clarify something, very little of Shapiro's beliefs stem from logic, rather his political and religious beliefs.

For example, he's very much opposed to Gay Marriage as he believes the purpose of marriage is to have children, which is simply not true nor is it logical.

20Cent · 09-06-2019 7:31pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

Just to quickly clarify something, very little of Shapiro's beliefs stem from logic, rather his political and religious beliefs.

For example, he's very much opposed to Gay Marriage as he believes the purpose of marriage is to have children, which is simply not true nor is it logical.

Not to mention his views on climate change.
"People who'e homes are flooded can simply sell their homes".

DrPhilG · 09-06-2019 7:33pm

Brian? wrote: »

Liberals are not left wing. They're certainly further left when compared to the likes of Shapiro.

There are plenty of sane left wing and even far left people. Yet you're happy for Shapiro to classify them lunatics.

You're either deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying, or you're just not able to grasp it.

I'll try one more time and then give up.

There are lunatic fringes in damn near everything, OK? Football fans, political views, whatever.

Many on the right classify everyone to the left of themselves as a "lunatic leftie". Still with me?

Ben Shapiro, despite being a prominent right wing commentator, stressed that this is not a correct viewpoint. That the vast majority with Liberal or left wing opinions are]not lunatics, but of course (as with everything) there are those who take it to extremes.

Those extremists, he classifies as "leftists", his definition, not mine, and those people he has no respect for.

So neither he, nor me, believe that all on the left are lunatics. Only the most extreme qualify for that title.

But if you're just determined to start a fight, go ahead but I'm not interested. I've been rational and calm, you're determined to twist my words and make out that I'm insulting people.

The more you protest, the more it seems that you may be one of that vocal minority.

You know, the one that isn't worth debating with because they speak from a point of hatred of the other side rather than logical debate?

DrPhilG · 09-06-2019 7:36pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

For example, he's very much opposed to Gay Marriage as he believes the purpose of marriage is to have children, which is simply not true nor is it logical.

Do you think he believes what he believes because he is a bad person, or because HE believes it is true and logical?

Sonics2k · 09-06-2019 7:39pm

DrPhilG wrote: »

Do you think he believes what he believes because he is a bad person, or because HE believes it is true and logical?

I believe he believes it because his religious beliefs impact his views.

It is in no way logical to claim marriage is purely for procreation, because we all know it isn't.

DrPhilG · 09-06-2019 7:41pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

For example, he's very much opposed to Gay Marriage as he believes the purpose of marriage is to have children, which is simply not true nor is it logical.

PS have you a link on that? I've always heard him state that while his religious view on homosexuality is that it is sinful, he believes that people should be "free to sin if they choose" and that his opposition to gay marriage is because he believes that a mother and father provide a more balanced upbringing for a child.

DrPhilG · 09-06-2019 7:43pm

Sonics2k wrote: »

I believe he believes it because his religious beliefs impact his views.

It is in no way logical to claim marriage is purely for procreation, because we all know it isn't.

See previous post, thanks.

I think his thoughts on religious impingement was in regards to religious organisations etc being forced to perform gay marriages.

Haven't heard the comment about procreation only.

Junkyard Tom · 09-06-2019 7:52pm

DrPhilG wrote: »

Do you think he believes what he believes because he is a bad person, or because HE believes it is true and logical?

'Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage'.

That's sounds a lot like something a bad person would say.

DrPhilG · 09-06-2019 8:00pm

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

'Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage'.

That's sounds a lot like something a bad person would say.

Fair point, that's a crappy thing to say.

Still not sure I'd call him a bad person over a sensationalist tweet but that definitely was too far.

Liberals who aren't liberal

Comments