ljs Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 You have to yell loud, when somebody has their head in the sand. Zinger! (as we would say at work) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 you do put that in a funny light, but no- thinking of mostly the tailgate area (as I do spend more time here)...think of the politics threads- then tell me who is outnumbered. Liberals and leftists are outnumbered. I know, because I am one of only a few people in the Tailgate who is willing to describe himself as a liberal, and virtually no one at all describes himself as a leftist. Meanwhile, we have literally dozens of members who characterize themselves as conservatives. I can see how it might seem otherwise, but this is because of the nature of the threads that people make. We frequently get threads where someone quotes a story from WorldNetDaily that screams "Obama Eats Babies!" Then, all the normal people respond by showing that WorldNetDaily is not a credible source and Obama does not, in fact, eat babies. This doesn't make them liberals. It makes them normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 There are plenty of politically liberal board members here and more so than conservatives. Socially, even more so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 You have to yell loud, when somebody has their head in the sand. It's not about "heads in the sand" It's about "duck and cover" What else do you do when people are just flinging bombs (slick) willy nilly. It's so crazy, Kool that you now qualify as one of the cool measured, soft-spoken voices on the conservative side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 There are plenty of politically liberal board members here and more so than conservatives.Socially, even more so. Post a generic thread about a hot button social issue and see what happens. Gun control would be a good one. I bet 80 percent or more of Tailgaters oppose gun control. That is not so for the nation as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Post a generic thread about a hot button social issue and see what happens. Gun control would be a good one. I bet 80 percent or more of Tailgaters oppose gun control. That is not so for the nation as a whole. True that. And like you said, it is a football site. As an actual con, I certainly feel in the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 It's so crazy, Kool that you now qualify as one of the cool measured, soft-spoken voices on the conservative side. Thanks B. I guess my life is much better now than it used to be, so I am not on as much, nor as rabid of a debater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 I suspect you'll find that in any group, every group thinks that it's the minority. (Just as every group thinks that the majority of the public agrees with them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 We libertarians are a minority here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 We libertarians are a minority here Even though everyone deep down agrees with us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 The only gay person I'd want as my parent would be ljs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Allow me to provide an example.Everyone is dealt a hand of cards... You play your hand of cards as dealt and make personal choices based on that hand of cards, knowing that your choices have consequences and taking responsibility... Regardless of the hands dealt (or the choices people make later), you don't make fun of people for the hand they were dealt or the choices made. You also don't try to exploit their circumstances for your own gain. However, you shouldn't pretend that all cards are equal in everyone else's eyes or the cards have no meaning to others. You also shouldn't demand cards be re-dealt to everyone or that certain cards in your hand should have more value in the eyes of others. Side Note: Human compassion and morals guide equality in a materialistic/Darwinian world driven by natural selection. Asking people to "junk their morals" (as was expressed in another thread) in order to achieve equality would be counter-productive. You'd have to find a way to appeal to someone's sense of morality, not "junk it". Off-topic, but it was discussed somewhere else. You can spin it any way that you want and give any metaphor that you like as an example, but it all comes down to you teaching your children to live a life of subtle intolerance, and making them feel like they are better than someone else. Better than an entire group of people. Your children will outwardly "respect" everyone they come across, no matter their lifestyle choices, but inside, they will have learned to feel superior, that their lifestyle is "right". And that, in the long run, is more dangerous to your children than even outright intolerance, if you ask me. Let me ask you a question, to be responded to after the above has been discussed in your next post: How would you raise your children if one was gay. Even better, how would you handle it if one child was gay, and one was not. Is one child better than the other, because of "the hands they were dealt"? Will you raise the straight child to respect the gay one, but on the inside to know that he had the "better hand" and the "better", "right" lifestyle? Or do you even go so far as to believe that under your parentage, they can choose not to be gay at all? How exactly would you handle this situation, with your described parenting style, the "respect on the outside, but pity and look down on, on the inside" approach? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljs Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 What else do you do when people are just flinging bombs (slick) willy nilly. fling a buger right back at them:silly: Post a generic thread about a hot button social issue and see what happens. Gun control would be a good one. I bet 80 percent or more of Tailgaters oppose gun control. That is not so for the nation as a whole. Gun control is a whole different ball game- I think that even many if not most Democrats are pro 2nd amendment. Maybe it was just the election, but it really did and does appear that most of ES voted democratic, and I know I shouldn't really put the liberal label on them, as not every democrat is a "weirdo liberal.":silly: The only gay person I'd want as my parent would be ljs Aww, as long as you took care of yourself and didn't bug me, I'm ok with it.lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 We libertarians are a minority here Even though everyone deep down agrees with us Actually, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that "libertarian" is a label that people apply to themselves, when they want to look intelligent and independent. I see a lot of people, with really different political views, calling themselves libertarian. From the "legalize drugs" crowd to the "the income tax is the greatest threat to humanity ever conceived" crowd. (I, of course, represent the true libertarian positions. ) (And the majority agree with me.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveMason Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Can you give me one example of "discrimination against behavior" that isn't immoral? (I'll give you a hint: If society has a legitimate reason why a behavior must be suppressed, (like, say, prohibiting armed robbery is necessary to protect people's right not to be robbed), then it's not discrimination. It's discrimination if the only reason for legislating against someone is that a lot of people don't like their kind.) How about discrimination against nudists? Nudists will get kicked out of most restaurants, and in a lot of towns would even get arrested just for being who they are. And I don't think this law is protecting anybody's rights. After all, everybody has seen or experienced nudity before. We were all born naked. So what's the big deal, as long as there's no sexual/pornographic behavior going on? This is discrimination against a behavior that really hurts nobody. Is this discrimination immoral? I don't know if I could say that. Society is uncomfortable with it, and so it's illegal (or at least frowned upon). It's not the most logical thing in the world, but I understand and accept it with no hard feelings. It doesn't strike me as the height of immorality. Society has generally agreed that some behaviors should not be discriminated against, and so they generally aren't. (Religion.) Society has also generally agreed that some behaviors SHOULD be discriminated against, and so they generally are. (Casual nonsexual nudity.) Unfortunately, homosexuality is just in that transition phase right now. It's in a grey area, where half the people say it's a natural behavior that should not be discriminated against and everybody who disagrees is a bigot; the other half say that it's completely unnatural and should not be encouraged, and everybody who disagrees is a braindead liberal hippie. I understand the frustration that other same-sex marriage supporters must feel, but the truth is that everybody draws the line somewhere. Actually, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that "libertarian" is a label that people apply to themselves, when they want to look intelligent and independent. Haha. This is very true. Actually, my facebook profile lists my political views as "poser-libertarian", precisely for that reason. I don't follow politics very closely, but I suppose it's a good way to say "I'm conservative-ish but I don't want people to think I'm a partisan idiot so I'll say something other than Republican". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 How about discrimination against nudists? Good example. I didn't think it was possible, but you found one. I don't think it's a great example. (I think that very few people would honestly claim that "nudist" is something which they are, rather than something which they do. (IMO, "I am a Trekkie" is more a description of my hobbies than my identity, for example.) But I'll recognize that that's a difference of degree rather than a fundamental difference.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Actually, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that "libertarian" is a label that people apply to themselves, when they want to look intelligent and independent. I see a lot of people, with really different political views, calling themselves libertarian. From the "legalize drugs" crowd to the "the income tax is the greatest threat to humanity ever conceived" crowd. (I, of course, represent the true libertarian positions. ) (And the majority agree with me.) Except I AM a libertarian :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins0756 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Just a guess, but I would almost imagine these kids are sometimes much better off than some with a straight parent or parents. At least you know that these parents really want to have the kid and are willing to fight and jump through all sorts of hurdles to get them. When I was a teacher, I met so many parents who seemingly just didn't care about their kids... couldn't be bothered. I don't agree with that at all. You're trying to generalize all straight parents as people who don't care about their children to prove gay parents care more? It's nice to know you worked as a teacher but that certainly doesn't mean you've met every straight or gay couple to prove one is more qualified over the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I don't agree with that at all. You're trying to generalize all straight parents as people who don't care about their children to prove gay parents care more? It's nice to know you worked as a teacher but that certainly doesn't mean you've met every straight or gay couple to prove one is more qualified over the other. Didn't mean to overgeneralize like that. I even used two qualifiers in one sentence... "these kids are sometimes much better off than some with a straight parent or parents" I think a child might be better off with gay parents under a few conditions: A) No other parents surface. This happens too often Straight or Biological parents are apathetic or absentee. C) Straight or Biological parents are abusers or alcohol or drugs D) Straight or Biological parents are young teenagers without a support system E) I'm sure there's an e. It just isn't coming to mind right now. You are right that it is a somewhat generalized sentence and it's only a guess, but it's a guess based on the ammount of hoops and time any prospective parents must go through to become adoptive parents. With all the poking, prodding and expense, I figure that these parents have put a lot of thought and emotional investment into their decision to become parents. I won't argue that some well-intentioned people who want to become parents fail. They do. Parenting is hard and exhaustive when done correctly, but I imagine that you improve your chances of finding a good parent when you are motivated and have to fight for your child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Actually, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that "libertarian" is a label that people apply to themselves, when they want to look intelligent and independent. I see a lot of people, with really different political views, calling themselves libertarian. From the "legalize drugs" crowd to the "the income tax is the greatest threat to humanity ever conceived" crowd. (I, of course, represent the true libertarian positions. ) (And the majority agree with me.) Or they've actually tried both parties over time and came to realize there IS no difference in the leadership. There is no ethics committee in either since 94? They don't even read the bills they pass They add 300 pages at 3am of the day they are supposed to pass it. They vote in LOCK STEP in most cases with "Leadership" not "State" +/- 3. Less is always better when more is just thrown out there with no though or detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 They vote in LOCK STEP in most cases with "Leadership" not "State" +/- 3. Oh, I really agree with this one. Face it, there's something wrong with The System when a Senator who votes with his Party 92% of the time can run for President as a "maverick". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smoot Point Really Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 You can spin it any way that you want and give any metaphor that you like as an example, but it all comes down to you teaching your children to live a life of subtle intolerance, and making them feel like they are better than someone else. Better than an entire group of people. Yes, I will teach my children that the straight lifestyle is better than the homosexual lifestyle, but that anyone who speaks openly about their sex life (straight or gay) should be looked down upon. That is inappropriate. Perversion is so chic these days. I'd hope my children would feel compassion for people who are limited in any way (not pity), and people who lead this GLBT lifestyle are limited in terms of natural procreation (whether emotionally or genetically). That doesn't mean they treat them less than human... You want to spin this as something evil. Predominantly, it's personal choices that I'm teaching my children to discriminate between: weighing the consequences of actions and discriminating between what is personally good and bad. I think the big problem with the GLBT community is that they are always looking for a Big Government solution to their problem. Why don't they ask Government not to perform any marriages at all? Marriage is a religious ceremony... Why don't they push Government to be less involved. Instead, they want Government to approve of their lifestyle by getting involved with it. Instead, they should be asking Government to stop approving of one lifestyle of the other. The GLBT community would be better off if they disassociated themselves from Liberal Democrats and associated more with Libertarians... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 ...it's personal choices that I'm teaching my children to discriminate between...You chose to be straight?I think the big problem with the GLBT community is that they are always looking for a Big Government solution to their problem. Why don't they ask Government not to perform any marriages at all? Marriage is a religious ceremony... Why don't they push Government to be less involved. Instead, they want Government to approve of their lifestyle by getting involved with it. Instead, they should be asking Government to stop approving of one lifestyle of the other. The GLBT community would be better off if they disassociated themselves from Liberal Democrats and associated more with Libertarians...Agreed here. These guys agree.So does David Boaz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I want an abbreviation too damnit. Why do I ALWAYS get discriminated against. If they're GLBTs, then from now on, I demand that you call me a PPL. (Proud ***** Lover.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conn Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Yes, I will teach my children that the straight lifestyle is better than the homosexual lifestyle, but that anyone who speaks openly about their sex life (straight or gay) should be looked down upon. That is inappropriate. Perversion is so chic these days. I feel sorry for your children then; for the limitations they will have intellectually in an increasingly accepting and understanding world, and the close mindedness you will force upon them in a time when the majority of people's minds are more open than ever. I'd hope my children would feel compassion for people who are limited in any way (not pity), and people who lead this GLBT lifestyle are limited in terms of natural procreation (whether emotionally or genetically). That doesn't mean they treat them less than human... So you really do hold the belief that gay people are "limited"? To me, it seems that you would view being homosexual as something like an illness or mental limitation towards which people should be compassionate, but feel lucky that they do not "suffer" the same fate? You want to spin this as something evil. Predominantly, it's personal choices that I'm teaching my children to discriminate between: weighing the consequences of actions and discriminating between what is personally good and bad. I'm not trying to "spin" it as anything, I am just trying to understand your logic in comparison to my own beliefs. That's what these little discussions in the Tailgate are about, I'm not under any illusion that I'm going to sway what are obviously very deeply held beliefs, whether I agree with them or not. And as to your second point: Isn't that what its all about, "discriminating between what is personally good and bad"? That's the point, that you PERSONALLY think that the gay lifestyle is bad in comparison to the straight one that you and I live. But its your opinion, that you are forcing on your children. To me, that is wrong. You can instill the foundation and groundwork for a proper moral belief system in your children without telling them what to believe, and indoctrinating them into your own belief system: that is an individual's right, to believe something different than their parents. Otherwise, how does change occur? And here is the part of my post that you did not respond to last time, if you would, please: Let me ask you a question, to be responded to after the above has been discussed in your next post: How would you raise your children if one was gay. Even better, how would you handle it if one child was gay, and one was not. Is one child better than the other, because of "the hands they were dealt"? Will you raise the straight child to respect the gay one, but on the inside to know that he had the "better hand" and the "better", "right" lifestyle? Or do you even go so far as to believe that under your parentage, they can choose not to be gay at all? How exactly would you handle this situation, with your described parenting style. Because it is a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.