Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.
What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.
What is you theory?
Get the fuck over yourself. Have you SEEN what raving lunatics the right has become? Take a look at this forum to see your conservative friends in all of their hostile glory. There is no "rational debate" with at least 50% of you.
There is no rational debate because the vast majority of "liberals"refuse to accept or to acknowledge any facts or information that gets to the basis of any argument that doesn't suit their agenda.
I can't even get a "liberal" to quote, post and accept the current LEGAL definition for what a natural person is, for fucks sake.
If you discount the answers I gave because I don't fit your definition of a liberal disregard below.
Otherwise I refute your accusation no one provided you with a definition. Your problem was I provided you with an effective definition based on how law enforcement and the judiciary enforce laws in real life and you did not like it.
An unlike button would have saved me the trouble of responding in such a harsh manner but I am trying to be concise.
Have a good evening.
Quote the legal definition for a natural person from a LEGAL DICTIONARY and link to the source.
Then, tell me if you agree that that definition is "common" to all sides in the debate about "personhood" and what constitutes a "natural person."
Can you do that?
I'm betting you can't.
Last edited: