One last try: Please help explain liberals to me (okay, maybe 3 last attempts)

[emilynghiem]

OK, so this is what I'm hearing from liberal politics.
Please help explain these to me why one is right and the other is wrong:

A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.
Why?
Why should Christians be expected to be tolerant of groups they blame for religious violence,
but it's okay for atheists to openly condemn Christians collectively for their beliefs?

B. It's okay for liberals to demand "free choice of abortion" without govt regulations much less penalties
on the FREE CHOICE.
But it's NOT okay for conservatives to demand "free choice of health care" without govt penalties.

If conservatives push "right to life" at the expense of free choice, that is pushing beliefs through govt.
so why is it okay for liberals to push "right to health care" through govt at the expense of free choice?

Why is one political belief okay to push by force onto people who believe in free choice,
but not the other?

C. And now this:

If homosexual people only want to seek same sex relations, that's okay.
They should not be forced to participate in heterosexual relations just because of majority pressures.

But if heterosexual people only want to use the restroom in same sex company, that's not okay?

Why is one okay but the other is a problem?

I'm not finding any luck getting answers or explanations to A or B.

Can any liberals explain C to me?
I understand if someone has changed or is in process of changing BIOLOGICAL gender,
then that is a medical personal issue. but as for preferences, why is one
"homosexual" belief rejected as intolerant but the other is considered natural? Why?

Syriusly? hazlnut? Can anyone explain to me why one belief is rejected and the other is imposed?

 

[Arianrhod]

Here's a suggestion. Get away from the keyboard, go outdoors, and go talk to some real people, not Internet anonyms.

 

[Pogo]

Lotta strawmen in that OP.

If there's gonna be a "last three attempts" I'll wait for the first two to go by.

 

[emilynghiem]

Lotta strawmen in that OP.

If there's gonna be a "last three attempts" I'll wait for the first two to go by.

Dear Pogo please jump in and clear up the Straw Men arguments you see
in either A B or C. That is what I am asking help to do. Please start with one if three is too much! Thanks!

 

[Mudda]

OK, so this is what I'm hearing from liberal politics.
Please help explain these to me why one is right and the other is wrong:

A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.
Why?
Why should Christians be expected to be tolerant of groups they blame for religious violence,
but it's okay for atheists to openly condemn Christians collectively for their beliefs?

B. It's okay for liberals to demand "free choice of abortion" without govt regulations much less penalties
on the FREE CHOICE.
But it's NOT okay for conservatives to demand "free choice of health care" without govt penalties.

If conservatives push "right to life" at the expense of free choice, that is pushing beliefs through govt.
so why is it okay for liberals to push "right to health care" through govt at the expense of free choice?

Why is one political belief okay to push by force onto people who believe in free choice,
but not the other?

C. And now this:

If homosexual people only want to seek same sex relations, that's okay.
They should not be forced to participate in heterosexual relations just because of majority pressures.

But if heterosexual people only want to use the restroom in same sex company, that's not okay?

Why is one okay but the other is a problem?

I'm not finding any luck getting answers or explanations to A or B.

Can any liberals explain C to me?
I understand if someone has changed or is in process of changing BIOLOGICAL gender,
then that is a medical personal issue. but as for preferences, why is one
"homosexual" belief rejected as intolerant but the other is considered natural? Why?

Syriusly? hazlnut? Can anyone explain to me why one belief is rejected and the other is imposed?

C is easy to explain, would you prefer that Chaz Bono with his beard, walk into the women's washroom to take a dump, then take his time washing and drying his hands? I know I wouldn't, it would freak out little girls and conservatives.

As for A, Christians with Trump as their leader would block Muslims from entering the US, so not much Christian tolerance for Muslims that I can see.

And B, your two examples aren't related, but I agree, the health care system in the US is not working. It should be universal and free, paid for out of general tax revenues, instead of spending all those trillions bombing other countries.

 

[Siete]

Lotta strawmen in that OP.

If there's gonna be a "last three attempts" I'll wait for the first two to go by.

strawman? I beg to differ.

BULLSHIT, PLAIN AND SIMPLE !

(mostly simple)

 

[cnm]

A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.

There's the first straw man. Right in the first sentence of the first example.

 

[cnm]

I stand corrected, Siete.

 

[emilynghiem]

A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.

There's the first straw man. Right in the first sentence of the first example.

Thanks cnm

so why is it okay for atheist groups to sue to remove references to crosses or Christianity "they don't believe in"
from public institutions
but it is intolerant if people object to gay parades, homosexuality included in public school teaching,
and now this transgender culture "they don't believe in"

Why are some beliefs OKAY to sue to REMOVE from public policy,
while other beliefs are seeking ENDORSEMENT protection and penalties under federal laws?

Do you see what I mean about creeds and beliefs not treated the same?

Please reword the question without any strawman bias
so you can answer it neutrally and objectively.

Can you do both? Can Pogo please help with this one?
Thanks cnm if you can pick this apart as an example, maybe we can tackle
the others the same way!

 

[depotoo]

I believe she does. Probably more so than most here.

Here's a suggestion. Get away from the keyboard, go outdoors, and go talk to some real people, not Internet anonyms.

 

[Grizz]

Freedom = Oppression
Peace = War

The left is Orwellian at best, and evil at worst.

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals are worthless, they need us we don't need them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"One last try: Please help explain liberals to me (okay, maybe 3 last attempts)"

What would be the point; like most others on the right your mind is closed, encased in the concrete of lies, ignorance, fear, straw man fallacies, and the rightwing echo chamber.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The more pertinent questions are "why do conservatives continually construct Straw Men and toss out smelly Red Herrings in an attempt to portray themselves as putting forth a calm reasoned argument"?


Atheist. A-theist. Without-god. The fact that anyone in any religion only sees their own religion as 'under attack' simply points out the incorrect selective view of reality exhibited by the scared and ignorant.

 

[Slave2the$]

Liberals are people who didn't get voted prom king or queen in high school and have dedicated their entire lives making everyone miserable for it.
Conservatives are people who didn't get voted prom king or queen and then went on with their lives unchanged.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lotta strawmen in that OP.

If there's gonna be a "last three attempts" I'll wait for the first two to go by.

Dear Pogo please jump in and clear up the Straw Men arguments you see
in either A B or C. That is what I am asking help to do. Please start with one if three is too much! Thanks!

It has nothing to do with what anyone "sees," your thread in fact fails as a straw man fallacy

 

[G.T.]

false premise...wahwahwahhh

 

[Arianrhod]

Here's a suggestion. Get away from the keyboard, go outdoors, and go talk to some real people, not Internet anonyms.

I believe she does. Probably more so than most here.

Based on what?

 

[irosie91]

OK, so this is what I'm hearing from liberal politics.
Please help explain these to me why one is right and the other is wrong:

A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.

rosie-----can you be more specific? what are you calling an "ok, legal" attack on Christians or "ok, legal" rejection? Do you want a cross on your wedding cake? Did someone refuse?



Why?
Why should Christians be expected to be tolerant of groups they blame for religious violence,
but it's okay for atheists to openly condemn Christians collectively for their beliefs?
rosie-----Christians do not openly condemn non Christians for non belief? When
did they stop. -------I seem to remember radio sermons threatening eternal hellfire

B. It's okay for liberals to demand "free choice of abortion" without govt regulations much less penaltieson the FREE CHOICE.
rosie "PENALTIES ON FREE CHOICE"? I have never performed an
abortion------I once refused and that was it

But it's NOT okay for conservatives to demand "free choice of health care" without govt penalties.
rosie----you do not have free choice of health care?----????

If conservatives push "right to life" at the expense of free choice, that is pushing beliefs through govt.

rosie---yes it is.

so why is it okay for liberals to push "right to health care" through govt at the expense of free choice?

rosie----I do not even understand this statement

Why is one political belief okay to push by force onto people who believe in free choice,
but not the other?

rosie---which one?

C. And now this:

If homosexual people only want to seek same sex relations, that's okay.
They should not be forced to participate in heterosexual relations just because of majority pressures.

rosie----yes ---that is the law

But if heterosexual people only want to use the restroom in same sex company, that's not okay?

rosie-----I consider same sex restrooms a right

Why is one okay but the other is a problem?

for my part---it is not a problem------same sex restrooms------or INDIVIDUAL
ROOMS with locks

I'm not finding any luck getting answers or explanations to A or B.

Can any liberals explain C to me?
I understand if someone has changed or is in process of changing BIOLOGICAL gender,
then that is a medical personal issue. but as for preferences, why is one
"homosexual" belief rejected as intolerant but the other is considered natural? Why?

Syriusly? hazlnut? Can anyone explain to me why one belief is rejected and the other is imposed?

which is "C" ??? which is "B"?

 

[Syriusly]

OK, so this is what I'm hearing from liberal politics.
Please help explain these to me why one is right and the other is wrong:

A. It's okay for atheists to reject and attack Christians, out of fear of past oppression and violence.
but it's not okay for Christians to reject and attack Muslims, out of fear of current oppression and violence.

If by 'attack' you mean criticize- it is always okay to criticize. It is always wrong to physically attack.

I think it is wrong to label all Christians or all Muslims or all Atheists as 'good' or 'bad' simply because of their faith or lack of faith- but people do it.

I don't know what that has to do with 'liberal politics'.

Most liberals are Christians.