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

[Syriusly]

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.

I can't even follow what you think you are comparing.

 

[Fenton Lum]

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?

I'm sorry, but for the life of me, I just cannot get myself to take you seriously.

 

[The Great Goose]

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?

The women on Stormfront have a way of tackling guys who have feminist issues. They say, maybe you have been affected by feminism too.

Meaning, if you arent taking on the male role and being chivalrous, then you are part of the problem.
I think this can be used as a metaphor for your fixation here, emily.

 

[The Great Goose]

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?

I'm sorry, but for the life of me, I just cannot get myself to take you seriously.

Are you a translady?

 

[depotoo]

Emily has been a very involved activist in politics and her local city projects for many years, and much more. She walks the walk. Research her.

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?

 

[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?

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.

Thanks Mudda. Now I think THIS explanation would work
for why BIOLOGICAL gender is okay to use and not just birth certificate designation.

What is faith based is the orientation beliefs that AREN'T proven by science or
established medically (as I pointed out is required for ADA disability status,
where one cannot just simply "declare they FEEL disabled" to qualify for accommodations or access required by law)

I do recommend that BIOLOGICAL gender be recognized
and that disputes with birth records be resolved by professional doctors so there is no faith based agenda involved ion gov.

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"?

irosie91 here are B (why is it okay for govt to penalize the private choice of how citizens pay for health care, but not the choice of abortion)
and C why are beliefs about same sex preferences OKAY for LGBT people to choose freely for themselves,
but NOT okay if heterosexuals have beliefs about same sex preferences in restrooms?

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?

 

[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!

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

And I'm ASKING your help to FIX what you see wrong or false.
C_Clayton_Jones Can you explain how to correct these conflicts?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Leftists, not liberals.

American leftists are selfish little fuckers who want something for nothing. They think they deserve everything with no effort on their part.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[cnm]

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

I believe it has to do with your constitution.

 

[The Great Goose]

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

And I'm ASKING your help to FIX what you see wrong or false.
C_Clayton_Jones Can you explain how to correct these conflicts?

Emily, you have the typing speed of a poltergeist

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

And the Aryan guys in Hoods, they are probably bad news.

Right Aryanhood?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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??

Show us which liberal atheists say that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm sorry, but for the life of me, I just cannot get myself to take you seriously.

 

[emilynghiem]

"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.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
where did you get that I am close minded? how?

A. on the prochoice and prolife issue I recognize beliefs on both sides,
and hold that govt has a duty to protect both from imposition by the other

Are you that open minded to apply "freedom of choice and beliefs"
to the equal choice of BOTH prochoice and prolife beliefs equally protected under law from biases or infringements by the other?
I haven't met many that o-penminded, C_Clayton_Jones
most people take one side or the other, and don't give a flip about defending the rights and arguments on the other side.

B. with the death penalty and beliefs about justice
I believe citizens have the right to fund the policies they believe in
and shouldn't be forced to fu nd otherwise

Are you openminded enough C_Clayton_Jones to defend the
right of beliefs for those DIAMETRICALLY and POLITICALLY opposed to yours?

On issues of beliefs, that is why I support consensus as the standard of law,
to protect both sides from each other's biases.

What side do you take in these issues, C_Clayton_Jones
and how does that make you more openminded than I am about Constitutional equal protections?

Care to go into the Bullring and debate who is more openminded,
you or me or anyone else on here?

There are some people on different issues less biased, I think drifter is one of the
more open ended neutral and inclusive of anyone, even where I chase people off and make them feel unsafe.

So I will say drifter is more openminded than I am.
How do you compare C_Clayton_Jones

How many issues do you take one side or the other
and stop there?

I am biased the most on the drug issue, because I believe scientific
research studies should be required to make a truly free and informed decision
before fully legalizing it, so in the meantime it could be decriminalized but reserved
under medical supervision and regulations as other mind altering products that should come
with warnings if they are going to be marketed for profit.

On the
A. issue of judging people by their political or religious affiliations
B. health care and mandate issue
C. and beliefs on both sides of the orientation/gender issues

Are you equally open to the arguments, beliefs and consent of BOTH SIDES?
How open minded are you, C_Clayton_Jones?

I DARE you to step into the Bullring on this.
drifter might beat us both if we made it a three way contest

are you open minded or closed to this idea? Thanks!

 

[Fenton Lum]

I'm sorry, but for the life of me, I just cannot get myself to take you seriously.

We're on the same page babe.

 

[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.

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!

All righty...

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?

This one's conflating "atheists" with "Liberals", and the strawmen are:

1) "it's okay for atheists to reject and attack Chrisitans" ---- said who?
2) "it's okay for atheists to openly condemn Christians collectively for their beliefs" --- ditto.

Who made those up? You have loaded questions here.

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.

Again --- it isn't. Another strawman. Govt-required healthcare purchase (or any purchase) is not Liberal. It's government overreach, and that's illiberal.

I didn't even venture into C. Even though I live in North Carolina I still don't grok what the issue even is, so I have no comment.

 

[Pogo]

"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.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones
where did you get that I am close minded? how?

A. on the prochoice and prolife issue I recognize beliefs on both sides,
and hold that govt has a duty to protect both from imposition by the other

Are you that open minded to apply "freedom of choice and beliefs"
to the equal choice of BOTH prochoice and prolife beliefs equally protected under law from biases or infringements by the other?
I haven't met many that o-penminded, C_Clayton_Jones
most people take one side or the other, and don't give a flip about defending the rights and arguments on the other side.

B. with the death penalty and beliefs about justice
I believe citizens have the right to fund the policies they believe in
and shouldn't be forced to fu nd otherwise

Are you openminded enough C_Clayton_Jones to defend the
right of beliefs for those DIAMETRICALLY and POLITICALLY opposed to yours?

On issues of beliefs, that is why I support consensus as the standard of law,
to protect both sides from each other's biases.

What side do you take in these issues, C_Clayton_Jones
and how does that make you more openminded than I am about Constitutional equal protections?

Care to go into the Bullring and debate who is more openminded,
you or me or anyone else on here?

There are some people on different issues less biased, I think drifter is one of the
more open ended neutral and inclusive of anyone, even where I chase people off and make them feel unsafe.

So I will say drifter is more openminded than I am.
How do you compare C_Clayton_Jones

How many issues do you take one side or the other
and stop there?

I am biased the most on the drug issue, because I believe scientific
research studies should be required to make a truly free and informed decision
before fully legalizing it, so in the meantime it could be decriminalized but reserved
under medical supervision and regulations as other mind altering products that should come
with warnings if they are going to be marketed for profit.

On the
A. issue of judging people by their political or religious affiliations
B. health care and mandate issue
C. and beliefs on both sides of the orientation/gender issues

Are you equally open to the arguments, beliefs and consent of BOTH SIDES?
How open minded are you, C_Clayton_Jones?

I DARE you to step into the Bullring on this.
drifter might beat us both if we made it a three way contest

are you open minded or closed to this idea? Thanks!

Yeah CCJ I don't think Emily can be classified as "on the right", not that labels are of any use anyway.

 

[emilynghiem]

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??

Show us which liberal atheists say that.

1. My friend D is one such liberal atheist Democrat who admits to using
votes for the Democratic Party as his only means of opposing the religious conservative right
he is more afraid of taking liberties away than he fears any liberals will

He does complain about the messed up health care mandates,
and why taxpayers are paying for coverage for govt officials
but they aren't providing coverage for taxpayers paying for them.

He is honest about that in private, but politically he will support and push
for Democrats to oppose Republicans at any cost just to make that political statement to say NO to them.

That's one person I know personally who hasn't changed his mind for the 20 years
I've known him. The most he's done is admit he is technically more agnostic than atheist,
but when you put him in a room with hardcore Christians he will revert back to his atheist stances in reaction to them

NOTE I brought this up in a meeting yesterday and one man in the group, also from Texas,
said he knew a lot of people who side with the liberals/Democrats as their way of defense collectively

2. I can cite two cases from memory where atheists or atheist related organizations sued
to remove Christian references from public property

A. the recent case where an organization sued from across the country
over a cross on a teacher's memorial on public school grounds.
some freedom from religion foundation that funded the legal complaints or petitions.

B. the case of the cross that resulted in a court fine against the city for each day it remained,
that was finally settled by selling the land to a private organization for preservation,
after THAT move was contested on the grounds that govt was still favoring religion.

That case stood out to me because even the proposed solution to remove it from public property
in a way that would preserve it was contested by the suing parties. This seems to indicate they didn't just want the problem
solved in the most expedient manner by separating public and private, they wanted the cross removed to make a statement.

Do you want the links to these?

if you are arguing these are not "atheists per se" pushing these arguments,
that's fine, you can remove atheist and put secular political advocates or whatever label.

The question remains why is it OKAY to sue to remove references to Christian beliefs
where people contest these as conflicting or excluding them,
but NOT okay to ask to remove references to Homosexual beliefs
where people say this conflicts or excludes their beliefs they have a right to.

Can you answer that NYcarbineer without the atheist label inserted anywhere?
Thanks for your help on this!

 

[ClosedCaption]

Lotta strawmen in that OP.

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

All OP's Strawmen converge to form

Straw Maximus!!​

 

[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?

Emily has been a very involved activist in politics and her local city projects for many years, and much more. She walks the walk. Research her.

If you're not interested enough to present the research yourself, you can't be all that impressed with whoever she claims to be.

I, meanwhile, am less than impressed with her OP or her follow-up "arguments."