The Party of Tolerance: Truth vs. Fantasy

[Pogo]

From what I've garnered from TemplarKormac's posting, he prefers to think of people in broad swaths constantly saying "the feminists should be in outrage when any woman is threatened", or "the far right should do this" as though each group is one monolithic person.

It seems that you like to use the case of individuals to proclaim an entire group as something which seems to be faulty reasoning, but that is just me.

No it's not just you -- it's everybody who reads this silly thread-- it's the entire group!

 

[candycorn]

All the name calling, the threats, the trolling... and I lost the argument? The responses here did nothing but make my point for me.

Yes. You lost the argument. If your point was how lame your argument was, yes the responses re-enforced it quite well. Thanks.

Yep!

Thanks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Bull SHIT.
I know what the fuck I posted there, Joe Hardy. Because it was the only post I left before I went out. After you posted "oh yeah I'm shakin' in my boots pal", I posted "you're not gonna need boots, more likely stitches, but if you don't mind I can definitely use the boots".

Now how the FUCK is that a 'threat' in its context?
Some of y'all are stone cold jellyfish who seriously seriously need to grow a pair.

And don't sit there and tell me "somebody else did apparenty" -- my whole question about 'who made a threat' was in answer to YOUR post that cited "threats". "Somebody else apparently" didn't cite the presence of "threats"-- you did.

You claimed you read my post but you cant find where Doc cleaned my thread. I replied "Are you threatening me?" Before you replied, Doc had pulled my comment and yours and reprimanded you for making a threat. As per the rules, "no direct or implied threats of violence" meaning literal or metaphorical. Don't get your tighty whities in a bunch with me, I didn't report you. You would do well to take a chill pill.

Who the fuck do you think you're dealing with here?

I got no "reprimand", poster. The first I heard about any of this was your (again that's YOUR) reference to "threats". That's why I asked about it. And number two, you do not talk about Mod actions on the forum. Number three, as I told you I had stuff to do, and went and did it; I would have no knowledge of your pissant whining and martyr-complexing while I was away. You seriously seriously need to grow the fuck up and get over this childish obsession with posting bait threads and then throwing tantrums when other posters call you out for bullshit.

You didn't stir the shit but you just happen to be the only one to mention "threat", and you just happen to have the rules by your side verbatim.

Uh huh.

You're a damn coward. And btw I'm loading that Stein guy up with green dots just because you negged him for being right.

But don't go away mad... I have a little song for your diaper rash... mi mi mi...

You're calling me a coward? You don't even have the guts to argue me with a straight face. I didn't neg stein for his points. I negged him for attacking friends of mine. Otherwise I would have never negged him.

By the way:

Watch it, guys.

No threats.

I think I'm dealing with a self absorbed person who thinks he is beyond reproach. I never reported you, I didn't have time to respond before a mod stepped in. I think I'm dealing with someone on his high horse. I don't understand people like you. Calling me all sorts of names, fashioning all sorts of contrivances to dismiss arguments you otherwise didn't have a rebuttal for, or getting into a tizzy when I actually blow your contrivances out of the water. You insult my age and logical reasoning skills, you troll my thread, and you call ME a coward? Who do you think you're talking to, Mister?

Funny, I've been accused by others of actually being more of an adult than people twice my age. Your behavior is proving them right.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh my, the silence is deafening and very telling.

 

[candycorn]

You claimed you read my post but you cant find where Doc cleaned my thread. I replied "Are you threatening me?" Before you replied, Doc had pulled my comment and yours and reprimanded you for making a threat. As per the rules, "no direct or implied threats of violence" meaning literal or metaphorical. Don't get your tighty whities in a bunch with me, I didn't report you. You would do well to take a chill pill.

Who the fuck do you think you're dealing with here?

I got no "reprimand", poster. The first I heard about any of this was your (again that's YOUR) reference to "threats". That's why I asked about it. And number two, you do not talk about Mod actions on the forum. Number three, as I told you I had stuff to do, and went and did it; I would have no knowledge of your pissant whining and martyr-complexing while I was away. You seriously seriously need to grow the fuck up and get over this childish obsession with posting bait threads and then throwing tantrums when other posters call you out for bullshit.

You didn't stir the shit but you just happen to be the only one to mention "threat", and you just happen to have the rules by your side verbatim.

Uh huh.

You're a damn coward. And btw I'm loading that Stein guy up with green dots just because you negged him for being right.

But don't go away mad... I have a little song for your diaper rash... mi mi mi...

You're calling me a coward? You don't even have the guts to argue me with a straight face. I didn't neg stein for his points. I negged him for attacking friends of mine. Otherwise I would have never negged him.

By the way:

Watch it, guys.

No threats.

I think I'm dealing with a self absorbed person who thinks he is beyond reproach. I never reported you, I didn't have time to respond before a mod stepped in. I think I'm dealing with someone on his high horse. I don't understand people like you. Calling me all sorts of names, fashioning all sorts of contrivances to dismiss arguments you otherwise didn't have a rebuttal for, or getting into a tizzy when I actually blow your contrivances out of the water. You insult my age and logical reasoning skills, you troll my thread, and you call ME a coward? Who do you think you're talking to, Mister?

Funny, I've been accused by others of actually being more of an adult than people twice my age. Your behavior is proving them right.

The title of this thread is "The Party of Tolerance"
There are 108 minority-majority districts in the US where non whites make up over 50% of that district's inhabitants. Ninety nine of them have elected a Democrat. Nine have elected republicans.

What's that tell you? Please apply your "logic" and "reasoning" skills.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm still waiting for at least ONE, liberal to debate me seriously.

One can’t have a ‘serious debate’ concerning a failed premise; it’s like ‘debating’ whether 2+2=5.

The premise of your thread fails because it’s a hasty generalization fallacy.

And that you believe the premise of your thread warrants ‘debate’ is an indication of your ignorance, naivete, and poor, superficial knowledge of the topics you address – this thread being one of many examples.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm still waiting for at least ONE, liberal to debate me seriously.

One can’t have a ‘serious debate’ concerning a failed premise; it’s like ‘debating’ whether 2+2=5.

The premise of your thread fails because it’s a hasty generalization fallacy.

And that you believe the premise of your thread warrants ‘debate’ is an indication of your ignorance, naivete, and poor, superficial knowledge of the topics you address – this thread being one of many examples.

Really now? Generalization fallacies are based on stereotypes. This thread was based on the words and actions of actual liberals. Meaning your assertion my friend, is a failed premise, not mine.

 

[candycorn]

Who the fuck do you think you're dealing with here?

I got no "reprimand", poster. The first I heard about any of this was your (again that's YOUR) reference to "threats". That's why I asked about it. And number two, you do not talk about Mod actions on the forum. Number three, as I told you I had stuff to do, and went and did it; I would have no knowledge of your pissant whining and martyr-complexing while I was away. You seriously seriously need to grow the fuck up and get over this childish obsession with posting bait threads and then throwing tantrums when other posters call you out for bullshit.

You didn't stir the shit but you just happen to be the only one to mention "threat", and you just happen to have the rules by your side verbatim.

Uh huh.

You're a damn coward. And btw I'm loading that Stein guy up with green dots just because you negged him for being right.

But don't go away mad... I have a little song for your diaper rash... mi mi mi...

You're calling me a coward? You don't even have the guts to argue me with a straight face. I didn't neg stein for his points. I negged him for attacking friends of mine. Otherwise I would have never negged him.

By the way:

Watch it, guys.

No threats.

I think I'm dealing with a self absorbed person who thinks he is beyond reproach. I never reported you, I didn't have time to respond before a mod stepped in. I think I'm dealing with someone on his high horse. I don't understand people like you. Calling me all sorts of names, fashioning all sorts of contrivances to dismiss arguments you otherwise didn't have a rebuttal for, or getting into a tizzy when I actually blow your contrivances out of the water. You insult my age and logical reasoning skills, you troll my thread, and you call ME a coward? Who do you think you're talking to, Mister?

Funny, I've been accused by others of actually being more of an adult than people twice my age. Your behavior is proving them right.

The title of this thread is "The Party of Tolerance"
There are 108 minority-majority districts in the US where non whites make up over 50% of that district's inhabitants. Ninety nine of them have elected a Democrat. Nine have elected republicans.

What's that tell you? Please apply your "logic" and "reasoning" skills.

Chirp....chirp

 

[koshergrl]

It is funny to watch the site's biggest trolls whine about a *bait thread* that isn't a bait at all, but simply a compilation of embarassing facts they don't like.

Typical.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No matter. At least there are people like you who take the time. In a nutshell, I accuse liberals of being hypocrites for claiming they are for women, blacks, gays and free exercise of religion. I listed examples.

You provided no examples showing that "liberals" are hypocrites in regards to their support for women's rights, minority rights, or the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause.

All you did was provide examples of "liberals" criticizing conservatives, and Democrats taking the phrase "god-given" out of the DNC platform.

Yet, when conservatives criticize Obama the left cries racism.

Gee..what an astute observation. Never heard that before.

 

[Esmeralda]

From what I've garnered from TemplarKormac's posting, he prefers to think of people in broad swaths constantly saying "the feminists should be in outrage when any woman is threatened", or "the far right should do this" as though each group is one monolithic person.

It seems that you like to use the case of individuals to proclaim an entire group as something which seems to be faulty reasoning, but that is just me.

He does that because his reality is comprised of the internet and television. He doesn't live in or deal with the real world full of real people, so no one is an individual, people fall into groups and categories.

Also, he complains that no 'liberal' is making the effort or is 'capable' of debating him seriously without realizing there is nothing serious to debate with him: he is a low level learner and a low level thinker who envisions himself as quite the opposite. It's impossible to have any kind of serious debate with him because he doesn't know how to think and because his entire frame of reference comes from the media. It's like trying to have a serious discussion with a poorly programmed robot, with the additional flaw of really embarrassing hubris.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You haven't been doing your homework, stein. I dig. By dig, I dig to China and back for links and relevant information. I don't revise anything. What you see is what you get. Secularism in American society means an inherent shift away from Christianity.

It can't mean that unless we started with Christianity. As a country. Read the First Amendment and quote me where it makes us "Chrisitian".



What hostility? Bull O'Liarly's "war on Christmas"? It's already been pointed out that a political party not mentioning God ---- which has zero to do with politics anyway ---- does not comprise "hostility".



You're saying women and black people should be exempt from criticism because they're women and black.

Allll righty then....



My read exactly.

A) I never said anything of the sort.

B) I said that while other religions enjoy this "plurality" he speaks of, Christianity seems to be taking the brunt of the hostility.

What hostility? Bull O'Liarly's "war on Christmas"? It's already been pointed out that a political party not mentioning God ---- which has zero to do with politics anyway ---- does not comprise "hostility".

"Bill O'Liarly" what are we, in Kindergarten? Grow up. You think this is funny? Guess again. Of course it has plenty to do with politics! Why was it in the platform to begin with? It's a political platform is it not? The crowd booed when vote was handed down to remove God from the platform. Yes, they didn't boo God, but the decision to remove God.

1. Texas School bans Christmas, and the colors red and green:

Texas Elementary School Bans Colors Red and Green, Christmas Trees from Class Party - The Hollywood Gossip

2. Girls kicked out of a store for singing Christmas carols

Yahoo!

3. Wyoming City limits Christmas displays to 14 days

Wyoming city limits Town Square holiday displays to 14 days | Fox News

You're saying women and black people should be exempt from criticism because they're women and black.

Allll righty then....

Mischaracterizing my words huh? Alllrighty then....

I'm saying that if a party is to criticize then they do it equally, if they praise them (heres the kicker) praise them equally. But if you're going to sit there and say "I stand for this group or another group" then exclusively bash members of that same group who happen to be of a different mindset and not of yours, what does that say about your stance? Are you really standing for them all? Or those who simply agree with you?

Democrats are saying "you're only worth defending if you agree with me."

Wow! That is some serious digging! We are looking at a finely honed research machine! He can even research while in the middle of a debate! Awesome!

 

[rightwinger]

Holy crap Pogo, you missed the point entirely. I never said people are immune to criticism, I said that the Democrats don't mind criticizing people on the other side, but never once bothering to criticize their own.

Ted Kennedy leaves a woman to die in the Chappaquiddick. Given how liberals stand for women, you'd think there would be outrage. Well, no. He became the "Lion of the Senate."

Anthony Wiener cheats on his wife by sending naked pictures to coeds. Once again, being the party who stands for women, there wasn't much outrage, even after he did it again.

John Edwards cheats on his dying wife by having an affair with another woman. Remember, this party claims to stand for women, but no.

Bill Clinton cheats on his wife by having an affair with Monica Lewinsky. Alas, the party who claims to stand for women did not take him down for it. Even the uber feminist Gloria Steinem didn't lay into him.

Mark Sanford cheats on his wife by slipping away to South America to have an affair with a woman there. Was he excoriated by Liberals for his behavior? Not really.

So, when Liberal men refer to conservative women in utterly detestable ways or treat women like two bit prostitutes, where is that party which stands for women? Standing idly by. Where are the feminists? Nowhere to be seen.

So you got to ask yourself, are you the party of tolerance? Nobody is immune from criticism so long as they belong to the other party. Then it's game on.

You confuse personal character with party agenda. Politicians cheat on their wives. Been happening for thousands of years

Republican policies hurt young women. That is why women are against them.

 

[Seawytch]

The title of this thread is "The Party of Tolerance"
There are 108 minority-majority districts in the US where non whites make up over 50% of that district's inhabitants. Ninety nine of them have elected a Democrat. Nine have elected republicans.

What's that tell you? Please apply your "logic" and "reasoning" skills.

I think the common meme is "they're just stupid and don't know what's good for them".

 

[NYcarbineer]

"We hear time and again that the Republicans and their allies, like the Tea Party, are hostile to civil rights. The left is quick to pin the label of “hypocrite” on their opponents, but doesn’t the history of America’s leftist political party readily qualify it for this very accusation?"

Yup.

The Democratic Party and Human Rights: The History Defies the Claims | Crisis Magazine

Nobody is claiming that the conservative Southern wing of the Democratic Party was a champion of civil rights.

That's why it was called 'conservative' - because it OPPOSED civil rights.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry if it's a bit long, but this highlights an inherent double standard in one party's quest for tolerance.

Actually, it sounds like a tired list of greivences from someone who can't stand to see his idols brought down to Earth.

Maher wasn't making fun of Trig, he was making fun of Fox News viewers... and, yes, it was in poor taste.

You do get that, right. Part of the function of being a comedian is to say things in poor taste that most of the rest of us can't say?

As for Mia Love, she was trotted out there because she was a black woman, but it does honestly beg the question, why would she marry a white guy and join a cult that calls dark skin a curse from God and banned blacks as members until 1978... sounds like a bit of self-loathing going on there. Oh, yeah, and she still lost.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, this is bound to set some heads ablaze. It may even cause a flame war. There might be some negs and mods involved. But hey, that's not the point of this thread. Think about it for a moment. Which party is more tolerant? Who is the least tolerant? For as long as I can remember tolerance has been an issue in America. One party in particular purports to be the champions of tolerance. It claims the other party is racist, bigoted, misogynistic and generally intolerant of opposing viewpoints.

As I am about to demonstrate, I will take apart these assumptions. One by one.

Before I begin, let me say that intolerance exists on both sides of the aisle. Nobody is immune from it. Nobody. But as I see it, I see such intolerance pervading from the left at increasing amounts than the right's.

First, lets address the Democratic claim that they support women's rights, women altogether and are non sexist. They tried to pass the Lilly Ledbetter Paycheck Fairness act despite an existing law passed in 1963 to address the issue. They support a woman's unfettered right to abortive care and contraception. However if a woman from the opposing party dares to buck this trend, this is the result:

1) Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham a "talk slut" on his radio show:

Libtalker Ed Schultz: Laura Ingraham's 'A Slut' - YouTube

An anecdote of a liberal talk show host insulting a conservative talk show host is of no material value in making the case that Democrats do not support women's rights.

1. There is nothing in the incident that constitutes a Democrat taking any action to deprive a woman of her rights.

2. Even if it met the criterion, which it doesn't, it is the act of one individual that cannot be shown to be representative of Democrats as a group.

Therefore, the example fails completely on two counts and thus offers zero support for the argument being attempted in the OP.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's the Democrats who are intolerate of Mia Love, the Utah conservative Republican?

Let's examine that:

1. She LOST her election bid in UTAH, one of the most solidly conservative Republican states in the US.

2. She LOST her election bid in Utah's 4th district, rated by the Cook Partisan Voting Index as R+14,

translation, very Republican.

...now, in order for a conservative Republican to lose an election in that district of that state means that the 'intolerance' could only come from one place:

Utah Republicans.

 

[rightwinger]

It's the Democrats who are intolerate of Mia Love, the Utah conservative Republican?

Let's examine that:

1. She LOST her election bid in UTAH, one of the most solidly conservative Republican states in the US.

2. She LOST her election bid in Utah's 4th district, rated by the Cook Partisan Voting Index as R+14,

translation, very Republican.

...now, in order for a conservative Republican to lose an election in that district of that state means that the 'intolerance' could only come from one place:

Utah Republicans.

Republicans have only elected five Congressmen in the last 75 years. Why did Mia expect any differently

 

[paperview]

It's the Democrats who are intolerate of Mia Love, the Utah conservative Republican?

Let's examine that:

1. She LOST her election bid in UTAH, one of the most solidly conservative Republican states in the US.

2. She LOST her election bid in Utah's 4th district, rated by the Cook Partisan Voting Index as R+14,

translation, very Republican.

...now, in order for a conservative Republican to lose an election in that district of that state means that the 'intolerance' could only come from one place:

Utah Republicans.

Republicans have only elected five Congressmen in the last 75 years. Why did Mia expect any differently

I think you overcounted by two.