Ever Wonder Why Good, Smart Libs Choose Evil?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I've always struggled with the fact that I get along very well with liberals personally because as individuals, almost every liberal I've ever met is basically the same as me in their personal life. They're smart. They're intelligent. They're loving and caring with their family and friends. They're legitimately good people, and they're smart- admittedly many are a lot smarter than I am, yet they seem to constantly be choosing policies that are evil over those which are good, and they choose policies that fail over policies that succeed.

WHY?!? How is it possible?!?

Why am I evil in their eyes?!?

Simply because I violate the liberal ethic. This is old, but eye-opening. It's a speech given at the Heritage Foundation by a former liberal New York Jew who discovered to his horror, that liberals really do hate America, hate good, hate success, and he explains why. He give a great explanation with the rationale. It's a brilliant talk that really opened my eyes.

And it MIGHT-- just MIGHT be a way to open a more rational discussion here between those of us that disagree here and maybe we can start to come together on at least ***some*** issues.

He says a great place to start is the admission that people that behead people that don't accept their religion are actually bad, and worth fighting against.

[shelby]

"He says a great place to start is the admission that people that behead people that don't accept their religion are actually bad, and worth fighting against."

I'm having a hard time with this sentance are you saying people who behead people are bad or people who do not like beheading are bad?

[mmhmm]

Are you speaking of followers of Islam, paul?

[djAdvocate]

i am not going to spend 48 minutes listen to some asshole distort facts to suit his perspective, and to denigrate mine.

sorry.

[mmhmm]

I'm going to move this thread to the Religious Discussions forum before it degenerates.

mmhmm, Administrator

[billisonboard]

May 12, 2012 10:56:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... yet they seem to constantly be choosing policies that are evil over those which are good, ...
...
And it MIGHT-- just MIGHT be a way to open a more rational discussion ...

Not sure this is going to lead to "a more rational discussion".

[mmhmm]

For reference prior to further posting to this thread, these are the rules for this board:

The rules of this board are very simple. Debate and discussion is to remain civil. If you cannot be civil, you will be barred from posting on this board.



1. NO personal attacks. Under no circumstances will you flame another poster for having a different viewpoint from you.

2. NO preaching! You may voice your opinion and feelings, but you will not "pray for someone" (unless they specifically ask you to do so). You will not tell someone they are going to hell, or otherwise chastise them because they are an atheist or agnostic.


Everyone is entitled to whatever belief system feels right to them. DO NOT ram yours down everyone else's throats.

mmhmm, P&M Moderator

[Tennesseer]

Fourty-seven minutes of my life I would never get back. I wouldn't waste a minute.

Palmbeachpaul-didn't you once say you don't get along with anyone?

[billisonboard]

May 12, 2012 10:56:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... a former liberal New York Jew ...

former liberal?
former New Yorker?
former Jew?
or all three?

I can understand how pointing out he was a former liberal would be germane to a liberal/conservative discussion but what is the significance of pointing out he is/was from New York?

[Tennesseer]

May 12, 2012 11:18:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 12, 2012 10:56:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... a former liberal New York Jew ...

former liberal?
former New Yorker?
former Jew?
or all three?

I can understand how pointing out he was a former liberal would be germane to a liberal/conservative discussion but what is the significance of pointing out he is/was from New York?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Did a moderator just admit that liberalism is a religion?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 12, 2012 11:18:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 12, 2012 10:56:48 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... a former liberal New York Jew ...

former liberal?
former New Yorker?
former Jew?
or all three?

I can understand how pointing out he was a former liberal would be germane to a liberal/conservative discussion but what is the significance of pointing out he is/was from New York?

Because, and these are his words, not mine: "you don't get a more liberal that that" (NYC Jewish liberal)

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

May 12, 2012 11:15:45 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Fourty-seven minutes of my life I would never get back. I wouldn't waste a minute.

Palmbeachpaul-didn't you once say you don't get along with anyone?

I said I don't "play nice with the other kids"- that is, I do not sit down and shut up simply to avoid 'upsetting' people who are wrong. As such, I don't get along in the corporate environment where honest discussion, rational thought, and discrimination on the basis of right and wrong, good and evil, effective and ineffective, success and failure is not permitted.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Liberalism's central tenant seems to be that we not insist that we are "right" or that anyone else is "wrong". That is discrimination. It hurts the feelings of those we consider to be wrong. This leads to low self esteem, and causes these people to act out. Instead, we should not insist that we are right, or anyone else is wrong, but we should instead seek to understand those we perceive to be wrong. If we would just 'reach out' then we could get to know them, see where they're coming from and live in harmony with them.

Instead of a melting pot then, we can have a "salad" or a "quilt". The problem with this of course is that once you abandon the assumption that some things are right, others are wrong, some things work, and some things fail, some things are true, others are false, some things are good, and some things are evil, then you abandon rational thought itself.

The fact you refuse to watch this video confirms its accuracy, and makes it absolutely mandatory viewing for you because it is in fact the point.

That liberalism's highest value is a utopian world free of all conflict, and the way to avoid all conflict is for us to abandon all rationality and to never admit that anything is right, or anything is wrong-- because if nobody believes anything is worth fighting for (or arguing for) we can end conflict and live in peace and harmony. As a result there is no higher aim in liberalism than to undermine everything anyone holds dear, holds sacred, believes strongly, is successful, or that works.

So, the speaker argues, everything about liberalism has to destroy and reject anything that calls itself God, or Truth, right, or wrong, and the result is that discrimination- even the 'good' kind is intolerable.

It's a really interesting talk. The fact that so few care to hear it, actually confirms the talk's central theme. Liberalism cannot abide truth, or rationality. To do so undermines peace and tranquility.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

1. NO personal attacks. Under no circumstances will you flame another poster for having a different viewpoint from you.

That's actually what I thought was most interesting about this talk. I'm often exasperated by liberal ideas, thoughts, behaviors, and in particular policies that seem to have no other explanation than that liberals are stupid, ignorant, evil, or some combination thereof precisely because I know it's NOT true. Liberals are NOT stupid people, and they're not ignorant, and they're certainly not evil, so how do they keep coming up with this shit?

Liberals- particularly the politically active ones, (not the rank and file voters who are less educated, earn less, and tend to be less informed than conservatives) tend to be well educated, intelligent, well-read, hard working, decent people, and they make up some of the best friends I've got.

This talk, from a former liberal of liberals, who had a kind of Road to Damascus conversion, really helped me see where they're coming from.

Don't get me wrong, it's NOT flattering to liberals (how do you say someone is wrong and flatter them), it's not meant to be. It's meant to understand them.

[djAdvocate]

May 12, 2012 11:49:29 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

May 12, 2012 11:18:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

former liberal?
former New Yorker?
former Jew?
or all three?

I can understand how pointing out he was a former liberal would be germane to a liberal/conservative discussion but what is the significance of pointing out he is/was from New York?

Because, and these are his words, not mine: "you don't get a more liberal that that" (NYC Jewish liberal)

you didn't answer the question, so i will guess it:

former liberal.

[djAdvocate]

May 12, 2012 12:17:06 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Liberalism's central tenant seems to be that we not insist that we are "right" or that anyone else is "wrong". That is discrimination.

first of all, discrimination is when you TREAT people as inferiors, not when you think they are wrong.

to make the case more clearly, i think you are largely incorrect about a great number of subjects, but i don't discriminate against you in any way. in fact, i go out of my way to interact with you, and to challenge your ideas, rather than dismissing them as the rantings of an inferior.

secondly, the central premise of liberalism is not "we are right and you are wrong". liberalism is fundamentally rational, being a product of the enlightenment, and is therefore open to any and all rational challenges. if you can present rational arguments that contradict liberal tenets, then bully for you. no liberal worth his salt can deny a rational position. only dogmatic leftists do that.

[mmhmm]

May 12, 2012 11:48:28 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Did a moderator just admit that liberalism is a religion?

Heh. Your twists don't work with me, paul. They never have.

This thread isn't about liberalism, and we both know it. So, I think, do others posting here. It's in the proper place, and this is a place where insults will not be tolerated. It was created so religion/spiritual matters can be discussed by those who wish to discuss them, without rancor and without denigration.

mmhmm, Administrator

[billisonboard]

May 12, 2012 12:17:06 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

...you abandon rational thought itself.
...

You say this as if it is a bad thing.

Finding a precarious balance between the rational and the emotional is a worthwhile goal. To deny either is to lose an important part of one's humanity.

Liberalism's central tenant seems to be that we not insist that we are "right" or that anyone else is "wrong". That is discrimination. It hurts the feelings of those we consider to be wrong. This leads to low self esteem, and causes these people to act out. Instead, we should not insist that we are right, or anyone else is wrong, but we should instead seek to understand those we perceive to be wrong. If we would just 'reach out' then we could get to know them, see where they're coming from and live in harmony with them.

For myself, it isn't a question of not insisting that I am "right". I am not "right". I am just me. I work to not hurt the feelings of those who are being "they". I do work to understand those being "them".

There is a very, very small percentage of human beings on the planet who we must work to isolate due to the damage that they will do if they are left free to operate as they wish. This comes from both a rational perspective and one of emotion.

[mmhmm]

I'm not a true liberal; however, I don't care what another person insists. They can insist whatever they wish. The one who knows, for sure, whether what they insist applies to me is me, not them. That is completely rational. What's irrational is to believe you know what's best for everyone and everyone must dance to your drumbeat.

[Don Perignon]

Did you ever notice how the incessant sanctimonious attacks are always "pre-emptive"...

[moon/Laura]

almost every liberal I've ever met is basically the same as me in their personal life. They're smart. They're intelligent. They're loving and caring with their family and friends. They're legitimately good people

all i can say is "don't break your arm patting yourself on the back"

[mmhmm]

You've got a point, moonbeam. I don't know that I ever read of Jesus bragging.

[Peace Of Mind]

No. But I've always wondered why good, smart, conservative Republicans pretend to be good, smart, and conservative when they are really evil pervs and stupid.

[Tennesseer]

With but a simple request, even God forgives "really evil pervs and stupid" people.

[Peace Of Mind]

True, but aren't they supposed to repent? If they don't I believe the forgiveness is voided.

[Tennesseer]

It cleans the slate. They do it again, they ask for forgiveness yet again. Cleans the slate again.

Go figure.

ETA: I didn't write the rules.

[Peace Of Mind]

Man! I'm doing it wrong then.

[weltschmerz]

Liberalism's central tenant seems to be that we not insist that we are "right"
-----------------------
For the 60th time, Paul.......it's TENET.
Tenants rent apartments.

[moon/Laura]

May 12, 2012 17:24:34 GMT -5 weltschmerz said:

Liberalism's central tenant seems to be that we not insist that we are "right"
-----------------------
For the 60th time, Paul.......it's TENET.
Tenants rent apartments.

there goes his assertion that he's SMART! bwahahahhah!