Insulting people in lieu of reason/logic is the liberal way.

I don't know, Fox, The Good Reverend appears to be giving your theses a challenge.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
LOL. Again, my comment was made to a specific individual within a specific context within a specific conversation. You lifted it and posted it as if it was a blanket statement and indictment of all liberals.

Wrong again. Whether or not you were talking to one person or fifty, it was a blanket statement.

And again, since you conveniently failed to respond to these points.

Foxfyre wrote:
I generally make uncomplimentary observations in such a way that anybody can easily opt out if they choose to do so.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. If you say something that is insulting to someone, how is the person who is insulted supposed to "opt out" of being insulted? You can't choose to not be insulted by something.

Foxfyre wrote:
The distinction comes in the 'loophole' of allowing some Conservatives to opt out of some Conservative issues and some Liberals to opt out of some Liberal issues. As Wandel said, probably none of us are 100% anything. So to say that most Liberals are this or that would not necessarily be a criticism of you personally. To say that something is 'the Liberal way' is a generalization that allows for a lot of loopholes for those willing to allow them.

Sounds to me like you're saying that if one makes an unflattering statement about a group it shouldn't be taken as a personal insult because nobody specific is targeted. By that logic, people who are insulted by the statement, "Most Mexicans smell funny," "Most women are weaker than men," and "Most people who live in the ghetto are criminals," are just missing the point.

My uncle used to say that black people are lazy and stupid. Using your logic, if he'd said that to a black person and that person got upset and called my uncle an insulting name, it would be the black person who would be in the wrong.

Foxfyre wrote:
I hear "conservatives love war and death" and "conservatives hate people" all the time with no qualifications whatsoever. I think such comments to be completely stupid, inane, uncreative, and ignorant but not related to me personally in any way.

Once again, this shows that you agree with me that your statement was silly. Unless you think that only generalities pertaining to conservatives are stupid. But that would be completely idiotic, don't you agree?

Kicky I have illustrated how your impressions of what I said and/or intended are wrong. Further my observation re 'the liberal way' did not specify right or wrong or good or bad as opposed to the illustrations you are using. Those criticizing me are inferring such characterizations. Now you can address my arguments that rebut yours or continue to ignore them while repeating your arguments that have been rebutted.

I also offered you a friendly challenge that could reinforce your point or reinforce mine. It would be a way that you could show how silly my statement is if it is so silly. In my opinion, this thread is so far reinforcing my statement in spades. Prove me wrong.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I don't know, Fox, The Good Reverend appears to be giving your theses a challenge.

You think? If you're talking to somebody about some snafu or screw up related to a military action, and that person says "but that's the Army way", do you take that as an indictment of all Army regulations and/or all Army personnel? Is that automatically expressing contempt for all aspects of the Army in your eyes?

If so, then the discussion is over because you're among those who relegate things to far more stark black and white terms with no room for variations than I am able to do.

If not, and I am speaking to a specific person re a specific issue and use the the phrase "that's the liberal way", how would that be different than saying "that's the Army way"?

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Here's some advice, Fox: when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

That bears repeating.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I don't know, Fox, The Good Reverend appears to be giving your theses a challenge.

You think? If you're talking to somebody about some snafu or screw up related to a military action, and that person says "but that's the Army way", do you take that as an indictment of all Army regulations and/or all Army personnel? Is that automatically expressing contempt for all aspects of the Army in your eyes?

A. That's not at all what I was talking about and
B. Your example would most likely be taken as an insult by someone in the army and I think you know that.

Quote:

If so, then the discussion is over because you're among extremists who relegate things to far more stark black and white terms with no room for variations than I am able to do.

This is some bizarre combination of irony and absurdity and I don't know whether to laugh or be appalled.

Quote:

If not, and I am speaking to a specific person re a specific issue and use the the phrase "that's the liberal way", how would that be different than saying "that's the Army way"?

I think you are embarking on a dead end trip down Illogic Lane. It's clear that you meant your statement as a generalization about "liberals" and not as a specific insult to the person you were speaking to. You have contradicted yourself repeatedly in this very thread as to whether you meant the insult in the general or in the specific but the statement speaks for itself. You clearly meant to imply that liberals in general are somehow inherently deficient in logic or reason thereby making them inferior to conservatives. Attempts to weasel out of that now are of no use.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Kicky I have illustrated how your impressions of what I said and/or intended are wrong.

No, you haven't. At least not with anything resembling logic or reason.

Foxfyre wrote:

Further my observation re 'the liberal way' did not specify right or wrong or good or bad as opposed to the illustrations you are using.

So what? The point is it was insulting, no matter what you say your intenentions were.

Foxfyre wrote:

I also offered you a friendly challenge that could reinforce your point or reinforce mine.[/quote

I decline.[/quote]

And you still haven't addressed my other points. Please do, if you can. I'll post each of them once AGAIN in it's own separate post, so it is easier for you to do so.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I generally make uncomplimentary observations in such a way that anybody can easily opt out if they choose to do so.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. If you say something that is insulting to someone, how is the person who is insulted supposed to "opt out" of being insulted? You can't choose to not be insulted by something.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The distinction comes in the 'loophole' of allowing some Conservatives to opt out of some Conservative issues and some Liberals to opt out of some Liberal issues. As Wandel said, probably none of us are 100% anything. So to say that most Liberals are this or that would not necessarily be a criticism of you personally. To say that something is 'the Liberal way' is a generalization that allows for a lot of loopholes for those willing to allow them.

Sounds to me like you're saying that if one makes an unflattering statement about a group it shouldn't be taken as a personal insult because nobody specific is targeted. By that logic, people who are insulted by the statement, "Most Mexicans smell funny," "Most women are weaker than men," and "Most people who live in the ghetto are criminals," are just missing the point.

My uncle used to say that black people are lazy and stupid. Using your logic, if he'd said that to a black person and that person got upset and called my uncle an insulting name, it would be the black person who would be in the wrong.

How is this statement incorrect?

0 Replies

As an afterthought to Kicky, yes, I did not respond to your post point by point because I felt every point had already been addressed and is still being addressed except this one. But since you insist, do you think 'liberal' to be in the same category as designations of 'black' or 'Mexican'? Do you consider liberals to have suffered blatant discrimination based on race or ethnicity or country of origin? Is that why you think a comment unflattering to a liberal to be comparable to a racial or ethnic slur?

I guess I'm wondering where you make your distinctions about who may be criticized. Would you have been equally critical had I said "that's the conservative way"?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I hear "conservatives love war and death" and "conservatives hate people" all the time with no qualifications whatsoever. I think such comments to be completely stupid, inane, uncreative, and ignorant but not related to me personally in any way.

Once again, you say you feel that these statements are stupid, inane, uncreative and ignorant. How was your generalization not?

You keep saying people have made your point, but your generalization didn't specify people on this thread. It was "liberals." In general. And whether or not you admit it, this was meant as an insult. And even if it wasn't, it was insulting, just like your examples above.

So why don't you want to admit that you agree with me.?

And by the way, why don't you take your own challenge. But without the generalities. Show concrete examples of each liberal that has personally attacked YOU.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I generally make uncomplimentary observations in such a way that anybody can easily opt out if they choose to do so.

This sentence makes absolutely no sense. If you say something that is insulting to someone, how is the person who is insulted supposed to "opt out" of being insulted? You can't choose to not be insulted by something.

On this one, I agree that you can't choose to not be insulted by something. But what you are insulted by is not the same thing as whether another person intends something to be insulting. It is your choice to place yourself in a group that is insulted or you can argue that the insult does not apply to you.

Again, saying that something is the 'liberal way" or the 'conservative way' or 'the Army way' or "the Italian mother way" is not a blanket statement that ALL people in ANY of these groups are designated to be that way. In each case, the phrase will intend to be reference to a tendency or trend related to a specific point that is being made.

And it is my opinion that the person who takes the strongest exception to the characterization will usually be the one who is most guilty of the characterization.

0 Replies

I'm taking it then from your argument, Fox, that no one but the basketball players referred to by Imus should have been offended / insulted by his description of them as "Nappy headed Ho's." Is that correct? No other black person should have been offended? No other black female should have considered that insulting since he was only referring to the girls on the team?

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I hear "conservatives love war and death" and "conservatives hate people" all the time with no qualifications whatsoever. I think such comments to be completely stupid, inane, uncreative, and ignorant but not related to me personally in any way.

Once again, you say you feel that these statements are stupid, inane, uncreative and ignorant. How was your generalization not?

You keep saying people have made your point, but your generalization didn't specify people on this thread. It was "liberals." In general. And whether or not you admit it, this was meant as an insult. And even if it wasn't, it was insulting, just like your examples above.

So why don't you want to admit that you agree with me.?

And by the way, why don't you take your own challenge. But without the generalities. Show concrete examples of each liberal that has personally attacked YOU.

That I consider a statement to be stupid, silly, ignorant, etc. is usually because I believe it to be untrue and/or implausible and/or uninformed. I would love to agree with you if you weren't making such a silly argument. Smile

'
That I criticize those who attack/criticize the person for expressing a point of view or who make the person the focus rather than making an argument for a different point of view is a valid observation. I think such to be mean spirited and counter productive to intelligent debate.

It is my perception that liberals are more likely to be guilty of this than are conservatives. I could be wrong and have offered friendly challenges to you and Freeduck (or anybody else who might be interested) to prove me wrong purely by analyzing the posts on this thread.

If you are actually reading my posts, you would have seen why I don't take my own challenge.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I'm taking it then from your argument, Fox, that no one but the basketball players referred to by Imus should have been offended / insulted by his description of them as "Nappy headed Ho's." Is that correct? No other black person should have been offended? No other black female should have considered that insulting since he was only referring to the girls on the team?

Well again Squinney, we're comparing apples and oranges unless you equate a designation of 'liberal' as the same as 'nappy headed ho's'. There comes a point when taking offense becomes so utterly ridiculous that nobody could say anything critical about anything or anybody lest somebody, somewhere be offended. But then we're pretty selective about who we think it is okay to criticize and who isn't, aren't we? And we are even more picky about the words that are acceptable to use in the criticism.

Personally, I don't think ANYBODY should be offended by Imus's comment who is not similarly offended by the rappers who use far worst terms. To single out one person for such criticism while letting everybody else off the hook is, well, discriminatory. But since you asked, yes, the comment was directed at the Rutgers basketball team and it is they who had reason to be offended. Remember, the Tennessee team was also mostly black women and the comment did not include them nor did anybody suggest that it did. Any indignation they might feel would have been in sympathy with the other team, but would not be because they had personally been insulted.

0 Replies

(Somewhere in the background, a flushing sound is heard.)

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

(Somewhere in the background, a flushing sound is heard.)

Shall we assume that this means you are out of reasoned arguments so are now arguing 'the liberal way" duck?

0 Replies

I went to Lowes but they were all out of nappy hose. I had to axe.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
(Somewhere in the background, a flushing sound is heard.)

Shall we assume that this means you are out of reasoned arguments so are now arguing 'the liberal way" duck?

There you go again. In Geometry, they have a saying about the word "assume".

I assume that the thread is going down the toilet because the topic is now going down the "nappy-headed hos" road. You shall assume whatever you want, reasonable or not, which is your way. Reasoned arguments have no effect on you. I make these comments based on my personal observations of your posts. So there can be no mistake, I'm referring specifically to you, Foxfyre, and not to others who might share your political persuasion. Now, you may cite evidence to prove me wrong if you like.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

While it's true that all liberals are retarded communistic atheist bastards, the lady Diane even hugs trees; its also true that all conservatives are racist bigoted xenophobes.

Lately I get accused of being both, daily, but only by the truly inept. Lucky thing I'm independent. Cool

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
(Somewhere in the background, a flushing sound is heard.)

Shall we assume that this means you are out of reasoned arguments so are now arguing 'the liberal way" duck?

There you go again. In Geometry, they have a saying about the word "assume".

I assume that the thread is going down the toilet because the topic is now going down the "nappy-headed hos" road. You shall assume whatever you want, reasonable or not, which is your way. Reasoned arguments have no effect on you. I make these comments based on my personal observations of your posts. So there can be no mistake, I'm referring specifically to you, Foxfyre, and not to others who might share your political persuasion. Now, you may cite evidence to prove me wrong if you like.

You made a unreferenced comment that appeared to be in response to my post to Squinney. I phrased my response to you in a way that expressed how your post looked to me but in the form of a question giving you a mile wide opening to clarify your intent if I drew an incorrect inference. Which you did.

I'm terribly sorry if you think my being unaffected by arguments, reasoned or not, is something I should be criticized for. Personally, I think arguments, reasoned or not, that arrive at wrong conclusions shouldn't affect or influence people who are getting it right. But nevertheless, congratulations. You have now officially joined those who argue 'the liberal way'. And what evidence does one present to counter personal perception? Especially when the perception is argued by one who is arguing 'the liberal way' as I define that? Smile

0 Replies

Insulting people in lieu of reason/logic is the liberal way.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know