Are Liberals Really More Open-Minded Than Conservatives?

[Immanuel]

None of that shit has jack squat to do with Liberalism. It has more to do with leftism.
You probably don't even know the difference, any more than you recognize your own logical fallacies.

Are you saying that the demigod, Obama, is a leftist or a progressive liberal? Well ... let's allow him to speak for himself:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o"]'Joe the Plumber' Becomes Focus of Debate - YouTube[/ame]

"... spread the wealth around!!!" LOL. Is spreading the wealth a "leftist" ideal or a "progressive liberal" ideal? I say it's an ideal shared by both. Birds of a feather flock together. You can only "spread the wealth" if you take from the wealthy (doers) and give to them who haven't earned it.

I don't know jack squat about "demigods" or "progressives". These terms have no meaning. And your video talking about how a tax works applies to none of this. You may as well just type random characters...

Here's a quick, short, sweet lesson: The Liberal believes "all men are created equal", and that's all there is to it. The leftist believes in forcing that to be the case through 'affirmative action'.

Now if you can find a way to weld that onto Joe the Freaking Plumber, yer just workin' with a different set of tools.

"Demigods" and "progressives". Sheesh...

Then there are few, if any, "liberals" on this site. You all seem to be "leftists".

 

[Pogo]

Then there are few, if any, "liberals" on this site. You all seem to be "leftists".

Uh huh.

Guess we can put down another "yes" vote for:
"are Conservatives really more prone to blanket stereotypes, ipse dixit, simple gainsaying and strawmen than Liberals?"

I seem to be the only one who answers "no" to that question -- just because it is itself a blanket statement put out to mock the same flaw in the OP -- but y'all keep posting in ways that say "yes". You could eventually change my mind.

Those who see people only as labels enslave themselves to intellectual sloth.

 

[Immanuel]

Then there are few, if any, "liberals" on this site. You all seem to be "leftists".

Uh huh.

Guess we can put down another "yes" vote for:
"are Conservatives really more prone to blanket stereotypes, ipse dixit, simple gainsaying and strawmen than Liberals?"

I seem to be the only one who answers "no" to that question -- just because it is itself a blanket statement put out to mock the same flaw in the OP -- but y'all keep posting in ways that say "yes". You could eventually change my mind.

Those who see people only as labels enslave themselves to intellectual sloth.

That doesn't change the fact that there do not appear to be any liberals by your definition on this site.

 

[Pogo]

Then there are few, if any, "liberals" on this site. You all seem to be "leftists".

Uh huh.

Guess we can put down another "yes" vote for:
"are Conservatives really more prone to blanket stereotypes, ipse dixit, simple gainsaying and strawmen than Liberals?"

I seem to be the only one who answers "no" to that question -- just because it is itself a blanket statement put out to mock the same flaw in the OP -- but y'all keep posting in ways that say "yes". You could eventually change my mind.

Those who see people only as labels enslave themselves to intellectual sloth.

That doesn't change the fact that there do not appear to be any liberals by your definition on this site.

-- and you're still doing it. None so blind.

 

[Immanuel]

Uh huh.

Guess we can put down another "yes" vote for:
"are Conservatives really more prone to blanket stereotypes, ipse dixit, simple gainsaying and strawmen than Liberals?"

I seem to be the only one who answers "no" to that question -- just because it is itself a blanket statement put out to mock the same flaw in the OP -- but y'all keep posting in ways that say "yes". You could eventually change my mind.

Those who see people only as labels enslave themselves to intellectual sloth.

That doesn't change the fact that there do not appear to be any liberals by your definition on this site.

-- and you're still doing it. None so blind.

And once again when you can't defend your position you return to idiocy.

Why can't you discuss any issues without resorting to these moronic posts after two or three replies?

Appearances are not that deceiving. You all claim to be open minded "liberals", but when you get pushed for answers, you fall back on the removal of individual rights. Live and let live is NOT something the so called liberals on this site believe in. What you believe in is "do it my way or face the consequences.

 

[Pogo]

That doesn't change the fact that there do not appear to be any liberals by your definition on this site.

-- and you're still doing it. None so blind.

And once again when you can't defend your position you return to idiocy.

You're really too dim to see what's going on? I've "defended my position" from my first post here, that position being that blanket stereotyping is bullshit.

Go ahead -- read back and check me.

 

[Immanuel]

-- and you're still doing it. None so blind.

And once again when you can't defend your position you return to idiocy.

You're really too dim to see what's going on? I've "defended my position" from my first post here, that position being that blanket stereotyping is bullshit.

Go ahead -- read back and check me.

I don't disagree that blanket stereotyping is BS. I made the statement that there does not SEEM to be any liberals by your definition on this site. Do you need a definition of the word "seem"? Later I said appear, that should make it clear. I did not say there were none.

No "blanket" statement came from me. A blanket statement from me would have been something on the lines of "by your definition there ARE no liberals on this site". You see I left it open for dispute and discussion. I cannot think of a single person on this site that has a live and let live attitude.

In fact, many conservatives on this site are much more willing to "live and let live" than any of you who claim to be liberal. Therefore, I believe you are flat out wrong when you claim liberalism believes in "live and let live". Either that or you are simply a liar.

 

[Pogo]

And once again when you can't defend your position you return to idiocy.

You're really too dim to see what's going on? I've "defended my position" from my first post here, that position being that blanket stereotyping is bullshit.

Go ahead -- read back and check me.

I don't disagree that blanket stereotyping is BS. I made the statement that there does not SEEM to be any liberals by your definition on this site. Do you need a definition of the word "seem"? Later I said appear, that should make it clear. I did not say there were none.

No "blanket" statement came from me. A blanket statement from me would have been something on the lines of "by your definition there ARE no liberals on this site". You see I left it open for dispute and discussion. I cannot think of a single person on this site that has a live and let live attitude.

In fact, many conservatives on this site are much more willing to "live and let live" than any of you who claim to be liberal. Therefore, I believe you are flat out wrong when you claim liberalism believes in "live and let live. Either that or you are simply a liar.

It's what the word Liberalism means. I don't write the dictionary; I just enforce it.

Perhaps what eludes you is that Liberalism is a philosophy whereas Liberal is a person. Philosophies and people do not connect. A person may employ a philosophy (or really, almost always, the parts of that philosophy he likes) but that does not and cannot make that person, or any person, the personification of that philosophy.

The blanket stereotyper wants to pretend the philosophy and the person are the same thing, which is to deny the individuality of that person's intellect and dehumanize it into a convenient bite-size label. And that's bullshit. And that's why this entire thread is built on bullshit. It uses that false equivalence as its crutch. Being false, it fell down before it started. And the extension of that fallacy it uses as its raw material --- the idea that personality traits can be inferred from political philosophy--- is patently absurd.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm sorry. I just went back and looked again. You said "all men are created equal". Again a fallacy on your part. The leftists on this site do not treat all men as equal. Not by a long shot!

Don't believe in "Global Warming"? You are scum
Creationism over evolution? You are scum.
Don't support a woman's "right" to kill her child? You are scum.
Don't support gay marriage? You are scum.
Didn't vote for Obama? You are scum.
Voted for Bush? You are scum.

This list could go on for pages and pages, but based upon the "liberals" on this site you statement that liberals believe in "all men are created equal" is either a farce or there are few, if any, "liberals" on this site.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sorry. I just went back and looked again. You said "all men are created equal". Again a fallacy on your part. The leftists on this site do not treat all men as equal. Not by a long shot!

Don't believe in "Global Warming"? You are scum
Creationism over evolution? You are scum.
Don't support a woman's "right" to kill her child? You are scum.
Don't support gay marriage? You are scum.
Didn't vote for Obama? You are scum.
Voted for Bush? You are scum.

This list could go on for pages and pages, but based upon the "liberals" on this site you statement that liberals believe in "all men are created equal" is either a farce or there are few, if any, "liberals" on this site.

.... aaaaand right back to the same fallacies with a platoon of six more strawmen. Alrighty then. The more fallacies are exposed, the deeper they get.

Once again you appear to be conflating Liberalism with leftism, but I already made that point and it sailed over your head so... I'll leave you with this. Don't forget to duck.

 

[whitehall]

Can you believe you are "open minded" and still be bigoted? Hypocritical liberals prove it every day.

 

[Immanuel]

You're really too dim to see what's going on? I've "defended my position" from my first post here, that position being that blanket stereotyping is bullshit.

Go ahead -- read back and check me.

I don't disagree that blanket stereotyping is BS. I made the statement that there does not SEEM to be any liberals by your definition on this site. Do you need a definition of the word "seem"? Later I said appear, that should make it clear. I did not say there were none.

No "blanket" statement came from me. A blanket statement from me would have been something on the lines of "by your definition there ARE no liberals on this site". You see I left it open for dispute and discussion. I cannot think of a single person on this site that has a live and let live attitude.

In fact, many conservatives on this site are much more willing to "live and let live" than any of you who claim to be liberal. Therefore, I believe you are flat out wrong when you claim liberalism believes in "live and let live. Either that or you are simply a liar.

It's what the word Liberalism means. I don't write the dictionary; I just enforce it.

Perhaps what eludes you is that Liberalism is a philosophy whereas Liberal is a person. Philosophies and people do not connect. A person may employ a philosophy (or really, almost always, the parts of that philosophy he likes) but that does not and cannot make that person, or any person, the personification of that philosophy.

The blanket stereotyper wants to pretend the philosophy and the person are the same thing, which is to deny the individuality of that person's intellect and dehumanize it into a convenient bite-size label. And that's bullshit. And that's why this entire thread is built on bullshit. It uses that false equivalence as its crutch. Being false, it fell down before it started. And the extension of that fallacy it uses as its raw material --- the idea that personality traits can be inferred from political philosophy--- is patently absurd.

What part of "based on your definition there are no liberals on this site" did you not understand? Either the definition is incorrect or liberals do not exist on this site or at least those who claim to be liberal are wrong.

This thread was started with a question. Are liberals really more open-minded than conservatives? The answer to that question is open to the individual's own interpretation. This thread was started with the intention of discussing the matter although the person who started the thread has his own biases and in my opinion is one of the least"open minded" conservatives on site.

I do not believe "liberals" are open-minded at all, but then I have been attacked by many so-called open-minded liberals for my position on the issues listed in the above post or other issues viciously at times. I have also witnessed vicious attacks coming from "conservatives" so it is by no means one sided. But the fact remains, that it is either bullshit to make the claim that you made that liberalism considers all men equal OR there are no "liberals" on the left on this site.

 

[Immanuel]

I'm sorry. I just went back and looked again. You said "all men are created equal". Again a fallacy on your part. The leftists on this site do not treat all men as equal. Not by a long shot!

Don't believe in "Global Warming"? You are scum
Creationism over evolution? You are scum.
Don't support a woman's "right" to kill her child? You are scum.
Don't support gay marriage? You are scum.
Didn't vote for Obama? You are scum.
Voted for Bush? You are scum.

This list could go on for pages and pages, but based upon the "liberals" on this site you statement that liberals believe in "all men are created equal" is either a farce or there are few, if any, "liberals" on this site.

.... aaaaand right back to the same fallacies with a platoon of six more strawmen. Alrighty then. The more fallacies are exposed, the deeper they get.

Once again you appear to be conflating Liberalism with leftism, but I already made that point and it sailed over your head so... I'll leave you with this. Don't forget to duck.

And again, plain English has eluded you.

I will try it again slowly. Based... on... your... definition... there... are... only... leftists... on... this... site...

I am not conflating anything. I am taking your definition and flat out stating that either your claim that all liberals believe in "all men are created equal", which by the way was a blanket statement, is incorrect OR there do not appear to be any "liberals" on this site.

 

[Immanuel]

Okay, let me try to come down more to your level , Pogo.

You are wrong!

 

[DriftingSand]

None of that shit has jack squat to do with Liberalism. It has more to do with leftism.
You probably don't even know the difference, any more than you recognize your own logical fallacies.

Are you saying that the demigod, Obama, is a leftist or a progressive liberal? Well ... let's allow him to speak for himself:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o"]'Joe the Plumber' Becomes Focus of Debate - YouTube[/ame]

"... spread the wealth around!!!" LOL. Is spreading the wealth a "leftist" ideal or a "progressive liberal" ideal? I say it's an ideal shared by both. Birds of a feather flock together. You can only "spread the wealth" if you take from the wealthy (doers) and give to them who haven't earned it.

I don't know jack squat about "demigods" or "progressives". These terms have no meaning. And your video talking about how a tax works applies to none of this. You may as well just type random characters...

Here's a quick, short, sweet lesson: The Liberal believes "all men are created equal", and that's all there is to it. The leftist believes in forcing that to be the case through 'affirmative action'.

Now if you can find a way to weld that onto Joe the Freaking Plumber, yer just workin' with a different set of tools.

"Demigods" and "progressives". Sheesh...

1) My original point states that liberalism is all about "spreading the wealth."
2) You respond by stating that I don't know the difference between liberalism and leftism.
3) I respond by stating that both liberalism and leftism share the belief that wealth should be shared. I prove my point by showing a video of the liberals' posterchild, Obama, stating that wealth should be shared.
4) You respond by stating that the video has nothing to do with the point.
5) You've proven to me and anyone else reading this that you either don't pay attention or that you can't pay attention.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Liberal's minds are so open if you stand beside one, you can feel the breeze.

 

[Luissa]

Are today's liberals more open-minded than cons?



It seems to me today's liberal is more closed-minded than any conservative I know.



SNL writers say that jokes about liberals causes a lot of angry responses but with cons they tend to laugh about it.



Liberals feel that blacks have to vote Democrat or they aren't authentic.



Women that respect life are called religious extremists.



The primary reason the left attacks religions is because of their anti-gay beliefs.



So who is really more open-minded, liberals or conservatives?

I am not open minded to bigotry, and hate based on religion, or denying someone a right based on religion. I won't ever be open minded to bigotry. I am intolerant of anyone who speaks ill of someone based on their sexual preference.
As for black people voting democrat. I could care less who they vote for. But one wonders why they vote democrat after they call them stupid?
As for the rest. Sure buddy! The Palin whine kind of proves that wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Luissa]

None of that shit has jack squat to do with Liberalism. It has more to do with leftism.
You probably don't even know the difference, any more than you recognize your own logical fallacies.

Are you saying that the demigod, Obama, is a leftist or a progressive liberal? Well ... let's allow him to speak for himself:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o"]'Joe the Plumber' Becomes Focus of Debate - YouTube[/ame]

"... spread the wealth around!!!" LOL. Is spreading the wealth a "leftist" ideal or a "progressive liberal" ideal? I say it's an ideal shared by both. Birds of a feather flock together. You can only "spread the wealth" if you take from the wealthy (doers) and give to them who haven't earned it.

The wealthy doers? What a crock of shit. Stop drinking the Kool Aid.
As for Joe, he just got himself a union job. Smart guy.


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.

 

[Pogo]

I'm sorry. I just went back and looked again. You said "all men are created equal". Again a fallacy on your part. The leftists on this site do not treat all men as equal. Not by a long shot!

Don't believe in "Global Warming"? You are scum
Creationism over evolution? You are scum.
Don't support a woman's "right" to kill her child? You are scum.
Don't support gay marriage? You are scum.
Didn't vote for Obama? You are scum.
Voted for Bush? You are scum.

This list could go on for pages and pages, but based upon the "liberals" on this site you statement that liberals believe in "all men are created equal" is either a farce or there are few, if any, "liberals" on this site.

.... aaaaand right back to the same fallacies with a platoon of six more strawmen. Alrighty then. The more fallacies are exposed, the deeper they get.

Once again you appear to be conflating Liberalism with leftism, but I already made that point and it sailed over your head so... I'll leave you with this. Don't forget to duck.

And again, plain English has eluded you.

I will try it again slowly. Based... on... your... definition... there... are... only... leftists... on... this... site...

I am not conflating anything. I am taking your definition and flat out stating that either your claim that all liberals believe in "all men are created equal", which by the way was a blanket statement, is incorrect OR there do not appear to be any "liberals" on this site.

How is it you get to edit what I posted now?

I did not say, and would never say "all liberals anything". I know it continues to sail over your head but I don't believe in blanket statements so that would be impossible. I said, "The Liberal" and "the leftist"-- the abstract ideal. In other words, that's the philosophy. It doesn't represent any one person because again, this just in again, people are individuals. They're not labels.

So what you've done is exactly what I described before -- conflated the philosophy with the person and via the blanket statement, all persons of that group, and changed what I wrote in order to do it. And apparently you also didn't bother to read the link at all, which could have clarified all this before you dug deeper.

Get over your labelism crutch.

And don't edit what I post. When I post something it means exactly what it says --- not what you wish would have been convenient.

 

[Immanuel]

.... aaaaand right back to the same fallacies with a platoon of six more strawmen. Alrighty then. The more fallacies are exposed, the deeper they get.

Once again you appear to be conflating Liberalism with leftism, but I already made that point and it sailed over your head so... I'll leave you with this. Don't forget to duck.

And again, plain English has eluded you.

I will try it again slowly. Based... on... your... definition... there... are... only... leftists... on... this... site...

I am not conflating anything. I am taking your definition and flat out stating that either your claim that all liberals believe in "all men are created equal", which by the way was a blanket statement, is incorrect OR there do not appear to be any "liberals" on this site.

How is it you get to edit what I posted now?

I did not say, and would never say "all liberals anything". I know it continues to sail over your head but I don't believe in blanket statements so that would be impossible. I said, "The Liberal" and "the leftist"-- the abstract ideal. In other words, that's the philosophy. It doesn't represent any one person because again, this just in again, people are individuals. They're not labels.

So what you've done is exactly what I described before -- conflated the philosophy with the person and via the blanket statement, all persons of that group, and changed what I wrote in order to do it. And apparently you also didn't bother to read the link at all, which could have clarified all this before you dug deeper.

Get over your labelism crutch.

And don't edit what I post. When I post something it means exactly what it says --- not what you wish would have been convenient.

Now you are a liar and a whiner.

I didn't edit anything you posted. You said:

Here's a quick, short, sweet lesson: The Liberal believes "all men are created equal", and that's all there is to it. The leftist believes in forcing that to be the case through 'affirmative action'.

You said, "The liberal believes". You did not say "some liberals believe". You made an erroneous and/or deliberately fallacious blanket statement. "The lLiberal" is a person not a philosophy. "Liberalism" is a philosophy.

You can try to weasel your lying ass out of this but when you said, "The liberal believes" you were claiming superiority of your beloved philosophy. I then commented, correctly it appears, that if you are right then there are no liberals on this site.

I didn't change a damned thing you said. I simply pointed out that if you were right no actual liberals exist on this board.

Man up to your own words and quit using fallacious blanket statements.

And please grow up and learn the difference between "Liberalism" and "The Liberal". The first is in fact a philosophy. The second is people who consider themselves followers of that philosophy and those people, by your simple definition do not exist on this board.