Hypocrisy of The Left - part 2

[RW]

Your comment has summed up the attitudes of some people on the right quite well, when they were talking about Colin Kaepernick's refusal to stand for the national anthem and Lahren's criticism of him for doing it, some people real struggle with the idea that it was possible for Kaepernick to exercise his First Amendment right by not standing AND for Lahren to exercise hers by criticising him, AND for Noah to exercise his as well by criticising her, as it is how free discourse operates. The regressive conservative mind tends to struggle with such complexities I have noticed.

I was just exercising my right to comment on his comment...

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Yep the abject hypocrisy extends to ultra right Right to Lifers who care more about a foetus than a child - as soon as its out WDGAF! Rugged individualism and moxie will take care of it after that

And most of them are pro-war hawks to the nth degree, and what is war but production-line abortion in the 56th trimester (give or take)?

 

[medusala]

True. I would like for righties to acknowledge gay rights across the board however, including being pro-marriage equality. To use it as some sort of wedge issue only, without actually giving a f*ck about the situations homosexuals and transgender people find themselves in, is a tad disingenuous.

Oh dear, that old canard. Firstly a libertarian sort would be vehemently against govt interference in marriage and secondly one cant take anyone seriously about "equality" whilst they simultaneously dismiss polygamy.

Situations transgenders find themselves in? Confusion over which bathroom to use? One should give a fruit about that? Seriously?

 

[medusala]

And most of them are pro-war hawks to the nth degree, and what is war but production-line abortion in the 56th trimester (give or take)?

meh see Ron Paul. As the Guru points out repeatedly most neo cons started out as lefties. They are hardly Adam Smith sorts of people.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Oh dear, that old canard. Firstly a libertarian sort would be vehemently against govt interference in marriage and secondly one cant take anyone seriously about "equality" whilst they simultaneously dismiss polygamy.

Situations transgenders find themselves in? Confusion over which bathroom to use? One should give a fruit about that? Seriously?

s**t, I keep on forgetting you're libertarian. Been dealing with too many 'Sword of the Right' types just lately

Polygamy... As long as you aren't gonna follow it up with a 'why are equality advocates dismissing paedophilia as a valid option?' then its a fair point, to be honest. The only issues I see rising with polygamy (one partner married to multiple partners) and bigamy (the same, but the unions are completely concurrent and limitless by law, with marriages overlapping each other) is the absolute nightmare that may result from divorce regarding custody of children, division of assets, etc. Family Law is currently puzzling as it is!

Homosexual couples, transgender couples, etc - it's still a binary system. The law doesn't have to really change in order to recognise this. With polygamy/bigamy the legal system might begin to s**t the bed. Lawyers would love it though!!!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

meh see Ron Paul. As the Guru points out repeatedly most neo cons started out as lefties. They are hardly Adam Smith sorts of people.

I never understood how a lefty lurches hard right like that.

 

[medusala]

s**t, I keep on forgetting you're libertarian. Been dealing with too many 'Sword of the Right' types just lately

Its like the BBC trying to call Le Pen far right. Her economic policies are hardly liberal. Pretty shameful how the media keep butchering that. One wonders how on earth anyone on nodding terms with reality can call national socialism right wing yet they do.

The BBC really outdid themselves yesterday in the Austrian election - an independent vs far right candidate. lol at independent. CNN etc not much better.

I never understood how a lefty lurches hard right like that.

The love of authoritarianism.

Mind you as Evo has pointed out - to be consistent you really should be only in two of the four square in the political compass.

To me people like Abbott are very confused. People like Hayek wouldn't have much time for those sorts.

 

[CM86]

Polygamy... As long as you aren't gonna follow it up with a 'why are equality advocates dismissing paedophilia as a valid option?' then its a fair point, to be honest. The only issues I see rising with polygamy (one partner married to multiple partners) and bigamy (the same, but the unions are completely concurrent and limitless by law, with marriages overlapping each other) is the absolute nightmare that may result from divorce regarding custody of children, division of assets, etc. Family Law is currently puzzling as it is!

Homosexual couples, transgender couples, etc - it's still a binary system. The law doesn't have to really change in order to recognise this. With polygamy/bigamy the legal system might begin to s**t the bed. Lawyers would love it though!!!

Geelong_Sicko, you're an awesome poster. But sometimes you're just too damn diplomatic.

It isn't a fair point at all, it's a bullshit point. A red herring. Both of his points were.

2nd point. You can support gay marriage without simultaneously fighting for polygamy. They are two separate issues. And supporting gay marriage does not mean you dismiss polygamy.
It's marriage equality for homosexuals. For homosexuals to be given the same social status and legal status as a married heterosexual couple.
Supporting gay marriage doesn't mean you oppose polygamy.

And as for his 1st point. The "libertarian sorts" that he tried to link with and then displace the argument with. You didn't bring up "libertarian sorts", he did.
Your point was completely valid. A lot of the same people who argue against Muslim immigration due to their stance on homosexuals, are also anti-gay marriage.

Just red herrings that he picked up from some blogger and has repeated at every opportunity since.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Geelong_Sicko, you're an awesome poster. But sometimes you're just too damn diplomatic...

Yeah. I probably am. But meeting with a point of contention and actually discussing it sometimes exposes the fragility of the 'recognise all or none' position. As you said, polygamous/bigamous unions ARE a different issue, by numbers alone, from any combination of binary relationships for which the current legal system does not have to change in any fundamental way.

The thing is to arrive at this point without putting anybody's back up.

 

[Gough]

Yeah. I probably am. But meeting with a point of contention and actually discussing it sometimes exposes the fragility of the 'recognise all or none' position. As you said, polygamous/bigamous unions ARE a different issue, by numbers alone, from any combination of binary relationships for which the current legal system does not have to change in any fundamental way.

The thing is to arrive at this point without putting anybody's back up.

It seems to me that gay people have spent decades putting up with invective, and pejoratives thrown our way, yet as soon as we call it out, or worse still, bite back, all of a sudden it's name calling. Personally I'm beyond worrying about putting a few noses out of joint.

 

[Procrastinator35]

John Locke and the French guys were nutters undoubtedly.

Don't forget Paine, Madison & Jefferson either....All 3 would be turning in their graves at what's become of their 'great experiment'.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

It seems to me that gay people have spent decades putting up with invective, and pejoratives thrown our way, yet as soon as we call it out, or worse still, bite back, all of a sudden it's name calling. Personally I'm beyond worrying about putting a few noses out of joint.

Decades. Centuries, even. Oscar Wilde put up with a lot of s**t in his day. I agree with you. How do you argue with a point of view that considers empathy an alien concept though? Logic.

 

[Gough]

I used to sit in the waiting room at Twyford Station where Oscar Wilde was brought after release from Reading jail and think how far we'd come, until not half a mile down the road three of us got our heads kicked in a homophobic attack.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

I used to sit in the waiting room at Twyford Station where Oscar Wilde was brought after release from Reading jail and think how far we'd come, until not half a mile down the road three of us got our heads kicked in a homophobic attack.

That's f*cked. It's maddening to think that no matter how far we come, there will always be regressive pieces of s**t stuck to the soles of our collective feet

 

[Contra Mundum]

Oh dear, that old canard. Firstly a libertarian sort would be vehemently against govt interference in marriage and secondly one cant take anyone seriously about "equality" whilst they simultaneously dismiss polygamy.

Situations transgenders find themselves in? Confusion over which bathroom to use? One should give a fruit about that? Seriously?

Gets a like for us of the word "Canard"

 

[Gough]

Conservatives have little left to do but attempt to try to call hypocrisy in their opponents, so few of their policies, and arguments are based around rationality, and when your core belief, certainly economically is that people must suffer*, it's difficult to run any other defence than potting your opponents.







*Not them of course they are only angered by others' entitlement.

 

[Ausmerican]

Germans burn a refugee centre and it's all over the news in that country. A Muslim refugee rapes and kills the daughter of an EU official and they don't even report on it. It's tragic how Merkel controls the media narrative in that country. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...media-Tagesschau-report-migrant-killing-story

On SM-G930F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Gough]

How did you feel about the media coverage of the Gillard Government?

 

[Procrastinator35]

How did you feel about the media coverage of the Gillard Government?

She could always come to me for some consolation.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Its like the BBC trying to call Le Pen far right. Her economic policies are hardly liberal. Pretty shameful how the media keep butchering that. One wonders how on earth anyone on nodding terms with reality can call national socialism right wing yet they do.

The BBC really outdid themselves yesterday in the Austrian election - an independent vs far right candidate. lol at independent. CNN etc not much better.



The love of authoritarianism.

Mind you as Evo has pointed out - to be consistent you really should be only in two of the four square in the political compass.

To me people like Abbott are very confused. People like Hayek wouldn't have much time for those sorts.

and Barry Goldwater whose predictions of the religious right in the 60s proved entirely accurate

 

[WA ROO]

She could always come to me for some consolation.

There is the lunch I ate an hour ago
All over my desk

 

[medusala]

Conservatives have little left to do but attempt to try to call hypocrisy in their opponents, so few of their policies, and arguments are based around rationality, and when your core belief, certainly economically is that people must suffer*, it's difficult to run any other defence than potting your opponents.

And my how history proves your case. All those from the US fleeing to Cuba, from West to East Germany and Russia, from Honk Kong to China etc etc

Rational economics.

FFS

 

[medusala]

It isn't a fair point at all, it's a bullshit point. A red herring. Both of his points were.

Entirely rational and consistent. You are just too thick to see the obvious

"It's marriage equality for homosexuals"

See you even have to admit it now, its not marriage equality in general at all.

How to destroy your own argument.

"Just red herrings that he picked up from some blogger"

Sans culotte angst at being incapable of their own original thinking (not to mention Pavlovian swallowing of ABC/BBC/Guardian propaganda)

 

[douglyzia]

Someone let me know when just plain old giving a s**t about the powerless is no longer considered irresponsible.

There seems to be a common and naive assumption that those who are powerless are somehow, due to their "powerlessness", automatically assumed to be inherently good.

However, it is entirely possible for a "powerless" person to, for example, be a highly dangerous sociopath or psychopath. In fact, I would argue that a "powerless" person would be more likely than the average person to possess a malignant personality type if said person had been subjected to a life of various forms of abuse (physical, mental, emotional, etc.), leading to stunted emotional development, a lack empathy for others and various disorders in their mental health.

I'm all for helping genuinely good "powerless" people who will not be a burden or danger to society, but let's not assume that ALL "powerless" people are deserving of help.

It appears that people are quick to cry "racism" and "bigotry" when there is an insinuation that ALL members of a particular group are unfairly categorized into a label with negative connotation, yet it seems fine to imply that ALL "powerless" people are good people who should be helped.

 

[little graham]

So a heap of Democrats are moving to Canada now trumps in. Whats wrong with mexico? low cost of living, cheap housing, plenty of jobs? surely thier decison to go north is not based on race?