Do complete Lefties and Greenies get on your nerves? (1 Viewer)

[Lockhart]

Sorry, I know there has been a bit of time since the last update but there are a few things on these posts that I cannot let fall by the wayside.

In answer to the major theme question, yes I do hate lefties. Why? Because mainly they attempt to enforce a totally irrational opinion carried by the forces of emotion designed to emotionally please themselves. Also their stream of argument is usually a personal attack calling a person raciest, sexiest, and fanciest and other titles designed not to refute arguments proposed but rather to discredit them by attacking the proposer.

The definition of so called free speech that they declare to propound, states that anyone can say a view as long as it is not in contradiction with their own.

As an answer to the side theme topic that seems to have arisen in this forum about gays there are a number of arguments that are without intelligent grounding.

First, the idea that simply because things exist as they are or have existed the way they were gives no to little credit to the idea. Tradition is a fallacy! The fact that homosexuals are not considered married at the moment does not matter and the fact that marriage has traditionally been between a man or a woman does not give a reason as to why the way things were. The assumption is that things the way they are because that’s they way that they have always been. False! These views when being considered originally taken into account, they have been taken into account recently and they have been dismissed because there has not been enough reason for it. In almost every aspect of life the status quo is the right avenue because it works. It is only ever the exception that things change because they wrong. Imagine if a person tried to build a car from scratch without knowing how any of the parts worked. Knowledge is accumulated over time. The result of modern day thinking in a lot of areas is the sum of millions of men’s work, in many cases people who are far more experienced and intelligent then ourselves, simply because they had a lifetime of experience. If we cannot place credence in our accepted understanding than our some knowledge is what we accumulate ourselves over our life.

Second. The question of marriage. What is marriage? Why can't a person rationally marry a goat or any creature which is capable of returning love? Why can't a person marry a male of the same sex? Why can't a man marry two women? Or a woman two men? Why should marriage be fostered between two people? Can multinational public companies declare themselves all to be married to each other and as a result share the special economic considerations that a man and wife do?

A marriage has for the tradition of history been confined between a man and a wife. Why? Because it is in that relationship that they are meant to be able to foster children and a family. Sponsoring effectively people for the first 20 years of their lives. The inlantal benefits received for a family couple are in recognition of the burden placed upon them for this task and the understanding that they are in many cases fostering a partnerships within that confine. It is an extension of this line of logic of fostering a partnership that recognition is given to a married couple of similar status even when there is no intention/ability to foster children.

Essentially the main complaint given by Gay lobbies in favour of gay marriage is that they are unable to enjoy the similar tax benefits under this circumstance. Another side complaint is that they are isolated by not receiving the same recognition and acceptance by being denied this status.

Effectively the point of the push is to ENFORCE ACCEPTANCE of the gay community in giving it the equal recognition with families. What they do not understand is the finantual assistance given is to ease the load that family units endure by devoting 20 years of their life to raising the next generation. It is given to all married couples as it is unfair to discriminate against prospective parents and logically it should probably be applied to prospective parents and in cases where couples are too old to have children of their own to possible adoptions.

The bottom line is marriage is about family and family is about rasing a new generation.

Homosexual couples are not designed for this purpose and it is my belief that they never should be. A child has a right to be risen in an environment how it was meant to be. He/she has a right to a mother and a father and in cases where that is unavailable in many cases the child suffers (however mildly) as a result.

In many cases gay unions are sought to give a sense of committal to a prolonged relationship over a standing affair. It is for this reason that many Gays seek the ability to marry. It must be recognised that marriage is more than a committal ceremony of two people who profess love for one another. It is a union that if birth did not exist would not be as it is.

Despite all this though it is a topic which a person cannot come out in opposition of without being called a gay basher or homophobic or other broad meaningless cliché names that effectively are designed to silence debate from one side of the argument. It is an issue along with many others that is not fought out in the public forums to the full extent and where people are fearful of giving their opinions because of the ability to be labelled.

Despite what many may say about "right wingers" or people with less progressive opinions, some of them do belong to the intellectual class and surprisingly people with worthwhile opinions aren't just left leaning professors who earn a pittance, many infact are those who are smart enough to earn high incomes. A lot of conservatives are successful because they are bright enough to earn the big money. They just don't spend their time debating socially progressive theories.

I know LONNNNG post, but I got carried away.

 

[Optophobia]

In answer to the major theme question, yes I do hate lefties. Why? Because mainly they attempt to enforce a totally irrational opinion carried by the forces of emotion designed to emotionally please themselves.

Which is so much different to that of the right wing..

Also their stream of argument is usually a personal attack calling a person racist, sexiest, and fanciest and other titles designed not to refute arguments proposed but rather to discredit them by attacking the proposer.

If you say so, you racist sexist bastard.

The definition of so called free speech that they declare to propound, states that anyone can say a view as long as it is not in contradiction with their own.

As opposed to the right wing.... Oh wait, no it's not.

First, the idea that simply because things exist as they are or have existed the way they were gives no to little credit to the idea. Tradition is a fallacy! The fact that homosexuals are not considered married at the moment does not matter and the fact that marriage has traditionally been between a man or a woman does not give a reason as to why the way things were.

Um... What you're saying is basically in line with left wing views on marriage.....

The assumption is that things the way they are because that’s they way that they have always been. False! These views when being considered originally taken into account, they have been taken into account recently and they have been dismissed because there has not been enough reason for it. In almost every aspect of life the status quo is the right avenue because it works. It is only ever the exception that things change because they wrong. Imagine if a person tried to build a car from scratch without knowing how any of the parts worked. Knowledge is accumulated over time. The result of modern day thinking in a lot of areas is the sum of millions of men’s work, in many cases people who are far more experienced and intelligent then ourselves, simply because they had a lifetime of experience. If we cannot place credence in our accepted understanding than our some knowledge is what we accumulate ourselves over our life.

(Does anybody else know what the hell this guy is going on about?)

Second. The question of marriage. What is marriage? Why can't a person rationally marry a goat or any creature which is capable of returning love? Why can't a person marry a male of the same sex? Why can't a man marry two women? Or a woman two men? Why should marriage be fostered between two people? Can multinational public companies declare themselves all to be married to each other and as a result share the special economic considerations that a man and wife do?

But it is not impossible for these marriages to occur. It's just not desirable to allow companies to marry. It comes down to what one consideres desirable. Some people desire gay marriage. Suggesting that a person marry a goat is abstract and so is not generally suggested except in the case of your parents, which is probably the reason why you eat stuff off the clothes line.

A marriage has for the tradition of history been confined between a man and a wife. Why? Because it is in that relationship that they are meant to be able to foster children and a family. Sponsoring effectively people for the first 20 years of their lives. The inlantal benefits received for a family couple are in recognition of the burden placed upon them for this task and the understanding that they are in many cases fostering a partnerships within that confine. It is an extension of this line of logic of fostering a partnership that recognition is given to a married couple of similar status even when there is no intention/ability to foster children.

Essentially the main complaint given by Gay lobbies in favour of gay marriage is that they are unable to enjoy the similar tax benefits under this circumstance. Another side complaint is that they are isolated by not receiving the same recognition and acceptance by being denied this status.

Effectively the point of the push is to ENFORCE ACCEPTANCE of the gay community in giving it the equal recognition with families. What they do not understand is the finantual assistance given is to ease the load that family units endure by devoting 20 years of their life to raising the next generation. It is given to all married couples as it is unfair to discriminate against prospective parents and logically it should probably be applied to prospective parents and in cases where couples are too old to have children of their own to possible adoptions.

The bottom line is marriage is about family and family is about rasing a new generation.

Homosexual couples are not designed for this purpose and it is my belief that they never should be. A child has a right to be risen in an environment how it was meant to be. He/she has a right to a mother and a father and in cases where that is unavailable in many cases the child suffers (however mildly) as a result.

In many cases gay unions are sought to give a sense of committal to a prolonged relationship over a standing affair. It is for this reason that many Gays seek the ability to marry. It must be recognised that marriage is more than a committal ceremony of two people who profess love for one another. It is a union that if birth did not exist would not be as it is.

Take this to the gay marriage thread (if one exists), not a thread about why you hat lefties and greenies.

Despite all this though it is a topic which a person cannot come out in opposition of without being called a gay basher or homophobic or other broad meaningless cliché names

Yes, those terrible cliche's. You use words that are found in the dictionary instead of inventing your own. How dishonourable.

that effectively are designed to silence debate from one side of the argument. It is an issue along with many others that is not fought out in the public forums to the full extent and where people are fearful of giving their opinions because of the ability to be labelled.

Go and give a lefty opinion on a right wing forum and you will receive the same treatment. It's about humans, not political alighnment.

Despite what many may say about "right wingers" or people with less progressive opinions, some of them do belong to the intellectual class and surprisingly people with worthwhile opinions aren't just left leaning professors who earn a pittance, many infact are those who are smart enough to earn high incomes. A lot of conservatives are successful because they are bright enough to earn the big money. They just don't spend their time debating socially progressive theories.

 

[dieburndie]

Also, lefties and greenies do not get on my nerves.

 

[Lockhart]

Take this to the gay marriage thread (if one exists), not a thread about why you hat lefties and greenies.

Yes, those terrible cliche's. You use words that are found in the dictionary instead of inventing your own. How dishonourable.

Go and give a lefty opinion on a right wing forum and you will receive the same treatment. It's about humans, not political alighnment.

First, If my post has upset you I am sorry. If I am off topic, then I will withdraw the post.

It was my impression when writing it that it was in responce to what was a side topic mentioned in about 50 or so posts regarding gay marridge. It is meant to be a responce to posts of people saying it is unfair to apeal to tradition, that gay couples should recieve the same recognition as hetrosexual couples, topics that I feel have been well debated.

It was not my view while writing it to give a rant on a topic i felt i should talk about but in responce to issues that have been debated in the forum. If gay marridge was not an issue i appoligise, and if you want withdraw the post.

If my arguments seemed circular or convoluted I ask you excuse me for as you can see It was written about 1am in the morning on a sleepless night. If you believe my views require further explaining I will be happy to do so.

As for your name calling of me I think you have scarred me for life. It hurt terribly knowing that you thought me a:

If you say so, you racist sexist bastard.

...and that I am a half goat.
But I think you proove my argument that rather than atempting to negate what I say you/Lefties resort to personal attacks.

Basically what i am trying to say is that Greenies/Lefties resort to personal attacks to ground an argument. that there is a difference between Gay couples and married couples and we should recognise that difference. And that things are the way they are ussually for good reasons.

By the way if I hadn't been looking for something to do I wouldn't have written it.

 

[KFunk]

Basically what i am trying to say is that Greenies/Lefties resort to personal attacks to ground an argument. that there is a difference between Gay couples and married couples and we should recognise that difference. And that things are the way they are ussually for good reasons.

I disagree on two counts (and agree once):

(1) Your statment about "Greenies/Lefties" is a gross generalization. From what I've observed in this forum both 'sides' lower themselves to the level of petty insults at times. To me it seems to be more a statistically common human trait than one which is inherent to the left or the right. Parliament is as good an example as any - both sides of parliament are atrocious sometimes, slinging back and forth the most inapropriate crap. In any case, I really do think that your generalization is incorrect.


(2) "There is a difference between gay couples and married couples" --> yes, I agree, because currently married couples are all heterosexual ones (in Australia). Neither this difference nor any other one which I have seen put forth have been able to convince me that committed homosexual couples should not recieve the same rights as heterosexual ones.


(3) "things are the way they are ussually for good reasons". I definately disagree with this statement - it represents perhaps my main gripe with conservative logic. It is the standard appeal to tradition/history etc where an individual forgoes justification of the object of tradition, saying that it was accepted in the past and hence that we should accept it, trusting in the judgement of our forebears (or some variation on this theme).

Some things which fall under 'the way things are' and/or 'the way things have been':
- Female genital mutilation
- Slavery
- Denial of equal status to women (including suffrage etc)
- Various physical tortures
- Exploitation of the poor for the benefit of the well off

Most of these traditions also have their advocates, many of whom are forced to argue from tradition, if only because most other forms of justification are found to be lacking. They are prime examples of why we need to assess traditions on a basis other than tradition itself. I could go on for longer, but I hope you understand why I think we have to do a lot better than point out "the way things are" when discussing homosexual rights.

 

[withoutaface]

- Exploitation of the poor for the benefit of the well off

Elaborate.

 

[KFunk]

An example would be cheap clinical trials conducted in the third world with loose ethical standard - the benefits of which will never be seen by the participants. A study worth looking up (which was conducted in the USA 1932-1972, not in the 3rd world) in which the less affluent participants were exploited is the Tuskegee syphilis study.

Edit: Here's a link to some info on the aforementioned study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study

 

[zoesnotannoying]

Also their stream of argument is usually a personal attack calling a person raciest, sexiest, and fanciest and other titles designed not to refute arguments proposed but rather to discredit them by attacking the proposer.

hahahahahahahaha

 

[bshoc]

(1) Your statment about "Greenies/Lefties" is a gross generalization. From what I've observed in this forum both 'sides' lower themselves to the level of petty insults at times. To me it seems to be more a statistically common human trait than one which is inherent to the left or the right. Parliament is as good an example as any - both sides of parliament are atrocious sometimes, slinging back and forth the most inapropriate crap. In any case, I really do think that your generalization is incorrect.

Pro Gay Marraige?
Pro Welfare State?
Pro Affirmative Action?
Pro anything else incredibly stupid and poorly thought through?

You're a greenie/leftie.

Funny how people such as yourself who always take up those positions always try hard to deny the label.

(2) "There is a difference between gay couples and married couples" --> yes, I agree, because currently married couples are all heterosexual ones (in Australia). Neither this difference nor any other one which I have seen put forth have been able to convince me that committed homosexual couples should not recieve the same rights as heterosexual ones.

Maybe you should start with the fact that marriage was not given out on the basis of sexual orientation in first place.

Also, homosexuals have the same marriage rights as anyone else, what you're trying to do is to create extra rights when most people clearly oppose it, the unfortunate truth is most people don't want to live in a society with gay marriage or a huge welfare state, too many people have a sense of history to know that a society like that is a dead society.

(3) "things are the way they are ussually for good reasons". I definately disagree with this statement - it represents perhaps my main gripe with conservative logic. It is the standard appeal to tradition/history etc where an individual forgoes justification of the object of tradition, saying that it was accepted in the past and hence that we should accept it, trusting in the judgement of our forebears (or some variation on this theme).

Some things which fall under 'the way things are' and/or 'the way things have been':
- Female genital mutilation
- Slavery
- Denial of equal status to women (including suffrage etc)
- Various physical tortures
- Exploitation of the poor for the benefit of the well off

Most of these traditions also have their advocates, many of whom are forced to argue from tradition, if only because most other forms of justification are found to be lacking. They are prime examples of why we need to assess traditions on a basis other than tradition itself. I could go on for longer, but I hope you understand why I think we have to do a lot better than point out "the way things are" when discussing homosexual rights.

Why don't you demostrate one example where straight people have been accorded rights based on their sexuality?

Also conservatism does not equate to tradition, Lincoln was a staunch conservative who abolished slavery, infact all of the things you list cannot be linked in any way to conservatism and are either foreign cultural tradition like genital mutilation or are natural outcomes of society, such as your "exploitation" argument.

 

[KFunk]

Bshoc, you're reading things into my post.

You're a greenie/leftie.

Funny how people such as yourself who always take up those positions always try hard to deny the label.

I'm a greenie/leftie and proud of it. I was denying false attributes, not my personal affiliation. As you have shown, you know my positions as well as I do, why would I deny such a thing??

Maybe you should start with the fact that marriage was not given out on the basis of sexual orientation in first place.

Also, homosexuals have the same marriage rights as anyone else, what you're trying to do is to create extra rights when most people clearly oppose it, the unfortunate truth is most people don't want to live in a society with gay marriage or a huge welfare state, too many people have a sense of history to know that a society like that is a dead society.

They don't have the same relationship rights as heterosexual couples. What people 'want' is not the same as what is right. What if people want to bring back slavery? In any case, I'll continue this debate in the gay marriage forum if you really want.

Also conservatism does not equate to tradition, Lincoln was a staunch conservative who abolished slavery, infact all of the things you list cannot be linked in any way to conservatism and are either foreign cultural tradition like genital mutilation or are natural outcomes of society, such as your "exploitation" argument.

My point was not that 'conservatism equates to tradition' it was that arguments from tradition are faulty - my saying that conservatives often use such arguments was but a side note. As for my list, I never said that 'conservatives support these causes'... I was simply using ghastly situations to illustrate that what is traditional isn't necessarily what is right, nothing more.

 

[bshoc]

I'm a greenie/leftie and proud of it. I was denying false attributes, not my personal affiliation. As you have shown, you know my positions as well as I do, why would I deny such a thing??

Most people aren't partial to greenie/leftie arguments - if thing are to be learned from countries run by lefties, it is that they are total failures.

They don't have the same relationship rights as heterosexual couples. What people 'want' is not the same as what is right. What if people want to bring back slavery? In any case, I'll continue this debate in the gay marriage forum if you really want.

Right and wrong is entirely subjective you realize? Society is all about consensus and compromise, thats why slavery, gay marriage etc. are illigal. As long as most people consider slavery to be bad it will be illigal, the same with all other issues, especially least in democratic society. The problem with lefties is that they are a minority and have to bypass the democratic process in order to turn any of their ideas into reality.

My point was not that 'conservatism equates to tradition' it was that arguments from tradition are faulty - my saying that conservatives often use such arguments was but a side note. As for my list, I never said that 'conservatives support these causes'... I was simply using ghastly situations to illustrate that what is traditional isn't necessarily what is right, nothing more.

Arguments from progressivism or secular humanism are faulty also, probably far more actually, so whilst the traditions of some barbarian cultures may not be a guide to whats right, neither are most progressive causes.

 

[KFunk]

I don't even know how to make an argument from "progressivism or secular humanism", I simply come up with premises with appear reasonable and argue from them. I accept the lefty/greeny lable in that I accept a lot of their conclusions but my style of argument, however, makes no appeal to theirs.

So am I right to suppose that you believe that majority opinion equates with what is right?. Running with this: if a population agrees to genital mutilation for females the there is nothing wrong with such mutilation. Do you accept this? It is a direct consequence of your beliefs.

 

[bshoc]

I don't even know how to make an argument from "progressivism or secular humanism", I simply come up with premises with appear reasonable and argue from them. I accept the lefty/greeny lable in that I accept a lot of their conclusions but my style of argument, however, makes no appeal to theirs.

How can you not know how to make such an arguement if you agree with its conclusions?

So am I right to suppose that you believe that majority opinion equates with what is right?. Running with this: if a population agrees to genital mutilation for females the there is nothing wrong with such mutilation. Do you accept this? It is a direct consequence of your beliefs.

Right and wrong is subjective, one mans trash another mans treasure, one mans good is another mans bad. It doesen't mean that one has to agree with the majority opinion, only that if one disagrees with this in a democratic society, the option is tolerance of its existance or attempt to attack it through non-democratic means.

 

[KFunk]

In response to the 'argument' thing:

I might agree with set theorists that 1 + 1 = 2 without knowing how to prove that 1 + 1 = 2 using set theory. My case may be analagous to this or it may be a matter of ignorance. Frankly I've never read anything which outlines the premises of progressivism or secular humanism and, as a result, I don't even know what it is to make their arguments.


On morality:

As long as you're willing to accept an ethical system which allows genital mutilation then that's that really. I, for one, cannot accept such a system but I geuss that's a whole other debate isn't it?

 

[bshoc]

KFunk if you have never read anything which outlines the premises of progressivism or secular humanism, how can you possibly know you agree with them?

 

[KFunk]

Because I thought that you had placed me in their camp, so I assumed that we hold some beliefs in common. If my assumption was wrong then I apologise.

 

[torrentperson]

In response to the original question, yes. I find the hard left extremely obnoxious. I think the Greens are the most irresponsible, demagogic party on the Australian electoral landscape, and I think cluelessness is a sine qua non of voting for them.

 

[P_Dilemma]

yeah, extreme lefties and greenies annoy me.

But so do extreme righties and reddies.

All a matter of degree.

-P_D

 

[lengy]

In response to the original question, yes. I find the hard left extremely obnoxious. I think the Coalition are the most irresponsible, demagogic party on the Australian electoral landscape, and I think cluelessness is a sine qua non of voting for them.

EFT because you're a noob and you live in Hicksville.

 

[torrentperson]

EFT because you're a hero and I have a minuscule penis, viewable only under an electron microscope. LOL!!!

EFT because I don't know what "EFT" stands for.