Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Liberalism and Collateral Damage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Liberalism and Collateral Damage

    This is something that has been bugging me for awhile and after the last instance I felt like typing it out.

    In the WoT liberals have often reacted with horror and revulsion at the idea of carpet bombing ISIS strongholds. They find the idea of flattening a bunch of innocent civilians in the name of nailing a few bad guys to be abhorrent. They aren't wrong to have this belief, but I can't help but notice how often liberalism EMBRACES collateral damage in much more petty circumstances.

    Exhibit A - A homosexual couple want a wedding cake from a Christian baker. The baker says no. How do they handle this? Like adults? Sit down with the baker, explain their views, have a conversation? Or maybe just go elsewhere? Nope. They sue and start a social media campaign that escalates to death threats.

    Now, who offended this pair of leftists? The baker. But who do they attack? The baker and his family. They seek by lawsuit and threat to ruin the bakers' livelihood, thereby not only hurting them but their spouse and children as well. And do they care that death threats and lawsuits have a negative impact on the baker's family? Nope. Their feelings have been hurt and they must be avenged. Tough luck if innocent kids get caught in the crossfire. They should know better than to be born to conservatives.

    Exhibit B - A bunch of left wing businesses throw a tantrum because of some law passed in a state that keeps religious businesses from being forced to defy their beliefs. How do they handle this? Like adults? Do they start a public campaign, run some commercials? Go to a town hall, try to influence public opinion? Encourage voters to elect a candidate that doesn't think this way? Nope. They threaten economic pain on the ENTIRE STATE.

    Now, who offended these leftists? A select few politicians and some of their constituents. But who do they attack? The whole damn state. Inflicting economic pain on the state would hurt lots of people. There would be less tax revenue for schools and social services. But do they care about hurting kids and poor people? Nope. Their feelings were hurt and they want revenge. Do they bother to consider that there are people in that state who might agree with their viewpoint and not desire such a law? Nope, when a liberals feelings are hurt, ALL must suffer. Do they even get it into their heads that there are gay people in all 50 states and inflicting economic pain would have an impact on THOSE VERY SAME gay people? Nope. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

    There is nothing so like a raging, psychotic bull in a china shop as a liberal with hurt feelings. When they decide it's time to lash out, watch out. They will trash EVERYTHING, even to the point of hurting people who might agree with them but just happen to be in the path of their rage.

    I would suggest that liberals stop for a moment and take a page from their "Fighting ISIS" handbook. They say it's wrong to bomb innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorism. Well, by extension, it is wrong to harm people who have nothing to do with your political adversaries. Instead of working yourself up into a frenzy and going on a binge of lawsuits and state boycotts, how about addressing the person who offended you personally. Lay off urge to punish entire states for your minor setbacks. It makes you look like acolytes of Khorne.

    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

  • #2
    You equate genocide with refusal of service due to sexual orientation? Wow. New low.
    First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
      You equate genocide with refusal of service due to sexual orientation? Wow. New low.
      Obviously not, he clearly articulated that with:

      "They aren't wrong to have this belief, but I can't help but notice how often liberalism EMBRACES collateral damage in much more petty circumstances."

      It appears that you didn't fully read or possible understand his post.

      So what is the reason for your question?
      "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

      Comment


      • #4
        The comparison here is nonsensical. The entire premise fails because of the initial comparison.
        First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
          The comparison here is nonsensical. The entire premise fails because of the initial comparison.
          The post is about their method and reasons for embracing collateral damage...
          "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
            This is something that has been bugging me for awhile and after the last instance I felt like typing it out.

            In the WoT liberals have often reacted with horror and revulsion at the idea of carpet bombing ISIS strongholds. They find the idea of flattening a bunch of innocent civilians in the name of nailing a few bad guys to be abhorrent. They aren't wrong to have this belief, but I can't help but notice how often liberalism EMBRACES collateral damage in much more petty circumstances.

            Exhibit A - A homosexual couple want a wedding cake from a Christian baker. The baker says no. How do they handle this? Like adults? Sit down with the baker, explain their views, have a conversation? Or maybe just go elsewhere? Nope. They sue and start a social media campaign that escalates to death threats.

            Now, who offended this pair of leftists? The baker. But who do they attack? The baker and his family. They seek by lawsuit and threat to ruin the bakers' livelihood, thereby not only hurting them but their spouse and children as well. And do they care that death threats and lawsuits have a negative impact on the baker's family? Nope. Their feelings have been hurt and they must be avenged. Tough luck if innocent kids get caught in the crossfire. They should know better than to be born to conservatives.

            Exhibit B - A bunch of left wing businesses throw a tantrum because of some law passed in a state that keeps religious businesses from being forced to defy their beliefs. How do they handle this? Like adults? Do they start a public campaign, run some commercials? Go to a town hall, try to influence public opinion? Encourage voters to elect a candidate that doesn't think this way? Nope. They threaten economic pain on the ENTIRE STATE.

            Now, who offended these leftists? A select few politicians and some of their constituents. But who do they attack? The whole damn state. Inflicting economic pain on the state would hurt lots of people. There would be less tax revenue for schools and social services. But do they care about hurting kids and poor people? Nope. Their feelings were hurt and they want revenge. Do they bother to consider that there are people in that state who might agree with their viewpoint and not desire such a law? Nope, when a liberals feelings are hurt, ALL must suffer. Do they even get it into their heads that there are gay people in all 50 states and inflicting economic pain would have an impact on THOSE VERY SAME gay people? Nope. Can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

            There is nothing so like a raging, psychotic bull in a china shop as a liberal with hurt feelings. When they decide it's time to lash out, watch out. They will trash EVERYTHING, even to the point of hurting people who might agree with them but just happen to be in the path of their rage.

            I would suggest that liberals stop for a moment and take a page from their "Fighting ISIS" handbook. They say it's wrong to bomb innocent people who have nothing to do with terrorism. Well, by extension, it is wrong to harm people who have nothing to do with your political adversaries. Instead of working yourself up into a frenzy and going on a binge of lawsuits and state boycotts, how about addressing the person who offended you personally. Lay off urge to punish entire states for your minor setbacks. It makes you look like acolytes of Khorne.

            Where to begin....

            People are not in any way logical.

            Americans always feel sorry for foreigners, but rarely for other Americans, friends or neighbors.

            Who, exactly, decided that the civilians hanging around ISIS are "innocent"?

            Whatever happened to fighting wars to WIN them?

            Why isn't ISIS or any other terrorist outfit concerned about thier collateral damage against others?

            And on and on it goes...
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
              Exhibit A - A homosexual couple want a wedding cake from a Christian baker. The baker says no. How do they handle this? Like adults? Sit down with the baker, explain their views, have a conversation? Or maybe just go elsewhere? Nope. They sue and start a social media campaign that escalates to death threats.

              Now, who offended this pair of leftists? The baker. But who do they attack? The baker and his family. They seek by lawsuit and threat to ruin the bakers' livelihood, thereby not only hurting them but their spouse and children as well. And do they care that death threats and lawsuits have a negative impact on the baker's family? Nope. Their feelings have been hurt and they must be avenged. Tough luck if innocent kids get caught in the crossfire. They should know better than to be born to conservatives.
              Why should they have to go elsewhere? Back in the day I am sure that the argument ''Negroes can take their business somewhere else' sounded equally as hollow. Open for business means open to the public.

              Death threats are wrong but again why is it this couples fault? If I start an anti-Obama campaign based on just principles and reasons does the fact that a few morons then tack on an 'Obama must die' message invalidate my original stance? No it doesn't.

              If somebody with a family damages my property and I take him to court then it's obvious his family are going suffer for it, again unintended but unavoidable outcome.....


              Originally posted by Pirateship1982
              Now, who offended these leftists? A select few politicians and some of their constituents. But who do they attack? The whole damn state.

              Because politicians in office are......elected representatives of the 'whole damn state'

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                This is something that has been bugging me for awhile and after the last instance I felt like typing it out.

                The complexity of the issues you raise should not be minimized. to address them we have to deal with conflicting rights, the hierarchy of rights, conflicts between personal and public morality, international law and the self determination of nations, religious freedom, military effectiveness, cultural biases, human rights, etc. etc.

                Some way of simplifying the issues to gain an overview may be useful. Political ideologies like religions enable people to make the complex and confusing world around them intellectually manageable. They separate the world into believers and non believers and provide a creed by which all of life's problems can be addressed. Ideologies eliminate the need to address the world empirically by placing convictions above practicality.

                Today consequentialism has become a term of derision for both the left and the right. Political and religious affiliation stand in stark contrast to the grey understanding that are limited intellects allow us to address the world with. We can therefor start to simplify the political quagmire we find ourselves in by claiming that strict ideological convictions are hostile to liberal democracy. It is a question of appropriate humility.

                Liberal democracy is dependant on compromise something alien to the minds of the deeply religious or the ideologically pure. Unfortunately people seem to prefer absolutism to nuanced positions. Those who hold strong convictions will not concern themselves with consequences.

                Since the original post wanted to concentrate on the failings of Liberalism I think it can be summed up by the simple statement that Liberalism has come to mean rights without obligations. It is a fantasy world in which everyone can have unlimited health care without taking personal responsibility for their health, where woman have no responsibility to refrain from reproduction if they cannot support their offspring, where only the police are responsible for the death of young black men they are forced to interact with, where every problem in the third world is derived as a product of colonialism not the cultures involved, where the patriarcy not individuals are responsible for inequality etc. etc.

                Most of our problems are a result of the decline of civil piety just as was the case in Rome. The explanation is very simply and frightening. Woman freed from the necessity to maintain male support by the welfare system will no longer tolerate dominating men. If health care if free then there is no reason to save for those expenses, pay for insurance or behave responsibly. If their is no leviathan nations go to war. The evidence that people will only behave under threat of some greater discomfort is everywhere. The solution however is not more ideology although that is always the solution of first choice for many people.

                The solution to the problem is to recognize that rights must be balanced by obligations within an empirically derived understanding of the general welfare.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  What it really boils down to is this. The Left is populated heavily (not entirely, but heavily) by narrow-minded, unenlightened, bigots, racists, haters, narcissists, and assorted other bullies and thugs. They want what they want and your opinion, if it differs from theirs, doesn't matter. In fact, if it does vary from theirs you deserve to be humiliated, reviled, threatened, attacked, or otherwise trampled down until you either agree with them or are so badly injured you can no longer respond.

                  Take the baker and cake example form the original post. What would happen if the baker said "Sure, I'll make you a cake just like you want. But, because your views don't reflect those of my bakery, or myself, I want to put a little sign next to the cake saying something to that effect. A disclaimer that the product doesn't represent the bakery's view point."
                  It would be clear to any reasonable person that the bakery is trying to accommodate a customer without turning them away while maintaining their own moral standard. They want a small accommodation too.
                  You can bet they'd still get sued because the Leftists involved didn't get it 100% their way and force the bakery to bend to their will. There is no room for tolerance on the Left. You'll do it the way the Left wants or its off to the gulag for you!

                  When the whole gay marriage movement started, the leaders of that movement said to the effect "We'll put this on the ballot and respect the views of the public at large." They did, and 35 states voted down their ideas, overwhelmingly in some cases.

                  What did the Leftists running the movement do? Go to court, shop judges, and get those votes overturned by a handful of people on the bench. They then said, "We'll respect the views of others, like businesses that disagree with our views." That led to the cases of bakeries being sued for not baking gay wedding cakes.

                  Intolerance is rampant on the Left. They want what they want and by god, no matter how many lives are ruined, how many dead bodies are stacked up, how badly the economy is wrecked, they are going to get it too.
                  Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 30 Mar 16, 16:58.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
                    Why should they have to go elsewhere? Back in the day I am sure that the argument ''Negroes can take their business somewhere else' sounded equally as hollow. Open for business means open to the public.
                    Implying that this is a simply questions is misleading. At my place of employment Muslims were allowed special prayer rights and Christians could take Holy Friday off. All the abrahamic religions have prohibitions against homosexuality and tacit endorsement of slavery. By supporting these faiths indirectly was my employer condoning homosexual persecution and slavery?

                    The problem is that the lefts objection to religious bigotry doesn't seem to extend to other cultures and focuses almost exclusively on Christianity. Even if that was not the case sweeping religious freedom under the rug and saying that it is a private matter does not really address the issue. Separating religious faith from religious practice is never going to be a satisfactory answer for the vast majority of the religious.

                    What we should be primarily focused on is institutionalized discrimination such as Jim crow laws which promote active discrimination. The case of refusing to bake a cake is passive religious observance which is much different that active discrimination. Making the cake is an active participation in something contrary to the individuals religious beliefs. Refusing to serve food to minorities for example is an example of active discrimination because it is denial of a customary service. The simple solution would be to make the cake and allow the client to add any objectionable decorations themselves. It has been our custom for some time to even allow pacifists to avoid normal military service. We can surely find a solution to cake baking that is a reasonable compromise.

                    Death threats are wrong but again why is it this couples fault? If I start an anti-Obama campaign based on just principles and reasons does the fact that a few morons then tack on an 'Obama must die' message invalidate my original stance? No it doesn't.
                    For the most part free speech is the answer to these kind of problems as bad publicity can change the behavior of businesses. The problem is that you are ignoring the religious freedom issue. Using the same principles members of the Abrahamic religions could then picket gay businesses based on their religious beliefs. It is true that by tradition individual rights are higher in the hierarchy than religious rights but that does not mean that religious rights deserve no consideration.

                    There are also practical consideration such as how many groups can be identified as being subject to discrimination. For example can vegetarians demand that all restaurants serve meals they consider appropriate. Again this is the active vs passive forms of discrimination. A restaurant cannot actively refuse to serve vegetarians but it cannot be forced to participate in vegetarianism by altering it's menu. There are cases where passive discrimination becomes active discrimination when all services or customary services are denied a certain group but that is a subject for another thread.

                    If somebody with a family damages my property and I take him to court then it's obvious his family are going suffer for it, again unintended but unavoidable outcome.....
                    This is a fairly poor example because if you were damaged the perpetrator most likely actively engaged in behavior detrimental to your well being and you were a passive victim. In the case of the bakery there is no way to avoid violating someones rights. Individual rights or religious rights. In other words you had no way of avoiding the damages. In the case of the cake making it would be easy for you to add the offending decorations yourself without anyone being damaged.


                    Because politicians in office are......elected representatives of the 'whole damn state'
                    This again is an oversimplification because the interests of one State may conflict with that of another or the Federal Government. We may very well need a constitutional convention to clarify State rights.

                    Rights are constantly in conflict and as I stated earlier individual rights of homosexual trump religious rights in the conventional hierarchy. So while no State law can actively discriminate against homosexuals it is not clear what states can be compelled to enforce in terms of passive resistance.

                    I'm very much in favor of equal rights for homosexuals including gay marriage. That does not mean that I think it is necessary for the State to always step into situations of passive discrimination. There are better less confrontational approaches to solving many of the problems.
                    We hunt the hunters

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      What it really boils down to is this. The Left is populated heavily (not entirely, but heavily) by narrow-minded, unenlightened, bigots, racists, haters, narcissists, and assorted other bullies and thugs. They want what they want and your opinion, if it differs from theirs, doesn't matter. In fact, if it does vary from theirs you deserve to be humiliated, reviled, threatened, attacked, or otherwise trampled down until you either agree with them or are so badly injured you can no longer respond.

                      Take the baker and cake example form the original post. What would happen if the baker said "Sure, I'll make you a cake just like you want. But, because your views don't reflect those of my bakery, or myself, I want to put a little sign next to the cake saying something to that effect. A disclaimer that the product doesn't represent the bakery's view point."
                      It would be clear to any reasonable person that the bakery is trying to accommodate a customer without turning them away while maintaining their own moral standard. They want a small accommodation too.
                      You can bet they'd still get sued because the Leftists involved didn't get it 100% their way and force the bakery to bend to their will. There is no room for tolerance on the Left. You'll do it the way the Left wants or its off to the gulag for you!

                      When the whole gay marriage movement started, the leaders of that movement said to the effect "We'll put this on the ballot and respect the views of the public at large." They did, and 35 states voted down their ideas, overwhelmingly in some cases.

                      What did the Leftists running the movement do? Go to court, shop judges, and get those votes overturned by a handful of people on the bench. They then said, "We'll respect the views of others, like businesses that disagree with our views." That led to the cases of bakeries being sued for not baking gay wedding cakes.

                      Intolerance is rampant on the Left. They want what they want and by god, no matter how many lives are ruined, how many dead bodies are stacked up, how badly the economy is wrecked, they are going to get it too.
                      So why not allow people to peacefully secede from the state to do their own thing?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                        So why not allow people to peacefully secede from the state to do their own thing?
                        Too logical...
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                          So why not allow people to peacefully secede from the state to do their own thing?
                          What does that have to do with anything discussed here?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            What does that have to do with anything discussed here?
                            If they want to ruin their own economy, oppress people, be bigots, etc. you can have them do it for themselves, and you could do your own thing. Win-win.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                              You equate genocide with refusal of service due to sexual orientation? Wow. New low.
                              Ummm.....no. I said that liberals should refrain from collateral damage when pursuing political enemies. I never said genocide and service refusal were the same thing.
                              A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X