An example of "tolerance"

[brindisi]

Everyone can see what you did there. Using those phrases, then saying they proved your point about liberals is disingenuous at best.

.

 

[brindisi]

Yeah, sure, if you think finding anecdotal evidence worthless is hitting a nerve, then you must be right.

I think your reaction proves I am,

 

[JustOneWay]

Perhaps cheap shots were appropriate all along.

I suppose this will be your posting style?

 

[childofGod1]

To repeat Unwanted's point: 4 planes does not a trend make. There have been countless cases of Muslims on air-craft wherein terrorist events have not transpired. What makes you focus solely on what are, statistically speaking, abnormal events?

There have been millions of lightning strikes that didn't hit people, too, but I think it would be highly irrational to sit in a boat in the middle of the lake during a thunderstorm because only a few bolts of lightning hit people.

 

[brindisi]

I suppose this will be your posting style?

Yes, from time to time when appropriate.

You may decieve yourself that this is a one way street, but it's not. I will respond when insults are directed at me or my friends, but won't let them bother me a great deal. When you're a conservative living in a liberal world and liberals think it's perfectly OK - just the very normal background of their naturally ordered world - to lay down a perpetual barrage of insults against conservatives, you have to develop a thick skin.

 

[lordbt]

There have been millions of lightning strikes that didn't hit people, too, but I think it would be highly irrational to sit in a boat in the middle of the lake during a thunderstorm because only a few bolts of lightning hit people.

Right, and just because there have only been 4 shark attacks off a given coast in the past couple of years and the sharks responsible are still out there and still hungry is no reason to fear taking a dip. Shark attacks only happen to other people. Lots of people swim there and dont get eaten so there is nothing to worry about. Those sorts of primitive fears only belong to well, primitive minds. Rational minds laugh at such imaginary danger and swim boldly into the surf. Until, of course, they become victim #5.

 

[brindisi]

You may decieve yourself that this is a one way street, but it's not. I will respond when insults are directed at me or my friends, but won't let them bother me a great deal. When you're a conservative living in a liberal world and liberals think it's perfectly OK - just the very normal background of their naturally ordered world - to lay down a perpetual barrage of insults against conservatives, you have to develop a thick skin.

This is a follow on comment to the point I made earlier: liberals don't recognize their own insulting and condescending routine behavior, being of a mindset that their view is obviously the normal default position in society. No disagreement is legitimate since there can be no doubt of their moral correctness, and, therefore, there can be nothing offensive about their every day behavior.

The following opinion piece expresses this attitude better, perhaps, than I have. In doing so, it eloquently addesses the topic of this thread

MICHAEL GOODWIN: Why the U.S. Is Turning to the Right

"A Conservative friend wise about human nature and politics summarizes his views this way: "Liberals don't think they have any politics. They think they are in a state of nature. Only those who disagree with them are unnatural."

"It's a brilliant insight, and tells you all you need to know about the culture and political wars in America today. Less than two years after the arc of history seemed to favor them, the high priests of liberal orthodoxy are on the run."

"They have overreached, and now they must pay."

"But they are not going quietly or with decency. They are desperate and dangerous, astonishingly reckless in their attacks on the majority of Americans who commit the secular sin of disagreement."

"Faced with massive public resistance to their demands for conformity, President Obama and his religious-like acolytes have given up trying to persuade skeptics. They are reduced to trying to crush dissent.
To them, resistance is heresy, and must be eliminated."

"They are not embarrassed by the obvious double standards they are embracing or the false claims they are peddling. They are, as my friend observed, incapable of recognizing as legitimate any view but their own, so the end justifies the means."

"Obama's scurrilous conduct is Exhibit A of the panic on the left. Discarding the sunny-side-up mask, he crisscrosses the country in fear-monger mode. His base appeals to women, blacks, Latinos and students are identity-group politics at its worst."

"He is not alone in having a worldview that depends on absolute conformity. Deviation is also dangerous to the institutions that form the backbone of the liberal establishment he leads."

"The Juan Williams case says it all. Claims by the goon squad at NPR that he was fired for "expressing a personal opinion on a divisive issue" are transparent hogwash."

"He and other NPR analysts and correspondents routinely express opinions that favor Democrats. He was fired because he expressed an inconvenient opinion -- that he and many Americans often associate Muslims with terrorists. And he did it on Fox News, the antichrist to the church of the left."

"His fears are widely shared but don't fit with NPR's authorized view of the world. So it -- he -- must be silenced."

"In firing him, NPR instantly created another example of why the country is turning right. Tens of millions of ordinary people have been roused to fight for rights they assumed they had. From health-care mandates to rising federal debt to confiscatory taxes to suffocating speech codes, they have correctly concluded their liberty is under assault."

"To be sure, dissenters do not have a monopoly on wisdom or common sense. A partisan label is never a guarantee of righteousness, as the reversal of political fortunes in two years demonstrates."

"Rather, the American system, we learn again, is intolerant of only one thing: intolerance. Whether its hammer comes from left or right, it always wakes the spirit of revolution. Freedom of speech, to dissent, to oppose, to fight back, is not just the literal content of the First Amendment. It is the essence of who we are as a people."

"Obama, of course, infamously discounted American Exceptionalism when he was asked about it, suggesting he does not view our national character as unique. His mistake."

"Still, we should be grateful. Just as Obama's election was the result of George W. Bush's failures, the awakening of the American majority wouldn't have happened without Obama's overreach.
Because he did, the right to say no -- hell, no! -- will soon be secured anew. Hold on for nine more days."

 

[Nathan Poe]

Right, and just because there have only been 4 shark attacks off a given coast in the past couple of years and the sharks responsible are still out there and still hungry is no reason to fear taking a dip. Shark attacks only happen to other people. Lots of people swim there and dont get eaten so there is nothing to worry about. Those sorts of primitive fears only belong to well, primitive minds. Rational minds laugh at such imaginary danger and swim boldly into the surf. Until, of course, they become victim #5.

So your solution is to live in perpetual fear of becoming victim #5?

Fact: More people are killed every year by vending machines than by sharks.

Afraid of vending machines now?

 

[Nathan Poe]

This is a follow on comment to the point I made earlier: liberals don't recognize their own insulting and condescending routine behavior, being of a mindset that their view is obviously the normal default position in society. No disagreement is legitimate since there can be no doubt of their moral correctness, and, therefore, there can be nothing offensive about their every day behavior.

The following opinion piece expresses this attitude better, perhaps, than I have. In doing so, it eloquently addesses the topic of this thread

MICHAEL GOODWIN: Why the U.S. Is Turning to the Right

"A Conservative friend wise about human nature and politics summarizes his views this way: "Liberals don't think they have any politics. They think they are in a state of nature. Only those who disagree with them are unnatural."

"It's a brilliant insight, and tells you all you need to know about the culture and political wars in America today. Less than two years after the arc of history seemed to favor them, the high priests of liberal orthodoxy are on the run."

"They have overreached, and now they must pay."

"But they are not going quietly or with decency. They are desperate and dangerous, astonishingly reckless in their attacks on the majority of Americans who commit the secular sin of disagreement."

"Faced with massive public resistance to their demands for conformity, President Obama and his religious-like acolytes have given up trying to persuade skeptics. They are reduced to trying to crush dissent.
To them, resistance is heresy, and must be eliminated."

"They are not embarrassed by the obvious double standards they are embracing or the false claims they are peddling. They are, as my friend observed, incapable of recognizing as legitimate any view but their own, so the end justifies the means."

"Obama's scurrilous conduct is Exhibit A of the panic on the left. Discarding the sunny-side-up mask, he crisscrosses the country in fear-monger mode. His base appeals to women, blacks, Latinos and students are identity-group politics at its worst."

"He is not alone in having a worldview that depends on absolute conformity. Deviation is also dangerous to the institutions that form the backbone of the liberal establishment he leads."

"The Juan Williams case says it all. Claims by the goon squad at NPR that he was fired for "expressing a personal opinion on a divisive issue" are transparent hogwash."

"He and other NPR analysts and correspondents routinely express opinions that favor Democrats. He was fired because he expressed an inconvenient opinion -- that he and many Americans often associate Muslims with terrorists. And he did it on Fox News, the antichrist to the church of the left."

"His fears are widely shared but don't fit with NPR's authorized view of the world. So it -- he -- must be silenced."

"In firing him, NPR instantly created another example of why the country is turning right. Tens of millions of ordinary people have been roused to fight for rights they assumed they had. From health-care mandates to rising federal debt to confiscatory taxes to suffocating speech codes, they have correctly concluded their liberty is under assault."

"To be sure, dissenters do not have a monopoly on wisdom or common sense. A partisan label is never a guarantee of righteousness, as the reversal of political fortunes in two years demonstrates."

"Rather, the American system, we learn again, is intolerant of only one thing: intolerance. Whether its hammer comes from left or right, it always wakes the spirit of revolution. Freedom of speech, to dissent, to oppose, to fight back, is not just the literal content of the First Amendment. It is the essence of who we are as a people."

"Obama, of course, infamously discounted American Exceptionalism when he was asked about it, suggesting he does not view our national character as unique. His mistake."

"Still, we should be grateful. Just as Obama's election was the result of George W. Bush's failures, the awakening of the American majority wouldn't have happened without Obama's overreach.
Because he did, the right to say no -- hell, no! -- will soon be secured anew. Hold on for nine more days."

Is there anything in that tirade which resembles a fact?

 

[brindisi]

Is there anything in that tirade which resembles a fact?

Perhaps you missed the fact that it's identified as an opinion piece? So in case you're confused, that means it's an opinion!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Really? You're interested in facts now?

Perhaps you missed the fact that it's identified as an opinion piece? So in case you're confused, that means it's an opinion!

So it's an uninformed opinion -- pretty much what it looked like.

 

[brindisi]

So it's an uninformed opinion -- pretty much what it looked like.

Nice try, but no luck.

It's an INFORMED opinion, based on experience.

It discribes a liberal attitude, BTW, that explains clearly why Obama can frame his idiotic attacks on Republicans by saying "If I said the sky is lblue, they would say no." It's all so confusing for the poor man because he really thinks that as a liberal every statement he makes is a "The sky is blue" statement.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nice try, but no luck.

It's an INFORMED opinion, based on experience.

No -- experience would resemble a fact.

It discribes a liberal attitude, BTW, that explains clearly why Obama can frame his idiotic attacks on Republicans by saying "If I said the sky is lblue, they would say no." It's all so confusing for the poor man because he really thinks that as a liberal every statement he makes is a "The sky is blue" statement.

While the conserveative continue to "experience" a green sky.

 

[brindisi]

No -- experience would resemble a fact.



While the conserveative continue to "experience" a green sky.

Well, at least you have a sense of humor. Wrong, but still a sign of life.

 

[lordbt]

So your solution is to live in perpetual fear of becoming victim #5?

Fact: More people are killed every year by vending machines than by sharks.

Afraid of vending machines now?

Perpetual fear? No, but then again nobody has said that. Except you, of course.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There have been millions of lightning strikes that didn't hit people, too, but I think it would be highly irrational to sit in a boat in the middle of the lake during a thunderstorm because only a few bolts of lightning hit people.

Right, and just because there have only been 4 shark attacks off a given coast in the past couple of years and the sharks responsible are still out there and still hungry is no reason to fear taking a dip. Shark attacks only happen to other people. Lots of people swim there and dont get eaten so there is nothing to worry about. Those sorts of primitive fears only belong to well, primitive minds. Rational minds laugh at such imaginary danger and swim boldly into the surf. Until, of course, they become victim #5.

Firstly, these two cases aren't even remotely analogous to the kind of fear that we're talking about, and therefore do not support the conclusion you purport them to. Unless of course you are claiming that fear of a person attired in Muslim garb is somehow equivalent or similar to fear of sharks or lighting strikes. I don't think one could make such a claim without strong undertones of bigotry (i.e. implying that Muslims are like sharks). But let's break the analogy down even further... When you see a shark, the first aspect of your fear reaction to it is not rational, but instinctual (i.e. fight-or-flight response). By the time you have experienced fear, and decided on a course of action, you have rationalized nothing (yet). The rationalisation (e.g. I ran away because the shark might eat me) is actually a post hoc justification for a primarily instinctual response. That isn't important... What is important however is how different the situations are. When you see a shark, you have a very good idea (a probabilistic belief) that the shark might attack you, and if given the opportunity is likely to do so. This is based on your knowledge of the shark's nature (aggressive carnivore not household pet). When you see a Muslim, however, the same set of beliefs doesn't apply (or does it apply in your mind?) If it did, everyone would respond to Muslims like they do to sharks or lighting strikes. But then, even if we supposed for a moment that the analogy did hold, what makes it hold more for Muslims than for anyone else? Why am I rationally justified in fearing someone dressed in Muslim garb more-so than someone with a Russian accent (he might be a Soviet spy) or that quiet man in the corner (he might be a serial killer) or, as Nathan Poe pointed out, vending machines? Once again, I have no doubt that people do sometimes react uncomfortably when they see a person attired in Muslim garb on a plane. But I doubt that this reaction is anything more than a primitive one, along the lines of people who've been primed to elicit a GSR to race or sex or any other number of social categories. Suggesting that it is as rational as fearing sharks has the unfortunate side-effect of implying that Muslims are somehow like sharks, or lighting strikes, or Heaven forbid, vending machines.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Perpetual fear? No, but then again nobody has said that. Except you, of course.

You don't have to say it to do it. Ask Williams.

 

[lordbt]

Firstly, these two cases aren't even remotely analogous to the kind of fear that we're talking about, and therefore do not support the conclusion you purport them to. Unless of course you are claiming that fear of a person attired in Muslim garb is somehow equivalent or similar to fear of sharks or lighting strikes. I don't think one could make such a claim without strong undertones of bigotry (i.e. implying that Muslims are like sharks).

Now there is a typical leftist attitude if there ever was one: the only way anyone could possibly disagree with such ideological brilliance is to be a bigot. At least you all think alike and draw the same predictably absurd conclusions. I suppose my shark bigotry makes me a bit of a speciescist or a sharkophobe too. But of course there is a difference between a shark and a muslim. A shark has fins. Truth be told, I sometimes fear a muslim might swim up and bite me while splashing about in the lake, so I try to stay near to shore.

But let's break the analogy down even further... When you see a shark, the first aspect of your fear reaction to it is not rational, but instinctual (i.e. fight-or-flight response).

If my fear reaction is instinctual, then it is not blameworthy. So if my primitive instinctual reaction to muslim males boarding my flight is instinctual, then you have to give me a pass. Especially since you would then feel exactly the same emotion as I.

By the time you have experienced fear, and decided on a course of action, you have rationalized nothing (yet). The rationalisation (e.g. I ran away because the shark might eat me) is actually a post hoc justification for a primarily instinctual response.

But I would first have to know that the shark is a danger to me. I dont have an instinctual knowledge that a shark is a danger to me, but one based upon knowledge. Add to that the knowledge that a given area is rife with such creatures and that attacks upon humans have occurred is what makes the fear of going into that particular stretch of beach rational. I dont need to have actually been bitten to be wary.

What is important however is how different the situations are. When you see a shark, you have a very good idea (a probabilistic belief) that the shark might attack you, and if given the opportunity is likely to do so. This is based on your knowledge of the shark's nature (aggressive carnivore not household pet). When you see a Muslim, however, the same set of beliefs doesn't apply (or does it apply in your mind?)

Of course it applies, I am a bigot dont you know. I just so happens I see muslims all the time, yet I dont fear them. Why do you think that is? Yet if I saw a couple of muslim males board my plane, I would feel uneasy. Why do you think that is? Am I only a bigot on airplanes? Is there something about high altitudes that inspires racism? Or is it just maybe the fact that radical muslims have had a fascination with hijackings that goes back decades and are now into blowing them out of the sky or using them as guided missiles to slam into buildings filled with civilians? As I said earlier, if only the bad muslims would wear signs, we wouldnt have anything to worry about.

If it did, everyone would respond to Muslims like they do to sharks or lighting strikes. But then, even if we supposed for a moment that the analogy did hold, what makes it hold more for Muslims than for anyone else?

Because muslims are the only ones attempting to blow planes out of the sky. If that was something that 80 year old white women started doing, I might worry if one sat down in the seat next to me.

Why am I rationally justified in fearing someone dressed in Muslim garb more-so than someone with a Russian accent (he might be a Soviet spy) or that quiet man in the corner (he might be a serial killer) or, as Nathan Poe pointed out, vending machines?

If vending machines start boarding planes and blowing themselves up, I'll start worrying about them too. As for the quite man on the corner being a potential threat, well, he is. Which is why we teach our children not to talk to strangers. We do this not because all strangers are bad, but because some of them are, and there is no way to tell the difference. Kinda like muslims.

 

[lordbt]

You don't have to say it to do it. Ask Williams.

He said his fear was perpetual? Or is that just you making things up again?

 

[Nathan Poe]

He said his fear was perpetual? Or is that just you making things up again?

What part of "You don't have to say it to do it," is being missed here?

All of it, from the looks of things.