Why do you hate liberals and liberalism so much?

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

er,, it's not proven yet that homosexuality has a negative impact on society. legalizing drugs doesn't have a negative impact either, check netherlands. those values you talk about are not negative, they are just different. not opposing homosexuality promotes social values, like tolerance and civil liberties to everybody

nor has it been proven that homosexuality has a positive impact.

if you think legalizing drugs does not have a negative impact, please go wander around europe's major cities, with particular emphasis on the main train stations. one pariticular one that comes to my mind is the frankfurt am main hauptbahnhof. druggies all over the ground around it, people taking major detours around them to avoid the needles on the ground, the druggies themself who may stab them with their needles, and of course, the stench of piss all over the place from the druggies. of course, all of that must be a positive thing, eh?

Thanks for providing us with a premier example of a strict drug policy. Ever since Hessen (the state where Frankfurt is located) has become more tolerant and begun to offer free needles and safe places to shoot up in order to reduce the number of HIV-infections, the druggies of Frankfurt-Hauptbahnhof are gone.

wasn't strict to begin with, when i could see people shooting up drugs in daylight around there. now i wonder how long it will take the stench to leave the hauptbahnhof.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

er,, it's not proven yet that homosexuality has a negative impact on society. legalizing drugs doesn't have a negative impact either, check netherlands. those values you talk about are not negative, they are just different. not opposing homosexuality promotes social values, like tolerance and civil liberties to everybody

nor has it been proven that homosexuality has a positive impact.

if you think legalizing drugs does not have a negative impact, please go wander around europe's major cities, with particular emphasis on the main train stations. one pariticular one that comes to my mind is the frankfurt am main hauptbahnhof. druggies all over the ground around it, people taking major detours around them to avoid the needles on the ground, the druggies themself who may stab them with their needles, and of course, the stench of piss all over the place from the druggies. of course, all of that must be a positive thing, eh?

Thanks for providing us with a premier example of a strict drug policy. Ever since Hessen (the state where Frankfurt is located) has become more tolerant and begun to offer free needles and safe places to shoot up in order to reduce the number of HIV-infections, the druggies of Frankfurt-Hauptbahnhof are gone.

wasn't strict to begin with, when i could see people shooting up drugs in daylight around there. now i wonder how long it will take the stench to leave the hauptbahnhof.

It was strict in that it outlawed drug use of any kind. Btw, the stench has been gone for years...

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

er,, it's not proven yet that homosexuality has a negative impact on society. legalizing drugs doesn't have a negative impact either, check netherlands. those values you talk about are not negative, they are just different. not opposing homosexuality promotes social values, like tolerance and civil liberties to everybody

nor has it been proven that homosexuality has a positive impact.

if you think legalizing drugs does not have a negative impact, please go wander around europe's major cities, with particular emphasis on the main train stations. one pariticular one that comes to my mind is the frankfurt am main hauptbahnhof. druggies all over the ground around it, people taking major detours around them to avoid the needles on the ground, the druggies themself who may stab them with their needles, and of course, the stench of piss all over the place from the druggies. of course, all of that must be a positive thing, eh?

Thanks for providing us with a premier example of a strict drug policy. Ever since Hessen (the state where Frankfurt is located) has become more tolerant and begun to offer free needles and safe places to shoot up in order to reduce the number of HIV-infections, the druggies of Frankfurt-Hauptbahnhof are gone.

wasn't strict to begin with, when i could see people shooting up drugs in daylight around there. now i wonder how long it will take the stench to leave the hauptbahnhof.

It was strict in that it outlawed drug use of any kind. Btw, the stench has been gone for years...

perhaps - last time i was there was early 02

[ace13 0]

I vote Democrat and used to proudly label myself with the word 'liberal' but I'm loath to use it nowadays. It isn't because I'm ashamed of my beliefs; it's because I think I no longer share a lot of the beliefs of those who now call themselves 'liberals.'

For example, I don't give a damn if gays want to marry each other. Doesn't affect me. I was and still am against the war in Iraq. I support public education. I support a woman's right to choose. These are standard core liberal beliefs. However, I find myself repulsed by the moral relativism, anti-Americanism, and pro-Socialist tendencies of western European liberalism.

Can you explain what you mean by moral relativism?

Moral relativism is when there is no set right or wrong. Good/bad, right/wrong is set by the individual and their individual situation.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I vote Democrat and used to proudly label myself with the word 'liberal' but I'm loath to use it nowadays. It isn't because I'm ashamed of my beliefs; it's because I think I no longer share a lot of the beliefs of those who now call themselves 'liberals.'

For example, I don't give a damn if gays want to marry each other. Doesn't affect me. I was and still am against the war in Iraq. I support public education. I support a woman's right to choose. These are standard core liberal beliefs. However, I find myself repulsed by the moral relativism, anti-Americanism, and pro-Socialist tendencies of western European liberalism.

Can you explain what you mean by moral relativism?

Moral relativism is when there is no set right or wrong. Good/bad, right/wrong is set by the individual and their individual situation.

Ah, ok. Dogmatism - the belief in absolute right and wrong is the extreme opposite, which isn't exactly favorable either. When it comes to individual morality, shouldn't that left up to the individual in a free society? I would think that hurting another individual would be considered an absolute wrong, yes?

[ace13 0]

I vote Democrat and used to proudly label myself with the word 'liberal' but I'm loath to use it nowadays. It isn't because I'm ashamed of my beliefs; it's because I think I no longer share a lot of the beliefs of those who now call themselves 'liberals.'

For example, I don't give a damn if gays want to marry each other. Doesn't affect me. I was and still am against the war in Iraq. I support public education. I support a woman's right to choose. These are standard core liberal beliefs. However, I find myself repulsed by the moral relativism, anti-Americanism, and pro-Socialist tendencies of western European liberalism.

Can you explain what you mean by moral relativism?

Moral relativism is when there is no set right or wrong. Good/bad, right/wrong is set by the individual and their individual situation.

Ah, ok. Dogmatism - the belief in absolute right and wrong is the extreme opposite, which isn't exactly favorable either. When it comes to individual morality, shouldn't that left up to the individual in a free society? I would think that hurting another individual would be considered an absolute wrong, yes?

"hurting" that is the problem. What does that mean? That is also relative to the individual. What might "hurt" me or my family may be different than that could "hurt" you. See the problem with this?

emotionally hurt

spiritually hurt

morally hurt

physically hurt

.....

[pedroh 21]

yea thats why there's torture in gitmo.. cuz the US govt has a different idea of torture than the rest of the world.. lol.. even though there are stablished and permitted torture ways..

[ace13 0]

yea thats why there's torture in gitmo.. cuz the US govt has a different idea of torture than the rest of the world.. lol.. even though there are stablished and permitted torture ways..

established and permitted-like cutting off your #######, sticking it in your mouth and then decapitating you like what is being done in the middle east?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

yea thats why there's torture in gitmo.. cuz the US govt has a different idea of torture than the rest of the world.. lol.. even though there are stablished and permitted torture ways..

That would indeed be a practical example of moral relativism at work.

[ace13 0]

yea thats why there's torture in gitmo.. cuz the US govt has a different idea of torture than the rest of the world.. lol.. even though there are stablished and permitted torture ways..

That would indeed be a practical example of moral relativism at work.

not even close

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I vote Democrat and used to proudly label myself with the word 'liberal' but I'm loath to use it nowadays. It isn't because I'm ashamed of my beliefs; it's because I think I no longer share a lot of the beliefs of those who now call themselves 'liberals.'

For example, I don't give a damn if gays want to marry each other. Doesn't affect me. I was and still am against the war in Iraq. I support public education. I support a woman's right to choose. These are standard core liberal beliefs. However, I find myself repulsed by the moral relativism, anti-Americanism, and pro-Socialist tendencies of western European liberalism.

Can you explain what you mean by moral relativism?

Moral relativism is when there is no set right or wrong. Good/bad, right/wrong is set by the individual and their individual situation.

Ah, ok. Dogmatism - the belief in absolute right and wrong is the extreme opposite, which isn't exactly favorable either. When it comes to individual morality, shouldn't that left up to the individual in a free society? I would think that hurting another individual would be considered an absolute wrong, yes?

"hurting" that is the problem. What does that mean? That is also relative to the individual. What might "hurt" me or my family may be different than that could "hurt" you. See the problem with this?

emotionally hurt

spiritually hurt

morally hurt

physically hurt

.....

Which is exactly my point. How do we adhere to morality absolutely? I think we can all agree there are some things that are morally reprehensible in all situations, but going back to my premise about hurting another individual as being an absolute wrong and you'll realize that the label of 'moral relativism' isn't exclusive to liberal ideology. What is really being said is that neocons throw that term out there to imply that liberals are less moral, less Christian like which is a flat out lie. It depends on what you consider moral and it appears at least with many neocons, moral relativism is something they espouse to as much as anyone.

[mawilson 2,133]

Here's something interesting...

True Conservatives Should Take A Stand

by Robert Steinback

Conservatism in America, as I once understood it, is dead.

...

Excellent article, Steve. Unfortunately it's true - the guys in power are about as

conservative as the Islamic fundamentalists in Iran.

“Conservatism — disposition in politics to preserve what is established; a political

philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions,

and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; the tendency to prefer an

existing or traditional situation to change.”

“Conservative — tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions or

institutions: traditional; marked by moderation or caution … relating to traditional

norms of taste, elegance, style or manners; one who adheres to traditional methods

or views; a cautious or discreet person.”

There's nothing "conservative" about:

• indiscriminately waging war and harming people and the environment
  
• trying to kill social security
  
• irresponsible taxation and wasteful government spending which transformed a
  budget surplus into a record (and still expanding!) deficit
  

The right wing of the Democrat party seems more "conservative" to me (in the

traditional sense of the word) than the lunatics like Ann Coulter who call themselves

conservative.

[ace13 0]

BTW, it is easier to speak of specifics instead of broad generalizations. What is your definition of a liberal or conservative. What are you and your beliefs and where would that put you in the broad spectrum of things?

when I say "you" I say all of you that are getting all excited.

and don't say what the other is or isn't--because it isn't helpful. What are your beliefs and absolutes?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I vote Democrat and used to proudly label myself with the word 'liberal' but I'm loath to use it nowadays. It isn't because I'm ashamed of my beliefs; it's because I think I no longer share a lot of the beliefs of those who now call themselves 'liberals.'

For example, I don't give a damn if gays want to marry each other. Doesn't affect me. I was and still am against the war in Iraq. I support public education. I support a woman's right to choose. These are standard core liberal beliefs. However, I find myself repulsed by the moral relativism, anti-Americanism, and pro-Socialist tendencies of western European liberalism.

Can you explain what you mean by moral relativism?

Moral relativism is when there is no set right or wrong. Good/bad, right/wrong is set by the individual and their individual situation.

Lots of that on VJ.

[ace13 0]

And where does moral relativism come from? It comes from the athiest movement. Not because atheists don't have morals-quite the opposite--but because they do not believe in absolute truth of any kind. They therefore have no basis to say what is right or wrong. Who are they to say.