7 ms·

Because the truth has a liberal bias? What is the argument you are making against the seemingly neutral argument that defends tolerance? Why is the right at od

Because the truth has a liberal bias? What is the argument you are making against the seemingly neutral argument that defends tolerance? Why is the right at odds with tolerance?

psbmt 7y ago
Practical example: we shouldn't accept immigrants into our country (whatever the country is). Even for economical reasons. Even if there are no jobs for them. Even if there's no infrastructure to support them. Ooops, intolerant. Thoughtcrime. Well actually now that I think of it, any argument can be reshaped as intolerant. Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion. Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights. I don't know, I just think "intolerance" is such a stupid concept, and in this day and age it is used to attack the right, but it doesn't mean anything, it's a wildcard.
- pritambaral 7y ago
  > Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion. Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are. > Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights. The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights. Whatever their own reasons (religion or otherwise), they are their own and not of their targets. Thank you for providing such clear examples; it is clear one of these is actually intolerant.
  - psbmt 7y ago
    Allowing people to murder human beings is intolerant. Isn't this what this thread is all about?
    - FussyZeus 7y ago
      Fetuses are not human beings by any scientific definition. Even without being aborted, a fetus is far from guaranteed to be born. A lot can happen in 9 months. If the mother has a miscarriage, is she now a murderer? If she's in a car accident and loses the baby, is the other person involved in the crash a murderer? Does it depend on who was at fault in the accident? If a doctor fails to see a birth defect in time, are they now charged with manslaughter? Does a mother collect child support from a father at time of conception? Do they collect state benefits from the beginning of their pregnancy? This thing conservatives want to do of making fetuses people is a bottomless pit of regulatory gotchas. It's ridiculous.
    - pritambaral 7y ago
      > Allowing people to murder human beings is intolerant. You see, this kind of behaviour is why I feel this discussion is not between two honest parties under good faith. Your rhetoric here and above (about religion of anti-abortionists being encroached upon by abortionists) give me the impression you are being unfair and disingenuous. If this is true, there is simply no way to discourse. But I could be grossly wrong, and under that faith I will try to point out how you assuming that everyone automatically shares your views is wrong: Take three people: 1. A Muslim who claims that all consumption of porcine meat is bad; 2. A Hindu who claims that all consumption of bovine meat from a female is bad; and 3. A Christian who claims that all consumption of shellfish is bad. If these people tried to prevent everyone (including you), no matter their religion or beliefs, from consumption of all these three kinds of substances; they'd be imposing their own views and assumptions on everyone else (including you), and thus be intolerant of everyone else's (including yours) views.
  - wtdata 7y ago
    In the examples you have given, it all comes down to a particular society definition of whom has rights and whom doesn't. Your argument is based on a specific society where law states unborn children have no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid. That goes on to validate the GP argument that "intolerance" is nothing but an abstract concept.
    - pritambaral 7y ago
      > Your argument is based on a specific society laws about unborn children having no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid. No. I do not argue on when during a pregnancy a child begins to exist, or when it has rights. In fact, not even my parent argued these or any similar point. You are the first in this chain to bring it up here. Please read my comment carefully. I do not argue whether abortionists are or are not intolerant. Precisely because, as you say, that depends on deciding when a child's existence and rights begin, which is not the debate we are having. I argue instead against my parent's claim that abortionists can be called intolerant of religion simply because a religious party wants to impose their own religion on the expectant and thus force them into not aborting.
      - wtdata 7y ago
        I think you are missing the point. The point is that you argue that pro life are intolerant because they don't respect woman rights. Well, then, using your argument, in a society where unborn children have rights, the exact same thing can be said about pro abortion: they are intolerant because they don't respect children rights. So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.
        pritambaral 7y ago
        And I think you're trying to butt a point in that is not under debate. The fact that anti-abortionists are intolerant of abortionists' rights is not affected by whether abortionists are intolerant of someone else's rights. Both can be intolerant; only, the former is clear and the latter is under debate elsewhere (i.e., not here). > So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract. Even within a society where both parties are intolerant, the fact that both are intolerant does not "make the concept of intolerance abstract". A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract".
  - antepodius 7y ago
    It's intolerant for a woman to want an abortion. She's not tolerating the continued existence of the child.
    - pritambaral 7y ago
      If it is established that a child exists as of the moment when the expectant wants an abortion, then yes her abortion would be intolerance of the continued existence of the child. In fact, in many jurisdictions that allow abortion at some stages of pregnancy, there are stages of pregnancy where it is accepted that a child exists (or similar) and thus abortion (without other conditions) is not allowed. But a debate on in which stages a child exists during a pregnancy is not the debate we are having here.
      - antepodius 7y ago
        I'm not really an anti-abortionist. You can replace 'child' with 'fetus', if you like; my point is just that the word itself applies to any preference over world states.
        pritambaral 7y ago
        Let me re-iterate: What is a 'child' is not the debate here.
- wesammikhail 7y ago
  > I don't know, I just think "intolerance" is such a stupid concept, and in this day and age it is used to attack the right, but it doesn't mean anything, it's a wildcard. Probably the best comment in this whole topic.
throwaway156503 7y ago
What do people mean when they say, "truth has a liberal bias"? I don't understand this. Edit: My intent is not to be facetious. I don't understand what this phrase means.
- bena 7y ago
  That typically people who identify as conservative often take positions that are at odds with things that should be accepted as objective fact. Saying "the Earth is getting warmer on average every year" should not be a political statement. But here we are, where you have one group of people who have a vested interest in denying that fact. To profess the fact that our planet is warming and that it is an issue is to implicitly identify yourself as a "liberal". Black people are disproportionately punished by the legal system for the exact same crimes committed by people of other skin colors. There's actual data showing this. But to bring this up gets you labeled as a "liberal". To remark that police treat white people who are known to be criminals better than black people who aren't even engaged in suspicious behavior is easily documented. Mention this and you will be called a liberal. And denying this does no favors to liberals or conservatives. Because even the batshit insane liberals get to trout out that line about "truth having a liberal bias". Because, for the most part, it's not wrong. But conservatives get to mock the statement by using it against the most radical of ideas that are generally seen as "liberal". But what are we gonna do? If hard facts and reliable information could actually change minds, we wouldn't have Trump as President. You wouldn't have his legions of followers denying that he's doing the very things he is doing. I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat, Trump is not only unfit for the office, he's a criminal. The Republican party should be ashamed that he's representing them in the Executive branch. But they're not.
- agar 7y ago
  This refers to a joke made by Stephen Colbert (while portraying his satirical persona of right-wing host Stephen Colbert) that "reality has a well-known liberal bias"[1]. It is generally used to point out that many of the stories pointed to by conservative media as exhibiting liberal bias are often simply reporting on facts that are incompatible with conservative talking points. Examples include: relative sizes of inauguration crowds, whether China or US importers pay for tariffs, the contents of the Mueller report, crime statistics on undocumented immigrants, crime statistics on Muslim communities, merits of single-payer healthcare in other first-world countries, various statistics on gun crime, impact of republican vs. democratic presidents on government deficits, benefits (or lack thereof) of trickle-down economics/cutting corporate taxes, and the causes and mitigations of the US Great Recession that began in 2007/2008. [1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4530018/colbert-quote https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4530018/colbert-quote
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Because the truth has a liberal bias? What is the argument you are making against the seemingly neutral argument that defends tolerance? Why is the right at odds with tolerance?

psbmt 7y ago

Practical example: we shouldn't accept immigrants into our country (whatever the country is). Even for economical reasons. Even if there are no jobs for them. Even if there's no infrastructure to support them. Ooops, intolerant. Thoughtcrime. Well actually now that I think of it, any argument can be reshaped as intolerant. Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion. Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights. I don't know, I just think "intolerance" is such a stupid concept, and in this day and age it is used to attack the right, but it doesn't mean anything, it's a wildcard.

pritambaral 7y ago
> Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion. Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are. > Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights. The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights. Whatever their own reasons (religion or otherwise), they are their own and not of their targets. Thank you for providing such clear examples; it is clear one of these is actually intolerant.
- psbmt 7y ago
  Allowing people to murder human beings is intolerant. Isn't this what this thread is all about?
  - FussyZeus 7y ago
    Fetuses are not human beings by any scientific definition. Even without being aborted, a fetus is far from guaranteed to be born. A lot can happen in 9 months. If the mother has a miscarriage, is she now a murderer? If she's in a car accident and loses the baby, is the other person involved in the crash a murderer? Does it depend on who was at fault in the accident? If a doctor fails to see a birth defect in time, are they now charged with manslaughter? Does a mother collect child support from a father at time of conception? Do they collect state benefits from the beginning of their pregnancy? This thing conservatives want to do of making fetuses people is a bottomless pit of regulatory gotchas. It's ridiculous.
  - pritambaral 7y ago
    > Allowing people to murder human beings is intolerant. You see, this kind of behaviour is why I feel this discussion is not between two honest parties under good faith. Your rhetoric here and above (about religion of anti-abortionists being encroached upon by abortionists) give me the impression you are being unfair and disingenuous. If this is true, there is simply no way to discourse. But I could be grossly wrong, and under that faith I will try to point out how you assuming that everyone automatically shares your views is wrong: Take three people: 1. A Muslim who claims that all consumption of porcine meat is bad; 2. A Hindu who claims that all consumption of bovine meat from a female is bad; and 3. A Christian who claims that all consumption of shellfish is bad. If these people tried to prevent everyone (including you), no matter their religion or beliefs, from consumption of all these three kinds of substances; they'd be imposing their own views and assumptions on everyone else (including you), and thus be intolerant of everyone else's (including yours) views.
- wtdata 7y ago
  In the examples you have given, it all comes down to a particular society definition of whom has rights and whom doesn't. Your argument is based on a specific society where law states unborn children have no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid. That goes on to validate the GP argument that "intolerance" is nothing but an abstract concept.
  - pritambaral 7y ago
    > Your argument is based on a specific society laws about unborn children having no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid. No. I do not argue on when during a pregnancy a child begins to exist, or when it has rights. In fact, not even my parent argued these or any similar point. You are the first in this chain to bring it up here. Please read my comment carefully. I do not argue whether abortionists are or are not intolerant. Precisely because, as you say, that depends on deciding when a child's existence and rights begin, which is not the debate we are having. I argue instead against my parent's claim that abortionists can be called intolerant of religion simply because a religious party wants to impose their own religion on the expectant and thus force them into not aborting.
    - wtdata 7y ago
      I think you are missing the point. The point is that you argue that pro life are intolerant because they don't respect woman rights. Well, then, using your argument, in a society where unborn children have rights, the exact same thing can be said about pro abortion: they are intolerant because they don't respect children rights. So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.
      - pritambaral 7y ago
        And I think you're trying to butt a point in that is not under debate. The fact that anti-abortionists are intolerant of abortionists' rights is not affected by whether abortionists are intolerant of someone else's rights. Both can be intolerant; only, the former is clear and the latter is under debate elsewhere (i.e., not here). > So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract. Even within a society where both parties are intolerant, the fact that both are intolerant does not "make the concept of intolerance abstract". A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract".
- antepodius 7y ago
  It's intolerant for a woman to want an abortion. She's not tolerating the continued existence of the child.
  - pritambaral 7y ago
    If it is established that a child exists as of the moment when the expectant wants an abortion, then yes her abortion would be intolerance of the continued existence of the child. In fact, in many jurisdictions that allow abortion at some stages of pregnancy, there are stages of pregnancy where it is accepted that a child exists (or similar) and thus abortion (without other conditions) is not allowed. But a debate on in which stages a child exists during a pregnancy is not the debate we are having here.
    - antepodius 7y ago
      I'm not really an anti-abortionist. You can replace 'child' with 'fetus', if you like; my point is just that the word itself applies to any preference over world states.
      - pritambaral 7y ago
        Let me re-iterate: What is a 'child' is not the debate here.
wesammikhail 7y ago
> I don't know, I just think "intolerance" is such a stupid concept, and in this day and age it is used to attack the right, but it doesn't mean anything, it's a wildcard. Probably the best comment in this whole topic.

throwaway156503 7y ago

What do people mean when they say, "truth has a liberal bias"? I don't understand this. Edit: My intent is not to be facetious. I don't understand what this phrase means.

bena 7y ago
That typically people who identify as conservative often take positions that are at odds with things that should be accepted as objective fact. Saying "the Earth is getting warmer on average every year" should not be a political statement. But here we are, where you have one group of people who have a vested interest in denying that fact. To profess the fact that our planet is warming and that it is an issue is to implicitly identify yourself as a "liberal". Black people are disproportionately punished by the legal system for the exact same crimes committed by people of other skin colors. There's actual data showing this. But to bring this up gets you labeled as a "liberal". To remark that police treat white people who are known to be criminals better than black people who aren't even engaged in suspicious behavior is easily documented. Mention this and you will be called a liberal. And denying this does no favors to liberals or conservatives. Because even the batshit insane liberals get to trout out that line about "truth having a liberal bias". Because, for the most part, it's not wrong. But conservatives get to mock the statement by using it against the most radical of ideas that are generally seen as "liberal". But what are we gonna do? If hard facts and reliable information could actually change minds, we wouldn't have Trump as President. You wouldn't have his legions of followers denying that he's doing the very things he is doing. I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat, Trump is not only unfit for the office, he's a criminal. The Republican party should be ashamed that he's representing them in the Executive branch. But they're not.
agar 7y ago
This refers to a joke made by Stephen Colbert (while portraying his satirical persona of right-wing host Stephen Colbert) that "reality has a well-known liberal bias"[1]. It is generally used to point out that many of the stories pointed to by conservative media as exhibiting liberal bias are often simply reporting on facts that are incompatible with conservative talking points. Examples include: relative sizes of inauguration crowds, whether China or US importers pay for tariffs, the contents of the Mueller report, crime statistics on undocumented immigrants, crime statistics on Muslim communities, merits of single-payer healthcare in other first-world countries, various statistics on gun crime, impact of republican vs. democratic presidents on government deficits, benefits (or lack thereof) of trickle-down economics/cutting corporate taxes, and the causes and mitigations of the US Great Recession that began in 2007/2008. [1] https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4530018/colbert-quote https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4530018/colbert-quote

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]