Is "Liberal" The N-Word Of The Left???

[curiousWAN]

ok, in my country, which is in the middle east, liberals are hidden conservatives. like, they always say human rights and freedom and stuff but they say those things to defend conservatives... are they chosen by a democratic election? then that's what our people wants, they say. let them open more relegious schools, let them change the prosecutors to make the kind of laws they want etc. etc.

that's why conservatives loving liberals and **** socialists. and that's why i'm biased about liberals and limitless freedom.

 

[Hot Mega]

That makes a little more sense now but just as a simple principle, what is the problem with the individual being able to decide what's in their best interests (religious, health, social or otherwise) as long as those interests don't directly or proximately interfere with the rights of others?

I mean, we're all different so why shouldn't we be expected to have different responsibility levels, interests, beliefs, etc. and have right to that individuality?

 

[curiousWAN]

That makes a little more sense now but just as a simple principle, what is the problem with the individual being able to decide what's in their best interests (religious, health, social or otherwise) as long as those interests don't directly or proximately interfere with the rights of others?

I mean, we're all different so why shouldn't we be expected to have different responsibility levels, interests, beliefs, etc. and have right to that individuality?

there's a thing called butterfly effect. and if your goverment builds 500 religious schools guess how it will interfere rights of an atheists like me. religion is not a matter that you can take lightly, especially if we are talking about islam or judaism. people are morons, you can't make them understand that their **** has a right to choose to believe something or nothing at all. they will ********* them starting from the age 5... then how you can expect this *** to be open minded? imagine an army of **** like that, and you are doomed.

 

[Hot Mega]

there's a thing called butterfly effect. and if your goverment builds 500 religious schools guess how it will interfere rights of an atheists like me. religion is not a matter that you can take lightly, especially if we are talking about islam or judaism. people are morons, you can't make them understand that their **** has a right to choose to believe something or nothing at all. they will ********* them starting from the age 5... then how you can expect this *** to be open minded? imagine an army of **** like that, and you are doomed.

The same way you presumably became "open-minded" or possibly your parents before you. If a ****** choses to raise their ******** on religion...that's their right IMO.

The state (government) shouldn't be the one's building the churches IMO that's why we have a separation of church and state here in the US.

It was largely born out of the Colonial's experience with the British and their government's association with the church.

But I don't know how you would propose intervening in the right of a ****** to raise their ******** with their religious tradition. It's not the governments business unless there's ***** associated with it.

 

[curiousWAN]

The same way you presumably became "open-minded" or possibly your parents before you. If a ****** choses to raise their ******** on religion...that's their right IMO.

The state (government) shouldn't be the one's building the churches IMO that's why we have a separation of church and state here in the US.

It was largely born out of the Colonial's experience with the British and their government's association with the church.

But I don't know how you would propose intervening in the right of a ****** to raise their ******** with their religious tradition. It's not the governments business unless there's ***** associated with it.

see, your religion is cool. go to church on sundays keep fucking the other days. it has no laws or rules involving with how to rule people. if you believe in islam, koran tells you how to do things, you stole something with your left hand? say bye bye to that hand. now this is a very extreme example but koran comes with a moronic theocratic system and you should obey to that to stay muslim and all that bullshit. if you don't, you are a heretic, "american" agent or worse, say bye bye to the head.

so there's a paradox, should we keep our shitty democracy running by ***** (army is thankfully not religious yet), or should we become so liberal and lose it forever?

 

[Hot Mega]

see, your religion is cool. go to church on sundays keep fucking the other days. it has no laws or rules involving with how to rule people. if you believe in islam, koran tells you how to do things, you stole something with your left hand? say bye bye to that hand. now this is a very extreme example but koran comes with a moronic theocratic system and you should obey to that to stay muslim and all that bullshit. if you don't, you are a heretic, "american" agent or worse, say bye bye to the head.

so there's a paradox, should we keep our shitty democracy running by ***** (army is thankfully not religious yet), or should we become so liberal and lose it forever?

That wouldn't be an accurate description of Christianity if that's what you were referring to. There is no provision in Christianity that allows for it to be okay to do things in contravention to it like you describe. There are those who were raised Christian and call themselves Christians but don't act very Christian-like. No one's perfect that's why there are provisions within Christianity which allow for forgiveness.

But if someone does those things, that doesn't take down the principles of the religion, it reflects on credibility of that person. And that I suppose is an example of my original point.

There are examples of extreme consequences and judgments in Christianity and the bible like stoning but most of it is look upon largely for figurative purposes and it's certainly not a part of our law...as again, we have a separation of church and state.

The US is not a homogeneous society, i.e. our society is comprised of many types of cultural, racial, religious and ethnic differences. That's the genius of our Constitution in that our government doesn't promote a religion as it would come a the expense or your right to be free from it or free to alternatives.

 

[curiousWAN]

That wouldn't be an accurate description of Christianity if that's what you were referring to. There is no provision in Christianity that allows for it to be okay to do things in contravention to it like you describe. There are those who were raised Christian and call themselves Christians but don't act very Christian-like. No one's perfect that's why there are provisions within Christianity which allow for forgiveness.

But if someone does those things, that doesn't take down the principles of the religion, it reflects on credibility of that person. And that I suppose is an example of my original point.

There are examples of extreme consequences and judgments in Christianity and the bible like stoning but most of it is look upon largely for figurative purposes and it's certainly not a part of our law...as again, we have a separation of church and state.

The US is not a homogeneous society, i.e. our society is comprised of many types of cultural, racial, religious and ethnic differences. That's the genius of our Constitution in that our government doesn't promote a religion as it would come a the expense or your right to be free from it or free to alternatives.

well, let's turn back to this ****** has every right to bring their ******** up in the way they want matter. that's a good example and there's no different religions to complicate the things.

i think families don't "own" their ******** like dogs. there must be a certain age to start teaching them scary and abstract stuff like religions. of course he or she will totally accept the idea of god, ******** even thinks there are ghosts and it's very easy to scare them hiding behind the curtain, making noises like harharharhar... when you stuff the bullshit in their brains at the age of 5, thats going to reach very, very, deep and stay there forever.

how's that right? how's that a right of parents? how's that ok with human rights? ******** are humans too. they should have a right to choose when they actually can. but no, freedom to families you say? really?

here, probably there too, people with this kind of bringing up creates the biggest part of the population. the more poor the country gets, more this kind of people. i think we can classify those kind of people as ignorant, simply. (cause it's not only about religion but all kind of dogma they are brainwashed with)

then we have democracy, human rights and whatever... but people are ignorant... then we have democratic election... but people are ignorantly voting for the ignorant propaganda... can you say freedom to ignorance as well?

 

[Hot Mega]

i think families don't "own" their ******** like dogs. there must be a certain age to start teaching them scary and abstract stuff like religions. of course he or she will totally accept the idea of god, ******** even thinks there are ghosts and it's very easy to scare them hiding behind the curtain, making noises like harharharhar... when you stuff the bullshit in their brains at the age of 5, thats going to reach very, very, deep and stay there forever.

how's that right? how's that a right of parents? how's that ok with human rights? ******** are humans too. they should have a right to choose when they actually can. but no, freedom to families you say? really?

Here's the problem, you believe (as is your right) it's ************ or BS and even if you're right, what gives you the right to impose how you believe on someone else's ******???

As far as a ******'s ******** go, parents don't own ******** to do as they choose with. But since you are responsible to them and for them, it is the inherent right of a parent to decide what religious, moral and ethical values they pass on to their ********. As long as such values don't ******* laws against ***** and exploitation.

It's not the government's place to instill a religion in it's people or restrict the lawful pursuit of religion by it's people. Most of the world's problem don't stem from religion, they stem from people of all stripes trying to constantly impose their beliefs on others.

If you're introduced to a religion as a ***** you will ultimately have the right in your life to decide if that's for you or not. It's not the government's place or anyone else's place to stand in the way of how you lawfully and reasonably raise your ********.

 

[curiousWAN]

someone else's ******... is that supposed to be holy or what? ****** is usually made of two moronic parents and one innocent baby, if not always.

you are saying, let the morons make the baby a moron as well. i mean, yeah let's say i'm talking about real "complete" ignorant people, not just your usual conservatives, is it still their right to make the baby like themselves?

if there's one "right" that belongs to baby, baby can use that only when he/she can. wait until that. don't impose any religion, any political view, any soccer team to support, any pornstar to jerk on, just freaking wait. teach him/her mathematics, philosophy, logical operators (and/or/then/else/if/else etc.) and such needed stuff to question the things.

is it too science fiction?

 

[Hot Mega]

someone else's ******... is that supposed to be holy or what? ****** is usually made of two moronic parents and one innocent baby, if not always.

you are saying, let the morons make the baby a moron as well. i mean, yeah let's say i'm talking about real "complete" ignorant people, not just your usual conservatives, is it still their right to make the baby like themselves?

if there's one "right" that belongs to baby, baby can use that only when he/she can. wait until that. don't impose any religion, any political view, any soccer team to support, any pornstar to jerk on, just freaking wait. teach him/her mathematics, philosophy, logical operators (and/or/then/else/if/else etc.) and such needed stuff to question the things.

is it too science fiction?

It's a pretty simple concept IMO, who gets to decide if they are morons when they've ******** no laws? You because they don't believe like you??? That's a pretty paternalistic, egotistical perspective if you ask me.

I don't presume to know what's best for other people's families as long as they're not ******* each other or engaging in abusive exploitation. And, every instance of that isn't the government's business.

For example, I believe adultery is a bad thing for families but I'm pro-choice on it....meaning it's bad but it's not something the government has any business outlawing.

If families have faith in a religioun it is completely unrealistic to believe the parents would abstain from teaching their ******** religion. How would you enforce against it anyway??? That would be as big a waste of money, resources and effort as these stupid laws trying to keep consenting adults from renting their bodies for sex.

 

[curiousWAN]

1. laws doesn't care about morons. if you are a moron that's not a crime. but if you produce one more moron? that should be a crime. just like relative marriages. baby didn't come out as a moron but you will make him/her a moron in the end, so what's the difference?

2. am i egoistical just because i want a better, open-minded humanity? what's your political view by the way? i can only guess you are not even liberal.

3. *******, exploiting, ******, *******, bringing one's guts out... so, "waiting" till' someone fucking fuck someone else... and then probably forgiving him....

4. it doesn't have to be goverment's business. don't you think one single person when you say goverment. think a council made of philosophers, mathematicians, shrinks and what else... in the freaking year 2009, let's make it possible. let's figure out what's the freaking best way to bring up a ********. it's already crystal clear but just let moronic people know how. this fucking baby is not your fucking pet. respect him/her. wait till he can understand stuff.

5. and finally and crucially you are so right with your last paragraph. even if goverment wants to make a change, it's imposible to change morons into understanding people right away. but it's not a big waste of money. it definitely worths more than space exploration, for example.

"stupid laws"

"consenting"

"adults to rent their bodies for sex"

you are so what i'm talking about i guess.

 

[Hot Mega]

1. laws doesn't care about morons. if you are a moron that's not a crime. but if you produce one more moron? that should be a crime. just like relative marriages. baby didn't come out as a moron but you will make him/her a moron in the end, so what's the difference?

2. am i egoistical just because i want a better, open-minded humanity? what's your political view by the way? i can only guess you are not even liberal.

3. *******, exploiting, ******, *******, bringing one's guts out... so, "waiting" till' someone fucking fuck someone else... and then probably forgiving him....

4. it doesn't have to be goverment's business. don't you think one single person when you say goverment. think a council made of philosophers, mathematicians, shrinks and what else... in the freaking year 2009, let's make it possible. let's figure out what's the freaking best way to bring up a ********. it's already crystal clear but just let moronic people know how. this fucking baby is not your fucking pet. respect him/her. wait till he can understand stuff.

5. and finally and crucially you are so right with your last paragraph. even if goverment wants to make a change, it's imposible to change morons into understanding people right away. but it's not a big waste of money. it definitely worths more than space exploration, for example.

"stupid laws"

"consenting"

"adults to rent their bodies for sex"

you are so what i'm talking about i guess.

Your position is egotistical and paternalistic because you not only believe people who believe in religion are morons (which is your right) but that their lives should then be subject to the conditions of your beliefs (which is NOT your right)....because after all, your position must be the only correct position I guess...

 

[Philbert]

1. laws doesn't care about morons. if you are a moron that's not a crime. but if you produce one more moron? that should be a crime. just like relative marriages. baby didn't come out as a moron but you will make him/her a moron in the end, so what's the difference?

2. am i egoistical just because i want a better, open-minded humanity? what's your political view by the way? i can only guess you are not even liberal.

3. *******, exploiting, ******, *******, bringing one's guts out... so, "waiting" till' someone fucking fuck someone else... and then probably forgiving him....

4. it doesn't have to be goverment's business. don't you think one single person when you say goverment. think a council made of philosophers, mathematicians, shrinks and what else... in the freaking year 2009, let's make it possible. let's figure out what's the freaking best way to bring up a ********. it's already crystal clear but just let moronic people know how. this fucking baby is not your fucking pet. respect him/her. wait till he can understand stuff.

5. and finally and crucially you are so right with your last paragraph. even if goverment wants to make a change, it's imposible to change morons into understanding people right away. but it's not a big waste of money. it definitely worths more than space exploration, for example.

"stupid laws"

"consenting"

"adults to rent their bodies for sex"

you are so what i'm talking about i guess.

I think I get the source of your rage...you **** your parents for raising you to be a complete moron.
Fools come in all colors, religions, and political ideologies.
Forgive your parents, they may have done the best they could...and work on that **** problem...!:rofl:

 

[curiousWAN]

Your position is egotistical and paternalistic because you not only believe people who believe in religion are morons (which is your right) but that their lives should then be subject to the conditions of your beliefs (which is NOT your right)....because after all, your position must be the only correct position I guess...

first of all i said it's not "only" religions but all the dogma ******** brainwashed with somewhere above. nationalism, for example.

my belief is not a belief, i say wait until people can question the things. you say no, parents has a right to ********* their ********. i see an aztec or mayan shaman in you, sacrificing ****...

am i paternalistic? then you are pan-paternalistic, defending all the moronic parents and their so called rights. i believe in science, psychology, so i know how the freaking brain works, so i say wait until the sponge in a ***'s skull becomes a real brain.

you ask me how "i" changed, and "presumably" became open-minded. then you added everyone can change like me, if they want. why in the freaking hell you give me that option "after" i'm brainwashed and not before? it's just like... your parents making a face tattoo for you, which completely covers your whole face and then when you are a mature you have a right to wipe it off.

ideologies and religions a lot more sticky than a face tattoo. it's doesn't prove that everyone can recover from that **** just because i did...

belief is what you defend, i defend science and rationality. you defend parents right of being irrational. thats it.

 

[bustybbwlover]

somebody has been reading their dawkins i like what sam harris has to say better personally. everyone has beliefs which they accept without question. we accept what we see, hear, smell, taste, and touch and yet, in fact, every one of these senses may be fooled with relative ease. to think science or rationality may not be fooled or perverted is a falsehood. however, they are the best options we've got.

 

[Hot Mega]

first of all i said it's not "only" religions but all the dogma ******** brainwashed with somewhere above. nationalism, for example.

my belief is not a belief, i say wait until people can question the things. you say no, parents has a right to ********* their ********. i see an aztec or mayan shaman in you, sacrificing ****...

am i paternalistic? then you are pan-paternalistic, defending all the moronic parents and their so called rights. i believe in science, psychology, so i know how the freaking brain works, so i say wait until the sponge in a ***'s skull becomes a real brain.

you ask me how "i" changed, and "presumably" became open-minded. then you added everyone can change like me, if they want. why in the freaking hell you give me that option "after" i'm brainwashed and not before? it's just like... your parents making a face tattoo for you, which completely covers your whole face and then when you are a mature you have a right to wipe it off.

ideologies and religions a lot more sticky than a face tattoo. it's doesn't prove that everyone can recover from that **** just because i did...

belief is what you defend, i defend science and rationality. you defend parents right of being irrational. thats it.

All that said, what gives you the right to decide what's best for other people you're not responsible to or responsible for?

You have the right to not believe in religion as much as you don't believe in it. Others have the right to believe in it as much as they believe in it.

When people bring a ***** into this world they have the right to instill in them whatever values, traditions, morals, etc. they feel appropriate. And unless there is some ***** or abusive exploitation no one has the right to intervene in what a parent thinks is best for their ********.

Forget religion for a second, there are people who instill in their ******** racism, bigotry and hatred and as bad as that is, as potentially destructive as that is...it is still their right in a free society.

Under your belief system, why couldn't the next group of wackos come along who believe eating meat is bad and you don't have the right to get your ******** hooked on meat before they can decide for themselves? Therefore, while you can eat meat you are barred from feeding it to your ******** before they can decide if they have a moral opposition to eating it. There is no principle difference in that position and the position you argue. They're both equally absurd IMO.

What we balance against your right to instill in your ******** your traditions and values is the prospect that they will be adults themselves one day and they can research whatever subject they want in order to refine or change their beliefs then raise their ******** accordingly.

Aside from the constitutional illegality of it, we don't need nor should we want more "thought police".

 

[curiousWAN]

what gives you the right to decide what's best for other people you're not responsible to or responsible for?

it's science who is deciding, not me, i'm merely being rational.

Under your belief system, why couldn't the next group of wackos come along who believe eating meat is bad and you don't have the right to get your ******** hooked on meat before they can decide for themselves? Therefore, while you can eat meat you are barred from feeding it to your ******** before they can decide if they have a moral opposition to eating it.

religion can not compared to meat.

What we balance against your right to instill in your ******** your traditions and values is the prospect that they will be adults themselves one day and they can research whatever subject they want in order to refine or change their beliefs then raise their ******** accordingly.

not everyone going to harward or some really good colleges. there are people out there who just have to work after elementary school. in some god forsaken places **** doesn't even see any school to begin with. researching atheism... isn't that a sin? here's your first block. you teach that *** something that threatens him or her with burning fire and you are saying if they "decide"... how to decide? you want to burn in hell i guess? well, if your friend step on a landmine and explodes, You Might decide to do that, thinking what kind of a fucking god is this (religious answer: he is a martyr now, he will go to heaven directly, lol?) other than that, you will just not going to research if you are brainwashed good. me, i'm not brainwashed, my parents are the type that deceiving themselves like "i believe in god" while doing practically nothing for that god. so they teach me some crap maybe, can't remember, but i haven't guided or ****** to participate anything religious. think a little muslim girl who is veiled at the age of 5, she is just not going to research a dang thing. the fear inside her is monstrous, even if she reads she will totally reject it...

but you know what, i got you. you will keep saying it is "still" their right in a free society. so no need to keep repeating pretty much the same thing over and over. i'm done.

 

[Hot Mega]

religion can not compared to meat.

but you know what, i got you. you will keep saying it is "still" their right in a free society. so no need to keep repeating pretty much the same thing over and over. i'm done.

I didn't compare religion to meat. I used the opposition some have to others eating it to demonstrate how absurd it would be to allow people with different beliefs to intervene in your families personal choices.

To you, your opposition to religion and families passing it on to their ******** is important enough to intervene in their ******'s business.

If we allow you the right to impose your beliefs on others why shouldn't we allow others who feel as strongly about their opposition to people's consumption of meat (for example) the same right? Or any other circumstance someone feels strongly opposed to??

Everyone is different, everyone has different beliefs and the sooner we as people accept and respect that the better off we'll be.

The belief in religion is the problem, it's the intolerance some people have for the right of others to believe in one religion or another, or not at all.

In this sense, you are merely a different side of the same coin...an intolerant theocrat bent on subjugating others to your beliefs.

 

[Philbert]

Smart enough to know better, but too screwed up with self-loathing to see the paradox of his position.
Obviously a confused victim of extreme Islamic upbringing who can't envision how liberal the Western societal structure actually is...even the Polygamists and Amish can't keep anyone down on the **** who wants to drift away...
Many parents teach their ******** enough diverse viewpoints that the strictest upbringing is constantly exposed to diametrically opposed pathways to enlightenment...atheism, Judaism, Christianity, anarchy etc...and not many grow up in a pure environment...unlike many strictly Islamic societies.
I recognize his disconnect...

 

[Philbert]

it's science who is deciding, not me, i'm merely being rational.

(followed by: )

religion can not compared to meat.

:rofl2::rofl2::rofl2:

im done.

Promise?:rofl: