CreateDebate


GenericName's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of GenericName's arguments, looking across every debate.

Manners were PC. The only distinction is that many act as if there is only one form of PC, and that it is new. But the only thing that is new is the term used to refer to the social pressures inherent in modern communication. The phenomenon itself is neither new nor insidious.

-1 points

The direct correlation between poverty and crime has been observed worldwide, and for a LONG time. The problem is that your quote is acting as if that link must be purely economic in nature, but why would it? Poverty is often linked with anxiety, desperation, and similar psychological stressors that, when coupled with severe economic lead, consistently lead large numbers of people to criminal acts. When one is sufficiently stressed and desperate, they are far more likely to commit crime, be it self oriented, such as drug use, financial, such as theft or robbery, or purely violent, such as gang crime and general assault.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

Do you legitimately believe that liberals want to let in violent terrorists? I mean honestly, truly believe that?

More liberals are Christian than any other religious affiliation including atheist.

Again, stop ascribing malice just because someone has different opinions or beliefs.

They aren't evil, they just don't agree with you.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

Wait, liberals support eugenics?

What are you talking about?

Around outlandish should be are not. Can't edit as someone voted on the comment.

Saying someone acts like an asshole is not ascribing intent. I don't know WHY they are acting like assholes, not do I claim to.

And no, if I'm being reasonable, my anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to make a generalized claim about millions of people.

Except it isn't actually those things. You keep defining many of these things as fundamentally related to communism and alinsky when they are far more reasonably attributed to more mundane things.

You sound exactly like the Democrats near me that attribute damn near every Republican action to fascism, ethno nationalism, etc.

It's so tiring to listen to people who are convinced that people who don't agree with them are evil. There isn't any room for legitimate debate.

Yeah, that's a criticism of vanguardism, which Marx explicitly critiqued, and which is incompatible with the utopian idea of a non violent pure democratic workers uprising.

All of the conservatives I interact with are complete assholes. Does that mean I would be justified in acting like they are repsentative?

Of course not, because anecdotal evidence is insufficient to make representative claims regarding large groups.

When you ascribe malicious intent to those you disagree with, it isn't surprising you manage to find reaffirming examples, since you are assuming malicious intent.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
-1 points

It is very believable. Many Democrats have made it very clear why they feel that way, and you can read their reasons for yourself.

So long as you aren't assuming malice intent, then their reasons really around outlandish, and generally appeal to a classical sense of liberalism.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

I am a left leaning person but that doesn't mean my actual opinions can be ignored for the purposes of debating a generalized strawman. Both the left and the right believe in different amounts of government for different situations. I have always firmly believed in limiting government regulation to situations where there is a problem to be fixed. I have never supported the government trying to find a solution for a problem that isn't there.

Kind of like how you generally support smaller government, but are supporting bigger government here. That isn't some hypocrisy, or inconsistency, it's just your stance on this one particular issue. Political ideology is nuanced, not black and white.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

That is explicitly untrue. There isn't a single tenant of actual Marxist ideology, rather than offshoots from people like Lenin, that fall for that. The end goal is literally for the working class to democratically seize the means of production for the purposes of creating a direct democratic state with shared burden and profit. It is impossible and utopian, but nothing like what you are describing.

That isn't reasonable at all, and on some level you have to know that. Nobody can pick one person on a website like this and act like they are representative of ANY ideology.

Except the very idea of ideologues leading Marxism is vanguardism, which is fundamentally antithetical to marxism..

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

Wait. Why are you suddenly talking about "people on the left"? You are talking to me, not a random group of people on the left. It seems really disrespectful to lump me in to some generalized group when I'm literally stating my firmly held opinions here, and they are ones that you should at least ideologically agree with based on your previously stated ideological stances.

And if there was voter fraud in any legitimate numbers, we would have evidence of it. Many have looked time and time again, and it simply isn't be found in the form you are referring to!

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

First, how would that make them state media? Second, you are attributing a lot of things to Marxism that are far more reasonably attributed to many other things.

It is the classic issue here in the US (and elsewhere, but it has become really bad here) where we give the benefit of the doubt to those we agree with, and the worst possible assumptions about those we don't. You consistently ascribe malice to actions that aren't reasonably characterized that way, and are far more likely justifies by opinions you simply don't share.

People with different opinions aren't evil. They aren't malicious. They just don't share some of your opinions.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

Some do, some don't. Liberalism as an ideology can be paired with Social Conservatism. I have met quite a few people that can be characterized that way.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

Aside from the fact that they are only partially funded by Soros, I am confused as to how they are state media, short of NPR.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

I'm a little confused as to what this is in response to. Seeing as how it's about the Democratic Party, it isn't about identity politics, as the term is defined.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id-history.aspx

That is a link to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Considering only 14 states had voter ID laws of any kind by 2000, it is kind of odd to say this isn't a new thing.

As for your suspisons regarding Florida, I can't really address them because they are unfalsifiable. You clearly believe in something suspicious there, I don't. Its not something that you can provide evidence of, and I can't prove a negative.

So if you are basing your belief on that, then we are at an impasse.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

How could that be, when most liberals in this country are Christian? On top of that, Sanders isn't a liberal, so I wouldn't think you concerns about liberals would be relevant here.

But the left doesn't push for equality of outcome. They push for equality of opportunity, and the left and right disagree on what all that entails. The left largely believes that requires analysis of opportunity and outcome of demographic groups, and many on the right don't. But it is still equality of opportunity in question.

GenericName(3430) Clarified
1 point

What makes you think he is a threat to religious liberty?


1 of 260 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]