CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is it hypocritical for liberals to be intolerant?
Is it hypocritical for liberals to be intolerant of conservatives, the rich, fetuses and religious people? I mean, isn't their whole platform based on inclusion of all races and peoples from all walks of life?
The rich, conservatives, religious, and most fetuses do just fine. With the exception of fetuses, the groups you listed are being tolerated just fine by liberals.
I hope this isn't you hijacking the word intolerant like you have done in the past. Have liberals passed a law to avoid serving conservatives, rich people, or the religious?
That's the exact opposite. That was a law to force conservatives to serve liberals. It may be a dick move, but it doesn't provide what I was asking for.
Rich liberals are just people who feel guilty about doing so little and getting so much money.
Take actors, for example. They make an insane amount of money and yet they do so little for it. I mean, to call acting work is a bit of a stretch. Hollywood is full of liberals.
As another example, consider the people who inherited their money. All they did was avoid getting aborted and then sit around waiting for a relative to die.
The individuals in the example feel bad about not having really earned their money. They feel bad about other people not being as fortunate. So they try to get as much money out of the conservatives in order to give it to those less fortunate. That makes them feel better.
Rich liberals are just people who feel guilty about doing so little and getting so much money.
That's some weak trolling.
Take actors, for example. They make an insane amount of money and yet they do so little for it. I mean, to call acting work is a bit of a stretch. Hollywood is full of liberals.
More weak trolling. There are conservative actors, and there are plenty of rich liberals who are not actors.
As another example, consider the people who inherited their money. All they did was avoid getting aborted and then sit around waiting for a relative to die.
Old money leans conservative.
he individuals in the example feel bad about not having really earned their money. They feel bad about other people not being as fortunate. So they try to get as much money out of the conservatives in order to give it to those less fortunate. That makes them feel better.
Being liberal means being tolerant of ONLY those people who agree with you.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are not hypocrites because they don't like a wide range of groups and they will tell you exactly which group they don't like and then use wars and the death penalty to get rid of them. Interestingly enough, they won't use abortion to get rid of said groups but they have no qualms about secretly steralizing them.
Some people who claim to be many things give many others a bad name, and liberals are included in that. I lived in Oregon for a while, and some of the people I met there that claimed to be Liberal were some of the most arrogant, bigoted, mean-hearted individuals I have ever met. I have also lived in one of the most Conservative communities, rated one of the top places to raise a family in the country, and met some of the most arrogant, bigoted, mean-hearted individuals I have ever met. Yet in both communities, I found plenty of people, on both sides of the political spectrum, who were genuinely kind and compassionate. It is always important to recognize that individuals we come across, no matter how bad, are not representative of the ideology that they claim to be adhere to.
Edit: Not sure why I hit dispute for that. Knee jerk reaction to you I suppose :P
You're a massive bitch but I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. I have always been befuddled as to why liberals act so tolerant towards Muslims, always standing up for them, but always go on about conservative Christians, despite the latter being only a fraction as evil as the first.
Generally, it is because said individuals are rarely if ever impacted by Muslims in positions of power, while Conservative Christians have significant power in the United States.
See, even you don't believe they are being intolerant. Anything short of shooting someone is tolerance according to you. Therefore, liberals are not intolerant.
You have gone this long in your life without anyone explaining it to you? I am glad I was able to teach you something about yourself. I am glad you like having me around. Most people don't react so well to finding out they are wrong, especially as much as you. :)
I really wish I had someone funnier to post against. I twist your words with such finesse and all I get from you is crap. I feel like I have wasted my effort. :(
You got me Cartman. I realize now that what liberals are doing isn't intolerance, but I think we can both agree that they are being a bunch of dicks to those groups. I will get you next time. Troll you later.
I am glad you have come around, I couldn't have said it better myself. They are definitely not worried about making friends with those people. I look forward to the next trolling ... oh look something about having fun melting ice caps.
I am fully aware that there comes a time in a person's life where they can't handle the truth and instead they just want anyone to support their world view so they can sleep at night with a clear conscience. I just had not realized you had reached that point already.
Aww man, I ask you to tell me how you really feel and you lied. I guess you got me good. Sorry I assumed that you were being truthful, but that is all I am guilty of.
I am fully aware that there comes a time in a person's life where they can't handle the truth and instead they just want anyone to support their world view so they can sleep at night with a clear conscience.
I feel like this is misplaced somehow. You can't really be serious about wanting to melt the polar ice caps just to see what's underneath. How is that not trolling? That's the only thing that looks remotely like me not handling the truth.
The Liberal Mind is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility, encourages self-pity and other-pity, fosters government dependency, promotes sexual indulgence, rationalizes violence, excuses financial obligation, justifies theft, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates marriage and the family, legalizes all abortion, defies religious and social tradition, declares inequality unjust, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the liberal politician promises to ensure everyone’s material welfare, provide for everyone’s healthcare, protect everyone’s self-esteem, correct everyone’s social and political disadvantage, educate every citizen, and eliminate all class distinctions. Radical liberalism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the state to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence by having the state adopt him. Only irrational thinking would trade individual liberty for government coercion, sacrificing the pride of self-reliance for welfare dependency. Only a madman would look at a community of free people cooperating by choice and see a society of victims exploited by villains. [From The Liberal Mind; The Psychological Causes of Political Madness by Lyle H. Rossiter, Jr., MD]
You asked, I Googled it for you, gave you the information you requested (and more) and this is the thanks I get? I should have stuck to my rule of never searching anything for anyone, ever.
Thanks for posting that. He nailed it. Liberals would die before admitting that anything he said was correct. That is the best description of progressives I've ever seen. Brilliant!
You realize that his arguments could just as easily be made regarding Conservatives, and what you said could just as easily be said in that situation about the right, don't you? It's all absolute nonsense.
Not sure you know what deflection is, but I will play your game:
"The radical right's efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave. To rescue us from our troubled lives, the Conservative agenda recommends denial of personal identity, encourages self-hatred and hatred of the "other", fosters religious dependency, promotes indulgence of greed, rationalizes violence, excuses societal obligation, justifies mass violence, ignores rudeness, prescribes complaining and blaming, denigrates sexual minorities, outlaws all abortion, defies religious and social freedoms, declares inequality just, and rebels against the duties of citizenship. Through multiple entitlements to unearned goods, services and social status, the Conservative politician promises to ensure the material welfare of the upper class, provide for extremely limited healthcare, protect only the majority's self esteem, correct everyone’s social deficiencies, educate only citizens with wealth, and extenuate all class distinctions. Radical Conservatism thus assaults the foundations of civilized freedom. Given its irrational goals, coercive methods and historical failures, and given its perverse effects on character development, there can be no question of the radical agenda's madness. Only an irrational agenda would advocate a systematic destruction of the foundations on which ordered liberty depends. Only an irrational man would want the private sector to run his life for him rather than create secure conditions in which he can run his own life. Only an irrational agenda would deliberately undermine the citizen’s growth to competence completely abandoning the less fortunate."
I could go on. As I have said before, the entire argument is predicated on the Dunning-Kreuger effect, and in an incredibly dishonest way. It is, as I have demonstrated, far too easy to dishonestly characterize the beliefs of those who disagree with you in order to convince yourself the worst of them and, unfortunately, you ate it right up.
Taking the whole list as a lump then condemning or supporting it is not effectively addressing the fallacies of liberalism nor the truths at the foundations of conservatism. Point by point debate will more clearly show the fallacies and the truths. This is going to be tedious with such a long list. BUT
The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave.
or
The radical righr’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave.
Which political ideology wants more government regulation and which wants less.
-----------------------------
the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility
This is unchallenged in your list. WHY
Liberals tell the poor that their lives are not the effect of their choices or their efforts. If this were true the tens of thousands of examples of a poor person leaving poverty and building their own middle class life, would not exist. ---FALLACY---
encourages self-pity and other-pity
again unchallenged in your list WHY
Since your not responsible for remaining in poverty, you deserve our pity. You don't have a way to succeed. ---FALLACY---
I'm posting this section before my browser farts and I loose the whole thing
The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave.
or
The radical righr’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave.
Which political ideology wants more government regulation and which wants less.
First, they want inherently different regulation. Second, Liberals and Conservatives themselves, within their OWN ideology, want different levels of regulation.
the liberal agenda recommends denial of personal responsibility
This is unchallenged in your list. WHY
Because it means absolutely nothing.
Liberals tell the poor that their lives are not the effect of their choices or their efforts.
No, they don't. The right loves to repeat this over and over, but simply recognizing that there are factors that can contribute to poverty that are not within the power of the individuals in question does not deny their personal responsibility.
encourages self-pity and other-pity
again unchallenged in your list WHY
Because it is, also, meaningless. It is a statement without any sort of backing that could be made for it. Considering how your "backing" is predicated upon a falsehood, you really haven't done anythign to support it.
Most of this is just about perspective. Your interpretation depends entirely on your perspective. You have listed your interpretations and the other person his.
Liberals tell the poor that their lives are not the effect of their choices or their efforts. If this were true the tens of thousands of examples of a poor person leaving poverty and building their own middle class life, would not exist. ---FALLACY---
There are also tens of thousands of example of a middle class family losing everything despite logical choices and solid effort. This is an example of different perspectives.
Debates about two words that are not well defined is rough. Neither side is right or wrong.
The family who looses everything and are blameless in its cause, are hardly equivalent to a poor person who has no will to try and improve their state. Liberals step in with humane efforts to assist, which are demonstrably complete failures. Rather than lifting people out of poverty, welfare programs have created a dependent class in America.
Perspectives can be accurate or inaccurate interpretations of reality. Liberals proclaim that opposing perspectives can somehow both be true. Relativism. Sorry that thinking is a fundamental fallacy.
The family who looses everything and are blameless in its cause, are hardly equivalent to a poor person who has no will to try and improve their state. Liberals step in with humane efforts to assist, which are demonstrably complete failures. Rather than lifting people out of poverty, welfare programs have created a dependent class in America.
There will be poor people that have no will and there will also be poor people that have tried to the best of their limited education. You obviously believe that most poor people are of the former rather than the latter. Again perspectives.
Perspectives can be accurate or inaccurate interpretations of reality. Liberals proclaim that opposing perspectives can somehow both be true. Relativism. Sorry that thinking is a fundamental fallacy.
Since this seems to be argument over intention, how would you go about proving the intentions of each individual in a diverse group?
If you want an accurate interpretation of reality, you must rely on data rather than punditry or headlines. The myth of the growing welfare dependency is belied by the fact that less and less Americans are applying for welfare. Two decades ago, 75% of the eligible applied for welfare. Now, 25% of the eligible applied for welfare.
There will be poor people that have no will and there will also be poor people that have tried to the best of their limited education. You obviously believe that most poor people are of the former rather than the latter. Again perspectives
--------- "most poor people" is not what I said nor implied. ---------
welfare programs have created a dependent class in America. this is what I said. It is in fact true.
If you want an accurate interpretation of reality, you must rely on data rather than punditry or headlinesAGREE
For example the 50 year long "War On Poverty" has spent trillions of dollars, while leaving the poverty numbers vertually unchanged. Source
For example the 50 year long "War On Poverty" has spent trillions of dollars, while leaving the poverty numbers vertually unchanged. Source
War on Drugs has not worked either. Clever titles and headlines do nothing.
From your source: "In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution."
It fails to account for basic military spending from the budget. That has in fact far exceeded $22 trillion in the last 50 years. Compound that with the actual cost of wars, and it is well above $22 trillion.
We are no safer than we were during the Cold War. In fact, the largest terrorist attack on US soil in the last 50 years happened after the Cold War. Does this mean we should just stop all military spending?
We should probably critically evaluate everything that has not worked in the last five decades instead of just trying to find one group or another to blame.
welfare programs have created a dependent class in America. this is what I said. It is in fact true.
Again. 75% reduced to 25%. How has there been an increase in welfare dependence?
We are discussing liberal fallacies, not military budgets. Stay on topic.
Your numbers are not a measure of the number of people still living in poverty. Meaningless to the topic of liberal fallacies. Even liberals today concede that the WOP failed or even backfired.
You brought up WOP spending with your source. I was just pointing out that throwing money at a problem doesn't fix it (the example of military spending). Blaming one group or another for the problem also does not fix it. Problem solving techniques do not change just because it is at a national scale.
This effect, Dunning-Kreuger, is making it hard to prove anything around here. I mean, you believe it and so you assume it's true and use it to disprove everyone else.
It really doesn't make it hard. I believe it exists, but I do not assume that it is objective fact. The same goes for my opinions an ideology: I believe in them, but I do not assume they are objective fact and respond to others as if they are simply refusing to acknowledge my objectively correct opinions.
The family who looses everything and are blameless in its cause, are hardly equivalent to a poor person who has no will to try and improve their state.
You have not once provided any statistics on how many people are "poor" and has no will to try and improve their state", so you really should stop bringing that up.
Liberals step in with humane efforts to assist, which are demonstrably complete failures.
Some are, some aren't.
Rather than lifting people out of poverty, welfare programs have created a dependent class in America.
You know better than this DaveR. An incredibly complex series of events, including fall of American manufacturing due to globalization, have led to the "dependent class".
Perspectives can be accurate or inaccurate interpretations of reality.
I should stop repeating Dunning-Kreuger, but it just colors all of your comments on this issue.
Liberals proclaim that opposing perspectives can somehow both be true.
Where the heck are you getting this? I haven't seen a single Liberal who espouses this.
the liberal agenda : fosters government dependency,
This a contunation of the personal responsibility fallacy.
Except that the personal responsibility issue you have doesn't exist. It's as if you guys don't know what the Dunning-Kreuger effect is, my god.
Since your poverty is not your fault, you can have government money to ease your poverty and that will make you feel like taking responsibility.
Actually, the left would say "Since you are poor and struggling, we want to assist you so as to make it easier for you to better yourself".
promotes sexual indulgence
Don't worry because if you have babies that you can't afford, we'll give you extra money to take care of them for 18 years.
The left recognizes that if you don't help support them, then you are going to have a substantial number of children in abject poverty, which will lead to an increase in crime. But go ahead, you always want to ascribe the most malicious reasoning behind everything the left does.
rationalizes violence and justifies theft
Lets not simply establish guilt or innocence, lets explore why they did it. Maybe because their poor.
Come on, that is weak even for your left-wing bashing nonsense. Most violence and theft occurs and the lowest socio-economic rungs of society. That is simply a fact, and does not "rationalize" or "justify" it in any way.
excuses financial obligation
If you default on your bills, its not your fault. You did not spend more than you can afford.
You keep declaring things as if they are objective fact. The left does not think that if you default on your bills, "its not your fault".
You are simply doing the exact same thing this nonsensical author did: You start from a position that your ideology is objective factual, which you believe allows you to justify characterizing others in an inherently negative and malicious manner (and, more often than not, a dishonest manner). This really is the epitome of the Dunning-Kreuger effect.
The preferred way to assist someone (who is physically able to work) so as to make it easier for them to better themselves is to give them a job, not give them unearned money. Giving people unearned income has a tendency to take away incentive to work.
The preferred way to assist someone (who is physically able to work) so as to make it easier for them to better themselves is to give them a job, not give them unearned money. Giving people unearned income has a tendency to take away incentive to work.
You seem to like to make this statement a lot, but it has multiple issues. One, the quality of living one has when sustaining themselves entirely on government assistance is abysmal. Second, the number of people who are able to work but don't and receive government assistance is never actually mentioned by the right, for reasons that are pretty obvious.
Lyle H. Rossiter is not exactly a top psychologist in the field. From what I could find, he does not have a public practice nor has he ever had one. He has not conducted any clinical studies or published any scientific papers. The only psychology he engages in is forensic psychology as an expert witness. Basically, he gets paid to support the opinions of others.
I am guessing by OK, you mean you trust his words regardless of his qualifications. I am OK with that.
Just wanted to point out that the OP was referring to a top psychiatrist in the field, but you cited an unknown barely certified individual with no relevant professional experience on the matter.
I find it funny that they say they have very liberal points of views but when it comes to liberty and justice for all people they fall short. That kinda shows how hypocritical they are. If you do not agree with the liberation of all and any oppressed person than you are not a real liberal are yu?
You never bothered to provide any evidence or context, you just declare that liberals are intolerant of groups. So I gave your topic as much effort as you gave the creation of this debate.
I know. You're right. I agree with you. I even said that this is exactly what I like. The response I was looking for was: "No, they aren't and it isn't."
Have you ever seen a dog with a ball? He'll bring you the ball so that you throw it for him. But even if you don't throw it, he still has fun with whatever you do. Unless you totally ignore him. Then he may go away and lay down. You didn't throw the ball, but you also didn't totally ignore me. So there's still hope of having some type of fun.
I didn't make the claim. A respected psychiatrist did. It's titled "the liberal mind: the psychological causes of political madness."This psychiatrist has an impressive track record in both private and criminal cases, with no history of political activism.
I have heard of Rossiter, and that book, quite a few times before, but I never knew anyone actually took that shtick seriously! Have you bothered to read any of it? Nothing of it has any sort of psychological basis, it is all partisan rhetoric after partisan rhetoric. It is PURE political activism. His entire argument is predicted on the Dunning-Krueger effect, and requires that his political beliefs are objective fact. Without his politic beliefs being objective fact (which, by nature of being beliefs, they aren't), his entire premise falls.
Oh, and I forgot to ask: In what way is he a "top" psychiatrist like you have claimed?
Interesting. So you think that these liberals have a mental disorder, and you think that Rossiter behaves exactly like these liberals, which would imply that he has a mental disorder as well. And yet you tout him as a "top psychiatrist" (despite evidence of that) and laud his book.
I never mentioned anything about how Rossiter behaves. Where in the world did you get that from? And he's referring to progressive liberals. Not liberals in general. Btw. Progressive liberals are no different than communists.
First comment of mine: "Yet more Dunning-Kreueger: "My opinion is right, so obviously these other people must be mentally ill to disagree with me".
That is the height of intolerance, short of actual censorship, ironically enough."
Your response: "It is also exactly how progressive liberals behave. I could give countless examples."
I said that Rossiter was behaving one way, and you said it is ALSO the way that progressive liberals behave.
And he's referring to progressive liberals. Not liberals in general. Btw. Progressive liberals are no different than communists.
Factually speaking, they are very different. They do not share the same ideology of any form of communism, which is why they are not communists (Authoritarian, Marxist or otherwise). They don't even believe in the public ownership of production and the means of distribution, so they aren't socialists either. I hate the lack of knowledge of the basics of political ideology and theory in this country.
You're one to be questioning the sanity of others, when you have an imaginary friend who you feel the need to talk to every day. How sad? I actually feel really sorry for you.
No, that is not intolerance, that is name calling, huge difference. Intolerance is when you don't give women the vote, or don't serve black people. Stop hijacking words.
How about when you raise their tax rate just because they make more money? That seems pretty harsh and intolerant. How about when they decide to ram someone else's views down your throat? How about when they bend over backwards to please everyone but you? Or when they say, That's group's gripe is valid..., yours.... not so much?
Ok, let's say someone says, "I am a tolerant, caring, individual." And there are two groups bikering. And this tolerant, caring individual steps in to settle the dispute. And the tolerant, caring individual is like, "ooh, poor group A! Here, let's take away some of group B's property and give it to you. Now, group B, from now on you will be mindful of group A's feelings. Group A, you don't have to be mindful of group B's feelings. We don't care about group B's feelings and if they continue complaining, we will call them names. As a matter of fact, let's make all this a law, just for the sake of group A."
I know right. I like how all these peoples arguments are that the reason they don't feel a need to support their cause is because the argument itself makes no sense. Of course an argument concerning the rights of every individual would not make a wink or sense to people who only care about themselves. I would like to see a legitimate argument stating why liberals are not intolerant of people who are not alike to themselves.
Trying to convince people that they are wrong is not the definition of intolerant. Wanting to execute people who think differently than you is intolerance.
How about when you raise their tax rate just because they make more money?
No, forcing people to pay taxes is not intolerant.
That seems pretty harsh and intolerant.
Only if you want to hijack the word intolerant.
How about when they decide to ram someone else's views down your throat?
1) That's a massive exaggeration. If you are going to claim that liberals ram their views down your throat, then you have to claim that everyone rams their views down others throats.
2) That's still not intolerance.
How about when they bend over backwards to please everyone but you?
No, that still doesn't count, plus it isn't accurate still.
Or when they say, That's group's gripe is valid..., yours.... not so much?
Oh really it's the hot-blooded guys and gals like you who get engaged in all sorts of heated debates and fight till the end to prove his or her point,that's pure arrogance.
Liberals are not hypocritical,their views might perhaps be different from that of the orthodox ;they do value and respect the conservatives' point of view.
Thinking someone (or a group of people) is wrong on a specific issue is different than being "intolerant" of the entire group. Judging each issue based on its merits (or the lack thereof) is the opposite of the bigotry that "liberals" oppose.
Oh, come on. You know that liberals are notorious for name calling. They can't do any critical thinking so they fall back on the lowest common denominator. Wait.... are you a liberal?
So, let them build a state where they behead and stone people? A state where they can build training camps for more terrorists? A state where they can launch attacks from? A state where Sunnis can attack the little Shiites in Iran and Iraq? A state that will give the Iranian government a reason to risk developing a nuke? Allow another player in an area that is already destabilized and that has been a hot bed for violence for... [understatement] a very long time? [/understatement]
They're doing all that stuff anyway - just in a more dispersed fashion. It is the same players, just with different country names.
As part of allowing it to be a recognized nation, maybe you can say they all have to move there voluntarily so only people who want to be part of a caliphate are there.
Well, if we don't do it now, I'll just have to wait to get paid. But I'm going to get paid either way. They aren't going anywhere and sooner or later they'll have to get spanked. Spare the rod....
I like to win. For example, when I'm watching the game, if the team I picked is losing by half time, I switch. I reserve the right to switch back again if/when they start winning.
Sounds good till they define, the devil are in the definitions.
When things are redefined, then it's just a mask of intolerance parading as though they are tolerant, while targeting conservative opinion and conservative, even religious businesses.
