Progressives vs liberals

[Offthemat]

7 minutes ago, Ban Basketball said:

Don't b.s. me that you didn't support the Afghan and Iraq war, as nearly 100% (yes, that was the number) of the thirty percenters back both wars.  It wasn't until Inmate #PO1135809 told all of you what to think and you suddenly acted like you didn't support those wars.  

Take it from ME:  when almost 90% of our entire country (yes, the actual number) supported those two wars there was one person who still spoke out against them.

You're reading the writing of that person.  PLEASE don't get deluded with that.  I spent WAY too many years on wrestling forums, which led to my cancelling, and elsewhere arguing with thirty percenters over those useless wars.

Do you condemn hamas?

[Ban Basketball]

5 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Do you condemn hamas?

I don't play the "do you condemn" game, as I'm not a public official, where such "gotcha" games can rightfully be played. 

Either way, I can claim ignorance, as I never have, nor will I, follow international politics and relations.  I have enough to keep me busy domestically with terrorism. 

When the U.S. gets involved in wars, I'll pay attention, as the perpetual anti-war communist that I am testifies to.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Ban Basketball

[jross]

11 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

If you can call someone by their name you can refer to them the way they want to be referred. Mistakes are made, but correct them. 

Of course.  From now on, please refer to me by my preferred name, Mr. Awesome for subject pronoun and Mr. Awesome's for object/possessive pronoun.
 

11 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

No one has ever answered the question of how a same sex marriage effects their non-same sex marriage? I'd love to have that conversation. Not likely though. 

Same-sex marriages, in terms of civil unions, do not impact the rights of others.

Same-sex marriages, in terms of religious context, can impact others.  Many religious hetero couples regard marriage as a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God—divinely ordained and a union of souls. The disclosure of a same-sex religious marriage could evoke similar reactions to the revelation of a pastor's infidelity.  Emotional response like experiencing distress, lose trust, leave the church, lose their faith, lose their identity, etc.  And these hetero couples are not going to want their young children to become curious and choose (which does happen) to explore their own sexuality because of exposure to same-sex coupling. 

11 hours ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Its not a minority. It is the VAST and growing majority.

I am not talking about the rights for same-sex couple to have a civil union.  Updating the definiton of the word 'marriage' was a minority opinion before legislation.  It is a moot point now.

In my *personal experience, conservatives *never wanted to suppress the rights of same sex couples to have a civil union to express commitment, for tax breaks, to live together, to be family for emergencies, etc.  I had only heard that same-sex marriage did not fit one's religious beliefs and that the definition of 'marriage' in the dictionary should remain hetero coupling.  Nuance.

Edited October 26, 2023 by jross
*Update: civil unions for same sex became a thing in 2000 (Vermont), so I stand corrected.

[Plasmodium]

24 minutes ago, jross said:

Of course.  From now on, please refer to me by my preferred name, Mr. Awesome for subject pronoun and Mr. Awesome's for object/possessive pronoun.
 

Same-sex marriages, in terms of civil unions, do not impact the rights of others.

Same-sex marriages, in terms of religious context, can impact others.  Many religious hetero couples regard marriage as a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God—divinely ordained and a union of souls. The disclosure of a same-sex religious marriage could evoke similar reactions to the revelation of a pastor's infidelity.  Emotional response like experiencing distress, lose trust, leave the church, lose their faith, lose their identity, etc.  And these hetero couples are not going to want their young children to become curious and choose (which does happen) to explore their own sexuality because of exposure to same-sex coupling. 

I am not talking about the rights for same-sex couple to have a civil union.  Updating the definiton of the word 'marriage' was a minority opinion before legislation.  It is a moot point now.

In my *personal experience, conservatives *never wanted to suppress the rights of same sex couples to have a civil union to express commitment, for tax breaks, to live together, to be family for emergencies, etc.  I had only heard that same-sex marriage did not fit one's religious beliefs and that the definition of 'marriage' in the dictionary should remain hetero coupling.  Nuance.

This some out there stuff.  No shortage of religious marriages between same sex couples.  Notice how @jross does lots of hand waving about people being potentially impacted by things that have no impact on them?  Mr.  Awesome is also using fond of using words requiring no commitment on Mr. Awesome's part.  Pretty good stuff!

[jross]

8 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

there was no "good" way to pull out of Afghanistan because we spent 20 years installing a corrupt puppet government that didn't have the support of the people. 

Biden pulling out and taking the heat of the unavoidable collapse was the most courageous thing he's done his entire life.

No 'good' way? Sure the situation was complex and Biden was courageous.  Still, how could the decision and execution have gone any worse?

The deaths?  Leaving the equipment?  The intelligence failure?  Abandoning citizens?  Abandoning allies? 

Oof.

I have an ex-military acquaintance who had to raise funds and arrange plans to evacuate his former translator and family.  Between the US evacuation period and this one-off rescue plan, the translator's brother was beaten up and threatened with death if he didn't give up a named list of Afghans that were US friendly.  I met three of the rescued and can confirm the success.

General Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr held a press conference in April 2021 and affirmed that the Afghan military would collapse in the absence of American troops.  General Austin S. Miller made the recommendation to keep troops in January 2021.  McKenize, Miller, and General Mark A. Milley all shared recommendations to President Biden, and President Biden made a decision that was against the recommendations of his military leaders.

Who was held accountable for this? 

(Brandon Biden deflected)

Links

• hearing: https://www.c-span.org/video/?514537-1/senate-armed-services-committee-hearing-afghanistan-withdrawal
• press release: https://www.gop.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=572 

[Husker_Du]

6 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

There was no scenario where the Afghan army wasn't going to collapse.

pfft. that was the least of of the concerns.

i know you know what was.

so stop being a liberal apologist slap dick. 

[jross]

34 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

This some out there stuff.  No shortage of religious marriages between same sex couples.  Notice how @jross does lots of hand waving about people being potentially impacted by things that have no impact on them?  Mr.  Awesome is also using fond of using words requiring no commitment on Mr. Awesome's part.  Pretty good stuff!

TPD asked and I answered.

When I was a practicing Christian, including time as a youth group leader, I was one of many religious folk who understood the majority of marriages occurred in church.  In the 1900s, 85% of marriages occurred in church.  It was 50% not so long ago (and it is under 25% now).  When I was a child, most girls dreamed of a big church wedding regardless of whether they practiced religion.  To me, marriage involved god and my religion did not accept same-sex marriage.  During that religious period, I had numerous conversations with religious folk about supporting civil unions while being against updating the definition of marriage.

Now, I am not religious and I support same sex marriage.  I got over the definition update to use the word 'marriage.'


 

[WrestlingRasta]

Oops

Edited October 26, 2023 by WrestlingRasta

[Offthemat]

12 hours ago, Ban Basketball said:

I don't play the "do you condemn" game, as I'm not a public official, where such "gotcha" games can rightfully be played. 

Either way, I can claim ignorance, as I never have, nor will I, follow international politics and relations.  I have enough to keep me busy domestically with terrorism. 

When the U.S. gets involved in wars, I'll pay attention, as the perpetual anti-war communist that I am testifies to.

 

 

In case it’s not clearly obvious to you, nobody believes you.  
Being you freely admit being a communist, marxist, do you also admit being a Nazi, or will you just decline to deny it?

[uncle bernard]

10 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

pfft. that was the least of of the concerns.

i know you know what was.

so stop being a liberal apologist slap dick. 

it would be easier to talk about this if you actually said what you were talking about. if you’re not mad about the taliban retaking power, i genuinely have no idea what you’re talking about. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

19 hours ago, Paul158 said:

Last question. Maybe you were just brought up to do the right thing because it's the right   thing to do. Not so long ago ( 30 years ago) I was part of an organization (around 5000 people) that was all volunteer.  We never once brought up politics.  Everyone worked hard and worked toward a common goal. Did we agree on everything. No. But we understood the bigger picture. Its seems today for the most part that ship has sailed.

Everyone wants to believe their way of thinking is the best most correct. Which makes it hard to change minds in a group. Because the group, just being a group, reinforces the community aspect of belonging. Be that an idea or an activity. Leaving a group(any group) is difficult because we crave community for safety and security.

If you continue to think like that instead of understanding that people can come together for one reason and yet disagree about many other things to various degrees, you'll become/became cynical and paranoid of peoples' intentions. 

I hope the lifestyle comes together. -SB

[ThreePointTakedown]

19 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

More than happy to have a conversation about this when you can realize you are not all knowing, and when you stop inferring things about me and what my believes are so I fit a narrative you are making up in your head.   If you disagree with what I specifically said in a post, without extrapolating that to mean something other than what it says, then please do so, otherwise don't waste your time responding.

Seems like the 'all knowing' comment was a way for you to get out of having the conversation. At no time did I ever imply or infer that. I know what I've seen in the news and other places. Those are the examples that I bring up. Are they indicative of the whole? Probably not. But they happen. 

If you are ill prepared then that's fine. I'll be here when you're ready. 

 

List of logical fallacies if you or anyone is interested. Its good read. Find the ones that you use and better your positions. I did, it helped. Still do. 

[ThreePointTakedown]

12 hours ago, jross said:

Of course.  From now on, please refer to me by my preferred name, Mr. Awesome for subject pronoun and Mr. Awesome's for object/possessive pronoun.
 

Same-sex marriages, in terms of civil unions, do not impact the rights of others.

Same-sex marriages, in terms of religious context, can impact others.  Many religious hetero couples regard marriage as a sacred covenant between a man, a woman, and God—divinely ordained and a union of souls. The disclosure of a same-sex religious marriage could evoke similar reactions to the revelation of a pastor's infidelity.  Emotional response like experiencing distress, lose trust, leave the church, lose their faith, lose their identity, etc.  And these hetero couples are not going to want their young children to become curious and choose (which does happen) to explore their own sexuality because of exposure to same-sex coupling. 

I am not talking about the rights for same-sex couple to have a civil union.  Updating the definiton of the word 'marriage' was a minority opinion before legislation.  It is a moot point now.

In my *personal experience, conservatives *never wanted to suppress the rights of same sex couples to have a civil union to express commitment, for tax breaks, to live together, to be family for emergencies, etc.  I had only heard that same-sex marriage did not fit one's religious beliefs and that the definition of 'marriage' in the dictionary should remain hetero coupling.  Nuance.

Way to punch down with that joke. Really makes me want to take you serious. 

Your 'sincerely held beliefs' crap is just that. We talked about fragility before. THIS IS THAT! Forcing a smaller, less politically powerful group into a box because you want to protect a thing that you cannot demonstrate and only lives in your head could be the Webster's definition of Fear and Frail. So again, give me an actual reason? Not an imagined one. 

It was a minority opinion. Like most new things are until the population is convinced that keeping a group from enjoying a government service because some(now a vast minority) people think their icky is not a good enough reason. 

You just advocated for 'separate but equal', you know that right? How'd that work out? (shaking head disappointedly) 

[Bigbrog]

12 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

Seems like the 'all knowing' comment was a way for you to get out of having the conversation. At no time did I ever imply or infer that. I know what I've seen in the news and other places. Those are the examples that I bring up. Are they indicative of the whole? Probably not. But they happen. 

If you are ill prepared then that's fine. I'll be here when you're ready. 

 

List of logical fallacies if you or anyone is interested. Its good read. Find the ones that you use and better your positions. I did, it helped. Still do. 

My overall point was this...instead of inferring I mean something based on what I wrote, more people should say "Did you mean xyz when you posted that?"  I am guilty of not asking that question, but I try really hard to ask that question.  But it is also hard to have a conversation with someone who constantly does that.  I am a person who loves to have a conversation about everything, especially when I believe differently than someone else, but I can't stand people that get overly emotional about things (including using one off over-emotional examples to try and make a point), are completely closed minded, or aren't willing to truly understand the other person's opinion.  Some of my best friends and I have the best conversations when we disagree, but in the end, we always still love each other.  Heck there are people on these boards who I disagree with a lot but would love to hang out with and would probably get along with great (ex. Bob, Plasi, etc.).  But of course, there are people on here who are complete wackadoodles that I am not sure I would, but man it would be cool to meet them to see if their internet persononna matches the real person...lol

You seem decent enough dude as you are good at not jumping to the name calling.  Just hoping you'd ask me if I meant something before just assuming I do.  I am self admittedly not the best writer in the world.

[jross]

1 hour ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

You just advocated for 'separate but equal', you know that right? 

This is a tyranny of words conversation, not a racial or even a 'rights' conversation.

Please say more on your stance.
 

[ThreePointTakedown]

Just now, jross said:

This is a tyranny of words conversation, not a racial or even a 'rights' conversation.

Please say more on your stance.
 

My stance on what? 

Pick your poison.

[jross]

2 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

My stance on what? 

Pick your poison.

What did I say that advocated for 'separate but equal?'  

 

[ThreePointTakedown]

2 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

My overall point was this...instead of inferring I mean something based on what I wrote, more people should say "Did you mean xyz when you posted that?"  I am guilty of not asking that question, but I try really hard to ask that question.  But it is also hard to have a conversation with someone who constantly does that.  I am a person who loves to have a conversation about everything, especially when I believe differently than someone else, but I can't stand people that get overly emotional about things (including using one off over-emotional examples to try and make a point), are completely closed minded, or aren't willing to truly understand the other person's opinion.  Some of my best friends and I have the best conversations when we disagree, but in the end, we always still love each other.  Heck there are people on these boards who I disagree with a lot but would love to hang out with and would probably get along with great (ex. Bob, Plasi, etc.).  But of course, there are people on here who are complete wackadoodles that I am not sure I would, but man it would be cool to meet them to see if their internet persononna matches the real person...lol

You seem decent enough dude as you are good at not jumping to the name calling.  Just hoping you'd ask me if I meant something before just assuming I do.  I am self admittedly not the best writer in the world.

Fair point. 

I will try harder to ask for clarification when I am unclear of the point of a statement. 

Keep having good convos. Makes the world go 'round.  

[ThreePointTakedown]

Just now, jross said:

What did I say that advocated for 'separate but equal?'  

 

When you advocated for marriage for heteros(your word) and civil unions for same sex couples. 

If they are the same thing, for the most part, why draw the distinction if not to make yourself feel better/superior? Regardless of whether you feel that way, that's how it comes off. Its petty and separatist and leads to the otherizing of an already marginalized/stigmatized group. Why add to it, because your(old) religion use to preach, blah blah, peace, blah blah, love thy whoever? You/they abandon those teachings as soon a group tries to get the smallest(and it is ever so tiny) amount of equality.  Blows my mind how quickly those principles are abandoned in hopes of keeping your piece of the pie from getting smaller. That's tribalism tho. Bummer.

[Bigbrog]

While I don't think what jross is saying is causing any sort of separatism/marginalizim, or any other 'ism, I can understand how someone else would feel that way.  But ultimately  I guess it isn't up to me to decide if it is called "marriage" or "civil unions"...zero impact on me.  But I am also confused why it would be a big deal for jross to feel the way he does...it has zero impact on same sex marriage/civil union...they can call it whatever they want to call it and jross, and anyone else, can call it whatever the heck they want to call it for whatever reason they want to...fair?   You know what I call it marriage/civil union...stupid!  LOL  

Probably all has to do with why some get so upset when someone has faith and base some of their beliefs off of that faith...who the heck cares??  It's funny to preach equality, diversity of thought, marginalization of groups, etc. then turn around and try and do the exact same thing to someone who has religious beliefs.  SMH

[Le duke]

While I don't think what jross is saying is causing any sort of separatism/marginalizim, or any other 'ism, I can understand how someone else would feel that way.  But ultimately  I guess it isn't up to me to decide if it is called "marriage" or "civil unions"...zero impact on me.  But I am also confused why it would be a big deal for jross to feel the way he does...it has zero impact on same sex marriage/civil union...they can call it whatever they want to call it and jross, and anyone else, can call it whatever the heck they want to call it for whatever reason they want to...fair?   You know what I call it marriage/civil union...stupid!  LOL  
Probably all has to do with why some get so upset when someone has faith and base some of their beliefs off of that faith...who the heck cares??  It's funny to preach equality, diversity of thought, marginalization of groups, etc. then turn around and try and do the exact same thing to someone who has religious beliefs.  SMH

Because if a state sanctions marriages for some and civil unions for others, even if they are practically the same, it’s still discrimination on the basis of sex.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Plasmodium]

4 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

While I don't think what jross is saying is causing any sort of separatism/marginalizim, or any other 'ism, I can understand how someone else would feel that way.  But ultimately  I guess it isn't up to me to decide if it is called "marriage" or "civil unions"...zero impact on me.  But I am also confused why it would be a big deal for jross to feel the way he does...it has zero impact on same sex marriage/civil union...they can call it whatever they want to call it and jross, and anyone else, can call it whatever the heck they want to call it for whatever reason they want to...fair?   You know what I call it marriage/civil union...stupid!  LOL  

Probably all has to do with why some get so upset when someone has faith and base some of their beliefs off of that faith...who the heck cares??  It's funny to preach equality, diversity of thought, marginalization of groups, etc. then turn around and try and do the exact same thing to someone who has religious beliefs.  SMH

Even you can't believe that last paragraph.  It is a doozy!    Nobody cares in any meaningful way whether someone else has religious faith.   The objections happen when that is imposed on other people.

[jross]

23 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said:

When you advocated for marriage for heteros(your word) and civil unions for same sex couples. 

If they are the same thing, for the most part, why draw the distinction if not to make yourself feel better/superior? Regardless of whether you feel that way, that's how it comes off. Its petty and separatist and leads to the otherizing of an already marginalized/stigmatized group. Why add to it, because your(old) religion use to preach, blah blah, peace, blah blah, love thy whoever? You/they abandon those teachings as soon a group tries to get the smallest(and it is ever so tiny) amount of equality.  Blows my mind how quickly those principles are abandoned in hopes of keeping your piece of the pie from getting smaller. That's tribalism tho. Bummer.

You asked how a same-sex marriage affects one's non-same-sex marriage.  I answered that it does not impact one's rights, but that there can be an impact on people with religious beliefs.  And I explained it from a religious perspective.

Did I say that I am against people's rights?  (no)

More about religion in America.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

• 72% of Americans believe religion is important.  
• 70% of Americans are Christian.

Christians use the Holy Bible.  

The Holy Bible has a clear judgment on same-sex coupling.  

• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 > Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
• Leviticus 20:13 > If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
• Romans 1:26-27 > Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Note: A minority of Christians use biblical statements to support same-sex marriage.

So if 70% of Americans are Christians, and most marriages occurred in a church, is it feasible to believe that most US population perceived the word marriage primarily in a religious context?  Does it provide an understanding of how this population would be against updating the formal definition of marriage? 

Does this religious context imply that the religious group is against government rights afforded to a couple (same or not same)? (No!)  

How many thoughts/words are you going to keep projecting onto me?  

[Bigbrog]

18 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Even you can't believe that last paragraph.  It is a doozy!    Nobody cares in any meaningful way whether someone else has religious faith.   The objections happen when that is imposed on other people.

Funny how you called it a doozy when it is essentially the point of your last statement.  BUUUTTT....it works both ways!!   Why should others be imposing their beliefs on jross??

[jross]

27 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Even you can't believe that last paragraph.  It is a doozy!    Nobody cares in any meaningful way whether someone else has religious faith.   The objections happen when that is imposed on other people.

100%

This is a Tyranny of Words and framing exercise.

Some religious folks felt that same-sex folks were imposing on the religious sanctimony of the word 'marriage.'

Some same-sex folks felt that religious folks were against equal government rights by proposing alternative language, 'civil unions.'  Some in this group didn't understand that 'civil union' was a replacement verbiage for all marriages.  (similar to legislation that aims to replace 'illegal alien' with 'undocumented immigrant.')  This misunderstanding likely contributes to the disconnect and 'separate but equal' statement from @ThreePointTakedown.

Edited October 26, 2023 by jross
from TBD to TPT