Are Liberals Evil? (Title is slightly sarcastic.)

[SorryNotSorry]

I'm worse than any liberal (if that could happen). My personal politics are so radical they're off the map.

[Yatogami]

@Starfall

 

I'll respond to this thread later when im on a desktop. (8hrs from now) ill reply to the little stuff for now.

[Yatogami]

10 hours ago, m4rble said:

"Classic Liberal" is just a code word for republican or libertarian. Politics in the US have been more and more to the right. There may be more SJW-type YouTubers now but the American government is substantially more conservative now than it was in the past decades. 

 

I sense an edge lord. 

No its not. Its a legitimate area on the compass. It refers to what Liberals used to be, befor they became extream.

 

You do know edgelord is an insult right? I'm not a fucking edgelord, and it's something people call me a lot and it pisses me off. You're also not even using it correctly.

[Yatogami]

11 hours ago, Starfall said:

@Maou-sama

I'm also aware of the irony of trying to convince you that not all Leftists are unreasonable crazy people, while you're arguing with two other irate internet Leftists. I think if you got to know them in real life, you'd probably find them much less hostile, and much more sane - as they would, you. The internet tends to bring out the worst in people.

I agree about that. I'm also used to debating everyone in the thread. I did it through all of 2016. It also sucks not having body language to read, since I'm hyper-sensative to it. My tones and responses change completly if I feel I'm being aggressive or mean to someone. I get more aggressive if they respond angrily though.

[Yatogami]

10 hours ago, AcePsycho86 said:

Fair enough, but this doesn't explain why Hillary got more coverage than him.

 

Random things that Tofu pulls out of his ass are also not accurate representations. Please cite your sources for the claim that most right-wingers don't attend church. 
 

No, admittedly I have not listened to Herman Cain. I have listened to Rush Limbaugh though, and let me tell you, that guy is not a moderate by any sense of the word. He's a lunatic.

I also find it interesting that someone that watches Paul Joseph Watson would call me naive. You don't have much room to talk, buddy.

 

My friend, I can guarantee you that in 30+ years time I will still find Rush Limbaugh to be a lunatic. I will bet you a thousand dollars on this.

Hillay was chosen. It was her turn. Thats the only reason she got covered. Surely as a Sanders supporter, you know the corruption of the DNC. They ousted Sanders because it was her turn. The media did the same with Ron Paul.

 

If you think Rush is extremist, you literally know nothing about conservatism.

 

I watch PJW for laughs, and memes. Its not really a news source either. It's a blog. I mean, you think The Huffington post is a proper media. We're obviously both crazy. You're a psychopath and I'm a sociopath.

 

I can guarentee you 10 years from now, you'll have a vastly different political position. 

[Yatogami]

11 hours ago, m4rble said:

It's weird that I'm seeing myself being lumped with, "the crazies" and talked about in the third person now for making a few offhand remarks that didn't even have much of an argument in them. 

I don't think your crazy m4rble. At least you got guts to stand up for what you believe in. You don't resort to underhanded tactics like some do.

[Yatogami]

10 hours ago, HazelCloud said:

Just b/c something seems impossible doesn't mean you don't try. I think most liberals (including myself) would agree that the utopia we'd like to achieve will never happen. Humans are too selfish and cruel to ever really accomplish that. But that doesn't mean we don't strive for it. For one thing, you never know what kind of impossible things you may end up achieving after all - for instance, I never in a million years thought we'd have legalized marriage equality In my lifetime. For another, while you may not be able to make things fair and equal for everyone, you will succeed for some people - just like the overused fable about the man on the beach with the starfish. But the other side to it is not about the changes you can effect, but about the kind of person you want to be. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't fight for what I believe to be right, regardless of whether or not I thought I would succeed. I couldn't live with myself if I just sat back and accepted other people's suffering as status quo. So yes, Leftists fight for an unattainable goal, but it has nothing to do with being naive.

The problem with this mindset, is that it is so grand. That one doesn't notice what's going on under their feet. Then as wonderful as it sounds, actions rarely line up with ideals. We got Liberals demanding segregation, reparations, and banishment of anything other that far left views. These people are in college now, and will soon enter the workforce. I don't want to see what bullshit police state totalitarian laws they might pass when they get there. I just think the action parts are wrong, not so much the dream. Which is why I say they are naive. They are going about it the wrong way, and rightists know what their actions will result in and try to tell them. But the Left shoots it down as hate speech. Europe is the perfect example.

 

I can respect choosing the kind of life you want to lead. But not everyone chooses the same path. So things will always go wrong.

[m4rble]

2 hours ago, Maou-sama said:

No its not. Its a legitimate area on the compass. It refers to what Liberals used to be, befor they became extream.

 

You do know edgelord is an insult right? I'm not a fucking edgelord, and it's something people call me a lot and it pisses me off. You're also not even using it correctly.

I actual think the liberals who are actually in power are far too moderate, not too extreme. 

I was just trying to say I found it kind of silly to lament about how the world would never be a better place because of the cruelty of reality and, "human nature".

1 hour ago, Maou-sama said:

I can guarentee you 10 years from now, you'll have a vastly different political position. 

Nice use of clairvoyance. 

1 hour ago, Maou-sama said:

I don't think your crazy m4rble. At least you got guts to stand up for what you believe in. You don't resort to underhanded tactics like some do.

Thank you.

 

[m4rble]

1 hour ago, Maou-sama said:

The problem with this mindset, is that it is so grand. That one doesn't notice what's going on under their feet. Then as wonderful as it sounds, actions rarely line up with ideals. We got Liberals demanding segregation, reparations, and banishment of anything other that far left views. These people are in college now, and will soon enter the workforce. I don't want to see what bullshit police state totalitarian laws they might pass when they get there. I just think the action parts are wrong, not so much the dream. Which is why I say they are naive. They are going about it the wrong way, and rightists know what their actions will result in and try to tell them. But the Left shoots it down as hate speech. Europe is the perfect example.

 

I can respect choosing the kind of life you want to lead. But not everyone chooses the same path. So things will always go wrong.

Demanding segregation and limits on free speech are wrong. I like the aspects of left wing politics that involve helping other people such as having more welfare services, protecting consumers from dangerous corporate greed, and and not locking up non-violent drug offenders.  I think the US has failed miserably in these avenues among others. Demanding segregation and limits on speech are not the type of left wing policies I would endorse. 

[Yatogami]

3 minutes ago, m4rble said:

Demanding segregation and limits on free speech are wrong. I like the aspects of left wing politics that involve helping other people such as having more welfare services, protecting consumers from dangerous corporate greed, and and not locking up non-violent drug offenders.  I think the US has failed miserably in these avenues among others. Demanding segregation and limits on speech are not the type of left wing policies I would endorse. 

And I agree with everything you've said here. I don't endorse strickter drug laws the Right passes, nor do I endorse anything religious.

 

But ironically, the Left is trying to protect Islam like a race, instead of a religion. This angers to know end, and Europe is working to enforce anti-blasphemy laws. That should terrify the Left, but they are in full support. This plays into my assumption of hivemind. They'll do what they are told unquestioningly. Even if it violates their core beliefs. Why are they protecting a militaristic religion?

[m4rble]

9 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

And I agree with everything you've said here. I don't endorse strickter drug laws the Right passes, nor do I endorse anything religious.

 

But ironically, the Left is trying to protect Islam like a race, instead of a religion. This angers to know end, and Europe is working to enforce anti-blasphemy laws. That should terrify the Left, but they are in full support. This plays into my assumption of hivemind. They'll do what they are told unquestioningly. Even if it violates their core beliefs. Why are they protecting a militaristic religion?

It's not about protecting Islam, it's about respecting Muslims as fellow human beings. Their is a lot of hatred out their at Muslims themselves and I don't think that's acceptable. Also, the US is supposed to have a separation between church and state. This means they shouldn't pass legislation(including immigration legislation) that concerns itself with religion.

 

The anti-blasphemy laws are just stupid and anti-liberty. 

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

15 minutes ago, m4rble said:

Their is a lot of hatred out their at Muslims themselves and I don't think that's acceptable.

Legally it should be or else you would be supporting thought policing which is wrong for governments to do, That is the entire thing about freedom of speech. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". No one needs to defend freedom of speech when it is popular speech. 

 

16 minutes ago, m4rble said:

Also, the US is supposed to have a separation between church and state. This means they shouldn't pass legislation(including immigration legislation) that concerns itself with religion.

I agree with that. 

[m4rble]

1 minute ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

Legally it should be or else you would be supporting thought policing which is wrong for governments to do, That is the entire thing about freedom of speech. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". No one needs to defend freedom of speech when it is popular speech. 

 

I agree with that. 

I'm not saying we should arrest people for hating Muslims, I'm just saying I think it's wrong. Muslims can also be subject to hate crimes and things like employment discrimination and those things should be illegal. 

[Yatogami]

14 minutes ago, m4rble said:

It's not about protecting Islam, it's about respecting Muslims as fellow human beings. Their is a lot of hatred out their at Muslims themselves and I don't think that's acceptable. Also, the US is supposed to have a separation between church and state. This means they shouldn't pass legislation(including immigration legislation) that concerns itself with religion.

 

The anti-blasphemy laws are just stupid and anti-liberty. 

The legal immigration isn't being stopped, the illegal aliens are. There is a difference. 

 

If 3rd world Islam is the problem. Isn't it fair to block people who are Islamic ftom the 3rd world? They are a thousand times more Conservative than Christians. They will vote to remove everything the Left stands for after they get a comfortable hold in society. So isn't defending them suicidal altruism? The Left is voting against their best interest, and the democratic leaders at lying about what Muslims believe in. The extream ones are not a minority. 

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

 

Sharia law is literally the worse thing ever, and the Left wants to invite a population where the majority of them support Sharia law. What are Leftists going to do, when they outlaw gay rights again, or work to enacting Sharia law in Europe? From what I can tell, they are going to do nothing until it is already too late. The Left is completly uneducated on 3rd world Islam. Then you got 1st world white people preeching they know all about it, an are Muslims. These people coming in are NOT from the first world. They come from violent hell holds who have to kill to survive. Its like bringing in millions of war vets with ptsd. They will not naturalize for generations.

[Mostly Peaceful Ryan]

5 minutes ago, m4rble said:

I'm not saying we should arrest people for hating Muslims, I'm just saying I think it's wrong. Muslims can also be subject to hate crimes and things like employment discrimination and those things should be illegal. 

In the US, they are.

[m4rble]

3 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

The legal immigration isn't being stopped, the illegal aliens are. There is a difference. 

 

If 3rd world Islam is the problem. Isn't it fair to block people who are Islamic ftom the 3rd world? They are a thousand times more Conservative than Christians. They will vote to remove everything the Left stands for after they get a comfortable hold in society. So isn't defending them suicidal altruism? The Left is voting against their best interest, and the democratic leaders at lying about what Muslims believe in. The extream ones are not a minority. 

 

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

 

Sharia law is literally the worse thing ever, and the Left wants to invite a population where the majority of them support Sharia law. What are Leftists going to do, when they outlaw gay rights again, or work to enacting Sharia law in Europe? From what I can tell, they are going to do nothing until it is already too late. The Left is completly uneducated on 3rd world Islam. Then you got 1st world white people preeching they know all about it, an are Muslims. These people coming in are NOT from the first world. They come from violent hell holds who have to kill to survive. Its like bringing in millions of war vets with ptsd. They will not naturalize for generations.

The Muslim immigrants only make up a small fraction of the population so they can't realistically come anywhere close to establishing sharia law. Racial and religous minorities usually ally themselves with the left because the right alienates them too much. If a lot of them don't support gay rights then that's wrong, but I don't want to punish all the Muslim immigrants that are just trying to escape a bad situation. (BTW I personally know a bisexual Muslim woman so we shouldn't pretend they don't exist) 

 

1 minute ago, ♣Ryan♣ said:

In the US, they are.

I know they are, as they should be. 

[Yatogami]

@m4rble I think you are deadly mistaken about that. They will populate faster than the native culture, and overtake them in a decade.

 

Its wrong to hate anyone, but sometime it's needed to abolish a threat. I feel 3rd world Islam is a threat to Western culture. Talk to any intelligent person from India, and they will tell you about Islam. India has been genocided by Islamic countries for many years. They are the same people who are coming to Europe. They are the only religion that pissed off Buddhists enough to make them go to war. Which violates their very religion's practices.

 

Wanting to help people in need is fine, just exercise a bit of damn caution. Which they are NOT doing. Do you really think Muslims appreciate the help from the very people they percieved caused their suffering? Do you really think most will not have some sense of revenge and hate towards the West?

 

I really hope in a few years, people will wake up to the reality that all the crap in Europe was the direct fault of terrible leaders not exercising any caution, or forcing some assimilation. They literally let them just come in, and establish a colony within their borders 

[Still]

2 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

 

I really hope in a few years, people will wake up to the reality that all the crap in Europe was the direct fault of terrible leaders not exercising any caution

I agree, hopefully in a few years people will realize that neoliberal bullshit was what killed the job market.

[m4rble]

4 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

@m4rble I think you are deadly mistaken about that. They will populate faster than the native culture, and overtake them in a decade.

 

Its wrong to hate anyone, but sometime it's needed to abolish a threat. I feel 3rd world Islam is a threat to Western culture. Talk to any intelligent person from India, and they will tell you about Islam. India has been genocided by Islamic countries for many years. They are the same people who are coming to Europe. They are the only religion that pissed off Buddhists enough to make them go to war. Which violates their very religion's practices.

 

Wanting to help people in need is fine, just exercise a bit of damn caution. Which they are NOT doing. Do you really think Muslims appreciate the help from the very people they percieved caused their suffering? Do you really think most will not have some sense of revenge and hate towards the West?

 

I really hope in a few years, people will wake up to the reality that all the crap in Europe was the direct fault of terrible leaders not exercising any caution, or forcing some assimilation. They literally let them just come in, and establish a colony within their borders 

Is that what Rush Limbaugh or Herman Cain told you?

[Yatogami]

Just now, m4rble said:

Is that what Rush Limbaugh or Herman Cain told you?

No, thats my own conclusions. Also, don't judge people by their sources please. It's incredibly petty. Im not going around telling everyone Defranco isn't a legitimate news source am I? (I actually like Defranco, and feel he is pretty neutral)

[m4rble]

Just now, Maou-sama said:

No, thats my own conclusions. Also, don't judge people by their sources please. It's incredibly petty. Im not going around telling everyone Defranco isn't a legitimate news source am I? (I actually like Defranco, and feel he is pretty neutral)

If that's your own conclusion from the information you have available that's fine, but you still got your information from a source. I also don't think the conclusions you make based on the information you have. How could less than ten percent of the population possibly, "populate faster than the native culture, and overtake them in a decade". That's impossible. 

[Yatogami]

24 minutes ago, m4rble said:

If that's your own conclusion from the information you have available that's fine, but you still got your information from a source. I also don't think the conclusions you make based on the information you have. How could less than ten percent of the population possibly, "populate faster than the native culture, and overtake them in a decade". That's impossible. 

Birth rates are a reasonable prediction of population increase. If the native population isn't having kids, but Muslim families are have 10 each. Just do the math. 1million turns into 10 million in a few years.

 

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6423/germany-muslim-demographic

 

Here is an article I found about it in Germany.

[m4rble]

1 minute ago, Maou-sama said:

Birth rates are a reasonable prediction of population increase. If the native population isn't having kids, but Muslim families are have 10 each. Just do the math. 1million turns into 10 million in a few years.

The total percent of Muslims in Europe not including Turkey is 6%. Let's say that 40% of them are fertile women. At max they could have one baby every year. On average about one person out of a hundred dies a year in Europe. Let's imagine there are 100 people in Europe, 6 of them are Muslim and 94 are not. Let's say every Muslim woman has a baby every year and none of the other Europeans reproduce. 40% of 6 is 2.4. One percent of 6 is .06. Therefore number of Muslims at the end of year one is 6+2.4-.06=8.34. If I continue this calculation ten times I get about 162. Assuming the death rate of one percent a year there would be 85 non-Muslims left by the end of the decade so the result would be a population of 66% Muslim and 34% non-Muslim. So I guess it is theoretically possible. However, the conditions of my calculation required the maximum possible reproduction rate from the Muslim population and no reproduction from the non-Muslim population so it's not very realistic. 

[Yatogami]

@m4rble

 

I edited my post to include an article.

[m4rble]

If I put the rate of population growth at 6% a year instead of 39% a year(which is still very high but much more realistic) you only get 10.75 Muslims at the end of 10 years which would be 11% of the total population. 

[m4rble]

@Maou-samaThat link leads to a website which is a right wing think tank. 

[Yatogami]

4 minutes ago, m4rble said:

@Maou-samaThat link leads to a website which is a right wing think tank. 

Just because it is Right winged doesn't mean it is incorrect. You have to be able to say why it's wrong. Politifact, and most major news outlets are a Left wing think tank, but no one bats an eye at that. If you wanna debate, you have to be able to dismantle their arguments. Not dismiss them on grounds of being "Right winged". 

[m4rble]

7 minutes ago, Maou-sama said:

Just because it is Right winged doesn't mean it is incorrect. You have to be able to say why it's wrong. Politifact, and most major news outlets are a Left wing think tank, but no one bats an eye at that. If you wanna debate, you have to be able to dismantle their arguments. Not dismiss them on grounds of being "Right winged". 

Here are some criticisms of the website from Wikipedia:

Spoiler

Allegations of anti-Muslim bias[edit]

Gatestone has been criticized for affiliating itself with Geert Wilders, who says that he "hates Islam"^[17] and has been described as "anti-Muslim".^[18][19] In 2012, Gatestone Institute hosted a talk by Wilders.^[18]In 2016, Gatestone paid for Wilders’s flights and hotels on trips to the United States.^[19][20] The Guardian noted that Gatestone publishes the writings of Geert Wilders.^[17]

An opinion article in The Hill criticized Gatestone as "paranoid" for claiming that immigration to Europe was “civilization jihad” and a “Muslim invasion”.^[21]

Gatestone's founder, Nina Rosenwald, has been accused of anti-Muslim bias by the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Muslim writers for the Gatestone Institute have defended the organization and Rosenwald against the claims by CAIR.^[22] Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, said, "It goes without saying, but to those who may not know Nina, and having known her now for many years, it is clear to me that she has the highest respect for Muslims who love their faith, love God, and take seriously our Islamic responsibility to defeat the global jihad and its Islamist inspiration."^[22]

Inaccurate reporting[edit]

In 2011^[23] and 2012,^[5] Gatestone published articles claiming that Europe had Muslim "no-go zones", describing them variously as "off-limits to non-Muslims"^[5] and "microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law".^[23][24] The claim that there are areas in European cities governed by Sharia is false,^[5][23] although many of the areas deemed as "no-go zones" have high levels of unemployment and crime.^[24]Gatestone's claims were picked up by many outlets, including FrontPageMag,^[23] and Washington Times.^[24] The idea of no-go zones originated from Daniel Pipes,^[23] who later retracted his claims.^[5]

On November 18, 2016, Gatestone originally published an article that said the British Press was ordered to avoid reporting the Muslim identity of terrorists by the European Union. Snopes rated the claim "false". Snopes pointed out that the report only made a recommendation and it was issued by the Council of Europe, not the European Union.^[6] Gatestone subsequently corrected the article and apologized for the error,^[25] before removing it entirely from its website.

 

[m4rble]

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gatestone-institute/

[Yatogami]

Fact checkers are all owned by the Left. Therefor already biased. All media does false reporting. 

 

Also, I didn't run a credentials test when I googled related articles. Wikipedia is not a good source either. Once again, your dodging the "why it is wrong" question. Both Right and Left accuse each other of foul play constantly. So the whole ceo hating everything is getting old. 

 

Just explain why you think the article is wrong. 

 

I know for a fact that the migrants are far more fertile than Europeans. Have more children on average. Then they brought a very dominate and conservative religion with them. This isn't even counting the conversions of native people either.