Playboypenguin
Moderator
Examples?
pro-gun liberalism
- Thread starter higgy1911
- Start date
- Status
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
What I said about religion and sex (in a satirical manner) is perfectly clear if one has paid attention to the rantings of the right and left.
The right has a long history of interferring in personal sexuality and proclaiming that one faith is predominant in the USA. Attempts to use that religious dogma to influence scientific education and institute school prayer are well known. The left's antagonism to the 2nd is well known.
Now in both camps, there are exceptions. I don't have to buy into the right's social conservativism or the left's antigun rhetoric.
Unfortunately, some right wing posters here don't understand that and some left wing folks who I meet don't understand the purpose of the 2nd.
So if you want to bonk Mr. Potato-Head, buy a banana and have a menage a trois.
The right has a long history of interferring in personal sexuality and proclaiming that one faith is predominant in the USA. Attempts to use that religious dogma to influence scientific education and institute school prayer are well known. The left's antagonism to the 2nd is well known.
Now in both camps, there are exceptions. I don't have to buy into the right's social conservativism or the left's antigun rhetoric.
Unfortunately, some right wing posters here don't understand that and some left wing folks who I meet don't understand the purpose of the 2nd.
So if you want to bonk Mr. Potato-Head, buy a banana and have a menage a trois.
Freedom_1st
Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
It interferes upon my constitionally protected right to privacy.
I am not aware the government has the authority to decide what I can and cannot ingest into my own body. I take it you support bans on trans-fats and the like, since you support the government having complete domain over its citizens body. Alchohol is a drug, in fact a far worse drug then marjiuna is.
I am not aware of any constituional right that demands the govenrment legally recognize any form of marriage period.
So has slavery, what a horrible argument in defense of banning gay marriage.
It means that conservatives have lead the charge at destroying the rights of workers to organize and removing legislation that protects consumers and workers, etc. Conservative hare notoriously protected and extended the power of corporations to the detriment of everyone else. Conservatives are also notorious for handing out welfare to large corporations.
The whole "intelligent design" argument is just an attempt to infuse conservative christian creation mythology into the public classroom. Creationism is not science and should not be given time in a biology class.
And "conservatives" fight against freedom of religion, rights to privacy, and the right to have complete domain over ones body (drug laws), etc.
BoringAccountant
New member
How about we give our kids the information on all aspects of the "THEORIES" because that is what they are and let them decide. Just because we can prove adaptation and limited forms of, do I dare say the word, evolution does not mean that that is the reason for our existence today. Before one can rant about the ways things came about, you should really understand that it is still a theory.
More rhetoric...give examples of HOW we are trying to SUPPRESS YOUR RIGHTS to a free religion. Have they removed the local mosque or the local temples from your area? Are you still allowed to pray or worship the gods? How have the conservatives suppressed your rights? And please refrain from using the idea that because Christians believe in the right to live and a marriage amendment to the Constitution this means they are suppressing your rights. Look at it this way, if your religion called for something that you believed to be true, you have the ability to try and get an amendment passed also.
Again more rhetoric...please give examples of the conservatives suppressing the rights of labor?
Lastly,
This is more of a party issue than you guys are willing to admit. Are there examples of Republicans being against the 2A...yes of course as well as there are Democrats being for the 2A, but as a PARTY, it is safe to note and rather intelligent to realize that the Democrats are more anti-gun than the Republicans and the Republicans are more pro-2A than the Democrats.
Does that mean if you are for 2A rights you should be an Republican, of course not, there are more issues out there to determine where you fall.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Freedom 1st - you have it down! Some social conservatives will never see the point.
As I said before, gun ownership is one totem for group identity. Some social conservatives want to make it the exclusive province of their group.
Very simple - they cannot conceive of breaking their group identity. They are blinded by the truth of their beliefs and cannot conceive or recognize that government should not be in the religion by promoting one faith or any faith. They cannot accept that consenting adult sexuality is not the province of the force of the state.
The history of laws against sexual acts, birth control and miscegenation are conveniently forgotten. Those proscriptions had to be fought against with strong opposition from social conservatives.
As I said before, gun ownership is one totem for group identity. Some social conservatives want to make it the exclusive province of their group.
Very simple - they cannot conceive of breaking their group identity. They are blinded by the truth of their beliefs and cannot conceive or recognize that government should not be in the religion by promoting one faith or any faith. They cannot accept that consenting adult sexuality is not the province of the force of the state.
The history of laws against sexual acts, birth control and miscegenation are conveniently forgotten. Those proscriptions had to be fought against with strong opposition from social conservatives.
No one has ever had privacy under any conditions so I don't buy it. And it's apparently why it's legal.
No, science doesn't support your belief. Sure you can smoke a joint or poison yourself with alcohol but that wouldn't be an honest comparison. And this drug argument Libertarians like to bring up is based on the wrong assumption that society doesn't have the right to set boundaries. The government isn't acting on its' own, it's doing the will of the people.
That's interesting because every state in the union has guidelines for marriage. And it's been maintained in every state by the citizens where attempts to alter it have occurred, except by judicial activism. Which is why a Constitutional amendment is being discussed.
How can you ban that which isn't legal? That's what I would call a horrible argument. The people decided they didn't want slavery here and in most places so it was outlawed. Again, the will of the people. Other than that I see no connection. Gays are free to be gays these days but their relationship is not as valuable to society as male/female ones so there is no special legal marriage status. They can still marry and draw up a contract but what gays really want it approval of the government by saying the relationships are equal. They aren't.
Welfare? As in letting them keep more of their earnings that you feel entitled to?
The rest of that was still too vague to know what you mean.
Neither is "nothing exploded and everything happened" theology but it gets plenty of air play. BTW, Intelligent Design doesn't mean Christianity, many other religions believe in God too. In fact, they all do don't they?
There's no such things as total freedom in a society, any law can be seen as an infringement. Like running around naked. Conservatives probably all like the laws as is but they hinder some people's freedoms. Your freedoms stop where they impose on others. And drugs do impose on other even though you seem to think it can be done in a vacuum.
Maybe because intelligent design is not a "theory".
Maybe because evolution is the one and only scientific theory in existence that explains the origins of life. Sure thing, give kids all the information on all aspects of the theory. That's exactly what is done today. Let them decide? We can let them decide when they are PhDs in evolutionary biology and have actually studied the science enough that they are qualified to make a determination and add to the overall scientific knowledge of the species.
They should not allowed to simply decide whether or not scientific fact is acceptable to them. Philosophy, literature appreciation and art a few subjects where kids should be free to completely disagree with their instructors. But not science and math.
ooooooh yes it does. alcohol is a far worse drug than THC and that has been scientifically proven time after time after time after time
Guess which one has a high enough toxicity level to kill while the other has never been attributed to a single death in the whole of recorded history. Guess which one is more responsible for violence, domestic abuse and road fatalities.
I must have missed the part where they explained how that first living cell evolved.
Hint: a cell is irreducible and could not have just evolved into existance. To believe otherwise requires a tremendous leap of faith (kind of sounds like a religion, don't it?)
Adaptation and natural selection are observable in nature, and I don't think anyone is arguing against those -- although the most famous textbook examples, used to promote evolution, are frauds.
Before totally committing to tear down those nasty corporations, take a look at your IRA or 401K statement. The vast majority of big corporations that people love to rail against are owned by ... us.
I would love to see a cogent cost-benefit analysis of why homosexual relationships have less value to society than heterosexual relationships. The usual explanation involves breeding but avoids discussing the costs to society for the development of children.
THERE - I have thrown rocks at both sides of the recent argument, even though the only connection I can see between the arguments and the OP topic of pro-gun liberalism is that they prove that people from all across the political spectrum can also be pro-gun.
You sure must have. Where did you study evolution that forgot to explain that bit?
Hint: A cell is not irreducible.
You're reading the wrong textbooks. I suggest bringing this matter up to the department heads because none of the "textbook examples" used by the scientific community are frauds.
Well, they tend forget - or simply ignore - the idea that many homosexual couples would like to adopt and raise a child instead of leaving that child to bounce around foster homes with a greater chance of becoming a drain on society or even a criminal.
Those that do recognize that are blinded by their misguided idea that a gay couple will abuse a child or that having gay parents will be detrimental to the child's development.
Freedom_1st
Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
lol, yeah there has been no debate what so ever to its legality
I guess that is why congress did not extend that particular piece of legistlation and Bush has sought to legally protect the telecommunications companies from lawsuits.
Freedom_1st
Multiply registered, multiply banned troll.
agreed, I am not gonna argue with em anymore, "true believers" always "know" better, its pointless to argue to people with who have closed their minds
JuanCarlos
New member
That's pretty much it, right there.
I have never really seen any real logical reason why being pro-gun should necessarily correlate with being anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage (or pro-capitalism or anti-...well, anything else).
Gun rights can easily be a self-contained political viewpoint that can have little or nothing to do with the rest of an individual's views. I think an interesting discussion would be why there is such a strong correlation between (to simplify) "conservative" viewpoints across other issues and pro-gun views (and yes, there is)...though I have a feeling a majority here might just be a tiny bit biased on the issue.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
You cannot reason with anyone that follows a religion that turns all evidence contrary to their beliefs into "tests of faith" and who believe that their all powerful and loving god allows children to die as a "test of faith."
They have had the idea drilled into them their whole lives that everything in the world that contradicts their belief is supposed to be there to test their belief in God and that it is all false information.
I have been interested in the strong correlation between political party voting records and population density. Any county-level map of Democratic vs Republican counties in the last several Presidential elections shows a stark division in which the Democrats won the large cities and the Republicans won the rural areas. It may only be coincidental, but the same large cities are the anti-gun enclaves.
I think that people's perceptions of guns are largely driven by how they are exposed to guns. I suspect that people in large cities have less positive exposure to guns and fewer opportunities to personally use guns than their rural cousins.
I tend to think of it as you cannot reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into.
It's why the militant anti-gunners are so adamant about their belief. They're not using logic and critical thinking to arrive at their conclusions. They have to be willing to accept a rational view of the world around them before we ever have a hope to change their minds.
- Status