Hypocrisy in Liberal and Conservatives Ideals and Platforms

[ChewDawg]

The guns and religion crowd are an interesting group.

Not as interesting as the tofu, teaching and ESL group.

I always wonder:

What kind of rifle, pistol, or automatic weapon would Jesus carry if he were around?

An Uzi He'd want to 'buy local' if he were the opposite of the guns and religion crowd (or free market conservatives) as you suggest he would be.

[Chris]

The guns and religion crowd are an interesting group. I always wonder:

What kind of rifle, pistol, or automatic weapon would Jesus carry if he were around?

Same with the sports and religion crowd. Rough, ass-kicking "kill, kill, win, win!" competitive sports seem incongruous with humble, selfless "do unto others and serve the least of our brothers" faith.

[Deuce Dropper]

The guns and religion crowd are an interesting group.

Not as interesting as the tofu, teaching and ESL group.

I always wonder:

What kind of rifle, pistol, or automatic weapon would Jesus carry if he were around?

A Uzi He'd want to 'buy local' if he were the opposite of the guns and religion crowd (or free market conservatives) as you suggest he would be.

Goddamn boy, some English teachers must have treated you horribly in your time here. From your posting I presume you have been off the island a few years, yet you still seem MASSIVELY butthurt and never miss an opportunity to take a cheap shot (no matter how irrelevant) back at them.

Let's have it ChewEy, what happened? You can come clean now, getting this off your chest might be very therapeutic, c'mon son, peel off the band aid...and tell us, what the hell did they do to you?

[urodacus]

I think Jesus is more of a Desert Eagle kind of guy.


That, and some kind of street sweeper for going postal on y'all.

[Deuce Dropper]

[Got To Be Kidding]

Not about being granular, it is about the big picture, because if we did get granular we could say that social welfare is indeed Darwinian because we are trying to do this to better our communities (that which surrounds us) to ensure we can more easily thrive and procreate in a safe environment (survival of the fittest).

So there is no doubt that the initial premise can be shot down, but the question is why do such diametrically opposed viewpoints go undiscussed or observed when they are so often key components of the rhetoric.

No, it's all about getting 'granular' - that is if you truly want to get to the bottom of your question.

What you are really asking is why do we engage in objectification and making stereotypes and broad generalizations. It's a whole lot easier to bash people when you've turned them into a stereotype and then stripped away their humanity. After all, when a person is no longer a person, and is now an object, it's easy to destroy them.

People manipulate us into engaging in conflict by keeping us from getting down to the human level.

If you're not really interested in resolving the question, and just want to get into a few self-satisfying whacks because you're upset, I understand. It's cathartic. Whack away.

But, let's not confuse this with reasoning and conflict resolution.

[ChewDawg]

Goddamn boy, some English teachers must have treated you horribly in your time here. From your posting I presume you have been off the island a few years, yet you still seem MASSIVELY butthurt and never miss an opportunity to take a cheap shot (no matter how irrelevant) back at them.

Don't hate teachers and certainly enjoyed drinking with a few in Taipei. Just think the profession for foreigners should be highly regulated in Taiwan to make sure that Canadian P.T. Barnum types with no teaching credentials stay away and don't shape the minds of vulnerable poorer populations. Bring over non-union but certified teachers not backpackers/coffee baristas. Holy shit. I'm taking a very left wing position here.

[Deuce Dropper]

Not about being granular, it is about the big picture, because if we did get granular we could say that social welfare is indeed Darwinian because we are trying to do this to better our communities (that which surrounds us) to ensure we can more easily thrive and procreate in a safe environment (survival of the fittest).

So there is no doubt that the initial premise can be shot down, but the question is why do such diametrically opposed viewpoints go undiscussed or observed when they are so often key components of the rhetoric.

No, it's all about getting 'granular' - that is if you truly want to get to the bottom of your question.

What you are really asking is why do we engage in objectification and making stereotypes and broad generalizations. It's a whole lot easier to bash people when you've turned them into a stereotype and then stripped away their humanity. After all, when a person is no longer a person, and is now an object, it's easy to destroy them.

People manipulate us into engaging in conflict by keeping us from getting down to the human level.

If you're not really interested in resolving the question, and just want to get into a few self-satisfying whacks because you're upset, I understand. It's cathartic. Whack away.

But, let's not confuse this with reasoning and conflict resolution.

Where is the conflict? I am simply asking why 'Ideals' and 'Platforms' (as in the title) are portrayed in such contrasting ways. Not looking for a few self-satisfying whacks, and if anything you came into this thread with a bit of beef and perhaps a bone to pick, so it might be wise to take a bit of your own advice (unless this was a crafty sarcastic example of further hypocrisy and if that is the case, I applaud you for guile).

[Steviebike]

The guns and religion crowd are an interesting group. I always wonder:

What kind of rifle, pistol, or automatic weapon would Jesus carry if he were around?

UZI.

[Got To Be Kidding]

Not about being granular, it is about the big picture, because if we did get granular we could say that social welfare is indeed Darwinian because we are trying to do this to better our communities (that which surrounds us) to ensure we can more easily thrive and procreate in a safe environment (survival of the fittest).

So there is no doubt that the initial premise can be shot down, but the question is why do such diametrically opposed viewpoints go undiscussed or observed when they are so often key components of the rhetoric.

No, it's all about getting 'granular' - that is if you truly want to get to the bottom of your question.

What you are really asking is why do we engage in objectification and making stereotypes and broad generalizations. It's a whole lot easier to bash people when you've turned them into a stereotype and then stripped away their humanity. After all, when a person is no longer a person, and is now an object, it's easy to destroy them.

People manipulate us into engaging in conflict by keeping us from getting down to the human level.

If you're not really interested in resolving the question, and just want to get into a few self-satisfying whacks because you're upset, I understand. It's cathartic. Whack away.

But, let's not confuse this with reasoning and conflict resolution.

Where is the conflict? I am simply asking why 'Ideals' and 'Platforms' (as in the title) are portrayed in such contrasting ways. Not looking for a few self-satisfying whacks, and if anything you came into this thread with a bit of beef and perhaps a bone to pick, so it might be wise to take a bit of your own advice (unless this was a crafty sarcastic example of further hypocrisy and if that is the case, I applaud you for guile).

What 'beef' or 'bone' would I have to pick with you?

Would you believe that I really wasn't being sarcastic?

And yes, there is conflict. It's inherent in the subject that you chose, and in some of what you said.

You ask the question about hypocrisy. You can't call it hypocrisy until you've thoroughly examined the motives of either side, and when you do that, the issue gets a lot more complicated.

The only way to understand the issue is to get down to the level of the individual. Of course, when you get down to the level of the individual, you find out that 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are false dichotomies.