NationStates Jolt Archive

Im wondering whats up with the influx of religious conservatives. I always thought that young people were supposed to be liberal, but it seems like there is more and more stupid conservatives with closed minds.

Give me your opinion.

They have more kids, ergo, they have more people. Divide and conquer (the chromosomes, that is). That's how all fundies do it. With no respect for fellow life or the ramifications on mankind.

On a lighter note, with rampant conservatism comes aweful times, followed by a string of lighter and warmer times. Just go with the flow of your non-existence.

I've noticed a scary amount of the newer posters are very conservative. :confused:

What's so bad about conservatism? Progressivism and liberalism unchecked tends to be a frightening thing too, kiddies. Everyone needs someone else to tell them just how dumb their ideas are.

political stripes come in waves. people invite their like minded friends over to watch their backs.

People should just be open to new ideas. I hate how most conservatives just think that we should do things how they think is right. Times change, and we should change too.

I agree Jakopolis. Unfortunately, hubris is present in both progressive and conservative minds. Conservatives think the old order is best; progressives think they know how to fix things for the best.

Nobody suspects that they might be fallible, myself included. It's hard for progressives to admit they need conservatives; it's hard for conservatives to admit they needs progressives. At least, I think it is. To truly believe it.

This goes across the board...


The Religious Right is neither

I agree Jakopolis. Unfortunately, hubris is present in both progressive and conservative minds. Conservatives think the old order is best; progressives think they know how to fix things for the best.

Nobody suspects that they might be fallible, myself included. It's hard for progressives to admit they need conservatives; it's hard for conservatives to admit they needs progressives. At least, I think it is. To truly believe it.

I know we need both. But "conservatives" doesn't include the "Dark Age Christians" who hate minority (women, homosexual, black) rights... a group that needs to be systematically executed (is that too conservative to demand?).

"Those close-minded conservatives are so dogmatic and ignorant! They should be more open-minded, like we liberals are!" You don't see any irony in a sentiment like that? :rolleyes:

This goes across the board...


The Religious Right is neither

I hate that saying, it's obviously one of them, just not both at the same time! They are most definitly religious at least.

"Those close-minded conservatives are so dogmatic and ignorant! They should be more open-minded, like we liberals are!" You don't see any irony in a sentiment like that? :rolleyes:

I was about to say the same thing. I'm conservative, and I generally like to keep an open mind about most things.

Pray to my G-d or i'll have you all shot!

During this time, i will be burning you heretic queers on the stake...any questions?


Good! Let the purging begin! mwahahahahahahahaha!

Im wondering whats up with the influx of religious conservatives. I always thought that young people were supposed to be liberal, but it seems like there is more and more stupid conservatives with closed minds.

Give me your opinion.
My opinion?

So much for liberals accusing conservatives of stereotyping.

Why don't you practice some of the tolerance you and your fellow libs demand, but are unable to give?

I was about to say the same thing. I'm conservative, and I generally like to keep an open mind about most things.


I keep an open mind... it's just that i close it, if it's against my religion. I don't think that makes me bad technically... i could say the same for Liberals, you would never fathom the idea of not Giving Gay's and Lesbians rights such as civil unions and ummm adption i guess. So technically i can call you "liberals" close minded as well.

I am a conservative, though I am neither religeous nor am I nuts. To be honest, I see as many progressives being closed-minded to conservatives as conservatives to progressives.

I always try to aproach a disscusion with an oppen mind, which is one of the things I credit my conservatism to. I have seen the problems with both sides of the spectrum, but find that, in general, conservatism has fewer holes and more pragmatism than progressivism in their current state. I belive that it is not power that corrupts, but people that are inherently selfish, so placeing more power in the hands of a few is dangerous and intentional blindness. The government is already the single most powerful entity in the nation, and feal there is no reason to grant it any more power than it already has.

Yes, coperations do have more power than joe shmoe around the corner from me, but taxing small buissiness owners and investors to pay for wellfare for those who wont work is only exasterbateing the problem.

Liberals are so darn intollerant of intollerance.

Pray to my G-d or i'll have you all shot!

During this time, i will be burning you heretic queers on the stake...any questions?


Good! Let the purging begin! mwahahahahahahahaha!

Ugh... :rolleyes:

You do realize that it's people like you that drive people to make statements like the ones above, right?

Ugh... :rolleyes:

You do realize that it's people like you that drive people to make statements like the ones above, right?


Alluha Akbar! *does that shrill tongue voice the arabs do*

*blows up afterwards*

yay 72 virgins! :D

I too am curious why liberals demand rights and tolerance, yet do not tolerate my right to defend my beliefs. You merely blow it off as drivel. You claim to be opern minded, but then you say all i spew is rhetoric. Does anyone else see the irony here. Liberals and conservatives both tend to be hypocrytical, but it isn't as blatent in conservatives, and it isn't questioned in liberals.

I keep an open mind... it's just that i close it, if it's against my religion. I don't think that makes me bad technically... i could say the same for Liberals, you would never fathom the idea of not Giving Gay's and Lesbians rights such as civil unions and ummm adption i guess. So technically i can call you "liberals" close minded as well.

I fail to see how denying someone the rights you have is open minded. I may vehemently disagree with conservatives, but I don't make any attempt do deny them rights. I may not be the perfect example of being open minded, but in all my time here every arguement against gays having the same rights that everyone else has comes down to one thing. Bigotry. Something I don't want my mind open to.

I fail to see how denying someone the rights you have is open minded. I may vehemently disagree with conservatives, but I don't make any attempt do deny them rights. I may not be the perfect example of being open minded, but in all my time here every arguement against gays having the same rights that everyone else has comes down to one thing. Bigotry. Something I don't want my mind open to.


2 words...Moral Relativism... what you consider evil is accepted in other societies. Obviously we're gonna listen to our own, and not what the other people think, but it doesn't discount the fact that they look at us as Close Minded and Arrogant about their beliefs.

I fail to see how denying someone the rights you have is open minded. I may vehemently disagree with conservatives, but I don't make any attempt do deny them rights. I may not be the perfect example of being open minded, but in all my time here every arguement against gays having the same rights that everyone else has comes down to one thing. Bigotry. Something I don't want my mind open to.

No one wants to deny homosexuals their rights. I support giving them a civil union with every right married couples have. It's not about purposely oppressing homosexuals; it's about keeping a sacred practice the way it is and was meant to be.

Gays have every right that I do, they can marry a member of the opposite sex if they want to. I dont have the right to marry another man.

Given, it's not particularly a right that I desire.

Another point to be made is that there is more to the gay-mairage issue than just bigotry against homosexuals. The Family is the most basic unit of government. The husband and wife have kids, to whom they convey their morals and beliefs that the country was founded uppon. Homosexuals do not have the same social obligation to procreate, meaning that many only marry for the purpose of gaining the bennifits available to a family such as employer provided insurance(just an example.) Additionaly, many heterosexuals could exploit it in order to gain benifits only available to a spouse.

A major reason for the state constitutional amendments in the past election was that the homosexual lobby used the courts to try to alter what the law said (Read: Judicial activism), rather than going through the proper chanells of legistlature that changes in law are supposed to go through.

See, if you had an open mind, you might have known this before hand.

Note: I am not trying to turn this into a gay mairage debate, just trying to make a point.

No one wants to deny homosexuals their rights. I support giving them a civil union with every right married couples have. It's not about purposely oppressing homosexuals; it's about keeping a sacred practice the way it is and was meant to be.

Then it's okay for churches that want to marry gays to do so? After all, not every church wants to deny gays the right to marry.

Gays have every right that I do, they can marry a member of the opposite sex if they want to. I dont have the right to marry another man.

Given, it's not particularly a right that I desire.

Another point to be made is that there is more to the gay-mairage issue than just bigotry against homosexuals. The Family is the most basic unit of government. The husband and wife have kids, to whom they convey their morals and beliefs that the country was founded uppon. Homosexuals do not have the same social obligation to procreate, meaning that many only marry for the purpose of gaining the bennifits available to a family such as employer provided insurance(just an example.) Additionaly, many heterosexuals could exploit it in order to gain benifits only available to a spouse.

A major reason for the state constitutional amendments in the past election was that the homosexual lobby used the courts to try to alter what the law said (Read: Judicial activism), rather than going through the proper chanells of legistlature that changes in law are supposed to go through.

See, if you had an open mind, you might have known this before hand.

Touche salesman, touche.

I fail to see how denying someone the rights you have is open minded. I may vehemently disagree with conservatives, but I don't make any attempt do deny them rights. I'm curious, what is your possition on the govenment preventing privately owned companies from displaying Nativity Scenes?

So, Steel Fish, should I be denied the right to marry because I don't plan to have children? And gays don't have the same rights. They don't have the right to marry the consenting adult that they love.

I'm curious, what is your possition on the govenment preventing privately owned companies from displaying Nativity Scenes?They don't.

...I belive that it is not power that corrupts, but people that are inherently selfish, so placeing more power in the hands of a few is dangerous and intentional blindness. The government is already the single most powerful entity in the nation, and feal there is no reason to grant it any more power than it already has...

Power does corrupt, it can make a person selfish. Just because the government is powerful doesn't mean its controled by a few people(although thats what a few conservatives i know would probably want). I would support smaller federal government and more state and local government, and yet im still liberal. We should spread the power around, instead of centralizing it.

Wow, all I tend to see in these forums are liberals insulting religious and/or conservatives, calling them ignorant, morons, ignorant morons, bigots, stupid, stupid bigots, ignorant moronic stupid bigots, etc, etc. Why? Because they don't support liberalism.

Hypocracy? I'd say so.

Liberal Rule No. One: "Keep an open mind to all thoughts, beliefs and lifestyles, as long as they support our politics."

Hmmm... why argue religion? its based on faith. u cant argue against it. I believe youre wrong.... no I believe youre wrong....

uhh ok.

I'll become the more TOLERANT liberal when I get a real explaination thank you. I'll go back to sacrificing my lamb to apease the gods now... :headbang:

I fail to see how denying someone the rights you have is open minded. I may vehemently disagree with conservatives, but I don't make any attempt do deny them rights. I may not be the perfect example of being open minded, but in all my time here every arguement against gays having the same rights that everyone else has comes down to one thing. Bigotry. Something I don't want my mind open to.
You're begging the question. You're assuming that gay people deserve to have certain rights by virtue of being gay. Children don't have the right to marry adults. Yet, that's ok, since they're children, and can't think for themselves. There is no interest for the state to allow children to marry adults. But why then, should there be an interest in allowing gays to marry gays? Do they have children? Do they do anything more effectively than if they were seperate or if they roommates? If not, there is no compelling reason for them to be a protected group; dogs, children, and retards can love too. They get denied rights, but no one defends them.

So, Steel Fish, should I be denied the right to marry because I don't plan to have children? And gays don't have the same rights. They don't have the right to marry the consenting adult that they love. I'm not going to get in a debate about gay mairage, mostly because I realy don't care enough about it. All I was doing is presenting some of the reasons beind the opposing veiwpoint that you had apparently neglected.

My point was that you made the claim that the only reason for the anti-gay mairage lobby was biggotry, while I am aware that it is not the only reason, and that you should be more open minded.

Wow, all I tend to see in these forums are liberals insulting religious and/or conservatives, calling them ignorant, morons, ignorant morons, bigots, stupid, stupid bigots, ignorant moronic stupid bigots, etc, etc. Why? Because they don't support liberalism.

Hypocracy? I'd say so.

Liberal Rule No. One: "Keep an open mind to all thoughts, beliefs and lifestyles, as long as they support our politics."

True enough. Since my politics say to respect others beliefs, it contains an inherent paradox. I cannot respect the beliefs of someone who will not allow others to have different beliefs or try to restict their practice. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Ahh, the old "we have too many religious, facist, armed, stupid conservitives that wouldent know a soybean from a tofu turkey. lets kill them all"...

How refreshing.

We have far too many of both liberals and conservatives in NS. And most of them have very little clue what they are talking about.

I don't know what I'm talking about most of the time, but at least I'm square in the middle.

This is interesting (well, it isn't, but it makes my post at least seem more interesting).

Anyway, There are reasons why "Liberals" don't take kindly to "Conservatives". It's all well and good that you want you want your "rights" defended, but in your mind, these rights of yours are directly denying basic freedoms to various minorities (gay, ethnic, religious, etc.), and have been for centuries.

As I said, wanting your "rights" protected is fine. But what you think is right is selfish, rude, archaic, and out-right stupid in other people's minds.

This is interesting (well, it isn't, but it makes my post at least seem more interesting).

Anyway, There are reasons why "Liberals" don't take kindly to "Conservatives". It's all well and good that you want you want your "rights" defended, but in your mind, these rights of yours are directly denying basic freedoms to various minorities (gay, ethnic, religious, etc.), and have been for centuries.

As I said, wanting your "rights" protected is fine. But what you think is right is selfish, rude, archaic, and out-right stupid in other people's minds.
You're assuming gays should be a protected minority. That's a logical fallacy.

Putting words in one's mouth is no more ridiculous.

Oh, gee. Another one of these threads. How many do we need, people, before we understand that we all have different opinions, and saying that x group is scary/stupid/inbred/snot-nosed/worthy of genocide won't get anyone anywhere. It'll just piss us all off.

Oh, gee. Another one of these threads. How many do we need, people, before we understand that we all have different opinions, and saying that x group is scary/stupid/inbred/snot-nosed/worthy of genocide won't get anyone anywhere. It'll just piss us all off.


I agree with this man/woman/transvestite (just being safe with this one).

Putting words in one's mouth is no more ridiculous.
Sorry, when sometime talks about "denying basic freedoms to [gays]," and the only freedom anyone agrees they've been denied is marriage, I fail to see how anyone could construe what you said any way besides what I wrote.

I've noticed a scary amount of the newer posters are very conservative. :confused:

quite frankly.. thank god for that.. this forum is FAR too liberal.. my god, i even had one poll to gage peoples feelings toward incest.. 1/3 of the poll participants suggested that so long both parties were consenting there was no problem with it.. INCEST.. ?? obviously this line of thinking is FAR outside the main stream... we need more of a balance on this forum

True enough. Since my politics say to respect others beliefs, it contains an inherent paradox. I cannot respect the beliefs of someone who will not allow others to have different beliefs or try to restict their practice. If the shoe fits, wear it.

haha.. by gum, that sounds just like AMerican foregin policy.. perhaps its the democrats/liberals who have been responsible for the direction our foregin policy has been taking in the past few years

I'm not going to get in a debate about gay mairage, mostly because I realy don't care enough about it. All I was doing is presenting some of the reasons beind the opposing veiwpoint that you had apparently neglected.

My point was that you made the claim that the only reason for the anti-gay mairage lobby was biggotry, while I am aware that it is not the only reason, and that you should be more open minded.

I've yet to see an arguement against gay marraige that isn't a cover for bigotry.

And to Arramannar, First of all any twit knows that advocating gay marraige has nothing to do with marrying children or dogs. It's about consenting adults. And since I don't want children the government or society has no vested interest in whether I get married or not. But it's still not illegal.
And all minorities should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. If you are the typical conservative, then any supposition liberals might make about that stereotype would be true. Fortunately I know reasonable conservatives. You're just not one.

I have one simple condition when it comes to other people's views; don't try to force them on me. Believe that gays are evil, believe that evolutionists have the right idea, hell, paint yourself green, strip naked and worship the watermelons for all I care.

Just don't try to convert me; and don't try to make me behave as you would have me behave, or believe what you would have me believe. Only two people are allowed to try that on, and last time I checked, I was old enough to tell my parents to sod off if they tried.

I've probably bollixed it up completely, and no-one knows what I'm going on about, so perhaps this will clear things;

I disagree with everything you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

I've yet to see an arguement against gay marraige that isn't a cover for bigotry.

And to Arramannar, First of all any twit knows that advocating gay marraige has nothing to do with marrying children or dogs. It's about consenting adults. And since I don't want children the government or society has no vested interest in whether I get married or not. But it's still not illegal.
And all minorities should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. If you are the typical conservative, then any supposition liberals might make about that stereotype would be true. Fortunately I know reasonable conservatives. You're just not one.
Oh, but it does. You're changing the status quo. You have the burden of proof to convince the world that gays deserve the privledge to marry. Love is not something the state should be concerning itself with. And your marriage should be illegal, under those conditions.

Oh, but it does. You're changing the status quo. You have the burden of proof to convince the world that gays deserve the privledge to marry. Love is not something the state should be concerning itself with. And your marriage should be illegal, under those conditions.

Oh please. That arguement is specious. The government undoes the staus quo all the time. If every body else gets the right so should they. Since it's not for me, it shouldn't be illegal for them. It's been quite a while since chidren were the primary reason to marry. The government is not concerned about love, but it should be interested in the extension of equal rights. And protection of mutual property and mutual decisions making are also factors in marraiges. There is no reason this shouldn't be extended to all adults. But there is another thread for this subject.

Oh please. That arguement is specious. The government undoes the staus quo all the time. If every body else gets the right so should they. Since it's not for me, it shouldn't be illegal for them. It's been quite a while since chidren were the primary reason to marry. The government is not concerned about love, but it should be interested in the extension of equal rights. And protection of mutual property and mutual decisions making are also factors in marraiges. There is no reason this shouldn't be extended to all adults. But there is another thread for this subject.
It undoes the quo for a reason. Not everyone gets that right, nor should everyone. In fact, fewer people should, not more. The government should only care about what is best for society, not about equality. In a world where everyone is equal then everyone is the lowest common denominator.

Sorry, when sometime talks about "denying basic freedoms to [gays]," and the only freedom anyone agrees they've been denied is marriage, I fail to see how anyone could construe what you said any way besides what I wrote.

I understand completely. But that doesn't justify putting words into my mouth.

The government should only care about what is best for society, not about equality. In a world where everyone is equal then everyone is the lowest common denominator.

The "lowest common denominator" discussion is an antiquated scare-tactic used by conservative thinkers like Burke. However, modern political theory on equality dictates that the aim is not to bring everyone down, but to ensure that the lowest level in society is AS HIGH AS IT CAN BE - this goes for rights, benefits, everything. It's not at all the same thing, and I would highly recommend reading up on the subject; interesting stuff! After all, what is best for any society but ensuring the maximum quality of life possible for all its citizens?

I've yet to see an arguement against gay marraige that isn't a cover for bigotry.

And to Arramannar, First of all any twit knows that advocating gay marraige has nothing to do with marrying children or dogs. It's about consenting adults. And since I don't want children the government or society has no vested interest in whether I get married or not. But it's still not illegal.
And all minorities should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. If you are the typical conservative, then any supposition liberals might make about that stereotype would be true. Fortunately I know reasonable conservatives. You're just not one.

sine when has marraige been about love ? past 20 maybe 30 years ? throughout history marriage has been about politics, economics, social acceptance, religion, procreation.. and has been defined as between a man and a woman... Now we throw out 2000+ years of history because a minority feels left out ?

As far as i see it.. the government INCENTIVES it allows to promot marriage are just that.. incentives not rights... If this is simply about equality, the government should recind those incentives and again acheive equality without having to redefine what marraige means.

I understand completely. But that doesn't justify putting words into my mouth.
Putting words in your mouth is different than rephrasing. I don't see the need to type what you say verbatim each time.

Im wondering whats up with the influx of religious conservatives. I always thought that young people were supposed to be liberal, but it seems like there is more and more stupid conservatives with closed minds.

Give me your opinion.
Says the new poster who is extremely liberal.

I think it is about even in terms of new posters. You just recognize the ones that piss people off the most.

Where are they coming from, you ask?

Let's see...

The breeding habits of the uneducated (Who are more likely to be religious), and the educated...

The anti-abortion, anti-protection, anti-gay thing religious people shove down everyone's throat...

The habit the religious groups have of picking the kids up off the street who got screwed up because of the anti-abortion, anti-protection, anti-gay thing...

The constant attempts to 'sanitize' history and say America is wonderful and that Christians did all the work to make it wonderful (Let's just pretend that the founding fathers were all Fundies instead of Deists, atheists, agnostics, Satanists, and so forth mostly out to make a buck...).

The constant attempts to ruin education in general, censor every thing possible, and shove down the notion that children should be lied to as much as humanly possible.

And, of course, McCarthy.


--

You honestly wonder where they all come from?

Someone needs to put a fricking condom on the cross already.

--

And for the record, I'm a non-affiliated former-Republican (I left because I refuse to be part of a party whose leader uses dark age rhetorical devices).

Both sides are screwed up as hell, and have no idea what they're doing. Libertarians too.

And screw tollerance. There's people on this planet that should be shot. It's just not from a genetic issue that they have no control over and which has no objective negative effect on society. It's what people think and do that makes them worthless piles of Dubya.

People should just be open to new ideas. I hate how most conservatives just think that we should do things how they think is right. Times change, and we should change too.

Well don't liberals want the country to be run their way too? When it comes down to it, Conservatives and Liberals are pretty much the same. Both can be fairly intolerable with those whom they disagree with. Liberals just tend to disagree with fewer people, which gives them the illusion of being more tolerant.

Where are they coming from, you ask?

Let's see...

The breeding habits of the uneducated (Who are more likely to be religious), and the educated...

The anti-abortion, anti-protection, anti-gay thing religious people shove down everyone's throat...

The habit the religious groups have of picking the kids up off the street who got screwed up because of the anti-abortion, anti-protection, anti-gay thing...

The constant attempts to 'sanitize' history and say America is wonderful and that Christians did all the work to make it wonderful (Let's just pretend that the founding fathers were all Fundies instead of Deists, atheists, agnostics, Satanists, and so forth mostly out to make a buck...).

The constant attempts to ruin education in general, censor every thing possible, and shove down the notion that children should be lied to as much as humanly possible.

And, of course, McCarthy.


--

You honestly wonder where they all come from?

Someone needs to put a fricking condom on the cross already.

--

And for the record, I'm a non-affiliated former-Republican (I left because I refuse to be part of a party whose leader uses dark age rhetorical devices).

Both sides are screwed up as hell, and have no idea what they're doing. Libertarians too.

And screw tollerance. There's people on this planet that should be shot. It's just not from a genetic issue that they have no control over and which has no objective negative effect on society. It's what people think and do that makes them worthless piles of Dubya.

Wow, you're a little worked up. Oh and just so you know, not every religious person is uneducated or a "fundie" as you so crassly put it.

Im wondering whats up with the influx of religious conservatives. I always thought that young people were supposed to be liberal, but it seems like there is more and more stupid conservatives with closed minds.

Give me your opinion.

My opnion is that it takes a very close minded person to make that statement.

Cheers.

Well don't liberals want the country to be run their way too? When it comes down to it, Conservatives and Liberals are pretty much the same. Both can be fairly intolerable with those whom they disagree with. Liberals just tend to disagree with fewer people, which gives them the illusion of being more tolerant.

Liberals disagree with a bit over 50% of the population lately. They think they are open-minded when they most definitely are not. :shrug:

Wow, you're a little worked up. Oh and just so you know, not every religious person is uneducated or a "fundie" as you so crassly put it.

I'm in a bad mood. I get especially honest when I'm in a bad mood.

And gee, gosh, didn't know there were exceptions.

Not like I used words like "more likely" and "habit" in place of "certain" and "always".

It's tendancies. Its all tendancies. And its mostly certain groups, at that.

There are religious atheists for crying out loud. You can usually safely presume someone who doesn't use absolute statements is generally not INTENDING an absolute impression.

Are you quite done trying to put words in to my mouth yet and otherwise essentially suggest a -lie- about my statements?

Liberals disagree with a bit over 50% of the population lately. They think they are open-minded when they most definitely are not. :shrug:

Since when does open-minded mean 'agrees with'?

I'm open minded about homosexuality. I've considered it.

Still don't want to cuddle with a guy.

Well don't liberals want the country to be run their way too? When it comes down to it, Conservatives and Liberals are pretty much the same. Both can be fairly intolerable with those whom they disagree with. Liberals just tend to disagree with fewer people, which gives them the illusion of being more tolerant.

Ideally, I would like the country run my way. But it's a democracy, so no one gets that. But I would never diminish the rights of the groups I disagree with. They have the same right as everyone else. They just wouldn't be able to take civil rights from others. I'm intolerant of intolerance. Just leave everybody else alone and maybe they'll leave you alone. If we lived by the golden rule " Do onto others as you would have them do unto you."
Not as they have done, but as You Would HAVE them do unto you.

Liberals disagree with a bit over 50% of the population lately. They think they are open-minded when they most definitely are not. :shrug:

This comment makes reference to the concept running throughout this thread: that an intolerance for intolerance is hypocritical.

But I look at your comment and am troubled; if "over 50% of the population" refuses to accept the goal of equality, as well as individual freedoms for ALL individuals, does that not suggest that your culture and country no longer stands for the ideals on which it was based? Should one really be insulted by a group whose intolerance is merely focused on ensuring no one's individual rights are encroached upon by any other's - a group whose intolerance is used to protect the highest principles of your land, the very principles you yourself use to protect your own right to hold (personally) whatever opinions you like?

Since when does open-minded mean 'agrees with'?

I'm open minded about homosexuality. I've considered it.

Still don't want to cuddle with a guy.

If all open-minded means is "well I'll think about it, ok I've thought about it, you're wrong and I'm right" then its not open-minded at all.

Open-minded means you are willing to accept and tolerate things that you disagree with. Liberals, seeing as we get to see all sorts of things like "Bush is Hitler", "NAZIS", "Conservative Nutcases" aren't being very tolerant and don't seem willing to accept things.

But hey, I'm not open-minded. I am right and you, if you disagree with me, are wrong. I don't hide behind any smoke of feigning open-mindedness. I think about things and my opinion changes over time but damnit I'm right at any particular time.

I'm in a bad mood. I get especially honest when I'm in a bad mood.

And gee, gosh, didn't know there were exceptions.

Not like I used words like "more likely" and "habit" in place of "certain" and "always".

It's tendancies. Its all tendancies. And its mostly certain groups, at that.

There are religious atheists for crying out loud. You can usually safely presume someone who doesn't use absolute statements is generally not INTENDING an absolute impression.

Are you quite done trying to put words in to my mouth yet and otherwise essentially suggest a -lie- about my statements?

Sorry, you just temporarily pissed me off. My apologies.

This comment makes reference to the concept running throughout this thread: that an intolerance for tolerance is hypocritical.

But I look at your comment and am troubled; if "over 50% of the population" refuses to accept the goal of equality, as well as individual freedoms for ALL individuals, does that not suggest that your culture and country no longer stands for the ideals on which it was based? Should one really be insulted by a group whose intolerance is merely focused on ensuring no one's individual rights are encroached upon by any other's - a group whose intolerance is used to protect the highest principles of your land, the very principles you yourself use to protect your own right to hold (personally) whatever opinions you like?

If liberals were trying to do any of that I'd be a liberal. They aren't, I'm not.

Ideally, I would like the country run my way. But it's a democracy, so no one gets that. But I would never diminish the rights of the groups I disagree with. They have the same right as everyone else. They just wouldn't be able to take civil rights from others. I'm intolerant of intolerance. Just leave everybody else alone and maybe they'll leave you alone. If we lived by the golden rule " Do onto others as you would have them do unto you."
Not as they have done, but as You Would HAVE them do unto you.

Well it seems lately that every liberal I know is intolerant of anyone they even begin to percieve as intolerant.

Oh and by agree with, I meant, don't think its wrong.

Wow. Redefinition. Always a good way to win an argument, eh?

Open-mindedness is open-mindedness. It means, roughly that your MIND is OPEN to new ideas.

It does not mean ACCEPTING or even TOLERANT.

They do tend to RESULT in those attitudes, because to be open-minded generally requires some information and careful consideration, which can lead to empathy.

I have OPENED my MIND to the possibility of being homosexual or bisexual. Indeed, when I was younger, I was close-minded about the possibility of being sexual at all. Later, I opened my mind to sexuality, and found that I liked curves, but not pokey bits.

As a result of being OPEN to new ideas, I was more able to obtain empathy for persons who actually took that path, making it easier for me to ACCEPT them (To the point that most of my friends are bisexual, and all of the gals I've dated have been). It also allows me to more easily TOLERATE things which I personally find less than pleasant to think about or see, like an all-male threesome spoogefest with a clown fetish going on. The idea makes my face pinch up like a bad smell just hit me, but I can TOLERATE it rather than try to slam my head in to the wall to block the idea.

Notice how those words all have their own function?

Liberals won't consider closed-mindedness, so that makes them closed minded instead of open minded. If they were truly open-minded they would see closed-mindedness and open-mindedness as equally desirable things.

Sorry, you just temporarily pissed me off. My apologies.

We'll call it even, eh?

No harm, no foul, my friend.

Liberals won't consider closed-mindedness, so that makes them closed minded instead of open minded. If they were truly open-minded they would see closed-mindedness and open-mindedness as equally desirable things.

While that's an amusing statement, it's also a wrong one.

Open-minded means you consider something. Don't mistake it for being unconditionally agreeable.

Watch this. I'm being open minded about killing my roommate. Mmnkay. I could strangle him. I could cut his throat. I could bash his head in. I bet I could hide the evidence.

But I wouldn't derive any joy out of it. I would get in serious trouble. I would stain the carpet, and its ugly enough as it is. I'd never get to have that foursome with lesbian triplets.

Well, I opened my mind to it, but it looks like a bad idea, so I won't do it.

I agree. Being openminded doesn't mean you have to blindly swallow whatever shit comes down the pike. It just means that you don't close your mind towards it. You view it as just another choice, instead of something inherently wrong. That being said, I'm probably not terribly openminded about too many things.

Also being tolerant does mean you have to like something. I may tolerate the bad breath of the guy I sit next to on the bus, but that doesn't mean have to like it. Being intolerant would be to tell him to hold is breath or change seats.

Liberals won't consider closed-mindedness, so that makes them closed minded instead of open minded. If they were truly open-minded they would see closed-mindedness and open-mindedness as equally desirable things.

Plus...

Being open-minded about closed-mindedness...

"Ok, I can accept blind hatred of African-Americans, Jews, and other sundry minorities. That's cool with me, 'cause I'm 'open-minded.'"

Wow.

Wow. Redefinition. Always a good way to win an argument, eh?

Redefinition what? That is the definition I have always used.

Open-mindedness is open-mindedness. It means, roughly that your MIND is OPEN to new ideas.

If that is all it means, it means nothing and this debate would end here. Everyone is open-minded. Everyone hears new ideas and accepts or dismisses them. Period. The most staunchly conservative "close-minded" person had to hear the idea of homosexuality and take a stand on it to become "close-minded" in the eyes of liberals. He was open to the idea, considered it and said "dat just ain't right" and that was that.

Cheers.

I'll give the rest of your post a reply after you have kindly redefined "open-mindedness" into something that actually matters.

Plus...

Being open-minded about closed-mindedness...

"Ok, I can accept blind hatred of African-Americans, Jews, and other sundry minorities. That's cool with me, 'cause I'm 'open-minded.'"

Wow.

Now this is something that I definitely would not be open minded about. Blind hatred of anything is generally pretty stupidass.

Being openminded doesn't mean that you have to accept it as a personal alternative for yourself, but rather a viable option for a human being to choose. Yes, I will admit that I am pretty close-minded a bout homosexuality. Doesn't mean I'm intolerant though. My opinion is that sexuality and even marraige in general is none of the gov't's damn business. What you do in the privacy of your own home is yours and yours alone. Its not my business, don't want to pry into it and I don't want you to tell me about it.

Redefinition what? That is the definition I have always used.


Well then, bucko, you've been screwing up for quite a long time.


If that is all it means, it means nothing and this debate would end here. Everyone is open-minded. Everyone hears new ideas and accepts or dismisses them. Period. The most staunchly conservative "close-minded" person had to hear the idea of homosexuality and take a stand on it to become "close-minded" in the eyes of liberals. He was open to the idea, considered it and said "dat just ain't right" and that was that.


You really need to open your eyes. Watch this.

Open Minded Bob vs. Closed Minded Jack

OMB: "Would I ever have sex with Jack? Hmn. Well, I've only dated girls... but.. well... let me think about it... hmnn... nah. I'm pretty sure I just like girls."

CMJ: "Would I ever have sex with Bob? Hell no! God, how could you even suggest that! He's a GUY!"

Note: This presumes that, for both people, this is the first time they've considered the idea. OMB may well have the same reaction as CMJ AFTER consideration, but not before.


Cheers.

I'll give the rest of your post a reply after you have kindly redefined "open-mindedness" into something that actually matters.

I'll change the definition of open-mindedness the day I change the definition of purple to mean 'picture that when you squint at it aliens pop out of your ears and sing show tunes".

Being openminded doesn't mean that you have to accept it as a personal alternative for yourself, but rather a viable option for a human being to choose. Yes, I will admit that I am pretty close-minded a bout homosexuality. Doesn't mean I'm intolerant though. My opinion is that sexuality and even marraige in general is none of the gov't's damn business. What you do in the privacy of your own home is yours and yours alone. Its not my business, don't want to pry into it and I don't want you to tell me about it.

If you've taken the time to consider it as a possibility, then you're open-minded. Having made a decision doesn't change that.

The difference is knee-jerk vs. thoughtful consideration. No other aspects.

Hell, dictionary.com lists open-minded as

o·pen-mind·ed (pn-mndd)
adj.

Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. See Synonyms at broad-minded.

And broad-minded as

broad-mind·ed (brôdmndd)
adj.

Having or characterized by tolerant or liberal views.

Cheers.

/fing nationstates, this post should of come first./

Well then, bucko, you've been screwing up for quite a long time.

uh huh. Words normally mean far more than just their parts. You’re taking open-minded as if it means only its parts. Hardly.

You really need to open your eyes. Watch this.

Open Minded Bob vs. Closed Minded Jack

OMB: "Would I ever have sex with Jack? Hmn. Well, I've only dated girls... but.. well... let me think about it... hmnn... nah. I'm pretty sure I just like girls."

CMJ: "Would I ever have sex with Bob? Hell no! God, how could you even suggest that! He's a GUY!"

Note: This presumes that, for both people, this is the first time they've considered the idea. OMB may well have the same reaction as CMJ AFTER consideration, but not before.

No one is able to come to a view or decision without first consideration. Period. Its not possible for a question to arise and then answer to immediately arise to that question. There will always be consideration. The length of time or the amount of thought put into it matters not if the definition of being open-minded is simply considering an idea. In your example both OMB and CMJ were open-minded by your definition.

/fing nationstates, this post should of come first./

uh huh. Words normally mean far more than just their parts. You’re taking open-minded as if it means only its parts. Hardly.

No one is able to come to a view or decision without first consideration. Period. Its not possible for a question to arise and then answer to immediately arise to that question. There will always be consideration. The length of time or the amount of thought put into it matters not if the definition of being open-minded is simply considering an idea. In your example both OMB and CMJ were open-minded by your definition.

So you're suggesting that every time you ask someone something, they will consider it?

So if I asked you your name, you'd have to think for a moment?

And bucko, read the above definition. That's THE definition.

If the people you deal with have screwed it up, well, sorry, but you've probably been dealing with spin doctors who like to say "Open minded means you'd let people eat babies" or some junk.

Read a bloody dictionary.

So you're suggesting that every time you ask someone something, they will consider it?

The first time yes. Period. Its not possible for someone to not consider it. As far as I understand they biologically have to consider it.

So if I asked you your name, you'd have to think for a moment?

On occasion.

[quote]And bucko, read the above definition. That's THE definition.

Yeah, I posted it. And the dictionary lists the synonym as "having liberal views".

Never mind that we could get into a debate about whether or not the definition in a dictionary is the real definition used by the public or not...

I also note your defention and the dictionaries are different.

You have it as

Open-minded means you consider something. Don't mistake it for being unconditionally agreeable.

The dictionary has it as

Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others. See Synonyms at broad-minded.

And receptiveness is defined as

1. Capable of or qualified for receiving.
2. Ready or willing to receive favorably: receptive to their proposals.
3. Linguistics. Of or relating to the skills of listening and reading.

and consider is defined as

1. To think carefully about.
2. To think or deem to be; regard as. See Usage Note at as1.
3. To form an opinion about; judge: considers waste to be criminal.
4. To take into account; bear in mind: Her success is not surprising if you consider her excellent training.
5. To show consideration for: failed to consider the feelings of others.
6. To esteem; regard.
7. To look at thoughtfully.

Different, very different.

You need to read the dictionary as well apparently.

From the dictionary



1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives


1 : PRESERVATIVE
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism : as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : TRADITIONAL b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners <a conservative suit>


Or from the thesuarus

Entry Word: liberal
Function: adjective
Text: 1 marked by generosity and openhandedness <a liberal allowance for his son>
Synonyms bounteous, bountiful, free, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded, unsparing
Related Word exuberant, lavish, prodigal, profuse; benevolent, charitable, eleemosynary, philanthropic
Contrasted Words closefisted, miserly, niggardly, parsimonious, penurious, stingy, tight, tightfisted; meager, scanty
Antonyms close
2
Synonyms PLENTIFUL, abundant, ample, bounteous, bountiful, copious, generous, plenteous, plenty
3 not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms <modern young people usually have a liberal attitude toward sex>
Synonyms advanced, broad, broad-minded, progressive, radical, tolerant, wide
Related Word forbearing, indulgent, lenient
Contrasted Words rigid, rigorous, strict, stringent; dictatorial, doctrinaire, dogmatic, oracular; conservative, reactionary
Antonyms authoritarian



Entry Word: conservative
Function: adjective
Text: 1 tending to resist or oppose change <took a very conservative stance politically>
Synonyms die-hard, fogyish, old-line, orthodox, reactionary, right, tory, traditionalistic
Contrasted Words modern, progressive, radical
Antonyms advanced
2 kept or keeping within bounds <equally conservative in speech and action>
Synonyms controlled, discreet, moderate, reasonable, restrained, temperate, unexcessive, unextreme
Related Word cautious, chary, wary; circumspect, politic, proper, prudent
Contrasted Words expansive, unconstrained; excessive, freewheeling, uncontrolled, unrestrained


Maybe you can tell be these which you'd rather be associated with by these.

-snip-

Thanks for quoting archaic definitions that have nothing to do with modern American political stances.