Sunday, May 08, 2005

Why are liberals so rude?

Its a question that has bugged me for quite a while. Why do most liberals act so rudely? By rude, I tend to consider it rude when you resort to name calling or abusive language in the course of an otherwise normal discussion.

For example, Sen Reid, the senate Minority leader recently described Bush as "a loser" in a discussion in Las Vegas. Afterwards he apologized, so I suppose that is encouraging, but it again makes me wonder why name calling is appropriate in public discourse in the first place.

Granted, conservatives aren't blameless here, Ann Coulter has crossed that line in my opinion many times, and I would tell her the same thing.

But when so many more liberals resort to this, it makes me wonder. Is it simply that they have no foundation for their arguments, so they resort to a attack to defend type of position? Why do they (and Ann) not understand that any valid arguments get lost in translation, in a sense, when wrapped up in vicious rhetoric.

Another example, personal this time, happened when I posted a comment on a liberal blogger's column in regards to the Microsoft and Gleam issue. The author is a fairly vocal liberal blogger in the Seattle area. He posted his applause to Microsoft's change in positions. I posted a comment about my position that the legislation is less of an issue to me then keeping corporations out of government.

A person commented "Will anti-gay groups in the United States boycott Microsoft now? Probably. But these groups have already decided that they have no interest in being a major player in the 21st century. They’ve already made very clear decisions that teaching faith is more important than teaching science, while the rest of the world is going in the opposite direction and striving to become the world leaders in technology. "

Makes it fairly clear that he felt that most or all of the anti gay groups were fundamentalist christian.

Why he decided to insert evolution/creationism into a debate on gay rights, I dont know, but I fell for the 'lure' and made mention that "As for your complaints which you clearly direct at christians, I think your focus on evolution marks you somewhat. There is also something called intelligent design, and it supports both evolution and creationism. Look it up."

Better I had kept quiet. (Boy if I had a nickel for every time I have said that....)

So enter "c", who could be the original poster for all I know. He jumped in with this: There is also something called intelligent design, and it supports both evolution and creationism.igent design is just another wrapper for putting the Book of Gensis into science classrooms, i.e., killing science. The christian taliban hates science because it discredits their laughable superstition.

Comment by C — 5/7/05

(the missing words are the result of a design flaw in the comment page, not his ignorance...)

Feeling a tad offended by the "Christian Taliban" remark, I countered with this:

C,
Calling people who have a different faith presentation then you do the “christian taliban” is patently unfair.

I personally don’t feel threatened by evolution, since as a concept it is clearly true. The only issue between it and creationism is whether intelligent design caused it or if it was random.

An intelligent evaluation of the two positions is not that hard to do, and when done shows that evolution is not threatened by the concept of intelligent design, whether that intelligence is God or Aliens.

Personally I don’t worry about it. I can teach my children alternate viewpoints at home if I choose.

I do think the fact that children taught thusly are ridiculed in classrooms however, is another example of those demanding tolerance not giving it.

Leave people room to disagree, and find the common grounds. Leave the name calling to Ann Coulter and Michael Moore.

Comment by Karl — 5/7/05


I thought I was being fairly mellow.

Well, today I saw this response from C:

Calling people who have a different faith presentation then you do the "christian taliban" is patently unfair.not a matter of “faith presentation,” whatever that is. We have the christian taliban trying to put science and superstition on an equal plane. I’m calling a spade a spade. These people are bible-thumping wackos.

Calling people who have a different faith presentation then you do the ?christian taliban? is patently unfair.not a matter of “faith presentation,” whatever that is. We have the christian taliban trying to put science and superstition on an equal plane. I’m calling a spade a spade. These people are bible-thumping wackos.

An intelligent evaluation of the two positions is not that hard to do, and when done shows that evolution is not threatened by the concept of intelligent design, whether that intelligence is God or Aliens.led “intelligent design” is nothing more than superstition in new clothing. If you want to go to church and pray to it, fine. But keep your religion out of science classes. It doesn’t belong there.

Personally I don?t worry about it. I can teach my children alternate viewpoints at home if I choose.s right, and I wouldn’t challenge your right to turn your children into bible-thumping idiots if that’s what you want to do. I’m confident that, if you do a good job of it, I will run into them someday in the future. They were be standing behind a counter, wearing a hairnet, asking me if I’d like fries with that Coke. Just keep your superstitions out of the public schools.

I do think the fact that children taught thusly are ridiculed in classrooms however, is another example of those demanding tolerance not giving it.as nothing to do with tolerance. You and your fellow christian wingnut wackos want to inject superstition into the science curriculum. You are no different than the Catholic church in the 16th century.

Comment by C — 5/7/05 11:04 pm


My final comment was:

C,

Thanks for proving my point so effectively.

Why is it liberals must resort to cheap shot arguments? The only reasonable explanation, is that you have no valid position, so you attack as a defense.

At no time in any of this did I resort to any vitriol or name calling, yet you, knowing nothing about me, called me a “christian wingnut wacko”insinuate that I am part of the “Christian Taliban”, insist I want to turn my children into “bible-thumping idiots” the further insult my children’s learning potential by insisting they “will be standing behind a counter, wearing a hairnet, asking me if I’d like fries with that Coke”.

My son is a Freshman at Sacramento State and my daughter is an honor student at her High School, because I taught them to think intelligently by examining all data based on its merits, using logic not stereotypes, and not to respond to honest discussions with ad hominem personal attacks, insults and knee jerk arguments.

Pity they understand what honest debate is and you don’t.

I try to support mutual understanding and moderation, you just want hate and stereotypes. Have fun, you are no longer worth my time to respond to, unless you have some honest issue to discuss. If I want vitriol, I have Al Franken, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore. I don’t need it here.

Between the two of us, its you who is the bigot, not me.


****

I think that makes my feelings fairly clear. This guy feels its ok to insult me, and my children, so he can denounce my 16th century stupidity. And exactly how does he figure this will help anything? Its so stupid and prejudicial.

I admit in the past I have been a hothead, and I credit the more moderate approach I try to use now to the influence of many people I debate with on the DADL-OT list who have shown me by example a better way to exchange ideas.

We still disagree and even argue occasionally, but none of them has felt the need to call my kids losers.

A big difference...and one I am more grateful for everyday.

By the way, it seems to me that The Taliban should be added to Godwins law, as they are effectively the modern Nazi's.