Impeaching President Trump

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Very misleading headline. Tucker is a stand out at Fox News, he isn’t Fox News. For example, I like Tucker a lot. I tend to not like Fox News as a whole.

What makes the sword better than the sickle?

[feniin]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok but that doesn't justify your position that you are consistency labeling people based on what you deem their political affiliation or philosophical views for them. They will even correct you and you still label people based on your opinion. How is that any different than racism?

You are literally just substituting for race for anything you deem as a negative point of view. You literally think you are inferior to those points of view and your self determination of their philosophy is correct minus the fact that 1000 different people could get 1000 different takeaways from one persons philosophy. That's why you can't utilize 99% of the arguments that you've made here.

Hence why you need to side on caution when labeling or grouping people because that's a very shallow point of view.

She's a plant just like Jill Stein was.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Teppler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Very misleading headline. Tucker is a stand out at Fox News, he isn’t Fox News. For example, I like Tucker a lot. I tend to not like Fox News as a whole.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok but that doesn't justify your position that you are consistency labeling people based on what you deem their political affiliation or philosophical views for them. They will even correct you and you still label people based on your opinion. How is that any different than racism?

You are literally just substituting for race for anything you deem as a negative point of view. You literally think you are inferior to those points of view and your self determination of their philosophy is correct minus the fact that 1000 different people could get 1000 different takeaways from one persons philosophy. That's why you can't utilize 99% of the arguments that you've made here.

Hence why you need to side on caution when labeling or grouping people because that's a very shallow point of view.

People who label other people based on the political affiliation or philosophical views they have expressed are the real racists. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Zeboim]

Putting chemicals in the water to make the Frogloks gay

[Rader]

Originally Posted by Zeboim [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Putting chemicals in the water to make the Frogloks gay

Clue to Zeboim

The frogloks are gay. They don't need any chemicals.

[Horza]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Horza [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]



People who label other people based on the political affiliation or philosophical views they have expressed are the real racists. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I know this might be hard understand but they are equally as bad. If you aren't sticking to the true definition of what someone identifies as, then you are going off your own opinion. That is fine but that just means you are a bigot to thinking your own opinion is constantly inferior to others. Which means you tend to put more faith in your own opinion then peoples own opinion about themselves. I'd rather try to take people at their word then verify. I guess that's just a syndrome of someone who "doesn't really like people" and thinks they want to change the world for people that you have.

[Wonkie]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I know this might be hard understand but they are equally as bad. If you aren't sticking to the true definition of what someone identifies as, then you are going off your own opinion. That is fine but that just means you are a bigot to thinking your own opinion is constantly inferior to others. Which means you tend to put more faith in your own opinion then peoples own opinion about themselves. I'd rather try to take people at their word then verify. I guess that's just a syndrome of someone who "doesn't really like people" and thinks they want to change the world for people that you have.

High how are you?

[BadOrangeMan]

https://reason.com/2012/04/10/born-this-way/

In a study I conducted with colleagues Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek, we tested how well liberals and conservatives could understand each other. We asked more than 2,000 American visitors to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out normally, answering as themselves. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as they think a "typical liberal" would respond. One-third of the time they were asked to fill it out as a "typical conservative" would respond. This design allowed us to examine the stereotypes that each side held about the other. More important, it allowed us to assess how accurate they were by comparing people's expectations about "typical" partisans to the actual responses from partisans on the left and the right. Who was best able to pretend to be the other?

The results were clear and consistent. Moderates and conservatives were most accurate in their predictions, whether they were pretending to be liberals or conservatives. Liberals were the least accurate, especially those who described themselves as "very liberal." The biggest errors in the whole study came when liberals answered the care and fairness questions while pretending to be conservatives. When faced with statements such as "one of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal" or "justice is the most important requirement for a society," liberals assumed that conservatives would disagree.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I know this might be hard understand but they are equally as bad. If you aren't sticking to the true definition of what someone identifies as, then you are going off your own opinion. That is fine but that just means you are a bigot to thinking your own opinion is constantly inferior to others. Which means you tend to put more faith in your own opinion then peoples own opinion about themselves. I'd rather try to take people at their word then verify. I guess that's just a syndrome of someone who "doesn't really like people" and thinks they want to change the world for people that you have.

I can parse maybe fifty percent of this post. Here you go:

Originally Posted by BallzDeep [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I know this might be hard to understand but they are equally as bad. If you aren't sticking to the true definition of what someone identifies as, then you are going off your own opinion. That is fine but that just means you are a bigot tofor thinking your own opinions is constantly inferiorare superior to those of others. Which means you tend to put more faith in your own opinion thenthan people's own opinion about themselves. I'd rather try to take people at their word and then verify it. I guess that's just a syndrome ofwhere someone who "doesn't really like people" and thinks they want to change the world for people that you have.