One way to define it is by the things it thinks:
But don't look here for that. The following is someone's simplistic fantasy of a creeping liberal menace. For a less bigoted definition of liberalism, see Wikipedia:Liberal#Contemporary_liberalism.
- PeopleAreGood. They only act bad because they are oppressed. The primary oppressor is poverty. If we redistribute income, the goodness in people will rise to the top. People will no longer have the need to steal, or shoot drugs, etc, because they are no longer oppressed.
- Well, if people are bad, the dog-eat-dog greed-feeding of extreme capitalism is not going to help the situation.
- PeopleAreGood. Yet, people shoot other people, so guns must be bad.
- The practical matter is that countries with tougher gun laws have fewer gun injuries/deaths, regardless of how people "are". I have no problem with people owning a hunting rifle if they know the safety rules, but why the hell do people want semi-automatic weapons? Do they want to turn the dear into hamburger in the field so that they don't have to in the kitchen?
- Death penalty is bad, abortion is good.
- The Death Penalty is not very effective, is expensive, and eliminates the chance of later being found innocent. Juries make mistakes every now and then. What if a criminal mind can be cured by brain surgery or pills some day? Let God do the Ultimate punishment. Humans are not wise enough to be entrusted with that duty.
- I agree that the Death Penalty, as administered in the USA, needs improvement. Maybe a moratorium should be held as we work out a better system. This bullet, though, is about the contradictory mindset that it's bad to kill the mass murderer, but it's Ok to kill the innocent unborn child. More on this at EmbryonicStemCellResearch. -- BrucePennington
- Unlimited, unrestricted sex is good.
- Maybe not, but it is none of the Govm'ts damned business.
- Well, I didn't say the govt was involved. That's a second discussion. This list was to expose hypocritical and unhealthy concepts practiced by some people of liberal thought. This one certainly isn't restricted to liberals, but it is found more often in a liberal's "platform" so to speak. -- BrucePennington
- I don't think a typical liberal "endorses" such. Most say it is a personal choice and feel righties are too obsessed with sex. If you count Bible passages that talk about sexual sins versus other sins, it is hard to argue that a Christain God supports the kind of obsession that many righties have relative to other sins such as consumption and greed.
- Yes, those are bad also. You might notice that all three are mentioned in the Top Ten (The TenCommandments) -- BrucePennington
- Individual rights trump societal wellbeing.
- Fairness replaces Justice
- Emotions reign supreme over rationality
- Frankly both are necessary and society, as well as marriages or personal lives, get out of balance when one rules over the other. Discussion continued at TheMarriageOfReasonAndEmotion.
- NoAbsoluteTruth
- Tolerance is good. However, the intollerant must not be tollerated.
- Anyone who disagrees with pet Concept, is labeled Concept-phobic.
- Anyone who disagrees with pet Idea, is labeled a Bigot.
- "Bigot" is correctly used above. Please consult a dictionary: "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." Liberalism is not my "pet idea". I am not a liberal. What is your motivation for this page? Are you trying to portray your opponents as simpletons? If so you make yourself look cruel for only a bully would fight someone with a mind like the one described here. Liberals are much smarter than you imagine (if the opinions you reveal here are genuine.) -- EricHodges
- Hi Eric! I'm honestly sorry! I don't understand why you thought I was talking about you here. My motivation for this page is to expose the hypocracy (sp?) of many of the ideas espoused by many Americans with LiberalMind's, as well as their hypocritical behaviors. "Simpletons?" On the contrary, may of the LiberalMind are very intelligent. Their problem, like most humans, is that they don't examine their own behavior to see if it is commensurate with their values. My 24 yr old niece, with an M.S. in genetics is the poster child of this page. Very intelligent, yet lives by every one of the items listed above, and very vehemently defends them. I love the reasons for wanting to live the Liberal ethic -- they care about people. I disagree with them on the best way to help people. Most liberals in the USA tend toward socialist answers to social problems (ie redistributing wealth will solve poverty, solving poverty will elliminate suffering/crime/social ills. But that's another discussion. "Bigot?" your definition sounds non-judgmental, but the word is never used that way. It is always used to condemn the bigot. The implication is that the bigot's views are not based on truth, and are ugly and hurtful. It is always used as a cut-down. -- BrucePennington
- Why I thought you were talking about me: because when I added the reference to WikiPedia's entry on liberalism, the next action you took was to add the bullet point about pet ideas and bigots. Please read the WikiPedia's entry. What you describe here is a bogey-man caricature of liberalism. I doubt your 24 year old niece actually thinks the way you claim, but if she does she isn't representative of liberalism. "My" definition of the word "bigot" isn't mine at all, it's Houghton Mifflin's. See http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/bigot. There's nothing wrong with condemning bigots or bigotry. -- EH
- Ok, Eric, I read the definition. I see the conceptual misconnect we are having. The emphasis of bigotry is intollerance. But that is not what I am discussing. We are under the bullet: "Anyone who disagrees with pet Idea, is labeled a Bigot." I have encountered many instances where a Christian is having a discussion of <Pet Topic>, and the Christian is labeled a bigot, simply because he/she disagrees with the liberal counterpart. Never is tolerance mentioned in the discussion, and in fact, the Christian is usually the only one being tolerant in the discussion. -- BrucePennington
- Do you consider this page an example of Christian tolerance? If so, that may explain why you think liberals unfairly label you a bigot. -- EH
- Well, hopefully we're not experiencing another terminology misconnect, but yes, I would say it is; in this way: You and I disagree on certain issues but we have been chatting civilly about them for a couple of years, now (I personally have grown to enjoy seeing your EH on the screen). Similarly, I am chatting with someone down the page who is quite intolerant of me (flaming me at the moment) and yet in my tolerance of him I can still chat with him without flaming back or tuning him out. That is in line with the true meaning of "tolerance," unlike the tormented definition of the word that is used today which means something like "your truth is good for you, mine is good for me, so we don't even need to talk about our difference." -- BrucePennington
- I say this not because I disagree with you, but because you ignore the complexities of the subject in order to portray the people you disagree with as foolish. I can understand why intelligent, reasonable people describe themselves with the terms "liberal" and "conservative". Your characterizations of liberals on this page are inaccurate and insulting. These are not signs of tolerance. They are signs of bigotry. -- EH
- Sure, Eric, but I don't have a problem with "intelligent, reasonable people" either! I care very much about people, regardless of Left or Right, Liberal or Consevative. My problem is with bad, hypocritical, unhealthy ideas. IdeasHaveConsequences. The consequences of some of these ideas are affecting my country in a bad way, not to mention my family and myself. -- BrucePennington
- You didn't make a page about ideas, you made a page about minds. On that page you characterized liberals as foolish and unreasonable. You contradict yourself. -- EH
- Litterally hates GeorgeWBush. Bashes anyone else, though, that is a hatemonger.
- Hatemonger -- another word for ChristianFundamentalist.
- "Don't force your morality on me!" - ignores the fact that the speaker is trying force their morality on the listener.
- Please clarify
- There are many examples. Here's one: Two people are sitting on a bench, waiting for a bus. Person A is having a cell phone conversation with someone and using lots of F words and profanity. Person B starts getting offended and stares intently at person A. Person A says "Hey, don't try forcing your morality on me!" In effect, person B is being forced to accept person A's moraility instead. Person A is, in effect, saying "I don't care about you or your morality, this is mine and you must accept it, so shut up and sit there or leave." Most examples deal with social issues that require legislation (abortion, EmbryonicStemCellResearch, gay marriage, etc) -- BrucePennington
- "Don't try to legislate your morality!" - AllLawsLegislateMorality.
- The govmt should only enforce laws that forbid you to interfere with other other people's rights. They should not regulate what you do in your basement or between consenting adults, including consenting idiots.
Please note, as with anything human, people with the LiberalMind vary individually and will not all agree on all items.
I volunteer to be the LiberalMind guinea pig. Although I would hope to be somewhat free-thinking and liberal... and not be pigeonholed into some sort of frame...
Being Australian I've never really understood what a liberal is supposed to be. Though I know what a Liberal is - here it's what the British call a Tory. in Australia the opposite of conservativism is socialism. Are you a socialist? Ah well, let me take this quiz with my Australian mind and let's see.
- There is a link on this page with a sound, academic definition. The label is used in the USA in two contexts - Social liberalism/conservatism and Economic liberalism/conservatism. Social liberals like to call themselves "progressive." They want to loosen social mores. They promote issues like abortion rights, same-sex marraige, open pornagraphy (TV, libraries, movies, etc), and others that social conservatives consider unhealthy/harmful for society. Economic liberals tend toward socialist ideas, like you mentioned. -- BrucePennington
- PeopleAreGood. Yet, people shoot other people, so guns must be bad.
- I can't answer for liberals on this one, my beliefs are atypical. I am a pacifist and will never own a gun; however, I am also unconditionally opposed to legislating gun control. Actually, partly because I believe that PeopleAreGood, and partly because I see laws as CoercivePower. I would like to see noone own a gun; however, if noone does because they are coerced into not doing so, we have not raised anyone's moral character--most certanly not the coercer's.
- I agree with your logic, here. -- BrucePennington
- In Australia we have laws against guns, enforced by the police, who carry guns. Are the police guns bad and the illegal guns good? Gee, I don't know, I've seen some very unpleasant things done with a machete. Maybe I should start over asking myself whether PeopleAreGood. Well that's easily answered - see BuddhaNature and so on. Saying PeopleAreGood is the same thing as saying PeopleStandUp?. Well, yeah, but they also sit down. Now am I a liberal?
- I saw a case in Japan where a man went through a kindergarten killing 8 kids with a kitchen knife. I guess Japan needs KitchenKnifeControl?. Of course, TimothyMcVeigh used cow poop (nitrous oxide), maybe we need CowPoopControl? legislation! The Columbine killers had pipe bombs and even rigged a BBQ propane tank as a bomb - who's going to start the political action commitee to control pipes and BBQ tanks? -- BrucePennington
- {I doubt the countable problems with knives is near that of guns.}
- I don't know the stats on this, but it would be interesting to see a comparison of the numbers of murders committed by guns and the number of stangulations by bare hands. Maybe we need BareHandControl? legistlation. -- BrucePennington
- Death penalty is bad, abortion is good.
- I don't know anyone who thinks abortion is good. Some people think it is sometimes a lesser evil, and that government cannot make that decision. Most liberals believe simply that it should not be within the government's power to regulate. This is essentially a standard conservative argument, which has amused me to no end.
- Two thoughts: "don't know anyone who thinks abortion is good" I'm sure you don't, but I just listened to an interview on Nightline with an abortion doctor from Arkansas who thinks it is good. There are many out there. "should not be within the government's power to regulate" see discussion on EmbryonicStemCellResearch. It would be a duplication to repeat it here. -- BrucePennington
- (Once again, Bruce links to something he clearly hasn't read. A doctor who chooses as a centerpiece of his story regarding his work in the abortion field a heartbroken, crying woman who would rather have fatal cancer than be pregnant is not a happy bloodspattered cheerleader flinging dead fetuses at the baby Jesus, but a sober medical professional working in a difficult field. Bruce wishes us to believe that this evil doctor loves to murder, murder, murder, murder, and murder, more than Jack the Ripper ever did, more than Son of Sam, more than even fictional serial killers like Hannibal Lecter and he NEEDS that doctor to be the cackling, maniacal villain just as he NEEDS liberals to have this nonsensical LiberalMind that he's invented. But this interview doesn't provide it.)
- Oh, and there are actually a lot of pro-life liberals. Or at least I have encountered a lot.
- I am somewhat ambiguous on the issue. I would like to see close to no abortions, and I would like them to be legal.
- Australian here. Well, everyone I know agrees abortion is unfortunate, but legislating against it would cause more suffering than it would prevent. There is a tiny anti-abortion movement - I mean I've seen exactly one car in all of Sydney (~5,000,000 people) with an anti-abortion sticker on the back. But most Australians seem to recognize abortion as a socially necessary evil. Is that liberal or not?
- It should be pointed out that legally banning abortions does not necessarily stop abortions, and may cause other problems because abortions are then done by amatures. Thus the issue is mostly about legalize it, not whether to stop it.
- I agree with you. But that arguement is used quite often to justify keeping it legal. A similar arguement would be: Making murder illegal doesn't stop murder, so we should legalize murder. If abortion is killing a human being with rights to life, then it should be illegal whether people continue its practice or not. -- BrucePennington
- Unlimited, unrestricted sex is good.
- "good"? That's a value judgement. It simply isn't the government's business to prescribe morality.
- AllLawsLegislateMorality -- BrucePennington
- AllMoralityShouldNotBeLegislated -- DanMuller
- Australian here. Um, I generally get bored with sex after the 2nd or 3rd orgasm. Unless I'm smoking dope, in which case I'm more patient. But I don't smoke dope more than once or twice a year because it makes me stupid. Still maybe you're not talking about me in particular having sex? Um, you having sex? Or just anyone? Assuming you mean anyone, I guess I'd say mutually safe, sane, consensual sex is good for most people, and other kinds generally aren't. And, no, children are not competent to consent. Is that liberal?
- Individual rights trump societal wellbeing.
- Hrmm, you would have to provide an example before I could answer. In fact, it sounds conservative to me.
- :) I can see why it would appear that way! Ok, examples: The National Library Assoc. stand that children have the right to access pornography at the library. The ACLU's stand that child pornography on the internet is protected free speech. The ManBoyLoveAssociation?'s stand that adults should legally be able to have sex with boys as young as 16. The Minneapolis university professor who published a book, at taxpayer expense, claiming that we are harming our children by not having loving sex with them. And these are just issues centered on sex. There are more. -- BrucePennington
- (Once again Bruce demonstrates conclusively that he knows nothing at all about what he's talking about. The National Library Association does not believe children have the right to access pornography, the ACLU does not believe child pornography is protected free speech, the MBLA is not a liberal group, and the Minneapolis university professor is probably just made up, exaggerated, or misrepresented. Even if he wasn't, who cares? He's not indicative of the LiberalMind. Bruce should stop talking about things he knows nothing about, go and learn something, and then come back and discuss things with grownups. Start with the wikipedia article linked at the top of the page. Seriously.)
- Here's a link on the Minnesota Univ. Press book by Levine. -- BrucePennington
- Here's another reference for one from a Temple U Pedophile Promo -- BrucePennington
- (Thanks for linking to a maniacal right-wing website that is full of lies, I see where you get your information from and that you continue to love lies, you love being lied to, you hate the truth, nothing has changed. Now can you please link to something at the ACLU, National Library Association or a reputable news source reporting on their view? If you don't I'm just going to delete the whole thing as being a waste of your time, my time and everyone's time. I don't love lies like you do and I don't love being lied to like you do.)
- Here's a quote with link: October 12, 2005
Book on Homosexuality in Antiquity and Essay on Pederasty Will Be Printed After All, Publisher Says
A DISPUTED VOLUME on homosexuality in the classical world will be published after all, Haworth Press announced on Tuesday, and the controversial essay that almost sank the book will also be published, but in a different venue. Late last month, the press announced the cancellation of Same-Sex Desire and Love in Greco-Roman Antiquity and in the Classical Tradition of the West, an edited volume that had been scheduled for publication in November. (It was to have been published simultaneously as a special issue of The Journal of Homosexuality, which is also published by Haworth.) The press scratched the book after conservative activists objected to one of its 15 essays, which they saw as a defense of pederasty in present-day society. On Tuesday, Haworth reversed course and announced that the book and journal would indeed be published -- but without the controversial essay, which was written by Bruce L. Rind, an adjunct instructor in psychology at Temple University. Mr. Rind's essay, meanwhile, will be published in a future "supplementary volume" of The Journal of Homosexuality, according to the press's announcement. Chronicle of Higher Education 10/12/05 http://chronicle.com/daily/2005/10/2005101202n.htm -- BrucePennington
I would be honestly interested in seeing any "lies" from the "right-wing website" mentioned above. You could start a new page like LiesFromFocusOnTheFamily? or something to your liking. Your rant is typical of the LiberalMind - all emotion (usually hate!) and no facts. -- BrucePennington
My god, you quote your own refutation, AGAIN, this is approximately the ninth time you've quoted something for support that actually proves you're utterly beyond wrong and into some strange netherworld where being correct about something is a mere fever dream. It's like you can't even read. Look at what you quoted, look at it like a human being instead of a partisan nitwit. It doesn't say that the professor defended pederasty, it said that some conservative groups said he did. Even more damning is that the essay was removed by the very academic establishment you crow and shriek is so very over-liberal. Most importantly, you completely, completely, completely omitted anything, anything showing that this position is indicative of the LiberalMind. Let's assume, (against a great deal more evidence than you've presented here), that conservatives disapprove of fucking children in the ass. Does that mean that liberals approve of it? Liberals oppose beating children savagely with crowbars until their blood runs in the gutters, but I don't post pages called ConservativeMind where I say conservatives are in favor of licking the blood of children off crowbars every day and when you say "I am outraged, outraged that you should make such an accusation", I reply "that's typical of the ConservativeMind, they don't present any arguments as to why they don't savagely murder children, they just rant and rant." You have presented nothing, nothing, zero, not one word, not one thought, not one datum, not one argument, nada, zip, zilch to show that what you say is true and the LiberalMind supports pederasty, child pornography or anything on the list. That's what you have. Nothing.
Did you go and look for the professor's essay and decide for yourself? Did you look at his side of the story? No, all you saw was that some conservative groups said something and that was good enough for you, because you fear the truth, you hate the truth, the truth would sear your flesh like the sun would burn a vampire's. And the same is true for the National Library Association and the ACLU. You didn't go and see what they had to say, or use a reputable news source that presents any details, you went straight to the partisan hacks that will lie right in your face, because you love the feeling of lies in your ear, you crave it like you crave food and water.
As for Focus on the Family, they worked for Republican operative (and convicted felon serving prison time) Jack Abramoff in his fraudulent Indian casino deal, and lied about it until they were busted with e-mails demonstrating that when Abramoff said "jump" they said "how many gays do you want us to land on?" In addition, they use discredited statistics to support their wacko God-Hates-Gays agenda and their leaders have blatantly lied, consistently on national TV. Just do a quick google search for them, you'll see that their lies are well-documented. Or you can just go on believing everything they say, since you love lies - but for the purpose of this page - they are not authorities on the LiberalMind. And clearly neither are you.
- Australian again: um, I'd prefer WikiWikiGovernment and its Upside Down Sovereignty in which social obligation emerges directly from individual rights. Liberal?
- Not on the face of it. Social structure, whichever you choose, is the rule of order chosen. Liberals will tend to rebel against that order, no matter which one you choose, if it is not to their liking. Conservatives tend to try to maintain order. -- BrucePennington
- NoAbsoluteTruth
- There are the NoAbsoluteTruth sort; however, most are the ImperfectAccessToAbsoluteTruth? sort. Completely different view point, however it requires the same humility.
- Tolerance is good. However, the intollerant must not be tollerated.
- Okay, you've got me. I have seen it, and it bugs me. See below.
- Australian: Of course there is an absolute truth. We program with it every day. 1 is true. 0 is false. Absolutely. On the other hand I suspect you're attempting to assert that some kind of human opinion is absolutely true. I don't know of one - do you? And does believe 1 to be true make me liberal or not?
- Everyone lives in a world, a universe, controled by absolutes. My niece, is a Masters level geneticist. You know the absolutes she deals with professionally. The NoAbsoluteTruth chant is only pulled out when it comes to morality and God. It is used to justify rejecting the God of the Bible and the social truths is proclaims. I don't think you'll come across it in any other context. -- BrucePennington
- Anyone who disagrees with pet Concept, is labeled Concept-phobic.
- I can't answer without context. I have no idea what you are talking about.
- Gay marriage is the leading example. If you disagree with it, you are labeled as "homophobic." I have several reasons I disagree with it, yet I have no fear of homosexuality. -- BrucePennington
- (Again, Bruce demonstrates he doesn't know what "homophobic" means - actually he probably does know that "homophobic" doesn't just mean "fear" in common political parlance, but he'd rather mislead people to score points than actually learn something.)
- Defining phobic as "fear" has nothing to do with politics. In every word that it is used, its meaning is always fear. Give me an example where it is not. This is classic LiberalMind'ed thought, where the very definition of words is twisted and abused to fit their political agendas. -- BrucePennington
- Australian: I have no idea what's wrong with gay-marriage, but I am a little afraid of people who are afraid of it. Does that make me homophobophobic? Are you trying to say that all liberals are homophobophobes? And if you're afraid to self-identify as a homophobe, does that make you a liberal? Maybe just a homomarriageophobe? Will you come clean and admit this or are you some kind of stinking cryptohomophobophobophobophobe?
- I guess I must admit that I am a theconsequencesofliberalthoughtaredestroyingmynationaphobe. -- BrucePennington
- Anyone who disagrees with pet Idea, is labeled a Bigot.
- Same here.
- Australian: well, here, people who disagree with people having pets is an "environmentalist". Do you describe environmentalists as bigots or liberals?
- Literally hates GeorgeWBush. Bashes anyone else, though, that is a hatemonger.
- I have also seen this, see below.
- Australian: well, here I am at a disadvantage. It has been proved empirically that all non-Americans hate Bush - see GeorgeBushPariahChallenge. Are all non-Americans liberals then?
- Hatemonger -- another word for ChristianFundamentalist.
- See below.
- Australians generally don't regard ChristianFundamentalists as hatemongers. We have quite a few Christians in Australia, though pitifully few fundamentalists, so it's hard for us to tell. Having visited America for periods of several years I don't regard CFs as very different from most other Americans - I found the general run of them, conservative or liberal, with obvious notable exceptions including present company, to be brainwashed, fearful and afraid. Very disillusioning. Does being disillusioned in America make me a liberal?
I am pretty troubled by how the Right likes to bandy around "hate" as an accusation. In a hateful manner. ThereIsNoHate?. Only fear, and it causes us to do unwise things. I don't believe this is any different for conservatives, Europeans, or sea monkeys.
Setting the stage with that, hating GWB, calling ChristianFundamentalists hatemongers, and not tolerating the intolerant are all valid examples of, I believe, where fear takes over and sometimes do not live out what they believe to be Truth. I think most people on this side of the fence, including the ones who actually do these things, would agree that they are not consistent with their beliefs, but the combination of fear and ignorance of alternatives causes them to behave badly.
Speaking for myself, I am very deeply scared of what I believe GWB will bring us, and it has been a struggle for me to bring it to be simply that, and not to project devil's horns upon his head in my own mental image. (And actually, strangely, and embarrassingly, a Dr. Phil special has done the most for me with regard to rehumanizing him in my own mind.) Clearly other have not been so successful, or have been completely ignorant of how to do so.
For me, liberal philosophy is the answer which happens naturally if we decide that the question is, "How can we make the whole shebang better for everyone? More equitable and with less suffering?"
- And I respect you and others for such heartfelt concern for the well being of others. I would contend that many conservatives care about the well being of others as well. We dissagree on the solution to the problem. In my case, we even dissagree with the exact definition of the problem. See PeopleAreGood for my view. -- BrucePennington
--JasonFelice
BulletedThreadsSmell. Would someone please explain WhyTheInternetIsSoLiberal?
I have become disenchanted with this page. There's too much generalizing required to simply discuss it. And I don't see myself as competent for answering for all liberals, as though there is much commonality. But, there are some interesting points to debate elsewhere. (Also, to whomever, thanks for the BulletedThreadsSmell.) --JasonFelice
I hear you, Jason. It is difficult to have a conversation on Wiki without someone throwing gross mischaracterizations around salted with inflamatory accusations. The person above who actually doubted that my statements about my own niece, whom I helped to raise, were inaccurate; is a good example (boy what a horrible sentence! sorry!). I've intentionally selected some contradictory thinking, some illogical ideas, and focused on them under the title of LiberalMind. I have read the Wiki page cited at top, and agree it is a good description of Liberal thought, and more comprehensive of its tennants. That is not my purpose. I care about my country, Humanity, and Life. IdeasHaveConsequences. And some ideas, like those listed above, are dangerous to all three. -- BrucePennington
But those dangerous ideas don't represent liberal thinking. You (or someone you follow) fabricated them to make liberals seem ignorant and dangerous, which is in itself dangerous to civilized discourse. This page doesn't help your country, humanity or life. -- EricHodges
Do all Liberals think this way? No, of course not. But it is only in the LiberalMind that you will fit such thinking. -- BrucePennington
Quicky Stereotypes with a side of Humor
Libs: You are on your own until you are born, then we'll protect you.
Cons: We'll protect you until you are born, and then you are on your own.
How to piss off a liberal: "Abortion is wrong. You're killing human beings just like Darfur."
How to piss off a conservative: "Jesus is a myth. Like Zeus. He's not real."
See
ConservativeMind
![[Home]](/adjunct/adjunct.png)