Because the truth has a liberal bias?
What is the argument you are making against the seemingly neutral argument that defends tolerance? Why is the right at odds with tolerance?
What is the argument you are making against the seemingly neutral argument that defends tolerance? Why is the right at odds with tolerance?
Edit: My intent is not to be facetious. I don't understand what this phrase means.
Saying "the Earth is getting warmer on average every year" should not be a political statement. But here we are, where you have one group of people who have a vested interest in denying that fact. To profess the fact that our planet is warming and that it is an issue is to implicitly identify yourself as a "liberal".
Black people are disproportionately punished by the legal system for the exact same crimes committed by people of other skin colors. There's actual data showing this. But to bring this up gets you labeled as a "liberal".
To remark that police treat white people who are known to be criminals better than black people who aren't even engaged in suspicious behavior is easily documented. Mention this and you will be called a liberal.
And denying this does no favors to liberals or conservatives. Because even the batshit insane liberals get to trout out that line about "truth having a liberal bias". Because, for the most part, it's not wrong. But conservatives get to mock the statement by using it against the most radical of ideas that are generally seen as "liberal".
But what are we gonna do? If hard facts and reliable information could actually change minds, we wouldn't have Trump as President. You wouldn't have his legions of followers denying that he's doing the very things he is doing. I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat, Trump is not only unfit for the office, he's a criminal. The Republican party should be ashamed that he's representing them in the Executive branch.
But they're not.
It is generally used to point out that many of the stories pointed to by conservative media as exhibiting liberal bias are often simply reporting on facts that are incompatible with conservative talking points.
Examples include: relative sizes of inauguration crowds, whether China or US importers pay for tariffs, the contents of the Mueller report, crime statistics on undocumented immigrants, crime statistics on Muslim communities, merits of single-payer healthcare in other first-world countries, various statistics on gun crime, impact of republican vs. democratic presidents on government deficits, benefits (or lack thereof) of trickle-down economics/cutting corporate taxes, and the causes and mitigations of the US Great Recession that began in 2007/2008.
Well actually now that I think of it, any argument can be reshaped as intolerant. Abortionist? Intolerant of life, or of religion. Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights.
I don't know, I just think "intolerance" is such a stupid concept, and in this day and age it is used to attack the right, but it doesn't mean anything, it's a wildcard.
Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are.
> Pro-life? Intolerant of women's rights.
The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights. Whatever their own reasons (religion or otherwise), they are their own and not of their targets.
Thank you for providing such clear examples; it is clear one of these is actually intolerant.
If the mother has a miscarriage, is she now a murderer? If she's in a car accident and loses the baby, is the other person involved in the crash a murderer? Does it depend on who was at fault in the accident?
If a doctor fails to see a birth defect in time, are they now charged with manslaughter?
Does a mother collect child support from a father at time of conception? Do they collect state benefits from the beginning of their pregnancy?
This thing conservatives want to do of making fetuses people is a bottomless pit of regulatory gotchas. It's ridiculous.
You see, this kind of behaviour is why I feel this discussion is not between two honest parties under good faith. Your rhetoric here and above (about religion of anti-abortionists being encroached upon by abortionists) give me the impression you are being unfair and disingenuous. If this is true, there is simply no way to discourse.
But I could be grossly wrong, and under that faith I will try to point out how you assuming that everyone automatically shares your views is wrong:
Take three people:
1. A Muslim who claims that all consumption of porcine meat is bad;
2. A Hindu who claims that all consumption of bovine meat from a female is bad; and
3. A Christian who claims that all consumption of shellfish is bad.
If these people tried to prevent everyone (including you), no matter their religion or beliefs, from consumption of all these three kinds of substances; they'd be imposing their own views and assumptions on everyone else (including you), and thus be intolerant of everyone else's (including yours) views.
Your argument is based on a specific society where law states unborn children have no rights. In a society where they would have them, your all argument becomes immediately invalid.
That goes on to validate the GP argument that "intolerance" is nothing but an abstract concept.
No. I do not argue on when during a pregnancy a child begins to exist, or when it has rights. In fact, not even my parent argued these or any similar point. You are the first in this chain to bring it up here.
Please read my comment carefully. I do not argue whether abortionists are or are not intolerant. Precisely because, as you say, that depends on deciding when a child's existence and rights begin, which is not the debate we are having.
I argue instead against my parent's claim that abortionists can be called intolerant of religion simply because a religious party wants to impose their own religion on the expectant and thus force them into not aborting.
The point is that you argue that pro life are intolerant because they don't respect woman rights.
Well, then, using your argument, in a society where unborn children have rights, the exact same thing can be said about pro abortion: they are intolerant because they don't respect children rights.
So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.
The fact that anti-abortionists are intolerant of abortionists' rights is not affected by whether abortionists are intolerant of someone else's rights. Both can be intolerant; only, the former is clear and the latter is under debate elsewhere (i.e., not here).
> So, the all concept of intolerance, comes down to a specific set of laws a society observes, making the concept abstract.
Even within a society where both parties are intolerant, the fact that both are intolerant does not "make the concept of intolerance abstract". A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract".
> A can stab B and B can stab C, that does not make the stabbings of B and C "abstract".
If A stabbing B is a crime and thereby - according to your reasoning - "intolerant", while B stabbing C is not a crime and therefore non "intolerant". Then the concept of "intolerance" is definitively an abstract.
I am not arguing that, you are. Please, try not to put words in others' mouths.
I mean, of course according to ISIS ending the lives of "kaffirs" is rightful and correct. There is no question whether they think so or not. Their position on it is clear. But even within this position, it is clear that killing kaffirs is intolerant of their life. Even ISIS would agree. As would I. Where they and I differ is in whether this intolerance is 'right' or 'wrong'.
'Intolerance' does not automatically equate to 'right' or 'wrong'.
The state of Alabama can choose to be both intolerant and be okay with it, even call it 'the right thing'. That does not stop them from being intolerant of women's rights.
Neither 'Right' nor 'wrong' automatically equate to 'intolerant' or 'tolerant'.
> If A stabbing B is a crime and thereby - according to your reasoning - "intolerant"
Again, please, stop putting words in others' mouths. I make no comparison (or "reasoning", as you claim I did) between 'stabbing' and 'tolerance'. I merely point that a subsequent negative action by a victim does not make the concept of the negative action "abstract".
Your original words were: "The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights."
See, you equate "intolerance" with defending to violate someone "rights".
Obviously in place where the "rights" are different - i.e. Alabama - then it changes who is the intolerant one. In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine.
Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion....
One party being intolerant does not prevent the another party from being intolerant. As I have tried to show repeatedly, multiple parties can be intolerant.
> In Alabama, according to your original comment, the intolerant are the pro choice ones: according to your reasoning, not to mine.
Expectant women in Alabama do not suddenly lose their rights when Alabama declares 'fetus' = 'child'. Alabama instead chooses to override women's rights and place fetal rights above it.
> Of course that you could just accept the obvious, that the concept of intolerance is clearly abstract, and finish the discussion
I could repeat this statement back to you, with the only change being my claim instead of yours, and it would mean just as much as it means when you say this. But that would be discourteous and discouraging of discourse, so I will try yet again, one final time:
The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm".
Re-read your original comments then:
"The pro-life position of forcing women to not have abortions is indeed intolerant of their rights."
"Forcing people to abort would be intolerant of life or religion, but that is not what abortionists do or are."
Now understand that abortionists are "intolerant of life" as the original GP stated, because they are intolerant of the children/fetus rights, not of the woman deciding not to abort (I think that is obvious to anyone... but here I am having to write it down).
Your all argument was that woman have those rights, but children/fetus don't, therefore forcing woman to conceive was against their rights, and, you concluded, intolerant.
I confronted you with realities where the children/fetus rights are higher than those of women (i.e. Alabama) and by your reasoning, that changes who is the intolerant one.
> The concept of intolerance is not any more "abstract" than "the concept of harm".
Harm is also an abstract concept of course, I don't understand where you want to go with that sentence.
> Harm is also an abstract concept of course, I don't understand where you want to go with that sentence.
Harm is often quite real. Not unlike intolerance. That was my point.
In fact, in many jurisdictions that allow abortion at some stages of pregnancy, there are stages of pregnancy where it is accepted that a child exists (or similar) and thus abortion (without other conditions) is not allowed.
But a debate on in which stages a child exists during a pregnancy is not the debate we are having here.
Probably the best comment in this whole topic.