Another shooting, no deaths

[Kalis]

You've yet to tell me what defending the person as "insane" means, aside from implying that, due to insanity, they can't really be held responsible for their own actions. It seems your definition of an "insanity defense" differs from most peoples'.

Again with the redirecting, too. Do I need to pull out my list of rhetological fallacies and start ticking off the ones you've used so far?

Once again; "That would be the insanity. Waving and firing a gun would also be a dead give-away.", which implies that he thinks anybody waving and firing a gun is insane.

He makes no mention of diminished responsibility as you claim he does.

I would also make the claim that anybody who goes on a killing spree, or attempts to, is insane. That doesn't mean that they have diminished responsibility, just that it isn't a particularly sane thing to do.

There are different kinds of insanity, and there are different uses of the word in the English language, at no point did he mention insanity as a legal defence...you did that.

[Torq]

Once again; "That would be the insanity. Waving and firing a gun would also be a dead give-away.", which implies that he thinks anybody waving and firing a gun is insane.

He makes no mention of diminished responsibility as you claim he does.

So what you're saying is, calling someone insane does not preclude holding them responsible for their own actions?

Well, hell, we have a lot of cases to re-try in the US, then.

I would also make the claim that anybody who goes on a killing spree, or attempts to, is insane. That doesn't mean that they have diminished responsibility, just that it isn't a particularly sane thing to do.

There are different kinds of insanity, and there are different uses of the word in the English language, at no point did he mention insanity as a legal defence...you did that.

There are plenty of people who have killed other people (and would count as a spree) that aren't what anyone would deem "insane." Imbalanced, perhaps. Fueled by emotion (in most cases), definitely. But not insane. If anyone who killed another person (or attempted to) was considered "insane," we'd have no murder trial convictions. Ever.

This further implies that you're the one using a non-standard definition of insanity, not me.

[Gulvar]

It's funny. I havent heard a peep about this on the news yet. I wonder if its because he was a far left liberal shooting up anti gay activists. I guess thats ok since he is on their side.

You've heard a peep about it. Don't be over the top. The mosque shooting got nearly no press. If people don't die it isn't sexy enough to talk about all day.

[Kalis]

So what you're saying is, calling someone insane does not preclude holding them responsible for their own actions?

Well, hell, we have a lot of cases to re-try in the US, then.



There are plenty of people who have killed other people (and would count as a spree) that aren't what anyone would deem "insane." Imbalanced, perhaps. Fueled by emotion (in most cases), definitely. But not insane. If anyone who killed another person (or attempted to) was considered "insane," we'd have no murder trial convictions. Ever.

This further implies that you're the one using a non-standard definition of insanity, not me.

You may want to look into the history of the insanity defence, I think you might have a shock as to how infrequently it's used. You might also want to look up the word insanity in everyday language and the different context of uses.

Also, he never claimed the insanity defence...YOU DID.

[Stir]

Thanks for defending me on this one, Kalis.

Anyway: As for 'pleading insanity:' I think there's only one circumstance where that's a viable excuse... And that would be psychosis. In every other scenario, I don't feel 'insanity' is defensible simply because committing murder (or wanting to) is insane by default. I'm not talking about killing in self-defence, but when you're actively trying to end someone else's life, you're acting counter to the human standard, which is that of a social species. A social species relies on other members for its survival. Therefore, the rule 'do unto others as you would have done to yourself' is not just something we made up because it sounded nice.. It's ingrained in the very way our brain works. It's physically present in our bodies.
When behaviour like that gets distorted, the resulting behaviour is not that of a 'sane' or mentally healthy individual. After all; a healthy individual wouldn't have a distorted social function. Therefore, anyone who commits such acts is, per definition, insane. Any criminal who commits a crime not out of necessity but out of desire is by definition insane.
Therefore, I don't feel 'insanity' is any kind of defence whatsoever. Unless, of course, you're hallucinating, and voices told you to do it. But even then, you'd need more than just the voices, because saying 'no' really isn't hard... Your hallucinations need to convince you that what you're doing is righteous.

And that gets us to just about any political or religious terrorist... Ever.

You keep on hammering on the whole 'defence' thing, Torq, as if I'm somehow convinced that this person isn't responsible for their actions. Well; I think insanity is a pretty poor defence because it applies to nearly everybody... And if it applies to nearly everybody, it's completely redundant as a defence.

I wasn't using the word 'insanity' as a legal term. So stop putting words in my mouth.

[Torq]

You may want to look into the history of the insanity defence, I think you might have a shock as to how infrequently it's used. You might also want to look up the word insanity in everyday language and the different context of uses.

Also, he never claimed the insanity defence...YOU DID.

Yes, conservatives have this image. And with good reason. Look at politics. Look at the United States of America, where people of Afro-European descend are withheld from voting in several states. Take the anti-Muslim propaganda. Take the fact that some idiot shooter didn't know the difference between a Sikh and a Sheik. Take the fact that Mitt Romney didn't know either! And apart from that, take the fact that the shooter's thoughts went along the lines of 'Sheiks MUST be Muslim, therefore MUST be terrorists or otherwise evil, therefore MUST DIE!'
Honestly, if you feel this stereotype to be untrue: Prove it to us. I beg you.

All things considered: All the shooter managed to accomplish was causing a traumatic experience for the people involved, as well as making liberals look bad. This person was just a stupid and delusional git.

This, specifically, is what I was responding to. This guy makes the allegation that, yes, in fact, conservatives are racist. Then he goes on to imply that, since the guy in this case was a "stupid and delusional git," he must be an exception, rather than the norm: defending liberals. He goes on to claim the guy is insane, further defending liberals.

I'm countering his claim by saying that if he's going to excuse liberals by writing this guy off as "insane," he must also excuse conservatives by writing the Sikh shooter off as "insane." That, however, directly contradicts the first part of the piece that I quoted; specifically, the bolded portion.

He's saying it's okay to stereotype conservatives as being insane, based on the actions of one individual; and then in the same post, defending liberals by saying you can't judge them by the actions of a single individual.

I got a little sidetracked along the way, yeah. To be fair, though, if you still defend what this guy says, you're just as guilty of being a hypocrite as he is.

[nachoo]

9/11? I don't think tackling a plane would be very effective...

Tackle that shit with a missle.

[Stir]

This, specifically, is what I was responding to. This guy makes the allegation that, yes, in fact, conservatives are racist. Then he goes on to imply that, since the guy in this case was a "stupid and delusional git," he must be an exception, rather than the norm: defending liberals. He goes on to claim the guy is insane, further defending liberals.

I'm countering his claim by saying that if he's going to excuse liberals by writing this guy off as "insane," he must also excuse conservatives by writing the Sikh shooter off as "insane." That, however, directly contradicts the first part of the piece that I quoted; specifically, the bolded portion.

He's saying it's okay to stereotype conservatives as being insane, based on the actions of one individual; and then in the same post, defending liberals by saying you can't judge them by the actions of a single individual.

I got a little sidetracked along the way, yeah. To be fair, though, if you still defend what this guy says, you're just as guilty of being a hypocrite as he is.

Ah, yes, but you took that part out of context.
You see, not only was the conservative shooter stupid, insane and hateful, but, specifically (and that was the point I was trying to make) completely uneducated on the subject.
Which is why I also included the fact that Romney, too, did not know the difference between Sikhs and Sheiks, and, to be frank, did not know what either of them even wás. Thát was why I mentioned it. It had nothing to do with condoning the one or the other, nothing to do with defending the one or the other... The response was aimed at the allegation that liberals feel that conservatives are often uneducated (which is true. Liberals do often feel like that. It's based on experience, and again my plea is: Please prove us (left-wingers) wrong. It would be very reassuring).
So no; I didn't say it was perfectly fine to stereotype conservatives as 'insane.' I said there was good reason for the stereotype of conservatives being uneducated. (Edit: Please, before you go into anger-mode: I didn't say it was justified or correct. Merely that there is a good reason the stereotype exists).

You pulled it completely out of context. I can see why you did that; my phrasing might not have been the clearest just there, but that doesn't change the point.
The OP's shooter, at least, was not misinformed. They knew exactly why they did what they did, and who their target should be, and what their target stood for. Does that justify the action? Of course not! But the assailant was not uneducated about their target.

[The Riddler]

I honestly do believe that people with conservative idealism are either uneducated, fearful or spiteful towards others. After all; how else are you going to explain the ideologies? How else are you going to explain all the nay-saying, all the opinions that certain groups of people do not deserve the same rights?

You clearly prove my point. To your mind, it is not possible that a conservative simply has a different point of view or approach. They are people with a valid methods, approaches, philosophies, or world views. To you conservatives are a caricature which has been carefully and repeatedly constructed for you to mock, insult, belittle, and denigrate. So here you are - a supposedly thinking and intelligent adult - who truly believes an entire 45% of the population is "uneducated, fearful, spiteful" and "deny rights". In short - you really do think conservatives are "sub human", so when you hear a crazy gunman wanted to go on a rampage and kill these conservatives there is a tiny part of you (deep deep deep down maybe, but still there) that said, "M'eh. They deserved it."

I'm an Independent in full disclosure. Don't get so worked up over labels and just debate the issues instead of the people.

What makes you think I'm Republican? I'm unaffiliated. I vote for the philosophy - not the "party". I didn't vote for Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2, or McCain. There's good liberals out there. Some conservatives say I am liberal because I feel that government should not be involved in abortion, or a host of other things that "Republicans" are OK with. But "liberals" have called me a crazy frothing fool because I also think government shouldn't PAY for abortions, and that the choice to have an abortion (barring demonstrable need) is morally repugnant. Whatever.

The point is that - like our friend above has proven - there's a TON of left wing rhetoric out there that is basically telling everyone that it's OK to hate conservatives because they are bad people because they don't believe the "right thing" (IE what the liberal says they should). The conservative approach is not politely viewed as "a different approach". It's flat out called evil, and people who agree with it are evil too.

For example - look at how this guy sees conservatives when it comes to women...

I don't know about hatred, but oppression? Yups, pretty much. How else would you explain the pro-life movement? The fact that women still get lower wages? The fact that women are expected, so fundamentally, to take care of children that some jobs are impossible for them to hold?

So - a conservative mindset "oppresses" women, forces them to have lower wages, and tells them they can't hold jobs and stay home with the kids (implying that they just order them to stay home). This is patently absurd.

A: Believing that life is sacred and the decision to end it in the womb should be a last resort instead of a simple convenience does not mean you "oppress" women. There are perfectly logical and reasonable arguments for some limits on abortion such as in the case of minors, or very late term. But instead of these points of view being treated seriously and given due respect, they are treated like they are somehow the positions of extremists who seek to enslave females and make sure they can never have an abortion for any reason. Liberals are not told they are 'extremist" for wanting to limit gun rights on assault weapons. Why are conservatives treated as extremists for simple, common sense limitations on abortions?

B: Women don't have lower wages. This is simply not true. In fact recent studies have shown that women have HIGHER wages than men.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...qual-pay-myth/

Clear proof that for the SAME job and the SAME experience, women are paid as much or more than men. There's a large number of variables that account for the fact that women have a lower median pay including career choice, family, etc... But to this liberal, the fact that a feminist organization CLAIMS that there is a wage gap (based on dodgy statistics) is sufficient evidence to justify his position that "conservatives oppress women" and that the pay gap the liberal group describes is BECAUSE of conservatives.

C: Women are "expected" to stay home: To this liberal it is not possible that a woman would CHOOSE to stay home and care for the kids. They only stay home because some conservative "expects" them too.

I could do the same thing to every single piece of liberal claptrap he parroted about conservatives. But it suffices to say that he really believes all the propoganda that has been shoveled down his gullet about conservatives. I don't like false narratives about any group of people. I don't believe every liberal is a coke snorting communist hippie. But guys like Stir prove that there are a LOT of liberals who believe conservatives are two hairs and some air away from being the devil. It's not paranoia. It's a fact, and it is supported by the tone of this thread and many others like it. If some conservative yahoo unfairly stigmatizes a liberal, then I generally try to stand up and argue a position of fairness to the guy even if I disagree with the perspective. But for conservatives, even the attempt to simply explain their point of view seems to come across to leftists as some sort of punishable offense.

[Deleted]

News outlets hardly care about shootings anymore, it happens so damn often.. What's going on!

[Kalis]

This, specifically, is what I was responding to. This guy makes the allegation that, yes, in fact, conservatives are racist. Then he goes on to imply that, since the guy in this case was a "stupid and delusional git," he must be an exception, rather than the norm: defending liberals. He goes on to claim the guy is insane, further defending liberals.

I'm countering his claim by saying that if he's going to excuse liberals by writing this guy off as "insane," he must also excuse conservatives by writing the Sikh shooter off as "insane." That, however, directly contradicts the first part of the piece that I quoted; specifically, the bolded portion.

He's saying it's okay to stereotype conservatives as being insane, based on the actions of one individual; and then in the same post, defending liberals by saying you can't judge them by the actions of a single individual.

I got a little sidetracked along the way, yeah. To be fair, though, if you still defend what this guy says, you're just as guilty of being a hypocrite as he is.

I wasn't defending anything he said, I was stating that he didn't say what you claim he implied. He specifically stated that waving and firing a gun was a clue to a man's insanity - you claimed he implied it was only this man's sanity, whereas what he wrote actually implies the opposite (i.e. everybody waving and firing a gun is insane).

I don't care what political party any man shooting a gun supports. He clearly doesn't represent my views; just as I hope that if someone went on a shooting spree against people whose political views you disagreed with, then they wouldn't represent you either.

[Gulvar]

What makes you think I'm Republican? I'm unaffiliated. I vote for the philosophy - not the "party". I didn't vote for Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2, or McCain. There's good liberals out there. Some conservatives say I am liberal because I feel that government should not be involved in abortion, or a host of other things that "Republicans" are OK with. But "liberals" have called me a crazy frothing fool because I also think government shouldn't PAY for abortions, and that the choice to have an abortion (barring demonstrable need) is morally repugnant. Whatever.

The point is that - like our friend above has proven - there's a TON of left wing rhetoric out there that is basically telling everyone that it's OK to hate conservatives because they are bad people because they don't believe the "right thing" (IE what the liberal says they should). The conservative approach is not politely viewed as "a different approach". It's flat out called evil, and people who agree with it are evil too.

I'm sorry if I characterized you as someone whom you aren't. I think we may just differ on this. I take what people say on message boards with a grain of salt. If I heard an extreme left person bashing the right then I would probably be more annoyed with the right for giving them the ammunition. I admit that bashing conservatives is somewhat vogue at the moment but I just feel that the best way to stop that is to stop making it so easy for them to do.

[Stir]

You clearly prove my point. To your mind, it is not possible that a conservative simply has a different point of view or approach. They are people with a valid methods, approaches, philosophies, or world views. To you conservatives are a caricature which has been carefully and repeatedly constructed for you to mock, insult, belittle, and denigrate. So here you are - a supposedly thinking and intelligent adult - who truly believes an entire 45% of the population is "uneducated, fearful, spiteful" and "deny rights". In short - you really do think conservatives are "sub human", so when you hear a crazy gunman wanted to go on a rampage and kill these conservatives there is a tiny part of you (deep deep deep down maybe, but still there) that said, "M'eh. They deserved it."

Actually... That's not at all true. I don't honestly believe 45% of the population is stupid. 80% would be a bit closer to the mark. Please note that, with 'intelligence,' I do not mean IQ. I mean 'the willingness to learn.'
Also, there is no deep-down feeling of 'they deserved being shot at.' There is a prominent feeling of 'their views are destructive to the rights and freedoms of others, and therefore, advocating those views should be prohibited.'

The point is that - like our friend above has proven - there's a TON of left wing rhetoric out there that is basically telling everyone that it's OK to hate conservatives because they are bad people because they don't believe the "right thing" (IE what the liberal says they should). The conservative approach is not politely viewed as "a different approach". It's flat out called evil, and people who agree with it are evil too.

Not.. Quite. Conservative views, as expressed on the whole, are generally quite extreme and selfish, though, so I fully support opposition to such views, and will oppose them when I hear them.

So - a conservative mindset "oppresses" women, forces them to have lower wages, and tells them they can't hold jobs and stay home with the kids (implying that they just order them to stay home). This is patently absurd.

Cultural coercion. Force isn't really needed; when you grow up in an environment where you have no rights, you will believe that you don't deserve them.

A: Believing that life is sacred and the decision to end it in the womb should be a last resort instead of a simple convenience does not mean you "oppress" women. There are perfectly logical and reasonable arguments for some limits on abortion such as in the case of minors, or very late term. But instead of these points of view being treated seriously and given due respect, they are treated like they are somehow the positions of extremists who seek to enslave females and make sure they can never have an abortion for any reason. Liberals are not told they are 'extremist" for wanting to limit gun rights on assault weapons. Why are conservatives treated as extremists for simple, common sense limitations on abortions?

Because we never hear conservatives oppose the extremists. That's why.

B: Women don't have lower wages. This is simply not true. In fact recent studies have shown that women have HIGHER wages than men.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin...qual-pay-myth/

Okies; an article. Good to hear an opposing view; this just means that, until I've seen some studies, I'm going to agree with neither.

Clear proof that for the SAME job and the SAME experience, women are paid as much or more than men. There's a large number of variables that account for the fact that women have a lower median pay including career choice, family, etc... But to this liberal, the fact that a feminist organization CLAIMS that there is a wage gap (based on dodgy statistics) is sufficient evidence to justify his position that "conservatives oppress women" and that the pay gap the liberal group describes is BECAUSE of conservatives.

Uhuh... Because at least THEY provide stats. Dodgy, perhaps; I'm not an economist.

C: Women are "expected" to stay home: To this liberal it is not possible that a woman would CHOOSE to stay home and care for the kids. They only stay home because some conservative "expects" them too.

See 'cultural coercion' up above. Slaves born in slavery often felt is was 'proper' to be a slave. Women in extremist religious countries wear Burkas; most usually, it's not the men forcing them but the women... Because they feel it is 'proper.' Does that make oppression 'right?' Nopes. No, it doesn't.
I present: Stockholm Syndrome.

I could do the same thing to every single piece of liberal claptrap he parroted about conservatives. But it suffices to say that he really believes all the propoganda that has been shoveled down his gullet about conservatives. I don't like false narratives about any group of people. I don't believe every liberal is a coke snorting communist hippie. But guys like Stir prove that there are a LOT of liberals who believe conservatives are two hairs and some air away from being the devil. It's not paranoia. It's a fact, and it is supported by the tone of this thread and many others like it. If some conservative yahoo unfairly stigmatizes a liberal, then I generally try to stand up and argue a position of fairness to the guy even if I disagree with the perspective. But for conservatives, even the attempt to simply explain their point of view seems to come across to leftists as some sort of punishable offense.

You know... I've plead time and again to prove me wrong. You see; my response wasn't so much what I believe, but what I knów. If you feel like you are misrepresented in the media, or, more importantly, by your political leaders, then it's time to raise your voice. It's time to oppose your politicians. It's time to simply say: 'No; we're not just greedy, selfish bastards with religious extremists views; we're good people, too, and we've got good things to offer!' (edit: Most notably: 'And these are the things we have to offer: [...]')
That's what's lacking. It's quite possible that what we hear about conservatives is just the loud-mouthed minority... But if it is, it's high time the majority starts to be a bit more loud-mouthed.

[Torq]

Ah, yes, but you took that part out of context.
You see, not only was the conservative shooter stupid, insane and hateful, but, specifically (and that was the point I was trying to make) completely uneducated on the subject.
Which is why I also included the fact that Romney, too, did not know the difference between Sikhs and Sheiks, and, to be frank, did not know what either of them even wás. Thát was why I mentioned it. It had nothing to do with condoning the one or the other, nothing to do with defending the one or the other... The response was aimed at the allegation that liberals feel that conservatives are often uneducated (which is true. Liberals do often feel like that. It's based on experience, and again my plea is: Please prove us (left-wingers) wrong. It would be very reassuring).
So no; I didn't say it was perfectly fine to stereotype conservatives as 'insane.' I said there was good reason for the stereotype of conservatives being uneducated. (Edit: Please, before you go into anger-mode: I didn't say it was justified or correct. Merely that there is a good reason the stereotype exists).

You pulled it completely out of context. I can see why you did that; my phrasing might not have been the clearest just there, but that doesn't change the point.
The OP's shooter, at least, was not misinformed. They knew exactly why they did what they did, and who their target should be, and what their target stood for. Does that justify the action? Of course not! But the assailant was not uneducated about their target.

I don't disagree with you about your example. In fact, I agree that those specific people certainly are uneducated.

I do, however, disagree about defending stereotypes in the first place. Sure, as they say, there's a reason said stereotypes exist; but you're also cherry-picking examples. If I were to do the same, I could say it's justified to stereotype most liberals as unstable and radical, citing this particular shooter as an example. I could also very easily find more examples of high-profile liberals who have said things just as ignorant as Romney.

The point remains that you're judging the group by a small set of members that fit the stereotype. If I were to do the same, I could pull out the stereotype that "all liberals are emotional and reactionary (i.e. lacking any form of logic)," something that could pretty easily substantiated by looking at any of the protests that have come from that side. This guy would certainly fit that stereotype. Hell, you would fit that stereotype, if I were to highlight all the places you said things like "Liberals do often feel feel..." (i.e. thinking with emotions rather than logic) Am I justified in labeling an entire faction based on the actions of a vocal (or outspoken) minority? No, never.

Hell, should I set foot in the ghetto of Oakland and get mugged (or worse, as happens all the time there) by a group of black people, by your logic it would be okay for me to perpetuate the stereotype that all black people are violent and destructive. That, and it would be acceptable for me to defend that stereotype by citing whatever examples I see fit.

[E] More succinctly, no one should have to prove you wrong, because you shouldn't be defending stereotypes in the first place.

[Wildtree]

Always wondered why no one did the same during 9/11 or during that movie theatre shooting. I mean if your going to die anyway die like a man.

You forgot the events on 9/11? United Airlines Flight 93? There's even a movie out now..
The passengers brought down the plane.

[Stir]

Torq: Thank you for responding so astutely. I honestly do appreciate it.
Now, for my reply to that: Yes, you could indeed make those assumptions, because, yes, for a lot of people, they are true. And I'm actually talking a LOT (did I mention that I don't have much faith in humanity? That includes me myself, of course).

And that's exactly why an effort needs to be made to show the world that the stereotypes AREN'T true (or that positive things also exist within the same group). Everybody loved the Bill Cosby show, right? With his ordinary family, an ordinary person with an ordinary job, facing ordinary life-stuff. You know why it was important? Because it tried to show people that the stereotype you used as an example (Oakland ghetto) isn't true. Cosby and many others made an effort. A huge effort.
Asking people to show others that a stereotype is untrue is not the same thing as defending a stereotype. But there's seven billion people on this planet, all belonging to different groups. You're going to judge them by the group they're in, and you will be judged in kind (until, of course, in-depth conversation happens). That means that image is an important factor for your group.

Now; we've already determined that I am unstable and radical, and that's fine. But I'm also naive, and want the best for everyone (without hurting other people, mind!), and I hope that that can be part of the stereotype for my group. "Stir? Pretty loony, but they mean well." I'm fine with that. I could also be fine with 'stubborn, argumentative, somewhat (scale depending on recipient) annoying, has a tendency to be pedantic.' I'm pretty sure those (negative) traits are all pretty common in socialists; we all have our flaws, after all.
But aside from that, we should also aspire to creating positive stereotypes. Like Bill Cosby did.

[The Riddler]

I admit that bashing conservatives is somewhat vogue at the moment but I just feel that the best way to stop that is to stop making it so easy for them to do.

Not a problem. I'm used to it. But you see? The simple ACT of me defending a conservative position was enough to elicit a reaction in you. "It must be the conservative's fault..." Now - I'm not trying to bash you. I'm just giving an example here. Why is it the CONSERVATIVE'S fault for DEFENDING himself from what are ridiculous, baseless, outrageous attacks? See how that works? The zeitgeist is such that the liberal can just come on out and let fly with awful stuff, and if a conservative reacts...? "Well, he must have something to hide..." Or... "maybe they shouldn't make themselves such easy targets..." Or something along those lines anyway.

I look at it and I think the world's gone insane. I've got a lot of conservative positions on finances, and I'm generally a pretty conservative guy morally speaking - but I've got other positions that are quite liberal depending on the topic. If I "defend" a liberal position logically and patiently, then I RARELY (if ever) get attacked by conservatives for it. However, almost EVERY time I take a conservative stance or logically, patiently explain a conservative position there are a dozen leftists who pounce on it and savage it. Why is that?

[Gulvar]

Not a problem. I'm used to it. But you see? The simple ACT of me defending a conservative position was enough to elicit a reaction in you. "It must be the conservative's fault..." Now - I'm not trying to bash you. I'm just giving an example here. Why is it the CONSERVATIVE'S fault for DEFENDING himself from what are ridiculous, baseless, outrageous attacks? See how that works? The zeitgeist is such that the liberal can just come on out and let fly with awful stuff, and if a conservative reacts...? "Well, he must have something to hide..." Or... "maybe they shouldn't make themselves such easy targets..." Or something along those lines anyway.

I look at it and I think the world's gone insane. I've got a lot of conservative positions on finances, and I'm generally a pretty conservative guy morally speaking - but I've got other positions that are quite liberal depending on the topic. If I "defend" a liberal position logically and patiently, then I RARELY (if ever) get attacked by conservatives for it. However, almost EVERY time I take a conservative stance or logically, patiently explain a conservative position there are a dozen leftists who pounce on it and savage it. Why is that?

I think there's a whole lot of noise out there and it's easy to get sucked into it at times. Message boards are also like scared dogs. Someone bites your first because they think you're going to bite them. My initial reply was more in the context of various threads we've participated in. I just don't see the liberal agenda and media issues that you do. That doesn't make me right and you wrong. It just means we've had different experiences.

[BLCalliente]

There was a shooting in DC this morning at an office for a conservative lobbyist group (the Family Research Council).

There should be more shootings at lobbyist group offices.

---------- Post added 2012-08-16 at 03:36 PM ----------

However, almost EVERY time I take a conservative stance or logically, patiently explain a conservative position there are a dozen leftists who pounce on it and savage it. Why is that?

Probably because of all the reasons you listed in your previous post about bible thumping and all that.

The very vocal minority is embarrassing on both sides.

[Azivalla]

Too many shootings this summer. And people still think "oh gun control is fine as it is!". I just want guns out of the hands of the irresponsible and mentally unsound.