Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 4/19/2007 8:03:36 AM EDT
Here is my theory:

Liberals have created the "victim" society, where there is no responsibility for your actions.

Liberals have thus insulated THEMSELVES from any responsibility.

If a liberal admits that the CRIMINAL is responsible for the crime and NOT the tool, their entire house of cards collapses.

If their concept of the victim society has even the smallest flaw, that means they themselves can be held culpable for their actions.

Liberals are people that CANNOT accept blame for anything they do because of their Godless belief that they are always right.
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 8:20:29 AM EDT
Dang, no responses to my philosophical theory?

The root cause of Liberal evil is Selfishness?
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 8:22:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 8:26:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 8:26:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/19/2007 8:27:51 AM EDT by santanatwo]

Originally Posted By phatmax:
Dang, no responses to my philosophical theory?

The root cause of Liberal evil is Selfishness?


ok, I'll bite.

IT comes from marxism, which says that babys are perfect. You are a product of your environment. (nurture, NOT nature) therefor the adult you become is the fault of your society. Therefor, YOU are not responsible for YOUR actions... society is.

The only moral crime in Marxism, is doing something that prevents a baby from developing into a marxist.
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 8:26:58 AM EDT
The concept of 'personal responsibility' scares the shit out of the Lefties.
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 8:28:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tomislav:
The concept of 'personal responsibility' scares the shit out of the Lefties.


Sure it does. That concept effectively invalidates the nanny/entitlement/welfare state.
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 8:29:37 AM EDT
Gotta agree. My guess is we'll see more of it too

• When you have a country that is increasingly morally bankrupt (in general, if you have no belief system then you have no basis for your moral reasoning- no, I'm not Christian).
• Where a mentality of victimization is the norm
• Where people are told that they aren’t responsible for their actions due to some defect in themselves which they can’t help
• Where people aren’t told that they and they alone are responsible for their actions and that those actions have consequences
• Where people are not forced to own up to and pay for their actions
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 8:30:12 AM EDT


BigDozer66
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 8:30:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By santanatwo:

Originally Posted By phatmax:
Dang, no responses to my philosophical theory?

The root cause of Liberal evil is Selfishness?


ok, I'll bite.

IT comes from marxism, which says that babys are perfect. You are a product of your environment. (nurture, NOT nature) therefor the adult you become is the fault of your society. Therefor, YOU are not responsible for YOUR actions... society is.

The only moral crime in Marxism, is doing something that prevents a baby from developing into a marxist.


Bingo. Liberals believe that Man is inherently good, and if he goes bad, it is because of something in society, not because of Man's nature. That is why you see attempts at banning guns, light sentences by lib jusdges and the like.

Others, myself incuded, believe that Man is inherently evil and selfish. These people are referred to as "living in reality."
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 8:46:53 AM EDT
Actually it's Becuz........They believe government should "RULE" over the masses.

To be ruled masses and have your freedoms limited by "THE RULING CLASS"(Them) you have to first eliminate any means of them opposing you!! In other words GUNS HAVE TO GO or the masses can make you go away when you try to "RULE".

It's not about controlling guns, IT'S ABOUT ESTABLISHING CONTROL OVER THE PEOPLE! Yes, thats right the goal of every true marxist.

Thats the trouble with the government today, at one time people actually had to be pressured into running for office because people felt they could do something for the country,the ones who ran willingly did so because they knew they could do something for the country. Take the founding fathers for example, George Washington actually had to be drafted to be President.

In those days polititcians "SERVED" the people because of what was known as "Civic Virtue" and when they felt they had offered all they had to they quietly went away on their own to let someone else offer something.

NOW politicians run to OBTAIN POWER, WIELD POWER AND KEEP POWER, therefore they feel justified in "RULING" the people instead of "SERVING" the people.
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 9:29:47 AM EDT

Bingo. Liberals believe that Man is inherently good, and if he goes bad, it is because of something in society, not because of Man's nature. That is why you see attempts at banning guns, light sentences by lib jusdges and the like.


Soooo.... does society make the gays gay or is it in their genes? Or is that somehow isolated the way record cold and no hurricanes are isolated from Global Warming Climate Change?
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 9:35:28 AM EDT
The set of people being described up to this point are indeed liberal, but they should be known as Socialists. It is perfectly possible to be liberal without wanting many or even most of these leftist policies/programs least of which in the forms currently embodied.
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 9:39:26 AM EDT
Agree.....and like the other poster said, it's root is in Marxist theory.

Link Posted: 4/19/2007 9:48:28 AM EDT

Why Liberals Blame the Gun and Not the Person




Because liberals, regardless of sex, all think and/or rationalize like a massively hormonal drenched bipolar chick...
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 9:54:10 AM EDT
Why Liberals Blame the Gun and Not the Person?


Let me think for a minute............ "O Yeah" pressure groups and personal politics with a drop of ignorance
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 9:58:18 AM EDT
Cause they have never heard the expression 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I agree they don't understand the concept of personal resposibility.
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 9:58:51 AM EDT
You got it right. SP's value the "victim".

Why is it that the brits gave medals of valor and honor to the 15 who were captured by the Iranians...CAPTURED! Or Jessica Lynch called a hero for being being a victim. The poor burgler who sued a home owner because he broke his leg falling through a sky light while trying to rob the place...and won.

Makes me sick.
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 10:00:57 AM EDT
"It takes a village to raise a child"
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 10:02:56 AM EDT
because the guy using the gun is dead, so they can't punish him. In order to get some kind of validation in their sad lives they have to punish someone... so they focus on the guns and punish every innocent person who follows the laws in accordance with gun ownership. Guilty until.. well, just guilty with them.
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 10:06:33 AM EDT
I've got a slightly different take. It's a judgement thing.

Nobody likes to be judged, told they're wrong, or that their actions are wrong. If I'm not held to a common moral standard, I can do anything I want, no matter how perverted I know society thinks it is. By extension, if I don't want people to judge me, I need to protect the rights of those on the extreme fringe, because admitting that anyone is outside the boundaries of morals, ethics and good taste would put my "rights" in jeopardy.

As a result, liberalism takes the concept of non-judgementalism to the extreme, and fails to judge ANYONE on ANYTHING--unless it's you, judging them. So, when folks with a strong moral compass say things like "he's a criminal," "homosexuality is a sin," "NAMBLA is a bunch of sick, disgusting individuals," well, that's wrong, because who are you to judge them. Of course, the hypocricy of them judging you so harshly escapes them. The end result is moral relativism that demands you to accept that the only truth is there is no truth. Figure that one out.

Since you can't blame or judge individuals, but you need a reason for why things happen, the rational result (if you can call it that) is to either blame someone faceless who isn't really responsible (i.e., the bar who sold the drunk the last drink before he took out a minivan), inanimate objects (guns) or a very select group of "safe" individuals who by their ideological nature threaten their ideals (Christians, conservatives, Big Oil, etc.)

Remember, it's all about emotion. I get angry when someone judges me, first because I feel bad that they may be right, second because I don't like to be humiliated, and my self-esteem suffers when you tell me I'm wrong to do something. Therefore, judgement (also called "interolance") of any sort is bad, wrong, and to be stamped out wherever it's found.

The end result is a world where statements like "We will not tolerate intolerance!" make sense to people.

Link Posted: 4/19/2007 10:55:06 AM EDT
You know, if I take into account everything being written in this thread as being accurate - and in my experience it is - I would begin to see liberalism as a weakness, a culmination of character flaws, or even flaws due to lack of character.. oh wait - that makes perfect sense
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 10:58:12 AM EDT
It sounds to me like a lot of the blame falls on an ineffective system that liberals have blindly placed they're trust in, i.e., gov't background checks.

But it's easier to just blame the gun or the dealer that sold it.
Link Posted: 4/19/2007 11:05:07 AM EDT
It's because as soon as you pick up a gun, any gun, it creates murderous urges.
Guns are evil. All guns turn people into homicidal maniacs.
The urge is too compelling

The statistics bear this out, there are roughly 250 MILLION firearms in the USA.

And 250 MILLION murders each year, thats why there are almost no people left living in the USA.

Each gun equals a death.

Link Posted: 4/20/2007 11:43:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
It sounds to me like a lot of the blame falls on an ineffective system that liberals have blindly placed they're trust in, i.e., gov't background checks.


Every criminal is a law abiding citizen first... background checks can't effectively take that into account.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 11:55:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2007 3:25:06 PM EDT by NeedMoreAmmo]
Because blaming the person would implicate their personal beliefs. Most libs equate owning a firearm with senseless killing because that is what they would do with one.

They are insane. End of story.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 3:06:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pukindog:
You know, if I take into account everything being written in this thread as being accurate - and in my experience it is - I would begin to see liberalism as a weakness, a culmination of character flaws, or even flaws due to lack of character.. oh wait - that makes perfect sense


Yep....as a general rule, Darwin usually takes care of those with liberal ideas. Liberals didn't fare too well under the Vikings or the Mongols, but in today's society we tend to take care of those who would otherwise have been thinned from the herd years ago.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 3:17:18 PM EDT
they will support anyone and their actions, if they endanger you and you defend yourself they call it assault. A bunch of bullshit, liberals suck. They need to behave properly and quit causing problems in society.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 3:19:49 PM EDT
...because they can't re-distribute all wealth and private property until the guns are only in their hands.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 4:07:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By limaxray:
I've got a slightly different take. It's a judgement thing.

Nobody likes to be judged, told they're wrong, or that their actions are wrong. If I'm not held to a common moral standard, I can do anything I want, no matter how perverted I know society thinks it is. By extension, if I don't want people to judge me, I need to protect the rights of those on the extreme fringe, because admitting that anyone is outside the boundaries of morals, ethics and good taste would put my "rights" in jeopardy.

As a result, liberalism takes the concept of non-judgementalism to the extreme, and fails to judge ANYONE on ANYTHING--unless it's you, judging them. So, when folks with a strong moral compass say things like "he's a criminal," "homosexuality is a sin," "NAMBLA is a bunch of sick, disgusting individuals," well, that's wrong, because who are you to judge them. Of course, the hypocricy of them judging you so harshly escapes them. The end result is moral relativism that demands you to accept that the only truth is there is no truth. Figure that one out.

Since you can't blame or judge individuals, but you need a reason for why things happen, the rational result (if you can call it that) is to either blame someone faceless who isn't really responsible (i.e., the bar who sold the drunk the last drink before he took out a minivan), inanimate objects (guns) or a very select group of "safe" individuals who by their ideological nature threaten their ideals (Christians, conservatives, Big Oil, etc.)

Remember, it's all about emotion. I get angry when someone judges me, first because I feel bad that they may be right, second because I don't like to be humiliated, and my self-esteem suffers when you tell me I'm wrong to do something. Therefore, judgement (also called "interolance") of any sort is bad, wrong, and to be stamped out wherever it's found.

The end result is a world where statements like "We will not tolerate intolerance!" make sense to people.



Exactly. Very well said.

I once argued, "You say that all lifestyles are equally valid, such as the hip-hop gangster culture is equal to the white middle class Christian culture. Or the gay/lesbian culture is equal to the heterosexual culture. To you all cultures are equal.

"But you won't accept that the 'gun culture', those that chose to rely on themselves for security is equal to the welfare culture who depend on the nanny state."

Anytime you appear to be winning such an argument, they change the subject, "Well, whatever. But what about Bush lying about the WMD's???"



You just can't argue with them.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 5:03:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/20/2007 5:33:45 PM EDT by GySgtD]
Liberals hate guns mainly because of a few things:

They are consciously or subconsciously steering clear of blaming the criminal, because once people start thinking along those lines, they are going to start noticing some very obvious patterns.

They have come to view firearms as a symbol of occidental power.

They cannot reconcile their collectivist/matriarchical dogma with reality, so they alter their perception of it by way of artificial constructs, such as "Political Correctness". Since individual responsibillity is anathema to the mommy staters, they have to find something to vent their anger at other than the criminal.


...Because that's just what communist queers do.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 5:09:36 PM EDT
Its simple projection.
They project their fear and paranoia onto gun owners by saying we are the paranoid ones living in fear.
Its either that or they are all crazy and aware of it to the point where they think its normal. They probably think of how they could just go insane and kill someone, and don't see how someone else could own a gun and NOT go crazy with it.

They just have an obvious distrust of other people in general, and overcompensate by claiming they are so tolerant and empathetic.
Link Posted: 4/20/2007 5:13:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By POOR_MAN:
Cause they have never heard the expression 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

I agree they don't understand the concept of personal resposibility.


Well, considering that within the definition of "liberal" in this discussion, there is no God, therefore there can be no Heaven or Hell - therefore there is no road leading to Hell. So it can't be paved with good intentions.

Ergo, there is no saying "the road to hell is paved wtih good intentions" saying for them to have heard.
Top Top