Topic: Why do liberals insist on allowing labels they agree with but denying labels they don't?
Tu quoque !knCXdmp58. started this discussion 10 years ago #49,449
> Man claims to be a woman. Okay, you're a woman.> Man kills a score of people in cold blood and claims to be a Muslim. No, you're not a real Muslim.
Why do they do this? This is a mad case of double think.
While I support the idea of a human born male deciding they are more suited to being female I also recognize someones actions being in the name of Islam if it follows the teaching of Islam to some degree. So they are a Muslim.
Ofc liberal elites hate this as they are so happy for scores of Muslims to settle within their countries.
Tu quoque !knCXdmp58. (OP) double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #642,988
This is a fine case of liberal logic where their ideology is so intrenched lots of doublething is required most news stories being printed.hamfist !0Ynig1RSDc joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #642,989
op should stop being a faggot maybe
Tu quoque !knCXdmp58. (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #642,990
hamfist !0Ynig1RSDc replied with this 10 years ago, 58 seconds later, 6 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #642,991
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #642,993
I think the double think you refer to is a result of so called victim hierarchy.
Muslims are seen as more of a victim than women and maybe they are, i don't know.
It doesn't justify a victim hierarchy. All victims matter and movement's that undermine that are the enemy. Like feminism.
Muslims are seen as more of a victim than women and maybe they are, i don't know.
It doesn't justify a victim hierarchy. All victims matter and movement's that undermine that are the enemy. Like feminism.
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 46 minutes later, 55 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #642,997
OP
Your premise is cockomany.
> Man claims to be a woman. Okay, you're a woman.
No he isn't. He can cake on make up and put on dress. Cos-play/Role-play.
> Man kills a score of people in cold blood and claims to be a Muslim. No, you're not a real Muslim
Just how many have you read about that make false claims re Muslim?
Your premise is cockomany.
> Man claims to be a woman. Okay, you're a woman.
No he isn't. He can cake on make up and put on dress. Cos-play/Role-play.
> Man kills a score of people in cold blood and claims to be a Muslim. No, you're not a real Muslim
Just how many have you read about that make false claims re Muslim?
Adam Jensen joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 57 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #642,999
Denmark guy !jJEom8Ii3E replied with this 10 years ago, 25 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,010
@previous (Adam Jensen)
I thought he was talking about how some people refuse that many terrorists are Muslims. Like they believe once you conduct terrorism, you are no longer a Muslim.
It's like a defense against anti-refugee attitudes. Most the refugees are Muslims but the terrorists aren't.
I thought he was talking about how some people refuse that many terrorists are Muslims. Like they believe once you conduct terrorism, you are no longer a Muslim.
It's like a defense against anti-refugee attitudes. Most the refugees are Muslims but the terrorists aren't.
Tu quoque !knCXdmp58. (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,011
@642,997 (D)
> > Man kills a score of people in cold blood and claims to be a Muslim. No, you're not a real Muslim
> Just how many have you read about that make false claims re Muslim?
Well, that's my point. If someone claims to be a Muslim but their actions are unpopular then they are told that they are not really a Muslim even though they take said actions in the name of Allah. Who are we to decide if they are not Muslims due to their actions? Islam doesn't have a central body like other religions so as long as you follow parts of the Quran then you can make a claim on Islam.
Liberals are so set on saying these Isis members are not real Muslims but they have no right to say such.
> > Man kills a score of people in cold blood and claims to be a Muslim. No, you're not a real Muslim
> Just how many have you read about that make false claims re Muslim?
Well, that's my point. If someone claims to be a Muslim but their actions are unpopular then they are told that they are not really a Muslim even though they take said actions in the name of Allah. Who are we to decide if they are not Muslims due to their actions? Islam doesn't have a central body like other religions so as long as you follow parts of the Quran then you can make a claim on Islam.
Liberals are so set on saying these Isis members are not real Muslims but they have no right to say such.
Anonymous D replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,014
@previous (Tu quoque !knCXdmp58.)
> Islam doesn't have a central body like other religions
Nor do Baptists Episcopalians and most Christian secs.
You can tell anyone you're Baptist and there is no test re true or not. No Pope.
> Islam doesn't have a central body like other religions
Nor do Baptists Episcopalians and most Christian secs.
You can tell anyone you're Baptist and there is no test re true or not. No Pope.
(Edited 17 seconds later.)
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,016
I've seen a lot of transwomen who pass better than Caitlyn Jenner.
Tu quoque !knCXdmp58. (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,019
@643,014 (D)
Okay, Yes some other religions lack a central body but still call themselves Christian. But we're moving off topic now.
Okay, Yes some other religions lack a central body but still call themselves Christian. But we're moving off topic now.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,020
Anonymous D replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,021
@643,019 (Tu quoque !knCXdmp58.)
OK so back to the topic
> Why do liberals insist on allowing labels they agree with but denying labels they don't?
Just taking a stab at this but my guess is that Liberals are more liberal about labels and its the conservatives that are more rigid.
OK so back to the topic
> Why do liberals insist on allowing labels they agree with but denying labels they don't?
Just taking a stab at this but my guess is that Liberals are more liberal about labels and its the conservatives that are more rigid.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,022
Anonymous D replied with this 10 years ago, 55 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,023
@643,020 (G)
All the churches I am aware of in Christianity will allow you to enter the sanctuary. Mormons have hard as fuck rules to keep you out. Under the current rules Jesus and his band of merry men would not qualify for entry.
All the churches I am aware of in Christianity will allow you to enter the sanctuary. Mormons have hard as fuck rules to keep you out. Under the current rules Jesus and his band of merry men would not qualify for entry.
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,024
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,025
@643,022 (FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI)
Exactly
Nor can I see one reason why my version of cockomany, does not convey a meaning that everyone here will understand. It wood meet with Mark Twain's apporval.
Exactly
Nor can I see one reason why my version of cockomany, does not convey a meaning that everyone here will understand. It wood meet with Mark Twain's apporval.
Anonymous G replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,027
@643,023 (D)
I was invited to a Mormon church by 2 young women once. They didn't seem too closed to me, actively recruiting. What do you mean?
I was invited to a Mormon church by 2 young women once. They didn't seem too closed to me, actively recruiting. What do you mean?
Tu quoque !knCXdmp58. (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 49 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,028
@643,021 (D)
> Just taking a stab at this but my guess is that Liberals are more liberal about labels and its the conservatives that are more rigid.
But isn't it a double standard that liberals support people's choise to change ones gender at will then enforce their gender pronoun but then deny someone else the religious label they live under?
> Just taking a stab at this but my guess is that Liberals are more liberal about labels and its the conservatives that are more rigid.
But isn't it a double standard that liberals support people's choise to change ones gender at will then enforce their gender pronoun but then deny someone else the religious label they live under?
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #643,032
@643,027 (G)
Oh yes you were invited. Now do this for me. You were formally invited. Now go to that local Church and see if they will let you in.
Good luck with that. Yes they want you to join. Does not mean you can walk on up and walk on in.
Oh yes you were invited. Now do this for me. You were formally invited. Now go to that local Church and see if they will let you in.
Good luck with that. Yes they want you to join. Does not mean you can walk on up and walk on in.
Anonymous G replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,036
@previous (Syntax)
Lol, I wonder what you mean. The chance has gone but I'm intrigued enough to read up anyway.
Lol, I wonder what you mean. The chance has gone but I'm intrigued enough to read up anyway.
Triptych !!/xkPL9myM joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 50 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,037
@643,032 (Syntax)
I've gone to Mormon church more than a few times just tagging along with a friend. They had me go to their youth group and closed dances as well. Very open.
I've gone to Mormon church more than a few times just tagging along with a friend. They had me go to their youth group and closed dances as well. Very open.
Anonymous D replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,039
I have family members who cannot enter the temple. What can I do to help them feel included in my temple?
This can be a tender subject. Since the temple is the house of the Lord, dedicated to Him, those who enter must hold a current temple recommend, which certifies that they are living by the standards He has set. However, those who do not have a current temple recommend are welcome on temple grounds, and most temples have a room where they can wait while family members are being sealed. A couple with family members who cannot enter the temple may invite their bishop or another Church member to stay with them in the waiting room.
This can be a tender subject. Since the temple is the house of the Lord, dedicated to Him, those who enter must hold a current temple recommend, which certifies that they are living by the standards He has set. However, those who do not have a current temple recommend are welcome on temple grounds, and most temples have a room where they can wait while family members are being sealed. A couple with family members who cannot enter the temple may invite their bishop or another Church member to stay with them in the waiting room.
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,075
@OP
I don't see the cognitive dissonance in this one because these people always invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy with regard to Christianity as well.
I don't see the cognitive dissonance in this one because these people always invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy with regard to Christianity as well.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
FuckAlms !vX8K53rFBI replied with this 10 years ago, 17 hours later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,243
I think the point being missed here is that religions have established doctrines and ideas associated with membership. Granted, these are frequently broken by practitioners and some pick and choose which ones they feel are important to follow and which aren't. On the other hand, there are no defined doctrines of what being a woman means. Sure, you could go by chromosomes, but it won't stop you from having to deal with people who aren't comfortable with the expectations associated with their chromosomes. You could go by ability to reproduce, but there's plenty of women who are completely barren. If you disqualify people who can't reproduce as being not female, (and not male for the parallel case), then what are they? After all, they are still human, and still capable of participating in the act of sex, even if it is only recreational. At the end of the day, how we present ourselves is all we can control. How we are perceived is entirely out of our hands.
Aaaand, as usually happens, I'm not quite sure where I was going with this thought. This is why I can't write papers. Fuck.
Aaaand, as usually happens, I'm not quite sure where I was going with this thought. This is why I can't write papers. Fuck.
Cracker Mordor Jacker joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,247
Star Wars sums main stream religion right up with psychological approach that is dual. Which I kind to like, to choose.
Cracker Mordor Jacker double-posted this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,248
It is only after you become the devil, that one has true choice with good and evil.
Cracker Mordor Jacker triple-posted this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #643,250
Oh so .. let me cut your dick off