Psychological differences between Liberals&Conservatives????

#101 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@thegerg: you are truly pathetic, I mean really?

To answer your question, no.

Anyway, simply because you focus on one part of my belief does not men that you aren't debating my belief. I'm honestly not sure why you're so interested in my belief, but unwilling to discuss your own.

#102 Edited by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: shut up Gerg I've tried to explain to you many times but you're too stupid to comprehend plain fucking English.

#103 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@xeno_ghost: First off, there is no reason to insult anyone. Please try to act like an adult.

Secondly, you are going on about my belief, plain and simple. The fact that you are focusing so closely on one aspect of my belief (its conservative basis) does not mean that you are not taking bout my belief.

#104 Edited by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: "First off, there is no reason to insult anyone. Please try to act like an adult"

Don't make me laugh, you are a living reason to be insulted.

You fixate on things that are not even a subject of the thread, rather than debating the subject of the thread you argue with me about foolishness just to deflect attention away from your stupid arguments as to why your view is conservative, now in this thread I'm not willing to discuss my views directly, but I am willing to discuss what makes my views conservative or liberal.

#105 Posted by wis3boi (30921 posts) -

@thegerg: you are truly pathetic, I mean really?

here's a tip for this forum: gerg will twist semantics with you until your eyes fall out of their sockets.

#106 Posted by HailtotheQueen (156 posts) -

Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same.

This pretty much sums it up perfectly. Conservatives seems to be frightened by change because it upsets the status quo that they have become accustomed to for so long. What they don't seem to understand is that everything changes. Its always changing. Its inevitable.

#107 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@thegerg: "First off, there is no reason to insult anyone. Please try to act like an adult"

Don't make me laugh, you are a living reason to be insulted.

You fixate on things that are not even a subject of the thread, rather than debating the subject of the thread you argue with me about foolishness just to deflect attention away from your stupid arguments as to why your view is conservative, now in this thread I'm not willing to discuss my view directly, but I am willing to discuss what makes my view conservative or liberal.

"You fixate on things that are not even a subject of the thread"

I'm simply discussing my beliefs with you. I'm no more fixated on the subject than you.

"I am willing to discuss what makes my view conservative or liberal."

Then you need to explain why you think it's appropriate to disallow a private organization (a church) from performing gay marriages. How do you expect to have a conversation about your beliefs if you're not even willing to explain them?

Now, be an adult and try to participate in a mature conversation. Without insults and whining, tell us why you think it's appropriate to disallow a private organization (a church) from performing gay marriages. Once you give us an idea of the thought process behind your beliefs we can understand and discuss the conservative/liberal nature of your beliefs.

#108 Edited by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: I don't need to explain anything to you Gerg and just because someone insults you in a argument it doesn't mean that person is immature or can't discuss things like an adult it just means you're an annoying moron :)

Now you can work out simply if someones view is liberal or conservative just from the view itself. Like when I read your post that you support gay marriage I knew straight away it was a liberal view. The only reason I needed to question your view is because you said it was a conservative view which it is not.

#109 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@thegerg: I don't need to explain anything to you Gerg and just because someone insults you in a argument it doesn't mean that person is immature or can't discuss things like an adult it just means you're an annoying moron :)

Now you can work out simply if someones view is liberal or conservative just from the view itself. Like when I read your post that you support gay marriage I knew straight away it was a liberal view. The only reason I needed to question your view is because you said it was a conservative view which it is not.

"I don't need to explain anything"

If you want to have any kind of meaningful discussion you need to be willing to explain your viewpoint. That goes for everything in life. That's how intelligent people communicate.

"Now you can work out simply if someones view is liberal or conservative just from the view itself."

Not always. Your belief that gay marriages shouldn't take place in a church, for example, doesn't cry either "conservative" or "liberal." In your mind, which is it? Liberal or conservative?

It seems that you are making the mistake of thinking that there is some kind of master list of views that are conservative/liberal. That's simply not the case. Your simple-minded approach to such complex issues is the real issue.

#110 Posted by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: no the real issue is that your view to gay marriage is liberal, and you tried to talk some bullshit to try and make it a conservative view and your arguments were complete bullshit, with every argument you put forward for your view being conservative you sounded more and more like a liberal.

You don't even know which side you are on so how the hell can you help me.

#111 Edited by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@thegerg: no the real issue is that your view to gay marriage is liberal, and you tried to talk some bullshit to try and make it a conservative view and your arguments were complete bullshit, with every argument you put forward for your view being conservative you sounded more and more like a liberal.

You don't even know which side you are on so how the hell can you help me.

Wrong. I already explained to you why conservative (not liberal) principles brought me to that belief. Is it so hard for you to believe that 2 different people can believe the same thing for different reasons?

Now, be an adult and try to participate in a mature conversation. Without insults and whining, tell us why you think it's appropriate to disallow a private organization (a church) from performing gay marriages. Once you give us an idea of the thought process behind your beliefs we can understand and discuss the conservative/liberal nature of your beliefs.

#112 Posted by toast_burner (21142 posts) -

why are people acting like conservative and liberal are contradiction? Sometimes a conservative view is also a liberal view. e.g the right to bear arms.

#114 Edited by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: all you are interested in is picking my view apart like a vulture you are not interested in helping me at all, and who's this us? Only you are asking, I don't need your input anyways I've read enough on the subject to work it out myself.

#115 Posted by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: " I already explained to you why conservative (not liberal) principles brought me to that belief".

I asked you this question;

"Why do you think it's tradition that there has been little state intrusion into people's private lives?"

You answered;

"Because humans existed for thousands and thousands of years without states existing, let alone dictating who may or may not partake in an agreement like marriage"

That is not a valid argument as to why your view is concervative because, for as long as you have been alive state governments have prohibited the marriage of gays that has been the tradition all your life until recently, as a conservative surely you would be against this change in traditional marriages?

#116 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@thegerg: all you are interested in is picking my view apart like a vulture you are not interested in helping me at all, and who's this us? Only you are asking, I don't need your input anyways I've read enough on the subject to work it out myself.

"all you are interested in is picking my view apart"

Not really. I'm just interested in why you think it's appropriate to disallow a private organization (a church) from performing gay marriages.

One could come to that belief in a liberal way because they think that an archaic and discriminatory organization like a church has no place in societal rituals like marriage.

One could come to that belief in a conservative way because they think that gay marriage does not properly fir into certain tradition.

If you want an answer to your question you need to give us the proper information.

#117 Edited by sSubZerOo (42949 posts) -

Honestly the far right winger now a days is baffling in how they rationalize some of their view points.. Some of their stances seem to completely contradict one another to the extreme.. This current immigration crisis for instance is a prime example of that.. It was only 7 to 10 years ago in which the far right winger was trumping up how the people of Iraq need to be saved and helped with all our power spending trillions in it's security and rebuilding.. Now with children literally risking their lives in fleeing their country on our border, we have the same group that wants to create a very large wall and deport their asses back to their sad existence from which they were trying to flee.. So much for trying to help people who are in need and suffering..

Meanwhile the far right winger has been trumping up on how they need to arm themselves against government Tyranny.. IN which only a decade back the same group was calling people traitors and un-American for opposing the Bush Administration on multiple issues especially the War on Terror, while they fully supported torture and the patriot act.. Now this isn't suggesting all people who identify with conservative ideals are like this, merely the mainstream viewpoints of the past 14 years of the said party that the movement is affiliated with.

The left of course have their slew of hypocrites no doubt, I just haven't seen such ones as pronounced as these huge contradictions as of late..

#118 Edited by HailtotheQueen (156 posts) -

why are people acting like conservative and liberal are contradiction? Sometimes a conservative view is also a liberal view. e.g the right to bear arms.

True but their specific view of the issue can be VERY different. Many conservatives don't want ANY type of restrictions on owning guns and liberals and moderates often want some reasonable restrictions. So overall, both sides may agree on the basic idea but have different views on how it should be implemented.

#119 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@thegerg: " I already explained to you why conservative (not liberal) principles brought me to that belief".

I asked you this question;

"Why do you think it's tradition that there has been little state intrusion into people's private lives?"

You answered;

"Because humans existed for thousands and thousands of years without states existing, let alone dictating who may or may not partake in an agreement like marriage"

That is not a valid argument as to why your view is concervative because, for as long as you have been alive state governments have prohibited the marriage of gays that has been the tradition all your life until recently, as a conservative surely you would be against this change in traditional marriages?

Of course it's a valid argument. Nothing in the definition of the word "conservative" says that one that is conservative can't hold views in contention with contemporary governments. You're assigning incorrect meaning to that word. If that were the case then it wouldn't be a conservative view that there should be no restrictions on gun ownership, because for as long as anyone has been alive states have had restrictions on gun ownership.

"as a conservative surely you would be against this change in traditional marriages?"

Again, no. I already told you that. Can you not read?

#121 Edited by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: "Again, no. I already told you that. Can you not read"

What a stupid question, no I can't read I'm just winging it and hoping for the best.

"Nothing in the definition of the word "conservative" says that one that is conservative can't hold views in contention with contemporary governments"

Doesn't say they can either

Since you are bringing up the definition of "conservative"what the definition does say is "a conservative is a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values.

Also I'm not saying conservatives can't have views in contention with governments, what I do have issue with is your stupid argument that makes no sense as to why your view on gay marriage is conservative.

"And one tradition of which I am a fan is that of little state intrusion into the private lives of citizens. Thus, as a conservative I support gay marriage"

Like I said you talk a load of crap. Since you have been alive gay marriage has been prohibited that has been the tradition you have lived with all your life.

Also governments have always intruded in people's private lives, telling us what we can and can't do.

What world have you been living in?

#122 Posted by TTv2 (9 posts) -

It's quite obvious that liberals are the descendants of escaped Nazis that escaped Germany and conservatives are actually the aliens from The Arrival.

Libertarianism is where it's a yo.

#123 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@thegerg: "Again, no. I already told you that. Can you not read"

What a stupid question, no I can't read I'm just winging it and hoping for the best.

"Nothing in the definition of the word "conservative" says that one that is conservative can't hold views in contention with contemporary governments"

Doesn't say they can either

Since you are bringing up the definition of "conservative"what the definition does say is "a conservative is a person who is averse to change and holds traditional values.

Also I'm not saying conservatives can't have views in contention with governments, what I do have issue with is your stupid argument that makes no sense as to why your view on gay marriage is conservative.

"And one tradition of which I am a fan is that of little state intrusion into the private lives of citizens. Thus, as a conservative I support gay marriage"

Like I said you talk a load of crap. Since you have been alive gay marriage has been prohibited that has been the tradition you have lived with all your life.

Also governments have always intruded in people's private lives, telling us what we can and can't do.

What world have you been living in?

"Like I said you talk a load of crap. Since you have been alive gay marriage has been prohibited that has been the tradition you have lived with all your life."

Nothing in the definition of the word "conservative" says that one that is conservative can't hold views in contention with contemporary governments. A conservative does not have to be a fan of every tradition, you know.

"Also governments have always intruded in people's private lives, telling us what we can and can't do."

No they haven't. Get a history book.

#124 Edited by SUD123456 (4352 posts) -

@thegerg: @xeno_ghost:

You two are killing me :) There are many principles and they can be hierarchically rank ordered in different circumstances. For instance, free speech except you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Thou shall not kill except in self defence, etc.

I interpret thegerg as holding the principle of minimal state involvement in the private affairs of the citizenry as a higher order principle than the narrow question of who and how marriage is legally recognized. Therefore, it is irrelevant who is being married and how, as it is none of the State's business. In general, minimal involvement of the State is considered a conservative position in the modern era.

I interpret xeno_ghost as pointing out the State has in fact been involved for quite some time in the modern era in defining who and how marriage is legally recognized. Consequently, xeno is de facto focused on the narrower question of marriage rights within the context of an already participatory state. Thus, he believes that gay marriage rights is an issue in and of itself, because not all marriages are recognized by the State; thereby, creating an inequality. In general, this is considered a liberal position in the modern era.

I would like to point out that conservative and liberal labels are often flawed. Of course, thegerg could have made all this easier by simply saying he doesn't care who gets married to who because it isn't gov't's business to be involved. We could then debate whether a conservative non-intrusion of the State position leads to the same outcomes as a liberal activist position through a State definition of marriage.

Also, rarely if ever have I found someone to hold 100% liberal or conservative views.

#125 Edited by BSC14 (3533 posts) -

Liberalism is a disease that keeps people from thinking rational.

#126 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@thegerg: @xeno_ghost:

You two are killing me :) There are many principles and they can be hierarchically rank ordered in different circumstances. For instance, free speech except you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. Thou shall not kill except in self defence, etc.

I interpret thegerg as holding the principle of minimal state involvement in the private affairs of the citizenry as a higher order principle than the narrow question of who and how marriage is legally recognized. Therefore, it is irrelevant who is being married and how, as it is none of the State's business. In general, minimal involvement of the State is considered a conservative position in the modern era.

I interpret xeno_ghost as pointing out the State has in fact been involved for quite some time in the modern era in defining who and how marriage is legally recognized. Consequently, xeno is de facto focused on the narrower question of marriage rights within the context of an already participatory state. Thus, he believes that gay marriage rights is an issue in and of itself, because not all marriages are recognized by the State; thereby, creating an inequality. In general, this is considered a liberal position in the modern era.

I would like to point out that conservative and liberal labels are often flawed. Of course, thegerg could have made all this easier by simply saying he doesn't care who gets married to who because it isn't gov't's business to be involved. We could then debate whether a conservative non-intrusion of the State position leads to the same outcomes as a liberal activist position through a State definition of marriage.

Also, rarely if ever have I found someone to hold 100% liberal or conservative views.

This. As I said, different people can believe the same thing for different reasons.

#127 Edited by bforrester420 (1047 posts) -

Conservatives strike me as more selfish. Most of their political philosophies affect them directly; e.g. they don't want to pay higher taxes even if it helps others, they don't want it to be more difficult to buy a gun, they want to legislate their morality onto others (gay marriage, abstinence sex education, etc), they don't want regulations on business because it makes doing business more costly.

Liberals strike me as more altruistic. They want government to establish and maintain social safety nets, they want government to ensure human rights, they want to have health care available and affordable for every citizen, and they want government to protect us from the social costs (pollution, predatory business practices, etc) created by industry.

I consider myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. During times of economic expansion, the government should rein in spending and create surplus. During times of economic contraction (recession), the government should use that surplus to compensate for lost consumer spending (which makes up around 70% of economic activity), which helps to soften the blow of recession. This is called Keynesian Economics. Unfortunately, neither party practices these concepts...since Clinton that is. I would be more aligned with the Republicans if they'd keep their damned noses out of our private lives and weren't such a party of "angry white men".

#129 Posted by helwa1988 (2050 posts) -

Liberals and conservatives are both hypocrites. Their mind set is the same.

#130 Posted by always_explicit (2632 posts) -

@SUD123456: "You two are killing me"

Lol!! :)

I only took issue with thegerg because he said it's tradition that states have not interfered with who can and can't get married, when in fact it has been a tradition of States to prohibit gay marriage. Only recently have gay marriage become more and more accepted.

There is honestly no point getting tied up in a back and forth with him, his only conversational skill is arguing semantics, which he does under the misguided belief it adds weight to his argument. It just shows a lack of basic comprehension.

Whilst other users show the ability to fill in the gaps in another posters knowledge and understand their views by "filling in" that missing/mistranslated information. The Gerg feels the need to expose those gaps for whatever reason. I find the real skill in conversation is being tolerant and demonstrating your ability to understand and comprehend..."read between the lines" so to speak. The gerg isnt a conversationalist. The gerg is pseudo intellectual. The sooner people on the board learn to ignore him the sooner he will go away.

#131 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@SUD123456: "You two are killing me"

Lol!! :)

I only took issue with thegerg because he said it's tradition that states have not interfered with who can and can't get married, when in fact it has been a tradition of States to prohibit gay marriage. Only recently have gay marriage become more and more accepted.

That's simply a lie. At no point have I said that "it's tradition that states have not interfered with who can and can't get married."

#132 Edited by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@always_explicit said:

@xeno_ghost said:

@SUD123456: "You two are killing me"

Lol!! :)

I only took issue with thegerg because he said it's tradition that states have not interfered with who can and can't get married, when in fact it has been a tradition of States to prohibit gay marriage. Only recently have gay marriage become more and more accepted.

There is honestly no point getting tied up in a back and forth with him, his only conversational skill is arguing semantics, which he does under the misguided belief it adds weight to his argument. It just shows a lack of basic comprehension.

Whilst other users show the ability to fill in the gaps in another posters knowledge and understand their views by "filling in" that missing/mistranslated information. The Gerg feels the need to expose those gaps for whatever reason. I find the real skill in conversation is being tolerant and demonstrating your ability to understand and comprehend..."read between the lines" so to speak. The gerg isnt a conversationalist. The gerg is pseudo intellectual. The sooner people on the board learn to ignore him the sooner he will go away.

Maybe you need to go back and read the thread. My conversation with Xeno has nothing to do with semantics. Cut the bullshit, it makes you look like a fool. Stick to reality.

#133 Posted by Aljosa23 (24325 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@SUD123456: "You two are killing me"

Lol!! :)

I only took issue with thegerg because he said it's tradition that states have not interfered with who can and can't get married, when in fact it has been a tradition of States to prohibit gay marriage. Only recently have gay marriage become more and more accepted.

There is honestly no point getting tied up in a back and forth with him, his only conversational skill is arguing semantics, which he does under the misguided belief it adds weight to his argument. It just shows a lack of basic comprehension.

Whilst other users show the ability to fill in the gaps in another posters knowledge and understand their views by "filling in" that missing/mistranslated information. The Gerg feels the need to expose those gaps for whatever reason. I find the real skill in conversation is being tolerant and demonstrating your ability to understand and comprehend..."read between the lines" so to speak. The gerg isnt a conversationalist. The gerg is pseudo intellectual. The sooner people on the board learn to ignore him the sooner he will go away.

I agree with these facts and reality. No bullshit there, nice post.

#134 Posted by jasean79 (2298 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@SUD123456: "You two are killing me"

Lol!! :)

I only took issue with thegerg because he said it's tradition that states have not interfered with who can and can't get married, when in fact it has been a tradition of States to prohibit gay marriage. Only recently have gay marriage become more and more accepted.

There is honestly no point getting tied up in a back and forth with him, his only conversational skill is arguing semantics, which he does under the misguided belief it adds weight to his argument. It just shows a lack of basic comprehension.

Whilst other users show the ability to fill in the gaps in another posters knowledge and understand their views by "filling in" that missing/mistranslated information. The Gerg feels the need to expose those gaps for whatever reason. I find the real skill in conversation is being tolerant and demonstrating your ability to understand and comprehend..."read between the lines" so to speak. The gerg isnt a conversationalist. The gerg is pseudo intellectual. The sooner people on the board learn to ignore him the sooner he will go away.

I disagree. While, yes, thegerg can be a royal pain in the arse sometimes, he certainly does not lack "basic comprehension". He just has a different way of approaching it.

#135 Edited by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@SUD123456: ok this is what thegerg actually did say.

"And one tradition of which I am a fan is that of little state intrusion into the private lives of citizens. Thus, as a conservative I support gay marriage"

And

"No, it does not. The reason that I support it as a conservative is because I don't like the state having such control over who can marry (as I've already stated, try reading the thread next time). My belief on the matter has nothing to do with tradition"

So first of all he contradicted himself by saying his view is not based on tradition when clearly judging by the first statement it is based on tradition.

2ndly I took From those two statements that he was saying he feels it a tradition that states have had little intrusion into people's private lives i.e. Who can and can't get married.

As I said before It's always been tradition for States to prohibit gay marriage which IS an intrusion into the private lives of gay people.

As I said in the begining I'm no expert on these matters but one thing I've learned is that conservatives love traditions and don't like change and they don't usually support gay marriage and they are loyal and obedient to authority, so I thought it strange when thegerg first said he supported gay marriage then I found his reasons for supporting gay marriage more liberal than conservative.

So that's where my Point was coming from.

#136 Edited by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@SUD123456: ok this is what thegerg actually did say.

"And one tradition of which I am a fan is that of little state intrusion into the private lives of citizens. Thus, as a conservative I support gay marriage"

And

"No, it does not. The reason that I support it as a conservative is because I don't like the state having such control over who can marry (as I've already stated, try reading the thread next time). My belief on the matter has nothing to do with tradition"

So first of all he contradicted himself by saying his view is not based on tradition when clearly judging by the first statement it is based on tradition.

2ndly I took From those two statements that he was saying he feels it a tradition that states have had little intrusion into people's private lives i.e. Who can and can't get married.

As I said before It's always been tradition for States to prohibit gay marriage which IS an intrusion into the private lives of gay people.

So that's where my Point was coming from.

""And one tradition of which I am a fan is that of little state intrusion into the private lives of citizens. Thus, as a conservative I support gay marriage"

And

"No, it does not. The reason that I support it as a conservative is because I don't like the state having such control over who can marry (as I've already stated, try reading the thread next time). My belief on the matter has nothing to do with tradition""

Neither of those statements are "it's tradition that states have not interfered with who can and can't get married", as you have claimed. Again, at no point have I said that "it's tradition that states have not interfered with who can and can't get married."

You really do have reading comprehension issues. I don't say that to insult you, I say that because you really are having a hard time understanding what I'm typing. You have a bad habit of ignoring what is actually written and, rather, taking my posts to mean the exact opposite of your opinion. That's not how intelligent people communicate. rerad the thread, at no point have I claimed that "it's tradition that states have not interfered with who can and can't get married."

#137 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@xeno_ghost: At the end of the day I support gay marriage because, as a conservative, I am not a fan of intrusion into the private lives of people by the state. Whether or not a tradition of gay marriage exists has no bearing on that.

#138 Edited by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: "At no point did I say that my view is not based on tradition"

These are your words;

"My belief on the matter has nothing to do with tradition"

Seems your comprehension is lacking;

"rerad the thread, at no point have I claimed that "it's tradition that states have not interfered with who can and can't get married"

I know you never said that directly which is why I said "I TOOK From those two statements that he was saying he feels it a tradition that states have had little intrusion into people's private lives i.e. Who can and can't get married"

So before you question my comprehension look at your own.

#139 Posted by Jag85 (4267 posts) -

I'm not really clued up on politics and all that, but I do have opinions on certain things like homosexuality, gun control, gay marriage etc, but I was just wondering what makes a person liberal or conservative? What kind of mind set makes you one or the other? I've heard that liberals are more rebellious to authority while conservatives are more obedient and more respectful of leadership.

How do I know if I am lib or con, can a person be both???

I'm quite conservative when it comes to issues like homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion, yet quite liberal when it comes to issues like gun control, race, and gender.

#140 Edited by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@thegerg: "At no point did I say that my view is not based on tradition"

These are your words;

"My belief on the matter has nothing to do with tradition"

Seems your comprehension is lacking;

"rerad the thread, at no point have I claimed that "it's tradition that states have not interfered with who can and can't get married"

I know you never said that directly which is why I said "I TOOK From those two statements that he was saying he feels it a tradition that states have had little intrusion into people's private lives i.e. Who can and can't get married"

So before you question my comprehension look at your own.

Let me clarify, the tradition I was speaking of was specifically the tradition of gay marriage. Whether or not gay marriage is a tradition has no bearing on my view. I should have made that more clear.

"I know you never said that directly which is why I said "I TOOK From those two statements that he was saying he feels it a tradition that states have had little intrusion into people's private lives i.e. Who can and can't get married""

The issue is that rather than taking my posts for what they say is that you interpret them to mean something other than what they say. Don't take my statements for something that they are not. Again, that is an issue with your reading comprehension. You read something, but fail to comprehend what it means. Instead of comprehending what it means, you insert your own meaning. That's not an effective or honest way to communicate.

Again, at the end of the day I support gay marriage because, as a conservative, I am not a fan of intrusion into the private lives of people by the state. Whether or not a tradition of gay marriage exists has no bearing on that.

#141 Posted by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: wow your gergness knows no limits.

"The issue is that rather than taking my posts for what they say is that you interpret them to mean something other than what they say. Don't take my statements for something that they are not. Again"

"You read something, but fail to comprehend what it means. Instead of comprehending what it means, you insert your own meaning"

Now I fucking asked you what you meant by those post I pasted and you just said "I meant what I wrote" so I obviously wanted to be clear on what you meant but you just wanted to be difficult and not explain, leaving me to make my own conclusions as to what you meant. Maybe if you were more clear then I wouldn't have to interpret, maybe if I ask you what you mean you should try explaining a little better.

"Let me clarify, the tradition I was speaking of was specifically the tradition of gay marriage. Whether or not gay marriage is a tradition has no bearing on my view. I should have made that more clear"

Yes you should have made that more clear, you should have said that your view is not based on the tradition of marriage it would of saved a lot of argument.

#142 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@thegerg: wow your gergness knows no limits.

"The issue is that rather than taking my posts for what they say is that you interpret them to mean something other than what they say. Don't take my statements for something that they are not. Again"

"You read something, but fail to comprehend what it means. Instead of comprehending what it means, you insert your own meaning"

Now I fucking asked you what you meant by those post I pasted and you just said "I meant what I wrote" so I obviously wanted to be clear on what you meant but you just wanted to be difficult and not explain, leaving me to make my own conclusions as to what you meant. Maybe if you were more clear then I wouldn't have to interpret, maybe if I ask you what you mean you should try explaining a little better.

"Let me clarify, the tradition I was speaking of was specifically the tradition of gay marriage. Whether or not gay marriage is a tradition has no bearing on my view. I should have made that more clear"

Yes you should have made that more clear, you should have said that your view is not based on the tradition of marriage it would of saved a lot of argument.

"Now I fucking asked you what you meant by those post I pasted and you just said "I meant what I wrote""

That's because I meant what I wrote. What don't you understand about those posts? What is left to question?

"Yes you should have made that more clear, you should have said that your view is not based on the tradition of marriage it would of saved a lot of argument."

But I had already specifically told you what my view was based on. Why didn't that save you from arguing?

#143 Posted by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: "But I had already specifically told you what my view was based on"

Yeh you TOLD me but you didn't EXPLAIN why your view is conservative which I kept asking you.

This is what your call explaining;

Courtesy of SUD123456

"I interpret thegerg as holding the principle of minimal state involvement in the private affairs of the citizenry as a higher order principle than the narrow question of who and how marriage is legally recognized. Therefore, it is irrelevant who is being married and how, as it is none of the State's business. In general, minimal involvement of the State is considered a conservative position in the modern era"

After reading a few of the first post of the thread I thought your view sounded liberal, after reading that thoughtful explanation I realised conservatives can think that way.

As I said in the beginning I'm not clued up on this subject.

"Why didn't that save you from arguing"

Why say "you should have been more clear" when you obviously think you was clear enough?

#145 Posted by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@thegerg: "But I had already specifically told you what my view was based on"

Yeh you TOLD me but you didn't EXPLAIN why your view is conservative which I kept asking you.

This is what your call explaining;

Courtesy of SUD123456

"I interpret thegerg as holding the principle of minimal state involvement in the private affairs of the citizenry as a higher order principle than the narrow question of who and how marriage is legally recognized. Therefore, it is irrelevant who is being married and how, as it is none of the State's business. In general, minimal involvement of the State is considered a conservative position in the modern era"

After reading a few of the first post of the thread I thought your view sounded liberal, after reading that thoughtful explanation I realised conservatives can think that way.

As I said in the beginning I'm not clued up on this subject.

"Why didn't that save you from arguing"

Why say "you should have been more clear" when you obviously think you was clear enough?

"Yeh you TOLD me but you didn't EXPLAIN why your view is conservative which I kept asking you."

I explained my belief (a number of times, as well) far more than you explained your belief, but you still found it necessary to argue my belief while refusing to discuss your own.

#146 Posted by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: if I don't want to discuss my belief with you that's my choice I didn't force you to discuss yours.

#147 Edited by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@xeno_ghost said:

@thegerg: if I don't want to discuss my belief with you that's my choice I didn't force you to discuss yours.

I understand that it's your choice. As I explained to you, though, we need to know about your beliefs if you want us to make an assessment as to where they fall.

Anyway, I explained to you a number of times why I believe what I believe. You continued to debate it and misrepresent my belief.

#148 Posted by Xeno_ghost (313 posts) -

@thegerg: " I'm also still interested in why you feel that gay people should be disallowed to marry in a church, and how such a ban would even be enforced."

This sounds like a very challenging question to me, how is me telling you how I think such a ban would be inforced going to help you judge wether I am conservative or liberal?

#149 Edited by thegerg (14416 posts) -

@thegerg: " I'm also still interested in why you feel that gay people should be disallowed to marry in a church, and how such a ban would even be enforced."

This sounds like a very challenging question to me, how is me telling you how I think such a ban would be inforced going to help you judge wether I am conservative or liberal?

I'm just trying to understand your thought process. Anyway, who do you feel that gay people should be disallowed to marry in a church?

#150 Edited by jasean79 (2298 posts) -