October 04, 2009

The difference between liberals and conservatives

Courtesy of fellow Watcher's Council member Bookworm Room:

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn`t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn`t eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic are conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he’s in labor and then sues.

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

Like Bookworm, I think these are pretty much spot-on!

UPDATE: Ah yes, here's a classic to go along with the above -- Liberal Guy!


Posted by Hube at October 4, 2009 12:15 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

If you are a liberal who is against gay marriage, you dont have a gay wedding.
If you are a conservative against gay marriage, you try to make sure it is illegal.

Posted by: Donalbain at October 5, 2009 03:37 AM

That's true, Donalbain.

However, while cons would indeed want to make it illegal, pro-gay marriage liberals would do the exact opposite -- demand that gay marriage become legal across the land.

Posted by: Hube at October 5, 2009 07:20 AM

Well, yes. But remember, making something legal is NOT forcing others to take part.
Just as Lawrence v Texas does not force you to have gay sex, neither did Loving v Virginia force you to enter a mixed race marriage.

Posted by: Donalbain at October 5, 2009 03:46 PM

Correct, too.

However, using the courts to do what the legislature refuses to do (or won't do) is another manifestation of "force."

Posted by: Hube at October 5, 2009 04:03 PM

OK.. I will stick you in the "Opposes Loving vs Virginia" and the "Opposes Brown vs Board of Education" columns. Nice to know where "conservatives" should be placed.

Posted by: Donalbain at October 6, 2009 10:46 AM

UURRRNT! Nice try, though. Those two examples are hardly synonymous w/the "right" to gay "marriage," now, are they?

Posted by: Hube at October 6, 2009 11:22 AM

They are examples of "using the courts to do what the legislature refuses to do". And as many people were forced to engage in inter racial marriage when that "right" (oooh, scare quotes are fun!) was recognised by the courts as would be forced to engage in gay marriage when the rest of the USA recognises that right.

Posted by: Donalbain at October 6, 2009 05:08 PM

Yes, they are. But there is a difference between legislatures violating the 14th Amendment (which courts then uphold) and legislatures refusing to allow gays to "marry."

(I am on record stating that civil unions -- with the same governmental "perks" as marriage -- are necessary to avoid to 14th Amendment violations. Continuing to demand the "right" to the term "marriage" on similar grounds, however, is a moot exercise.)

Posted by: Hube at October 6, 2009 05:15 PM

The term marriage, if applied by the state to one union but not another, would make the two unions equal, but somehow seperate. Now, that sounds a little familiar doesn't it? And how exactly should one determine what unions are marriages and which are not? Would you have settled for civil unions for mixed race couples? Why should mixed race couples be allowed to "marry", but not same sex couples. If you are saying that the two should be identical in nature, but not in name, what is the secular justification for that? And if the justification is not secular, then what place does it have in law?

Posted by: Donalbain at October 7, 2009 03:19 AM

Because unlike race, there actually IS a biological basis for "marriage," whether you like it or not. Or do you want to now argue that gender is merely a "social construct?" Your attempts to equate it w/"separate but equal" are merely dogmatic since 1) Separate but equal with regards to race were inherently anything but (Brown v. Board of Ed.), and 2) civil unions and marriage would only differ in the term, not actual conditions -- a term that has had a biological definition for over 1,000 years.

Posted by: Hube at October 7, 2009 07:26 AM

Sorry, but you are wrong. There is nothing at all biological about marriage. Nothing at all. There is no biological difference between two adults who are monogamous but unmarried and a married monogamous couple. Similarly, there is no biological difference between a couple of people in an open marriage and an unmarried, non monogamous couple of people.

Marriage is a purely SOCIAL construct.

Posted by: Donalbain at October 8, 2009 02:17 AM

No, I am not wrong. Pure and simple. It is a fact. It may have changed over the centuries, but it remains a fact.

Following your example then, we as a society should have no objections to "trios," adult incestuous couples (or more), and what have you. Oh, and hell, why even bother with minimum ages?Who are WE to say who's "too young?" The concept of "too young" is a SOCIAL construct.

Posted by: Hube at October 8, 2009 07:25 AM

OK. If marriage is biological, please point out the biological difference between a monogamous unmarried couple and a married monogamous couple.

Posted by: Donalbain at October 8, 2009 09:39 AM

The latter is a familial unit.

Now, answer my question(s), please.

Posted by: Hube at October 8, 2009 10:34 AM

And a married homosexual couple are not familial?
Really? How is "familial" biological in nature?

What if they have adopted children? Or have the children of one of the spouses in their care?

Posted by: Donalbain at October 8, 2009 12:44 PM

OK.. I will take them one by one

Trios.. no problem to me. Let them.

Adult incest. So long as it is entirely consensual, I have no moral or legal qualms with that either.

Minimum ages are there because as a society we cannot legislate on a case by case basis. We have to draw a legal arbitary line beyond we which we agree that someone is not considered capable of giving informed consent. But, that line IS arbitary, and in reality will vary from person to person. For instance, there are some 15 year olds who are more able to understand the consequences of sex than some 21 year olds. But, until we invent a "consent-o-meter", then the best we can do as a society is to come up with an arbitary line. And the fact that the line varies from place to place and from time to time should show you that it is indeed arbitary and social.

Posted by: Donalbain at October 8, 2009 12:53 PM

Really? How is "familial" biological in nature?

What if they have adopted children?

Um, how would the homosexual couple get their children? We should expect people to breed at will with little concept of the consequences and hope that couples -- of either orientation -- takes care of them?

As I've said, the definition of "marriage" has changed over the centuries, but its overall purpose remains procreation for a family unit. W/o the latter there is chaos.

Oh, so minimum ages ARE there arbitrarily. So, if such laws are just to prevent case-by-case arguments, what is the big deal with calling gay unions "civil unions" and hetero unions "marriage?" Isn't that difference arbitrary -- especially if all of the aforementioned benefits associated with the latter are afforded the former? And, especially since there is a biological basis (and very long cultural one) for the difference? Y'see, your jumping the gun on trying to equate the risible concept of "separate but equal" to a mere difference of vocabulary was ridiculously specious. I have freely offered that I feel the 14th Amendment is violated if gay couples cannot enjoy the same [governmental] benefits as married couples. My only argument is that "marriage" is a term for heterosexual unions, as it has been since time immemorial. If that is somehow "separate but equal," then I presume we can next expect you to argue that Michelle Wie should win as much $$ at the LPGA Championship as Tiger Woods earns at the PGA Championship. To say otherwise would be an endorsement of "separate and unequal!"

Posted by: Hube at October 8, 2009 01:26 PM

They would get their children the way lots of other married couples do. By adoption, or by taking in obe of the spouse's children.

If the purpose of marriage is procreation, you must be against 80 year olds being married.

The difference is that the state should not be in a position of making things seperate but equal. It should not be saying that one consensual agreement between adults is better than another.

Time immemorial is not a good reason to continue something. Slavery existed in time immemorial. So did denial of women's franchise. Hell, so did criminalisation of homosexuality.

The LPGA and the PGA are PRIVATE organisations and should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own money. If they want to pay someone more money than another, that is their choice.

What matters to me is what the STATE does.

Posted by: Donalbain at October 8, 2009 02:47 PM

The LPGA and the PGA are PRIVATE organisations and should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own money. If they want to pay someone more money than another, that is their choice.

Really? Then why do they have to allow handicapped players the use of a cart (by judicial ruling), for instance?

And why do PRIVATE restaurants, hotels and the like have to serve people they may not wish to?

Time immemorial can be a good reason if ... it's a good reason. And the state makes -- or at least allows -- distinctions all the time. Again, with a civil union and marriage, if permitted by the state as I have advocated, neither is "better" than the other. Your argument is moot.

Posted by: Hube at October 8, 2009 02:55 PM

They shouldnt be forced to let them use carts.

Can you show how "time immemorial" is a good reason to deny gay people the right to marry, but not a good reason to criminalise sodomy?

Posted by: Donalbain at October 8, 2009 03:08 PM

I agree -- the PGA shouldn't be forced by judicial order.

I said that "time immemorial" is a good reason for procreation and the creation of a family unit. It shouldn't be used against gays who want to form their own unions. My argument is over the term "marriage" itself -- that it should be permitted to be used only for heterosexual unions.

Posted by: Hube at October 8, 2009 03:17 PM

OK.. so if "marriage" refers to procreation, then childless married couples are not "married". Is that your position?

Posted by: Donalbain at October 8, 2009 05:27 PM

Of course not, as choice always plays a role.

BTW, do you agree with this: And why do PRIVATE restaurants, hotels and the like have to serve people they may not wish to?

Posted by: Hube at October 8, 2009 05:46 PM

What role does choice play? You said it was about procreation. An woman with a hysterectomy will not have children, no matter what she chooses. Is SHE married?

Posted by: Donalbain at October 9, 2009 02:21 AM

Do you agree with this: And why do PRIVATE restaurants, hotels and the like have to serve people they may not wish to?

Posted by: Hube at October 9, 2009 04:50 PM

Sorry, but you are not giving a statement to agree with or disagree with...

You are asking if I disagree with a question.

Posted by: Donalbain at October 9, 2009 06:45 PM

Oh please. What I'm doing is asking you a question/posing an issue which you do not want to address. This is why you've avoided it now for the third time.

Posted by: Hube at October 9, 2009 06:52 PM

Let's see where we are now:

1) You haven't made a persuasive case as to why gays have a "right" to the term marriage, even if they are granted every single governmental benefit/right that heterosexual married couples possess.

2) I advocate that, via the 14th Amendment, homosexual couples should have the rights mentioned in #1. However, I don't see how the actual term of "marriage" is covered by this Amendment for a number of reasons.

3) We've argued "arbitrary;" you haven't made a case as to why the mere term "marriage" isn't ... merely an arbitrary thing.

4) I can cede that allowing homosexual unions to "marry" is equally as arbitrary, and personally, it wouldn't bother me if this happened.

5) You haven't addressed why, if the PGA shouldn't have to be made to allow a player to use a cart (being a private entity), that other private entities like restaurants and hotels must serve/cater to people they may not wish to.

Posted by: Hube at October 9, 2009 07:05 PM

1) Because to give them another term under the law would not be treating them equally under the law. 14th Amendment.

2) What reasons? You have not said WHY the law should be able to label one group as seperate but equal.

3) It *is* an arbitary thing, but the function of government should be to treat people the same, not to make some equal but seperate

4) What bothers you is not the issue. It is a matter of homosexuals being treated unequally under the law.

5) That has nothing to do with how the STATE treats people.

Do you have ANY reason at all why a homosexual couple should be labelled seperately from a heterosexual couple.. And I would appreciate if the reason would also apply to infertile or pensioner couples..

Posted by: Donalbain at October 10, 2009 04:56 AM

So it seems we've reached an impasse.

1) Wrong. Because,

2) arbitrarily, arbitrary distinctions (as you have said) are made all the time. Is it an "equal protection" violation that a 30 year old cannot serve as president? If not, why? He/she is of legal age in every state in the Union. Why does a woman have a right to an abortion (under the 14th Amendment, BTW), yet the father has no say in the matter?

3) See above. And you've STILL not shown how merely using the term "marriage" violates equal protection and/or makes heterosexual couples more equal.

4) Moot. I've said myriad times now that homosexual couples should be treated equally under the law.

5) You're scared to answer the question. Period. Until you do, this back and forth goes no further.

Here, let me help you: You're scared to answer it b/c, in order to be consistent, you have to answer that private entities such as restaurants and hotels SHOULD be allowed to refuse service to whomever they wish. However, such a notion (in this case, at least) deeply offends your sensibilities since it evokes the dark days of Jim Crow segregation.

Posted by: Hube at October 10, 2009 09:16 AM

1) LOL.. I see you gave up
2) Yes, since ALL 30 year olds are treated the same.
3) Seperate but equal.
4) As long as they are not treated equally by being called the same thing. Lets imagine there is a law that says YOU personally are a dick. Now, you have all the rights and priviledges of a citizen, but the law says you are a dick. Is that equal treatment? No. Titles are a part of how we treat people.
5) No. It is just not relevant. We are discussing how the STATE should act, not how private citizens should act.

Posted by: Donalbain at October 10, 2009 11:34 AM

LOL -- I see you think constantly saying the same thing -- "separate but equal" -- will somehow magically make your case. Sorry, it doesn't. And you haven't.

You sure had little problem addressing the PGA matter; again, you're absolutely scared shitless to address the restaurant/hotel matter b/c it would make you look quite inconsistent and hypocritical. What is that -- the fifth time you refused to address it?

Posted by: Hube at October 11, 2009 11:21 AM

If the state passed a law saying you were a dick, would you be treated equally?

Posted by: Donalbain at October 12, 2009 03:39 AM

Sure, as long as they passed a law calling you a prick.

Posted by: Hube at October 12, 2009 07:15 AM