Reply
Go Back   TexasBowhunter.com Community Discussion Forums > Topics > Current Events - Politics and Such
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-08-2017, 01:59 PM   #1
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default The Liberal Mind - Be Respectful

Most of us recognize the duplicity of the liberal mind. Being, liberalism can be found in educated and intellectual minds, it is evident, it cannot be linked only to lack of intelligence. There are plenty of uneducated and unintelligent Conservatives on the flip side. I have long believed it could be clinically characterized as a mental disorder while nearing psychosis in some people. Some of us have batted around similar notions because of the refusal of the liberal person to recognize proven fact or simply attempt to change its definition entirely. I have a sister and now, two former (thank God) brothers-in-law who are staunch liberals. One is a highly regarded lead surgeon and the other is an engineer and a lawyer. Early on, I believed they were being contrary for the sake of being so. That is, until I saw the parallels between them and others I encountered. The traits and behaviors are predictable and repeatable just like a mental disorder (i.e. OCD, hoarding, etc.) thus, they make no sense to the logical mind. How does this happen? How do people such as surgeons and engineers whom function by fact alone have a brain that also allows them to disregard reason and fact?

What say you TBH politics forum? Mental disorder or simply misguided thought? Or Both? Please be respectful so this isn't pulled down.


If you're offended by this, don't be. It is a topic to discuss and not a springboard for belittling you and your beliefs. Jump in and partake if you feel strongly enough. However, if you get into personal attacks, you will need thick skin!
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 02:10 PM   #2
Tomkat70
Ten Point
 
Tomkat70's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Beeville
Hunt In: Mason ,Brady,Menard
Default

Be respectful? Why they aren't? They will be the down fall of OUR state and nation.
Tomkat70 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 02:19 PM   #3
thorthunder
Pope & Young
 
thorthunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Mainly Guide Now
Default

I saw an article recently about how we use different parts of our mind. That would explained a lot.
thorthunder is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 02:37 PM   #4
texasnavy05
Eight Point
 
texasnavy05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Snook, TX
Hunt In: Snook, TX
Default

honestly, your brother-in-law probably thinks the same way about you. every human is biased. and every human is subject to confirmation bias. i (and others im sure) try to minimize this as much as possible but i dont think it can be avoided completely. we generally surround ourselves with people that share our values and interests which leads to perpetuation of those values and interests. a good example is posting this thread on this forum. most of this forum aligns politically (not all) so you arent likely to get a broad perspective. to counter, if you posted this in the pace section of an animal rights forum you would get a completely different reaction. but we dont go to that forum looking for answers...perpetuation.

so, to answer your question, i think "liberals" (not a fan of that term) believe in their minds that they are rooted in fact just as you do. we all tend to believe info that confirms our bias. and, i dont think that one political party is more susceptible to this than the other.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
texasnavy05 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 02:42 PM   #5
Man
Pope & Young
 
Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Casper,Tx
Hunt In: Nacogdoches,Tx
Default

Its actually a pretty short checklist. Dive a little into any liberals backgrounds and you will find a quick reoccurring denominator as to why they are screwed up in the head.
Man is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 02:47 PM   #6
AZST_bowhunter
Ten Point
 
AZST_bowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Cypress, Tx
Default

By no means is liberalism a mental disorder as it is in fact the ideology that conservatism and democratic parties fall under. Can one be more "liberal" absolutely. Is it a bad thing for one to me more "liberal" on certain policies? No, because without the ever changing idea of ideologies politics and political parties will (have) become stale and/or stagnant. Look at our current political climate, I think this is a perfect example of what happens when politics become stale. We have seen the same thing happen over and over and over. I feel that becoming to liberal on certain things has led to the election of Trump. When I say "becoming to liberal" I am not referring to just the democratic party, but "republican" party as well. To many of our politicians have become to "liberal" on very important policies, one of the big ones, immigration. This didn't just start, it was going on when Reagan was in office. Why can't we halt all immigration into our country to fix our immigration issues? Some might argue that our immigration policies just need to be enforced, which could be true, by why aren't immigration enforcers following the laws? Why is a president allowed to order them not to follow the law? The American people have become to liberal with holding our representatives accountable, meanwhile they say one thing and do the opposites and pocket another million....
AZST_bowhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 02:49 PM   #7
AZST_bowhunter
Ten Point
 
AZST_bowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Cypress, Tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZST_bowhunter View Post
By no means is liberalism a mental disorder as it is in fact the ideology that conservatism and democratic parties fall under. Can one be more "liberal" absolutely. Is it a bad thing for one to me more "liberal" on certain policies? No, because without the ever changing idea of ideologies politics and political parties will (have) become stale and/or stagnant. Look at our current political climate, I think this is a perfect example of what happens when politics become stale. We have seen the same thing happen over and over and over. I feel that becoming to liberal on certain things has led to the election of Trump. When I say "becoming to liberal" I am not referring to just the democratic party, but "republican" party as well. To many of our politicians have become to "liberal" on very important policies, one of the big ones, immigration. This didn't just start, it was going on when Reagan was in office. Why can't we halt all immigration into our country to fix our immigration issues? Some might argue that our immigration policies just need to be enforced, which could be true, by why aren't immigration enforcers following the laws? Why is a president allowed to order them not to follow the law? The American people have become to liberal with holding our representatives accountable, meanwhile they say one thing and do the opposites and pocket another million....
Sorry for the rant fellas lol
AZST_bowhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 03:12 PM   #8
Russ79
Ten Point
 
Russ79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nacogdoches, Tx
Hunt In: Nacogdoches county, Beaufort county NC
Default

I think a liberal's mind is more centered around emotion and a conservative's around actual fact. Everyone has sympathy for the needy and downtrodden among us and would like to help but the practical matter is at what cost and how do we accomplish it. Instead of screwing up health care for the 90% of us that didn't need help for the 10% that did, why didn't our benevolent government look at ways to help just the poor and those with PEC?
Russ79 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 03:13 PM   #9
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kempner,Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZL3axcwDz8
flywise is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 03:28 PM   #10
texasnavy05
Eight Point
 
texasnavy05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Snook, TX
Hunt In: Snook, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man View Post
Its actually a pretty short checklist. Dive a little into any liberals backgrounds and you will find a quick reoccurring denominator as to why they are screwed up in the head.
OK, I'll bite. What is the common denominator?
texasnavy05 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 03:30 PM   #11
jerp
Pope & Young
 
jerp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Aledo
Hunt In: Shackleford Co.
Default

I started this as a quick reply and it got a little long - my apologies

I have come to believe that the fundamental starting point for understanding liberal vs. conservative views is the difference in their understanding of human nature. Simplistically speaking there are two basic views – human nature is either fixed or it is malleable/changeable.
Conservatives, libertarians (and “classical liberals”) believe that human nature is fixed, with tendencies toward both good and evil. Progressives, (liberals, socialists, etc) think human nature is malleable – it can be changed through law and social pressure/influence.

Conservatives believe that as a result of either biology/culture, or supernatural forces (GOD) human nature has some permanent and universal features that do not change. Humans are naturally neither good or evil. Our dual nature makes us equally capable of both, so we require social influences (family, religion, community) to provide moral guidance. Conservatives prefer these three sources of influence over coercive government. Those on the right also value liberty and believe the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights and liberties because those basic rights and liberties pre-exist the state. Conservatives also recognize there are differences in people when it comes to talent, skills interests and ambition. This is expressed in the desire for equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

Liberals/Progressives – in general – believe humans are “born good” then are corrupted by an unjust society. That's why they are more likely to attribute criminal/destructive behavior to some form of oppression instead of poorly-used power of free will. They are far more willing to use state power to remake society through laws and social engineering. “ If we just get the smart people to pass and enforce the right laws, humanity will someday march through the sunny fields of utopia with no one left behind.

For you fellow political philosophy geeks, I’ve heard it boiled down to this – political vision can be boiled down to Locke vs. Rousseau.* The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign and that the government exists because men of free will cede certain powers to it in order to protect life and property.

The Rousseauian vision says the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group (not God) and the needs, aims and goals of the group come before those of the individual.

*I'm paraphrasing the Locke/Rousseau part from a book I just read - not my original idea

Last edited by jerp; 08-08-2017 at 03:40 PM..
jerp is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 03:35 PM   #12
txpitdog
Pope & Young
 
txpitdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kingwood
Hunt In: Polk Co., TX & La Flore Co., OK
Default

There are some really smart people out there who still insist on driving a Dodge, so some things are just unexplainable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
txpitdog is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 03:45 PM   #13
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kempner,Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerp View Post
I started this as a quick reply and it got a little long - my apologies

I have come to believe that the fundamental starting point for understanding liberal vs. conservative views is the difference in their understanding of human nature. Simplistically speaking there are two basic views – human nature is either fixed or it is malleable/changeable.
Conservatives, libertarians (and “classical liberals”) believe that human nature is fixed, with tendencies toward both good and evil. Progressives, (liberals, socialists, etc) think human nature is malleable – it can be changed through law and social pressure/influence.

Conservatives believe that as a result of either biology/culture, or supernatural forces (GOD) human nature has some permanent and universal features that do not change. Humans are naturally neither good or evil. Our dual nature makes us equally capable of both, so we require social influences (family, religion, community) to provide moral guidance. Conservatives prefer these three sources of influence over coercive government. Those on the right also value liberty and believe the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights and liberties because those basic rights and liberties pre-exist the state. Conservatives also recognize there are differences in people when it comes to talent, skills interests and ambition. This is expressed in the desire for equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

Liberals/Progressives – in general – believe humans are “born good” then are corrupted by an unjust society. That's why they are more likely to attribute criminal/destructive behavior to some form of oppression instead of poorly-used power of free will. They are far more willing to use state power to remake society through laws and social engineering. “ If we just get the smart people to pass and enforce the right laws, humanity will someday march through the sunny fields of utopia with no one left behind.

For you fellow political philosophy geeks, I’ve heard it boiled down to this – political vision can be boiled down to Locke vs. Rousseau.* The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign and that the government exists because men of free will cede certain powers to it in order to protect life and property.

The Rousseauian vision says the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group (not God) and the needs, aims and goals of the group come before those of the individual.

*I'm paraphrasing the Locke/Rousseau part from a book I just read - not my original idea
Probably the best explanation that will be posted to this topic.
Well done
flywise is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 03:52 PM   #14
J Sweet
Pope & Young
 
J Sweet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: The Woodlands
Hunt In: Leon/Madsion County
Default

Spot on Jerp. Some hearts just bleed more than others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
J Sweet is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 03:57 PM   #15
Gunnyart
Associate Sponsor
 
Gunnyart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mansfield, TX
Hunt In: Lometa, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flywise View Post
Probably the best explanation that will be posted to this topic.
Well done
Agreed. I'll be sharing this if you don't mind.
Gunnyart is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:06 PM   #16
Man
Pope & Young
 
Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Casper,Tx
Hunt In: Nacogdoches,Tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texasnavy05 View Post
OK, I'll bite. What is the common denominator?
Sorry I meant to say "reoccurring denominators" such as the below to name a few.

*No father figure
*Didn't fit in with anyone growing up
*No love or attention from the parents growing up
*gay

etc
Man is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:14 PM   #17
miket
Pope & Young
 
miket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Plantersville
Hunt In: Grimes County, Victoria
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerp View Post
I started this as a quick reply and it got a little long - my apologies

I have come to believe that the fundamental starting point for understanding liberal vs. conservative views is the difference in their understanding of human nature. Simplistically speaking there are two basic views – human nature is either fixed or it is malleable/changeable.
Conservatives, libertarians (and “classical liberals”) believe that human nature is fixed, with tendencies toward both good and evil. Progressives, (liberals, socialists, etc) think human nature is malleable – it can be changed through law and social pressure/influence.

Conservatives believe that as a result of either biology/culture, or supernatural forces (GOD) human nature has some permanent and universal features that do not change. Humans are naturally neither good or evil. Our dual nature makes us equally capable of both, so we require social influences (family, religion, community) to provide moral guidance. Conservatives prefer these three sources of influence over coercive government. Those on the right also value liberty and believe the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights and liberties because those basic rights and liberties pre-exist the state. Conservatives also recognize there are differences in people when it comes to talent, skills interests and ambition. This is expressed in the desire for equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

Liberals/Progressives – in general – believe humans are “born good” then are corrupted by an unjust society. That's why they are more likely to attribute criminal/destructive behavior to some form of oppression instead of poorly-used power of free will. They are far more willing to use state power to remake society through laws and social engineering. “ If we just get the smart people to pass and enforce the right laws, humanity will someday march through the sunny fields of utopia with no one left behind.

For you fellow political philosophy geeks, I’ve heard it boiled down to this – political vision can be boiled down to Locke vs. Rousseau.* The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign and that the government exists because men of free will cede certain powers to it in order to protect life and property.

The Rousseauian vision says the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group (not God) and the needs, aims and goals of the group come before those of the individual.

*I'm paraphrasing the Locke/Rousseau part from a book I just read - not my original idea
Yes!
miket is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:16 PM   #18
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomkat70 View Post
Be respectful? Why they aren't? They will be the down fall of OUR state and nation.
I meant, be respectful on this forum so it doesn't get pulled down. I resent liberal/Socialist policy as much as any breathing man but here, we have to conform to have dialogue.
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:16 PM   #19
tradtiger
Pope & Young
 
tradtiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Austin
Hunt In: Lee Co., Granger
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerp View Post
I started this as a quick reply and it got a little long - my apologies

I have come to believe that the fundamental starting point for understanding liberal vs. conservative views is the difference in their understanding of human nature. Simplistically speaking there are two basic views – human nature is either fixed or it is malleable/changeable.
Conservatives, libertarians (and “classical liberals”) believe that human nature is fixed, with tendencies toward both good and evil. Progressives, (liberals, socialists, etc) think human nature is malleable – it can be changed through law and social pressure/influence.

Conservatives believe that as a result of either biology/culture, or supernatural forces (GOD) human nature has some permanent and universal features that do not change. Humans are naturally neither good or evil. Our dual nature makes us equally capable of both, so we require social influences (family, religion, community) to provide moral guidance. Conservatives prefer these three sources of influence over coercive government. Those on the right also value liberty and believe the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights and liberties because they pre-exist the state. Conservatives also recognize there are differences in people when it comes to talent, skills interests and ambition. This is expressed in the desire for equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

Liberals/Progressives – in general – believe humans are “born good” then are corrupted by an unjust society. That's why they are more likely to attribute criminal/destructive behavior to some form of oppression instead of poorly-used power of free will. They are far more willing to use state power to remake society through laws and social engineering. “ If we just get the smart people to pass and enforce the right laws, humanity will someday march through the sunny fields of utopia with no one left behind.

For you fellow political philosophy geeks, I’ve heard it boiled down to this – political vision can be boiled down to Locke vs. Rousseau.* The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign and that the government exists because men of free will cede certain powers to it in order to protect life and property.

The Rousseauian vision says the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group (not God) and the needs, aims and goals of the group come before those of the individual.

*I'm paraphrasing the Locke/Rousseau part from a book I just read
Jerp's analysis is spot-on. I would add that the ideologies -- broadly expressed as communism and socialism -- espoused by Marx depended on the denial of immutable human nature. Read: we need new, better men for his system to work. Marx's changes also required the denial of all lessons in human history preceding his writing. One can look all the way back to Plato and Aristotle regarding mankind having a spiritual element to his nature, and that there is a Higher Good, which is beyond temporal history. This thought is even recognized in the Higher Law Tradition of our own Supreme Court.

The Progressive belief that perfection of Man -- and, in turn, Society -- can be achieved in historical time -- the Here and Now -- is rightly characterized as Utopian -- meaning "nowhere." Perfection only exists in the Beyond; although, we have a spiritual nature, along with religion, family and community to guide us in seeking our best nature.
tradtiger is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:23 PM   #20
skipetex
Eight Point
 
skipetex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Hughes Springs
Hunt In: Blackwell
Default

Becoming a liberal is evidence of a weak mind in that person
skipetex is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:24 PM   #21
SaltwaterSlick
Pope & Young
 
SaltwaterSlick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerp View Post
I started this as a quick reply and it got a little long - my apologies

I have come to believe that the fundamental starting point for understanding liberal vs. conservative views is the difference in their understanding of human nature. Simplistically speaking there are two basic views – human nature is either fixed or it is malleable/changeable.
Conservatives, libertarians (and “classical liberals”) believe that human nature is fixed, with tendencies toward both good and evil. Progressives, (liberals, socialists, etc) think human nature is malleable – it can be changed through law and social pressure/influence.

Conservatives believe that as a result of either biology/culture, or supernatural forces (GOD) human nature has some permanent and universal features that do not change. Humans are naturally neither good or evil. Our dual nature makes us equally capable of both, so we require social influences (family, religion, community) to provide moral guidance. Conservatives prefer these three sources of influence over coercive government. Those on the right also value liberty and believe the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights and liberties because those basic rights and liberties pre-exist the state. Conservatives also recognize there are differences in people when it comes to talent, skills interests and ambition. This is expressed in the desire for equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

Liberals/Progressives – in general – believe humans are “born good” then are corrupted by an unjust society. That's why they are more likely to attribute criminal/destructive behavior to some form of oppression instead of poorly-used power of free will. They are far more willing to use state power to remake society through laws and social engineering. “ If we just get the smart people to pass and enforce the right laws, humanity will someday march through the sunny fields of utopia with no one left behind.

For you fellow political philosophy geeks, I’ve heard it boiled down to this – political vision can be boiled down to Locke vs. Rousseau.* The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign and that the government exists because men of free will cede certain powers to it in order to protect life and property.

The Rousseauian vision says the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group (not God) and the needs, aims and goals of the group come before those of the individual.

*I'm paraphrasing the Locke/Rousseau part from a book I just read - not my original idea
CLOSE THE THREAD... John NAILED IT...

Only thing I can add is that whem most liberals are confronted with a REAL decision as to whether to let someone (gubment or other entity) take away what they have worked for, they suddenly become "conservative"... and are not willing to give up what they feel is rightfully theirs.
SaltwaterSlick is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:26 PM   #22
Tomkat70
Ten Point
 
Tomkat70's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Beeville
Hunt In: Mason ,Brady,Menard
Default The Liberal"Mind"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livin'2hunt View Post
I meant, be respectful on this forum so it doesn't get pulled down. I resent liberal/Socialist policy as much as any breathing man but here, we have to conform to have dialogue.
I was just being sarcastic
Tomkat70 is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:29 PM   #23
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default

Well stated, Jerp. I would disagree on few points but I like your premise. We can disagree over who loves the downtrodden less or more but I contend, when a liberal's emotions storm to the front of their brain, they are willing to set sail fact and will argue for it until the World looks level. There is something inherently wrong with a mind that can do that or, worse yet, force others at the point of a gun to do it.

Liberals preach tolerance and love but when they are empowered or find influence, they are the first to kick those "ideals" to the curb and punitively force us all to conform to their modus operandi. I do not believe that power corrupts all. Also, there are liberals on every side. This is not a Republican vs Democrat point.
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:40 PM   #24
B Littleton
Eight Point
 
B Littleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Hunt In: Hamilton County & Public Land
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerp View Post
I started this as a quick reply and it got a little long - my apologies

I have come to believe that the fundamental starting point for understanding liberal vs. conservative views is the difference in their understanding of human nature. Simplistically speaking there are two basic views – human nature is either fixed or it is malleable/changeable.
Conservatives, libertarians (and “classical liberals”) believe that human nature is fixed, with tendencies toward both good and evil. Progressives, (liberals, socialists, etc) think human nature is malleable – it can be changed through law and social pressure/influence.

Conservatives believe that as a result of either biology/culture, or supernatural forces (GOD) human nature has some permanent and universal features that do not change. Humans are naturally neither good or evil. Our dual nature makes us equally capable of both, so we require social influences (family, religion, community) to provide moral guidance. Conservatives prefer these three sources of influence over coercive government. Those on the right also value liberty and believe the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our rights and liberties because those basic rights and liberties pre-exist the state. Conservatives also recognize there are differences in people when it comes to talent, skills interests and ambition. This is expressed in the desire for equality of opportunity vs equality of outcomes.

Liberals/Progressives – in general – believe humans are “born good” then are corrupted by an unjust society. That's why they are more likely to attribute criminal/destructive behavior to some form of oppression instead of poorly-used power of free will. They are far more willing to use state power to remake society through laws and social engineering. “ If we just get the smart people to pass and enforce the right laws, humanity will someday march through the sunny fields of utopia with no one left behind.

For you fellow political philosophy geeks, I’ve heard it boiled down to this – political vision can be boiled down to Locke vs. Rousseau.* The Lockean vision holds that man is the captain of his soul, his rights come from God, the individual is sovereign and that the government exists because men of free will cede certain powers to it in order to protect life and property.

The Rousseauian vision says the collective comes before the individual, our rights come from the group (not God) and the needs, aims and goals of the group come before those of the individual.

*I'm paraphrasing the Locke/Rousseau part from a book I just read - not my original idea
Well said, and I would add this...

Strict adherence to any "ism" is likely to result in a breakdown of rational thought and decision making at some point. Even when faced new evidence, its rare to see anyone with an opinion they hold as incontrovertibly true change their mind.

The reality is that there is a lot of grey area between the two poles of the political spectrum, but people don't like grey areas. Political machines, bureaucrats, corporations, media salesmen, etc. like grey areas even less than individuals.
B Littleton is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:43 PM   #25
miket
Pope & Young
 
miket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Plantersville
Hunt In: Grimes County, Victoria
Default

Of course we cant lump them all together. They dont all think the same, or for the same reason. I think the "thinking liberal" generally is just as Jerp described. But many, I do believe, do have a mental disorder, particularly the far left. But I believe the majority that now inhabit the USA are unthinking, selfish, greedy, and short sighted people. Deeply flawed individuals that have no problem voting in leaders specifically to steal one persons money and property, for the sole purpose of distributing it to themselves. These are the ones I truly despise. The bleeding heart liberal is just a weak person, with a flawed thought process. The new liberal we have created is truly a bad person. A thief. A drain on society, and in the end, will lead to the death of liberty.

Last edited by miket; 08-08-2017 at 04:45 PM..
miket is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:44 PM   #26
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texasnavy05 View Post
honestly, your brother-in-law probably thinks the same way about you. every human is biased. and every human is subject to confirmation bias. i (and others im sure) try to minimize this as much as possible but i dont think it can be avoided completely. we generally surround ourselves with people that share our values and interests which leads to perpetuation of those values and interests. a good example is posting this thread on this forum. most of this forum aligns politically (not all) so you arent likely to get a broad perspective. to counter, if you posted this in the pace section of an animal rights forum you would get a completely different reaction. but we dont go to that forum looking for answers...perpetuation.

so, to answer your question, i think "liberals" (not a fan of that term) believe in their minds that they are rooted in fact just as you do. we all tend to believe info that confirms our bias. and, i dont think that one political party is more susceptible to this than the other.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
No, both ex brothers-in-law believe I am an unevolved dolt. They both contend that to be dignified and refined, one must be a "compassionate" person (i.e. liberal/progressive). As for the idealistic echo chamber, I understand you and I don't know each other but I assure you, I can parse out all the bravo sierra and get straight down to facts.

Facts are not debatable. That was my point. Whether my B-I-Ls believe they are in the right matters not. I am talking about hardened facts that are irrefutable. That is what the erudite liberal will argue to their last breath. You can cite their favorite lecturer or author that refutes their claim but they still hold true.

We may have gotten in the weeds here but this isn't a matter of feelings or emotion. I was asking a clinical question about that "thing" that makes a logical mind scratch their head about liberal "reasoning".

Why don't you like the term liberal? The one that irks me is Progressive. Personally, I favor Socialist or Marxist. It is more apt.
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 04:57 PM   #27
texasnavy05
Eight Point
 
texasnavy05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Snook, TX
Hunt In: Snook, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livin'2hunt View Post

Why don't you like the term liberal? The one that irks me is Progressive. Personally, I favor Socialist or Marxist. It is more apt.
i guess i dont mind "liberal" i just think that it gets thrown around interchangeably with democrat.

just curious, what facts did your BILs dispute?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
texasnavy05 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 05:16 PM   #28
AZST_bowhunter
Ten Point
 
AZST_bowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Cypress, Tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livin'2hunt View Post
No, both ex brothers-in-law believe I am an unevolved dolt. They both contend that to be dignified and refined, one must be a "compassionate" person (i.e. liberal/progressive). As for the idealistic echo chamber, I understand you and I don't know each other but I assure you, I can parse out all the bravo sierra and get straight down to facts.

Facts are not debatable. That was my point. Whether my B-I-Ls believe they are in the right matters not. I am talking about hardened facts that are irrefutable. That is what the erudite liberal will argue to their last breath. You can cite their favorite lecturer or author that refutes their claim but they still hold true.

We may have gotten in the weeds here but this isn't a matter of feelings or emotion. I was asking a clinical question about that "thing" that makes a logical mind scratch their head about liberal "reasoning".

Why don't you like the term liberal? The one that irks me is Progressive. Personally, I favor Socialist or Marxist. It is more apt.
Because it has been used over and over incorrectly. A liberal is someone who adheres to the idea of liberalism, i.e. democrats and republicans. Thats just my opinion on it, progressive is a much better term.

"The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions… (and) when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."
AZST_bowhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 05:38 PM   #29
Darton
Ten Point
 
Darton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Lake Eufaula, OK
Hunt In: Oklahoma
Default

I don't believe it is a metal disorder or being misguided. I lean more towards indoctrination.
Darton is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 05:46 PM   #30
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by texasnavy05 View Post
i guess i dont mind "liberal" i just think that it gets thrown around interchangeably with democrat.

just curious, what facts did your BILs dispute?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
As for the term "liberal", I actually respect those like Bernie Sanders who will stand on stage and proclaim their ideology for all to hear. I will nail a the liberal moniker to forehead of a Republican faster than I will a Democrat.

One example that erupted over dinner was while discussing the true reason for the U.S. Civil War. The engineer/lawyer became so enraged when I told him slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War, he stood up, threw his napkin on his plate and said, "I cannot believe I am dining with neanderthals. You can't be helped." Then, he stomped out. Prior to that, I was calm and tried to reason with him and cite every source I could recall. He wasn't having it.

There are many more instances such as:

-taxes
-single payer
-communism
-war

All caused heated disagreements. When we discussing taxes, the surgeon got booty hurt big time. He told me I was heartless because I didn't want to "pay my fair share". My thought was, whatever but he prodded. I asked him, "What percentage is my appropriate share." Of course, he would not commit so, right then, the debate was over but he continued to get more boisterous in trying to insult me. Finally, I asked him if he writes off ANYTHING on his taxes. He asked what I meant (stalling for time). I said, kid, house, car, maid, landscaper, nanny, etc.? He said "Yes, of course." I said, "You know, you are cheating someone on welfare out of THEIR fair share...." He became so aghast, he went in his room and pouted for two full days. We had all rented a house for a vacation. It turned out to be a nice trip.

Last edited by Livin'2hunt; 08-08-2017 at 05:56 PM..
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 06:31 PM   #31
texasnavy05
Eight Point
 
texasnavy05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Snook, TX
Hunt In: Snook, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livin'2hunt View Post
As for the term "liberal", I actually respect those like Bernie Sanders who will stand on stage and proclaim their ideology for all to hear. I will nail a the liberal moniker to forehead of a Republican faster than I will a Democrat.

One example that erupted over dinner was while discussing the true reason for the U.S. Civil War. The engineer/lawyer became so enraged when I told him slavery wasn't the cause of the Civil War, he stood up, threw his napkin on his plate and said, "I cannot believe I am dining with neanderthals. You can't be helped." Then, he stomped out. Prior to that, I was calm and tried to reason with him and cite every source I could recall. He wasn't having it.
i guess im in need of a history lesson. every teacher or professor ive ever had for history taught that slavery was the root cause for the civil war.





Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
texasnavy05 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 06:40 PM   #32
Ironman
Pope & Young
 
Ironman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Northern Wise County
Hunt In: Anywhere
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texasnavy05 View Post
i guess im in need of a history lesson. every teacher or professor ive ever had for history taught that slavery was the root cause for the civil war.





Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
That's where the indoctrination part comes in.
Ironman is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 06:59 PM   #33
B Littleton
Eight Point
 
B Littleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Hunt In: Hamilton County & Public Land
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman View Post
That's where the indoctrination part comes in.
Come on now. Obviously slavery was a massive part of the reason for the war, as was states rights, as was disagreement over many aspects of westward expansion.
B Littleton is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 07:09 PM   #34
texasnavy05
Eight Point
 
texasnavy05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Snook, TX
Hunt In: Snook, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironman View Post
That's where the indoctrination part comes in.
sigh...

indoctrination implies an effort to stop critical reasoning when learning.

ive been taught to have a healthy level of criticism. once you cross over that "healthy level" you turn into a conspiracy theorist.

i have no reason to believe that slavery wasnt the biggest single cause of the civil war. feel free to show me otherwise.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
texasnavy05 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 07:35 PM   #35
thorthunder
Pope & Young
 
thorthunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Mainly Guide Now
Default

[quote=texasnavy05;12634511]i guess im in need of a history lesson. every teacher or professor ive ever had for history taught that slavery was the root cause for the civil war.


Not so much. Here is a short write up....

The war broke out over Secession. Lincoln won the 1860 election with maybe 40% of the vote, and the South said "***? I'm out of here!" Then Lincoln got ****** and sent in the troops. About halfway through the war, he decided that "preserving the union" wasn't a catchy enough reason to have thousands die, so he switched over to the slavery issue.


The South felt exactly the way democrats would feel if Bush got a third term. They'd probably secede to. The main reason for secession was that the South felt threatened. Lincoln was a radical from a party whose platform called for the destruction of the Southern way of life. In the shoes of a Southerner, they had no choice but to leave. then to further complicate things, they weren't allowed to just leave peacefully.

Kansas: the reason popular sovereignty failed was because thousands of abolitionists swarmed in to vote. So Missouri sent in their own voters. Soon Kansas was full of people from Missouri and Yankees. You even had a small shooting war taking place there.

Abolitionists definitely hurt the union. They caused the South to feel threatened, and that increased tension. That tension boiled over in 1861.
thorthunder is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 07:48 PM   #36
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by texasnavy05 View Post
sigh...

indoctrination implies an effort to stop critical reasoning when learning.

ive been taught to have a healthy level of criticism. once you cross over that "healthy level" you turn into a conspiracy theorist.

i have no reason to believe that slavery wasnt the biggest single cause of the civil war. feel free to show me otherwise.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Having been educated in the public school system, my level of skepticism/criticism is more than "healthy" now that I have learned what was withheld from me. I wont get into a history debate but to answer your question, it was about States Rights to secede from the Union. Among them, the Confederate States believed they had the Right to own slaves and slavery was their discretion. And, yes that sort of negligence is purposeful indoctrination. Just like my kids having never been taught one freakin' thing about 9/11. An event that formed generations of citizens is ignored....much like leaving out factual matters about the Civil War which formed the course of our history as a Nation. It's out there to be found. Just not in public schools.
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 08:01 PM   #37
texasnavy05
Eight Point
 
texasnavy05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Snook, TX
Hunt In: Snook, TX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorthunder View Post

The war broke out over Secession.


The main reason for secession was that the South felt threatened.

these are your points. i agree with them both. but, why did the south feel threatened? changing their way of life...aka freeing their slaves. in the states' declaration of secession they specifically state that as a reason for leaving. those are legitimate documents.

so i guess you could say that the cause of the war was secession, but the biggest cause of secession was slavery.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
texasnavy05 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 08:02 PM   #38
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default

Lincoln was not about the abolition of slavery. There's plenty more where that came from...
Attached Images
   
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 08:20 PM   #39
texasnavy05
Eight Point
 
texasnavy05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Snook, TX
Hunt In: Snook, TX
Default

the issue of slavery caused secession, and secession caused the war. lincoln may not have declared war on slavery but it was still the root cause for the war.

this article articulates my point much more eloquently
https://amp.livescience.com/13673-ci...ary-myths.html


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
texasnavy05 is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 08:46 PM   #40
jerp
Pope & Young
 
jerp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Aledo
Hunt In: Shackleford Co.
Default

OK, I was not going to jump in on this but I cant help myself. First a little background. My southern roots go very deep - my mother is from Richmond Va and her people there go back to the 1690's. That side of my family were slave owners from about 1805 until Emancipation. My father's people moved to Texas From North Carolina in 1850 and also owned slaves. There is a long list of my kin that died for the South. This spurred my intense interest in the Civil War from an early age. Well into adulthood I believed the "states rights, not slavery" line I was taught. However as I have become more informed through decades of research I think both are correct depending who you are talking about. The overwhelming majority (almost all) of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves and fought - as one captured rebel said - "because y'all are down here!" Or like most every soldier throughout history, they fought for the men on the left and right of them. It is also hard to believe that your average northerner was willing to give his life to free the slaves. (most of them did not think blacks were equal to whites, but most thought that owning other people was wrong) They were fighting to preserve the Union and once again, for their comrades. So most of the guys doing the actual shooting - on either side - did not give one whit about slavery.

However there is absolutely no doubt that the political cause of the war was slavery. EVERY ONE of the southern state's secession documents made it crystal clear that they were leaving the union to preserve the institution of slavery. Alexander Stevens (vice president of the CSA) made it very clear just after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumpter. From his "Cornerstone" speech:
" Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

So if you continue to cling to the "states rights" argument, you must admit that the right they were fighting for was the right to own other humans they considered to be inferior.

Last edited by jerp; 08-08-2017 at 08:53 PM..
jerp is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 09:02 PM   #41
thorthunder
Pope & Young
 
thorthunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Mainly Guide Now
Default

Money and power. This started in Europe really. The thinking of the time mirrors this thread. Libs trying to grab more of your dollars and the control of middle America. ( Fly over states ) to the coastal states. Two completely different mind sets.
Slaves fell into the money part of the equasion. Don't mess with my wallet. The north wanted a piece of every pie. ( sound familiar ) and the south wanted to self govern.
We left the union and started the most deadly war in American history.
thorthunder is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 09:04 PM   #42
ttaxidermy
Pope & Young
 
ttaxidermy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Brazoria county
Hunt In: Brady,McCulloch Cnty, Brazoria cnty, South Africa, Namibia
Default

There have been some really good responses with obviously a lot of thought put into some but STILL some of the things liberals believe in and the agendas that they push make Absolutley no sense....
Their thought processes and beliefs are getting stranger and more disturbing, and disgusting as the years go by....

I truly believe that most of them know right from wrong but choose to take a path less traveled as to be different and to just see how far they can push the common people.... They love attention and the shock value that their agendas create... It's a game to them...
ttaxidermy is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 09:40 PM   #43
thorthunder
Pope & Young
 
thorthunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston
Hunt In: Mainly Guide Now
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttaxidermy View Post
There have been some really good responses with obviously a lot of thought put into some but STILL some of the things liberals believe in and the agendas that they push make Absolutley no sense....
Their thought processes and beliefs are getting stranger and more disturbing, and disgusting as the years go by....

I truly believe that most of them know right from wrong but choose to take a path less traveled as to be different and to just see how far they can push the common people.... They love attention and the shock value that their agendas create... It's a game to them...
A rich friend in Maryland just set up residency in Mexico so she can buy the level of medical care she wants. Retired business owner with tons of money. She is still a Hillary fan even after having to leave America for healthcare. Shaking My Head.......
thorthunder is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 10:32 PM   #44
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerp View Post
OK, I was not going to jump in on this but I cant help myself. First a little background. My southern roots go very deep - my mother is from Richmond Va and her people there go back to the 1690's. That side of my family were slave owners from about 1805 until Emancipation. My father's people moved to Texas From North Carolina in 1850 and also owned slaves. There is a long list of my kin that died for the South. This spurred my intense interest in the Civil War from an early age. Well into adulthood I believed the "states rights, not slavery" line I was taught. However as I have become more informed through decades of research I think both are correct depending who you are talking about. The overwhelming majority (almost all) of Confederate soldiers did not own slaves and fought - as one captured rebel said - "because y'all are down here!" Or like most every soldier throughout history, they fought for the men on the left and right of them. It is also hard to believe that your average northerner was willing to give his life to free the slaves. (most of them did not think blacks were equal to whites, but most thought that owning other people was wrong) They were fighting to preserve the Union and once again, for their comrades. So most of the guys doing the actual shooting - on either side - did not give one whit about slavery.

However there is absolutely no doubt that the political cause of the war was slavery. EVERY ONE of the southern state's secession documents made it crystal clear that they were leaving the union to preserve the institution of slavery. Alexander Stevens (vice president of the CSA) made it very clear just after the first shots were fired at Fort Sumpter. From his "Cornerstone" speech:
" Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

So if you continue to cling to the "states rights" argument, you must admit that the right they were fighting for was the right to own other humans they considered to be inferior.

Again, nicely done Jerp. That is exactly what I was trying to say. 620,000 people died in the War and an underwhelming majority of those fighting and killed never owned a slave. It wasn't about doing so, it was about the Right to do so if one chose to. The Right for the State to make that decision independently of the U.S. Government.

It would be no different if the Government of today told Texas we no longer had private property Rights. Most of us will wonder how long it takes to secede and who the first President will be, whether we own property or not.
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-08-2017, 10:59 PM   #45
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorthunder View Post
A rich friend in Maryland just set up residency in Mexico so she can buy the level of medical care she wants. Retired business owner with tons of money. She is still a Hillary fan even after having to leave America for healthcare. Shaking My Head.......
That makes as much sense as my former BIL, the surgeon, singing the praises of Obamacare before its implementation. I explained to him, we are headed down a road where the Gubmint can set the pay scale for his services. His face lost all expression (I guess he never considered that) and then, he said, "Well....I'm still for it. If that's the price I have to pay, I will do it." He no more believed what he was saying than he thought he could flap his arms and fly. I reminded him, if he "didn't selfishly take advantage of so many write-offs, more uninsured people could get health care". At that moment, I think he thought about killing me.
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-09-2017, 09:57 AM   #46
AZST_bowhunter
Ten Point
 
AZST_bowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Cypress, Tx
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livin'2hunt View Post
Lincoln was not about the abolition of slavery. There's plenty more where that came from...
Oh don't tell this to the left!! Lincoln was the greatest "democrat" ever. He freed the slaves!! What they fail to mention was his next plan was to send the slaves to Africa, but he was killed prior to being able to implement his plan.
AZST_bowhunter is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-09-2017, 10:50 AM   #47
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kempner,Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

https://wallbuilders.com/confronting...outh-went-war/

Historical documents about why the civil war was fought
flywise is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-15-2017, 03:43 PM   #48
Mohawkman
Six Point
 
Mohawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Navarro County
Hunt In: Navarro County, And CO.
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZST_bowhunter View Post
Oh don't tell this to the left!! Lincoln was the greatest "democrat" ever. He freed the slaves!! What they fail to mention was his next plan was to send the slaves to Africa, but he was killed prior to being able to implement his plan.
They will really be shocked to find out he was a Republican!
Mohawkman is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-18-2017, 03:01 PM   #49
flywise
Pope & Young
 
flywise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Kempner,Tx
Hunt In: Blanco, Nacadoches,NewMexico,Colorado
Default

It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to ... willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns," reads SB 219, called "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident's Bill of Rights."

"It imposes fines and jail time on any long-term care employee who refuses to use transgender pronouns. Fines for repeat offenders could be as high as $1,000 and a jail term of up to a year.
California......liberal mental disorder
flywise is online now   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Old 08-18-2017, 04:17 PM   #50
Livin'2hunt
Ten Point
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Hunt In: my birthday suit
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flywise View Post
It shall be unlawful for a long-term care facility or facility staff to ... willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident's preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns," reads SB 219, called "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident's Bill of Rights."

"It imposes fines and jail time on any long-term care employee who refuses to use transgender pronouns. Fines for repeat offenders could be as high as $1,000 and a jail term of up to a year.
California......liberal mental disorder

That was my point. They just made it a law. Good job, brother.
Livin'2hunt is offline   Reply With Quote Back To The Top
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2012, TexasBowhunter.com