Offensive Team Names

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

I prefer to play numberwang.

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

I prefer to play numberwang.

7! 165! 3! 19! 14... point 5!

That'sssssss numberwang!

 

[die_mole]

My position is clear and unambiguous. If you find the Washington Redskins name offensive, don't support them, or go to their games or watch them on TV. Same applies to any other team name/symbol/mascot of any other team.

the problem is that with revenue sharing even if everyone boycotted the redskins the would still make money cause the rest of nfl makes so much money

and teams using native americans as mascots has a lot do with suicide rates and alcoholism because it says a lot about what we think their place in society is

almost every other team in american sports uses animals as their mascots so by using natives as mascots you are essentially putting them on the same level as animals

i am not saying that the names cause the drinking and suicide, i am just saying that using natives as mascots shows what our country thinks of them

 

[j'nuh]

And we should all care about whats offensive because.....?

We have mate, its an industry now: the industry of the continually offended. Mainly university professors, reporters, lawyers and other parasites who contribute nothing good to society. Just make us all paranoid we are upsetting someone we don't know or care about.

Just a few weeks ago you and a lot of British people cried fowl when the tables were turned: when Brexiters were being stereotyped as racists. You had a real problem with that.

But when people decry media representations of minorities, they're just being overly emotional?

I doubt it. IMO, they make up roughly the same percentage of the population that they have always been... a tiny minority.

The difference now is that we are in the middle of "The Information Age" when any Social Justice Warrior, any believer in Fringe Lunacy , any exponent of Crank Magnetism and any other assorted moron with a computer and and internet connection, can have a say.

There aren't more and more of them at all, they are just a lot noisier now that the internet gives them a world wide soapbox to stand on.

I repeat myself: why do you disagree with political correctness?

Your argument has been circular so far. Political correctness is bad because it is bad.

I don't doubt it at all, and its one the things that really ****s me off about PC; all the unnecessary BS and that goes on, and money spent just because some members of some fringe/minority group might be offended. The result is that the desires of the tiny minority get foisted on the majority and the majority has no recourse.

I don't understand this whatsoever. A minority of people thinks something, so they should not voice their view?

Theoretically, 99.9% of bisexuals could have no problems with the representations of bisexual people in the media, but I would still have a personal problem with it and I will still air it. The whole point of dialogue and politics is to win people round to your view. If you don't complain about something, how can fringe ideas ever get mainstream? We would be stuck with orthodoxy; we would never progress.

Yep, Political Correctness is a creeping virus that infects and infests every part of society. State Education in this country is particularly bad for that. Its run, in the main, by a whole raft of sandal-wearing feminazis with long, dangly earrings and No.1 haircuts. This small but noisy group of mostly women (and a few kaftan-wearing men) has ensured that everyone is a "winner" (or more correctly, winners are not rewarded) that excellence is frowned upon and mediocrity is widespread. They have eliminated "failure" from schools... students who don't meet minimum standards now have "deferred success", even if they never meet the minimum standards! No kidding, this really happens now. "Failure" is a forbidden word.

You've been crying out about strawmen, and yet you are guilty of making your own strawmen.

You consider a single viewpoint from a single element of a group. You assume the entire group shares that viewpoint. Then you attack the group. On feminism, since you brought them up. "Feminists hate competition!" is the crux of your argument. Feminists don't collectively think anything. Ask five different feminists about an issue, they'll give you five different answers. There is so much in-fighting with them it's unreal. Take the "TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) wars". Some feminists believe gender is innate and men transitioning into women is infiltration. Obviously, other feminists are more welcoming of trans people. Take prostitution. Some prostitutes are openly hostile to it and think it should be illegal. Others only blame the person paying for sex. Others are completely okay with it.

That being said, on this particular issue, I can see the case for at least mitigating the idea of failure in schools. I have a personal story with this. I did pretty damn good in all subjects other than art and music. I was definitely a beneficiary of the grading system. But because I was terrible at those subjects and embarrassed by my own lack of skills, I didn't even try. I was scared of looking bad and so I never gave it an honest go. For example, we used to share keyboards two-to-one, because our school didn't have enough, and I would always let my partner spend the entire lesson on it. I privately wanted to learn music, but I was too demoralised that I was behind everyone else in it to actually give it a go; I didn't want to look bad. I think some people do need the encouragement to step outside of their comfort zone, and I don't think they will get it when they are persistently told that they fail at school. Grading can stunt the growth of those failing in school as much as galvanise those who do well.

Adam Sandler is a dick, and I wouldn't watch anything he's in on principle. There you go, see, I consider his movies offensive, so what do I do about it. I don't go around demanding others be not allowed to watch, I simply vote with my wallet and choose not to watch.

Nobody has said otherwise! I think it's actually good that these movies are made, it gets people talking. In Britain we have an atrocious racist (ex-) politician called Nick Griffin, an ex-leader of the British National Party. A lot of people seemed to get angry that he was allowed to appear on Question Time, a political debate show. It was the most-watched episode of the show (it may still be, not sure). A lot of people felt it was wrong to give a racist a platform, but he took it, he made an utter fool out of himself, and his party never recovered from it. My point isn't to ban these kinds of movies (or ban Nick Griffin from appearing on Question Time) but to openly question the movies and representations.

My position is clear and unambiguous. If you find the Washington Redskins name offensive, don't support them, or go to their games or watch them on TV. Same applies to any other team name/symbol/mascot of any other team.

But don't complain about it? I don't understand what the problem with talking about things is. Why should the redskins go unchallenged if what they are doing causes harm?

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I repeat myself: why do you disagree with political correctness?

Your argument has been circular so far. Political correctness is bad because it is bad.

My take: i dislike it because more often than not, it comes at the expense of clarity, precision and down right accuracy. I'd rather be historically accurate than politically correct, and in my experience, unfortunately i need to chose one or the other. As unbelievable as it may sound, some people put you in a position where you need to pick between those two.
I also dislike it because i usually find it incredibly condescending and hypocritical.
We've reached a point were if i call someone who was born with a penis and a full male DNA but believes to be a lesbian trapped in a man's body (no joke) "he/him", i'm offending him. He can legally claim to be a woman and in some cases, even compete in female sports, apply for female specific quotas.
Any hint of disagreement with the above gets you called misogynist, sexist or even (ignorantly) racist. I like facts and try to base my reasoning, when possible, on them. PC occasionally conflicts with that.

A couple of years ago i met a group of investors who's #1 criteria (they had more but this one was a deal breaker) when selecting companies to invest in was that their board of directors had to be exclusively composed of women.
Apparently, asking them what would they think if a male equivalent investing procedure would be proposed gets you called politically incorrect, sexist and misogynist too.

What i dislike about pc is that it is not a two way street. Ironically enough, again in my experience, the people who preach (out loud) political correctness tend to be among the most intolerant people i've ever encountered.

 

[die_mole]

My take: i dislike it because more often than not, it comes at the expense of clarity, precision and down right accuracy. I'd rather be historically accurate than politically correct, and in my experience, unfortunately i need to chose one or the other. As unbelievable as it may sound, some people put you in a position where you need to pick between those two.
I also dislike it because i usually find it incredibly condescending and hypocritical.
We've reached a point were if i call someone who was born with a penis and a full male DNA but believes to be a lesbian trapped in a man's body (no joke) "he/him", i'm offending him. He can legally claim to be a woman and in some cases, even compete in female sports, apply for female specific quotas.
Any hint of disagreement with the above gets you called misogynist, sexist or even (ignorantly) racist. I like facts and try to base my reasoning, when possible, on them. PC occasionally conflicts with that.

A couple of years ago i met a group of investors who's #1 criteria (they had more but this one was a deal breaker) when selecting companies to invest in was that their board of directors had to be exclusively composed of women.
Apparently, asking them what would they think if a male equivalent investing procedure would be proposed gets you called politically incorrect, sexist and misogynist too.

What i dislike about pc is that it is not a two way street. Ironically enough, again in my experience, the people who preach (out loud) political correctness tend to be among the most intolerant people i've ever encountered.

why do you get to decide which pronouns a person is refereed to and not the person themselves?

 

[Superalexmarket]

If a TV reporter said: The Saracens are an explosive team, that would be offensive?

 

[die_mole]

If a TV reporter said: The Saracens are an explosive team, that would be offensive?

i hope you're not serious

edit: over my head

 

[smartcooky]

the problem is that with revenue sharing even if everyone boycotted the redskins the would still make money cause the rest of nfl makes so much money

and teams using native americans as mascots has a lot do with suicide rates and alcoholism because it says a lot about what we think their place in society is

almost every other team in american sports uses animals as their mascots so by using natives as mascots you are essentially putting them on the same level as animals

i am not saying that the names cause the drinking and suicide, i am just saying that using natives as mascots shows what our country thinks of them

Bwhahahaha!!!!. That is just about the most stupid and ridiculous thing I have heard this week.

Atlanta Braves
Cleveland Indians
Syracuse Chiefs
Golden State Warriors
Kansas City Chiefs
Edmonton Eskimos


Perhaps the Minnesota Vikings need to change their name as its insulting to Scandinavians.

ditto

- San Diego Padres (insulting to the clergy)
- Seattle Mariners (insulting to sailors)
- Boston Celtic (insulting to the Irish)


the list can be made endless.

 

[die_mole]

Bwhahahaha!!!!. That is just about the most stupid and ridiculous thing I have heard this week.

Atlanta Braves
Cleveland Indians
Syracuse Chiefs
Golden State Warriors
Kansas City Chiefs
Edmonton Eskimos


Perhaps the Minnesota Vikings need to change their name as its insulting to Scandinavians.

ditto

- San Diego Padres (insulting to the clergy)
- Seattle Mariners (insulting to sailors)
- Boston Celtic (insulting to the Irish)


the list can be made endless.

i mean, you can think it's stupid and ridiculous, doesn't really make it any less true

edit: actually, the fact that you think its ridiculous makes me even more confident in the statement

 

[j'nuh]

My take: i dislike it because more often than not, it comes at the expense of clarity, precision and down right accuracy. I'd rather be historically accurate than politically correct, and in my experience, unfortunately i need to chose one or the other. As unbelievable as it may sound, some people put you in a position where you need to pick between those two.
I also dislike it because i usually find it incredibly condescending and hypocritical.

A couple of years ago i met a group of investors who's #1 criteria (they had more but this one was a deal breaker) when selecting companies to invest in was that their board of directors had to be exclusively composed of women.
Apparently, asking them what would they think if a male equivalent investing procedure would be proposed gets you called politically incorrect, sexist and misogynist too.

What i dislike about pc is that it is not a two way street. Ironically enough, again in my experience, the people who preach (out loud) political correctness tend to be among the most intolerant people i've ever encountered.

I would argue that these people you talk about not to be proponents of political correctness. Political correctness by definition shouldn't be exclusionary.

Political correctness is a fairly BS construct anyway. It's a buzzword used by the right in order to discredit liberal sentiment without actually having to face it. Conservatives are clever in this sense. By throwing around accusations of "political correctness", they are turning the masses in on themselves. It only serves the interests of the ruling classes when the rest of us ***** amongst ourselves.

We've reached a point were if i call someone who was born with a penis and a full male DNA but believes to be a lesbian trapped in a man's body (no joke) "he/him", i'm offending him. He can legally claim to be a woman and in some cases, even compete in female sports, apply for female specific quotas.

Any hint of disagreement with the above gets you called misogynist, sexist or even (ignorantly) racist. I like facts and try to base my reasoning, when possible, on them. PC occasionally conflicts with that.

Well let me confront you with a fact: gender dysphoria is a legitimate condition which the medical profession has recognised. Bearing this in mind, can you not appreciate why someone with gender dysphoria would prefer to be recognised with the gender pronoun of the gender they internally recognise?

 

[smartcooky]

I would argue that these people you talk about not to be proponents of political correctness. Political correctness by definition shouldn't be exclusionary.

But is IS exclusionary in its nature in that it promotes the exclusion of the desires, opinions and views of the majority in favour of those of the minority, making it a form of Minoritarianism hiding behind a thin veil of Liberalism. If a small number of very noisy people who are in a minority (even within their own demographic) jump up and down and make enough noise, they can get things changed even though the rest of their demographic disagrees with them.

All this BS about "no such thing as failure" and the shunning of excellence in favour of rewarding everyone is just a neo-political staging of the Socialism of the Marxist-Leninist state; no-one is allowed to rise above the mire of the masses, and no-one can stand out in a crowd unless it benefits all of Society.

Someone in a another (political) forum once challenged me to define the difference between a Liberal and a Conservative. I struggled with putting it simply enough to not fill 10 pages of A4 paper, so I preferred to give the challenger a series of comparisons....

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

If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a Liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he demands that the host be shut down.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
If a Liberal is a non-believer he 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.
If a Liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for it.

This about sums it up for me.

i mean, you can think it's stupid and ridiculous, doesn't really make it any less true

edit: actually, the fact that you think its ridiculous makes me even more confident in the statement

Well since you are so confident in the statement, perhaps you can back it up with some evidence. For starters, show me all the tens of thousands of Native Americans stating that the name "Redskins" (in the context of being the Washington NFL team's name) makes them feel like the franchise is treating them like animals. Then you can move on to all the tens of thousands of Native American protesters who march on Fedex Field every home game from September to February to protest how they are being made to feel like animals.

Ooops!! Neither of those things ever happens. There are over five and a half thousand Native Americans living in the the greater DC area alone, and over 63,000 in the wider Virginia and Maryland areas where the Redskins draw their support from. So, where are all the protesters; where are all the tens of thousands of deeply offended Native Americans and why are their outraged voices not being heard? The answer is, of course, is that they either don't exist (quite likely) or they simply don't care (even more likely). Never mind; who wants to let the truth get in the way of the BS.

Anyway, you could always try to help me join some dots, and show me some cause and effect. For example, how does changing the name "Washington Redskins" to "Washington ??????" prevent alcohol abuse and poverty on Native American Reservations. No airy-fairy stuff now about self esteem and all that other new-age BS. I just want the facts...cause and effect. Draw a direct line, and show me how changing the name of the Redskins will magically lead to an end to Native American poverty and alcoholism.

 

[austingtir]

^^ this

The sooner everyone realizes that the majority of liberal ideals and thinking is retarded the better off EVERYONE will be.

 

[ncurd]

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

If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a Liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he demands that the host be shut down.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
If a Liberal is a non-believer he 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.
If a Liberal decides he needs health care, he demands that the rest of us pay for it.

Man do you actually know any liberals other than the Conservative BS. Or anything about liberalism at all?

First off it's not a left construct it runs along the authoritarianism/liberal axis of the political compass, not left/right wing. Neoliberalism is a right wing ideal of liberalism.

The problem is outside of Europe it's been used as attack on the left wing and nobody seams to have bloody clue what it's about.

"Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality."

So to take your analogies here's what a true liberal thinks and not what a Conservative thinks we think.

If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he believes in protecting the rights of those who eat meat.

If a Conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
If a Liberal is down-and-out, he behaves exactly the same way as a Conservative.

If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a Liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.

If a Conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
If a Liberal is a non-believer he doesn't go to to church but wants to protect the beliefs of those who do but not one above any other.


This one actually more of a left thing but you'll struggle to find anyone in the UK who doesn't belive in universal health care....seriously I've never heard anyone say the NHS shouldn't exist. They may disagree with how it's structured (run by the government/a group of private companies paid by the goverment) but to remove it completely. Politically suicide to vast majority of voters. were not a left country it's just something we accept as the right thing to do.

If a Conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal believes health care is fundamental human right and someones health shouldn't be determined by their social-economic background (ie people who can't pick and chose like conservative think they can get a decent level of health care).

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

why do you get to decide which pronouns a person is refereed to and not the person themselves?

I don't, that's the beauty.
You are missing not one, but two points. First, i do not get to decide what pronouns a person is referred to by. I get to decide which pronoun I use to refer to the person. I am not imposing my view on anyone, he is. That's the first difference.

Second, my use of the word is based on a testable fact: DNA (at least in 99,999% of the cases). His view allows people to exploit loopholes in the system that are not there by design. As an example, in the US you have mma fighters born with a penis beating the crap out of women, legally and for money, because they claim to be a woman inside a man's body.

I would argue that these people you talk about not to be proponents of political correctness. Political correctness by definition shouldn't be exclusionary.

Then please define political correctness, because the overwhelming mayority of my experience points in the opposite direction.

Well let me confront you with a fact: gender dysphoria is a legitimate condition which the medical profession has recognised. Bearing this in mind, can you not appreciate why someone with gender dysphoria would prefer to be recognised with the gender pronoun of the gender they internally recognise?

First, don't think you understood my example: a DNA born man claiming to be a lesbian trapped inside a man's body.

Second, it is a condition, let's treat it as such. Telling everyone that because A has a condition we need to treat him/her differently does not solve the problem. It makes it worse.
I never said nor implied that such a condition does not exist nor that it shouldn't be addressed. What i am saying is that, unless such condition alters your DNA, then it does not alter your sex.

If any man can claim to be a woman has to be addressed by such, with all the legally binding consequences, then we've lost the plot.
What's next? If i claim to be a female, maori and kiwi (if i can claim sex, why can't i claim race, ethnicity or nationality too? **** it, add age to the group too) can i play for the jr maori black ferns?

Once you open that door there are no more rules. Not all, but some of those rules are there for a good reason. I do not want a guy beating women on national tv while getting paid to do so.

- - - Updated - - -

All this BS about "no such thing as failure" and the shunning of excellence in favour of rewarding everyone is just a neo-political staging of the Socialism of the Marxist-Leninist state;

That is quite unfair.







Marx and Lenin knew, exactly, what failure encompassed.

 

[ncurd]

I don't, that's the beauty.
You are missing not one, but two points. First, i do not get to decide what pronouns a person is referred to by. I get to decide which pronoun I use to refer to the person. I am not imposing my view on anyone, he is. That's the first difference.

Second, my use of the word is based on a testable fact: DNA (at least in 99,999% of the cases). His view allows people to exploit loopholes in the system that are not there by design. As an example, in the US you have mma fighters born with a penis beating the crap out of women, legally and for money, because they claim to be a woman inside a man's body.


Then please define political correctness, because the overwhelming mayority of my experience points in the opposite direction.


First, don't think you understood my example: a DNA born man claiming to be a lesbian trapped inside a man's body.

Second, it is a condition, let's treat it as such. Telling everyone that because A has a condition we need to treat him/her differently does not solve the problem. It makes it worse.
I never said nor implied that such a condition does not exist nor that it shouldn't be addressed. What i am saying is that, unless such condition alters your DNA, then it does not alter your sex.

If any man can claim to be a woman has to be addressed by such, with all the legally binding consequences, then we've lost the plot.
What's next? If i claim to be a female, maori and kiwi (if i can claim sex, why can't i claim race, ethnicity or nationality too? **** it, add age to the group too) can i play for the jr maori black ferns?

Once you open that door there are no more rules. Not all, but some of those rules are there for a good reason. I do not want a guy beating women on national tv while getting paid to do so.

- - - Updated - - -


That is quite unfair.







Marx and Lenin knew, exactly, what failure encompassed.

You're simplifiying the issue but have some valid points.

Yes someone who genetically a male should not be allowed to compete against anyone genetically female. However your kidding yourself if you think people are doing it just because of gain. Also if they are doing it I bet it's a publicity stunt rather than they are doing it for any other reason (can you provide evidence it sounds insane to be allowed).

Gender identity whilst always been an issue historically has just about the common international concieness. I don't know much about about it but I do have friends who have undergone it. I don't pretend to understand them but I accept them for who they want to be.

First up gender transistion isn't something you can just 'do' or claim. It has to proven by psychologist you belive this to be to be true. In then take years before you are legally a different gender.


Second you define gender identity as pure genetic issue rather than one of psychology, genetic's can't change what you are fair enough but psychology is an altogether different problem.
Now be careful are you suggesting that beliving your a woman despite being a male is illness that must be treated or that people should eb allowed to go on doing that. Try to remember people were making similar arguements about being gay not long ago are trying to cure 'gayness' some people still do I have zero respect for anyone with that viewpoint (about 'gays' I accept gender is a more confusing issue currently).


Lastly pronouns my name is Mitch you insist on calling me B-itch despite me hating it you don't mean anything by it though. Who has the greater right your right to call me that or my right for you call me by my name Mitch. Your saying your right to call me whatever you want is greater than my right to called by what I am, sorry can't agree with that.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

.
Well since you are so confident in the statement, perhaps you can back it up with some evidence. For starters, show me all the tens of thousands of Native Americans stating that the name "Redskins" (in the context of being the Washington NFL team's name) makes them feel like the franchise is treating them like animals. Then you can move on to all the tens of thousands of Native American protesters who march on Fedex Field every home game from September to February to protest how they are being made to feel like animals.

Ooops!! Neither of those things ever happens. There are over five and a half thousand Native Americans living in the the greater DC area alone, and over 63,000 in the wider Virginia and Maryland areas where the Redskins draw their support from. So, where are all the protesters; where are all the tens of thousands of deeply offended Native Americans and why are their outraged voices not being heard? The answer is, of course, is that they either don't exist (quite likely) or they simply don't care (even more likely). Never mind; who wants to let the truth get in the way of the BS.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...38b8d0-6299-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html

http://www.changethemascot.org/

 

[j'nuh]

But is IS exclusionary in its nature in that it promotes the exclusion of the desires, opinions and views of the majority in favour of those of the minority, making it a form of Minoritarianism hiding behind a thin veil of Liberalism. If a small number of very noisy people who are in a minority (even within their own demographic) jump up and down and make enough noise, they can get things changed even though the rest of their demographic disagrees with them.

Firstly, the mistake you are making is that you are putting an entire minority group into two camps: those who find X acceptable and those who find X unacceptable. You then assume that if the group that find X unacceptable is outnumbered by those who find X acceptable, then they are imposing. What is almost certainly more likely to be the case is that there is a third camp: those who don't care. You can't split women into feminists and anti-feminists, the majority are neither.

Secondly, you keep wanting to shut down dialogue. If a minority of Native Americans make a fuss about something, they are voicing their freedom of expression. I can see why you would disagree with the contents of the message and wish to argue back, but you are going one step further: shutting down dialogue.

All this BS about "no such thing as failure" and the shunning of excellence in favour of rewarding everyone is just a neo-political staging of the Socialism of the Marxist-Leninist state; no-one is allowed to rise above the mire of the masses, and no-one can stand out in a crowd unless it benefits all of Society.

I, and I would think most others, don't give a crap about your histrionic political tantrums about what is an acceptable capitalistic learning method. I want what is good for the education of children.

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.

I'm a liberal vegetarian and I think nothing of the sort. Of course, I have a moral problem with eating meat and I would like to see it, as a practice, die out. But I want to win the argument not impose my will.

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

Utter BS. You can be active about your situation AND believe in the welfare state. These are not mutually exclusive things. What invariably happens is the Conservatives have families who can help them out when things go sour. Rather than relying on the state, they rely on their rich parents.

If a Conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
If a Liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he demands that the host be shut down.

Only if the talk show host is being offensive. Again, you seem to believe people should be free from criticism...

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

I don't even know what context you mean this in? The separation of church and state is a fantastic thing; in this context, silencing the religion is a good thing? (I thought that this was commonly understood amongst people of developed countries.) If religious nutjobs are preaching hate, it's a great thing that liberals shut that person down through words. Again, dialogue is good.

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

What, liberals don't pay taxes now? Why do you think that Britons pay less for their health and yet receive a better quality of care than most countries? Because when the state offers a contract to a pharmaceutical, they are offering an enormous contract that covers swathes of the country. Because of the size of the contract, the state can negotiate a much better deal than what is seen in other countries.

Secondly, what generally happens when there is a market in health is that life-saving medicine is priced so high because people cannot afford to not have it. You can live without an album, a Netflix subscription etc., but you cannot live without your medicine. And some people try, they make themselves very sick, and they end up being a burden on the state through emergency care. No one wins.

Thirdly, some people cannot afford to shop around for medicine. What is your advice to these people?

Fourthly, you come across as someone who is hasn't a clue about the kinds of conditions that people live in. You seem to believe that everyone on the Earth is earning enough to take care of themselves. But our exploitative economic system means that this is obviously not the case. Your views are dangerous and could put a lot more people in extreme poverty.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

.
I'm a liberal vegetarian and I think nothing of the sort. Of course, I have a moral problem with eating meat and I would like to see it, as a practice, die out. But I want to win the argument not impose my will.
.

Typical vegetarians always having to tell everyone they are one.

Honestly.

Side note
Do you genuinely think eating meat will die down? I mean I understand wanting it but do you think it will happen? One of my "friends" is a vegan and be genuinely feels it will happen, although he gets quite aggresive about it sometimes hence the "friend" (Personally I ain't giving up my club sandwiches)

 

[TRF_heineken]

Typical vegetarians always having to tell everyone they are one.

Honestly.

Side note
Do you genuinely think eating meat will die down? I mean I understand wanting it but do you think it will happen? One of my "friends" is a vegan and be genuinely feels it will happen, although he gets quite aggresive about it sometimes hence the "friend" (Personally I ain't giving up my club sandwiches)

Ooh!! Time for some Vegetarian memes!!