(12-07-2016 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Can you be a decent person when there's one issue that you don't hold a decent viewpoint?? A good philosophical question.

My problem is that there are people who DO have a concern or a viewpoint counter to whatever bigot buzzword bonanza the SJW left decides is the cause-of-the-minute, and instead of having those concerns taken at face value, liberals paint them all as racists, misogynists, ha8trs, xenophobes and whatnot while virulently shaming people who express “incorrect” opinions.

Tolerance to a liberal is embracing everything as long as they all think the same. And I find that indecent.

(12-07-2016 11:34 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Since you obviously reject "transgendered bathrooms", whatever that means, and you snipped out the part about private bathrooms, meaning you reject that, that only leaves your preference to share your bathroom with other men.

Let me state for the record that I personally do not care one iota who pisses next to me.

(12-07-2016 11:55 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  My problem is that there are people who DO have a concern or a viewpoint counter to

But can you have a viewpoint that is counter to human rights, and still be a decent person? That's the question.

(12-07-2016 11:55 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Tolerance to a liberal is embracing everything as long as they all think the same.

I wouldn't know what set of viewpoints all "liberals" agree on.

(12-07-2016 11:55 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Let me state for the record that I personally do not care one iota who pisses next to me.

You can't express this view and the viewpoint that transgender people should not be allowed to use the public restroom of their "new" sexual identity, simultaneously.

They're mutually exclusive.

(12-07-2016 12:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But can you have a viewpoint that is counter to human rights, and still be a decent person? That's the question.

As long as we agree upon the definition of "human rights" of course you can. But since liberals are of the strong opinion that human rights now include random things like access to bathrooms, I imagine we disagree on what constitutes a "human right."

And therein lies the problem.

(12-07-2016 12:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I wouldn't know what set of viewpoints all "liberals" agree on.

You haven't deviated from liberal talking points one iota so pardon me if I don't believe that you do not understand and support liberal orthodoxy.

(12-07-2016 12:29 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  You can't express this view and the viewpoint that transgender people should not be allowed to use the public restroom of their "new" sexual identity, simultaneously.

Thankfully you are not a arbiter of what is right, wrong or decent.

(12-07-2016 01:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  As long as we agree upon the definition of "human rights" of course you can.

I don't follow you. According to this, since we both agree that life is a human right, you're saying that you can hold the viewpoint that murder is acceptable, which is counter to our agreed human rights definition, and still be a decent person. Maybe you meant "can't" instead of "can"?

(12-07-2016 01:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You haven't deviated from liberal talking points one iota so pardon me if I don't believe that you do not understand and support liberal orthodoxy.

For all I know, my viewpoints might perfectly align with a group calling themselves the "dippy doodles". Never heard of them, never participated with them.

Alignment does not equal membership.

(12-07-2016 01:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Thankfully you are not a arbiter of what is right, wrong or decent.

Nonetheless, you claiming to support two mutually exclusive viewpoints nullifies your credibility on the issue.

(12-07-2016 02:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 01:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  As long as we agree upon the definition of "human rights" of course you can.

I don't follow you. According to this, since we both agree that life is a human right, you're saying that you can hold the viewpoint that murder is acceptable, which is counter to our agreed human rights definition, and still be a decent person. Maybe you meant "can't" instead of "can"?

(12-07-2016 01:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You haven't deviated from liberal talking points one iota so pardon me if I don't believe that you do not understand and support liberal orthodoxy.

For all I know, my viewpoints might perfectly align with a group calling themselves the "dippy doodles". Never heard of them, never participated with them.

Alignment does not equal membership.

(12-07-2016 01:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Thankfully you are not a arbiter of what is right, wrong or decent.

Nonetheless, you claiming to support two mutually exclusive viewpoints nullifies your credibility on the issue.

Too much fail in this post to really get into.

(12-07-2016 02:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 01:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  As long as we agree upon the definition of "human rights" of course you can.

I don't follow you. According to this, since we both agree that life is a human right, you're saying that you can hold the viewpoint that murder is acceptable, which is counter to our agreed human rights definition, and still be a decent person. Maybe you meant "can't" instead of "can"?

Abortion=Murder. Surely you don't think all your liberal friends that support abortion are immoral and therefore not "decent" people.

(12-07-2016 02:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 01:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  You haven't deviated from liberal talking points one iota so pardon me if I don't believe that you do not understand and support liberal orthodoxy.

For all I know, my viewpoints might perfectly align with a group calling themselves the "dippy doodles". Never heard of them, never participated with them.

Alignment does not equal membership.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.....

This particular post of your is quite amusing given your massive meltdown over the results in MN and your broad generalization of anybody who didn't vote for Clinton.

(12-07-2016 02:04 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 01:30 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Thankfully you are not a arbiter of what is right, wrong or decent.

Nonetheless, you claiming to support two mutually exclusive viewpoints nullifies your credibility on the issue.

You really need to learn what 'mutually exclusive' means. LS says he doesn't care who pisses next to him, I don't either. But that doesn't mean I don't care who pisses next to my fiance or 4 year old niece.

(12-08-2016 08:00 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Surely you don't think all your liberal friends that support abortion are immoral and therefore not "decent" people.

I don't ask my friends if they're "liberal" or if they support abortion. No point in discussing those kinds of topics with friends. Just like it's not a good idea to get into business with friends.

Anyway ... the discussion was if one can still be a decent person if one holds a single indecent viewpoint with all the rest being decent viewpoints.

Obviously, supporting abortion is not an indecent viewpoint.

(12-08-2016 08:00 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Alignment isn't membership.

(12-08-2016 08:00 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't either. But that doesn't mean I don't care who pisses next to my fiance or 4 year old niece.

When explained more explicitly, like this, then this is a single viewpoint. It's not two separate, conflicting viewpoints.

Your singular viewpoint is "I want to control who can pee next to someone else in a public bathroom".

(12-08-2016 12:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:00 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Surely you don't think all your liberal friends that support abortion are immoral and therefore not "decent" people.

I don't ask my friends if they're "liberal" or if they support abortion. No point in discussing those kinds of topics with friends. Just like it's not a good idea to get into business with friends.

Anyway ... the discussion was if one can still be a decent person if one holds a single indecent viewpoint with all the rest being decent viewpoints.

Obviously, supporting abortion is not an indecent viewpoint.

Depends on if you are a decent person or not.

(12-08-2016 12:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:00 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Alignment isn't membership.

Not being a member doesn't mean you don't support the ideology.

(12-08-2016 12:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 08:00 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't either. But that doesn't mean I don't care who pisses next to my fiance or 4 year old niece.

When explained more explicitly, like this, then this is a single viewpoint. It's not two separate, conflicting viewpoints.

Your singular viewpoint is "I want to control who can pee next to someone else in a public bathroom".

My other viewpoint is that I don't want people using the bathroom of their choosing. Men use the men's room, women use the women's room.

(12-08-2016 12:31 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Depends on if you are a decent person or not.

No, that's the thing we're trying to show. You can't prove what you're trying to show by assuming it is correct to start. Life would be easy, if that was allowed.

(12-08-2016 12:31 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not being a member doesn't mean you don't support the ideology.

But it does mean you shouldn't label the person as belong to said group.

(12-08-2016 12:31 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  My other viewpoint is that I don't want people using the bathroom of their choosing. Men use the men's room, women use the women's room.

Those two viewpoints are parallel, supporting viewpoints. One could even argue they're just rewording the same viewpoint.

They aren't conflicting, such as the two viewpoints "I don't care who uses the public bathroom with me" and general viewpoint "I don't support transgender bathrooms".

(12-08-2016 02:50 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 12:31 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Depends on if you are a decent person or not.

No, that's the thing we're trying to show. You can't prove what you're trying to show by assuming it is correct to start. Life would be easy, if that was allowed.

(12-08-2016 02:50 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 12:31 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not being a member doesn't mean you don't support the ideology.

But it does mean you shouldn't label the person as belong to said group.

Your body of work on this board says you are in fact a liberal.

(12-08-2016 02:50 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 12:31 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  My other viewpoint is that I don't want people using the bathroom of their choosing. Men use the men's room, women use the women's room.

Those two viewpoints are parallel, supporting viewpoints. One could even argue they're just rewording the same viewpoint.

They aren't conflicting, such as the two viewpoints "I don't care who uses the public bathroom with me" and general viewpoint "I don't support transgender bathrooms".

Again, not the same. I don't care who uses the bathroom next to me. At the same exact time, I do not want men using the women's room. NOT mutually exclusive statement.

(12-08-2016 03:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Your body of work on this board says you are in fact a liberal.

Alignment is not membership.

(12-08-2016 03:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't care who uses the bathroom next to me. At the same exact time, I do not want men using the women's room. NOT mutually exclusive statement.

Those two are in logical conflict.

Same as: 1) "I don't care if a woman uses the men's public bathroom next to me", 2) "women should not be allowed to use the men's public bathroom".

(12-08-2016 03:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Your body of work on this board says you are in fact a liberal.

Alignment is not membership.

Neither is self identity... progressiveness is not a party or a group, it's a philosophy, and it's one you have yet to substantially deviate from on any subject.

(12-08-2016 03:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Your body of work on this board says you are in fact a liberal.

Alignment is not membership.

I sense a great deal of conflict in you. No need to hate yourself for being a liberal.

(12-08-2016 03:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't care who uses the bathroom next to me. At the same exact time, I do not want men using the women's room. NOT mutually exclusive statement.

Those two are in logical conflict.

Same as: 1) "I don't care if a woman uses the men's public bathroom next to me", 2) "women should not be allowed to use the men's public bathroom".

Did you just assume my gender identity?!?

(12-08-2016 03:36 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Neither is self identity

Great, so I won't self-identify as a "progressive" and you won't label me as a "liberal". Done

(12-08-2016 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  No need to hate yourself for being a liberal.

I'm not a liberal.

(12-08-2016 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Did you just assume my gender identity?!?

No. I provided an example of two conflicting viewpoints that conflict in the same way your two conflicting viewpoints do.

(12-07-2016 06:18 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 05:52 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 05:36 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  So you've got VT in their first ACCCG in 5 years, Clemson with a playoff spot on the line, and the attendance was at a record low? Great move, idiots.

Most of the Clemson fans I know chose to forgo the ACCCG because in three weeks Clemson travels to Glendale, AZ for a game with much higher stakes and pending the outcome of the Fiesta could turn around a week later and travel to Tampa. In addition we were in Orlando just two years ago for the Russell Athletics Bowl and unless you have young children Orlando is not really anything special. Once you have done the parks Orlando is just a bigger version of Myrtle Beach without the ocean.

Charlotte is a day trip for the vast majority of Clemson fans and didn't involve flights or long drives and associated hotels. Orlando either requires a flight or two eight hour drives and the associated hotels.

I enjoy Orlando except for the fact anything west of Downtown has nearly Zero what You would call normal shopping and dinning areas. It's all geared for Tourist collection of Florida beachwear junk stores or Outlet centers and high priced chain restaurants and Hotels. Not really sure where the locals hangout.

You are talking more about South Orlando. I-4 goes North/South through Orlando even though it is an East/West freeway. South Orlando is all tourism. West Orlando is the hood (Citrus Bowl). East and North Orlando are very nice suburban communities. Downtown is for the 20 year olds.

(12-08-2016 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Your body of work on this board says you are in fact a liberal.

Alignment is not membership.

I sense a great deal of conflict in you. No need to hate yourself for being a liberal.

(12-08-2016 03:18 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:10 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  I don't care who uses the bathroom next to me. At the same exact time, I do not want men using the women's room. NOT mutually exclusive statement.

Those two are in logical conflict.

Same as: 1) "I don't care if a woman uses the men's public bathroom next to me", 2) "women should not be allowed to use the men's public bathroom".

Did you just assume my gender identity?!?

You call everybody a liberal. You are a liberal!

(12-08-2016 03:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  No need to hate yourself for being a liberal.

I'm not a liberal.

Every single thing that you have ever posted here is lock-step in line with far-left liberal ideology. You have not shared a single conservative thought.

You. Are. A. Liberal.

(12-08-2016 03:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:39 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Did you just assume my gender identity?!?

No. I provided an example of two conflicting viewpoints that conflict in the same way your two conflicting viewpoints do.

Sorry, you haven't. You think that my lack of caring who pisses next to me is somehow an endorsement of gender confused people getting to choose where they sit down to pee.

Not caring who pisses next to me and not wanting men in the women's rooms or visa versa are not mutually exclusive. There is a difference in not caring about that, and knowing what is right and wrong.

(12-08-2016 03:59 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Every single thing that you have ever posted here is lock-step in line with far-left liberal ideology

Even if that were true, alignment does not equal membership.

(12-08-2016 03:59 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You have not shared a single conservative thought.

Plenty of them. For example, I think any non-criminal should be able to own any type of gun he/she wants.

(12-08-2016 03:59 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not caring who pisses next to me and not wanting men in the women's rooms or visa versa are not mutually exclusive.

They absolutely are, and it doesn't matter if you deny it. You'll deny anything I say. I think that's part of the pleasure, for you.

(12-08-2016 05:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-08-2016 03:59 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You have not shared a single conservative thought.

Plenty of them. For example, I think any non-criminal should be able to own any type of gun he/she wants.

With onerous regulations on gun owners and manufacturers, a leftist position because it is defacto gun control.

Siggghhh. I can just hope that Bison can get a job soon where she can't use the internet. She's the internet Killary, I can't stand to read any more of her trolling crap.

Go away Bison, please. Go work in the circus where at least you can work the merry go round as that's what you do here anyway. Round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows.

(12-08-2016 05:00 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Plenty of them. For example, I think any non-criminal should be able to own any type of gun he/she wants.

Really? A fully automatic weapon with a 100 round clip?