[Mercenary]

Were you under the impression that there was only one definition for all words? By your definition, the criteria for being a liberal is staying open-minded. However, that definition is not used almost universally around the globe.

Words are inventions. You are declaring me dishonest for not using a word under your arbitrary and conjectural context, which I am under no intellectual obligation to use.

[Godstud]

However, that definition is not used almost universally around the globe.

When it comes to words, they generally only have one definition. I guess English must not be your first language, since in English, the language we are using here, liberal has only one definition, in this particular context.

When you use a word, and redefine it, you are incorrect, not smart, or inventive. You are just wrong.

You are declaring me dishonest for not using a word under your arbitrary and conjectural context, which I am under no intellectual obligation to use.

You are under no obligation to use ANY intellect if you are arbitrarily changing the definitions of words to suit your own narrative. When you try to change the definition of a word, and make it into what you want it to be, you are being dishonest. That's simply fact. If you don't like that, then use the word properly, or maybe use a word that is more suitable.

[Mercenary]

When it comes to words, they generally only have one definition. .

Nonsense. Nearly every dictionary defines words in several different contexts. Exemplify that by the fact that no two dictionaries are the same, which in effect means that there are dozens of definitions for the same word in any language.

[Godstud]

Exemplify that by the fact that no two dictionaries are the same, which in effect means that there are dozens of definitions for the same word in any language.

All in different contexts. Beyond that, the definitions match.

Not all dictionaries are equal, either, but I can bet that I can list a dozen definitions of liberal(in the English language) that don't say what you want it to say.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/liberal
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/liberal
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/liberal
etc. etc.

[Mercenary]

Not all dictionaries are equal, either, but I can bet that I can list a dozen definitions of liberal(in the English language) that don't say what you want it to say.

So now you are acknowledging that words have multiple definitions? Obvious backstepping is obvious.

All definitions not based on etymology or common usage are baseless. Who taught you semantics?

[Godstud]

I never said that the definitions vary enough to be considered a different definition, as you'd see if you looked at the definitions, but of course which you did not.

You talk about context without knowing what it is. Semantics is what you are arguing, and failing at. Liberal, in all definitions, regardless of semantics, means the same thing.

Look up bigot. You'll find it means the same thing in all definitions. You're arguing definitions, which means that you really have no argument to speak of. You have only your ignorant and unfounded opinion.

[Mercenary]

Uh, no. Not all definitions mean the same thing. Many are vastly different.

[Godstud]

Provide some evidence for this, or stop yapping about it. How is this important, anyways? If a definition varies by a small degree, it does not make the definition invalid. It might just be that the wording of the definition is not clear. That doesn't change the meaning.

Read it:
Oxford English Definition of Liberal:
Willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas:

Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms:

(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform:

Relating to Liberals or a Liberal Party, especially (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party:

Theology Regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

[attributive] (of education) concerned with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training:

(especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal:

Given, used, or occurring in generous amounts:

(of a person) giving generously:

So if you have trouble with the variations in the English language, I suggest you stop using it, since you don't understand it, obviously.

[Mercenary]

Vocabulary.com

"A liberal is someone on the left wing of politics — the opposite of a conservative. Also, a liberal attitude toward anything means more tolerance for change."

Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics

"In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom"

This Berkeley professor defines a liberal as an opposer of conservatism

http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/ ... truism.pdf

Could you explain how all three of these definitions mean the same thing?

[Godstud]

Reciprocal altruism? The word 'liberal' is not even in the document you posted.

This Berkeley professor defines a liberal as an opposer of conservatism

He never mentions conservative once, and it's opinion, not fact.

Could you explain how all three of these definitions mean the same thing?

You're trying to obfuscate the facts with your own narrative.

I already said that words can have two meanings. How is that hard for you? Context is important, since they don't necessarily have the same context. English is obviously not your first language if you are having trouble with this idea.

[Mercenary]

Uh huh. Well it's quite obvious that your ego is tied into all your discussions. I mean, you literally just went back on what you previously said for the sixth time now. I'll spare myself the headache from now on.

[Godstud]

I have no ego attached to this, unlike yourself. I am merely pointing out that what you are saying is incorrect. You post a link that has nothing to do with liberals(no mentioned of even the word) and think that I won't pick up on this?

You're being evasive now, since I have demonstrated you as being incorrect.

I mean, you literally just went back on what you previously said for the sixth time now.

Lying won't make you right.

I'll spare myself the headache from now on.

By all means, stop posting if you can't defend your own statements with intelligent arguments.

[Scheherazade]

Today Liberals are posting about the attacks on Indians while we all have Thanksgiving. I wish I just didn't have to think about that.

You don't, why force yourself unless your a masochist?

Today Liberals are posting about global warming. I wish I didn't have to think about that.

See above, scientists have said we're going through a natural cooling peroid anyway which will likely help negate the increase in temperatures caused by man-made emissions anyway.

Plus thinking about it and doing nothing is about the same as saying hollow prayers and pretending your helping. You just do it for your own ego to feel like you're doing something of value by being a boring killjoy at the Thanksgiving parties.
Today Liberals are posting about gays. I wish I could just think about myself, life would be so much easier.

The term "Conservative" means unwilling to or unable to change.

Which isn't always a bad thing, like steel, which changes far less easy than ice, and retains its form.

Which is a better building material, steel, which resists change, or ice, which changes easily?

They don't want to think about topics they want to go to work, come home and watch some tv. I know because I was raised in a red state.

Poor people in ghettos watch much more TV than most entrepreneurs or professionals. Millionaire entrepreurs barely watch mass TV at all, they spend more time educating themselves or working on their projects than watching Maury reruns.
Every single change is hard for them because they don't want to think about it. It's easier to simply not think.

I really wish I was a weak minded individual that didn't have to think about the planets future. I really wish I was a weak minded individual that didn't have to confront profits so we aren't putting poison in the water. I really wish I was a weak minded individual that just watched football and hated liberals.

But I'm not a conformist. I'm not a parrot. I will not fall in line. I will not hate to fit in.....

Why not? There's no "big man in the sky" who's going to reward you for making yourself miserable when you get out of it in return.

You only live once, existence ends when you die - so if it's a choice between being miserable your whole life, dying, and being forgotten quickly by all your conservative family who you annoyed do death, or just having some fun and watching football, then why not just throw in the towel and do what actually makes you happy?

Only difference it'll make in the end is that they had much happier lives than you did, while you spent your whole life miserable when you didn't have to - so looks like in the end they win. lol

And no, the planet's not going to care either, it's just a big hunk of rock and water. Nor will gays, unless you swing that way and are just doing this with the hope of getting some free 'favors'.

[Scheherazade]

According to Jeremy Bentham, one of the 'founding fathers' of modern progressivism, whatever brings the greatest good for the greatest number of people should be the goal; if playing hopscotch makes people happier than museums, then the government should invest more money in hopscotch.

So if ignorance makes people happier than thinking about depressing issues, then it's better to choose to be willfully ignorant, even according to progressive's own philosophy.

Making yourself miserable for no reason when you probably don't even believe in a God is probably the dumbest decision anyone could possibly make - even guys who blow themselves up for Allah at least think they're getting 72 virgins in heaven out of it, so that means even suicide bombers are slightly more rational than this guy is.

[Godstud]

See above, scientists have said we're going through a natural cooling peroid anyway which will likely help negate the increase in temperatures caused by man-made emissions anyway.
[/quote="Schezerade"] No. That's simply not true. Scientists have not said that.

This is what they have said:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

It depends what you want to use them for. It's not a reasonable comparison, either. A better comparison would be comparing brittle iron to alloyed steel, which can flex and has more strength, as a result.

Caring for others, makes most people happy. Human empathy, and compassion, particularly on a day when many people are celebrating what they have, and remembering that some people do not have the same things, is what makes us human.

You can choose to ignore all the things going on in the world, but that doesn't make you a happier person.

Not everyone agrees with one man's opinion, however, or not to the degree at which he talks about. In principle, this should be the case, but ignoring problems, and being willfully ignorant, is just plain stupid. You can't make anything better with that attitude, and he does not espouse it.

Again, caring about people and having human empathy and compassion exists regardless of faith in some magical being.

I am not religious, but I will not blow myself up in the first place(since it's idiotic) just because I think there's something waiting for me after I die. That's called being more rational. I also have a greater stake in real life and this existence, so I want to make it the best I can, since the chance of an 'Afterlife', is foggy, at best(for everyone). Even religious people are supposed to make their world better, and not leave a shitshow for their kids, so don't talk to me about rational in one breath, and "ignore problems" in the next one.

[Godstud]

See above, scientists have said we're going through a natural cooling peroid anyway which will likely help negate the increase in temperatures caused by man-made emissions anyway.

No. That's simply not true. Scientists have not said that.

This is what they have said:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Which is a better building material, steel, which resists change, or ice, which changes easily?

It depends what you want to use them for. It's not a reasonable comparison, either. A better comparison would be comparing brittle iron to alloyed steel, which can flex and has more strength, as a result, because it has additives and it's been modified from it's original "conservative" form.

You only live once, existence ends when you die - so if it's a choice between being miserable your whole life, dying, and being forgotten quickly by all your conservative family who you annoyed do death, or just having some fun and watching football, then why not just throw in the towel and do what actually makes you happy?

Caring for others, makes most people happy. Human empathy, and compassion, particularly on a day when many people are celebrating what they have, and remembering that some people do not have the same things, is what makes us human.

You can choose to ignore all the things going on in the world, but that doesn't make you a happier person.

So if ignorance makes people happier than thinking about depressing issues, then it's better to choose to be willfully ignorant, even according to progressive's own philosophy.

Not everyone agrees with one man's opinion, however, or not to the degree at which he talks about. In principle, this should be the case, but ignoring problems, and being willfully ignorant, is just plain stupid. You can't make anything better with that attitude, and he does not espouse it.

Making yourself miserable for no reason when you probably don't even believe in a God is probably the dumbest decision anyone could possibly make - even guys who blow themselves up for Allah at least think they're getting 72 virgins in heaven out of it, so that means even suicide bombers are slightly more rational than this guy is.

Again, caring about people and having human empathy and compassion exists regardless of faith in some magical being.

I am not religious, but I will not blow myself up in the first place(since it's idiotic) just because I think there's something waiting for me after I die. That's called being more rational. I also have a greater stake in real life and this existence, so I want to make it the best I can, since the chance of an 'Afterlife', is foggy, at best(for everyone). Even religious people are supposed to make their world better, and not leave a shitshow for their kids, so don't talk to me about rational in one breath, and "ignore problems" in the next one.

[ArtAllm]

Actually, the opposite is true. The Sun's output of energy is increasing by approximately 10% every billion years or so. This will eventually render the Earth uninhabitable within about half a billion years. In fact, the Earth is already at the inner fringes of the 'Goldilocks zone' of habitability. And, of course, the Sun will eventually expand into a red giant and engulf the Earth, vaporising it. The Earth's ultimate fate is literally to be baked and then vaporised.

The global trend is still the thermodynamic death, the temperature will eventually drop, because the sun will eventually become a white dwarf:

[after 8 billion years]
The Sun becomes a carbon-oxygen white dwarf with about 54.05 percent its present mass.[76][80][81][f] At this point, if somehow the Earth survives, temperatures on the surface of the planet, as well as other remaining planets in the Solar System, will begin to start dropping rapidly, due to the white dwarf Sun emitting much less energy than it does today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... e_Universe

But before this happens, and before the Sun becomes a red giant, there will still be another clacial age in about 50,000 years from now. We live in an interglacial period, we are heading for a new ice age, that is now compensated by human activity:

According to Berger and Loutre, the current interglacial period ends[12] sending the Earth back into a glacial period of the current ice age, regardless of the effects of anthropogenic global warming.
Niagara Falls will have eroded away the remaining 32 km to Lake Erie, and ceased to exist.[13]
The many glacial lakes of the Canadian Shield will have been erased by post-glacial rebound and erosion.[14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_ ... e_Universe

[ArtAllm]

Words are inventions. You are declaring me dishonest for not using a word under your arbitrary and conjectural context, which I am under no intellectual obligation to use.

Agree, people who call themselves liberals are not necessarily open minded, the opposite is true.

The language can change so drastically, that the original meaning of the word becomes diametrically opposed to the current meaning.

Our language is a living thing, it can be perverted due to a concerted effort or just due to the erosion of the original meaning.

As George Orwell pointed out: who controls the language, controls the discourse.

Look what happened with the word "Semites".
The native Semites of Palestine are called "Anti-Semites", because they are not happy with the occupation of their land by Europeans, who claim that they stem from "Semites" who presumably were expelled from Palestine 2000 years ago.

[Mercenary]

Most self affiliated liberals are not open minded. They tend to be ideologues, partisans, know it alls, ect.

[Godstud]

You don't know what a real liberal is, Mercenary. You talk shit. That's all you do.