DescentBB

But it's not called 'Rape police'. It's actually a crime called sexual assault.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2828825

Oh, I'd just love to see Rush's outrage if he were crotch groped in public by some leering gay man, or even sexually groped by the person sitting next to him on an airliner, like Trump did to this woman.

No kidding. What kind of a man thinks it's okay to grab someone's crotch?

Someone who is arrogant and conceited and believes that objectifying others as playthings for personal enjoyment is entertainment and who refuses to see them as fellow human beings deserving of respect.

tunnelcat wrote:Someone who is arrogant and conceited and believes that objectifying others as playthings for personal enjoyment is entertainment and who refuses to see them as fellow human beings deserving of respect.

In this case, it's someone who is a shill for his party and will defend anything that his party does and attack anything the other party does like it's some kind of game. If the other party did this, he would describe it as the most vile behavior imaginable. What he says here reveals very little about his actual opinion on the topic, which may be this or may be something else, unless he has so deluded himself that he genuinely holds multiple conflicting positions on the matter depending on which party is doing it.

A big reason not to trust rush at all.

Jeff250 wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Someone who is arrogant and conceited and believes that objectifying others as playthings for personal enjoyment is entertainment and who refuses to see them as fellow human beings deserving of respect.

In this case, it's someone who is a shill for his party and will defend anything that his party does and attack anything the other party does like it's some kind of game. If the other party did this, he would describe it as the most vile behavior imaginable. What he says here reveals very little about his actual opinion on the topic, which may be this or may be something else, unless he has so deluded himself that he genuinely holds multiple conflicting positions on the matter depending on which party is doing it.

I was talking about Trump with my above statement. Rush however, isn't even a human being. He's some kind of robot that spews hate and fear like it's burning hot oil. He's never had an original or nice thought in his head except to bash all things, all ideas or all people who do not believe what he believes. People who listen to him and soak up his foul message as if it's the truth really DO fall into the basket of deplorables.

I was speaking of both. It's bad enough to have someone talk about grabbing someone's genitalia like it's not a big deal, but it's worse to hear someone defending the behaviour and dismissing non-consent as 'rape police'.

Jeff's right in the sense that if it was someone not in Rush's camp, who did the same thing, they'd be demonized and shunned as an atrocious human being who did something completely indefensible.

Earlier, in 2014 (from his transcript), he said this:

"Consent must be freely given, can be withdrawn at any time, and the absence of 'no' does not mean 'yes.'" How many of you guys, in your own experience with women, have learned that "no" means "yes" if you know how to spot it? Let me tell you something. In this modern world, that is simply not tolerated. People aren't even gonna try to understand that one. I mean, it used to be said it was a cliche. It used to be part of the advice young boys were given.

tunnelcat wrote:Rush however, isn't even a human being. He's some kind of robot that spews hate and fear like it's burning hot oil. He's never had an original or nice thought in his head except to bash all things, all ideas or all people who do not believe what he believes. People who listen to him and soak up his foul message as if it's the truth really DO fall into the basket of deplorables.

Let's see, what was that earlier?

tunnelcat wrote:Someone who is arrogant and conceited and believes that objectifying others as playthings for personal enjoyment is entertainment and who refuses to see them as fellow human beings deserving of respect.

I understand. Being arrogant and conceited and vilifying others because they don't behave as you think they should and refusing to see them as fellow human beings deserving of respect is so totally different and completely acceptable.

(BTW, yes I'm talking about you, tunnel, not Rush.)

I guess it's the is it intolerant to not tolerate intolerance kind of question. In any case, when it comes to hate, tunnelcat would seem to be one of the least guilty of hate on this board, and Rush, in general, would seem to be one of the most guilty. I guess I don't know where saying this puts me now.

Jeff250 wrote:I guess it's the is it intolerant to not tolerate intolerance kind of question. In any case, when it comes to hate, tunnelcat would seem to be one of the least guilty of hate on this board, and Rush, in general, would seem to be one of the most guilty. I guess I don't know where saying this puts me now.

How about separating the value of a person from the value of a person's behavior? Maybe we can say that Rush's behavior is unacceptable while also saying that he's a person deserving respect? The same can apply for tunnel... which removes any excusing hating on Rush, but leaves plenty of room to hate on what Rush does. I don't think you should question where you are, you should question where your behavior / ideology is.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say most of you never listen to Rush and draw your opinions from leftist sources.

And it looks like this isn't the first -- or second time he's espoused this opinion.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/05/1 ... ape/210421

woodchip wrote:I'm going to take a wild guess here and say most of you never listen to Rush and draw your opinions from leftist sources.

I used to watch his TV show regularly back in the 90s, mostly in the context of visiting with my aged grandfather who adored everything Rush said. It was rare I agreed with Rush, but it can be said I've listened to way too many hours of that man's voice. I was a registered Republican back then and I still thought he was an idiot.

snoopy wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Rush however, isn't even a human being. He's some kind of robot that spews hate and fear like it's burning hot oil. He's never had an original or nice thought in his head except to bash all things, all ideas or all people who do not believe what he believes. People who listen to him and soak up his foul message as if it's the truth really DO fall into the basket of deplorables.

Let's see, what was that earlier?

tunnelcat wrote:Someone who is arrogant and conceited and believes that objectifying others as playthings for personal enjoyment is entertainment and who refuses to see them as fellow human beings deserving of respect.

I understand. Being arrogant and conceited and vilifying others because they don't behave as you think they should and refusing to see them as fellow human beings deserving of respect is so totally different and completely acceptable.

(BTW, yes I'm talking about you, tunnel, not Rush.)

If Rush Limbaugh's caustic mouth is OK for a human being to spout all over the airwaves as insipid trash and hateful rhetoric, then I must be from another planet. Maybe it's time to go back to that planet because everything he spouts is an anathema to every decent human being in this country and that crap is rotting our nation's collective mind from within. I don't even think he knows what the words kindness or respect even means. Free speech is free speech and I still have to defend it. But I also have the free speech myself to call them out as I see fit. Assholes need to be checked, or they'll tend get away with the moon and the stars whenever they can. Both Trump and Limbaugh are assholes of the highest caliber.

Now tell me how I'm arrogant and conceited when all I'm doing is calling an spade an spade. Trump and Limbaugh are like-minded partners in crime. Rush Limbaugh, who's now 63, is on his 4th wife, who's 39 years old. Trump himself is now on wife number 3, who traded his last wife for a younger one. I wonder how long Trump's wife will stick by him this time? I've read that even Limbaugh's current wife is getting fed up with his radio trash talk about feminists and women. Both of these men are fondly using the public podium to disparage those who disagree with them.

So both of these models of decadent human behaviors keep standing up for and defending their slimy, revolting actions, foul behaviors and sarcastic language like they're proud of everything, then they go on the attack against those who question it, like the insulted bullies they really are. Both of these bastards couch all this BS by claiming they're just going after that nasty political correctness. Well, they've both entered into the zone of pure impoliteness for the sheer hell of it. In reality, they're both standing up for and defending their indecent crass behaviors and impolite aggressive tendencies towards women because they think that's A-OK and that those feminist imbecile liberals who have the temerity to question what they do are just a bunch of evil partisans who are out to suppress their maleness. They're both reprehensible humans beings deserving of rebuke by anyone with a half a conscience and a soul.

Snoopy, if I'm not mistaken, you've said that you're a Christian. You unashamedly label me with the very words I used to best describe the 2 men I'm talking about, instead of reviling the public actions and language they've taken up, in Trump's case, the quest for power. I don't know what kick Rush gets out of it, other than he likes being a jackass. You're no better than they are when you attack the messenger, in this case, me. How can you defend the likes of Trump and Limbaugh, their disrespectful behavior towards women and their constant foul hateful rhetoric when they speak in public and still sleep with yourself in good conscience at night? Both of these men are the very paragons of greed, egotism, narcissism, abuse, misogyny, bigotry, and racism. Maybe you can forgive them, I however, cannot. They've gone way beyond forgiveness.

I think Snoopy's sentiment there is part of a quite frankly ridiculous trend where those who speak out against intolerant behavior are themselves labeled as "intolerant" by certain individuals. I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. If you demonstrably and clearly act like a complete ★■◆● towards a group of people, then you get to be called on being said ★■◆●. You reap what you sow.

It would seem to me that snoopy’s remarks reflect more of a true Christian value that is pretty much known as “hate the sin, not the sinner” at least a variant on said.

His position has value especially when applied to groups instead of individuals, as to allow criticism of behavior without having to impugn the group itself. IE: racism

Yeah, I got that sense too, but i'm sure it was fine back in the day. Today, in the modern world, not so much. You get judged by your words, actions, and the company you keep. That's how our justice system works.

tunnelcat wrote:If Rush Limbaugh's caustic mouth is OK for a human being to spout all over the airwaves as insipid trash and hateful rhetoric, then I must be from another planet. Maybe it's time to go back to that planet because everything he spouts is an anathema to every decent human being in this country and that crap is rotting our nation's collective mind from within. I don't even think he knows what the words kindness or respect even means. Free speech is free speech and I still have to defend it. But I also have the free speech myself to call them out as I see fit. Assholes need to be checked, or they'll tend get away with the moon and the stars whenever they can. Both Trump and Limbaugh are assholes of the highest caliber.

Now tell me how I'm arrogant and conceited when all I'm doing is calling an spade an spade. Trump and Limbaugh are like-minded partners in crime. Rush Limbaugh, who's now 63, is on his 4th wife, who's 39 years old. Trump himself is now on wife number 3, who traded his last wife for a younger one. I wonder how long Trump's wife will stick by him this time? I've read that even Limbaugh's current wife is getting fed up with his radio trash talk about feminists and women. Both of these men are fondly using the public podium to disparage those who disagree with them.

So both of these models of decadent human behaviors keep standing up for and defending their slimy, revolting actions, foul behaviors and sarcastic language like they're proud of everything, then they go on the attack against those who question it, like the insulted bullies they really are. Both of these bastards couch all this BS by claiming they're just going after that nasty political correctness. Well, they've both entered into the zone of pure impoliteness for the sheer hell of it. In reality, they're both standing up for and defending their indecent crass behaviors and impolite aggressive tendencies towards women because they think that's A-OK and that those feminist imbecile liberals who have the temerity to question what they do are just a bunch of evil partisans who are out to suppress their maleness. They're both reprehensible humans beings deserving of rebuke by anyone with a half a conscience and a soul.

No particular disagreements jump out at me there... I don't really follow Rush, so I can't exactly confirm or deny what you have to say about him. I'm perfectly fine with you calling his behavior whatever (quite possibly applicable) derogatory terms you want without calling you out as I have.

tunnelcat wrote:Snoopy, if I'm not mistaken, you've said that you're a Christian. You unashamedly label me with the very words I used to best describe the 2 men I'm talking about, instead of reviling the public actions and language they've taken up, in Trump's case, the quest for power. I don't know what kick Rush gets out of it, other than he likes being a jackass. You're no better than they are when you attack the messenger, in this case, me. How can you defend the likes of Trump and Limbaugh, their disrespectful behavior towards women and their constant foul hateful rhetoric when they speak in public and still sleep with yourself in good conscience at night? Both of these men are the very paragons of greed, egotism, narcissism, abuse, misogyny, bigotry, and racism. Maybe you can forgive them, I however, cannot. They've gone way beyond forgiveness.

I'm not doing anything to defend them. I'm pointing out that when you say this:

tunnelcat wrote:Rush however, isn't even a human being.... [Rush listeners are] deplorables.

You, also, are dehumanizing people and you've done a fine job of putting yourself at the level of which you accuse them.

Top Gun wrote:I think Snoopy's sentiment there is part of a quite frankly ridiculous trend where those who speak out against intolerant behavior are themselves labeled as "intolerant" by certain individuals. I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. If you demonstrably and clearly act like a complete ★■◆● towards a group of people, then you get to be called on being said ★■◆●. You reap what you sow.

Again, I go back to reminding us to separate people's being/value from their behavior and we'll slay this whole "intolerance" beast... dehumanizing attitudes aren't okay whether they're targeted at people doing the most dehumanizing and vile acts or not. "You reap what you sow," indeed - and if you walk around calling people [in]human and "a deplorable" you're going to be labeled as someone someone who "is intolerant" too. If you want to truly break the cycle, it starts with accepting everyone as a valuable human being so you can move on to having quality rational conversations about what behavior is and is not acceptable. Unfortunately, I don't think we humans are wired that way... so it's a perpetual uphill battle, and it's an uphill battle that pervades all of humanity regardless of gender, race, creed, political leanings, etc.

Leaving us all with a thought: for being a society that's supposed to have moved on from supposed divisiveness of religion haven't we managed to produce an incredibly divisive political environment, where the "other side" is alarmingly often dehumanized?

You, also, are dehumanizing people and you've done a fine job of putting yourself at the level of which you accuse them.

Then explain why a lot of them talk and act the same way.

it starts with accepting everyone as a valuable human being so you can move on to having quality rational conversations about what behavior is and is not acceptable

I counter with this: judge a person not by their colour, creed or alignment, but the content of their character.

Wasn’t the man who made that quote considered by many a womanizer….

>sigh<

Nobody's perfect.

I think snoopy chose the wrong word: "respect" isn't what he was talking about. I wouldn't suggest infringing on Rush's human rights, but I have no respect for his character or actions. He is a terrible person who uses his position to harm others both directly and indirectly; quite the opposite of deserving respect, he should be held in contempt.

Ferno wrote:

You, also, are dehumanizing people and you've done a fine job of putting yourself at the level of which you accuse them.

Then explain why a lot of them talk and act the same way.

it starts with accepting everyone as a valuable human being so you can move on to having quality rational conversations about what behavior is and is not acceptable

I counter with this: judge a person not by their colour, creed or alignment, but the content of their character.

I'd say a person's character - as your using it - is a type of theme of their actions, some way by which to predict their future behavior, true? So, in many ways I think we're talking about the same thing. We're still in the realm of behavior, not essence. I'm fine with saying that someone has deplorable character traits. (Note that I don't see those character traits as static, and can hold out hope that they will improve.)

Krom wrote:Nobody's perfect.

I think snoopy chose the wrong word: "respect" isn't what he was talking about. I wouldn't suggest infringing on Rush's human rights, but I have no respect for his character or actions. He is a terrible person who uses his position to harm others both directly and indirectly; quite the opposite of deserving respect, he should be held in contempt.

Possibly. There's a level at which I think a person's human essence deserves "respect" in much the same way that you use the term "human rights" - I think I see the "respect" part as the source of those human rights. (Human value may be a more precise word to use, but I think that needs a little bit more background to be properly understood.) I feel that I can hold contempt for a person's actions and character while still holding respect for their humanity. (Successfully doing so may be another matter, but then that should not stop me from trying.) We could get into why I hold to this but not without getting into theology world from which I've been trying to spare you.

Spidey wrote:Wasn’t the man who made that quote considered by many a womanizer….

>sigh<

Fallacy! Red herring at play!

Even if he was, that's a discussion for another thread. It does not devalue what was said, though.

while still holding respect for their humanity.

No one here is suggesting we remove his civil rights or dehumanizing him in any way. We're bringing to light some deplorable behaviour and the indefensible position he's in.

snoopy wrote:I feel that I can hold contempt for a person's actions and character while still holding respect for their humanity.

Great, but those people are still assholes and need to be put in their place up to the point where their human rights are violated. There is nothing wrong with ostracizing horrible people who do harm to others. In fact, this is desired in a civilized society.

snoopy wrote:We could get into why I hold to this but not without getting into theology world from which I've been trying to spare you.

Thank you for that. We have no need for mythical fantasy talk here. Theology is not the source of morality.

vision wrote:

snoopy wrote:We could get into why I hold to this but not without getting into theology world from which I've been trying to spare you.

Thank you for that. We have no need for mythical fantasy talk here. Theology is not the source of morality.

Vision hits the nail on the head, at least with snoopy's position. Theology is not morality. All my life I've tried to be a good person and help others out of the goodness of my heart. But when someone takes advantage of that trait because they probably consider me to be a weak sucker who's only good for being taken advantage of and used, I lose all respect for them. I also rarely forgive. Trump and Rush remind me of these types of users and posers. They see no problem using people or stepping all over others just to get what they want. No good deed goes ever goes unpunished.

snoopy wrote:You, also, are dehumanizing people and you've done a fine job of putting yourself at the level of which you accuse them.

How does a person dehumanize someone when that someone is without any humanity or redeeming qualities in the first place, except to their sycophants? People like Rush and Trump have sold their souls just to get what they want, money, women and power. And I've got a news flash, the world is full of these types. That's what's making it so hard to vote this election. Neither main choice is palatable. Either way, we're screwed.

tunnelcat wrote:Someone who is arrogant and conceited and believes that objectifying others as playthings for personal enjoyment is entertainment and who refuses to see them as fellow human beings deserving of respect.

Bingo!!! Perfect answer.

tunnelcat wrote:Vision hits the nail on the head, at least with snoopy's position. Theology is not morality.

Note that you changed what vision said. My theology is absolutely the source of my morality. For all people, their philosophy (of which theology is a portion) is their source of morality. Vision begs the question with his assertions about theology being a fantasy.

tunnelcat wrote:How does a person dehumanize someone when that someone is without any humanity or redeeming qualities in the first place, except to their sycophants? People like Rush and Trump have sold their souls just to get what they want, money, women and power.

Well, now we're moving into my why... so let's just say that we disagree, and I believe that all people are equally valuable as humans. Also know that as far as I'm concerned relegating some people to a status below that based on any criteria puts you in company with slavers, Nazis, and other supremacists. Incidentally, it also puts you in company with any other person who holds to naturalism (I.E. people who hold to Atheism). We've talked about the source of morality before... our beliefs about the source of morality and the value of individuals is entwined - bringing us to the place where you assert that certain people who devalue other certain people are worthy of being devalued themselves.

If you depend on your theology to be a guide for your morality, you have a real problem.

because here you're saying "I do good things because I'm scared I'll be punished" instead of saying "I do good things because I value other people".

Ferno wrote:If you depend on your theology to be a guide for your morality, you have a real problem.

because here you're saying "I do good things because I'm scared I'll be punished" instead of saying "I do good things because I value other people".

Clearly you misunderstand what the Bible has to teach.

snoopy wrote:Clearly you misunderstand what the Bible has to teach.

It's pretty clear that you burn in eternal damnation if you don't accept Jesus as your savior. Does the bible not say that?

snoopy wrote:
Clearly you misunderstand what the Bible has to teach.

au contraire, I understand it more than you do, apparently.

Also know that as far as I'm concerned relegating some people to a status below that based on any criteria puts you in company with slavers, Nazis, and other supremacists. Incidentally, it also puts you in company with any other person who holds to naturalism (I.E. people who hold to Atheism).

And speaking of misunderstanding, I noticed you slipped in Atheism in with slavers, nazis and supremacists. That's extremely dismissive and pretentious... another thing that the bible says for you not to do. You know.. "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again". If you need a religious text to determine right or wrong, you lack empathy.

Would you like to be judged the same way you're judging Atheists?

Theology aside, where's that vaunted conservative mantra of taking personal responsibility? I'm not hearing it at all, unless it's directed at a Democrat. Neither of these 2 candidates has taken one wit of personal responsibility for their actions either. Trump's "apology" was a one word pre-canned video effort before he launched into a diatribe about Hillary. He has never genuinely apologized and worse, he's done nothing but attack the press and the accusers mercilessly, blaming THEM for rigging the election against him, when in reality, his own actions condemned him to his fate.

Hillary is and was the same way. In fact, according to those released emails, her aides had to practically pull out her toenails to get her to apologize to the public for her email scandal. I also think her apology was hollow as well, because everything we've learned about her personality indicates that she's arrogant and that she genuinely believes she did nothing wrong.

No kidding.

And speaking of taking personal responsibility, where was that personal responsibility when Rush was popping those pills?

Ferno wrote:No kidding.

And speaking of taking personal responsibility, where was that personal responsibility when Rush was popping those pills?

Well, he did get his comeuppance. He lost his hearing from all that Oxycontin use. I guess he couldn't have his cake and eat it too.

snoopy wrote:Note that you changed what vision said. My theology is absolutely the source of my morality. For all people, their philosophy (of which theology is a portion) is their source of morality. Vision begs the question with his assertions about theology being a fantasy.

No I didn't. I was agreeing with him. Theology is not a source of morality in general IMO. You may believe that it is for you, so be it.

Theology is the critical study of the nature of the divine. It can vary from religion to religion, school to school, country to country. Theology teachings are ideals and rules created by men to explain the nature of God and how we should worship Him, at least for those who truly believe in a God in the first place. Most of the time those ideals and rules are created for the religion within the population they represent. If you don't happen to belong to that particular religion, you're not part of the group and automatically labeled an outsider, or an infidel. There's no "right" morality towards our fellow man whenever groupthink is involved. Either you're part of that group, or you're not.

No person needs theology to be a moral human being. Common sense, respect, goodness, politeness and fairness are far better indicators of morality in a person. You don't need a religion to teach those. There are a lot of instances where someone's religious theology was used to justify starvation, imprisonment, mass murder, torture and other abhorrent behaviors toward their fellow man, all in the name of God. That includes most of the major monotheistic religions too. Snoopy, you're never going to convince me that religion and theology are requirements for morality.

tunnelcat wrote:Oh, I'd just love to see Rush's outrage if he were crotch groped in public by some leering gay man, or even sexually groped by the person sitting next to him on an airliner, like Trump did to this woman.

And I'll match yours with what Hillary"s husband did:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... irst-time/

remind us again, What office is Bill Clinton running for?

Any normal woman would of divorced him years again. Bill represents how Hillary can't make a tough decision. If she can't see what a millstone Billy Bob is how in gods name will she ever make tough decisions as president...especially a decision that would be needed for the best interests of the country but may reflect badly upon her personally. Sorry but hubby shows she is unfit to run the country.