He's right you know...

Heheh. All in good faith though!!

I figured there would be a skirmish in the comments, keep it civil m8.

I at least consider it a friendly and civil discussion. I'm prototyping this alert though because the sheer length of the posts has me grinning.

Yeah, looks like y'all are writing full essays down there.

[Each number addresses a hyphen.]

1. That would imply all Republicans are of the same religion and all want to override the First Amendment.

2. Specifically, who in the GOP wants to deprive women or any other demographic of particular civil right? Having established that, what is the basis for asserting said deprivation as a party value?

3. Is it a GOP platform plank to deprive LGBTQ+ folk of their civil rights? Specifically how does the party want to do this?

4. Where does the GOP argue that science and religion are incompatible? What is their basis for putting faith above science and civil [public] policy?

5. What is the harm in educating students about world religions in school? If France has shown us anything since the Revolution it's that state secularism doesn't work.

We both agree that memes are often stretches of logic...but this is a pretty serious one and I personally wouldn't mind turning it into a debate.

I can almost count on you to comment on my memes when you know they don't apply to you. :)

1. It doesn't matter what religion they are, they share the value of having a religious doctrine within the government.

2. (See argument for pro-choice.) People who view this as a right will agree on this. People who view pro-life won't recognize it. See also: Proud Boys, which, has a considerable following to be of concern that push the right-wing agenda.

3. If three follows one, then it can be said, (poorly referenced texts referencing Sodom and Gomorrha (sic?) Evagelists (which make up the majority of the right wing, if not certainly the loudest) consider homosexuality an "abomination." It should also be outlawed. For the suggestion or mere *hint* that Lefou in "Beauty and the Beast" might have had a crush on Gaston, (can't remember which) Alabama or Georgia outlawed the movie from playing in any of their states... even though it wasn't even confirmed or strikingly evident. There was also a man who was foricbly put into women's clothes by a living armoire, he saw himself in the mirror and instead of screaming (as in the original cartoon, which teaches children to fear being dressed as a woman) he looks himself in the mirror and smiles.

4. The striking difference between evolution and creationism, that's the start of where it is disagreed upon. Further, the notion of the battle between pro-life/choice. The perspective of most pro-choicers is based in what science can record and measure; we've had discussions about this, I won't get into it.

5. State Secularism, for the most part, has worked in the USA. That's part of the whole reason we made this country was to escape divine rule. Religion is not something that should be touched on lightly, not any of them. They should be meticulously studied and understood through the context of the time that the texts were written. This is fairly placed within collegiate level coursework. Even if one were to choose to follow a religion, it should be a decision made as an adult, not a child, for numerous reasons.

Indeed. I have an unfortunate addiction to debate and your memes are often perfect launch points for a rhetorical battle. With that said;

1. I don't think that's a hallmark of the GOP. President Biden, even though he doesn't live it well, has made his being Catholic a hallmark of his character as President. Plenty of politicians on both sides use religion as the foundation for their political views (E.G; when I interned at the Montana capitol during this year's Legislative session, a prominent Jewish Democrat used his faith as the basis for opposition to Pro-Life legislation). So I don't think merely being religious and actively living that in government is a fair accusation to level, because a democracy should reflect its citizens. If someone is elected and makes faith part of their persona, then democracy has accepted that (I'm stripping some nuance here for the sake of keeping this general).

2. Sure, if you believe that a pregnancy is not a unique being and therefore wholly part of a woman then yes I absolutely acknowledge you'd see the matter as solely her concern and attempts to regulate it no different than other legislation governing personal choices. That said, the debate is so important and contentious that I am willing to be decidedly unyielding in its support (which I grant is perhaps not entirely fair from a purely rhetorical point of view, but I'm not basing my argument on the grounds that the GOP is wholly unlike the Taliban and therefore hope you grant me leniency for discussion's sake.). As far as the Proud Boys go, I think the left consistently overestimates their pull at the national level just like we on the right often overestimate the influence of ANTIFA. That is my opinion though.

3. Ah, yes if you're specifically referring to American Protestants (throughout our history largely a hardline bunch even by Protestant standards) then I agree they've got a lot of pull within the GOP. As far as the live-action Beauty and the Beast goes...I can't say I agree with banning it entirely. That call should have been left to theaters. I for one never thought Lefou was gay for Gaston (though the cross-dresser joke being changed irked me). The movie is certainly worth watching if you like the live action films (I am an unabashed Disney worshipper and much prefer the animated films, but this is a tangential subject haha!).

[I write too much and have a followup coming to address the remaining points. Please hold.😁]

1/ Never heard of someone using religion as the platform for pro-choice or anti-life. Seems to me that it's not merely being used as such a platform primarily, but more a response to others who also follow religion to reconsider their motives. This seems to me like a new development.

2/ The difference between ANTIFA and PB, is that PB is an organization which has chapters, initiation rites, hierarchy, etc. ANTIFA is literally an ideology. Granted, it's within the realm of possibilities there are groups of people who identify as ANTIFA, make a group of themselves and make a statement calling themselves ANTIFA. Though, I have to say I have only heard of singular individuals doing this, as far as messaging from the right goes.

3/ My wife got me hooked on Disney vis a vis our honeymoon. Reawakened the inner joyous child within me. Remarkable experience. What I enjoy about Disney is their willingness to say "Yeah, we f**ked up, we are working to fix it." They always strive to be better, regardless of what's happened or what the current social climate is.

I think rhetorical "battle" is not the right verbiage to use as it denotes contention in the negative connotation. Rather, this is a discussion.

Gosh dangit you didn't wait until I finished typing part II, now my fingers don't get a break (it's a reply to my own comment, BTW).

1. I can't speak for everyone, but I bill myself as 'fiscally conservative, socially Catholic'. My social policy is grounded in Faith and defended with Reason. Then again, you yourself note I'm hardly the type of fellow to whom you address your memes, so I won't pretend I am this beacon you should have in mind haha.

2. However you want to specifically categorize them, the adherents to each are largely extremist hooligans who comprise, as I like to say, "10% of the people and 90% of the acrimony" on each side. I don't want to derail this into a particularized discussion so I'll leave this point be, but I genuinely stand by my point that we each give the boogeyman organization on the other side far too much credit.

3. Disney is love. Disney is life. On that I'll shake your digital hand (well, I'm unvaccinated, so maybe you'd not like even that 😉) Aside from their f*****g stupid Mulan remake that basically applauded Xianxjang Province's overseers in its credits, they make great content. I'm sure we'd disagree as to what in their older material is actually wrong, but as long as they leave me the classics to watch on Disney+ I'm generally fine if they want to brush it up in a remake. Again, don't want to suck you down a red-herring trail, so I'll leave that there.

I think, in the realm of rhetoric, 'battle' and 'discussion' are synonymous. We have contending views and pit them against each other for the sake of comparison and argument. What this is NOT is an ad-hominem-riddled fight, the worst of deliberative pitfalls. We're not trying to score points at the expense of the other. That is the big red line, my friend, that I for one hope to never cross. If I do, make like an angry wife and pitch a hair dryer at my head...or, given the circumstances, make a meme about it. 👍

[Thank you for holding. 🙏]

4. It's no fault that you're unaware, but evolution and Creationism are not mutually exclusive! Without forking into tangential discussion, I encourage you to look into St. Pope John Paul II's writings on the subject. The Church holds that the two, as is so often the case with Faith and science, are symbiotic rather than exclusive. As far as the Pro-Life/Pro-Abortion debate goes, I hardly think it's wholly conviction vs. science or GOP vs. Democrat. Pro-Life Democrats do exist, though arguably they rival the unicorn in terms of rarity...anyways, I echo your sentiment about that discussion being outside the scope of this one. We've spilled gallons of rhetorical blood to no end there anyhow, so I'll limit my piece said to that.

5. State Secularism is the idea that no religion can be in the public square outside of a building facade. The United States is built on the idea that all religions and lifestyles must coexist while still being welcomed to openly express and live their beliefs. It's a subtle distinction, but a very real one (recognized by the Supreme Court in rulings such as the one governing Masterpiece Cake Shop. Justice Roberts [IIRC] was far more eloquent than I in delineating it). As far as teaching it goes, I don't think it's unreasonable to explain simplified versions of them to kiddos in lower grades. Educating kids about religion isn't the same as indoctrinating them, and elementary/middle school kids are capable of comprehending far more complex stuff than we give them credit for. A well-rounded education is a societal duty, not a hijacking thereof. I'd again circle back to my earlier point that faith and reason are far more intertwined than many people care to admit, so as to bolster my point expressed in the previous sentence.

And with that I am done chewing your ear off!!

I'll drink to that. The Big Bang and Evolution are perfectly compatible with Catholic teaching so long as we accept that at some point God infused humans with a soul.

You... need EVEYONE to accept that?

Just going to throw in that not every single Catholic is Republican

Naturally. Not every single one.

sadly a few catholics are communist. if they knew history, they’d know marx hated their religion, as he hated all religion.

Define 'everyone'.

We were talking about how the general Catholic explanation for the creation of the universe and everything else detailed in Genesis is also fully reconcilable with our best scientific explanation for the creation of the universe.

*A Catholic has joined the chat*

Catholic Fistbump

The Catholic Church also doesn’t know much about the Bible and what it means, to be honest. That’s not meant to insult anyone, it’s just very true.

are you suggesting that women have less rights than men based on whether they have the right to kill a kid (by stabbing or vacuuming)? Men don’t even have that choice, so that’s an odd thing to bring up. i thought you were referring to job opportunities, where a legitimate argument could be made. However, a black man by the name of Thomas Sowell destroyed even that argument 40 years ago.

Also, i have nothing to do with the proud boys. No one I know has anything to do with the proud boys. it’s not a legitimate name-drop to pull on conservatives because many conservatives don’t act like them. what conservatives say about the left is more legitimate because the left actually is acting like marxists right now.

In regards to question 2: Roy Moore.

Cool. We've got a troubled former justice as our example. Now, because that question had two parts, let's address the second half. How can we establish that Roy Moore and his values are being upheld by the entire GOP as their core goals for America?

Most don't espouse sexism. I was answering the bit about who does. There's also Ann Coulter, but she's a speaker, not a politician.

Oh yeah I'm not trying to say no Republicans are waaaaay out in left field (the irony of that phrase is not lost on me...).

Definitely wackos on both sides.

Just chiming in with some more conservative hypocrisy/absurdity.

Bullshit meme from the left. Then they wonder why we make such fun of them

"Liberal Antagonist" What, you couldn't write Trumpwon2020? Oh, too soon?

How is it false? Do tell :)

Government based on religious doctrine was what America was founded upon. It was here, and it got taken away, and it’s not the other way around.
No one on the republican party is arguing for women to not have rights, except for maybe a select few, and those aren’t supported by many young conservatives.
This third bullet is laughable. First, many of the people the left idolizes (Che Guevara, Stalin, etc) and even ones that you may not hear of (like Pol Pot) were blatant racists and homophobes. Under Pol Pot, a trans woman was forced to marry another women (because they force marriages there and it’s not about love, like the left claims to support). Che Guevara tortured people for being gay, and Stalin criminalized people for it. Second, the conservative party is becoming liberal because of a reaction to all of this marxism (keep in mind they tortured gays) that the liberals are waking up and seeing that is rising in our country. So the conservative party is filled with pro-LGBTQ people right now. Do you know Candace Owens supports gay marriage? So, LGBTQ people, your enemy is Marxism, not the conservative party. And even religious people are not as hostile to you as Marxists were. And religious people can believe something is wrong without being hostile about it. Marxists will never do this. The fact that people are not taught this in school is vehemently appalling, due to the fact that the left claims to give a rip about the LGBTQ community and basically helped popularize it here.
This fourth bullet assumes science is anti-religious. However, I’d argue to teach the best argument on both sides and let the kids decide which makes more sense. Now i’ll tell you why the school system would never want that. That would ruin the utopia they’re trying to create. Marxism has overtaken education, and because it is hostile to God, they cannot have anyone growing up taught to fear God. However, there are many scientific arguments for religion. This is why I say teach both sides. If the religious side really is nonsense, let the children figure it out. They’re not dumb. But just writing it off as stupid? That makes the school system seem rigged (and the way they removed religion from schools was in fact rigged). And this ties in with the sixth bullet.
Church and state are two separate things. However, members of the church should not be forced to pay taxes that will go to Planned Parenthood. Can you imagine if the LGBTQ community were forced to tithe to the church?

First sentence. False.
Second point. I've not heard any yet, doesn't mean there are any.
Third point is a lie propagated by the right-wing. How can we idolize something if we've not heard of it?
Marxism, the most popular right-wing buzzword. When we think of our progressive policies, we don't think of Karl Marx. We simply think of improving the quality of life for the majority of American Citizens. Does Marx share some of those ideas? Sure. But then, I suppose we do attribute Hitler as the right wing Karl Marx... Fair's fair, I guess.
Candace Owens? Nice token example, can you think of someone who matters within the Republican Party who supports forbidding business discriminating on Gay Couples? I'll wait.
You know, I hear you saying "Marx" this, "Marx" that. But, you haven't even stated why it's bad in the first place. It's almost like Karl Marx is a boogeyman who is living in your head rent free. Are you so incredibly naive to think that children aren't impressionable? Science is not a religion. I don't know why you're treating it like one. It's not a choice between one and the other. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Can you do that with Religion? No. It's choosing to fit your life into a doctrine which has no basis in fact beyond heresay evidence that has been recorded in a book that has been used in the past to rule over kings and queens. I mean, for all we know, we could be looking at the imgflip that existed during Jesus' time. Jesus was a man, we know this as there are Roman letters which cite his existence.
Church not being forced to pay taxes for planned parenthood?
To make such a ruling....

... Perhaps they should start paying taxes in the first place.

Oh, by the way... Did you know "In God We Trust" Wasn't "coined" until the 20th century? Yeah. That isn't actually a motto that's as old as USA. Why? Because this country was founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. That's the way it's been and that's the way it will continue to be. Period. Otherwise, you're advocating for tearing down the first amendment. Which, is a pretty hateful move against America.

This meme represents the republican party from about 200 years ago. However, the modern republican party is nothing like this.

Nope, it pretty accurately represents the Majority of the Republican Party from the South East; the bible belt.

OK, so what is Biden doing to stop Sharia law in Afghanistan?

What does that have to do with Sharia law in America?

Can we see an example of how the top Democrat in the land reacts to proponents of Sharia law? Can we count on him to protect us from the evil republican scourge? Can he even get Americans out of danger of being beheaded at the hands of the organization promoting Sharia law sitting in Kabul and led by Khairullah Khairkhwa, who was traded by Obama?

What does that have to do with this meme? Sounds like whataboutism to me.

Sounds to me like you might be suffering from BDS.

Sorry it took so long, but some mod thought you needed to be defended from a trolling attempt. Since you don't have the BDS filter, tell me what he really said so I can believe the guy in charge is coherent. I'm really trying to assuage my Biden Dementia Suspicions

Well, the first step is admitting you have it. Second step is to accept that you have it. The third step is to simply drop it.

Seriously though, this meme mentions nothing of Biden. Your bringing it up is a clear whataboutism. I would just drop the issue and focus on the point the meme brings up, rather than say "What about Biden and Afghanistan?"

Fine. I disagree with this meme's conclusion because I haven't met many people of any political stripes who disagree with separation of church and state.

I don't think this meme has a point except to give one group of people a newly fabricated reason to hate another group of people. I've liked a bunch of your memes, but dang...

I didn't know your profile quote was an indication that you were a proponent of increasing division. I thought it was the opposite. Bummer. I'll take my other concern into its own meme.

That's fine. It's a meme, it's not meant to be taken seriously, but meant to be thought provoking.

First, people aren't calling for the marriage of church and state, but they are calling for policies that represent this. Such as pro-life policies, which have largely been backed by evangelists, citing God and biblical texts. Anti-LGBTQ policies, "putting GAWD-uh back in school." If nothing else, you have evangelists speaking politics at the pulpit to their... sheep; their flock (that's beautiful.)

"Newly fabricated" ... No, this isn't news. This is something the left has been seeing for quite a while.

As for my quote? Perhaps you should ask me about it first before drawing your own conclusions? I'll let you ask to determine if you're genuine or not.

So is your quote 1984 as a cautionary tale or an instruction manual? I see so many signs of newspeak, it's sickeningly scary. Can't use that word, and then the polite words that are similar soon become verboten as well. Then it gets to the point that any word you try to use triggers somebody. I prefer an environment where I can sit and talk to the religious person and share the stories I heard from my Mom of the women that died in the emergency room where she was a nurse before abortion was legal. I used to be able to talk to people about contentious issues and have a civilized discourse. Now I get dismissed as a libtard or nazi or whatever is the epithet of the day. Based on the comments, memes like this one seem to be contributing more to us v them thinking than provoking thought.

"So is your quote 1984 as a cautionary tale or an instruction manual? I see so many signs of newspeak, it's sickeningly scary. Can't use that word, and then the polite words that are similar soon become verboten as well.

>> Actually, I just randomly saw this quote in the #politics channel from the right wing posters. It's funny that they claim it's our instruction manual, yet they're the ones all reading it. So I quote them because this is exactly what they've been doing.

Then it gets to the point that any word you try to use triggers somebody. I prefer an environment where I can sit and talk to the religious person and share the stories I heard from my Mom of the women that died in the emergency room where she was a nurse before abortion was legal.

>> How is abortion relevant to the rest of that story...? Or, are you talking about women who would try it on themselves and then get in critical condition because they did it wrong?

I used to be able to talk to people about contentious issues and have a civilized discourse. Now I get dismissed as a libtard or nazi or whatever is the epithet of the day. Based on the comments, memes like this one seem to be contributing more to us v them thinking than provoking thought."

>> It's not meant as an us v. them. It's merely calling out their hypocrisy. But then again, images are subjective to the viewer.

You think it's the right trying to characterize all kinds of words as offensive? It's been my observation that the right is using those words and the left are creating the newspeak environment.
Abortion is simply an example of a contentious subject. I also discuss other topics like guns (who would have guessed). It is getting harder to have a discussion on contentious topics. People react like anyone who disagrees is evil or stupid and all they're doing is guaranteeing that there's no risk of learning. That is the behavior that will doom this country.
I've trained a lot of people on a lot of subjects. I've not seen a lot of real stupidity. In fact I would call it rare. What is prevalent, however, is disinterest, preconceptions, biases, wishing it were so, unusual personal experiences that color their expectations, and many other barriers and filters.
I also have never met anyone whose beliefs are all consistent. Hypocrisy is universal. Everyone has things they hold to in certain conditions but not others. The world is complicated, and the most trouble seems to be caused when a "simple" or "common sense" solution to some perceived problem is imposed broadly.

You think it's the right trying to characterize all kinds of words as offensive?

>> When did I say this? What are you talking about?

It's been my observation that the right is using those words and the left are creating the newspeak environment.

>> What is newspeak? In your words?

Abortion is simply an example of a contentious subject. I also discuss other topics like guns (who would have guessed). It is getting harder to have a discussion on contentious topics. People react like anyone who disagrees is evil or stupid and all they're doing is guaranteeing that there's no risk of learning. That is the behavior that will doom this country.

>> agreed, I didnt get involved in politics until being called a libtard by a Trumper in 2015

You said, "I quote them because this is exactly what they've been doing."

My words? I'll try. When a person believes that someone else is thinking something that he doesn't like and plans to punish them for their thinking, you have thoughtcrime. To eliminate thoughtcrime, try to enlist those who share your beliefs to punish or ostracize people who use certain words, and the corresponding thoughts and ideas those words represent. Reducing the available language, thinking that the problem will go away if you can get people to stop using those words, is newspeak. I'm not explaining it as well as Orwell did, but he used a whole book. I prefer that all the bad words be allowed so they can be discussed.

There's a difference between academic discussion and common discussion. Using racial slurs in casual conversation is not okay, using them for reference in academic discussion (usually historical) is where it's accepted as you're quoting someone, it isn't your voice using that word to disparage or dispense hate to another.

As for what you're talking about thought control? No. That's a twisted, cockamamie perception of what's actually going on.

"You think it's the right trying to characterize all kinds of words as offensive?"

Within reason. You can't go around saying words like "f*ggot" or "ni**er" or "I was gypped [sic?]" You can review what words are considered hate speech by a google search. In law, hate speech itself isn't a crime. But when it's laced with assault or another crime, that's what makes it a hate crime from a normal crime. I agree with this.

If people want to collectively hold you accountable for being a dick, then I support that. That's soft democracy in action. "F**k your feelings" Is not something that should fly and should never be practiced as it violates the "To get respect you gotta earn respect." and insteads places the mindset that everyone should respect you first, regardless of how you act. If you want to say "I won't give respect until respect is given to me." Well, fine. But, if you're going to act like an inconsiderate ass and try to shout "muh freedoms" because people don't like what you're saying, don't be surprised if you never get respect.

Huh? OIC. My sentence was easy to parse incorrectly. Let me add some clarification.

You think it's

the right

trying to characterize all kinds of words as offensive?

Where did I say that?

You said, "I quote them because this is exactly what they've been doing." C'mon man.

Also I changed my tagline on my profile so it's more accurate and to the point.

I never said they try to classify all words as offensive. I said, (on my profile) "THE EASIEST WAY TO GET SOMEONE TO HATE A GROUP OF PEOPLE FOR BEING DIFFERENT IS BY STARTING SMALL. MAKE THEM AN OTHER."

I never said anything regarding "You think it's the right trying to characterize all kinds of words as offensive?" These are mutually exclusive lines of thought.