Why Right-Wing Christians Believe Republican Party Lies

The Republican Party base is white evangelicals. So it's no wonder that GOP lies about the country, the economy and the president worked. The folks who base their lives on religious mythology have spent lifetimes being trained to believe lies. On Tuesday they won. Lies won.

victorisnotamused wrote:probably for the same reason that L/W athiests believe democrat lies


ITS WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR..........

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:probably for the same reason that L/W athiests believe democrat lies


ITS WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR..........

Actually, liberals actually listen to what right-wingers have to say, and expose ourselves to contrary views all the time
unless you are stone deaf....do you have a choice?????

The last thing I want is for someone to tell me what I want to hear and not the truth.

Lurker wrote:"truth can be very subjective"

Really? So, that's why right-wingers don't understand the truth when it smacks them in the face. LOL

victorisnotamused wrote:

Lurker wrote:"truth can be very subjective"

Really? So, that's why right-wingers don't understand the truth when it smacks them in the face. LOL

discrimination is bad
discrimination is good

which one is "universally true"

neither....so "truth can be subjective"......

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:


discrimination is bad
discrimination is good

which one is "universally true"

neither....so "truth can be subjective"......

No, it's contextual. D'UH!

victorisnotamused wrote:I'm not hiring you because you are black

I'm not hiring you because you are female


which is worse........

Brasidas wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:I'm not hiring you because you are black

I'm not hiring you because you are female


which is worse........

Why does one have to be worse, when they are both equally wrong to say.??

victorisnotamused wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Why does one have to be worse, when they are both equally wrong to say.??

shurrup you.....
(hint they are not equally wrong to say.....universally)

victorisnotamused wrote:nope.....THINK man.....

Brasidas wrote:First point still discrimination on toilets, where partial closure is not a reason to deny somebody a job, as all toilets when cleaned are in fact closed in many cases to clean them .

the fact that "many" are does not preclude that fact that "some" are not

Point two, that is just a poor excuse not to accommodate the facilities or even allow the view whether the woman would have no issue on this. It is based off a false premise, not even asking if the woman would mind.

Clearly you have NEVER, EVER, in your life been near a coal face....i have....beleive me, theres no place for "facilities"


So again equally wrong.

Brasidas wrote:It does not matter whether I have been near a coal face in though I have been in mines, the reality is it is still discrimination basing off a view a woman could not work in that condition. If there has been roles to bar people they would be based on criminal convictions, where again otherwise there is no reason to deny people equality.
All you re doing is giving examples which have been classed specifically for only some people, when I can argue whether that is right or wrong.

which merely comes down to YOUR personal opinion and not some kind of universal concurrence of ideas


Thus the point will always come back to equal discrmination

victorisnotamused wrote:

Brasidas wrote:It does not matter whether I have been near a coal face in though I have been in mines, the reality is it is still discrimination basing off a view a woman could not work in that condition. If there has been roles to bar people they would be based on criminal convictions, where again otherwise there is no reason to deny people equality.
All you re doing is giving examples which have been classed specifically for only some people, when I can argue whether that is right or wrong.

which merely comes down to YOUR personal opinion and not some kind of universal concurrence of ideas


Thus the point will always come back to equal discrmination

this is the problem with "moral" view points

they are ALL of them subjective and entirely dependant upon ones point of view. Even those supported by "the majority" are not necessarily the correct or logical thing to do and indeed MAY in the long run prove to be the wrong thing to do....

there is ALSO the question of "who's morals are right", since there is NO universal agreement upon a large range of moral matters....

victorisnotamused wrote:the govt for good resasons....


think female toilet cleaner, in toilets that need to be open 24/7 and are not partly closeable

mining was an excepted occupation....for obvious reasons.... (there are no toilets OR privacy at the coal face,,,)

there are others too.....

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:the govt for good resasons....


think female toilet cleaner, in toilets that need to be open 24/7 and are not partly closeable

mining was an excepted occupation....for obvious reasons.... (there are no toilets OR privacy at the coal face,,,)

there are others too.....

You do realize the difference between "I'm not hiring you because I'm hiring miners and you're not physically qualified to do the work" and "I'm not hiring you because I don't think women belong in the workforce," don't you?

Is that really what you think this has been about for the past 50 years?

victorisnotamused wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

You do realize the difference between "I'm not hiring you because I'm hiring miners and you're not physically qualified to do the work" and "I'm not hiring you because I don't think women belong in the workforce," don't you?

Is that really what you think this has been about for the past 50 years?

sexist

victorisnotamused wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:the govt for good resasons....


think female toilet cleaner, in toilets that need to be open 24/7 and are not partly closeable

mining was an excepted occupation....for obvious reasons.... (there are no toilets OR privacy at the coal face,,,)

there are others too.....

You do realize the difference between "I'm not hiring you because I'm hiring miners and you're not physically qualified to do the work" and "I'm not hiring you because I don't think women belong in the workforce," don't you?

Is that really what you think this has been about for the past 50 years?

sexist

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:
sexist

No it isn't, nobody expects employers to hire people who can't perform the duties required by a physically demanding position. If you did, all your soccer teams would have gigantic rosters full of little asthmatic guys.

Brasidas wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:
sexist

No it isn't, nobody expects employers to hire people who can't perform the duties required by a physically demanding position. If you did, all your soccer teams would have gigantic rosters full of little asthmatic guys.

Ben he was taking the piss, being very sarcastic.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:the govt for good resasons....


think female toilet cleaner, in toilets that need to be open 24/7 and are not partly closeable

mining was an excepted occupation....for obvious reasons.... (there are no toilets OR privacy at the coal face,,,)

there are others too.....

You do realize the difference between "I'm not hiring you because I'm hiring miners and you're not physically qualified to do the work" and "I'm not hiring you because I don't think women belong in the workforce," don't you?

Is that really what you think this has been about for the past 50 years?