Something I've learned about the liberal mindset

[Travis Retriever]

You ever notice how they take attempts to keep them accountable as a personal attack?  Also, I find they use it as a personal attack too.  I've been told when I put two furry (and liberal natch) friends of mine in a tight/scary (I guess?) spot that, "well this is your fault/whose fault is that?"  It gives me a lot of insight into how these people think.  To them, accountability/fault isn't something real or objective.  It's just an attack phrase, no different than an exhausted parent saying to their teen rightly questioning their bogus beliefs, "So you just think you know everything!?"  It's like when the SJWs try to blame men for everything with the double standards (e.g. Woman is drunk? She was raped! Man was drunk? He was not raped!).  To them, being in control/having responsibility is just something they use against you because you're such a privileged shitlord and because they lack integrity themselves.  No wonder so many of them suck even worse than conservatives.  And as a guy who long hated conservatives even more than liberals, that's saying something.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Oh yeah, like if someone gets mugged and you tell them that walking down a dark alley wearing enough jewelry to signal a helicopter was a bad idea, they take that to mean the person deserved to be mugged.

If I jump off a roof, do I "deserve" to get my legs broken?  Well, that's kind of irrelevant because it's going to happen anyway.

[Travis Retriever]

Oh yeah, like if someone gets mugged and you tell them that walking down a dark alley wearing enough jewelry to signal a helicopter was a bad idea, they take that to mean the person deserved to be mugged.

If I jump off a roof, do I "deserve" to get my legs broken?  Well, that's kind of irrelevant because it's going to happen anyway.

Indeed.  I find they also use it as an attack phrase too.  it's why I find when they use it (like when they use it against men/people they don't like/etc) against me I find myself taking it less and less seriously.  I mean, these are the people who hold an infant to standards of adults via the social contract for Christ's sake.

[dallen68]

Indeed.  I find they also use it as an attack phrase too.  it's why I find when they use it (like when they use it against men/people they don't like/etc) against me I find myself taking it less and less seriously.  I mean, these are the people who hold an infant to standards of adults via the social contract for Christ's sake.

I've also found the same phenomenon amongst the religious, holding children to the same standards one would an adult. They can't be held to the same standards because they are NOT adults, and do not have the same understanding of consequences that adults have. It's one of the many reasons I'm adverse to "trial as an adult", in most cases. Or at least I'm opposed to it being up to the prosecutor (who might be pandering to nitwits...I mean the public...for votes) to make the decision to try a juvenile as an adult. At the very least, it should be someone qualified to make the determination of what the individual child's level of cognition of consequences is. In fact, that should probably be investigated in all cases.

[MrBogosity]

I've also found the same phenomenon amongst the religious, holding children to the same standards one would an adult. They can't be held to the same standards because they are NOT adults, and do not have the same understanding of consequences that adults have. It's one of the many reasons I'm adverse to "trial as an adult", in most cases. Or at least I'm opposed to it being up to the prosecutor (who might be pandering to nitwits...I mean the public...for votes) to make the decision to try a juvenile as an adult. At the very least, it should be someone qualified to make the determination of what the individual child's level of cognition of consequences is. In fact, that should probably be investigated in all cases.

My big problem with this is, it only works for purposes of taking their rights away. Say you get the court to call him an adult, you try him, and he's not guilty. Is he still an adult? Can he vote? Have sex with whomever he wants? If he's an adult, he's an adult; if he's not, he's not. Consistency, people.

[dallen68]

My big problem with this is, it only works for purposes of taking their rights away. Say you get the court to call him an adult, you try him, and he's not guilty. Is he still an adult? Can he vote? Have sex with whomever he wants? If he's an adult, he's an adult; if he's not, he's not. Consistency, people.

Well, yes. It "should" be that if a court declares a person an adult, then the person IS an adult. However, technically as far as court is concerned, it actually GIVES them rights. Juveniles do NOT have the following:

-The right to remain silent (the parents control this right)
-The right to representation (Again, parents control - the law guardian is not representation in this sense)
-The right to not have your rights waived by someone else. (It pisses me off how often parents waive what few rights their children have)
-The right to presumption of innocence. (Sort of, the parents can plead one way or the other on behalf of the child. - Three guesses which way they ususally plead, the first two don't count.)

[tnu]

[yt]84phU8of02U[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

Surprised no one had anything to say about liberals using fault as a weapon when it's against someone they don't like.  I can't be the only here who noticed this. :\

[Travis Retriever]

I wonder if it's related to #3 on this list:  http://www.cracked.com/article_22014_5-awful-lessons-i-learned-living-with-mystery-illness.html

[Travis Retriever]

Has anyone else noticed that liberals tend to use responsibility/fault as an attack?  I find whenever a liberal furry gives me advice, whenever I corner them/exhaust them, they whip out the, "well, it's your fault" card.  Or SJWs who blame men whenever bad things happen to them (e.g. male rape victims, circumcision, etc) on 'the patriarchy'?  I cannot be the only one who notices this shit.

[AdeptusHereticus]

I wonder if it's related to #3 on this list:  http://www.cracked.com/article_22014_5-awful-lessons-i-learned-living-with-mystery-illness.html

I don't see the connection. Assuming that the doctors are competent enough  (no details are given in the article), there is a logical path to link symptoms to a psychological issue (which does not necessary implicates the concept of responsability). If as a doctor who follows some sort of evidence based diagnostic process, you are confronted with a group of symptoms not pointing toward a specific well known issue, in other words, if the observations are not coherent with accepted scientific knowledge about biology, before anything else you have to turn to psychological explanations, and only if have ruled them out you can proceed to delve into the depths of the unknown, as in any other sciences.

Treating differently male and female victims of say, a crime, because this crime is mainly commited by members of one of the two groups, is conflating an act with a trait that does not necessarily implies the act. It's a form of Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy as far as I understand it, which can also take the more precise form of guilt by association. I see them as parent fallacies in that context. And it's considered misogyny when it's done in the opposite diirection.

[Travis Retriever]

I don't see the connection. Assuming that the doctors are competent enough  (no details are given in the article), there is a logical path to link symptoms to a psychological issue (which does not necessary implicates the concept of responsability). If as a doctor who follows some sort of evidence based diagnostic process, you are confronted with a group of symptoms not pointing toward a specific well known issue, in other words, if the observations are not coherent with accepted scientific knowledge about biology, before anything else you have to turn to psychological explanations, and only if have ruled them out you can proceed to delve into the depths of the unknown, as in any other sciences.

Treating differently male and female victims of say, a crime, because this crime is mainly commited by members of one of the two groups, is conflating an act with a trait that does not necessarily implies the act. It's a form of Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy as far as I understand it, which can also take the more precise form of guilt by association. I see them as parent fallacies in that context. And it's considered misogyny when it's done in the opposite diirection.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/04/male_rape_in_america_a_new_study_reveals_that_men_are_sexually_assaulted.html
By that logic, racial profiling is a good idea: 
[yt]loaLxkbYkOA[/yt]

[AdeptusHereticus]

Well yes, you're right, and this point has been brought a lot in those discussion on the internet. That doesn't seem to convince the people who do the conflation though. But that's hardly the only case of double standards you find when discussing political topics so im not surprised by that. I have no problem imagining  the faces of those people if we were to single out different groups of students, by races, social status, etc, in schools to have them participate in mandatory classes about specific criminal issues. But for some reason, doing the same with men in schools still seems like a good idea. Go figure.