56 definitions by Submitters of Words
by Submitters of Words August 2, 2011
A situation in which a desired outcome or solution is impossible to attain because of a set of inherently illogical rules
The following is a rather common Catch 22,
Conservatives usually claim one of two things about liberals:
1) They're so open-minded their brains have fallen out
2) They're close-minded hypocrites who are only tolerant of opinions they agree with.
Clearly, these two points of view cannot be reconciled. Therefore I've dubbed it the Anti-Liberal Catch-22.
I mean, which one is it then? Overly open minded idiots or closed-minded hypocrites?
Make up your minds, conservatives!
Conservatives usually claim one of two things about liberals:
1) They're so open-minded their brains have fallen out
2) They're close-minded hypocrites who are only tolerant of opinions they agree with.
Clearly, these two points of view cannot be reconciled. Therefore I've dubbed it the Anti-Liberal Catch-22.
I mean, which one is it then? Overly open minded idiots or closed-minded hypocrites?
Make up your minds, conservatives!
by Submitters of Words June 23, 2011
An alternative name for the state of California.
Since the state is full of liberals, the name is appropriate.
Since the state is full of liberals, the name is appropriate.
Calibfornia is a nice place to visit, and maybe even live. My ultra-liberal cousins live there, and they're some pretty cool people, after all.
by Submitters of Words August 5, 2011
by Submitters of Words July 12, 2011
by Submitters of Words August 12, 2011
I just wanted to clear up some misconceptions people have about liberals and the death penalty. Many conservatives, with their usual black and white thinking, suppose that every single American liberal alive opposes the death penalty, and not only that, but feels sorry for the criminal to boot. This is balderdash however. We despise criminals just as much as you do, and only a very small but vocal minority of liberals actively opposes the death penalty.
To the main point: Why do some liberals oppose the death penalty?
A) It's very, very expensive. Yes, a lot more so than just shoving the bastard in prison for the rest of his life. Huge pull on our tax dollars
B) The number of people who have been wrongfully convicted, sentenced to death, and then found to be innocent is disturbingly high.
C) Statistically, minorities are far, far more likely to be put to death largely because of preconceived biases among the jury. Also, poorer minorities have to deal with shitty public defenders that can't put forth a good case, unlike far wealthier white criminals who can hire the best of the best.
To the main point: Why do some liberals oppose the death penalty?
A) It's very, very expensive. Yes, a lot more so than just shoving the bastard in prison for the rest of his life. Huge pull on our tax dollars
B) The number of people who have been wrongfully convicted, sentenced to death, and then found to be innocent is disturbingly high.
C) Statistically, minorities are far, far more likely to be put to death largely because of preconceived biases among the jury. Also, poorer minorities have to deal with shitty public defenders that can't put forth a good case, unlike far wealthier white criminals who can hire the best of the best.
If it were up to me, the death penalty would be applicable only in cases of definitive guilt (hard evidence that the perpetrator is the right dude). Also, he'd have to be at least 18, of course, and above a certain IQ threshold.
by Submitters of Words June 14, 2011
Cool people who, unlike their fundamentalist counterparts, don't need to turn their backs on modern science to keep their faith alive
The famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides once said that if science conflicts with Scripture, then it must be Scripture we have misunderstood.
It's sad these words of wisdom died out so long ago
Since creationists are likely to disagree with the idea that modern science like evolution is sufficiently supported, I'll go ahead and quote the renowned biologist Douglas Futuyma,
"The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."
Theodosius Dobzhansky had this to say in his famous paper "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution",
"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way."
He also wrote,
"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."
The famous Jewish philosopher Maimonides once said that if science conflicts with Scripture, then it must be Scripture we have misunderstood.
It's sad these words of wisdom died out so long ago
Since creationists are likely to disagree with the idea that modern science like evolution is sufficiently supported, I'll go ahead and quote the renowned biologist Douglas Futuyma,
"The statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors—the historical reality of evolution—is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun."
Theodosius Dobzhansky had this to say in his famous paper "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution",
"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way."
He also wrote,
"Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts. ...the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."
Liberal/progressive Christians do not believe in a deceiving God. They know that, considering the overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, to deny it would be equivalent to denying the existence of ancient Rome or Greece.
by Submitters of Words June 7, 2011