Interesting troll response to a troll post! I have a hard time sorting out the deliberately inflammatory comments from the reasoned replies. Instead, I find it more useful to focus on your initial paragraphs as I find these more telling. Your position that super-sized soft drinks should be banned as these are medical issues tells me that you think the role of the state is to legislate the lives of its citizens. What happened to leaving it up to the individual to make choices? Any food consumed in excess will lead to health problems. Why do liberals seem to think that governments know what’s best for their citizens when they have such a bad track record of managing themselves? Lots of things can kill you, why do we need to legislate some of them as if people don’t know that drinking two litres of Mountain Dew might not be nutritionally sound?
I was with you on the smoking issue-Like you, I still miss having a cigarette after dinner or with a drink. Smokers were (and still are) their own worst enemy with public opinion. You can’t argue that your rights are being impinged whilst flicking a cigarette butt into the street for someone else to clean up.
The rest of your response descends into some tit for tat false equivalencies and fallacious logic, but then I believe that was your point ☺
The original post was a collection of gross over simplifications and your response was more of the same from the other side of the argument. It’s a bit perplexing though that you preface your argument as a response to those who saw these points as why some people voted for Trump. Do you really feel that your cherry-picked arguments will convince anybody other than those that already agree with you?
To tackle your next point, college campuses are anything but places for offensive ideas (https://goo.gl/PPqrIU) they have become safe spaces where anyone with a dissenting thought is accused of hate speech including jewish conservatives (https://goo.gl/0PRLpv ) and even 2nd wave feminists who don’t agree with the current viewpoint that women are a downtrodden minority (https://goo.gl/7YwtgT)
These are just two examples of a faculty and students working actively to prevent any dissenting opinions from being shared with students. The only one mentioning nazis is the left (and you)
Your next point is muddy to say the least. You seem to be arguing that because someone doesn’t call out or actually assault someone with an extremist view, they are then complicit. This can cut both ways. Are you prepared to be tarred with same brush as the most extreme voices in your camp? To avoid any accusations of sidestepping the actual topic, I’ll tackle the same-sex marriage question-Most conservatives wouldn’t have an issue with civil unions, but get labelled all of the terms you list when they object to being compelled to recognize same-sex marriage. Conservatives tend to see marriage as a societal value, while the most compelling arguments for same-sex marriage are that the right to a civil union is tied up with property, benefits and child custody rights. If legislators on both sides of the aisle could have recognized this and made the state the arbitor of civil unions rather than marriages, we probably wouldn’t be talking about this in 2017.
I’m tempted to go on, but it would quickly descend into a ‘yes it is/no it isn’t’ argument.
At the end though, I’ll say that the original post seemed to be trying to provoke some self-awareness amongst the left. If you truly want people on your side (which you need in order to win a presidential election), then perhaps writing off every dissenting opinion as racist and deplorable isn’t the way to go?