• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you have a red line for people who you won't associate with? If so, pick any of the following.

Do you have a red line for people who you won't associate with? Pick any of the following.

  • Total voters
    45
Captain Adverse said:
Well gee, the first four are easy to pick as not socially acceptable on their face. (Caveat: lumping the term "jerk" together with bigot/racist when jerk is a matter of personal opinion is a stretch.)

Meanwhile, I have many friends and friendly acquaintances who have opposing views on various political subjects.

As long as we can remain amicable and agree to disagree, I have no problem associating with anyone having opposing political views.
Click to expand...

I noticed you didn't vote in the poll. So do you mind associating with racists, bigots, and jerks, or not?
 
Dans La Lune said:
Rather than criticize another poll, I thought it would be best to ask a straight-forward question that's predicated on furthering certain conversations.
Click to expand...

Whether I will associate with someone with profound differences in beliefs depends on what those beliefs are and how open they are to changing them. For example:

I don't mind associating with Christians in general. I do mind associating with the narrow-minded, intolerant, homophobic ones.
I don't mind associating with conservatives in general. I do mind associating with the obnoxious, hateful, not-all-lives-matter ones.
I don't mind associating with progressives in general. I do mind associating with the "establishment is bad," Bernie-is-our-only-hope, "**** SJWs," omnivores suck, etc. ones.

In general, I don't mind disagreements in beliefs. But I have two rules:

1. Your beliefs MUST not dehumanize any groups of people in the slightest. If your beliefs do that and it is pointed out to you, you MUST react nondefensively and in a manner that shows you are going to immediately fix this blind spot of yours, regardless of how uncomfortable that is to you.
2. You will not be all-give-and-no-take. If you wanna dish it out on me and try to criticize what I believe in, so be it, but don't you dare get upset when I return the favor.

I've cut some people out of my life that failed these simple rules. When I look back, the only regret I have about that is not doing it sooner. Toxic people are not needed in your life.
 
Phys251 said:
Whether I will associate with someone with profound differences in beliefs depends on what those beliefs are and how open they are to changing them. For example:

I don't mind associating with Christians in general. I do mind associating with the narrow-minded, intolerant, homophobic ones.
I don't mind associating with conservatives in general. I do mind associating with the obnoxious, hateful, not-all-lives-matter ones.
I don't mind associating with progressives in general. I do mind associating with the "establishment is bad," Bernie-is-our-only-hope, "**** SJWs," omnivores suck, etc. ones.

In general, I don't mind disagreements in beliefs. But I have two rules:

1. Your beliefs MUST not dehumanize any groups of people in the slightest. If your beliefs do that and it is pointed out to you, you MUST react nondefensively and in a manner that shows you are going to immediately fix this blind spot of yours, regardless of how uncomfortable that is to you.
2. You will not be all-give-and-no-take. If you wanna dish it out on me and try to criticize what I believe in, so be it, but don't you dare get upset when I return the favor.

I've cut some people out of my life that failed these simple rules. When I look back, the only regret I have about that is not doing it sooner. Toxic people are not needed in your life.
Click to expand...

Also:

72287045_10220552364986973_3384927321558351872_n.jpg
 
I voted for:
nazis
psychopathic murders (i took this to mean serial killers or terrorist like mcva because a murderer alone might not be across the red line and could easily be circumstantial.
Racists, bigots, jerks . . i voted for this but they should be all grouped together . . racist is the only one that crosses the line.

Opposing political party is not across the line
war criminal is not across the line but again this too circumstantial. Im not sure i know ALL the ways to be a war criminal.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Do you have a red line for people who you won't associate with? Pick any of the following.
Click to expand...

Nazis, war criminals, and murderers should be pretty obvious.
Many (if not most) people are not aware that they are racists, jerks, or ignorant, so they get a pass. There's always the chance they'll get smarter.
 
Harshaw said:
Oh, dear.
Click to expand...

I agree, it's a silly argument. But I would love an answer.

Please show me how you attribute the deaths specifically to socialism (as an social-economic ideology), and not totalitarianism.
 
I voted other, because I didn't see stupid people on the list.
 
None of the above...the OP seems bent on relating his poll to Trump supporters.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Rather than criticize another poll, I thought it would be best to ask a straight-forward question that's predicated on furthering certain conversations.
Click to expand...

Political ideology is a grey area these days.

A lot of politics these days crosses lines into moral, and ethical areas. I don't refuse to associate with someone if they disagree with me on how to balance the budget, how to address debt, foreign relations, homeland security, ect. However when racism, sexism, general hate for people in poverty, political corruption become "political stances" then I will not associate with someone with those "political stances".
 
AProudLefty said:
You said this: "You left out communist assholes and dumb ass Liberals."
Take a look over there on the left. What does it say next the word "lean"?
And it's hilarious that you thought I was being sensitive since you make a knee jerk reply to me. :lamo
Click to expand...

Don't take him too seriously. I don't think anyone else whines and cries and gets sensitve and is more offended than him.
 
Since I don't know and therefore don't associate with anyone in the first four groups the decision not to associate with them is easy. Some of my best friends, though, have opposing political views.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Rather than criticize another poll, I thought it would be best to ask a straight-forward question that's predicated on furthering certain conversations.
Click to expand...

My "OTHER" vote = "conspiracy theorists/revisionists".
 
My other is to simply explain apposing political party ideology, The followers of Scum bag are not a party they are a hate group. There is absolutely nothing that his supporters have that is good for anything other then spreading hatred. They are this countries biggest threat and my biggest enemy. I totally support conservatism. Won't vote for them but their voice is as important to this country as is the voice of the progressives,
 
Drawdown said:
Does a psychopath murderer associate with anyone other than his victims?
Click to expand...

defense counsel, jailers and the prosecutors I assume
 
SDET said:
I simply assess the risk of associating with someone. I would associate with most of those, except the murderer for obvious reasons. Thieves and substance abusers/traffickers also make my list because it's easy to be arrested for being an accomplice. And, of course, feminists to avoid the risk of false accusations. And of course, I don't tolerate abuse. I also tend to avoid noisy people, especially loud talkers because they give me a headache.
Click to expand...

realistically, what is your chance of actually associating with war criminals if you live in the USA?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
My "OTHER" vote = "conspiracy theorists/revisionists".
Click to expand...

my "other", those who start silly polls with loaded answer choices :mrgreen:

One of my best friends in college was the guy who ran the chapter of Handgun ban inc.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Brady?
Click to expand...

There were three or four groups back then, the organization that became known as the Brady organization was run by a guy named Nelson "Pete" Shields-who became anti gun when his son was murdered by the racist zebra killer. Steve was not a member of that group but the more radical National Coalition to Ban Handguns (IIRC). Shields, who I had a fun time shredding in front of the Yale Political Union (with the help of a fellow who ended up being IIRC the first black editor of the National Review) headed a group called Handgun control Inc. They claimed to be less radical than the other group -the National Coalition to Ban Handguns (which has changed its name to the Coalition to Stop Gun violence. IIRC they changed their name in the late 80s because they decided "assault weapons" should be banned as well.
 
antiquity said:
None of the above...the OP seems bent on relating his poll to Trump supporters.
Click to expand...

Is is poll about Trump supporters?

My guess was that it was inspired by Ellen Degeneres' friendship with George Bush. He is pissed at her for being chummy with Bush at a football game.
 
For me this is not so much a question of politics but of personal liking or dis-liking.
 
Interesting to see neo-Nazis currently ranking worse than war criminals...

:confused:

Or perhaps it's the Nazis people are voting for - hard to tell when the OP grouped two dissimilar things into one option.
 
I didn't vote bc you didn't include Morons (at least not directly anyhow)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom