Anti-Abortion (my shiny butt)

Wondering:
Do all adults who are "Anti-abortion" voluntarily and willingly support, or at least happily help support babies and children who are born to mothers who can't support their children by themselves?
You can't have one without the other. It's not even about morality, it's about REality.

If you're going to demand that babies are not aborted, then you need to be one of the people who actually CARE about those babies, and those mothers as well. 
If the only reason you protest abortion is to cast shame and blame on other people, but you don't really give a crap about those babies, children, or mothers on a real level, then it's nothing more than hypocrisy.

Fathers who don't support their own children, or the mothers of their children, really don't have much of a leg to stand on either way.
And really, neither do family members of those mothers who are unwilling to be supportive.
Neither does anyone else who's not willing to help REALLY SUPPORT babies and children.

If you're anti-child support, or anti-welfare, or anti-female, or anti-females-getting-equal education, pay,  opportunity and respect, or you can't stand children, or you only "like" certain kinds of children (or humans), then sit down and shut up about it, you're NOT one of the people who are HELPING to support and raise babies and children.
Unless you're one of the few who are literally DIRECTLY helping to support babies and children, and their mothers, with your own money and time. Are you one of them? If you are, awesome, if you're not, zip it.

People who really want abortion to stop, for real, not just who get off on blabbering on and on about who's it and what's it and who's RIGHT...,
need to be part of the solution, not part of the cause of the problem.




(I was a younger mother once, and I can tell you that the "support" I received was pitiful, especially from all the establishments that everyone assumes HELP young mothers and children. The church, the "state" agencies, planned parenthood, even most of the nurses in the hospital where my baby was born (Yale) were ridiculous in their ANTI-supportiveness.

...Maybe if they knew I had family ties there, they wouldn't have been so cavalier or snotty... lol... then again...)

And no, I'm not "pro-abortion", but I AM PRO-SUPPORTING BABIES AND CHILDREN AND THEIR PARENTS. The "programs" that we do have frankly SUCK, they're like vortexes of shame and dysfunction.

And I know VERY FEW PEOPLE who say they're Anti-Abortion, who don't COMPLAIN about welfare, or try to cast SHAME on young mothers, unwed mothers, or single mothers, and even fewer who don't COMPLAIN about CHILD SUPPORT.
I also DO KNOW a few single FATHERS who also get the bum's rush treatment when it comes to helping them SUPPORT THEIR CHILDREN.

Romantic Love And Narcissism

In "romantic relationships", Narcissists are much more concerned with keep their "options open" than with actually building a relationship with another person. If they commit to one person, that's like blowing off all the future possible "hot babes", "scores", or even "possible soul mates".
After they think they've "hooked" a mate, they aren't going to be doing any more courting ritual stuff, showing affection, going out of their way for their partner, or even showing basic respect, courtesy, or consideration.
Holidays are probably going to be disappointing and painful after they don't feel like they need to "capture" you anymore.
There won't be anymore wonderful "dates" or romantic weekends.
There won't be great friendship anymore, or mutual admiration, or dreaming plans for the future together.
When the "relationship" starts to really go sour, you'll probably notice it and try to repair it, try to get them to communicate with you about what they're really feeling and thinking, help them if they seem depressed or frustrated, try to make things better.
But they're not going to cooperate...
because...
they're NOT actually INVESTED IN IT.
They don't really WANT to be in a committed relationship.
Not just with YOU, with ANYONE.

Sure they were infatuated with you, probably, at first, but while you were going along with the process of relationship building and emotional bonding, THEY were going through an entirely different process: DEVALUATION.

Romantic relationships for people with Narcissism are usually not "REAL" to them. They're a passing fancy, a burst of excitement, an EVENT, a phase, something they experienced, something they achieved.

Picture it like a thrill-seeker's expeditions.
A person who climbs mountains doesn't keep climbing the same mountain, and they don't usually decide to LIVE on one particular mountain. Their "rush" is from climbing NEW mountains. Once you're done with one, you're onto the next one.

A base-jumper doesn't keep jumping off the same bridge or cliff. They see different sites as challenges to be "overcome". Once they've achieved a jump off a certain bridge, they're already planning the next one.

THIS is how Narcissists see "romantic relationships".
NOT like non-narcissists do.
No, they never really loved you, not like you wanted them to, not like you thought.
They probably loved the rush from the infatuation, and loved the excitement from being with you for a while. But that's not "love" between two people, it's not a BOND.

A race-car driver doesn't "love" the track she's on. She LOVES RACING. She loves the THRILL of racing. Each race is a NEW conquest, a new challenge, a new thrill.

A rock climber doesn't LOVE one rock and move in, and live there, and stop going rock-climbing because he's found the "ultimate rock" and there are no others that could ever measure up, so why bother. No, that's not what he's doing, he's not LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO CALL HOME. He's looking for the RUSH he gets from climbing new rocks and cliff faces.. That means he doesn't WANT TO STAY in one place, even the best site he's ever climbed. He WANTS TO get that RUSH, and he can only get it when he explores NEW rock faces.
 It's about HIM, about HIS RUSH, NOT the rock face.

Narcissists are addicted to RUSH, and to "reward" ~ they don't build relationships, and they can't, really. Sadly.

Judging You For Worthiness

Assessing others to be "worthy" of their acceptance and their approval is common in those who believe they have natural entitlement and superiority.
They see themselves as one of the members of the "higher minded", "cool", "intellectual", or physically superior crowd, and are therefore entitled to do such judging and assessing.
This can come from actually having Narcissism, but it can also come from growing up in an area where people separate themselves and others into sub-groups, and places more supposed STATUS on one group than another.

Kids learn what's around them, they don't have any other point of view. So if the "jocks" are getting put on pedestals in a kid's community, that's what seems normal to a kid. If it's only male "jocks" who are given this "status", then that's what the kid is going to think is REAL, like that's really how things ARE in "Life".
This kid will likely then either feel like "one of the important people" if she's accepted into the group, or she'll feel like she's one of the "rejects" if she's not accepted.
The kids IN the group will likely feel like they ARE "more important", because that's what everyone else (i.e. certain adults around them) are telling them and showing them, so of course they're going to believe that they're the ones who have the "power" to ASSESS and JUDGE other people's "worth", and believe that their "worth" is the highest.

Kids usually believe what they're told and what they're shown about ANY sub-group like that in the larger group. If it's only Hispanic male jocks who are getting the "higher status" treatment in the school or community (or families), then the kids IN the group will probably believe that those kids really ARE "better", more important, or superior to others, and OTHER KIDS will ALSO likely buy into it, and will probably want to BE one of them, or want ACCEPTANCE from them, OR resent them.
No different if the kids who are getting the "higher status" treatment are Caucasian-descent male jocks, African-descent male jocks, or Asian-descent male jocks.
Make the "higher status" sub-group female jocks, and that's who the kids will think is REALLY "higher status".
Make them Asian female jocks.
Give only the Basketball Team, but not the Swim Team, that "Higher Status" treatment. The other kids both on and off the team will likely buy into it.
Make the sub-group the male-only Science Club, and that's who will be the "most worthy" and "most high-status" group; that's who will buy into their own superiority, and who other kids will want to be accepted by, or who they'll resent.
Make the sub-group the female-only Astronomy Club, and that's who will be the "most worthy" and "high status".
ETC!!!

Change the "High Status" group to ANY sub-group, any age, either sex, any ancestry, and the kids who grow up around it will BELIEVE it.
That's why people don't just reject organized crime groups and gangs in their community. The adults behaved AS IF the members of those groups were "important", and so the kids of course bought into that, it's what they were shown.

EVERY region, every country, every area, every community, and even every family perpetuates the MYTH of "who is important" and "who is more worthy", and for the most part, the communities follow right along in those footsteps, because that's what they saw while they were growing up.

SO, it's not strange that some adults believe that they're naturally superior and more worthy, and that other adults buy into it and allow them to BE "superior", JUDGE others for "worthiness", and have easy access to more power. privilege, and resources. The kids from both sides of this imbalance were TAUGHT and SHOWN these things by adults while they were growing up.  

Inciting Hatred With Accusations Of Bigotry

When a person is talking about racism, and you are listening to them, do you assume that their goal is altruistic and innocent, or do you double-check that?

What is their real goal?
Are they trying to invoke FEELINGS, or are they reviewing actual information in an objective manner, looking at the whole picture, looking at different points of view, seeking causes and solutions?

What are they REALLY trying to accomplish?

And the same can be said for those who are talking about ANY kind of bigotry.
Some Men's rights groups try to incite hatred in order to get people to join them and follow them.
So do some Feminist groups.
So do some Gay Rights groups.
So do Left Wingers and Right Wingers...   
Some "civil rights" groups do it, some religious groups do it...
The MEDIA THRIVES on it.
Many songwriters do it, and so do many artists.
Even some "support groups" do it, especially on the internet.
Political candidates of every color, both sexes, and every background do it every day.

What is the REAL GOAL?

Those who look to INCITE FEELINGS of "US AGAINST THEM", of disdain, disgust, TEAMS, and especially Hatred, are doing it for a self-serving reason. They WANT SOMETHING.
They want you to join their team, or they want you to give them money, or they want you to vote for them, or they want you to help destroy others (so they can "win" and get power and control).

When you join a team of HATERS, you're not joining a positive cause. You're joining a negative agenda.

You aren't on a "team", you're being allowed to participate AS LONG AS YOU AGREE WITH THEM.

No one cares about YOUR POINT OF VIEW or OPINIONS in such a group, they ONLY CARE THAT YOU ARE ALIGNED WITH THEIRS.
The moment you disagree with their "line" is the moment you are cast out.


Haters hate. Haters like to incite others to hate. Haters don't care about anyone's point of view but their own. Haters don't care about anyone but themselves, no matter how much they SAY they care and PRETEND they care, they're full of shite.
Haters hate, and that's pretty much all they do, and a lot of them want to MAKE MONEY from it.

Advertisers and politicians have known for centuries that it's much easier to get people to follow you when they're joining in a "hate" campaign AGAINST someone else, than getting them to follow you because they genuinely agree with you and support your ideas.


(Remember "Coke VS. Pepsi"? They were both in on that. Worked like a charm.)

Demonizing People We Don't Like

We have a long, long, LOOOONG history in this world of demonizing people we disagree with, and who threaten our hierarchies and our egos.

Whenever there's a person who shows up making some kind of ripples of change in the Status Quo, whoever doesn't like that change will jump on the person and try to destroy their reputation, try to turn others against them as a human being, and try to discredit everything about them.
Quite often, completely false rumors about a person will get made up and circulated in order to get people who might LIKE the changes and therefore be supportive of the person, to turn against the person.

How can you tell if a person is being attacked in this way? It's easy:
The attacks are NOT directed at the person's IDEAS, but at the PERSON THEMSELVES.

It's called AD HOMINEM

So let's say I lived in the 17th century and started a school for girls that taught Knighthood, this would have probably happened to me. Even if I published an opinion piece about teaching girls to be Knights, they probably would have pulled this crap on me.

Who is "THEY"? "THEY" would be the people who NEED the current structures of "society" and "hierarchy" to stay exactly as they are, so THEY can continue to have the POWER and PRIVILEGE that they're used to.

GIRLS becoming KNIGHTS? Who ever heard of such a thing?! GIRLS wearing armor? Wearing pants? Learning sword fighting? Learning the Chivalry code?
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY:
GIRLS being given RECOGNITION and CREDIT for being STRONG, BRAVE, and IMPORTANT?!!!
HOW AWFUL!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Why is it so awful?
Because if GIRLS were taught the same as BOYS: how to be KNIGHTS, then the privilege and power of Knighthood would no longer be exclusively Male.
AND that means that MALES could no longer be manipulated with promises of being rewarded with MALE PRIVILEGE and ELITISM.
It would mess up the CONTROL and POWER, and would wreck the standing Hierarchy, which means people in power would LOSE their control and power positions, especially when the culture of FEAR broke down.

SO, when I started that Knighthood School for Girls, they would have come for me. Not because there's anything actually "WRONG" with girls learning to become Knights, but because it would SCREW UP their POWER, because it would SCREW UP the status quo and fear-culture.

ALL CULTURES that have POWER HIERARCHIES have OPPRESSION and FEAR, and use REWARDS OF ELITISM and PRIVILEGE to manipulate and create followers.

So when someone shows up that throws a wrench in it, the first thing "THEY" do is try to QUIET the person down, get them to "go away" or lose their drive and confidence. If and when that doesn't work, "THEY" will try to SMEAR the person so others don't listen to them and don't follow them.
"THEY" try to get people to turn against the person categorically, and see the person as a "BAD WOMAN" or a "BAD MAN", or at least as a "CRAZY PERSON".

Humans fall for it quite a good deal of the time.

If this doesn't work, they might literally attack the person.
Many people who have invoked or represented POSITIVE CHANGE from a place of fairness, freedom, and love have actually been killed throughout human history.

Freedom, fairness, and love are destroyers of POWER MONGERS, and they know it.

So the next time you hear that so and so was really a "bad person" because he or she did or said such and such, don't just JUMP ON the train, turning against them like a witch-hunter.
Take some steps back and look again, in a more objective light.

Objectivity, Who Has It?

ob·jec·tiv·i·ty

[ob-jik-tiv-i-tee, -jek-]  noun
1. the state or quality of being objective: He tries to maintain objectivity in his judgment.
2. intentness on objects external to the mind.
3. external reality.
ob·jec·tive

adjective \əb-ˈjek-tiv, äb-\

: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings
(Merriam Webster)

ob·jec·tive

• adj.adjective

  1. Of or having to do with a material object.
  2. Having actual existence or reality.
  3. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices.
  4. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually.
     an objective appraisal.
  5. Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
  6. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
  7. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
     (yahoo.com dictionary)
     
     HOW THE EARTH CAME TO BE AND HOW WE GOT HERE IS A WONDERFUL TOPIC TO USE TO EXPLORE OBJECTIVITY.
     
     
     If John BELIEVES IN Creationism, he's not "OBJECTIVE".
     
     If Mary BELIEVES IN Evolution, she's not "OBJECTIVE".
     
     Both John and Mary are making how the Earth came to be about THEMSELVES:
     THEIR OWN BELIEFS, OPINIONS, 'TEAM', EGO, and COMFORT.
     
     If either John or Mary was OBJECTIVE, they would not feel EMOTIONAL INVESTMENT in whether one was true or the other, or NEITHER, or BOTH. 
     Nor would they feel competitive about which one was "right".
     
     How the Earth and the creatures on it got here is UNKNOWN to humans,
     we weren't there.
     All we can do is gather as much information as we can, from as many sources as we can, and look at it from different angles, and talk about it.
     
     Having emotional investment in which "theory" is the "right one"
     DOES NOT CHANGE what really happened.
     
     The Earth is HERE, we are HERE, Hurray! Neato! Isn't that wonderful?
     
     How it got here, and how we are here is something that was WAAAAYYYYY BEYOND Human Control and influence.
     Arguing and fighting about HOW does absolutely NOTHING, except create more conflict.
     
     Humans have a VERY HARD TIME with "objectivity", because we just LOVE to fight about "Who's RIGHT" and "Who's the Smartest".
     
     We give POWER and RECOGNITION to those we recognize as "Right", don't we?
     So we want to be on the "Winning Side", so we can be associated with the "Winner".
     
     People who are OBJECTIVE don't care about teams and sides or WHO is "right".
     
     It takes HUMILITY to be objective, and to entertain the thought that one does not have all the answers, or that someone else might have valid information that we don't.

Aligning With The Narcissist's Image

Narcissists are often drawn to choosing "romantic partners", or even platonic friends, because they think this person will IMPRESS their friends or family.

When the person does or says anything that doesn't align with the Narcissist's "image", the N. will often start to turn on the person, and devalue them, often ending in rejection of the person, or even attack.

This can happen in any relationship with a Narcissist, including family; an N. parent will reject their own child because the child isn't lining up with the N. parent's IMAGE.

ADULT LAND

People with garden-variety narcissism usually want others to be super-understanding, supportive, sympathetic, considerate, accommodating, and caring toward THEM.
But will actually get annoyed, angry, even enraged, and often disappear when it's time to give the other person support, help, understanding, accommodation, sympathy, or care.
It's not just that it's "one way", it's "ONE WAY or the HIGHWAY".

They want to be free to say and do anything they feel like, including treating others badly, and be given "understanding" for the way they behave, as if that's synonymous with being "nice".
But those who GIVE them "support", "understanding", "respect", "courtesy", or "care" are NOT supposed to expect it FROM THEM, apparently, for anything.

In other words, you're supposed to be "understanding" of them not paying you back a 10,000.00 loan, even if you can't pay some of your own bills because of it. But if you need a ride or some kind of help, you "brought your problems on yourself" and are some kind of "loser" or "bad" person. (Not in reality~ just according to a Narcissist).

You're supposed to be "understanding" of them insulting you, calling you names, threatening you, rejecting you, treating you horribly, and gossiping about you;
But if you even display any kind of "annoyance" or God forbid, anger or sadness toward them, you're a "BAD PERSON..."

You're supposed to be "understanding" of them looking at, flirting with, or even cheating with others...
but of course if you even speak to a member of the opposite sex who you've known for years, you're a "Bad Person".

You're supposed to cater to their every need, want, desire, and whim, because you care about them.... it shows you care about them...
But any needs, wants, desires or whims that you have are considered by them to be "burdensome" or "unnecessary" or "silly".

Everything is "one way". You GIVE , they TAKE.
They make requests and demands, you DON'T.
You fulfill THEIR requests and demands, they don't fulfill yours.
THEIR schedule is "important", yours is not...
THEIR friends and family are "important", yours are not...
THEIR financial well-being is "important", yours is not...
THEIR career and future is "important", yours is not...
THEIR emotional well-being is "important", yours is not...
THEY have 'natural' authority, privilege, and entitlement, you do not...

Narcissists live like LITTLE KIDS who set up CLUBHOUSES, trying to make their own little Hierarchy.
"No, JOHN is the leader! Because! Because he's the tallest!
And I get to be the assistant leader!
No, Jessie, you don't get to be anything, you have to do what we tell you, or you can't be part of the club. You have to bring the snacks."

This is NOT HEALTHY, this is NOT the way it's EVER "supposed to be", not in a family, partnership, or community.
Not in ADULT LAND.

Entitlement And "Shutting Others Down"

A rather common Control behavior that can be seen in many humans is trying to "shut others down" when they don't agree with them, don't like them, or don't like whatever the person is talking about.

The feeling of ENTITLEMENT regarding "shutting others down" is also, unfortunately, pretty common, and is often passed down in family or community culture.

Those who desire control and power often seek this feeling of entitlement. The desire is about having some kind of title, position, rank, or image that supposedly gives them some kind of "natural authority" to tell others what they can or can't talk about, what they can or can't feel, think, EXPRESS, or do.

It is of course very common for anyone with BULLY behaviors to seek some kind of power or authority entitlement, for more than one reason:
Number one, just because they get off on bossing other people around, and get a charge out of successfully intimidating, herding, controlling, or shushing other people.
Number two, they desire some kind of way to shut people down who talk about the bullying itself.

Some "bullies" are the way they are because they learned it from others, usually other members of their family, like one of their parents, but they can also learn it from others outside of their immediate family.

Some "bullies" act that way because they've internalized their defensiveness from BEING A TARGET of a bully, again often a family member, like one of their parents, or others outside the immediate family.

Some "bullies" might have been born with more of a desire for 'domination' than the average human  and were not successfully guided about it as they grew up. Most animals including humans are born with domination-compulsion and behaviors, (both males and females, regardless of ancestry or body type), but humans especially have the capability to guide and teach their offspring about behaving fairly and politely toward others, and not following their "instinct" to bully.
The lack of this guidance is often seen in families and communities where members create little 'hierarchies' among themselves.
Many will actually model and teach offspring that bullying and domination behavior is "OKAY" for SOME members of the group, but "SHAMEFUL" for others; voila, instant "hierarchy"; bullies feeling no shame in their behavior, and so do it all the time, even get a feeling of confidence or superiority from it, and those who are getting bullied feeling shame simply for standing up to those who are always trying to 'dominate' them.

Infidelity And Narcissism

Not all Narcissists cheat, but infidelity is common for those who have the disorder.
Everything about infidelity aligns with NPD.

Doing something "sneaky";
breaking "rules";
going behind someone else's back;
feeling like they're 'rebelling' against an 'authority/parental figure' (their spouse or partner)~
~
Getting an attention FIX from someone outside their marriage or partnership because they're so so attractive and special;
Getting adoration, praise, and 'sympathy' from someone;
~
Seeing the person they're cheating with as some kind of "prize"
that they've "earned" or that they "deserve"
~
Trying to show or prove "Entitlement" to being 'above rules', or to having multiple sexual partners, because of their "Superiority"
~
Showing others and their partner that they are superior to their partner.
~
Showing others and their partner that their partner is "under" them; direct emotional abuse and attempt to oppress.
~
Simply being addicted to sexual stimulation
Being addicted to doing things that are "under the radar" or "outside the law"
~
Fixation and obsession with "chasing" sexual interaction
~
Addiction to being 'pursued' sexually
~
Going further down the rabbit hole, a person with a severe Narcissism disorder may have other disorders that manifest in sexual addictions and deviancy. Narcissists who don't "cheat" with live persons often use porn or the internet.
Narcissists will often rationalize paid-for sex as "not cheating".
~
Narcissists OFTEN LIE about being in a committed relationship to a very elaborate degree, and will often KEEP LYING, trying to convince a target that they are indeed "available".
They will also often lie about the status of a relationship that they can't completely hide in order to convince a target that their partnership is horrible, or that they plan to leave their partner.

Liberals: Disagreements, Movements, Causes, and Higher Intelligence

It amazes me how many people call themselves "Liberals" now who are nothing of the sort.

A real "Liberal" would be someone who wants to hear the points of view of other people, whether they agree with them or not.

You're not a Liberal just because you label yourself one.


If you're prejudice against groups of people, you're not a Liberal.
(For example, prejudice against other political groups, against racial groups, against religious groups, against AGE groups).

If you don't want to hear WHY someone has a different point of view than you do, you're not a real Liberal.

No, you're NOT a real Liberal just because you SAY you are. *

If you are adamant in all of your beliefs and opinions, and think anyone who disagrees with you, or has different beliefs than you is WRONG, dumb, crazy, or bad, you're DEFINITELY NOT a "real Liberal".

If you think all rich people are "bad", you're not a real Liberal. That's the same as thinking all poor people are "bad", or all working or middle-class people are "bad".
(If you don't understand this, try harder.)

If you think it's okay to make fun of the way people look, or that it's okay to pick on people or publicly criticize them or gossip about them because you don't agree with them, or you think they're not cool enough,  then you are so far from being a REAL Liberal it's not even funny.

If you think you're ALWAYS RIGHT, and you think your opinions and your beliefs are the "right ones' because you FEEL like they're RIGHT, you're probably calling yourself a Liberal, but you're not actually a real Liberal, sorry.

If you LIKE IT when OTHER PEOPLE get rules and laws placed on them, but you're always rebelling and proving how cool you are by breaking rules, or you're always making excuses for breaking rules or not following laws, then no, you're so not a real "Liberal".

If you think you're NOT a "Rich Person" (you're struggling, right?) because you're not a Billionaire, but you can afford a new car, or more than one car, and a house, or two houses; you don't worry about being able to buy groceries, you go to restaurants and do recreational things on a regular basis, you think going to the salon on a regular basis is part of "normal life", and on top of all of that you think buying shoes for a hundred dollars or more a pop is just how everyone lives (except for really poor people), you're DELUSIONAL, forget about politics.  

If you put groups of people on a pedestal as if they're all martyrs, saints, or innocent children, and forget (ignore) that they are individual adult human beings in that group who are different from one another and autonomous, with fully working minds just like you and just like people you don't like, you're not a real Liberal.

See the definition for "Liberal" below

*(TO 'CONSERVATIVES': WHY are you going along with using the label "Liberal" to describe Statists and Authoritanists?! Are you really "conservatives"? You know full well the use of the term is bogus, why do you continue to go along with it? Seems like there's a double agenda here, one group trying to make themselves look innocent and intellectual, and the other going along with it in order to ruin what the REAL word MEANS. Sound paranoid? Grow up. That's what's going on, and you know it. Pretend-conservatives are control freaks and have always wanted to stifle REAL Liberalism, because it exposes their control agenda, no different than their "opponents". Political Left Wing and Political Right Wing are the SAME where it matters: obsession with control, power, desire for superiority, and self-righteousness.)

Liberal Definition

adj. adjective

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
   
   
   "NOT LIMITED TO OR BY ESTABLISHED, TRADITIONAL, ORTHODOX OR AUTHORITARIAN ATTITUDES... etc."
   
   DOES NOT MEAN BEING AGAINST EVERYONE ELSE'S BELIEF, OR TEARING DOWN ANYONE WHO IS NOT "BEING A REBEL", JUST LIKE YOU.
   
   YOU'RE NOT A LIBERAL BECAUSE YOU REBEL AGAINST CHURCH.
   
   YOU WOULD BE A LIBERAL IF YOU WERE INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT WHY OTHER PEOPLE GO TO CHURCH, OR SYNAGOGUE, OR MOSQUE, OR ARE BUDDHIST, OR HINDU.
   YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT A REAL LIBERAL IF YOU REBEL AGAINST ETHICS AND MORALITY BECAUSE YOU THINK YOU'RE BEING COOL OR SMART,  OR REBEL AGAINST ANY KIND OF "ESTABLISHED" ANYTHING JUST BECAUSE IT'S "ESTABLISHED", OR BELONG TO A POLITICAL PARTY AND "TOW THE LINE", OR DEFEND EVERYTHING YOU DO AND SAY AS IF YOU ARE ALWAYS PERFECT, ALWAYS RIGHT, AND ALWAYS INNOCENT, OR SAY THAT YOU DO DRUGS AS A POLITICAL STATEMENT, OR DO "HATING" OF OTHER GROUPS WHO AREN"T JUST LIKE YOU.
   
   To be an ACTUAL "Liberal", you would have to WANT to hear about other people's points of view, you would have to WANT to understand where they're coming from, and WHY; you would have to WANT to understand and gather as much information about a topic as possible BEFORE YOU MADE some kind of "POLITICAL STAND", and you would be OPEN to CHANGING your stance when you found out more information that you didn't previously have or understand.
   
   THERE ARE NO SET POLITICAL "STANCES" FOR A REAL LIBERAL EXCEPT FOR A ONE BASIC THING: FREEDOM.
   FREEDOM TO SPEAK, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION, FREEDOM OF BELIEF, FREEDOM TO THINK, FREEDOM TO LEARN, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, FREEDOM TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS, FREEDOM FROM HARASSMENT, FOR EACH PERSON.