I sgreed with you thst I dont like muslims But the vast majority of trump voters are no more a thhrest to muslims than they are to jessee smolllett
Something tells me you haven't given much thought to how exactly the conclusion follows from the premise. Hatred is both infectious and poisonous, that's what. Sure, probably with a total membership of 5,000 or so. I doubt it.
Let me guess, you’re white and Christian. The white hoods and swatzikas Don’t stir up memories for your history
You’re right, all those white supremacists voted for Hillary. All those hate groups that are popping up in numbers never seen before are all liberal Democrats (Sarcasm alert) You are right though there is more anger on the left about these groups. Rather than blame those who fight against them why don’t you not support them
I don’t get your point. I don’t support white supremacists (all 12 of them). I wouldn’t mind confronting some Antifa a-holes.
Yes, stand alone as one individual and ignore what others do. "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
Ah, you're talking about the state. Yes, I agree the state is horrible. I was talking about free individuals. If you don't like someone, then don't do business with them.
That would be one of many alternatives. It would depend to a large extent on what isn't liked. Some say that if a baker doesn't like gays, they don't have to do business with them. So if I don't like Nazis or people with tattoos, I can refuse to do business with them too. Right? Some people organize religious or psychological programs or other organizations to "deprogram" gays or to change or exclude them. So I should also be able to organize to expose and stop Nazis and white supremacists from spewing their crap too, right?
Agreed. It wouldn't be right of me to tell you whom you can buy from and sell to. I have no legitimate authority over you. You have no right to stop anyone from expressing his opinion.
That assumes the possibility of there being some unseen value in an opinion. But when history has revealed a complete absence of any redeeming value, and in fact, has definitively shown, with a majority of countries agreeing, that not only is there no redeeming value, but that there is no good to be found among the evil of the ideas, principles, methods, and "values" of the concept, I submit that there is no reason to allow such poison to spread among the population.
You have the right to silence your neighbor expressing his opinion of which you disapprove? How did you acquire such right?
You said that you wanted to prevent other people from expressing their opinions. Is this not what you said?
There are no Nazis in the US. Nazi: "a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party." Google is your friend.
First, I note your tag line: "It's not a sin to be who you are no matter what anybody says!!!!!!" (and you support our police). Well...I think if you want to violate other peoples' rights, either by commission or omission, a sin might be occurring...so let's dig a bit deeper. I saw this article today: https://www.aclu.org/blog/human-rights/pompeos-new-human-rights-commission-no-good "This week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo formally announced the creation of a “Commission on Unalienable Rights.” Its stated purpose, according to a notice published in the Federal Register in May, is to provide “fresh thinking about human rights discourse where such discourse has departed from our nation’s founding principles of natural law and natural rights.” Now, Thomas Paine was the ultimate free-thinking man of the enlightenment: "My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." (Pompeo would obviously have trouble with Paine's view, but moving on...). But Paine's classical liberal conceptions of "imprescriptible natural rights" ie, the concepts of "natural law and natural rights" are flawed. In reality, such (postulated) rights are creations of the human cerebral cortex which is the seat of self-awareness and its derived concepts of justice (because we are aware of the self-interestedness of others and hence the need for rule of law); such postulated rights do not exist the predatory, competitive natural world in which the cortex brain evolved. In short, by omitting to implement the provisions of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are all complicit in the wars, poverty, ignorance, sterile white supremacy movements, etc, that are spoiling our world today. That is, the failure to understand the role of instinct, which resides in our pre-cortex reptilian and mammalian brains, is at the root of our problems. Hence the silly decent into sexual politics, race politics, tribal religious fundamentalism, and insistence on nationalism (absolute national sovereignty) over an international rules based system thereby ruling out an economic system that provides universal above poverty participation (see article 25 of the UN UDHR).
Just to make sure you are on the 'straight and narrow path'.... Let's look at your tag line: "Evil things: open borders, political correctness, radical Islam, “woke” capitalism, reparations, socialism, the Green New Deal". 1. Open Borders? Well yes... with the poverty, war, unemployment and the resulting criminality ravaging many countries, you have a point. 2. Political correctness? yes, I concede you have a point (in Australia we are getting our nickers in a knot over remarks by a 'Christian' rugby player that homosexuals inter alia are going to Hell; whereas the latter ought to be laughing at the rugby player's fundamentalist crap...) 3. Radical Islam? Check; fundamentalist reading of any scripture can lead to chaos and worse (remember peace-maker Rabin's murderer citing OT BS about God ordained possession of land). 4. "Woke" Capitalism? Why do I get the feeling you are now straying from the "straight and narrow".... care to define "Woke capitalism"? 5. Reparations? Well... if the economy is functioning the way it ought to be functioning ie by creating universal above-poverty participation - perfectly possible, learn from Prof Stephanie Kelton et al (lectures available on youtube and elsewhere) - the need for reparations, which are primarily financially-based (to right previous wrongs), would disappear. 6. Socialism? So Neoliberal competitive free markets serve everyone? I think not - in fact neoliberal orthodoxy is leading us inexorably to the next recession. It wont be pretty - not that the entrenched poverty and homelessness wracking much of the world at present is pretty. 7. The Green New Deal.? Now you have lost me completely (not that I'm surprised.....) The Green New Deal promises the eradication of this horrible reality: "You are living in poverty, your neighbourhoods are like war zones, your schools and hospitals are broken, your young men are in prison...." No prizes for guessing who said that!
Following on from my above post: Why do you hate the GND, a proposal of Bernie Sanders and the socialist left of the Democratic Party?
It's a fraud. The left admits it has nothing to do with the environment. It's simply an excuse to do a massive wealth redistribution scheme.