- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,582
- Reaction score
- 19,334
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Oh. This is a parody. I'm rather embarrassed that it took me this long to figure it out.
Just a word of advice though, you might want to tone down the angry ranting just a bit. If it hadn't been for this post, you could have kept me going indefinitely.
You, and others, might possibly be interested in checking the data on "Rate of Legal Abortions per 1,000 Women Aged 15-44 Years by State of Occurrence" and correlating that to "Red State"/"Blue State" to see whether the allegations concerning "liberals (whatever that means) all want abortions" and "conservatives (whatever that means) all oppose abortions" are correct(ish).
Liberals (generally) want abortion to be legal. That states with more poor people (who have abortions more often) tend to be conservative is true but irrelevant.
You did not make that qualification before, so why should I be forced to do so now?
Violence is still violence and just because you're fine with people getting violently assaulted, and not killed. Such should not be a standard that anyone would willingly abide by.
So its a small group and they are ONLY on the left?
and they are HIGHLY vocal yet i never heard of who you speak of besides here?
so basically "they" are just really nutball extremists and or trolls found in the bowls of the "intranets" that dont really matter and people dont take seriously
People who attended a Gallagher performance and who were seated in the front several rows were given large rolls of transparent plastic sheeting to cover themselves with.
Given that, maybe we should give Gallagher credit for inventing the Internet.
Personally I can't see the need for "censorship" as much as I can see the need for people to wake up and admit that there is a problem.
By analogy - assume that slavery was still legal, but no one would talk to anyone who owned slaves, and no one would sell anything to anyone who owned slaves, and no one would buy anything from anyone who owned slaves, and everyone completely ignored (except to insult) anyone who owned slaves, would there be any need for a law that "outlawed slavery"?
You know, if you completely disregard the post that my post was in response to, then your response to my post almost makes sense.
:lamo Violence is violence, huh?
Question for you: Would you rather hang out with the guy who's going to punch you, or the guy who is going to kill you. Assume "hang out with neither is not an option". Let's see if you can be serious for five seconds.
And just to head you off at the pass, I condone neither.
Karl Popper:
Nationalists loom large in the historical record as those who willingly suspend the permission of their brethren to listen to rational opposing arguments. They are notorious for teaching them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.
Nationalists have a body count numbering in the millions.
Nationalists invaded America, nationalists invaded Europe, nationalists lynch Americans of color and rape their children.
Nationalists attempted to exterminate Native Americans. Nationalists are white nationalists but nationalists may be of any race or color, as evidenced by the Japanese nationalists who also invaded America, and most of Asia.
Nationalism is hallmarked by intolerance.
We are under NO obligation to tolerate the intolerant.
Now go ahead and show me the liberal body count so far in America. How many people have been murdered by liberals in this country?
Show me the Hippie Holocaust and the liberal detention facilities. Show me the liberal ad hoc insurgent militias.
Your entire argument is a sloppy and misguided illusion, fed by well funded revisionists.
I would hand out with neither.
I also recognize that one is worse than the other. However I'm not going to give one a pass, simple because it's not as bad as the other.
Black nationalism isn't a threat.
Focus - Canada sees worrying rise in hate crimesFrom NBC News
Lawmakers held a hearing on white nationalism. On YouTube, it was immediately attacked with hate speech.
A House Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday about the rise of white nationalism unleashed a wave of online hate speech, prompting YouTube to turn off chats on livestreams of the hearing.
“Due to the presence of hateful comments, we disabled comments on the livestream of today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing,” YouTube announced on its Twitter account.
Several livestreams of the hearing on YouTube were bombarded with racist and anti-Semitic posts in the platform’s live chat feature just moments after the hearing began.
Those chats, which were hosted on the YouTube streams of news services such as PBS and the official stream for the House Judiciary committee, appeared unmoderated for all users.
Even though YouTube said the comments feature for the videos was eventually disabled, comments and chat features on other YouTube streams remained live through the morning. Those transcripts were riddled with racist and anti-Semitic abuse.
COMMENT:-
If you accept what some (well, at least one) people on DP have posted, then - since "racist and anti-Semitic abuse" is "protected speech under the First Amendment" then the only possible reason for those so-called "Lawmakers" to have held this do-called "hearing" is because they intend to trample on the constitutional rights of "good, upstanding Americans" to hate 'Blacks' and 'Jews'.
For some reason I don't actually believe that the Founding Fathers had any original intent to make hatred a constitutionally protected right. "YMMV"
No, they do matter. It matters more when it's one of say, the tech giants in California who begin to hold such beliefs that hurtful, or even dissenting. Should not only be restricted. But possibly even punished through the law, if such a possibility came along down the line. I will also note that such individuals aren't found solely on the left, though like I stated. Those that are seen the most are usually the most vocal and I hardly know anyone who personally considers themselves on the right of the spectrum. Who'd even consider free speech something worth talking, unless it was already being threatened.
Though I do agree with the indication of "nutball extremist & trolls" because both can be found in comparable numbers on the internet.
Pleas be frank. But should I take that as a serious question and answer it as such?
Black nationalist are only a threat, if you're a White nationalist...
Please explain.
Yup...as should have been expected I think.
Canada has also been split...not to the extent the States are but...by a PM who looks and acts like friggin' Howdy Doody.
He makes magnanimous declarations when virtue-signalling, then waffles completely when it comes to standing up for even his own previous positions on tough issues for the nation. But his day will come...soon...and I have to admit that I will always remember Justin as the PM who gave me legal dope. :mrgreen:
Fortunately the US has a strong leader who never makes magnanimous declarations when "virtue-signalling" and ALWAYS advances clear, concise, logical, positions which he never backs down from.
PS - Since I suspect that NEITHER of us lives in the riding of Papineau or belongs to the Liberal Party of Canada, both of us can state that we never voted for Mr. Trudeau, and do so with a clear conscience (as can, approximately 90+% of all Canadians).
By far the most intolerant absolutist philosophy and legal system around today is Islam. I agree with you; we are under NO obligation to tolerate it.
lol...what a gutless response. It's ok. You knew what I meant, and I know what you meant.
Nope still doesnt matter regardless of your feelings since they cant change the LAW,
so again basically "they" are just really nutball extremists and or trolls found in the bowls of the "intranets" that dont really matter and people dont take seriously
ill worry when theres reason too
Since I did NOT say that, I really don't think that I can explain it.
Since you did say it, possibly you can explain it to yourself.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?