[Pants-of-dog]

There is no MORALITY in VIOLENCE.!
If you'd ever had to hurt someone, you KNOW THAT!
There is nothing noble or good, about beating the shit outta someone.
Just ask any soldier who's had to kill. No matter how superior they may believe their side or cause to be, the act leaves a sour taste in their mouths. We use it as a last resort, to defend ourselves and our families, but nothing in the act of violence is "moral".

Yes, and according to what you just wrote here, if you defend your wife, you are being just as immoral as someone who attacks your wife.

More democratic...
POD...equality IS a basic tenet of our democracy. That's why, no matter how much a hill-billie might howl and scream for...lets say a return of slavery, HE CANNOT TAKE SUCH ACTIONS! He can say it...but he cannot do it.

And yet, racism, slavery, and oppression have all occurred in democracies.

But if a person tries to stop a lynching by using his fists, he is just as bad as the people involved in the lynching!

Does this also apply to self-defense? If a black person tries to defend himself frim a pack of racist skinheads, he should just take the beating because if he hits back, he is just as bad.

Lol.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Yes, Nazis are violent people. But how many of them exist? I think reactionary ideas in general, among the working classes, are a much bigger problem - they are simply growing way too popular among certain segments of the population. But to suggest that blatant, open white nationalism constitutes some kind of a mass movement is ridiculous. It's the press that ultimately gives a platform to these groups.

I'm a communist: of course I think reactionaries are the bigger threat than are neo-Nazis and their like, who themselves constitute a relatively small number.

Racism and law enforcement giving preferential treatment to whites is still alive and well. A recent example is what happened last year when a group of white terrorists took over a wildlife refuge and terrorized a small town. The Federal government, FBI, and the police literally bent over backwards to accommodate them. Even at trial, key evidence of what they did was not permitted to be used.

Take what went down in Charlottlesville, for example. I didn't see goosestepping SS members...what I saw were a lot of deluded young boys.

It was a white power demonstration organized by white supremacists. It's entirely fair to categorize people who went there to support a white power demonstration as supporting white nationalism/supremacism.

I suggest you take a look at the Charlottesville thread in Today's News, the 100-page one, where we've discussed much of this.

[Buzz62]

Yes, and according to what you just wrote here, if you defend your wife, you are being just as immoral as someone who attacks your wife.

Yes. I will do it, but after my anger subsides, I will not relish what I have done.
I don't like hurting people POD. Do you?

And yet, racism, slavery, and oppression have all occurred in democracies.

And Monarchies, and Dictatorships, and...

But if a person tries to stop a lynching by using his fists, he is just as bad as the people involved in the lynching!

Bad and Moral, are 2 different things. It is good to defend those who can't defend themselves. But after your done, and depending on the level to which you've polished off the person executing the lynching, you will not "feel" good about yourself. If you're anything like me...you'll "feel" angry again, for being forced to explode. Then you'll "feel" bad about breaking his jaw...realizing you could have just subdued him, and called a cop.

Does this also apply to self-defense? If a black person tries to defend himself frim a pack of racist skinheads, he should just take the beating because if he hits back, he is just as bad.

Lol.

What have I said about stupidity POD...

[The Immortal Goon]

@The Immortal Goon Again, I never said it was. Why do you insist upon pursuing an argument based upon a false premise. I am not the one that supports a huge centralized government making these decisions. I think they should have the right to decide, but the federal government does not. I must base my arguments within these restrictions. They say it is a national issue, so I am forced to argue it as one, even though it does not reflect my true views.

Yep, it is all up to the community to decide. The US community is just too large for it to be reasonable.

I clearly supported the community right to do what they wanted. I only questioned whether it was the community or typical lobbyists politics making the decision.

And, again, why is this your decision? Even if the community decided to side with, "typical lobbyists," why do you support a bunch of armed people from outside the community to come marching through and tell the community what to do?

[One Degree]

And, again, why is this your decision? Even if the community decided to side with, "typical lobbyists," why do you support a bunch of armed people from outside the community to come marching through and tell the community what to do?

Despite you again ignoring what I actually said, I will go off on this tangent.
This was very 'American' and I take some pride in the return to this. They came armed to defend their right to speak. Despite being denied this right, they refused to shoot anyone. The right to bear arms is intended for this very purpose, and they would have been justified in opening fire on those in their way. This is what being an American is suppose to be about. Anyone, including the government, who stands in the way of free speech should be met with force.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes. I will do it, but after my anger subsides, I will not relish what I have done.
I don't like hurting people POD. Do you?

No one asked you about how you feel about it.

Why would you defend her since you would be engaging in an act as bad as attacking an innocent person?

And Monarchies, and Dictatorships, and...

The fact that it also occurs in other situations is irrelevant. That would be like arguing that dogs do not get fleas because cats get fleas.

The point is that being a democracy is not going to make us immune to raxism, oppresion, and slavery. So if we see these things as bad (and we should if we consider ourselves freedom loving supporters of democracy), then we have a duty to safeguard against these things.

And if that is the case, then there is a moral difference between good guyanti-racism activists punching Nazis, and Nazis punching people of colour.

Bad and Moral, are 2 different things. It is good to defend those who can't defend themselves.

Then when I ask you if there is a difference between a racist person attacking someone and a person of colour defending themselves from a racist, you are incorrect to claim that they are morally equivalent.

But after your done, and depending on the level to which you've polished off the person executing the lynching, you will not "feel" good about yourself. If you're anything like me...you'll "feel" angry again, for being forced to explode. Then you'll "feel" bad about breaking his jaw...realizing you could have just subdued him, and called a cop.

This is all about feelings. I am ignoring it.

What have I said about stupidity POD...

Yes, I agree that your claim about all violence being equally abhorrent is stupid.

[Buzz62]

I'm sorry you see it that way.
I'm guessing you've never really hurt someone before...

[The Immortal Goon]

Despite you again ignoring what I actually said, I will go off on this tangent.
This was very 'American' and I take some pride in the return to this.

Then, in your opinion, the local community stops mattering when values the continent imposes are in conflict with the community.

What a system

They came armed to defend their right to speak. Despite being denied this right, they refused to shoot anyone.

They were not denied the right to speak, as copious video from both sides show.

The right to bear arms is intended for this very purpose, and they would have been justified in opening fire on those in their way.

So violence from a continental value system can and should be used to force local communities to conform?

This is what being an American is suppose to be about. Anyone, including the government, who stands in the way of free speech should be met with force.

Oh, how quickly the community is sacrificed the second it becomes inconvenient

[One Degree]

Then, in your opinion, the local community stops mattering when values the continent imposes are in conflict with the community.

What a system



They were not denied the right to speak, as copious video from both sides show.



So violence from a continental value system can and should be used to force local communities to conform?



Oh, how quickly the community is sacrificed the second it becomes inconvenient

What is the purpose of the intellectual dishonesty? There are no prizes here. It even took you 4 attempts before I willingly agreed to your game. It is not like the direction you wanted to go was a surprise.
I had already laid out my position. Your post is just silly taken in context.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm sorry you see it that way.
I'm guessing you've never really hurt someone before...

As I said, I spent over a decade living in the Canadian midwest, advocating progressive ideals at a time when young men would cruise around in cars looking for minorities to assault.

I have, unfortunately, had the opportunity to live the exact situation we are discussing here.

I feel absolutely no guilt or remorse about defending myself against gangs of racist thugs.

So your "argument" based on feelings is a complete fail.

[Buzz62]

As I said, I spent over a decade living in the Canadian midwest, advocating progressive ideals at a time when young men would cruise around in cars looking for minorities to assault.

I have, unfortunately, had the opportunity to live the exact situation we are discussing here.

I feel absolutely no guilt or remorse about defending myself against gangs of racist thugs.

So your "argument" based on feelings is a complete fail.

Hmmm...You, a white Polish guy, are a minority?
Or were you protecting someone else?

Look...we're gonna have to agree to disagree here.
Very few things scare me as much as the things I've done when I've lost my temper.
If you're able to hold yours back and stop it when necessary, I'm a bit envious.
Mine tends to get away from me, and I destroy everything in my path.
I find it psychotic as hell, and ugly.

[Pants-of-dog]

Hmmm...You, a white Polish guy, are a minority?
Or were you protecting someone else?

I am not Polish.

Yes, I was often protecting someone else.

Sometimes I was defending myself.

Look...we're gonna have to agree to disagree here.
Very few things scare me as much as the things I've done when I've lost my temper.
If you're able to hold yours back and stop it when necessary, I'm a bit envious.
Mine tends to get away from me, and I destroy everything in my path.
I find it psychotic as hell, and ugly.

Your feelings are irrelevant.

[The Immortal Goon]

What is the purpose of the intellectual dishonesty?

One could ask you the same thing. You stand on one firm conviction when it comes to right-wingers, and then that immediately reverses when the same policy is put into place for anything resembling the centre—let alone the left!

There are no prizes here. It even took you 4 attempts before I willingly agreed to your game. It is not like the direction you wanted to go was a surprise.

Oh, I am well aware that you either cannot see or do not care about your hypocrisy.

I had already laid out my position. Your post is just silly taken in context. :?:

It may have been silly not to take Biblical advice in this context, but this is a debate forum. And you often lean on your supposed solution only to immediately contradict it when someone that makes you sad would benefit from it. This is worth pointing out.

[One Degree]

One could ask you the same thing. You stand on one firm conviction when it comes to right-wingers, and then that immediately reverses when the same policy is put into place for anything resembling the centre—let alone the left!



Oh, I am well aware that you either cannot see or do not care about your hypocrisy.



It may have been silly not to take Biblical advice in this context, but this is a debate forum. And you often lean on your supposed solution only to immediately contradict it when someone that makes you sad would benefit from it. This is worth pointing out.

It is not my problem that linear thinkers can not wrap their brains around the idea that I hold more than one viewpoint. I have explained this repeatedly but apparently it is just too foreign of a concept for some. I have no problem arguing as a nationalist, a local autonomist, or arguing for someone who i believe is being treated unfairly, and other personas that best match the situation. What you and others don't understand is I support my ideology. It apparently really throws you off your script when you can not pigeonhole someone, so you make ridiculous allegations.

[B0ycey]

Do you even realise what TIGs point is @One Degree?

Your ideology is for city states and communities to make their own decisions but you are arguing for national and foreign opinions to have their constituional rights to dictate the opinions of that of the community. Your defence is that you have many opinions on various topics. Well that is fine, but all you do is contradict your position (due to your opinions changing with the evidence you are presented with) and reduce your arguments to emotional gibberish without any foundation or personal morals attached to them.

[One Degree]

Do you even realise what TIGs point is @One Degree?

Your ideology is for city states and communities to make their own decisions but you are arguing for national and foreign opinions to have their constituional rights to dictate the opinions of that of the community. Your defence is that you have many opinions on various topics. Well that is fine, but all you do is contradict your position (due to your opinions changing with the evidence you are presented with) and reduce your arguments to emotional gibberish without any foundation or personal morals attached to them.

If local autonomy is irrelevant, due to it not existing, how do you expect me to argue an issue based upon it?
Local autonomy is my ideal view. I must use other views to discuss the reality of a specific topic. There is no contradiction in my view. You choose to conflate two views as one and call it a contradiction.
Being able to view an event from different perspectives is not a contradiction, it is objectivity. You want me to say one view is right and support it no matter what. This is nonsense. Local autonomy means there is no one right, so how can that belief be a contradiction to anything? However, as an individual, I have views on right and wrong. These views can be opposed to an individual community's views without being opposed to local autonomy and the rights of that community to have those views. A contradiction is essential to my views which means there is no contradiction in my having multiple views.

[B0ycey]

If local autonomy is irrelevant, due to it not existing, how do you expect me to argue an issue based upon it?
Local autonomy is my ideal view. I must use other views to discuss the reality of a specific topic. There is no contradiction in my view. You choose to conflate two views as one and call it a contradiction. :?:

Your ideal view is local autonomy. But because your view doesn't exist (it actually does to some extent actually but that is another argument all together), you are arguing from a nationalists point of view. That is like a Communist arguing for Capitalism because no true Communist country exists.

If you have a personal view in terms of prefered ideology but you reject it depending on who you arguing with or to somehow justify an action of others you are indeed both a hypocite and contradicting yourself. If you can't see that then I suggest you look up the definitions of the words.

[One Degree]

Your ideal view is local autonomy. But because your view doesn't exist (it actually does to some extent actually but that is another argument all together), you are arguing from a nationalists point of view. That is like a Communist arguing for Capitalism because no true Communist country exists.

If you have a personal view in terms of prefered ideology but you reject it depending on who you arguing with or to somehow justify an action of others you are indeed both a hypocite and contradicting yourself. If you can't see that then I suggest you look up the definitions of the words.

You don't seem to understand that believing someone else's views are just as valid as yours is not a contradiction. You are blinded by your obsession with right and wrong. Get rid of your own hubris, and you will see the lack of contradiction.
My view must be relative to the reality of overlapping levels of community. My personal views may appear to vary based upon what level of community we are discussing, but they are consistent in upholding the community's rights over an individual.

[B0ycey]

You don't seem to understand that believing someone else's views are just as valid as yours is not a contradiction.

All views are valid. Nobody disagrees with this. However you are arguing for a view that is opposite to your own. But not only this, you don't actually say what you just said to me then. Not once have I read 'I don't agree with them because I stand for local atonomy but...'. Instead you make it appear that it is your viewpoint too. So what do YOU stand for? Local autonomy or Nationalism? Because as they are opposite views you will contradict yourself if you stand up for both. And that is not my logic, that is the definition of the word.

You are blinded by your obsession with right and wrong. Get rid of your own hubris, and you will see the lack of contradiction.
My view must be relative to the reality of overlapping levels of community.

I don't agree with much of what you write. But I don't actually respond to everything I disagree with because I do accept opposite views BTW. I only respond when you contradict yourself but are oblivious to it or you tie yourself in knots to defend the ludicrous. I respect people who stand by their principles. Not people who will shuffle the cards when they have a crap hand. You either stand for local automony or your don't. If you want to be respected on this forum don't sell out your morals to defend the absurd.

My personal views may appear to vary based upon what level of community we are discussing, but they are consistent in upholding the community's rights over an individual.

Unless that individual is a Utah officer, then his rights trump that of the communities laws.

[One Degree]

@B0ycey Local autonomy and nationalism are not opposites.
Autonomy and nationalism are identical. The only difference is in determining the size that is best.