| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 26 2017 16:51 Simberto wrote: I think Trump is on a mission to show how many bullshit powers without any checks the president of the US actually has. To be honest, I thought the same of Obama. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8145 Posts
On August 26 2017 23:40 Danglars wrote: To be honest, I thought the same of Obama. Don't you worry, nobody here expects you to even start to realize that the Obama presidency was a model of honesty, decency and respect for democratic institutions compared to this train wreck you elected. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 26 2017 23:39 Aquanim wrote: I did not and do not claim to endorse StealthBlue's opinion. EDIT: If you want to debate how his opinion reflects on American history and the civil rights movement, I suggest you do that with him. However, you didn't answer my question. You and I presumably have very different ideas of what's morally questionable and it would be foolhardy for me to pass judgement on a weasel word term without clear delineations. Yelling foul things right back would be a morally questionable thing I'd agree with. So: 1) That's not at all what I'm saying and 2) we probably differ on Western values (which to me you offend depending on what you mean) and morally questionable things. Your question has no answer or many answer which is why I went to my bright-line frame of debate: do you give civil rights to all citizens, or what criminal act did they do that justified their removal? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 26 2017 23:46 Biff The Understudy wrote: Don't you worry, nobody here expects you to even start to realize that the Obama presidency was a model of honesty, decency and respect for democratic institutions compared to this train wreck you elected. Decency maybe in contrast to Trump, but a model of corruption and opacity and a gradual undermining of democratic institutions. His pen and phone and unconstitutional acts handed a fucking blueprint to Trump (and some hardness to his supporters since you really didn't care or pay attention to what Obama did). But, like you said, you probably already know my thoughts on the Obama presidency  | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 26 2017 23:25 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: My hate? This isn't about me. This is about what you posted. Don't turn it around and play innocent. Answer the question I asked. Did you just propose that nazi's were part of the civil rights movement to give disenfranchised minorities equal standing in the law? This is about your opinion on the matter. And let me laugh off your dishonest and foolhardy question. Of course it isn't piggybacking and why the rule applies universally (read it again). I brought up why I made the comparison to the civil rights movement, and why it was applicable. Did you just justify removing civil rights from groups you deem unworthy? (As an example of an equally dishonest question) | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
On August 26 2017 23:53 Danglars wrote: This is about your opinion on the matter. And let me laugh off your dishonest and foolhardy question. Of course it isn't piggybacking and why the rule applies universally (read it again). I brought up why I made the comparison to the civil rights movement, and why it was applicable. Did you just justify removing civil rights from groups you deem unworthy? (As an example of an equally dishonest question) Yes. I do. Nazi's do not have civil rights. It's like Nazi Germany didn't even fucking happen in your world. And the rule does not apply to hate groups that fought tooth and nail to keep those disenfranchised groups from being considered equal under the law that their counterparts enjoyed for a couple hundred of years. You seem to conflate people fighting for legitimacy in the eyes of the law with white privilege to be hateful and not be held accountable. You think there is a privileged class Nazi's should be joining? m4ini and others have been trying to tell you how it works in Germany regarding this group, but "America is a land with freedom of speech and assembly. You can't stop them from speaking! Civil Rights!" | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14159 Posts
It's the same shit that justify the Patriot act with people beacuse they might be terrorists. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 26 2017 23:46 Danglars wrote: You and I presumably have very different ideas of what's morally questionable and it would be foolhardy for me to pass judgement on a weasel word term without clear delineations. Yelling foul things right back would be a morally questionable thing I'd agree with. So: 1) That's not at all what I'm saying and 2) we probably differ on Western values (which to me you offend depending on what you mean) and morally questionable things. Your question has no answer or many answer which is why I went to my bright-line frame of debate: do you give civil rights to all citizens, or what criminal act did they do that justified their removal? I think we are in agreement that arguments based on "group of people X are against modern Western values" are quite justifiably unconvincing to other people who do not necessarily agree what modern Western values are, or what degree of threat group X poses to them. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
On August 27 2017 00:04 Sermokala wrote: Nazi have the same rights everyone else has. You can't take away the rights of people no matter how reprehensible they are. You can when they overstep their rights and are not peacefully aeembleibg or are advocating violence. It's the same standard we have to apply equal to everyone or else it extends to no one. It's the same shit that justify the Patriot act with people beacuse they might be terrorists. I guess only in America can you give hate groups the right to proliferate until they cause harm. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14159 Posts
On August 27 2017 00:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: I guess only in America can you give hate groups the right to proliferate until they cause harm. I guess we're exceptional after all. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 27 2017 00:00 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: Yes. I do. Nazi's do not have civil rights. It's like Nazi Germany didn't even fucking happen in your world. And the rule does not apply to hate groups that fought tooth and nail to keep those disenfranchised groups from being considered equal under the law that their counterparts enjoyed for a couple hundred of years. You seem to conflate people fighting for legitimacy in the eyes of the law with white privilege to be hateful and not be held accountable. You think there is a privileged class Nazi's should be joining? m4ini and others have been trying to tell you how it works in Germany regarding this group, but "America is a land with freedom of speech and assembly. You can't stop them from speaking! Civil Rights!" Then absolutely you're an authoritarian, piss all over the civil rights movement (civil rights for all, not some), and I'm damn happy these regressive attitudes didn't prevail when people fought and won equality under the law and the equal protection of this nation's laws. You would have to be made king and god to label who you like "hate groups" not afforded their civil rights. I see I chose my words well. You think some citizens according to how they express themselves and the beliefs they hold to have an illegitimate claim to the same police protection and protection of laws against violent acts. This is absolutely the same issue and America is not about you deciding which individuals are not worthy in your eyes of their inalienable rights. I was happy that so many in this thread defended their rights to march, to speak, and freedom from violence (in principle, if they do not exercise violence and trigger the self defense principle). It pains me to see the dissenters, but you have the right to your dissent and expressing your opinion. I'm not gonna label you a regressive left hate group and take away your rights, rest assured. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 27 2017 00:07 Aquanim wrote: I think we are in agreement that arguments based on "group of people X are against modern Western values" are quite justifiably unconvincing to other people who do not necessarily agree what modern Western values are, or what degree of threat group X poses to them. I'm not sure what you mean or what context you're using that in. You would have to explain what you meant by using the term, since there's now broad disagreement in the states. It wasn't too long ago that xDaunt made an argument on Western civilization and listed core principles he identified with it and their historical origins. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On August 27 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote: Then absolutely you're an authoritarian, piss all over the civil rights movement (civil rights for all, not some), and I'm damn happy these regressive attitudes didn't prevail when people fought and won equality under the law and the equal protection of this nation's laws. You would have to be made king and god to label who you like "hate groups" not afforded their civil rights. I see I chose my words well. You think some citizens according to how they express themselves and the beliefs they hold to have an illegitimate claim to the same police protection and protection of laws against violent acts. This is absolutely the same issue and America is not about you deciding which individuals are not worthy in your eyes of their inalienable rights. I was happy that so many in this thread defended their rights to march, to speak, and freedom from violence (in principle, if they do not exercise violence and trigger the self defense principle). It pains me to see the dissenters, but you have the right to your dissent and expressing your opinion. I'm not gonna label you a regressive left hate group and take away your rights, rest assured. Can you address the point that other democratic countries in the world (such as Germany) do have restrictions on the rights of groups like Nazis (I'll leave the exact wording to somebody more familiar with Germany's laws, or some other country where similar rules exist) and those restrictions do not appear to have resulted in particularly ill effects in those countries? There is some amount of distinction to be made between "restricting the civil rights of people on the basis of their skin colour, genetics, etc" and "restricting the civil rights of people based on the fact that they themselves seek to restrict the civil rights of others for reasons more similar to the first". I appreciate that that distinction does not (to the best of my knowledge) appear in the American constitution. + Show Spoiler + On August 27 2017 00:26 Danglars wrote: ... I'm not sure what you mean or what context you're using that in. You would have to explain what you meant by using the term, since there's now broad disagreement in the states. It wasn't too long ago that xDaunt made an argument on Western civilization and listed core principles he identified with it and their historical origins. On August 27 2017 00:32 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Didn't xDaunt identify the core principle of western civilisation as Christianity... but not values such as tolerance of religion, rule of law, human rights and the scientific method? Relitigating that point is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
On August 27 2017 00:19 Danglars wrote: Then absolutely you're an authoritarian, piss all over the civil rights movement (civil rights for all, not some), and I'm damn happy these regressive attitudes didn't prevail when people fought and won equality under the law and the equal protection of this nation's laws. You would have to be made king and god to label who you like "hate groups" not afforded their civil rights. I see I chose my words well. You think some citizens according to how they express themselves and the beliefs they hold to have an illegitimate claim to the same police protection and protection of laws against violent acts. This is absolutely the same issue and America is not about you deciding which individuals are not worthy in your eyes of their inalienable rights. I was happy that so many in this thread defended their rights to march, to speak, and freedom from violence (in principle, if they do not exercise violence and trigger the self defense principle). It pains me to see the dissenters, but you have the right to your dissent and expressing your opinion. I'm not gonna label you a regressive left hate group and take away your rights, rest assured. Call me an authoritarian all you like. Erode the basic democracy we all benefit from, from allowing hate groups to flaunt their ideology and contempt for others all you want and you can reap the consequences. I should hear no complaint when they come for you and yours. But what you do not understand, is that you do not see the problem beholden to thinking that everyone is equal when it comes to free speech and assembly. If ISIS wanted to march down the street, you better be front line defending their right to do so. I think you have some misconception in your privilege thinking that civil rights was extended to you. You already had them. Nazi's already had them. White supremacists already had them. They do not need more. They only lose in this battle. You can afford the individual civil rights, but as a group, Nazi's should not have civil rights. To allow the proliferation of hate to go unabated or uncontrolled, you are inviting disaster to happen. I suppose Charlottesville was not enough. You think you've won a point by saying regressive enough times, that it'll hold. It is not regressive. It is calling a spade a spade. How could you even begin to think that civil rights would have eroded even an iota of protection to anyone else who didn't already have them? "You've enjoyed civil rights long enough. Time to take some of that away and share it among the others." Seriously? I am saying that hate groups do not have civil liberties. The individual does. But when you gather a score of people (no matter the race) that are promoting some kind of disruption to democracy as they see it, or for violence against others, then that group loses civil rights that are afforded to others. There is nothing you can say that will ever justify "Sure, they spread hate and want to remove (erase) non-whites from the country, but they're not too bad as to not allow them civil rights. They don't pose a threat to our way of life," when it has been verified, evidenced, and concluded that domestic terrorism (mostly white supremacists) are the ones to be more fearful of. How you can sit/stand/recline there and suggest that Nazi's and their ilk are deserving of protection, as a group does not make any sense. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14159 Posts
Either all get the same rights or we don't all have the same rights. Preconditions for rights is what was eliminated in the civil rights movement. Very little has to be done to satisfy these rights. Permits and police protection are as much to be used against the groups when they deviate from their allowed event. | ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
On August 27 2017 00:42 Sermokala wrote: You're trying to make an argument about how bad they have to be to not get the basic civil rights they deserve as us citizens. Once you start opening the door to deny these rights to one group you can't justify not denying it to any other group that doesn't like america and is a threat to our way of life. Either all get the same rights or we don't all have the same rights. Preconditions for rights is what was eliminated in the civil rights movement. Very little has to be done to satisfy these rights. Permits and police protection are as much to be used against the groups when they deviate from their allowed event. You have to see the bold parts where I separate the group from the individual. You can be Nazi in your house, but when you join a group and start marching, you lose civil liberties. When you go back home or become isolated from the group, then you regain those liberties. I'm not saying people don't have them. Only groups of people, assembled in a group, who belong to known and nationally recognized hate groups. And yes, I would include WBC in that group as well, as well as antifa. | ||
micronesia
United States24782 Posts
| ||
|
ZerOCoolSC2
9062 Posts
On August 27 2017 00:50 micronesia wrote: ZerOCoolSC2 that is just contrary to American principles. If a group of people with detestable views want to perform a peaceful demonstration, they can here. If they manage to convince every American that their views are the best, then so be it. People can oppose this transition using the same methods available to the group with the detestable views. Fine. I lose this argument. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
WardiTV Qualifier
Epic.LAN
Big Brain Bouts
SHIN vs Elazer
Percival vs Nicoract
Reynor vs Lambo
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Clem vs Lambo
Scarlett vs Cure
CranKy Ducklings
Epic.LAN
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
