Fake Bombs?

Imaginos1892 wrote:

The E wrote:Good question. Let me ask the people who raised the banner of resistance against the Nazis.

I call Godwin!

Of course, it was only a matter of time before you went there.

Dilandu wrote:The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees

So, 'shall not impose penalties' — that means don't fine them, or throw them in jail. Definitely no floggings! Requiring them to leave our country, and stay out, is not defined as a penalty under any code of laws I am aware of.
———————————
There is no shortage of people convinced they can create the perfect world. Trouble is, they always start out by fucking up this one.

No always true, because there are instances where denying refugees asylum status and making them leave is the same as a death sentence.

And I'm trying to wrap my head around the fact that we are suddenly discussing refugees in this thread.

Anyway, can we all agree that the bombs where real? And if not, can that person give some insight into his or hers sources?

Joat42 wrote:
Anyway, can we all agree that the bombs where real? And if not, can that person give some insight into his or hers sources?

According to available data, the bombs seems to be real, albeit build very amateurishly. They were probably non-functional, question is, was this deliberate or senders mistake.

Imaginos1892 wrote:I see. You are advocating the use of violence to prevent people you don't agree with from expressing their opinions.

Someone tells you, to your face, that they think you or people you care about shouldn't be people.

What is your reaction? Is it to calmly debate that person? To walk away, letting them be and hoping that others will do the same?

Personally, if you tell me that you wish to see Jews, or gays or blacks or trans people eradicated from society or segregated away, then as far as I am concerned you are no longer part of civil society. Someone like that, who is absolutely supporting violence and terrorism, should not get to enjoy protections afforded to reasonable people.

And you are so certain of your competence to decide that, you are willing to lead the lynch mob.

I am certain enough in my moral judgment to call wrong things out when and where I see them (and, if necessary, combat them).

Not entirely sure how that translates to leading lynch mobs.

Words must be answered with words. If you can’t answer them with words, if you must resort to violence, it means you’re not as right as you thought you were.

"Kill all gays" is just words.

Until it isn't.

Of course, it was only a matter of time before you went there.

What level of resistance against a movement inimical to your way of life is warranted, in your opinion?

If the majority of people decides that all brown people should be deported, does that mean that that's a right and morally correct action?

The E wrote:If the majority of people decides that all brown people should be deported, does that mean that that's a right and morally correct action?

No, but must point out that it would be perfectly democratic decision.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

The E wrote:Good question. Let me ask the people who raised the banner of resistance against the Nazis.

I call Godwin!

Of course, it was only a matter of time before you went there.

Of course indeed... seeing as there is currently a president that brought on board widely known white nationalists into his administration, seems hell bent on alternatin between emulating and sucking up to dictators and fascists, and referred to Nazis as "fine people".... yeah, nazi comparisons are going to happen. Yell Godwin all you want, sometimes reference to Nazis is warranted.

Like, for instance, when there are actual literal Nazis involved.

The E wrote:"Kill all gays" is just words.

Until it isn't.

If it becomes more than words, the law is there. Those guilty of illegal actions must be arrested, tried and convicted before they are punished.

By the law. Not you.

The E wrote:Personally, if you tell me that you wish to see Jews, or gays or blacks or trans people eradicated from society or segregated away, then as far as I am concerned you are no longer part of civil society. Someone like that, who is absolutely supporting violence and terrorism, should not get to enjoy protections afforded to reasonable people.

Of course, YOU get to decide who are the ‘reasonable people’ deserving of the law’s protection, and who are the un-people not to be protected. Haven't we seen that attitude before? Somewhere?

This is the hypocrisy of the left on full display — their ‘tolerance’ applies only to other leftists. If you dare to disagree with them, you are an enemy, a non-person, to be silenced at any cost. Anyone with an unauthorized opinion must be denied access, intimidated, shouted down, or mobbed, because all those leftists have to be protected from hearing the wrong words!

And don’t start braying about ‘hate speech’ — that’s one of those phrases that means exactly what you want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less. The rest of us understand it to mean ‘words you don’t agree with’ because that is how you use it. Leftists have been calling everything they don’t agree with ‘hate speech’ for so long the phrase has lost all meaning.

Having to endure the odious rants of bigots is one of the prices we must pay for free speech. If one despicable person can be silenced for speaking the wrong words, everyone can be silenced for speaking any words.

At least the right-wing wackos don’t pretend that their intolerance is tolerance.
———————————
It is not possible to take freedom away from only the people you don’t like.

Imaginos1892 wrote:This is the hypocrisy of the left on full display — their ‘tolerance’ applies only to other leftists. If you dare to disagree with them, you are an enemy, a non-person, to be silenced at any cost. Anyone with an unauthorized opinion must be denied access, intimidated, shouted down, or mobbed, because all those leftists have to be protected from hearing the wrong words!

You are cordially invited to make a case for why "kill the jews" should be something a person can say without suffering consequences for it.

Having to endure the odious rants of bigots is one of the prices we must pay for free speech. If one despicable person can be silenced for speaking the wrong words, everyone can be silenced for speaking any words.

I think you're making that common mistake of confusing freedom of speech with freedom of consequences arising from said speech.

The E wrote:

Imaginos1892 wrote:Having to endure the odious rants of bigots is one of the prices we must pay for free speech. If one despicable person can be silenced for speaking the wrong words, everyone can be silenced for speaking any words.

I think you're making that common mistake of confusing freedom of speech with freedom of consequences arising from said speech.

I'm not making any mistake. If those consequences can be legally proven, the speaker should be punished UNDER THE LAW. Not subjected to pre-emptive mob justice.

Imaginos1892 wrote:

The E wrote:"Kill all gays" is just words.

Until it isn't.

If it becomes more than words, the law is there. Those guilty of illegal actions must be arrested, tried and convicted before they are punished.

By the law. Not you.

The E wrote:Personally, if you tell me that you wish to see Jews, or gays or blacks or trans people eradicated from society or segregated away, then as far as I am concerned you are no longer part of civil society. Someone like that, who is absolutely supporting violence and terrorism, should not get to enjoy protections afforded to reasonable people.

Of course, YOU get to decide who are the ‘reasonable people’ deserving of the law’s protection, and who are the un-people not to be protected. Haven't we seen that attitude before? Somewhere?

This is the hypocrisy of the left on full display — their ‘tolerance’ applies only to other leftists. If you dare to disagree with them, you are an enemy, a non-person, to be silenced at any cost. Anyone with an unauthorized opinion must be denied access, intimidated, shouted down, or mobbed, because all those leftists have to be protected from hearing the wrong words!

And don’t start braying about ‘hate speech’ — that’s one of those phrases that means exactly what you want it to mean, nothing more and nothing less. The rest of us understand it to mean ‘words you don’t agree with’ because that is how you use it. Leftists have been calling everything they don’t agree with ‘hate speech’ for so long the phrase has lost all meaning.

Having to endure the odious rants of bigots is one of the prices we must pay for free speech. If one despicable person can be silenced for speaking the wrong words, everyone can be silenced for speaking any words.

At least the right-wing wackos don’t pretend that their intolerance is tolerance.
———————————
It is not possible to take freedom away from only the people you don’t like.

Amen!

Simply saying homosexuality and abortion is a sin has been demonized as hate speech to silence debate.

Objecting to illegal immigration has been demonized as racism and bigotry.

The problem that should alarm leftists is that by demonizing peaceful dissent to liberal dogma, they provoke violent dissent.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Amen!

Simply saying homosexuality and abortion is a sin has been demonized as hate speech to silence debate.

It is only a sin if your imaginary sky entity decided it is. What you believe in private I don't care about but when it affects others I care and AFAIK it all started with people who believe in something imaginary telling others that they will burn in hell and then killing them because they wouldn't repent.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Objecting to illegal immigration has been demonized as racism and bigotry.

When people call refugees by demeaning names; when people belittle their struggle, when people call them illegal (even though they even haven't reached the border); when people think it's a good idea or just joke about killing them; when people call them thieves; when people call them rapist it's all borne from racism, bigotry and fear.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:The problem that should alarm leftists is that by demonizing peaceful dissent to liberal dogma, they provoke violent dissent.

So it's okay for conservatives to use violence when they think they are in the right? And talking about demonizing and violence, Trump demonizes a bunch of people and then we have a right wing conservative nutjob trying to kill them.

It seems the leftists doesn't even need to demonize dissent before violence is on the table.

Here is a question for those who believe in God and Jesus (since the concept of sin was brought up):
What would Jesus do with the refugees?