I am still floored by folks that claim to be against violence, and then turn around and equate a couple of rogue Trump supporters to many 1000s of rioters.
Reminds me of the Sesame Street teaching tool "One of these things (is not like the others)" that I mastered before Kindergarten.
I will continue to stand with, pray for, and support any and all law-abiding citizens that wish to attend a poltical rally WITHOUT being assaulted by rioters.
Totalitarianism has been on the rise in America for many decades. USA PATRIOT act is one example. R and D mean nothing now. Liberty is better than tyranny. The oligarchy/aristocracy have been importing preferred voters by the millions. I only care about content of character, which is why I would oppose millions of communist russians entering America just as vigorously as I oppose the ongoing entrance of socialists ("nice" communists) and theocrats (anything for God). Murikan citizens are forced to take all the real risks and foot the bill. (Are we maxing out the credit card of our grandkids or great grandkids right now)? We the people have had enough! Maybe we will fail in our quest for liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. We have been deemed public enemy #1 by the forces of tyranny, which is a correct analysis. They know we are an existential threat to their gravy train of wealth, influence, and power. That is why they have clearly signalled for many 10s of thousands of youth to violently interfere with law-abiding patriots in this election cycle. We shall overcome.
Thoughts and reactions welcome, and may all y'all have a fab day and week.
I am still floored by folks that claim to be against violence, and then turn around and equate a couple of rogue Trump supporters to many 1000s of rioters.
Doesn't Trump himself support those "rogue supporters?" He's never condemned violence; instead, he's promised to pay their legal bills! I don't recall Sanders or Clinton advocating violent acts the way Trump has.
Lol. This thread has just descended into a bunch of people yelling at each other. I think there might be a couple people trying to hold an honest debate, but they're getting drowned out by all the other ridiculousness.
Here is the official press release r/t the lawsuit of Trump U. Sharing facts is always better than extremely inaccurate summations of other's statements.
- June 07, 2016 -
Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding Trump University
And that, in my opinion, is Donpool winninig yet again on multiple levels. Reminds one and all of the propagandists called media, among many other points.
If there's one person we can trust to be absolutely, 100% unequivocally honest here, it's is Donald Trump. Because yeah, politicians always tell the truth when they are painting themselves in a better light. Mein Kampf was, if you recall, a completely factual account of the way the world was in 1925.
That was sarcasm.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Lol. This thread has just descended into a bunch of people yelling at each other. I think there might be a couple people trying to hold an honest debate, but they're getting drowned out by all the other ridiculousness.
Here is the official press release r/t the lawsuit of Trump U. Sharing facts is always better than extremely inaccurate summations of other's statements.
- June 07, 2016 -
Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding Trump University
And that, in my opinion, is Donpool winninig yet again on multiple levels. Reminds one and all of the propagandists called media, among many other points.
If there's one person we can trust to be absolutely, 100% unequivocally honest here, it's is Donald Trump. Because yeah, politicians always tell the truth when they are painting themselves in a better light. Mein Kampf was, if you recall, a completely factual account of the way the world was in 1925.
That was sarcasm.
You just convinced me to put all my faith in whichever big gvt politician you promise will bring about utopia.
I will continue to advocate for liberty and personal responsibility. Donpool may be awful, but compared to HRC he is a brilliant light.
Way too many R and D politicians stand for violence and theft, allegedly to improve humanity. They are foxes in the hen house at best.
Edit:
Apparently Trump won 37 states total, closing out tonight. HRC cleaned up too. Props to her skillz at running a campaign.
I think you've hit the nail on the head: it's not as important that they find someone who shares their values exactly provided they find a person who makes it so they don't have to change.
The only way to read this is to infer a deliberate attempt to force change upon people. After all, Highroller assumes these people follow Trump to prevent this change or the imposition. At a fundamental level it acknowledges the deliberate attempt to impose a moral imperative upon a group of people to force them to conform. Imposition of morality. I will reject it at any level, from any source. If you believe the imposition of morality to be a valid exercise, I'll respectfully disagree.
It's hard to disagree with "tolerance" as a principle. But these last few pages here just exhibit an incredible straining of that principle. The word “tolerance” has no meaning without an object, the thing that is being tolerated. And as far as I can see, no one has ever advocated for a principle of “tolerance” that includes tolerance of every single thing. Nothing follows this simple two-step process of whether allowing such and such would be “tolerant”, and if so, then you should allow it. There is always an inquiry into what is actually at issue.
Ideas. That is the object. It's pretty clear highroller and like minded people are intolerant to bigoted ideas, thus the change that is being imposed as alluded by the above quoted post. Being intolerant to ideas is the very definition of bigoted. The scope and breadth of the idea is an irrelevant distinction.
Lol. This thread has just descended into a bunch of people yelling at each other. I think there might be a couple people trying to hold an honest debate, but they're getting drowned out by all the other ridiculousness.
Here is the official press release r/t the lawsuit of Trump U. Sharing facts is always better than extremely inaccurate summations of other's statements.
- June 07, 2016 -
Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding Trump University
And that, in my opinion, is Donpool winninig yet again on multiple levels. Reminds one and all of the propagandists called media, among many other points.
If there's one person we can trust to be absolutely, 100% unequivocally honest here, it's is Donald Trump. Because yeah, politicians always tell the truth when they are painting themselves in a better light. Mein Kampf was, if you recall, a completely factual account of the way the world was in 1925.
That was sarcasm.
You just convinced me to put all my faith in whichever big gvt politician you promise will bring about utopia.
I will continue to advocate for liberty and personal responsibility. Donpool may be awful, but compared to HRC he is a brilliant light.
Way too many R and D politicians stand for violence and theft, allegedly to improve humanity. They are foxes in the hen house at best.
I'm not amazed by the fact that you are blindly putting your faith in Donald Trump, I'm amazed by the fact that you are so blindly putting your faith in anyone. You treat Trump's words as gospel. Any politician, no matter how honest or dishonest they are, should be rigorously analyzed to determine how they stack up. You say you believe Trump is awful, but you have yet to say anything to convince me of this.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Lol. This thread has just descended into a bunch of people yelling at each other. I think there might be a couple people trying to hold an honest debate, but they're getting drowned out by all the other ridiculousness.
Here is the official press release r/t the lawsuit of Trump U. Sharing facts is always better than extremely inaccurate summations of other's statements.
- June 07, 2016 -
Donald J. Trump Statement Regarding Trump University
And that, in my opinion, is Donpool winninig yet again on multiple levels. Reminds one and all of the propagandists called media, among many other points.
If there's one person we can trust to be absolutely, 100% unequivocally honest here, it's is Donald Trump. Because yeah, politicians always tell the truth when they are painting themselves in a better light. Mein Kampf was, if you recall, a completely factual account of the way the world was in 1925.
That was sarcasm.
You just convinced me to put all my faith in whichever big gvt politician you promise will bring about utopia.
I will continue to advocate for liberty and personal responsibility. Donpool may be awful, but compared to HRC he is a brilliant light.
Way too many R and D politicians stand for violence and theft, allegedly to improve humanity. They are foxes in the hen house at best.
I'm not amazed by the fact that you are blindly putting your faith in Donald Trump, I'm amazed by the fact that you are so blindly putting your faith in anyone. You treat Trump's words as gospel. Any politician, no matter how honest or dishonest they are, should be rigorously analyzed to determine how they stack up. You say you believe Trump is awful, but you have yet to say anything to convince me of this.
This is a guy who refers to Trump as "Donpool" or whatever he used. At this stage, he isn't even trying to pretend he isn't heavily favored to Trump.
"Intolerance against intolerance" was also the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen, even if might be a certain definition, technically correct. I would imagine under that definition, everyone on the planet is intolerant to some person, action, or idea.
I condemn all acts of violence committed against people who exercise their rights to free speech and assembly, regardless of their political views. Nothing that Donald Trump says absolves those individuals of responsibility for their violent conduct last night.
Our Police Department and District Attorney's Office will proactively and thoroughly investigate and prosecute the offenders, and Police Chief Eddie Garcia has called for all members of our community who have video and other evidence to submit that information to the authorities so it can be used for arrest of the violent perpetrators.
That said, I think we all need to acknowledge that each of us - presidential candidates, local leaders, and individual citizens - have a responsibility for our own speech. It is regrettable that this has become a pattern for cities hosting Mr. Trump across the nation.
So, let's see:
Acts as if Trump supporters were the ones committing the violence when we all know they weren't? Check.
Says Trump supporters (who totally weren't assaulted) had it coming when they... were assaulted? Check.
You really trust this man to provide equal protection to all his citizens? LOL.
What does La Raza matter? Hm... judge accused of being biased against Trump, mayor looks the other way when violence committed against Trump supporters. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Why did SJPD stand down while SJWs attacked innocent people? Because they were afraid that protecting people might make the SJWs angry. Gotta give them their safe space to hurt innocent people, guess they needed "room to destroy" huh?
I don't see how anyone could read this statement and look at the facts and come to the same conclusion that you did. Its nearly the complete opposite of what was said and what actually happened. Violent perpetrators on both sides were arrested, the mayor called for everyone who committed violence to be held responsible. Also this idea that Trump supporters are assaulted more than protesters continues to be hilarious. Everywhere I look I see equal levels of violence on both sides. To continue playing the victim card when Trump is equally responsible is ridiculous. Also is everyone who protests a SJW to you? That is a serious stretch for this situation.
This is a guy who refers to Trump as "Donpool" or whatever he used. At this stage, he isn't even trying to pretend he isn't heavily favored to Trump.
"Intolerance against intolerance" was also the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen, even if might be a certain definition, technically correct. I would imagine under that definition, everyone on the planet is intolerant to some person, action, or idea.
At this point, I'm just trying to figure out how HollyJello reached such a ridiculous position. His devotion to "The Don" is fanatic, bordering on religious. It just defies all reason.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
This is a guy who refers to Trump as "Donpool" or whatever he used. At this stage, he isn't even trying to pretend he isn't heavily favored to Trump.
"Intolerance against intolerance" was also the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen, even if might be a certain definition, technically correct. I would imagine under that definition, everyone on the planet is intolerant to some person, action, or idea.
At this point, I'm just trying to figure out how HollyJello reached such a ridiculous position. His devotion to "The Don" is fanatic, bordering on religious. It just defies all reason.
That might just be it: There is no reason. One of the things that someone pointed out about H. Clinton was that "no one, not even Clinton Supporters try to get people to vote for her based on her policies." In Trump's case, aside from a few people, no one is trying to sell Trump on the idea of his Muslim ban/Great Wall of Mexico. The latter has been torn to shreds about how it solves nothing, and wouldn't even be able to be built legally without several exceptions from different organizations.
Quote from Highroller »
I think you've hit the nail on the head: it's not as important that they find someone who shares their values exactly provided they find a person who makes it so they don't have to change.
The only way to read this is to infer a deliberate attempt to force change upon people. After all, Highroller assumes these people follow Trump to prevent this change or the imposition. At a fundamental level it acknowledges the deliberate attempt to impose a moral imperative upon a group of people to force them to conform. Imposition of morality. I will reject it at any level, from any source. If you believe the imposition of morality to be a valid exercise, I'll respectfully disagree.
You disagree with the imposition of morality on any level? I find it hard to believe that you actually realize what you just said.
Do you consider murder to be immoral? Well evidently, we all have to look the other way, because the imposition of any morality should be rejected on any level, from any source.
A common sense of morality, even secular morality, happens to be the basis of all law that ever existed, whether criminal law, regulatory law, or tax law. To say that you reject it is to advocate anarchy.
If there were a group of people who believed that murder, theft, and violence were moral, yes, it would be on those people to change. Likewise, if there is a group of people that find discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin, it’s also on those people to change. Regardless of whether that amounts to the “imposition of morality” or not. The law imposes that morality, and we decided as a nation that this would be the law.
It's hard to disagree with "tolerance" as a principle. But these last few pages here just exhibit an incredible straining of that principle. The word “tolerance” has no meaning without an object, the thing that is being tolerated. And as far as I can see, no one has ever advocated for a principle of “tolerance” that includes tolerance of every single thing. Nothing follows this simple two-step process of whether allowing such and such would be “tolerant”, and if so, then you should allow it. There is always an inquiry into what is actually at issue.
Ideas. That is the object. It's pretty clear highroller and like minded people are intolerant to bigoted ideas, thus the change that is being imposed as alluded by the above quoted post. Being intolerant to ideas is the very definition of bigoted. The scope and breadth of the idea is an irrelevant distinction.
Again here, I’m not sure you’re aware of what the words you said actually mean.
We should always give every idea complete tolerance, regardless of scope and breadth? But, everything is an idea. That means that if I want to get away with murder, all I have to do is invent and express any idea that justifies me doing it? And that anyone who’s opposed to that is intolerant?
Maybe you’re confusing tolerance of an idea with a right to express the idea. Sure, everyone has freedom of expression to say what they want without the government interfering with that expression (outside of a few cases like obscenity and incitement). However, that doesn’t require private people to give the idea an equal ear, or for a candidate running on a bigoted platform to be given equal respect, or for the government to give equal protection of the law to everything that can be quantified as an idea. If you show up in court claiming that you’re being discriminated against as a “bigot”, the court will promptly ask, “so what?”. Bigotry is not a protected class. Religion, race and national origin are. The only thing freedom of expression guarantees you is the right not to be shut out of public places or put in jail because you expressed an idea. And as far as I can tell here, no one here is claiming that Trump supporters should all be jailed for being bigots.
People may have the freedom to express backward, bigoted ideas, but they should still be decried as backward and bigoted. And in the case of Trump's policy proposals, those are also against the law.
Do you consider murder to be immoral? Well evidently, we all have to look the other way, because the imposition of any morality should be rejected on any level, from any source.
Whether or not I find something immoral is irrelevant. Murder is not illegal because it's immoral.
A common sense of morality, even secular morality, happens to be the basis of all law that ever existed, whether criminal law, regulatory law, or tax law. To say that you reject it is to advocate anarchy.
If you believe establishing practical rules to be morality, then we do not share same definition of morality.
If there were a group of people who believed that murder, theft, and violence were moral, yes, it would be on those people to change. Likewise, if there is a group of people that find discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin, it’s also on those people to change. Regardless of whether that amounts to the “imposition of morality” or not. The law imposes that morality, and we decided as a nation that this would be the law.
Law should not be used to impose morality. All the ones that impose morality are really really bad. Death penalty, anti-LGBT laws.
Taxes. It's not imposed upon people of a society based upon some righteousness, but rather so a collective can provide services to citizens. Prohibition against murder exist for the security of people out a practical sense of self-perseverance. Rules are a pragmatic way for people to coexist.
Again here, I’m not sure you’re aware of what the words you said actually mean.
I think you should really take the time to comprehend what I'm saying then.
I'm not amazed by the fact that you are blindly putting your faith in Donald Trump, I'm amazed by the fact that you are so blindly putting your faith in anyone. You treat Trump's words as gospel. Any politician, no matter how honest or dishonest they are, should be rigorously analyzed to determine how they stack up. You say you believe Trump is awful, but you have yet to say anything to convince me of this.
1) It is ironic that you claim to think I am "blindly" supporting Trump.
2) The only legit candidates remaining are HRC and Trump. I don't know who will win, but I am confident that Sir Trump will prioritize American citizens.
3) After rigorous analysis, it is beyond clear to me that The Don is the best choice for liberty-loving citizens.
4) I said Trump might be awful, NOT that he was awful. I then said he was brilliant compared to Clinton. Precision.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
If you believe establishing practical rules to be morality, then we do not share same definition of morality.
This is the part where you give your definition of morality, thereby enabling some constructive discussion.
I have many many times. Righteousness.
You do realize that this is not an actual response and you are once again dancing around the issue, correct?
Not to mention that this issue has drifted well away from the Trump topic...
Violent perpetrators on both sides were arrested, the mayor called for everyone who committed violence to be held responsible. Also this idea that Trump supporters are assaulted more than protesters continues to be hilarious. Everywhere I look I see equal levels of violence on both sides. To continue playing the victim card when Trump is equally responsible is ridiculous. Also is everyone who protests a SJW to you? That is a serious stretch for this situation.
1) Law-breakers of all stripes should be arrested.
2) The police seemed to be used VERY cautiously. They, in some instances, had to stay in a line while watching rioters physically assault law-abiding citizens--including women and some elderly appearing males.
3) I don't find ANY of the assaults "hilarious".
4) You cannot provide a single instance of trump supporters rioting in the streets. How does your math arrive at a balanced equation?
5) Trump is somehow forcing some people to physically assault other people by saying "racist" things? Curious excuse.
6) I don't care how the rioters self-describe. The rioters should be jailed en masse. The 1st A is worth defending.
HuffPo Columnist Advocates Violence Against Trump Supporters
I had to do some research on this. I do not reject the idea in some ways murder was criminalized based upon a sense of morality, but the overriding reason its considered both immoral and illegal has nothing to with righteousness but rather out of self-preservation and coexistence of society. Civility has spread based upon the rule of law, not some imperative that says murder is immoral.
I'm not amazed by the fact that you are blindly putting your faith in Donald Trump, I'm amazed by the fact that you are so blindly putting your faith in anyone. You treat Trump's words as gospel. Any politician, no matter how honest or dishonest they are, should be rigorously analyzed to determine how they stack up. You say you believe Trump is awful, but you have yet to say anything to convince me of this.
1) It is ironic that you claim to think I am "blindly" supporting Trump.
2) The only legit candidates remaining are HRC and Trump. I don't know who will win, but I am confident that Sir Trump will prioritize American citizens.
3) After rigorous analysis, it is beyond clear to me that The Don is the best choice for liberty-loving citizens.
4) I said Trump might be awful, NOT that he was awful. I then said he was brilliant compared to Clinton. Precision.
This is the part where you give your definition of morality, thereby enabling some constructive discussion.
I have many many times. Righteousness.
Well, that clarifies things.
principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Seriously, what the **** do you want? Are you saying morality is not arbitrary? Morality is a inherently ambiguous and varied between people, which makes it a horrible system to base laws on. Which, by the way, is why the the Supreme court found common law to be unconstitutional.
This is a guy who refers to Trump as "Donpool" or whatever he used. At this stage, he isn't even trying to pretend he isn't heavily favored to Trump.
"Intolerance against intolerance" was also the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen, even if might be a certain definition, technically correct. I would imagine under that definition, everyone on the planet is intolerant to some person, action, or idea.
At this point, I'm just trying to figure out how HollyJello reached such a ridiculous position. His devotion to "The Don" is fanatic, bordering on religious. It just defies all reason.
I strongly advocate for a peaceful revolution. The fanatics riot in the street and/or openly call for violence. I oppose those that worship government power. Trump may be terribad, but one can state with high confidence that HRC will continue to start wars in the Middle East and N. Africa, enable Bill, blame terrorist attacks on extremely amateur videos nearly nobody has seen, print money out of thin air by the trillions, and place non-citizens ahead of actual citizens. It defies all reason to believe that big government will lead to utopia with just a little more theft and force.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
I'm not amazed by the fact that you are blindly putting your faith in Donald Trump, I'm amazed by the fact that you are so blindly putting your faith in anyone. You treat Trump's words as gospel. Any politician, no matter how honest or dishonest they are, should be rigorously analyzed to determine how they stack up. You say you believe Trump is awful, but you have yet to say anything to convince me of this.
1) It is ironic that you claim to think I am "blindly" supporting Trump.
2) The only legit candidates remaining are HRC and Trump. I don't know who will win, but I am confident that Sir Trump will prioritize American citizens.
3) After rigorous analysis, it is beyond clear to me that The Don is the best choice for liberty-loving citizens.
4) I said Trump might be awful, NOT that he was awful. I then said he was brilliant compared to Clinton. Precision.
Gary Johnson.
By "legit" I meant a candidate that actually has a chance of becoming POTUS. I respect Gary Johnson and Bernie, but they did not make it to the finals.
If you believe establishing practical rules to be morality, then we do not share same definition of morality.
This is the part where you give your definition of morality, thereby enabling some constructive discussion.
I have many many times. Righteousness.
You do realize that this is not an actual response and you are once again dancing around the issue, correct?
Not to mention that this issue has drifted well away from the Trump topic...
What are you confused by? Do you disagree with the definition? Why? Simply claiming I'm dancing around the issue with out explaining why is not moving the discussion along. I was asked to provide my definition of morality. I defined morality concisely.
I find the contempt amazing, considering theirs been no justification provided for it and I'm the one dancing around the issue?
Reminds me of the Sesame Street teaching tool "One of these things (is not like the others)" that I mastered before Kindergarten.
I will continue to stand with, pray for, and support any and all law-abiding citizens that wish to attend a poltical rally WITHOUT being assaulted by rioters.
Totalitarianism has been on the rise in America for many decades. USA PATRIOT act is one example. R and D mean nothing now. Liberty is better than tyranny. The oligarchy/aristocracy have been importing preferred voters by the millions. I only care about content of character, which is why I would oppose millions of communist russians entering America just as vigorously as I oppose the ongoing entrance of socialists ("nice" communists) and theocrats (anything for God). Murikan citizens are forced to take all the real risks and foot the bill. (Are we maxing out the credit card of our grandkids or great grandkids right now)? We the people have had enough! Maybe we will fail in our quest for liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. We have been deemed public enemy #1 by the forces of tyranny, which is a correct analysis. They know we are an existential threat to their gravy train of wealth, influence, and power. That is why they have clearly signalled for many 10s of thousands of youth to violently interfere with law-abiding patriots in this election cycle. We shall overcome.
Thoughts and reactions welcome, and may all y'all have a fab day and week.
Doesn't Trump himself support those "rogue supporters?" He's never condemned violence; instead, he's promised to pay their legal bills! I don't recall Sanders or Clinton advocating violent acts the way Trump has.
If there's one person we can trust to be absolutely, 100% unequivocally honest here, it's is Donald Trump. Because yeah, politicians always tell the truth when they are painting themselves in a better light. Mein Kampf was, if you recall, a completely factual account of the way the world was in 1925.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
I will continue to advocate for liberty and personal responsibility. Donpool may be awful, but compared to HRC he is a brilliant light.
Way too many R and D politicians stand for violence and theft, allegedly to improve humanity. They are foxes in the hen house at best.
Edit:
Apparently Trump won 37 states total, closing out tonight. HRC cleaned up too. Props to her skillz at running a campaign.
http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president?lo=ut_d1
And the victory speech El Donaldo gave tonight:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nO7GAbBoIF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu5_m2PHIZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0nNeo2UwDQ
Milo is the man. Bold, funny, happy, proud, logical, and correct so darn often. What a combo!!
I understand. To help with this:
The only way to read this is to infer a deliberate attempt to force change upon people. After all, Highroller assumes these people follow Trump to prevent this change or the imposition. At a fundamental level it acknowledges the deliberate attempt to impose a moral imperative upon a group of people to force them to conform. Imposition of morality. I will reject it at any level, from any source. If you believe the imposition of morality to be a valid exercise, I'll respectfully disagree.
Ideas. That is the object. It's pretty clear highroller and like minded people are intolerant to bigoted ideas, thus the change that is being imposed as alluded by the above quoted post. Being intolerant to ideas is the very definition of bigoted. The scope and breadth of the idea is an irrelevant distinction.
I'm not amazed by the fact that you are blindly putting your faith in Donald Trump, I'm amazed by the fact that you are so blindly putting your faith in anyone. You treat Trump's words as gospel. Any politician, no matter how honest or dishonest they are, should be rigorously analyzed to determine how they stack up. You say you believe Trump is awful, but you have yet to say anything to convince me of this.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
This is a guy who refers to Trump as "Donpool" or whatever he used. At this stage, he isn't even trying to pretend he isn't heavily favored to Trump.
"Intolerance against intolerance" was also the most ridiculous argument I have ever seen, even if might be a certain definition, technically correct. I would imagine under that definition, everyone on the planet is intolerant to some person, action, or idea.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
At this point, I'm just trying to figure out how HollyJello reached such a ridiculous position. His devotion to "The Don" is fanatic, bordering on religious. It just defies all reason.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
That might just be it: There is no reason. One of the things that someone pointed out about H. Clinton was that "no one, not even Clinton Supporters try to get people to vote for her based on her policies." In Trump's case, aside from a few people, no one is trying to sell Trump on the idea of his Muslim ban/Great Wall of Mexico. The latter has been torn to shreds about how it solves nothing, and wouldn't even be able to be built legally without several exceptions from different organizations.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
You disagree with the imposition of morality on any level? I find it hard to believe that you actually realize what you just said.
Do you consider murder to be immoral? Well evidently, we all have to look the other way, because the imposition of any morality should be rejected on any level, from any source.
A common sense of morality, even secular morality, happens to be the basis of all law that ever existed, whether criminal law, regulatory law, or tax law. To say that you reject it is to advocate anarchy.
If there were a group of people who believed that murder, theft, and violence were moral, yes, it would be on those people to change. Likewise, if there is a group of people that find discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin, it’s also on those people to change. Regardless of whether that amounts to the “imposition of morality” or not. The law imposes that morality, and we decided as a nation that this would be the law.
Again here, I’m not sure you’re aware of what the words you said actually mean.
We should always give every idea complete tolerance, regardless of scope and breadth? But, everything is an idea. That means that if I want to get away with murder, all I have to do is invent and express any idea that justifies me doing it? And that anyone who’s opposed to that is intolerant?
Maybe you’re confusing tolerance of an idea with a right to express the idea. Sure, everyone has freedom of expression to say what they want without the government interfering with that expression (outside of a few cases like obscenity and incitement). However, that doesn’t require private people to give the idea an equal ear, or for a candidate running on a bigoted platform to be given equal respect, or for the government to give equal protection of the law to everything that can be quantified as an idea. If you show up in court claiming that you’re being discriminated against as a “bigot”, the court will promptly ask, “so what?”. Bigotry is not a protected class. Religion, race and national origin are. The only thing freedom of expression guarantees you is the right not to be shut out of public places or put in jail because you expressed an idea. And as far as I can tell here, no one here is claiming that Trump supporters should all be jailed for being bigots.
People may have the freedom to express backward, bigoted ideas, but they should still be decried as backward and bigoted. And in the case of Trump's policy proposals, those are also against the law.
Whether or not I find something immoral is irrelevant. Murder is not illegal because it's immoral.
If you believe establishing practical rules to be morality, then we do not share same definition of morality.
Law should not be used to impose morality. All the ones that impose morality are really really bad. Death penalty, anti-LGBT laws.
Taxes. It's not imposed upon people of a society based upon some righteousness, but rather so a collective can provide services to citizens. Prohibition against murder exist for the security of people out a practical sense of self-perseverance. Rules are a pragmatic way for people to coexist.
I think you should really take the time to comprehend what I'm saying then.
This is the part where you give your definition of morality, thereby enabling some constructive discussion.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I have many many times. Righteousness.
1) It is ironic that you claim to think I am "blindly" supporting Trump.
2) The only legit candidates remaining are HRC and Trump. I don't know who will win, but I am confident that Sir Trump will prioritize American citizens.
3) After rigorous analysis, it is beyond clear to me that The Don is the best choice for liberty-loving citizens.
4) I said Trump might be awful, NOT that he was awful. I then said he was brilliant compared to Clinton. Precision.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not to mention that this issue has drifted well away from the Trump topic...
1) Law-breakers of all stripes should be arrested.
2) The police seemed to be used VERY cautiously. They, in some instances, had to stay in a line while watching rioters physically assault law-abiding citizens--including women and some elderly appearing males.
3) I don't find ANY of the assaults "hilarious".
4) You cannot provide a single instance of trump supporters rioting in the streets. How does your math arrive at a balanced equation?
5) Trump is somehow forcing some people to physically assault other people by saying "racist" things? Curious excuse.
6) I don't care how the rioters self-describe. The rioters should be jailed en masse. The 1st A is worth defending.
HuffPo Columnist Advocates Violence Against Trump Supporters
Defends logic of “revolutionary terror”
June 8, 2016
http://www.infowars.com/huffpo-columnist-advocates-violence-against-trump-supporters/
I expect you folks will be aghast at the open call for "violent resistance" by columnist Jesse Bern. He wants to force others to feel the Bern.
What do you folks think about the following tweet by Amy Chozick on June 7, 2016?
I won't be answering calls from unknown numbers today, after third call from Bernie supporters telling me they'd hunt me down in the streets.
https://twitter.com/amychozick/status/740228091210006528
I had to do some research on this. I do not reject the idea in some ways murder was criminalized based upon a sense of morality, but the overriding reason its considered both immoral and illegal has nothing to with righteousness but rather out of self-preservation and coexistence of society. Civility has spread based upon the rule of law, not some imperative that says murder is immoral.
Gary Johnson.
Seriously, what the **** do you want? Are you saying morality is not arbitrary? Morality is a inherently ambiguous and varied between people, which makes it a horrible system to base laws on. Which, by the way, is why the the Supreme court found common law to be unconstitutional.
What are you confused by? Do you disagree with the definition? Why? Simply claiming I'm dancing around the issue with out explaining why is not moving the discussion along. I was asked to provide my definition of morality. I defined morality concisely.
I find the contempt amazing, considering theirs been no justification provided for it and I'm the one dancing around the issue?