News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Armour, please forgive me, but your hardened, archaic views on blacks and -- now -- jews are such that you have no standing with me. There are many, many things in the world you don't see, much less the difference between a Ben Shapiro and a John Tory.

The Jews are 'strong as ever' 80 years after the Holocaust? Oy.
What I meant is that the jews, largely, are thriving despite facing even worse circumstances and for thousands of years, at that. How have they continually bounced back from genocide, yet many blacks are stuck in a perpetual bog, flailing their arms, helplessly? Jews have had everything taken from them, their families torn apart and they remain strong and they probably have the greatest influence on our culture.
 
Last edited:
And for you Trump supporting conservatives complaining about "freedom of speech", in other countries you can and will go to jail if you express your racist views aloud. In England if you call a black person a racist word you get fined or even go to jail. In Germany some fascist pigs tried to criticize letting in refugees saying there were "too many" (codeword for "I'm a racist") and the government pressed charges against them. See that's the way it should be but we're too backward and conservative here and in the States! No "free speech" for fascists!

On this front, I think you've got it exactly backward. The classically liberal position would be to limit speech as little as possible. Traditionally, that's meant that you place limitations on things like libel, slander or harassment. We also have the classic example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. But otherwise the liberal approach would be not to infringe any more than that on speech, and trust to the marketplace of ideas. In that way, I'm allowed to publish a pamphlet that says "I hate blondes," and you're allowed to publish one that says "I hate brunettes."

The "conservative," big-government solution is in fact the one you propose, in which the Government and its agents are responsible for monitoring all speech, and checking it against a list of what's acceptable and what's not. Take the examples you've cited. If it's illegal to deny that the Jewish holocaust happened, is it also illegal to deny the Armenian holocaust? The Canadian Aboriginal one? Why, or why not? Who decides? If it's not OK to criticize the government's refugee policy, is it OK to criticize their tax policies? Why? The problem I have with this is that it involves handing the decisions about what speech is OK and what isn't to someone else, and there aren't many people I trust with that. Further, it's arbitrary: I don't see very many hard, reliable metrics proposed for how best to limit speech.

My preference is almost always on the side of more speech rather than less - that's the kind of society I'd rather live in. I think liberalism has served us well thus far and I much prefer it to the other alternatives on the table.
 
What I meant is that the jews, largely, are thriving despite facing even worse circumstances and for thousands of years, at that. How have they continually bounced back from genocide, yet many blacks are stuck in a perpetual bog, flailing their arms, helplessly? Jews have had everything taken from them, their families torn apart and they remain strong and they probably have the greatest influence on our culture.

Are you serious?
 
Are you serious?

I think you and I both know the point he is struggling to make, is that the blacks in question aren't unique in facing racism, poverty, police brutality or discrimination, and rich folks are completely colour blind when it comes to who they don't want to give their money to (nobody isn't a demographic). So what else accounts for such a discrepancy in violent crime rates within the black community?
 
Page after page of this gibberish... Don't be so PC. Take a stand--show some guts. We all know you both mean that black people have lower IQs and loose morals and suffer from a debilitating laziness.
 
Last edited:
Page after page of this gibberish... Don't be so PC. Take a stand--show some guts. We all know you both mean that black people have lower IQs and loose morals and suffer from a debilitating laziness.

Why'd you have to go and "offend" them??!!
 
Why'd you have to go and "offend" them??!!

Actually, baseless ad hominem attacks as ridiculous as that tend to illicit a feeling of embarrassment for the author more than feeling offended by their feeble attempt at humour.

Please take note of who "liked" that post too....gives you some insight as to the kind of person we are dealing with.
 
Y'all just keep spinning those wheels FCG.

So then, according to you, the real discrimination going on there is against males. They make up only 50% of the population, yet account for nearly 96% of people shot dead by police.

MALE LIVES MATTER eh

Pay attention, cause that's all the help I am going to give you in regards to pointing out the flaw in your logic.
 
So then, according to you, the real discrimination going on there is against males. They make up only 50% of the population, yet account for nearly 96% of people shot dead by police.

MALE LIVES MATTER eh

Pay attention, cause that's all the help I am going to give you in regards to pointing out the flaw in your logic.

Hahahaha... melanin is a pigment. Testosterone is a hormone.

Pay attention, 'cause that's all the help I am going to give you in regards to pointing out, etc., etc., etc.
 
What I really want to know is when are we all going to get together for a backyard barbecue and some ring toss?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top