-
Posts
-
It’s interesting how some people aren’t used to power and freedoms at all..
Saying that someone hates someone doesn’t mean anything except for that they may change. If love is one sided, then that is an invitation to reevaluate myself and to maybe discover something new that I love that I want to adapt to myself. There is no force or *having to* in that. Words should be everywhere so that it’s not a big deal to anyone. Morals is a tough competition. People may not look like the best, but open efforts is all someone needs to have the emancipation to pursue happiness and fruits no matter who it is.
What do you think about the media encouraging violence against their political enemies?
The Independent has since removed this article, but it was up long enough for a lot of people to see, and possibly be influenced by it.
I feel like people shouldn’t have to be afraid of violence, but I also feel like people shouldn’t have to feel afraid of Nazi-like extreme haters in action either. It’s actually pretty crazy to think that people in a place like America where people are pampered and and people focus on work rather than on hating in action, there are crazy people like that who want to make people go back to the days of paranoia rather than focusing on being successful or happy. I mean I feel like power shouldn’t be a shortcut no matter how sensitive someone is. Like I feel those in power should trust people enough to not listen to their opinions and instead focus on knowledged consensus. But personally, I believe that the justice system could be a little bit more liberal because people seem to change more when there isn’t that much fear because I think it takes away the reason to be paranoid about anything really and it takes away reasons for people to be cunning I feel. Like I think the blanket rule sort of makes mean people think that their meanness isn’t understood, which gives them plenty of space to exploit the assault law (three times someone hits someone and they’re in jail forever), maybe? For example, technically no one can prove conspiracy between many people to torture someone by taking away their trust in the same way over and over and so absolutely nothing is going to happen to them.
And personally I feel like fear creates more fear, and not trusting people actually sets them free morally because people don’t trust them anyway- so why be moral? So I feel it works better when people are bound by the moral responsibility of trust. 
drac, so all those hundreds of thousands of people were out protesting just because someone you claim is a Muslim fundamentalist told them to? Impressive.
The Berlin march apparently had protesters chanting ‘allahu akbar’, so it seems at least some of them will do anything they are told.
The world is getting very strange
That is pretty weird. I feel like when people would do anything suggestive, then thing becomes more polarized because then people have to be with those who’s core morals are similar. I think in this instance, I’m not sure how the idea was there, but I feel like some people felt bad for Muslims and it encouraged some people to sing that. For the most part stereotypically I feel that Muslims like being left alone, with the exception of Bin Laden who had a delusional disorder with a Taliban group who had PTSD. With new technologies though when it’s up and running, I think there’s more potential to spread good morals of love, saving lives, peace, sharing helpful knowledge and self progress as well as maybe alternatives that don’t ruin PR that Muslims or other sects can hold a grudge for, ideally. It would be nice there were more Dubais and openness to optimism and knowledge instead of fear in the future I think.
That is pretty weird. ….It would be nice there were more Dubais and openness to optimism and knowledge instead of fear in the future I think.
The world surely is strange. Wannabe, I had never thought of the lack of Dubais and openness to optimism and knowledge before. Your posts are just so incredibly profound and wise. I mean deeply, deeply wise.
drac, I’m not willfully misreading your posts, but I’m ceasing to take them seriously. I don’t think you’re looking at any arguments, merely seizing on peripheral sentences and taking marginal bits of information and pulling them to pieces, demanding to know the answer as though they are of world-wide significance.
You claimed Communists were behind the march, showing a pic of anarchists breaking windows. When i pointed out to you that they were a small number of anarchists the day before the march,, you react with a huge pic of a red-and-black flag, saying this is the flag of anarcho-communism (who were violently suppressed by the Communists in their day – which was a very long time ago). What am I supposed to say? Get into a discussion of anarchist flags, point out that the pics I saw were of these clowns carrying black flags, not black-and-red flags? You reduce the thread to an absurdity. I’m not prepared to spend a lifetime answering such poionts, and then trying to answer other oddities raised as a result.
You then read all sorts of things into tweets by Linda Sarsour, one of the three organisers, claiming that two million people marched under the influence of a jihadi plot. The fact that she was brought in as a face to represent the Muslim community in America as an attempt at inclusiveness (why is the Latina woman organiser not as important in your posts – she’s not mentioned) isn’t looked at.
The fact that some Muslims demonstrated in Germany chanting ‘allahu akbar’ is then brought in – what in hell is that supposed to mean> There are many Muslims in Germany, Muslims hate the Chump, should they have been kept out in the way that Chump is planning to keep out anyone form some Muslim countries? One person says it’s all right to hit a Nazi, and this is held out as encouraging violence?? What world are you living in? many people say Nazis have to be met with violence because their whole tactics are violent. I’m more worried that Chump should endorse one of his supporters who decked a black protestor at his meeting, and encouraged others to do the same. Chump’s language is extraordinarily aggressive and provocative.
So what is your answer to Martin’s comment
that march was 2 million strong – it dwarfed the Chump inaugural ceremonies. Great! The protest in Chicago was so big that the organisers had to give up the march part of the event. In Washington, there were so many people that the overflow just swamped the downtown areas.
I don’t understand why people care about the size of Trump’s crowd size. D.C. voted 92% Clinton, and it was raining. So it would be expected that not many people there wanted to attend.
And that is all the Trump White House needed to say. What did they say, though?
You seem more Chump than Chump, drac.
drac, I’m not willfully misreading your posts, but I’m ceasing to take them seriously.
Scep, your entire post is just a demonstration of how you are misreading what I have said.
You claimed Communists were behind the march, showing a pic of anarchists breaking windows.
No, I didn’t. I said that one of the organisers of the march was an islamist. Which you know I talked about because to mention her later. I just said that communists were there, not that they were behind it.
When i pointed out to you that they were a small number of anarchists the day before the march,, you react with a huge pic of a red-and-black flag, saying this is the flag of anarcho-communism (who were violently suppressed by the Communists in their day – which was a very long time ago).
You said they weren’t communists because they had black flags, so I showed you the flag they were carrying (which was a communist flag).
You then read all sorts of things into tweets by Linda Sarsour, one of the three organisers, claiming that two million people marched under the influence of a jihadi plot.
I’m not reading anything into them, they are very specific and clear on what she thinks about Sharia law.
The fact that she was brought in as a face to represent the Muslim community in America as an attempt at inclusiveness (why is the Latina woman organiser not as important in your posts – she’s not mentioned) isn’t looked at.
Because as far as I know of she doesn’t promote Sharia law, or attack muslims who want to reform Islam over social media (which Linda has done).
The fact that some Muslims demonstrated in Germany chanting ‘allahu akbar’ is then brought in – what in hell is that supposed to mean> There are many Muslims in Germany, Muslims hate the Chump, should they have been kept out in the way that Chump is planning to keep out anyone form some Muslim countries?
Moderate muslims don’t go around chanting ‘allahu akbar’ in public. I showed that video because you want to pretend that there isn’t any islamist infulence in the protests.
One person says it’s all right to hit a Nazi, and this is held out as encouraging violence??
A newspaper isn’t one person.
What world are you living in? many people say Nazis have to be met with violence because their whole tactics are violent.
Incitement to violence is a crime, anyone who says that is breaking the law and I would fully support them being punished for it.
The fact that you defend this practice astounds me, who defines which people are nazis? Some people would describe me as a nazi, does that mean it is okay for them to be violent towards me?
I’m more worried that Chump should endorse one of his supporters who decked a black protestor at his meeting, and encouraged others to do the same. Chump’s language is extraordinarily aggressive and provocative.
Is there any evidence at all that would suggest that Trump would do this?
So what is your answer to Martin’s comment
I answered Martin’s comment already, I think the way that the Trump administration handled the issue was childish.
I don’t think you’re looking at any arguments
What are the arguments I haven’t looked at?
You seem more Chump than Chump, drac.
This was my point about labeling people as nazis. I think the only policy positions we share are cancelling TTP and restricting islamist immigration, and I certainly don’t share any personality traits with him.
I don’t even oppose TPP for the same reasons as him, I am in favour of free trade. I just don’t like the private arbitration courts, and the ability for companies to sue governments for undercutting them with public services (i.e the NHS).
Apparently the British version of “sharia” law, called the extremely secretive “family courts” is much more civilized and so preferable. Where women who have been victims of the most horrendous crimes are forced to face their violent ex partners and relive the horrendous experiences they have been through. Including having to negotiate with extremely violent and dangerous men with restraining orders against them. Continually waffling on about “sharia” law as if it is somehow more barbaric, is clearly ludicrous in a patriarchal society dominated by men.
Are you seriously implying that because wages tend to be higher regarding male employees, that is preferable to sharia law which includes
Those engaged in sodomy (homosexuality) will be sentenced to death, along with those who ‘spy for the unbelievers’.
Those who steal ‘as part of banditry’ will have their right hand and left leg cut off, and the punishment for terrorising people is exile.
Some Islamic law calls for the death penalty for any woman found in the company of a man other than a close family member. Sexual activity is assumed to have happened. A woman, Jamila, was found guilty of trying to leave the country with such a man. She was caught and stoned to death on 1996-MAR-28.</p>
Hilarious stuff trying to promote sharia as a “preferable alternative to civilised lifeScept I feel like you’re misunderstanding not just Drac but Trump and I don’t know who else. The whole point of balance of power and transparency is that people can’t be trusted to handle too much abuse. People just learn to fake things so much to the core that bad people, like Nazis in the past, won’t even admit to themselves and never others that they hate people or that they hate some abuse they’re going through or have gone through until they have to actually *do* something- and usually actions out of desperation and the easy fix of focusing on common “enemy” rather than problems within themselves and among each other of what is keeping people from feeling united. Making things about sides is so much more easy than doing introspection or writing/talking about feelings. And it’s more easy to idolize someone’s decisions than know what people themselves think and like. It’s fun to be overwhelmed with ideas from different people and making thinking a game, along with knowing what people like, which money and businesses are all about, without the emotional abuse of lying to ourselves about altruistic actions. I just feel like if people can’t trust themselves with power without the distrust and paranoia of others in the bad way, then they don’t deserve power no matter how much they can fool people. Because smartness and perfectionism isn’t as important as morals and doing what’s moral.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!