WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Not if that law hurts our military, as DADT surely does. It limits the military's potential. In that case, the law should be repealed and if nothing else, violated over and over until it is.
DADT possible repeal in 2010
- Thread starter Thoreau
- Start date
Not if that law hurts our military, as DADT surely does. It limits the military's potential. In that case, the law should be repealed and if nothing else, violated over and over until it is.
You're doing a Super Job!
Yet I still think it's tragic that pathetic, useless cysts on the asshole of life who think they're somehow smart, and would better serve the world by converting themselves to fertilizer can remind us rational folk of how precious human life can fail to be.
I would prefer that the pathetic, useless, diseased minds plaguing humanity could actually be of some useful service, but those poor excuses for life simply aren't capable of being those things.
So we accommodate them, as best we can, as we do with the decent, harmless retards.
Norsefire said:
Yet I still think it's tragic that pathetic, useless cysts on the asshole of life who think they're somehow smart, and would better serve the world by converting themselves to fertilizer can remind us rational folk of how precious human life can fail to be.
I would prefer that the pathetic, useless, diseased minds plaguing humanity could actually be of some useful service, but those poor excuses for life simply aren't capable of being those things.
So we accommodate them, as best we can, as we do with the decent, harmless retards.
You seem to be fine with violating the law when it suits your needs, but I am sure you wouldn't like others violating the law when it hurts you. Psychopath.
Exactly. But there's other solutions for them: camps, and perhaps scientific uses (like experimentation)
Sure is a heck of alot more rational.
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
Nay, I believe in violating oppressive laws that are harmful to people who never did a single bad thing to hurt anybody, collectively speaking. When the law becomes your enemy, then the law is oppressive and needs to be disobeyed.
Nobody is forcing you to watch
There are certainly uses for such people, but I'm one of those who accepts the proposition of human rights.
And I'll tell you a rational way to cure cancer while we're at it: Everybody stops having sex.
A rational way to never die? Don't be born.
The human species, however, is inclined by nature to perpetuate itself. Nature defines what is rational far better than any human can. And certainly, turning retarded people into lab rats might sound rational, but it is also necessarily myopic. There is a reason why so many people, despite disagreeing about the actual figure, believe human life has certain value.
It's not that I'm not sympathetic to the emotional conditions of bigots, but I just don't think emotional dysfunction is the best state for making important decisions about life, death, humanity, or society, among other things.
I realize that some people are disgusted by seeing two men together. There's a perfectly rational solution to that: Don't watch them fuck.
It's really fucking simple. Keep your nose out of their bedrooms and you're less likely to accidentally plant it in someone's ass.
But if it's too fucking much to ask that someone not go out of their way to disgust themselves, I don't really fucking care what dumbassed excuse they come up with for their pathetic hatred.
It's like the whole thing with morons and television. If you don't want to see it, don't fucking watch. Is that somehow too complicated for you to understand?
Norsefire said:
There are certainly uses for such people, but I'm one of those who accepts the proposition of human rights.
And I'll tell you a rational way to cure cancer while we're at it: Everybody stops having sex.
A rational way to never die? Don't be born.
The human species, however, is inclined by nature to perpetuate itself. Nature defines what is rational far better than any human can. And certainly, turning retarded people into lab rats might sound rational, but it is also necessarily myopic. There is a reason why so many people, despite disagreeing about the actual figure, believe human life has certain value.
It's not that I'm not sympathetic to the emotional conditions of bigots, but I just don't think emotional dysfunction is the best state for making important decisions about life, death, humanity, or society, among other things.
I realize that some people are disgusted by seeing two men together. There's a perfectly rational solution to that: Don't watch them fuck.
It's really fucking simple. Keep your nose out of their bedrooms and you're less likely to accidentally plant it in someone's ass.
But if it's too fucking much to ask that someone not go out of their way to disgust themselves, I don't really fucking care what dumbassed excuse they come up with for their pathetic hatred.
It's like the whole thing with morons and television. If you don't want to see it, don't fucking watch. Is that somehow too complicated for you to understand?
I quite agree. However, the problem is that people have different opinions of which laws are oppressive; I consider Obama's proposals extremely oppressive. So, can I break the law now? Pretty please?
That's irrational. It's more rational to remove those things which are threats and boundaries to progress.
A value that cannot be demonstrated to be true, and is in fact a religious thought; it is best, therefore, to shed such thoughts and instead accept rationality in the interest of efficiency, no?
I agree. So let's not let liberal bigots get into power.
Nope. I agree.
no its hate you can pretend other wise but its hate.
there is no law that prohibits gays from serving. your usual standard i see.
Nonsense. I don't have to hate people to find their practices uncomfortable.
You're failing on all counts
Progress is a human measurement. Remove humans, there is no need to measure progress. Remove human rights, and you'll set back progress at the very least, if not eliminate humanity altogether.
Now you're trying to turn evolution into a religion?
I don't like bigots of any stripe. Like you, for instance. It's hard to figure your politics specifically, since they're transitory and immature, but your bigotry is clear.
I think you should stop trolling.
Then stop trolling.
Indeed, but it requires some sort of hatred to transform that discomfort into the empowerment to hurt or punish them.
You know, it used to be popular, in the face of bigotry, to say, "I'm not prejudiced! I have _____ friends!" Black, gay, Jewish, Muslim ... whatever. Fill in the blank.
These days it's getting more and more popular for bigots to claim to be for the rights of the people they wish to oppress. They say stupid things like, "Which is why I am fairly pro-(whatever) rights," while arguing to justify inequality.
I find plenty of people's practices uncomfortable. And, yes, some days I would prefer that they just went away. But there's not much I can do to make that happen.
And, in the end, plenty of people want to be hateful, but resent being called hateful. They resent the idea that they should be described according to their behavior.
Poor them.
Norsefire said:
Progress is a human measurement. Remove humans, there is no need to measure progress. Remove human rights, and you'll set back progress at the very least, if not eliminate humanity altogether.
Now you're trying to turn evolution into a religion?
I don't like bigots of any stripe. Like you, for instance. It's hard to figure your politics specifically, since they're transitory and immature, but your bigotry is clear.
I think you should stop trolling.
Then stop trolling.
Indeed, but it requires some sort of hatred to transform that discomfort into the empowerment to hurt or punish them.
You know, it used to be popular, in the face of bigotry, to say, "I'm not prejudiced! I have _____ friends!" Black, gay, Jewish, Muslim ... whatever. Fill in the blank.
These days it's getting more and more popular for bigots to claim to be for the rights of the people they wish to oppress. They say stupid things like, "Which is why I am fairly pro-(whatever) rights," while arguing to justify inequality.
I find plenty of people's practices uncomfortable. And, yes, some days I would prefer that they just went away. But there's not much I can do to make that happen.
And, in the end, plenty of people want to be hateful, but resent being called hateful. They resent the idea that they should be described according to their behavior.
Poor them.
No but you do to deny them basic rights.
Yet I am not talking about removing humans, but rather incapable and regressive humans. Keep the good ones.
Not at all, but rather, I am saying that holding humans as sacred is religious, irrational thinking.
I'm not trolling. My politics are pretty simple; haven't I made my opinion abundantly clear in the long while that I've been here?
Maybe you should stop being a bigot.
Sure.
Once again, your narrow mindset shines clear as day...but you're right, I am justifying inequality. I am saying that I do support gay rights but I can understand the mindset of those who don't, and I can see that it is an irrelevant issue at any rate. Nobody is entitled to any rights.
Of course you can. Get into power, and go from there.
Exactly. When I hate a group of people, I say it.
Your hatred is without function
Like, oh, say, blondes?
Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself among the incapable and regressive?
Your own leap is religious, irrational thinking.
It's your lack of knowledge and logic that renders you a troll.
Like that. Nobody I've ever encountered who argues that those who reject bigotry are bigots has ever been able to resolve the basic contradiction. So, I'm sorry. That you cannot oppress people does not mean you're oppressed.
Yet you justify oppression.
I can understand their argument and mindset, too. And it's superstitious, fearful, and hostile. There's nothing noble or respectable about it. The best we can say of some bigots is that they are victims of those who taught them such hatred.
True, everyone wants, at some level, a tyrant's power. But some of us also realize the futility of it. There's no future in it.
Perhaps it might be fair to say that when you recognize and comprehend that you hate a group of people, you say it. But there is nothing about your arguments, which you have made abundantly clear over time, that suggests you comprehend the dimensions of your own hatred.
Norsefire said:
Like, oh, say, blondes?
Just out of curiosity, do you consider yourself among the incapable and regressive?
Your own leap is religious, irrational thinking.
It's your lack of knowledge and logic that renders you a troll.
Like that. Nobody I've ever encountered who argues that those who reject bigotry are bigots has ever been able to resolve the basic contradiction. So, I'm sorry. That you cannot oppress people does not mean you're oppressed.
Yet you justify oppression.
I can understand their argument and mindset, too. And it's superstitious, fearful, and hostile. There's nothing noble or respectable about it. The best we can say of some bigots is that they are victims of those who taught them such hatred.
True, everyone wants, at some level, a tyrant's power. But some of us also realize the futility of it. There's no future in it.
Perhaps it might be fair to say that when you recognize and comprehend that you hate a group of people, you say it. But there is nothing about your arguments, which you have made abundantly clear over time, that suggests you comprehend the dimensions of your own hatred.
Hopefully not.
I'm an atheist and moral relativist, so I doubt it.
I have plenty of knowledge and logic; and on top of it, I'm humble and never resort to calling people backwards or bigots for disagreeing with me. Okay, so I did it to you.........but that was probably my first time; and yet you do it all the time. That's true trolling.
I didn't say those who rejected bigotry were bigots. This is all getting besides the point; read my "Bigotry and Open-mindedness" thread. It's useful as I explain how one can be open-minded and intolerant, and that one can be intolerant and not necessarily be a bigot. There's a fundamental that makes one open-minded, but open-minded people don't have to be tolerant.
Call it what you will, but I do believe, yes, that a society can and should protect its own cultural interests if it wants to.
And yet there's a future in the ball game of politics, going back and forth?
You're probably right.........because I don't hate anyone.
Spøkball!
You hope you don't consider yourself among the incapable and regressive?
Yeah, that means a lot.
You ought to use it sometime.
The idea of you as humble is laughable, to say the least. And you're going to have to come up with something a little less stale than the "calling people names for disagreeing". The problem isn't disagreement. The problem is the actual arugment, which is vapid, myopic, irrational, presumptive, and unsupported.
I've always wondered why truth is considered insulting or trolling.
You argue in favor of oppression. You repeat yourself over and over with no genuine regard for the counterpoints. These are signs of bigotry, repeated over and over as you make your positions abundantly clear over time.
If you don't like being thought of as being a bigot, don't be a bigot. If being a bigot is that important to you, then take the lump with pride.
I oppose your bigotry. You accused me of being a bigot for doing so.
You mean the one you wrote to tell us how open-minded you are?
You know, you're right. When someone comes along and asserts the argument for the thousandth time, ignoring the fact that it has been smacked down all nine hundred and ninety-nine times it has been previously argued, they have every reason to expect that people should stop and give careful consideration to their reiteration of a debunked thesis.
Sorry, Norsefire, but when people have heard the argument enough times already, and you bring nothing new to it, they're going to cut to the chase.
There's a difference between protecting cultural interests, to the one, and culling and segregation to the other.
Actually, yes.
Sure, Norse. Whatever you say. You've shown yourself so reliable. That's why you'll cull them with love.
Norsefire said:
You hope you don't consider yourself among the incapable and regressive?
Yeah, that means a lot.
You ought to use it sometime.
The idea of you as humble is laughable, to say the least. And you're going to have to come up with something a little less stale than the "calling people names for disagreeing". The problem isn't disagreement. The problem is the actual arugment, which is vapid, myopic, irrational, presumptive, and unsupported.
I've always wondered why truth is considered insulting or trolling.
You argue in favor of oppression. You repeat yourself over and over with no genuine regard for the counterpoints. These are signs of bigotry, repeated over and over as you make your positions abundantly clear over time.
If you don't like being thought of as being a bigot, don't be a bigot. If being a bigot is that important to you, then take the lump with pride.
I oppose your bigotry. You accused me of being a bigot for doing so.
You mean the one you wrote to tell us how open-minded you are?
You know, you're right. When someone comes along and asserts the argument for the thousandth time, ignoring the fact that it has been smacked down all nine hundred and ninety-nine times it has been previously argued, they have every reason to expect that people should stop and give careful consideration to their reiteration of a debunked thesis.
Sorry, Norsefire, but when people have heard the argument enough times already, and you bring nothing new to it, they're going to cut to the chase.
There's a difference between protecting cultural interests, to the one, and culling and segregation to the other.
Actually, yes.
Sure, Norse. Whatever you say. You've shown yourself so reliable. That's why you'll cull them with love.