Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

So the atheist "movement"...

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
So the atheist "movement"...
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2628Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:You did call him alt-right you pathological liar. Many times.


Fuck off you drooling numpty. I did nothing of the sort - I just went along with one of your numerous red herrings.

Given that you are calling me a 'pathological liar', it's funny how you can't find a single instance to support your inane bullshit... look....

Tree wrote:Need I remind you of the earlier exchange:

I said: "We really need to stop this trend of accusing people of racism and sexism on flimsy evidence. It's getting silly and it makes you look like the boy who cried wolf."
You replied: "What we need to do is counter the trend of alt-right fuckheads being racist and sexist then whining when their behavior is accurately labelled as such."

Context reminder: This was about Sargon of Akkad.

Given the context this implies you think Sargon of Akkad is alt-right. Do not deny it.


So even though you call me a pathological liar, you can't even cite a quote of me saying it!

Oh you blind moron. You really are unable to separate the world according to the gospel of Tree, and the actual world which isn't part of your febrile delusions.


Tree wrote:You also said about Sargon: "If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and shits all over everything that ducks shit on... then even if it has a bad day where it doesn't want to be a duck, it's still a fucking duck." This was in response to me dismissing the notion of him being alt-right. So yet again, claiming he's alt-right.


Again, you are either fucking stupid or just mendacious beyond sanity.

But I do understand the motivation for your red herrings now, so I will make sure to pull you up on each and every one of them.


Tree wrote:I also asked clarification:

"In what way is he alt-right?"

You could have just said something to the effect of "he is not alt-right" or "I don't believe he's alt-right" but instead you provided more useless information that doesn't prove anything.


As anyone with even half a functioning brain would comprehend through reading my posts, I am actually answering the question you posed in the OP, and have been answering it throughout.

If SoA is endorsed by the white supremacist neo-Nazis due to the content of his speech, and if he calls a group of women 'whores', then it's pretty clear why he might not be welcome at an event that seeks to include more sets of people than just angsty, white, middle class wankers.

As I said to half a dozen times, but you keep ignoring preferring your fantasy gotchas, it doesn't matter if SoA is actually sexist or alt-right in terms of his own beliefs, but if he caters to them, provides them a platform, and argues on their behalf, then why shouldn't people take him at his word?

Don't bother replying - you've shown you lack any degree of competence to respond to this. It remains the point you are desperate to obfuscate.



Tree wrote:
But go on, how is there such a thing as an 'antifa professor'?


You know, your ignorant ass could have just googled something like "antifa professor bike lock" and the article would have come up.


Well, I could have performed tricks on command, but you'll quickly note that I am under no obligation to cite your sources for you, moron.


Tree wrote:http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/24/berkeley-college-professor-arrested-as-assault-suspect/

You're welcome.


Feel free to do that whenever you make a claim.

Regardless, to run back through your whataboutism point:

1) I didn't 'forget' something I never heard of.
2) Your own sources says 'former professor' - little details like that are very convenient to ignore.
3) Your own source doesn't call him an 'antifa professor' which is the phrase you used, and which I laughed at you for. How is one an antifa professor anyway?
4) He's a dick, but your whataboutism is being used to distract from a white-supremacist neo-Nazi driving a car into a crowd of people.



Tree wrote:
Further, does this whataboutism distract from the inherent violence of white supremacy neo-Nazism for you? I doubt it does for anyone else here.


No, it's about applying the same standards for everyone.


Whataboutism is absolutely not about applying the same standards for everyone - it's about obfuscation and misdirection.


Tree wrote:If you want to blame Sargon because bad person X endorses him, then I expect you to say the same about Corbyn or Sanders or whoever else gets endorsed by bad person Y or Z.


What is your fascination with Corbyn and Sanders? You realize that they're not my guys just because you don't like them, right? Given your blind ideological wittering, I doubt you grasp this at all.

Regardless, as much as you're trying to deflect and obfuscate, the reason the neo-Nazis endorse SoA, according to their own explanation of why they do so, is because he says things consonant with their ideological positions. Ergo, the endorsement is of the content of his beliefs, or at least the content of what he declares his beliefs, not just an endorsement because he's handsome, or has a nice beard.

Secondly, as you've already had explained before, the tu quoque whataboutism strategy still requires you to acknowledge that something bad has happened, ergo you are tacitly acknowledging that white-supremacist neo-Nazis endorsing SoA is a bad thing, or else the object of your whataboutism loses its genetic basis.

This is what Hack and I are laughing about. For all your rampant hand-waving and chest-beating, you are actually acknowledging each and every thing I've written, even while aggressively rejecting it and crapping on the table of honest discourse.



Tree wrote:You probably won't because you probably like those guys.


See?

Tree, once again, pretending he knows me better than I know me. We all know what the motivation for such a stupid error is: vacuous prejudice being used in place of thought.



Tree wrote: So if antifa or other communist figures endorse Sanders or Corbyn you don't mind that.


As I've already said, I don't consider 'communism' to be a boogeyman, so it would depend a lot on who it was, and why they were endorsing them. If the person endorsing them was an evil shit with a vicious ideology, and that evil shit said in their endorsement that the motivation was because these guys were embodying what the evil shit's vicious ideology claims, and that they're leading people towards that vicious ideology... then damn right I'd consider that problematic for them, assuming of course that it was an accurate rendition of whatever it is they'd said.

But again, whataboutism. If you want to claim that antifa endorsing someone is bad, then you are admitting that white-supremacist neo-Nazis endorsing SoA with respect to the content of his public messages is also bad. And it answers your question in the OP.

But let's be honest, you don't care about the question posed in the OP. This thread is just a stalking horse for you to expound on your dreary industrialized view of human society and hate on people who don't genuflect.



Tree wrote: I've never seen a single leftist so far reflect on that, not even the more reasonable ones.


A single leftist reflect on your whataboutism?

Why would they?



Tree wrote:
the inherent violence of white supremacy neo-Nazism


The same holds true for antifa. It's an inherently violent movement and it can't create anything but further violence if allowed to flourish.


Who's endorsing antifa?

We all know that this is a red herring of a red herring, and your original claim was trying to equate atheism plus and white-supremacist neo-Nazis! :lol:



Tree wrote:How many times must I explain to you that both things are undesirable. Just like both AIDS and inoperable cancer. Nobody knows for certain which worse, but both end in death and misery.


Unfortunately, there's a bit more to it than that. Antifa is a nasty reaction to an even nastier problem. When white-supremacist neo-Nazis can wander round with torches chanting about niggers and Jews, then people are going to fight back. That's not justifying violence - I wish it would be peaceful, but given that just a couple of generations ago, we spent the lives of millions of our own defending against this vicious ideology, and given the content of their beliefs puts many of us all in danger, it's easy to see why it provokes violence. It's a reaction, an undesirable one, but it's reacting to something even less desirable.


Tree wrote:
It's amazing how frequently you have tried this tu quoque fallacy in just one thread of a few pages.


I'm just holding your side to the same standards.


No, no, no. That's not what you're doing, as has been shown a dozen times in this thread.

Also, I don't have a side - I am just me.


Tree wrote:You're not wrong on Sargon being alt-right because "antifa is just as bad", that's not my argument. You're wrong on Sargon being alt-right because the information you presented doesn't show that he is alt-right.


As I've written now a good 7 or 8 times, and which everyone else will have read, and which consequently shows you are not really in this for honest discussion.... it doesn't matter if SoA is X, but if he expounds X, gives X a home, is endorsed by ardent believers in X because of the content of his stated positions.... then whether he's X or just someone pretending to be X is irrelevant with respect to people against X giving him a platform.

It doesn't matter if you can't grasp this, I can keep on telling you as long as it's necessary.



Tree wrote:
Been counting them, have you?

Whatabout communism?


That's not whataboutism.


Yes, it factually is.


Tree wrote: It is a perfectly reasonable response to a person who thinks "white supremacy neo-Nazism" is a danger but Communism is not...


And this is a repeated strawman. You have tried this three times already, and each time I've asked you to cite where I said anything remotely like this.

Of course, you can't.

You know why you can't? Because I never said it.

So whence does it come? From Tree's vacuous prejudice and obfuscation, that's where! :)


Tree wrote: and just dismisses it as a "boogeyman"


Of course, that didn't happen either. I called it YOUR boogeyman because of the way you use the term Communist as they did in the 1950's McCarthyism era. My point, of course, as anyone could see by reading what I wrote, rather than your deluded rendition of my position, is that people like you always find groups to hate - it's the only way you tools can find yourselves an identity!



Tree wrote: or lies that antifa is merely a group of vandals and have nothing to do with an ideology.


Ironically, a lie on your part claiming that I am lying, when I said nothing of the sort.



Tree wrote:
By maintaining their values, humanity, compassion and empathy in the legal part of the fabric of the nation.


Migrate legally then.


DACA kids didn't migrate illegally, because they were too young to be held responsible.


Tree wrote:
Regardless, when the point is about the plight of millions of people, then even if you maintain a sociopathic lack of empathy, that doesn't mean that empathy, humanity and compassion are wrong. It just means you're morally and emotionally stunted.


Fuck off.


Aww the widdle guy's upset.

I think you'll find that a hateful cunt like you isn't welcome anywhere except with his fellow hateful cunts. So the fucking off is very much on your side.


Tree wrote: The US isn't obligated to take care of the world's problems at its own expense.


Red herring / strawman

No one suggested that the US is obligated to do so. It is, however, obligated to deal with refugees according to the convention it's a part of.


Tree wrote: Immigrants are expected to contribute and integrate.


The vast majority do, but Tree thinks he's the judge, jury, and executioner.


Tree wrote:There is a system in place if you want to migrate to the US or just go there as a tourist, follow that or don't come at all. It won't be easy, but no country can realistically take in unlimited number of immigrants.


This is all a red herring.

We were talking about DACA kids, not about all illegal immigration.

Each time you've tried this, each time I've pointed it out.


Tree wrote:
Quick explanation for the moronic: when nations are economically depressed, their people still try their best to find ways to feed, clothe, and provide for their kids. This sometimes involves going to another country for work where it is better paid, and where more jobs are available.


Again, there's a system in place for that to ensure things actually go smoothly, or at least as smoothly as possible.

Just because you don't like to follow the rules doesn't mean the people who made those rules are "sociopaths". Maybe you're the real sociopath for thinking you're entitled to walk into a party you were never invited to, against everyone else's wishes.


As everyone can see: your response is a complete non-sequitur because you're not actually paying any attention to what I write, just in finding ways to beat your chest ineffectually at me.

The supposed system in place is not capable of addressing the millions of DACA kids, which is why under the previous administration they tried to fix this glaring problem. That, of course, has been tossed out by a xenophobic lunatic to maintain support among his xenophobic lunatic supporters.

Of course, you didn't make the rules, so this is not what makes you appear to be a sociopath. The sociopathic quality of your posts is how little shit you give about real people facing real hardship, just so long as you're alright Jack.


Tree wrote:Furthermore, there are almost 200 other countries to migrate to and you also have the option, in theory at least, of making your own country more like the United States.


And more red herrings.

Desperate people seeking a place where they can put food on the table, a roof over their heads, and not fear gangs and extortion need those things now... not after an extensive committee meeting to resolve the wrongs in their nation, to put into place new structures, and change their entire national make-up. Factually, of course, those refugees, the desperate people leaving their country have no say in any of these processes, and need to eat now.

But Jack's alright, so let's just ask them to wait to eat until we can fix their entire nation.


Tree wrote: The blueprint for a successful nation is there. Vote a new government, sign a new constitution (my recommendation is just to copy/paste the American one if you really have no idea how to make a successful nation), start a revolution, I don't fucking care. You do what you think is best, just don't export your problems elsewhere and expect foreigners to fix them.


Alternatively, we the people are actually very happy to be good neighbours with you, and aside from the sociopathic vicious morons in our nation, we empathize with your plight. We know you DACA kids, you will contribute more to our society than you will take, you already are Americans in every way relevant, and we do not wish to abandon all sense of humanity, all our moral values in throwing you out. Don't worry, there's a blueprint for a successful nation here, and all we have to do is vote in a new government and get rid of these xenophobic throw-backs to the 1950's and we'll be back on track. Your problems are our problems when you live here, and are still our problem even if you come into our nation illegally as refugees, not just because we signed conventions pledging to treat people with compassion, but because we're factually all in this together. One speck of dust, floating in space, and no other humans to be found in the countless trillions of square miles aside from here, our shared home. We'll fix it, don't worry - the Trees of this world present just a minor bump in the ever expanding circle of empathy and equality.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:40 am
SparhafocPosts: 2628Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:The message on the Statute of Liberty has no legal bearing whatsoever...


Red herring! :)

Where did I say it has 'legal bearing'?

Oh wait, I didn't. So straight away we're back to Tree emoting at me. What a surprise.


Tree wrote:and you also forgot about the fine print that says "yearning to be free", NOT yearning too leech off a country without any real loyalty to it or respect for its laws.


Your capitulation of foreigner born migrants is indicative of a rabid xenophobe, and of course, no one except crackpots would take such a capitulation as being a reflection of reality, rather only a reflection of what passes in you for humanity.


Tree wrote:
Goose? Gander wants a word!

European settlers still immigrated to a land that was not their own and took it by force.


It was not immigration. Immigration implies there's already a country in place. It's as nonsensical as saying "immigrate to Mars". The correct term is "settlement" on Mars.

It wasn't theirs but it didn't fully belong to the Native Americans either. Most of it was a no-man's land and when you have a no-man's land it's first come first served. The same principle should be applied to say Mars settlement, hypothetically speaking cause I don't know if we'll ever colonize Mars successfully. You own only the part that you actually tap into and transform through your work, so any settlement you build, any resources you spend some effort to collect - those are yours, no more. You don't own the freaking planet in its entirety just because you landed the first shuttle. Property is (at least originally, I'm not talking about buying) acquired through labor by transforming the world around you, not close proximity alone.


:lol:

Comedy gold.


Tree wrote:See John Locke's labor theory of property.


Initially, I was wondering if that was what you were appealing to, but I already realized it was when you started foaming at the mouth about working the land.

So what you're saying is that an 18th century doctrine of imperialism is your platform for justifying ownership?


Tree wrote:Given that the entire US has been tapped into by now, people have built an extensive network of roads and infrastructure and even the wilderness is maintained by rangers to some degree and the limits of the US are clearly marked for everyone to know when they're trespassing - you're shit out of luck. But that's true for most places on Earth.






Tree wrote:Don't like it? Colonize Antarctica or the bottom of the ocean. Good luck.


I haz red herrings!


Tree wrote:
Yes, yes, you want to claim that the land was free for the taking before and it's not now, but it's how thin your justification is.


Did pre-settlement North American territory have any kind of extensive infrastructure built in place?


Some did, but that's irrelevant. In the modern world, we don't judge ownership based on the level of infrastructure development.

I already parodied this before with the Do You Have a Flag comment a dozen posts ago, but do continue showing how predictable you are.


Tree wrote:Did it have a central government, an army? A police force? Fucking park rangers even?


And in the modern world, we don't judge ownership based on any of these.


Tree wrote:A national creed even like say a declaration of independence?


Yeah, still a non-sequitur, and while this might make a good topic of discussion if you were capable of honest discussion (for example, there's a good argument that hunter-gatherers actively work the land), it's still just empty blagging on your part and can be shown as such immediately: if I found a patch of land in the USA that had never been worked, wasn't fenced, and had no immediate oversight - what would happen if I declared it a new nation? Herein lies the real truth, I'd get shat on by big guns, because ultimately it's force that dictates the borders, force that dictates ownership, and force that deprived the natives of their historical land, not any of these 18th century ad hoc rationalisations.


Tree wrote: No. It didn't. How about just fucking satellite coverage? Nope, didn't even exist. Not the same shit. Things have drastically changed these days.


:lol: :lol:

Oh you don't even know how funny you are.


Tree wrote:Do whatever you want... at the bottom of the ocean.


Yeah, you don't understand how states legitimize ownership of territory in the modern world, do you?



Tree wrote:PS: It would help if you want to lecture people on Tu quoque to stop using it, it would make you a far more credible teacher.


:D

The funny thing is that, even with the best teachers, there are always morons who think they know better, who don't listen, cause disturbances, and generally refuse to learn.

Sometimes, the way to get through to such people is to use an object lesson.

The really stupid ones still won't get it. But much fun will be had by everyone else observing them genetically contradicting all the arguments they'e made.



Tree wrote:Cause even if there was a country called the USA founded by Native Americans with a vast infrastructure and invaded by the eeevil Europeans and conquered by them - that still wouldn't justify illegal immigration in the present day.


TA DAAA!!!! :lol:

Thanks Tree. I actually told you in advance I would do this, but so up your own arse are you that you didn't even notice! :lol:

It's rather telling how you can recognize whataboutism when someone else does it, and of course, you are insistent that it's wrong and doesn't affect the argument the whataboutism is being employed to evade. But, of course, your own numerous iterations are to be taken seriously, and you will argue them belligerently never acknowledging your errors.

We predicted you'd perform exactly as you have, so thanks for not letting us down!

Of course, hypocrites are always easy to predict, so no big surprise there! :)


Tree wrote:These are the current borders, don't like them, blah blah blah blah blah.


Or, of course, we call simply agree to redraw them, or in fact, do away with them all together. Or are you saying that's not possible in a democracy? Are you saying it's not possible not to have the exact borders where they are right now?

Oh and red herring.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Last edited by Sparhafoc on Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:18 am, edited 3 times in total.
Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:01 am
SparhafocPosts: 2628Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Ooh ooh ooh!

One more amusing thing, Tree.

In citing Locke's labour theory of property, did you not, perchance, note any... shall we say... precursors to another well known political thinker who you're a big fan of? :D
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:04 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

1) I called it a boogeyman with respect to you continually erecting it as if it's a demon under the bed, rather than being one of many political systems currently employed by nations around the world.


Maybe calling it a demon under the bed is hyperbolic, but I think that's more accurate than calling it "one of the many political systems" which implies that it's not morally problematic in a unique way that other ideologies aren't.

To be clear, I think it's on par with fascism, that's the best I can describe how bad I think it is. And both fascism and communism are too vile and too careless with individual rights to be given a seat at the table. Just as actual fascists are reviled in mainstream society, so too should communists be.

You may act like capitalism is a religion, and everyone else is a heathen, but no one is obliged to lend your consequent beliefs any respect.


Capitalism is really just word for property rights.

Not saying you can't have some restrictions on it, but if you're fundamentally opposed to property rights, then you're fundamentally opposed to human rights.

If me not wanting to have my property stolen is a "religion" so be it. That's almost as dumb as saying my will to survive is a "religion". I don't think I need to justify to you why I would like to not suffer.

I've cited the difference - your refusal to acknowledge it just means your position is not credible or tenable.


American antifa is no better than European antifa. Both of them dominated by communists and other far leftist types.

Says you, but given your track record at spotting white supremacist neo-Nazis, I am not sure you're much of an authority on the issue.


Here's just a list of people and place protested against by antifa groups:

- G20 meeting - last I checked, most of those countries weren't run by governments who could even be misconstrued as being fascist
- Milo Yiannopoulos
- Donald Trump
- Ben Shapiro

On top of that, there is lots of random property damage in places where antifa protests. Were those shopkeepers "fascist" too?

Where did I say it has 'legal bearing'?


Explain your point then.

So what you're saying is that an 18th century doctrine of imperialism is your platform for justifying ownership?


Explain why you think it's a "doctrine of imperialism".

Is that more of your (denied) left-wing worldview talking?

Some did, but that's irrelevant. In the modern world, we don't judge ownership based on the level of infrastructure development.


So proximity alone gives you ownership?

Explain.

Do I own all of Mars if I happen to land the first manned shuttle?


if I found a patch of land in the USA that had never been worked, wasn't fenced, and had no immediate oversight


Where would this mythical piece of land be? Pretty much everywhere has been touched. The wilderness itself isn't actually that wild anymore and there are 4 different federal agencies overseeing the wilderness.

Red herrring: Achieving more =/= class.


Well that's how far leftists see it. Hence why they like to talk about the "1%" exploiting the 99%.

Because as we all know, people aren't born equal, and the only way in which people could be seen as equal is 'artificial'.

Right? 8-)


People are born with equal rights, not equal abilities and will certainly not have equal outcomes.

What do you believe are the current classes?
Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:31 pm
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 880Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:Mars, that still doesn't show that Sargon is sexist. He could simply be mistaken or not have enough information to make those assumptions reasonably.

That's nice but I wasn't presenting evidence for Sargon's sexism. My remark was:
Tree wrote:about applying the same standards for everyone.


"Sexism: requires evidence" and "Gold-digging whores: His view of what happened is plausible. And maybe he knows something that I don't" are two different standards.

Tree wrote:I don't find anything compelling about ignoring the law simply because someone has been doing an illegal activity for so long he has gotten used to that lifestyle.

I don't find anything compelling about ignoring the law simply because doing so is beneficial to the perpetrator.

By that logic, one could argue Friztl should be let go because that's the kind of sex life he's gotten used to for 24 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case

No, illegal immigration isn't as bad, but it's not a victimless crime either and people need to recognize the numerous issues of people coming unannounced and unaccounted for into a foreign country. There is a pathway in place to do tourism or become an American citizen/resident - if you don't like it go somewhere else.

I hope you're happy about sharing the things you do not find compelling.

"They're not legal residents" still isn't a compelling to me. It's just "they're not born here" reworded.

"They're not legal residents/not born here" might work as a soundbyte but not so much as an argument.
"Slavery is morally ok" -
"I don't know how the burden of proof works in the mind of atheists but I don't have to prove my claims" -
Public information messages from the League of Reason's christians
Tue Nov 28, 2017 3:41 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2628Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Living, an illegal activity according to the Gospel of Tree.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:53 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
leroy wrote:Really? So what if you're a legal citizen and your contribution to the new country would be a net loss for that country because you're just below average as a person or you simply wouldn't fit in? This is something we might be able to find through a legal immigration process. If anyone can just come in any time no questions asked, then we can't know.


You do understand that citizens have a right to be where they are while immigration is a privilege?


My point is that it shouldn´t be that way,


Tree wrote:We aren't even talking about a similar time span. That's 150+ years ago vs. maybe 20.


My point is that individuals should not be punished based on what their ancestors did, whether is the time span is 150 or 20 is irrelevant.


Tree wrote:That would be true if the entire planet was actually operating on free market principles, it is not. In particular, you have dictatorships and very corrupt governments (this is where Mexico would be) constantly violating the non-aggression principle and by doing so distorting the market and creating outcomes that would never be possible in a real free market. If Mexico was a proper free market, in all likelihood, there would be no significant exodus from Mexico.


Irrelevant, it is still a fact that the laws of demand and supply would limit the amount of immigrants.
Tree wrote:This is something libertarians need to understand. The US also has some welfare programs so they would be unsustainable with a massive influx of people.


Granted, immigrants should not have access to those free programs, unless they prove that they are being productive.
Tree wrote:I think countries have a right to pass regulations to protect themselves from the negative effects of that, such as restrictions on immigration or free trade for that matter.




Sure countries have the right, this is not what being discussed, the question is, should they “use” that right? The net contribution of immigrants is positive; immigrants on average contribute positively in the US economy,

If immigration becomes legal and tolerated immigrants would be even more productive, given that they no longer would have to hide from authorities,

Under this basis I say that immigration should be legal for anyone who is not a criminal,.

Tree wrote:

I think that's a low bar to set.

Not having a criminal record barely scratches the surface of what makes someone probably a decent person.


Well in your opinion, what filters should be used?

Criminals don’t care what the law says; they will still sale drugs and kidnap people independently of how high you set the bar.

But by applying harsh filters, you might also filter people who actually where willing to have an honest and productive job.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Nov 28, 2017 7:08 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

leroy wrote:My point is that it shouldn´t be that way,


It sounds to me like you're asking, practically speaking, for the elimination of the concept of citizenship.

I think that's wrong, elected officials were chosen by the citizens and their taxes pay their salaries. Their job is representing the interests and rights and the citizens, it's not the foreigners paying their salary, nor their families. So they need to set policies that pursue the interests and rights and citizens first.

My point is that individuals should not be punished based on what their ancestors did, whether is the time span is 150 or 20 is irrelevant.


That applies to criminal liability, i.e. they won't be charged with crimes. That doesn't mean there won't be other consequences. Deportation doesn't require that you're actually charged with a crime and have a trial on that with a jury blah blah blah. It's a fairly simple executive process of ICE removing people who are not legally in the country. You can appeal it in court, but it's not akin to a criminal trial.

Technically speaking, they can still be held liable for remaining in the country after they're adults and after they've been made aware that they're not legally in the country. Surely you can see how an accident can become a wilful violation of the law.

Let's say I've had stolen property in my backyard since I was a kid and only recently found it. I can't keep it. You could make the case that if I don't report it, I become an accessory after the fact. There are people who receive millions of dollars through a banking error. They can't keep it either and criminal charges have been brought against those trying to use that money.

So it's not even true that they're innocent. They're only innocent up to the point where they know.

Irrelevant, it is still a fact that the laws of demand and supply would limit the amount of immigrants.


That assumes the laws of demand and supply are allowed to work, i.e. you have a government that enforces property rights and other freedoms.

America only has a grip on what happens inside... America. Mexico? Not so much.

Granted, immigrants should not have access to those free programs, unless they prove that they are being productive.


Easier said than done once they start voting Democrat.

Sure countries have the right, this is not what being discussed, the question is, should they “use” that right? The net contribution of immigrants is positive; immigrants on average contribute positively in the US economy,


Only the legal ones do and even that legal process could use improvement.

The illegals - no. They are far more trouble than they're worth and even so, the US could do better. There are qualified people who've been waiting for years to migrate legally and they can't.

I fail to see the point in having 12 million mostly unskilled or low skill labor who also would vote Democrat if given the chance (libertarians take note if you want a smaller government). There are more than enough high school dropouts who could take those jobs and to top it off, that could keep them busy and all but eliminate welfare.

The idea that there are jobs no American will do is silly. They will, if you discourage living on welfare.

I'd even go as far as saying that anyone on welfare who wants to keep welfare should be obligated to spend 8 hours a day in an office, even if they do nothing there. Just keep them there, keep them off the streets doing fuck what knows what, tell them to send resumes and if they don't want to that's fine, but they don't get the benefit of having free time and free shit. (Also if they commit a serious or violent crime, force them to repay every dollar of welfare they've ever received.)

But by applying harsh filters, you might also filter people who actually where willing to have an honest and productive job.


And not having harsh enough filters lead to things like 9/11 (very easily preventable, stop taking people from countries that hate the US), Pulse shooting...

There are 7 billion people on the planet with many wanting to come to the US in particular. There's no shortage and you can afford to be highly selective. The immigrants need the US far more than the US needs immigrants.

I would look into not just level of education and job opportunities but cultural background as well. Not every culture is compatible with American culture. Rather than bring someone into the country who will just end up hating it, it's best not to bother. I don't see for example what possible unique benefit America could get from taking in countless Syrian refugees or people from any of the countries Trump banned.

In a different world maybe we could have had open borders, or at least open borders between countries with similar values. We're a long way from there.
Tue Nov 28, 2017 9:29 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

About this:

Unfortunately, there's a bit more to it than that. Antifa is a nasty reaction to an even nastier problem. When white-supremacist neo-Nazis can wander round with torches chanting about niggers and Jews, then people are going to fight back. That's not justifying violence - I wish it would be peaceful, but given that just a couple of generations ago, we spent the lives of millions of our own defending against this vicious ideology, and given the content of their beliefs puts many of us all in danger, it's easy to see why it provokes violence. It's a reaction, an undesirable one, but it's reacting to something even less desirable.


This is not credible. If millions of live being lost to vicious ideologies is the concern, then antifa would be going after the communists too.

As it stands, antifa movements are mostly communist or some other variety of far left ideology and the few that aren't are useful idiots who happily associate with communists.

I'm not saying you're justifying violence, but you're naive about antifa. There is nothing redeeming about them.
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:46 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
It sounds to me like you're asking, practically speaking, for the elimination of the concept of citizenship.


Yes the concept of citizenship is to me as meaningless as the concept of race. Nobody should be treated differently just because of their citizenship-.
I think that's wrong, elected officials were chosen by the citizens and their taxes pay their salaries. Their job is representing the interests and rights and the citizens, it's not the foreigners paying their salary, nor their families. So they need to set policies that pursue the interests and rights and citizens first.

Most Immigrants are happily willing to pay taxes, most of them what a formal job, more legal inmigrants = more people working in the formal economy = more taxes. Just make illegal immigrants legal and everybody would be happier.


So it's not even true that they're innocent. They're only innocent up to the point where they know.


You are assuming that illigal immigration is intrinsically wrong. I disagree


That assumes the laws of demand and supply are allowed to work, i.e. you have a government that enforces property rights and other freedoms.

America only has a grip on what happens inside... America. Mexico? Not so much.




Irrelevant, the point that I am making is that if too many Mexicans go to USA, their would be vacant jobs in Mexico,

Supply and demand : if there are too many vacant jobs and few workers, salaries increase.

This is why this law of supply and demand limits migration.

Only the legal ones do and even that legal process could use improvement.

The illegals - no. They are far more trouble than they're worth and even so, the US could do better. There are qualified people who've been waiting for years to migrate legally and they can't.


Well then make them legal, it is hard to be productive when the authorities are chasing you.

I fail to see the point in having 12 million mostly unskilled or low skill labor


Let the market decide, if they are low skilled, no one would hire them, they would be jobless and they will go back to their country.

.......... free shit.


Agree, unproductive immigrants should not get free stuff


And not having harsh enough filters lead to things like 9/11 (very easily preventable, stop taking people from countries that hate the US), Pulse shooting...


Again terrorist don’t care about migration laws, they will do their shit regardless of what the law says.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:53 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

leroy wrote:Yes the concept of citizenship is to me as meaningless as the concept of race. Nobody should be treated differently just because of their citizenship.


You do understand that a nation is its citizens. Once you remove that distinction it's only a matter of time until the nation either dies, gets subverted by outside forces or becomes totally unrecognizable culturally, including the values that made it great in the first place and the kind of place so many want to go to. The reason most places aren't like the US is because the people in those countries don't follow the same values that shaped the US. Letting the borders wide open creates chaos.

If you want to preserve the US as it is, you need a limit. Let the best ones come in, integrate them, rinse and repeat. If entire populations can just move over night they won't integrate.

It's not like this hasn't been done before either, many world powers employed mass migration as a weapon. Russia did it in Ukraine, Moldova and other places through a process known as Russification. China did this to Tibet, moving in large numbers of Chinese to dilute the Tibetan culture during their subjugation of Tibet.

Understand one thing, nations are really an extension of the right to freedom of association. People with common values or interests get together and form a group and don't easily allow just anyone in. I don't see why people are entitled to come into a group if they're not wanted.

And the idea that someone who's paid taxes all his life gets to have an equal say as someone who just arrived and hasn't any proven loyalty to the country is a bit perverse. Someone should be legally in the country for at least 5 years before he's treated as everyone else.

Most Immigrants are happily willing to pay taxes, most of them what a formal job, more legal inmigrants = more people working in the formal economy = more taxes. Just make illegal immigrants legal and everybody would be happier.


Not everyone would be happy. Employers employing low skilled labor yes. Landlords maybe, I dunno, I prefer lower rents over dealing with all the issues of mass migration. Regular folks getting caught up in drug altercations - not so much.

You are assuming that illigal immigration is intrinsically wrong. I disagree


It's wrong because you're bypassing every single checkpoint in place. An illegal immigrant is not going to be search for contraband, not going to be screened for diseases, not going to have to prove he can pay his expenses while inside the US, not going through any background. If an accident happens to him on US soil, US hospitals have no choice but to give him emergency care that he probably has no way of paying for.

Also since his presence isn't known, it skews statistics a bit which makes establishing government policy harder.


Irrelevant, the point that I am making is that if too many Mexicans go to USA, their would be vacant jobs in Mexico,


If only the Mexican economy actually worked as intended. Don't count on it due to big government corruption.

Since the US is unable to deal with that being outside its jurisdiction and all, the most it can do is protect itself from the negative effects of foreign government coercion by regulating immigration and free trade so that the distortions in the Mexican market negatively affect US markets as little as possible.

Well then make them legal, it is hard to be productive when the authorities are chasing you.


It's not that simple.

Again terrorist don’t care about migration laws, they will do their shit regardless of what the law says.


It is significantly harder to carry out terrorist attacks on a foreign soil where you're not allowed to come in easily. Unlike Mexico, the countries where most of the terrorists come from don't even share a land with the US, let alone a border.

Even if you somehow get in, you're unlikely to have a support group cause members of that group also don't get in.

And being illegal makes it really hard to wire money without getting caught, so what would the terrorist do? Carry around a big bag of cash and risk getting robbed?

With all the lives lost and the trillions lost, no just damages but extra security costs, extra FBI/CIA costs, extra military intervention costs and more - I think the US can survive blacklisting the most problematic countries. You look at Trump's list, those are all places that harbor hatred of the US and no American would chose to be born in. It's no big loss cutting ties with them and the list should be bigger.
Tue Nov 28, 2017 11:44 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2628Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Easier said than done once they start voting Democrat.


Tree, you're in possession of a full blown religion.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:54 am
SparhafocPosts: 2628Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:You do understand that a nation is its citizens. Once you remove that distinction it's only a matter of time until the nation either dies, gets subverted by outside forces or becomes totally unrecognizable culturally, including the values that made it great in the first place and the kind of place so many want to go to. The reason most places aren't like the US is because the people in those countries don't follow the same values that shaped the US. Letting the borders wide open creates chaos.


International forum, wants to assert American exceptionalism as a fact.

Could have just dropped his trousers and given himself a good, hard tug instead.

The fact that the USA produces people like you in abundance Tree certainly makes it exceptional, but not in a good way. The forces that shaped the USA were subverted a long time ago when corporations became more politically powerful than citizens.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:57 am
SparhafocPosts: 2628Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:About this:

Unfortunately, there's a bit more to it than that. Antifa is a nasty reaction to an even nastier problem. When white-supremacist neo-Nazis can wander round with torches chanting about niggers and Jews, then people are going to fight back. That's not justifying violence - I wish it would be peaceful, but given that just a couple of generations ago, we spent the lives of millions of our own defending against this vicious ideology, and given the content of their beliefs puts many of us all in danger, it's easy to see why it provokes violence. It's a reaction, an undesirable one, but it's reacting to something even less desirable.


This is not credible.


An argument from incredulity doesn't change the facts.


Tree wrote: If millions of live being lost to vicious ideologies is the concern, then antifa would be going after the communists too.


Very few organizations are founded on Whataboutism.


Tree wrote:As it stands, antifa movements are mostly communist or some other variety of far left ideology and the few that aren't are useful idiots who happily associate with communists.


Well, they're on the left, which in the Gospel according to Tree is basically communism anyway.


Tree wrote:I'm not saying you're justifying violence, but you're naive about antifa. There is nothing redeeming about them.


The one redeeming feature is that they are against white-supremacist neo-Nazis, as I already told you.

/cue red herrings about fascism
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:11 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

An argument from incredulity doesn't change the facts.


Not an argument from incredulity as I actually explain in my post why it's not credible. I don't merely assert it.

But keep throwing around accusations of logical fallacies that you barely understand. It makes you look smart I guess.

Very few organizations are founded on Whataboutism.


It's not Whataboutism. You made an assertion "Antifa is a nasty reaction to an even nastier problem," with the problem being that millions died from a vicious ideology.

I provided a counter to that. The idea that antifa is just against vicious ideologies that kill millions is debunked by the fact that they support communism (a vicious ideology that killed millions) or openly associate with communists.

Furthermore, your assertion is also wrong because antifa repeatedly fail to identify actual "white supremacist neo-Nazis".

Or fascists in general for that matter. Antifa is short for anti-fascist, that's what they claim. Yet they go after people who aren't fascists, randomly smash up shops and cars of people who could not possibly be all fascists. Ironically, they ignore Islamic fascism.

The forces that shaped the USA were subverted a long time ago when corporations became more politically powerful than citizens.


The rich influence government in virtually every society around the world.

I'm afraid there really isn't any long-term solution other than cutting the power of the government. If government's ability to grant favors to corporations is removed or severely curtailed, then it will be pointless for those corporations to try to buy the government.

I'm not exactly a libertarian but, just as there is a church-state separation, a business-state separation should be considered as much as possible.

I'm not against regulations, but they should be limited to only what's necessary to prevent coercion or fraud (including coercion and fraud that's coming from other countries). Beyond that, let the market decide winners and losers. Work or food safety standards are fine. Regulating gambling is not. Don't want to lose money don't gamble then. Rent controls are not okay. Don't like the price, fuck off, plenty of other homes to choose from more within your budget. You're also free to try to build more homes or live in a trailer.

The one redeeming feature is that they are against white-supremacist neo-Nazis, as I already told you.


Yeah? Do they want a cookie for that? What percentage of the population do you think is not against "white supremacist neo-Nazis"?

Maybe they should first start being capable of accurately identifying them. Otherwise no cookie.

/cue red herrings about fascism


Why would it be a red herring when antifa claims to stand for anti-fascism?

Well, they're on the left, which in the Gospel according to Tree is basically communism anyway.


Nope, they're radical left, not merely left.
Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:29 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2628Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
An argument from incredulity doesn't change the facts.


Not an argument from incredulity as I actually explain in my post why it's not credible. I don't merely assert it.


In reality, the format of your response was:

argument from incredulity - whataboutism.

Also, arguments from incredulity do not cease to be such just because you add an explanation to them.



Tree wrote:But keep throwing around accusations of logical fallacies that you barely understand. It makes you look smart I guess.


I'm not 'throwing them around' - I am pointing out the litany of logical fallacies you make every time you open your mouth.

If it makes me not look smart, then imagine what it must make you look like that all your arguments are manifestly due to shit reasoning faculties.



Tree wrote:
Very few organizations are founded on Whataboutism.


It's not Whataboutism.


:lol: you clown.

Even after an object lesson, you still prevaricate to protect your paltry prejudices.

When you respond to 'X is bad' with 'but so is Y' then you are engaging in whataboutism.

You are under no obligation to keep making shit arguments, so stop whinging when people point their errors out to you.


Tree wrote:You made an assertion "Antifa is a nasty reaction to an even nastier problem," with the problem being that millions died from a vicious ideology.


It is, of course, precisely whataboutism. Antifa's reaction is to white-supremacist neo-Nazis who are nasty. Nothing there is contingent or produces a need for them to be about any other ideology, political position, world belief, or anything at all.

Muppets always try to play this card. If you criticize Christian violence in Africa, they say 'Why aren't you talking about Muslims - their violence in Africa is well known so why don't you talk about that?' - that may well be the case, and it may also well be worth someone speaking up against it... but it doesn't somehow make my criticism of Christian violence in Africa obsolete. It doesn't change the facts in the slightest. Nor does a magical burden of ultimate consistency get placed on me whereby I am obligated to research, collate, and account for all possible types of violence in Africa.

Similarly with your endless attempts with these red herrings. Antifa aren't obligated to be against any group of people who committed, or allegedly committed violence for them to still validly be a reaction (in the USA) to the violence of white-supremacist neo-Nazis, and they can remain wholly restricted solely to that.

If you cannot process this, then you need to shut the fuck up, stop beating your chest, and seek to understand why you are in error. You can do this by stopping blagging and start asking questions to understand it. Because you are assuredly doing it ad nauseum, and I have given you maybe more than a dozen opportunities to recognize it, acknowledge it, and cease doing it. It's become something of a game, incidentally.


Tree wrote:I provided a counter to that.


Not a counter, because one does not cancel out the other, ergo whataboutism. You provided, or at least attempted to provide obfuscation.


Tree wrote:The idea that antifa is just against vicious ideologies that kill millions is debunked by the fact that they support communism (a vicious ideology that killed millions) or openly associate with communists.


As explained, it's a meaningless mess on your part. Of course they're not obliged to be against any other group other than the one which they are intentionally against. Your assertion is complete nonsense and is indicative of the religious quality in which you hold your political beliefs - a binary us and them.

Let's make it real simple for you.

Let's say I wanted to make an organization which had a specific agenda to ban golf. Your argument, in analogy, is that I am also obliged to seek to ban other sports which involve hitting a ball with a stick.

Of course, no such compulsion exists. I am free to just seek to ban golf, whether you agree my desired intent or not.


Tree wrote:Furthermore, your assertion is also wrong because antifa repeatedly fail to identify actual "white supremacist neo-Nazis".


Another red herring. It's amazing how you just go from one convoluted manufactured fantasy to another and expect me not to notice! :D


Tree wrote:Or fascists in general for that matter.


A red herring you previously tried and failed.


Tree wrote: Antifa is short for anti-fascist, that's what they claim.


Well, no. That's what it's short for.


Tree wrote: Yet they go after people who aren't fascists, randomly smash up shops and cars of people who could not possibly be all fascists. Ironically, they ignore Islamic fascism.


More red herrings.


Tree wrote:
The forces that shaped the USA were subverted a long time ago when corporations became more politically powerful than citizens.


The rich influence government in virtually every society around the world.


Stop pretending you know what's beyond the end of your nose. It's not 'the rich', as you've already been informed, but it's amazingly Marxist of you to keep pretending that classes are purely socio-economic constructs rather than being political, religious, or any of the other divisions humans have contrived over the years.


Tree wrote:I'm afraid there really isn't any long-term solution other than cutting the power of the government. If government's ability to grant favors to corporations is removed or severely curtailed, then it will be pointless for those corporations to try to buy the government.


Again, a topic of discussion I might be interested to actually engage in, but not with you, not anymore.


Tree wrote:I'm not exactly a libertarian...


I think you might be.


Tree wrote: but, just as there is a church-state separation, a business-state separation should be considered as much as possible.


Again, an interesting point, and one that might even prove to have fruitful discourse, but given your behavior so far, I can't see why I'd ever want to discuss anything with you when you spend so much time pretending you know my thoughts better than I do.


Tree wrote:I'm not against regulations, but they should be limited to only what's necessary to prevent coercion or fraud (including coercion and fraud that's coming from other countries). Beyond that, let the market decide winners and losers. Work or food safety standards are fine. Regulating gambling is not. Don't want to lose money don't gamble then. Rent controls are not okay. Don't like the price, fuck off, plenty of other homes to choose from more within your budget. You're also free to try to build more homes or live in a trailer.


I think regulations ensure that society treats equal members of the club fairly. So, for example, even if you are a property owner and don't want African Americans staying there, you can't quote them higher rent prices than white people to keep them out.

*cough Trump cough*


Tree wrote:
The one redeeming feature is that they are against white-supremacist neo-Nazis, as I already told you.


Yeah? Do they want a cookie for that?


No, clearly as it's in their name, you know what they want.


Tree wrote:What percentage of the population do you think is not against "white supremacist neo-Nazis"?


I dunno - perhaps enough to have elected Trump?


Tree wrote:Maybe they should first start being capable of accurately identifying them. Otherwise no cookie.


The tikki torches and chants about Jews and African Americans tends to give their cover away.


Tree wrote:
/cue red herrings about fascism


Why would it be a red herring when antifa claims to stand for anti-fascism?


Well, it would be a red herring of a red herring of a red herring, in actual fact.

Lest we forget: you initial claim seemed intended to equate atheism plus - a bunch of woolly numpties on the internet - and white-supremacist neo-Nazis - a group of thugs who want to racially purify the United States. You then red herringed in antifa, then red herringed and dropped 'communists' half a dozen times, then started talking about fascists whenever I mentioned white-supremacist neo-Nazis, clearly a category mistake on your part as all the latter are the former, but not all the former are the latter. So it's really no surprise that your questions aren't being answered, because to do so would lend legitimacy to the merry journey you've tried to lead me on. A discerning reader will spot the numerous times I've rejected this. ;)


Tree wrote:
Well, they're on the left, which in the Gospel according to Tree is basically communism anyway.


Nope, they're radical left, not merely left.


A red herring you only tried once before; still smells quite fresh. But it still doesn't matter as the US antifa =/= communists. There are many ways to be 'far-left' and 'radical left' without being communists.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:40 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2628Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:Well sorry, but if you want to be THE atheist movement, you have to accept everyone, not just the so-called uber progressives, you have to accept moderate leftists, centrists, conservatives, libertarians, apolitical and anything in between. You can't say "we represent atheism worldwide" and "btw, if you're not a progressive we'll shun you". Choose one or the other, you can't have BOTH. Ideological purity also harms free exchange of ideas so I'm not sure how these people want to get something "rational" out of it. You can't improve anything without criticism first.



Whereas, you are wholly entitled to say 'we don't want sexists, or those who give sexism a platform, or those who make sexist remarks for the lulz, nor do we want people who produce public content that white-supremacist neo-Nazis are desperate to endorse'.

To put this in a paradigm Tree can comprehend.

Consider it market forces. For every bigoted whackjob's ticket sale you add, you lose a dozen ticket sales from sane, modern, decent people.

Atheism would thereby be better represented worldwide by rejecting this dreck because then the organization wouldn't just be about a group of deranged, permanently pubescent, white bigots from English speaking countries.


//thread resolved//
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:50 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Sparhafoc wrote:nor do we want people who produce public content that white-supremacist neo-Nazis are desperate to endorse'.


LOL

There goes TV.

When will you figure it out that being endorsed by bad guys doesn't really mean shit? Cause it doesn't mean you endorse them back.

Sparhafoc wrote:To put this in a paradigm Tree can comprehend.

Consider it market forces. For every bigoted whackjob's ticket sale you add, you lose a dozen ticket sales from sane, modern, decent people.


I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but ever since Atheism+ and these other attempts to impose ideological purity under the false pretense of combating racism and sexism, this "movement" has gone downhill. They're not winning more people over at all. Even Reason Rally #2 had lower attendance than the first.

Atheism would thereby be better represented worldwide by rejecting this dreck because then the organization wouldn't just be about a group of deranged, permanently pubescent, white bigots from English speaking countries.


Which never was, this is just divisive Atheism+ propaganda.

In truth, nobody was excluded for being non-white or being from non-English speaking countries.

When you respond to 'X is bad' with 'but so is Y' then you are engaging in whataboutism.


Which is not my argument.

My argument is that your analysis of antifa's motivation is wrong. They're not motivated by opposition to vicious ideologies that kill millions. What they're motivated by is anti-capitalism.

It is, of course, precisely whataboutism. Antifa's reaction is to white-supremacist neo-Nazis who are nasty. Nothing there is contingent or produces a need for them to be about any other ideology, political position, world belief, or anything at all.


Actually it does if your underlying principle is opposition to vicious ideologies that kill millions.

Since antifa oppose one vicious ideology but embrace another, your explanation of their motives is wrong.

Another thing, if you're so opposed to "white-supremacist neo-Nazis" (in reality they don't have this odd fixation that you do, they just claim to oppose "fascists") that you dedicate so much time to it, I expect you to be able to accurately identify fascists.

Trump is not.
Milo is not.
Ben Shapiro is not.
G-20 members are not for the most part.
The innocent bystanders who get their property and cars smashed are not.

It's pretty clear their real motivation is just anti-capitalism. That's the only thing antifa is consistent on 100%. They are not consistent on opposing vicious ideologies and they are not consistently able to accurately identify fascists. They constantly mislabel non-fascists as fascists or ignore actual fascists, for example the Islamic fascists.

Antifa aren't obligated to be against any group of people who committed, or allegedly committed violence for them to still validly be a reaction (in the USA) to the violence of white-supremacist neo-Nazis, and they can remain wholly restricted solely to that.


There's actually no reason to believe that US antifa is any different from European antifa. All of the groups I could look up online are consistently anti-capitalist and embrace communism, left-wing anarchism (which is almost indistinguishable from communism in practice) or other far left ideas.

And also maybe you'd have a point if antifa was neutral on communism. I don't expect a group of people to know all the vicious ideologies. I don't expect activists to not specialize on a problem. If you want to focus on fascism and ignore communism, fine. I don't however think it's okay to focus on fascism while embracing communism. The stance is completely inconsistent.
Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:43 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3499Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:That's handy because I ain't fucking selling it. lt's a fact! If you do not like it, than do not join their club. I am sure once word gets out about your refusal to join, they will change their position.


Sure, they can have fun being a cult then.


:lol:

Such hyperbole from someone that came here saying they did not care about the atheism movement anyways. This must be triggering on some level.

Tree wrote:Easier said than done once they start voting Democrat.


This seems relevant:



Actually this also seems relevant since welfare and "shared culture" has raised its head:



Strange to see someone rail against collectivism, yet stand so firmly for a collectivist idea.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:36 pm
YIM WWW
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

Post Re: So the atheist "movement"...

Tree wrote:
You do understand that a nation is its citizens.




Yes, in fact I would argue that the concept of “nation” is overvalued, to me we have individuals and humanity as a whole, we should treat people as humans, and judge individuals based on their own actions.

I have nothing else to contribute, my conclusions are:

1 If immigrants have on average a positive contribution, you should make migration easier

2 criminals don’t care if migration is legal or not, they will cross the border ether legally or illegally anyway, harsh filters won’t prevent crimes.

3 If you make illegal immigrants legal, and you let them work in any company that they what. They will be more likely to be more productive,

4 The “low skilled worker problem” (assuming that there is one) can be solved by the invisible hand of the market.

5 in the long term if you open the all the borders in the world, individuals will be more likely to find a job where they will optimize their productivity, and on average the whole world would be better.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:48 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 6 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: *SD* and 7 guests