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 5 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
So the atheist "movement"...
Author Message
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Tree wrote:I didn't strawman you, there's a difference between strawman and pointing out the absurd conclusions of your beliefs.


Absurd conclusions that are non-sequiturs on your part, and which you phrase as if they were my position. It's not once or twice, Tree. It's every fucking post you write.

If you want to contend that Y follows from X, then you're going to need to justify that contention, not slip it in as if it's fact, because no one here aside from you adheres to the Gospel according to Tree.


Tree wrote:So, once again you said Sargon is alt-right and then used Spencer's endorsement of him as evidence of him being alt-right.


So once again, I am answering your whinging in the original post, where you whine that your ilk aren't given equal time in atheist conventions.

I have provided a number of reasons why a group that aims to include more than just white, middle class, angsty teenage boys might not want to give numpties like SoA a platform. Firstly, there's the sexism - which you spent considerable energy pretending wasn't sexism. Then there's the fact that neo-Nazis seem to be falling over themselves to endorse him, and you of course have spent considerable energy trying to obfuscate that too.

There's a pattern there that you'd have to be an idiot to assume that others are too idiotic to see, Tree.


Tree wrote:I pointed out there is no way you can draw a valid conclusion from this premise that Sargon is alt-right. If you can't understand this point even after you've been given examples after examples, you're not worth my time.


Stop beating your chest, chap, because you're not really worth a whazz anyway. Instead, I've been giving you the rope to hang yourself, but so pumped up are you on your own certainty, you never even noticed how easy it was to get you to show your hand.


Tree wrote:
But do keep working overtime to avoid the fact that Spencer, and other white-supremacist neo-Nazis endorse SoA


Your point?


Well, let's see... my point is do keep working overtime to avoid the fact that Spencer, and other white-supremacist neo-Nazis endorse SoA



Tree wrote:What exactly are you hoping to prove by continuously bringing up this piece of information?


I don't hope to 'prove' anything, Tree, not least because I've told you how utterly idiotic such a notion is in the first place, and the fact that I understand the nature of proof means I would never make such an asinine error once, let alone repeatedly.

Rather, as I've told you quite clearly a dozen times, I am answering your pseudo question posed in your original post. Yes, we all noticed how you're so busy running about denying things that you've failed to notice how I established this point already.



Tree wrote: We've already established this doesn't prove Sargon is alt-right, so what do you think it proves? Give me a clear answer.


Learn what proof is, then come back to me. Given I've already educated you several times with respect to the notion of proof, I won't be drawn into making a statement that would require me to stoop to your simplistic level.



Tree wrote:
You weren't asked to. You were asked to justify your implicit contention that Atheism Plus is somehow functionally equivalent to white supremacist neo-Nazis.


Well they're both based on heavily collectivist ideologies that in practice have always lead to dictatorships when allowed to flourish.


No, they're not. There's nothing 'collectivist' about atheism plus, nor is 'collectivism' necessarily correlated with dictatorships or authoritarianism. Know how you can tell this? Because all those democratic European countries are 'collectivist' in the sense that they have a collectively taxed medical service, universally available for all, in the sense that they offer state pensions, in the sense that they provide free education paid for with collective taxes, in the sense that all societies are fundamentally collectivist for all the basic and more complex infrastructure and services... so this would strongly suggest that your notion that collectivism is tantamount to tyranny is batshit delusional hogwash you've uncritically swallowed and proudly regurgitated while never having given it a moment's thought.

Is Atlas Shrugged your Bible?


Tree wrote:Atheism Plus is a far left movement...


No it's not.


Tree wrote:.... and is based on ideas of class struggle applied to minority-majority and female-male relations with the minority (and women) being the "exploited class" and the majority (i.e. white male Christians) the "exploiter class".


No it's not.


Tree wrote:The only reason you don't seem them for the danger they are is because they fooled you with nice-sounding surface-level talking points like "we're only against racism" and "we're for justice".


No, you're talking out of your rectum. They didn't 'fool' me you numpty because I rejected them mere moments after I discovered their existence. Thanks though for exemplifying the points I made in my last post: all ideology, all prejudice, zero room left for the niceties like asking people what they think.

So I've established this all already, Tree. You are incapable of holding any level of reasoned discussion because you want to take both sides postion. Of course, the fact that you lack any degree of competence in taking my position for me, and how I've routinely showed you were wrong, you'd think you'd have learned to stop making a tool out of yourself in public by now. And that's what makes you come across as an ideological automaton.

And they're about as dangerous as a lump of wet cotton wool. They offer precisely zero threat to anyone at all.

Whereas, as much as you want to just ignore it and distract the conversation away, white supremacist neo-Nazis actively hurt, murder, torture and physically and verbally abuse groups of people based on their supposed race.

So there's simply no parallel there, regardless of how much obfuscation you're engaging in.


Tree wrote: They are anything but, they're liars, they're hypocrites, they're against free speech, and if you think about their policies, they're pretty damn racist because they want different standards for whites and non-whites.


Tree emoting the universe again. Which bit of me not giving a hairy fuck about your silly beliefs conjured in the absence of thought do you not understand?


Tree wrote: There was even a forum post back when they had it where most of them openly admitted to being Marxists, not that there was any surprise to people who can recognize a Marxist a mile away.


And?

Again, you're plonking your bias down on the table, Tree. For you and your numpty ilk, the term 'Marxist' may well be a frightening boogeyman with which to poison wells... but for most people, Marxism alone does not indicate a bad person, rather it indicates a political position expressly related to class struggles and to specific forms of economic and material production.

So again, Marxists are not equivalent to white-supremacist neo-Nazis... but do keep flapping your hands around - it is so entertaining! :)


Tree wrote:
Really is absolutely amazing, even to me. But given how you routinely profess to know my position better than me, you must be right, eh?

Of course, if I asked you to justify your assertion, you'll just ignore it because you're not really about honest discourse, are you Tree?


Can you then please explain why you correctly view fascism as a danger but Communism as just a "boogeyman"?


I will do so the moment after I exemplify my point.

Cite where I said that 'Communism is just a boogeyman'.

This will expose how you have, once again, utterly failed to process my position, and instead have made one up for me, then spent considerable effort castigating me for it, then when pushed its clear you wouldn't know my position if it was fucking you in the earhole.


Tree wrote:The stance is absolutely inconsistent given the historical crimes of both ideologues.


The stance you have made up for me because your brain is immersed in vacuous binary partisanship bred by numpty sources like 4chan, Breitbart, and reddit,

In reality, you don't own a position, Tree - you've unwittingly borrowed someone else's, and while you don't seem to have any idea how you came to your position, you assume that as it's the only one you possess, that it must be the only one anyone is allowed to possess.


Tree wrote:See this video as well for why you're wrong: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUGkKKAogDs


:lol: :lol: :lol:

You clown.


Tree wrote:
Red herring.


No, it isn't.


Yep, it assuredly is.


Tree wrote:
Please stop lying through your teeth and employing the entire catalogue of logical fallacies.


Says the person who can't stop making logical fallacies.


Yeah, only I've identified your repeated fallacious contentions and shown why they're wrong, whereas you've just trotted out a tu quoque! :lol:




Tree wrote:
You aren't winning anything. Anyone reading will see how you've made up my position for me half a dozen times only to castigate me for a position I never took.


There's a difference between strawman and pointing out the inevitable conclusions of your beliefs. You don't need to explicitly say it.


If I don't explicitly say something, Tree - then just exactly who the fuck do you think you are to say it for me?

No, fuck off, there's a good lad. If you want to know my position, I will inform you - not the other way round. Is that amply clear, or can't you hear me from your highhorse?




Tree wrote:It's very clear to anyone with a brain:

1. you're against fascist ideologies and think they're dangerous (they are, nothing to argue there)
2. you won't hold communism to the same standard which you simply dismissed as a "boogeyman".


I would be you my life savings that if people with a brain are reading this thread, they wouldn't agree with your summation.

At no point have I said that fascist ideologies are something I am against. Rather, I've said I am against white-supremacist neo-Nazies - intriguing how you can't tell the difference regardless of how many times I dismiss your strawman.

Similarly, at no point have I said that communism cannot be dangerous. Rather, I've said that your witterings about communism amount to a boogeyman - the same form of McCarthyism that your supposed interest in history should have protected you from repeating.

So again, your supposed absolutely clear summary is shown to be wholly a figment of your imagination that in no way accurately represents my position at all.

What you are actually talking about is the position of the windmill you dragged in to tilt at. That's why you're having this dialogue with yourself where you have to write both parts, protagonist and antagonist. I'm just facilitating it. You certainly wouldn't know my position on anything because you don't listen, just emote.



Tree wrote:Yes, that makes you naive.


Yes, your terminal miscomprehension makes me naive! :lol:



Tree wrote: Your stance is completely inconsistent.


It's perfectly consistent, it just doesn't fit into your simplistic paradigm.

I added a quote to my signature just for you - it reads: กบในกะลาครอบ or frog in a coconut.

It means someone whose vista is extremely limited, and consequently believes they know everything there is to know about the world, whereas the truth is that they only know the pathetic little slice they huddle in.


Tree wrote: I would have an easier time understanding it if you thought both were "boogeymen" or both were dangerous.


You wouldn't know what I think Tree because you are far too busy telling me what I think to find out.


Tree wrote: Just because you won't admit to being naive doesn't mean you're being strawmanned.


Your latest ad hominem has no bearing on the fact that you are repeatedly strawmanning and employing red herrings. These are factually observable regardless of whether I am naive or no.


Tree wrote: To be clear, you're also naive on Islam and SJW ideology.


On Islam too?

On a topic I've never talked about? But of course... you already know my position because you consulted with your prejudice, and your binary glasses ensure you only see two positions.

You really are a functional moron, Tree. I am sorry to say it, but it's manifestly the case. You realize that 30% of the population are below normal intelligence? If so, have you considered whether you might just be snugly in that group? :lol:

No chap, just because you are ideologically deranged, doesn't mean your fictional demons can hurt me.

Of course, we know there's no acknowledgment of how white supremacist neo-Nazis actually have hurt and do hurt people, you still want to tell us about how atheism plus is at least as equally a compelling danger.

Batshit, Tree. Completely batshit.


Tree wrote: SJWs are just neo-Marxists by the way,...


No, they're not.


Tree wrote: same shit as before.


Yep, same shit as before repeated again because justifying assertions isn't your game.


Tree wrote: Islam has core similarities to fascism such as strong in-group preference at the expense of outsiders who must be conquered and made second class subjects, aggressive militarism and a severe lack of individual rights and political freedoms such as free and fair elections.


Ignoring all the instances where Islam is not like that, such as Islamic states which are not aggressive, militaristic, and who routinely hold free and fair democratic elections. But boogeymen are much more compelling to a demagogue, or those fooled by one.


Tree wrote: It is wholly inconsistent to say one is bad and we need to fear it but the other one is a non-issue and you're just paranoid.


It is wholly inconsistent with reality how you keep pretending that you are talking about my position, when it's clear I don't hold the position you are trying to pretend is mine.


Tree wrote: And no that's not strawmanning you either, that is what your post implies.


No, my post doesn't remotely imply that. The problem is that your thinking is limited to a restricted binary fantasy where the entire world is divided up into two groups: the one Tree belongs to, and the one contrary to what Tree believes. Of course, the one which doesn't agree with Tree is full of terrible, awful characteristics, while Tree's group's shit smells like roses.

And it doesn't matter to Tree whether someone ascribes to either group, or rejects both... Tree must put the pigeons in the pigeonholes he's got.

For the rest of the world who aren't Tree, you might be surprised to know that we demand the right to own our own positions and not have them emoted at us by an ideologically deranged fruitcake.


Tree wrote:
That's just a flaccid delusion on your part indicative of how you buy into vacuous propaganda from numpty outlets without employing any degree of reasoning.. In reality, they're a bunch of kids who have, at worst, caused some property damage


No, they're not. This is a total whitewashing of antifa and its far left roots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-fascist


We're not talking about its historical context dating back a century or so, Tree - we're clearly talking about the modern movement in the USA.

Amusingly though, the internet expert on everything who cites wikipedia all the time seems unable to note that his own solitary source contradicts the fetid delusions he's been asserting as fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than on encouraging pro-left policy.


Again, what's actually occurring is that your preferred propaganda source has been working hard over the last few months or years to inculcate into you a set of beliefs that are not actually based on reality, but rather are a smattering of half-truths and outright lies sieved through the strainer of a preconceived set of political positions.

They're coming to take away our property....

That kind of gave it away, Tree. You sound like Glenn Beck! :lol:



Tree wrote:Everywhere you find antifa groups, they're either entirely run by far leftist ideologues or dominated by far leftist ideologues with maybe a handful of clueless useful idiots in there. It is not true at all that they're merely vandals doing property damage.


Which is yet more red herrings on your part, because you posted a list of assertions about what Antifa are supposedly for, but rather than support them, you are trying to engage my dismissal of your assertions.

When you do something so many times, Tree, everyone here's going to spot it.

If you are genuinely unaware of your repeated discoursive failings, then you should say so - then I will try to employ Hanlon's Razor more often.



Tree wrote:Here's a statement from a standard antifa site:


A 'standard' one?

How do we know it's a standard one, Tree? :lol:



Tree wrote:
3. We oppose all forms of oppression and exploitation. We intend to do the hard work necessary to build a broad, strong movement of oppressed people centered on the working class against racism, sexism, nativism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest, and the most oppressed people. We support abortion rights and reproductive freedom. We want a classless, free society. We intend to win!


Where's the source?


Tree wrote:Gee, where have we heard this talk of classless society before?


I dunno, but if it was in communism, then you might want to notice the long list of differences to communism, such as being against racism, sexism, nativism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest, and the most oppressed people, you know, the entire content of the paragraph you cited?

And again, so what? Is there something wrong with wanting a classless society? Only, you haven't said anything worthwhile listening to about it - just emoted at me several times.

Are you saying that the only good society is a class based society?

Do you actually disagree with them?



Tree wrote:
Of course, ANTIFA has never expressed any claim that they wish to kill people based on property ownership, so perhaps you might want to pull up your trousers as your vacuous prejudice is showing.

WHATABOUT...... WHATABOUT..... WHATABOUT?

Shame there's no one here thick enough to fall for your patter, Tree.


Oh God, how can you be this naive?


Naive or perhaps far too canny because while you think you're an amazing magician, I keep spotting the fact that you've pocketed the white rabbit.

Are you now going to ironically and hypocritically claim that, in direct contradiction to what they said, that all the delusion drivel you asserted about how they're going to take your stuff away was in fact correct?


Tree wrote: Everywhere this far left ideology has been tried there were mass purges of people. Russia, Cuba, Eastern bloc countries, North Korea, Zimbabwe, you name it. Never any exceptions. And of course they'll rarely if ever admit to it, what murderer wants to be exposed as one? Fool.


You are a genuine moron, Tree. You realize that most of Europe is 'far left' by your standards? But wait... mass purges? Must have skipped that history class.

And on top of that, what about all the repression, wars, and inequalities in far right nations? No mass purges there? Amirite?

You don't seem to comprehend other than a binary, whereas the world is vastly too complicated for such numptyism - even your own country can't be squeezed into this thick as shit paradigm.

Instead, there's clearly at least one more paradigm here that isn't within your simplistic system, that of authoritarianism. Funnily, regardless of whether left or right, it's the authoritarian states which have historically performed these ghastly iniquities on their own populaces.

If you'd been paying attention, you might have noted me talking about this before. If you'd stooped to asking me to state my opinion rather than repeatedly pretending you know my position, you'd have discovered that politically, I am anti-authoritarian, not 'left wing'. In fact, I'm a centrist, but don't let reality impinge on your spittle flecked internet ravings.



Tree wrote:There is no way to expropriate people without mass murder because inevitably some will resist and won't relinquish their property. And rightfully so, why should they? It's theirs. Get your own.


But most socialist states don't remotely seek to take away your property, you incoherent numbnut. There's that reality failing to coincide with Tree's emoted 'facts'! What they do, for example, is seek to ensure that many of the key pieces of national infrastructure remain in public hands. They seek to ensure that all people have equal access to education, healthcare, and society regardless of wealth. And no mass purgings are remotely necessary for this. So all the dozens of wealthy, liberal, democratic Western/Northern European nations are manifest contradictions to your febrile witterings.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:20 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Anyway this post shows first of all how clumsy you are. "neo-Nazi history" LOL. NEO- means new, so just call them Nazis if you want to talk about Nazi history. Or to be safe, you can use the broader term of "fascist" which should apply to every category there.


I'll be back to sweep up the fetid dump on the table of reasoned discourse you've left again, but I do want to laugh at how hubris and competence are inversely correlated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Nazism

Neo-Nazism consists of post-World War II militant, social or political movements seeking to revive the ideology of Nazism.[1] The term neo-Nazism can also refer to the ideology of these movements.

...

The 1952 banning disorientated the nascent movement of German Neo-Nazism; some members joined the Deutsche Reichspartei of which Hans-Ulrich Rudel was the most prominent figure, while the younger members founded the Wiking-Jugend (modeled after the Hitler Youth).



Neo-Nazism, of course, has a history dating back, as can be seen by those without their head up their rectal passages, to the 1940's. And the 'new' bit doesn't mean 'made last Tuesday' you complete fucking numpty.

It means 'revived'.

Hilarious.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:25 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

Neo-Nazism, of course, has a history dating back, as can be seen by those without their head up their rectal passages, to the 1940's. And the 'new' bit doesn't mean 'made last Tuesday' you complete fucking numpty.

It means 'revived'.

Hilarious.


It means "new" and "recent" and "revived" and "modified" and I never said anything about it being made last Tuesday.

It is odd that you would specifically mention "neo-Nazi" crimes done against Jewish people then. Don't think I didn't pick up on that.

white-supremacist neo-Nazi history of beating, torturing, murdering and abusing Jews, African Americans, and other foreigners


While this is technically true, there were antisemitic crimes done after WW2 by neo-Nazis, you're clearly trying to hint at the Holocaust and trying desperately to show antifa are somehow better than Spencer's movement. That's where the bulk of the crimes against Jewish people is and that wasn't done by "neo-Nazis" or Spencer, just Nazis. I don't understand your fixation with "white supremacist neo-Nazis" first of all.

1. Calling them white supremacist is redundant.
2. They share the same toxic ideology whether they're pre or post 1945.
3. Richard Spencer would deny being both a white supremacist and a Nazi of any kind and would insist to be called a "white nationalist" instead, so are you "strawmanning" him by your own standards for not taking him at his word? Just asking.

In a previous post I asked about Sargon of Akkad:

"In what way is he alt-right?"

You said:

"In the way Richard Spencer, the white-supremacist, called Sargon of Akkad 'our boy' and thanked him for providing an entry-point into the alt-right."

I pointed out this does not prove he's alt-right. Instead of wasting my time and accusing people of being alt-right, you should just admit that you were wrong. There is no other way forward for you.
Sat Nov 25, 2017 9:47 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

You are a genuine moron, Tree. You realize that most of Europe is 'far left' by your standards?


The European mainstream political climate is more left-wing than the American one is, but it's not on the level of communism.

It's still capitalism with heavy regulations, high taxes and various programs. Not exactly what I'd advocate, but it's not communism. It's a mixed economy and at least they tend to understand that you need some amount of free markets in order to create the wealth needed to fund all those social programs, while communists are just retards who think the rich just gain money by exploiting the poor.

EU on property rights states:

"1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.
2. Intellectual property shall be protected."

Now this does leave room for a lot of government intervention into property rights, but both of these ideas are fully rejected by the far left. Antifa movements are openly anti-capitalist and want full community control of the means of production. They're not merely seeking higher taxes or more social programs or more regulations on how to use property.


But wait... mass purges? Must have skipped that history class.

And on top of that, what about all the repression, wars, and inequalities in far right nations? No mass purges there? Amirite?


Which far right nations?


Instead, there's clearly at least one more paradigm here that isn't within your simplistic system, that of authoritarianism. Funnily, regardless of whether left or right, it's the authoritarian states which have historically performed these ghastly iniquities on their own populaces.


Authoritarianism can only happen if individual rights and responsibilities are not respected.

That includes property rights. The more you erode property rights the more authoritarian the system becomes and once you completely reject the notion you become full authoritarian. It is impossible to have a communist society that is not authoritarian.


If you'd been paying attention, you might have noted me talking about this before. If you'd stooped to asking me to state my opinion rather than repeatedly pretending you know my position, you'd have discovered that politically, I am anti-authoritarian, not 'left wing'. In fact, I'm a centrist, but don't let reality impinge on your spittle flecked internet ravings.


Dude, you think of yourself entitled to tell other countries that they can't even control their own borders and decide who comes into their country from the outside and they should just accept everything cause fuck borders or something.

And you're honestly going to suggest you're anti-authoritarian? Dictating other countries' immigration policies is about as authoritarian as you can get.
Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:26 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

Sparhafoc wrote:Ignoring all the instances where Islam is not like that, such as Islamic states which are not aggressive, militaristic, and who routinely hold free and fair democratic elections. But boogeymen are much more compelling to a demagogue, or those fooled by one.


Well how convenient for you. I guess then Richard Spencer's ideology isn't a problem either since he hasn't killed anyone yet and he can speak very articulately and smile so he's really a nice guy and the Nazis have changed... How naive do you have to be?

It is wholly inconsistent with reality how you keep pretending that you are talking about my position, when it's clear I don't hold the position you are trying to pretend is mine.


Except you called Communism a boogeyman, i.e. a non-issue that only someone irrational could ever be concerned about. I'm not misrepresenting you one bit.

No, my post doesn't remotely imply that. The problem is that your thinking is limited to a restricted binary fantasy where the entire world is divided up into two groups: the one Tree belongs to, and the one contrary to what Tree believes. Of course, the one which doesn't agree with Tree is full of terrible, awful characteristics, while Tree's group's shit smells like roses.


Bullshit.

We're not talking about its historical context dating back a century or so, Tree - we're clearly talking about the modern movement in the USA.


There's no reason to believe any of it has changed.

Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than on encouraging pro-left policy.


Wow, and you automatically believe them, how stupid is that? Nevermind that they're full of shit because most of the people they target aren't even far-right or white supremacists. To them anyone who's not far left is a fascist.

Fuck me, this comes straight from the article you linked:

"They tend to be anti-government and anti-capitalist[9] and they are predominantly far-left and militant left,[10][5] which includes anarchists, communists and socialists."

A 'standard' one?


If you can find even one antifa group that is actually anti-fascist in the literal sense as opposed to just crypto-communist/far left, I'd really love to see it.

Where's the source?


Oh God, I left you a link, figure it out.

I dunno, but if it was in communism, then you might want to notice the long list of differences to communism, such as being against racism, sexism, nativism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest, and the most oppressed people, you know, the entire content of the paragraph you cited?

And again, so what? Is there something wrong with wanting a classless society?


A classless society is impossible. Some people will always achieve more than others. Why the hell do I care if someone earns more than I do or has a better home or whatever? Maybe he earned it.

Speaking for myself, I'm both in the working class and the bourgeoisie class so this whole class distinction is meaningless to me. I earn a salary and I'm also a minority shareholder of certain companies listed on the stock market and earn an income from renting properties I don't personally live in.

I'm not sure where I'd fit in simpleton Karl Marx's warped view of economics where it's ALWAYS these fat rich millionaires exploiting the poor workers or something who can never get ahead in life.

Are you saying that the only good society is a class based society?

Do you actually disagree with them?


I'm saying I don't give a shit about class. I don't think you should be prevented from climbing up nor do I think you should be elevated artificially so you're equal to other people. Go out and earn what you can. Whether you become filthy rich or broke as fuck or something in between, and how you do it all, whether you want to invest in a growing business, start your own business, be an employee and work for a boss for a fixed salary or ALL THREE all up to you. As long as you do it legally, no problem.
Sat Nov 25, 2017 11:46 pm
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Tree wrote:It means "new" and "recent" and "revived" and "modified" and I never said anything about it being made last Tuesday.

It is odd that you would specifically mention "neo-Nazi" crimes done against Jewish people then. Don't think I didn't pick up on that.


It's another example of how you refuse to acknowledge your errors, always shifting and twisting and wiggling.

The correct response was actually "Oh, I see" not yet more self-aggrandizing bluster.

And yeah, the neo-Nazis (as Nazism revived) have repeatedly been involved with the abuse of Jews. What do you mean 'don't think I didn't pick up on that'? Because it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about but unsurprisingly, you're pretending you do.


Tree wrote:
white-supremacist neo-Nazi history of beating, torturing, murdering and abusing Jews, African Americans, and other foreigners


While this is technically true, there were antisemitic crimes done after WW2 by neo-Nazis, you're clearly trying to hint at the Holocaust and trying desperately to show antifa are somehow better than Spencer's movement.


You're a fucking crackpot.

No, I am not trying to hint at the Holocaust, and you know how a sane person can tell that? Because I am talking about neo-Nazis, not Germany.

As for 'trying desperately to show that antifa are better than Spencer's movement' - I think it's manifestly true that the US group antifa are nowhere near as bad as white supremacist, neo-Nazis for the reasons I've already stated, whereas it's becoming ever clearer by the moment that your whataboutism is wholly predicated on a desire to make white supremacist neo-Nazis seem just like any other guy.

Regardless, as anyone watching you perform these transparent tricks can tell - my initial rejection was when you laughably compared white-supremacist neo-Nazis to Atheism Plus, and I have repeatedly noted your bait and switch.

So it remains to be seen who it is you think you're fooling, all we can know now is that you ain't fooling anyone.


Tree wrote:[That's where the bulk of the crimes against Jewish people is and that wasn't done by "neo-Nazis" or Spencer, just Nazis. I don't understand your fixation with "white supremacist neo-Nazis" first of all.


Of course you don't because you're doing all you can to paint them in a landscape of whataboutism. My 'fixation' about them is how they actively endorse Sargon of Akkad. But do keep writhing, twisting, and wiggling - it is very entertaining.


Tree wrote:[1. Calling them white supremacist is redundant.


No, it's not.


Tree wrote:[2. They share the same toxic ideology whether they're pre or post 1945.


No, they don't.


Tree wrote:[3. Richard Spencer would deny being both a white supremacist and a Nazi of any kind and would insist to be called a "white nationalist" instead, so are you "strawmanning" him by your own standards for not taking him at his word? Just asking.


Just pleasuring yourself in public.

White nationalism is a type of white supremacy being wholly predicated on it.

Further, as much shit as you're trying to fling, I have explicitly not talked only about Spencer - rather a number of white-supremacist neo-Nazi groups, and amusingly for your desperate squirming, I have not claimed that Spencer said X, or Y, or Z so of course what I said is not a strawman.

Go on chap - wave your hands.... wave them! WAVE THEM! Some idiot might not notice how much bullshit you spew.

No go on, please do continue being so transparent - just in case anyone missed your repeated discoursive failings, the above will make it all clear.


I
Tree wrote:[n a previous post I asked about Sargon of Akkad:

"In what way is he alt-right?"

You said:

"In the way Richard Spencer, the white-supremacist, called Sargon of Akkad 'our boy' and thanked him for providing an entry-point into the alt-right."

I pointed out this does not prove he's alt-right. Instead of wasting my time and accusing people of being alt-right, you should just admit that you were wrong. There is no other way forward for you.


And now we get to see what all these strawman and red herrings were really about - an attempt to confuse the issue so you could limply score a point.

In reality, I never actually called SoA alt-right, rather, it was one of your numerous strawman attempts. If you wish to contend so - please cite me saying it.

Plus, as can be seen by anyone with even a passing degree of honesty, when I answered your 'in what way is he alt-right' question, I also explicitly pointed out that your phrasing of the question was contrived, and that with respect to the original post's question, it doesn't matter whether he's alt-right or just playing the role for his audience.


As I've pointed out to you several times, you drooling numpty - you're not 'winning' here because it's not a game where you can win. No one else is interested in this thread, so there's no audience for you to try to convince with manipulation and distraction, there's only me here, and yet you are so bloated on hubris that you seriously think you can convince me that my position is what you tell me my position is. What a silly little man you are.

Of course, you can see the few responses by others are basically the same contention: that you are talking a load of shit.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:45 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Tree wrote:Well how convenient for you. I guess then Richard Spencer's ideology isn't a problem either since he hasn't killed anyone yet and he can speak very articulately and smile so he's really a nice guy and the Nazis have changed.


I think nothing more needs be said.

If you wanted to argue for white-supremacist neo-Nazism, Tree - you didn't need to continuously manufacture all those thinly concealed stalking horses, you can just argue for what it is you believe. At least then you might be able to keep your argument straight.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:47 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Tree wrote:Did you forget about the antifa professor who hit someone with a bike lock over the head and almost killed him?


I didn't 'forget' because I never heard of it.

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

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


Tree wrote:Anyway this post shows first of all how clumsy you are. "neo-Nazi history" LOL. NEO- means new, so just call them Nazis if you want to talk about Nazi history. Or to be safe, you can use the broader term of "fascist" which should apply to every category there.


Already showed your error, plus I am quite insistent I won't be joining Tree on his ever devolving bait and switch.


Tree wrote:With that said, the crimes of Communism are about as numerous as the crimes of the Nazis, they just picked different targets.


Been counting them, have you?

Whatabout communism?

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

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

Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument,


The point of course being aside from failing to refute any previous argument, it also provides layers and layers and layers in your case of obfuscation - smoke and mirrors for you to hide in.

Ironically....

which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[7][8][9]


:lol:



Tree wrote:
It changes their legal status when our compassion, humanity and empathy cause us to change laws to accommodate those moral compunctions, Tree. You realize that's how laws operate, right?


And how is that compassionate to American citizens?


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


Tree wrote:This is why I'm not even remotely persuaded by emotional appeals.


It's not, as I already informed you, an emotional appeal.

It is, as I already educated you, a moral argument.

I understand how you can completely ignore that, and still pretend that up is down as it provides you such an easy way out of actually addressing the point.

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.


Tree wrote:It's not even compassionate to Mexicans. I get that Mexico is shit, but how is it ever going to improve if millions of people just leave? Doesn't make any sense. The people most disgruntled with their country are the most likely to actually change it for the better.


Mexico is shit?

Do you watch only Fox news or something?

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.

Now, some numpties might consider this an emotional argument, but then some numpties apparently possess no empathy at all. However, the United Nations members and every convention agreement on human rights since the 1940's recognizes the status of economic migrants, recognizes that people's need to work, earn, and feed themselves will often cause mass migration out of regions depressed by war, famine, or economic hardship.

While it might be nice to imagine how, with a little elbow grease and a stiff upper-lip, those Mexicans could just fix up their country in a couple of decades, the question as to how they might survive during that magical time might be of higher importance to them.



Tree wrote:
It's punishment to uproot them from the only country they know and have lived all their lives, send them to a country they don't know and have never even been to. It's punishment to enforce upon them something by the state they don't want to do just because their parents did something illegal.


And? Many tenants are asked to leave when they can no longer afford their rents. Those home were never theirs to begin with and it doesn't matter how long they lived in them.


And it is punishment, that was my argument, so regardless of your incessant distractions and obfuscation, it remains my point.


Tree wrote:You keep avoiding the issue that they never had a right to be inside the US in the first place.


Liar. I addressed that a dozen times. They were minors, so they weren't responsible for their actions. As I've already pointed you to you half a dozen times, you are proposing we visit the inquities of the parents onto their children. I consider that morally repugnant.


Tree wrote:Their deportation would be a return to a situation that previously existed and legally speaking it's not necessarily a punishment.


No it wouldn't be because they never lived in the countries of their birth, and it is necessarily a punishment as I've spent several sentences explaining, and your repeated flat denial does nothing to change.


Tree wrote:This is not a criminal trial where you are accused of X, can be tried by a jury, and if found guilty the punishment is deportation and you get a criminal record. It's a simple executive procedure. Are you in the country legally? Yes? Carry on. No? Then get out, similar to asking someone to leave your property when he doesn't have a right to be there.


More obfuscation. No one said it was a criminal justice proceeding. Instead, what was said is that it is punishment for the actions of their parents.


Tree wrote:It is not relevant how long they were able to fly under the radar.


Says you, meanwhile no one else in the world gives a fuck what you think.


Tree wrote: There are two very clear ways to obtain US citizenship: 1. birth 2. legal immigration following process where first of all you have to be WANTED, not everyone can come cause that would fuck up the economy and other things, then you have to prove yourself suitable for it, which means you need a certain level of education, be able to speak the language, a job and you need to learn US history and adapt to the culture and you need to live in the country for a long time.


The new Trump-time message on the Statue of Liberty!

How far can the US fall under such a numpty with all the scum floating to the surface?


Tree wrote:The idea that it's enough to just live for X years or whatever inside the US is absurd.


Absurd and a strawman.


Tree wrote: This alone doesn't prove you're wanted or that you're suitable for American life. Being in the country for a long time is just one tiny aspect of the naturalization process.


And again, we're talking about a group of people who have only ever known life as an American. That's not about the 'length' of time spent as you would notice if you bothered actually reading my responses.


Tree wrote:Will it be hard for them? Maybe, but that's not my problem.


Of course you're alright Jack.


Tree wrote:Maybe that will serve as an example to deter other parents from trying this stunt in the future.


Which it won't, as I already informed you. Given your apparent lack any understanding of hardship and desperation, I will clarify this for you: build as many walls as you like, desperate people will always find a way to take their families to a place where they can provide them food and safety.

Were you in such a scenario, your argument would change, whereas mine would remain consistent.


Tree wrote:
Well, first they're not being harmed by it anymore than they are being harmed by the legal immigration, or the history of mass migration to the USA.


As I keep saying, illegal immigrants completely bypass the procedures the US has in place for taking immigrants. Or tourists for that matter. That can harm the country and it also shows they don't respect the country.


Yes, but you are not showing harm, just asserting it.


Tree wrote:They could be bringing in drugs without anyone knowing it since they don't have to pass any checkpoints.


We're talking about DACA kids who live in the US, have always lived in the US, and who can't leave the US because they'd get caught, so they're not passing checkpoints in order to be bringing drugs in. More red herrings because you only know red herrings.


Tree wrote:They could be trafficking other people inside the US for sex slavery or worse. Again if there's no checkpoint to pass through nobody will know.


Your first point reiterated, and consequently the same red herring.


Tree wrote:They could be coming to commit crime rather than contributing.


We're supposedly talking about DACA kids, so this foray into specious criminal attribution is a non-sequitur. They came in because their parents brought them as kids.


Tree wrote:They use public infrastructure like roads or hospitals without ever having paid taxes for it.


They also work in a number of vital economic pursuits, aiding labour market flexibility and ensuring that a vast array of industries remain afloat.

The easy way to get them to pay taxes would be to give them citizen status.


Tree wrote:If there is a surge of low skilled workers - that drives down wages due to the unrealistic competition or makes it difficult for low skilled American citizens to find jobs so they go on welfare instead which everyone else then pays for.


We're talking about DACA kids, not surges of low skilled workers.


Tree wrote:They benefit from the security of the US' police force and military without either paying taxes or being asked to serve in the army like all other citizens are.


Not sure quite how that works out in your mind, but they don't benefit from a system they're not officially part of.

Again, we were supposed to be talking about DACA kids, but as usual, you can't expound arguments on topic, you need to bait and switch out, manufacture a red herring, then talk about that topic instead.



Tree wrote:
Secondly, it's not 'their' soil, but it's nice to see you've started using the words of the white supremacist neo-Nazis as that does rather explain much of your posting history. Blut und boden all in one sentence!


You are both legally and morally wrong.


Because you say so? Yeah, there's that bit of getting over yourself that you need to learn how to do.


Tree wrote: Each country belongs to its citizens and they decide who enters and who doesn't through their elected representatives. Congress has the power to make laws regulating how immigration and tourism is done. The president has broad executive powers to exclude any non-citizen or even entire groups of non-citizens simply by proclamation that allowing them to come would be detrimental to US interests.


Your response is a non-sequitur. It doesn't address my point which you declared wrong. It's your usual manufacturing of red herrings.


Tree wrote:And guess what? The guy who won is against open borders. Tough shit for you.


Actually, tough shit for you because he's lowering the status of the US in the world's eyes, he's damaging relations with neighbour countries and long term allies, and he is isolating the US in a period when international relations have never been more important.

Trump is the symbol of the decadent corruption plaguing the US. His election marks the end of US dominion. Far from making America great again, he's making it outdated and redundant, and sadly, he's thereby giving other national entities a massive boost to their impact on the world.



Tree wrote:Nothing to do with white supremacy by the way. It's about citizenship and following the rules. The US has many many non-white citizens, nobody wants to deport them.


White supremacists do.


Tree wrote:
Thirdly, unless you are a native american indian, your own family is an immigrant to the USA, so perhaps you should fuck off from trespassing on their soil as you have been for centuries? No? Goose is not interested in the gander because goose has his head up his arse?


No, please get some basic facts right.

The USA formally came into existence as a country in 1776 and its founders were European. They not only established what territory would be part of the US but also what core principles it would be based on. The correct term is "founder" not "immigrant". There was no USA to migrate to before that. Now, before you had the USA as a state you had European settlements and before that North American territory was a largely untapped and uninhabited wilderness with no central government, no army, no police force, no clearly marked borders, no infrastructure. Just scattered tribes of Native Americans.


Goose? Gander wants a word!

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


Tree wrote:Ownership of something is not determined by proximity alone, you need to transform the world around you to claim ownership.


Ugh, I can't believe that 18th century notions of fences as ownership are still being touted by blod und boden types.


Tree wrote: Simply putting up the first tent on an empty untapped landmass doesn't give you a claim to the entire continent. At best it gives you a claim to the tent and the soil under it.


:lol:

Only it doesn't if you're Mexican, right?

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.


Tree wrote: If you want to build a real nation you need to build settlements, create infrastructure and mark your territory.


No you don't. What you need to do is murder more of the aggressive incoming immigrants than they murder you. Know how we can tell this? Because all those central and south American states with settlements, infrastructure and 'marked' territory were equally divested of their ownership of the land as the native Americans in present day USA.


Tree wrote:Did the Natives have that? No. Ergo, they have no claim to the ENTIRE territory that is now know as the USA.


According to your 18th century argument, they had no claim to any part of the continent, regardless of having lived there for 12,000 years.

Your argument was best mocked by Eddie Izzard's 'Do you have a flag?' routine.



Tree wrote:Were crimes done against them? Yes. But the idea that they owned the entire continent including untapped landmass by proximity alone and Europeans were "illegal immigrants" is beyond retarded.


Because Tree says so and is an expert on beyond retarded.



Tree wrote:This is just more regressive "fuck America" nonsense. Your professors I see indoctrinated you well.


Tinfoil hats to the ready...



Tree wrote:
I don't have a world view, Tree


This is just a lie, everyone has some kind of worldview.


That is just an idiot claim, no they don't.

I explained very clearly to you what a world view means and why I don't possess it, so perhaps try engaging honestly on just one topic, will you?



Tree wrote:To say you have no worldview at all is to say you have no basic cognitive orientation.


Well, that's a stupid contention, isn't it?



Tree wrote: How do you make sense of the world without it? You have to start from somewhere.


You don't make sense of a world with a world view, you distort it with a world view, making every factor squeeze into a narrow and uninspected set of biases.

And making sense of chaos doesn't require simplification, because it's not simple, because there are numerous interactions which may be unrelated, or intrinsically related, or anything in between.

A world view is a cognitive bias, and that's something a lot of people interested in reason and rationality seek to remove from their thinking.

So perhaps you should be asking better questions rather than stating that your limitations are everyones'?



Tree wrote:Maybe you should take some online tests or something to find out where you stand.


I know where I stand without a world view, I do so by employing reason, empathy, and knowledge/experience, and I do so in relation to individual cases, not as a cardboard cut out..


Tree wrote:A man with absolutely no worldview is a man without any personality to me.


Yeah, there's that bit about how I couldn't give a fuck what you think regardless, not least because you're basically a marionette tugged around by uninspected prejudices, but also because you've shown yourself to be a sore excuse for a human being.

Just so you grasp this: my worth isn't measured by how much Tree likes me.



Tree wrote:Stop being in denial.


Stop being a vapid dick.




Tree wrote:
Your world view informs everything you believe, but I don't possess any such overriding doctrine to contain my thoughts. I am free to pick and choose based on what I consider to be the most valuable.


What do you consider "most valuable"? There's your worldview.


D'uh... you're really doing the theist thing where everything's a religion, even rejection of a religion is a religion.

Yeah, it's stupid. Feel free to continue making stupid assertions though.



Tree wrote:And this has nothing to do with being religious or not. Religion is a very specific kind of belief. Worldview has to do with your core values, if you don't have that, I'm not sure that you even have a personality at all.


Yeah, you said this already and just as with the first time, it's indicative of how little you think before speaking.

Religion is a specific kind of belief, but the way it operates plugs into our psychology - it's a world view because all things are seen through its lens. Similarly, you are inculcated to see everything through a politically ideological lens, which is why you value everything based on whether you are alright Jack, and everyone else is a communist.

For me, as I've already informed you, I need no such armature to my thoughts, not least because I've inspected the armatures other people employ and have found them lacking.



Tree wrote:
Your usual red herring where you witter about something else irrelevant as if it somehow relates to the point at hand.


No, it is 100% relevant to point out the moral issues with Communism when I have to deal with degenerates who try to argue that somehow Communists are good people unlike those fascists.


Stop lying, chap. Tossing out insults doesn't make your lie become truth.



Tree wrote:Truth is, they both suck.


Truth is that you suck very badly at logic, reason and discourse.

Truth is that you need a blog where you can expound the Gospel according to Tree because you clearly have no idea how it can possibly be that someone can disagree with you without automatically becoming your boogeyman.

Truth is that, above all else, you need to understand what comes before your thoughts, what caused you to possess them. Then you might begin to understand the majority of my points which are utterly oblique to you at present.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Sun Nov 26, 2017 3:45 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/05/24/ ... t-suspect/

You're welcome.

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.

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.

You probably won't because you probably like those guys. So if antifa or other communist figures endorse Sanders or Corbyn you don't mind that. I've never seen a single leftist so far reflect on that, not even the more reasonable ones.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Been counting them, have you?

Whatabout communism?


That's not whataboutism. It is a perfectly reasonable response to a person who thinks "white supremacy neo-Nazism" is a danger but Communism is not and just dismisses it as a "boogeyman" or lies that antifa is merely a group of vandals and have nothing to do with an ideology.

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


Migrate legally then.

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. The US isn't obligated to take care of the world's problems at its own expense. Immigrants are expected to contribute and integrate.

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.

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.

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. 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.
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:11 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

The new Trump-time message on the Statue of Liberty!


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

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.

See John Locke's labor theory of property.

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

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.

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

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? Did it have a central government, an army? A police force? Fucking park rangers even? A national creed even like say a declaration of independence? 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.

Do whatever you want... at the bottom of the ocean.


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. 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.

There's also a sort of statute of limitations on conquests. Generally speaking, we don't redraw borders anymore or punish a country just because it acquired territory through conquest X hundred years ago. It's just not realistic to even investigate let alone solve every single injustice in distant history.

These are the current borders, don't like them, form your own nation at the bottom of the ocean, or Mars, or wherever you find untapped landmasses that you can reasonably transform to be livable for most people.
Sun Nov 26, 2017 5:37 am
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3473Joined: 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:Shrinking the Tent: How American Atheists Won’t Tolerate Intolerance


I'm not buying it.


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.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Last edited by he_who_is_nobody on Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:03 pm
YIM WWW
MarsCydoniaUser avatarPosts: 877Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:15 pm

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

Tree wrote:I asked him to show the evidence.

I was not asking about what you did but about why you did.

Tree wrote: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

And what should we do about the trend of accusing women of being god-digging whores on flimsy evidence, if not no evidence at all?

That was the nature of my remark:
What makes it ok to drop the impossibly high standard of evidence you demanded when someone was called sexist and simply give a person the benefit of the doubt that they "might know something" when they call women gold-digging whores?

I am confident I already know the answer but you can enlighten me.

Tree wrote:The argument against it is mainly that they're not citizens or legal residents. Seems pretty compelling to me.


That isn't compelling to me. At all.
"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
Mon Nov 27, 2017 7:40 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

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.
Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:13 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

Tree wrote:

No, please get some basic facts right.

The USA formally came into existence as a country in 1776 and its founders were European. They not only established what territory would be part of the US but also what core principles it would be based on. The correct term is "founder" not "immigrant". There was no USA to migrate to before that. Now, before you had the USA as a state you had European settlements and before that North American territory was a largely untapped and uninhabited wilderness with no central government, no army, no police force, no clearly marked borders, no infrastructure. Just scattered tribes of Native Americans.

.



Well for example, most “Mexican iligal inmigrants” live in states like Texas, California, Arizona, etc. that where part of Mexico in the mid 1800s, Mexico lost these territories as a consequence of a military invasion.

Should these Mexicans be deported?

Why not keeping things simple? Why not let anyone live in any country that they what, immigration is demonstrably good for any economy, and it provides cultural richness to any country.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:22 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

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.

MarsCydonia wrote:That isn't compelling to me. At all.


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.
Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:35 pm
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

Tree wrote:
I don't find anything compelling about ignoring the law simply because someone has been doing an illegal activity .


Illegal things and immoral things are not necessarily the same, in my opinion (yes just an opinion) there is not anything intrinsically wrong with immigration, immigration should not be illegal, nor severely regulated.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Mon Nov 27, 2017 11:44 pm
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

leroy wrote:Illegal things and immoral things are not necessarily the same, in my opinion (yes just an opinion) there is not anything intrinsically wrong with immigration, immigration should not be illegal, nor severely regulated.


Really? So what if you're an immigrant 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.

Not everyone can pull their weight. Maybe you have a criminal record in your home country or you intend to come to the country solely to commit crimes without having any legitimate income. Maybe you have a deadly infection that we'd rather not have to deal with. Maybe you don't have any useful marketable skills or can only do low skilled labor - well there's no need for that seeing as there are plenty of jobless bums who could be convinced to do it instead if only they were kicked off welfare. And there will be far less need for low skilled labor going forward with all this automation. Maybe you just hate the country and have no intention of integrating. Nobody needs troublemakers.


leroy wrote:Well for example, most “Mexican iligal inmigrants” live in states like Texas, California, Arizona, etc. that where part of Mexico in the mid 1800s, Mexico lost these territories as a consequence of a military invasion.]

Should these Mexicans be deported?


Of course they should be deported. What happened in the mid 1800's has absolutely no bearing today. Texas, California and Arizona territories are not somehow "less" part of the US (and therefore somehow more acceptable to trespass on) just because you don't agree with the outcome of that conflict. If you want to come to the US today, you follow US immigration/tourist laws, no matter what state you want to visit.

leroy wrote:Why not keeping things simple?


Because the world isn't simple.

leroy wrote:Why not let anyone live in any country that they what, immigration is demonstrably good for any economy,


No it's not, it is trivial to disprove that with a hypothetical: What if all 7 billion people wanted to come to the US? Do you think that would be sustainable?

How about just 300 million more, the exact same number of people currently living in the US?

How about just 50000 people, but all them selected from prisons? Would that be a net gain or net loss for society?

How about just 1000 people, but all infected with HIV and no marketable skills?

How about just 1 million low skill workers? Do you understand economics? Do you understand how that drives down wages for low skill workers or puts them out of a job so then they're on welfare and we have to pay more in taxes for them?

Immigration can bring both good and bad, that's why there's a filter and not everyone gets in. If you let anyone move anywhere they want, you can not only get bad outcomes but also unpredictable outcomes which make it impossible to set other national policies. Like, how big of a police force budget do you need for the current year? If criminals can just randomly enter the country over night as they please, you're not going to be prepared for it. How would the policy of say the CDC be set for the current year if all seems fine one moment and then the next you get a major epidemic because anyone can come in from anywhere?

leroy wrote:and it provides cultural richness to any country.


I honestly have no idea what that means. This is just an empty platitude to me. You do understand that when you import a foreign culture you import both the good aspects and the bad? So it does not necessarily follow lots of immigration = enrichment.

There are also entire countries that are full of strife precisely because they do not have a common culture, a common set of values that most people can relate to and make them come together. How do you think separatist movements start?


Now with Mexico in particular, and illegal immigration in particular, I can think of three major issues:

1. Mexico has a higher crime rate than the US does, with no background checks you could be importing more crime, including more PER CAPITA crime.
2. Most illegals would vote Democrat if allowed to vote, I see nothing good in allowing immigration levels to reach a point where they can distort political outcomes.
3. Most illegals have poor job skills (if they had more they most likely wouldn't be illegal), none of this is needed, and automation will make them even less relevant one day, there is just no need for 12 million illegals, there are better options, there are scientists waiting years to join, is that fair?
Tue Nov 28, 2017 12:23 am
leroyPosts: 2030Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:30 pm

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

Tree wrote:
Really? So what if you're an immigrant 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.


Not everyone can pull their weight. Maybe you have a criminal record in your home country or you intend to come to the country solely to commit crimes without having any legitimate income. Maybe you have a deadly infection that we'd rather not have to deal with. Maybe you don't have any useful marketable skills or can only do low skilled labor - well there's no need for that seeing as there are plenty of jobless bums who could be convinced to do it instead if only they were kicked off welfare. And there will be far less need for low skilled labor going forward with all this automation. Maybe you just hate the country and have no intention of integrating. Nobody needs troublemakers.



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.


Not everyone can pull their weight. Maybe you have a criminal record in your home country or you intend to come to the country solely to commit crimes without having any legitimate income. Maybe you have a deadly infection that we'd rather not have to deal with. Maybe you don't have any useful marketable skills or can only do low skilled labor - well there's no need for that seeing as there are plenty of jobless bums who could be convinced to do it instead if only they were kicked off welfare. And there will be far less need for low skilled labor going forward with all this automation. Maybe you just hate the country and have no intention of integrating. Nobody needs troublemakers


leroy wrote:Well for example, most “Mexican iligal inmigrants” live in states like Texas, California, Arizona, etc. that where part of Mexico in the mid 1800s, Mexico lost these territories as a consequence of a military invasion.]

Should these Mexicans be deported?


Tree wrote:Of course they should be deported. What happened in the mid 1800's has absolutely no bearing today. Texas, California and Arizona territories are not somehow "less" part of the US (and therefore somehow more acceptable to trespass on) just because you don't agree with the outcome of that conflict. If you want to come to the US today, you follow US immigration/tourist laws, no matter what state you want to visit.



That is my point, if US citizens don’t have to pay for what their ancestors did in the 1800s why should an immigrant pay for what his parents did? Many immigrants simply came with their parents when they where kids or babies, they were raised and made a life in US, they haven’t really lived in any other country. Should these immigrants be deported?




Tree wrote:No it's not, it is trivial to disprove that with a hypothetical: What if all 7 billion people wanted to come to the US? Do you think that would be sustainable?


The laws of supply and demand would prevent that. You don’t need a law nor a regulation to prevent it, the invisible hand of free market would solve those problems.

Tree wrote:How about just 1 million low skill workers? Do you understand economics? Do you understand how that drives down wages for low skill workers or puts them out of a job so then they're on welfare and we have to pay more in taxes for them?


Again, the invisible hand prevents that from happening, in the long term unskilled and unproductive workers won’t be hired, this should be true regardless if you are immigrant or legal citizen.

Tree wrote:Immigration can bring both good and bad, that's why there's a filter and not everyone gets in.




I am not against filters, but in my opinion anyone who is not a criminal in his country should have the right to migrate to any other country, this is the only filter that should exist. On average individuals tend to be productive, most people have the ability and the willingness to become productive.

Sure there might be exceptions, but the same is true with legal citizens.
"events with a zero probability happen all the time"
Tue Nov 28, 2017 1:06 am
TreePosts: 230Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2017 7:08 pm Gender: Tree

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

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?

leroy wrote:That is my point, if US citizens don’t have to pay for what their ancestors did in the 1800s why should an immigrant pay for what his parents did?


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

leroy wrote:Many immigrants simply came with their parents when they where kids or babies, they were raised and made a life in US, they haven’t really lived in any other country. Should these immigrants be deported?


Let's be clear about one thing, if that happened 150 years ago, this would be a moot point because all their descendants would be citizens by now, due to birthright citizenship.

The laws of supply and demand would prevent that. You don’t need a law nor a regulation to prevent it, the invisible hand of free market would solve those problems.


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.

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.

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.

Again, the invisible hand prevents that from happening, in the long term unskilled and unproductive workers won’t be hired, this should be true regardless if you are immigrant or legal citizen.


See my previous comment.

I am not against filters, but in my opinion anyone who is not a criminal in his country should have the right to migrate to any other country, this is the only filter that should exist. On average individuals tend to be productive, most people have the ability and the willingness to become productive.

Sure there might be exceptions, but the same is true with legal citizens.


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.
Tue Nov 28, 2017 4:27 am
SparhafocPosts: 2445Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 6:48 am

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

Tree wrote:Except you called Communism a boogeyman, i.e. a non-issue that only someone irrational could ever be concerned about. I'm not misrepresenting you one bit.


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. 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.

2) You are wholly misrepresenting me as you have done in nearly every word you've written. It is now a bit of a game where I see what fiction you write in response to my posts.


Tree wrote:
No, my post doesn't remotely imply that. The problem is that your thinking is limited to a restricted binary fantasy where the entire world is divided up into two groups: the one Tree belongs to, and the one contrary to what Tree believes. Of course, the one which doesn't agree with Tree is full of terrible, awful characteristics, while Tree's group's shit smells like roses.


Bullshit.


Again, Tree knows better than me what I mean because Tree is in possession of the Gospel according to Tree.


Tree wrote:
We're not talking about its historical context dating back a century or so, Tree - we're clearly talking about the modern movement in the USA.


There's no reason to believe any of it has changed.


Oooh! A new fallacy for you! You really are going for the full house!

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


Tree wrote:
Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than on encouraging pro-left policy.


Wow, and you automatically believe them, how stupid is that?


Wow, and you automatically dispute their stated intentions, how stupid is that?


Tree wrote:Nevermind that they're full of shit because most of the people they target aren't even far-right or white supremacists.


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.


Tree wrote: To them anyone who's not far left is a fascist.


Projection. It's actually you who thinks that anyone who isn't a neocon must be a communist.


Tree wrote:Fuck me, this comes straight from the article you linked:

"They tend to be anti-government and anti-capitalist[9] and they are predominantly far-left and militant left,[10][5] which includes anarchists, communists and socialists."


Yes, I know, having cited it. However, it doesn't offer any support for your numerous contentions.


Tree wrote:
A 'standard' one?


If you can find even one antifa group that is actually anti-fascist in the literal sense as opposed to just crypto-communist/far left, I'd really love to see it.


Yes, the ones we're talking about.


Tree wrote:
Where's the source?


Oh God, I left you a link, figure it out.


No. Your obligation, not mine.


Tree wrote:
I dunno, but if it was in communism, then you might want to notice the long list of differences to communism, such as being against racism, sexism, nativism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, and discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest, and the most oppressed people, you know, the entire content of the paragraph you cited?

And again, so what? Is there something wrong with wanting a classless society?


A classless society is impossible.


More religious assertions dictated by the High Priest of Treeism.


Tree wrote: Some people will always achieve more than others.


Red herrring: Achieving more =/= class.

For someone so belligerent, you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Then again, that's the point of the belligerence, isn't it?


Tree wrote:Why the hell do I care if someone earns more than I do or has a better home or whatever? Maybe he earned it.


Red herring: Earning more =/= class.


Tree wrote:Speaking for myself, I'm both in the working class and the bourgeoisie class so this whole class distinction is meaningless to me.


There's no such thing as a bourgeoisie class, and if there was, then by definition you couldn't be part of both classes, so perhaps learn what class means before making assertions showing you don't know what you're talking about?


Tree wrote: I earn a salary and I'm also a minority shareholder of certain companies listed on the stock market and earn an income from renting properties I don't personally live in.


Nothing to do with class.


Tree wrote:I'm not sure where I'd fit in simpleton Karl Marx's warped view of economics where it's ALWAYS these fat rich millionaires exploiting the poor workers or something who can never get ahead in life.


Haha you clown. You really are a warped individual.


Tree wrote:
Are you saying that the only good society is a class based society?

Do you actually disagree with them?


I'm saying I don't give a shit about class.


Which is clearly bollocks.


Tree wrote: I don't think you should be prevented from climbing up nor do I think you should be elevated artificially so you're equal to other people.


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-)


Tree wrote:Go out and earn what you can. Whether you become filthy rich or broke as fuck or something in between, and how you do it all, whether you want to invest in a growing business, start your own business, be an employee and work for a boss for a fixed salary or ALL THREE all up to you. As long as you do it legally, no problem.


Again, you are exhibiting a fundamental misapprehension about the nature of social classes. Classes are not defined by how much you earn, or whether you run a business or not.

Ironically, you appear to be stuck mentally in the times that Marx was writing about.
"a reprehensible human being"
Beliefs are, by definition, things we don't know to be true.
Tue Nov 28, 2017 6:56 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 5 of 16
 [ 304 posts ] 
Return to Religion & Irreligion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests