>tfw you realize after all this time that it's democrats and liberals that are the real fascists
Basic Tenets of Fascism:
>"Nothing against the state". Any type of questioning the government is not to be tolerated. If you do not see things our way, you are wrong.
Democrats: You don't want to sell a cake to a gay couple because of your religion? We're going to tell you you have to or close your business.
Democrats: You don't want to perform gay marriage in your church because your religious beliefs don't agree with it? Don't care. Do it or we'll close your business/church.
Democrats: Don't want to pay for contraception/abortions for your employees because your deeply-held religious beliefs disagree with the murder of unborn children? Don't care. Do it or we'll close your business/charity.
>"Everything in the state". The Government is supreme. Democrats: Bigger government, more control of individual lives, more taxation. We can spend your money better than you can.
Democrats: Don't want/need to buy this product? We'll force you to buy it or we'll penalize you a few hundred/thousand dollars every year until you do.
Republicans: Smaller government, states rights, less taxation.
How do you explain this, lefties? Why do you use the label "fascist" to slander republicans when it seems it lines up more with your own ideology?
>>721211597 Pretty sure it doesn't have to be right wing. Especially considering that the democrats encompass nearly every single tenet of fascism. That's like saying a basketball sneaker can never be a shoe. You can SAY it will never be a shoe but every characteristic about it (laces, soles, etc) says it most definitely is a shoe.
>>721211258 Churches/Pastors aren't obligated to wed gay couples, or straight couples, if they don't want to. Moreover, the only reason a church would be "shut down" is if their congregation no longer was able to support it or if it was breaking some kind of law(s) on an institutional level. Businesses have the right to refuse service to anyone they want, but they can't specifically discriminate against a group of people based on things such as race, orientation, etc. You should do some research, you can find a lot of this in the Bill of Rights.
The people (all of us) also have a right to protest a business or a church if they want to, that's freedom of speech, something I'd think you'd be interested in maintaining considering you're currently expressing your own opinion. Again, all in the Bill of Rights.
And before you go on calling me a libtard or cuck or whatever, I'm as conservative as it gets.
Well, it's a lot more than that, but a lot of us are here waiting to see if Trump really does bring less government to the internet. From my point of view any change has been minor so far, but it's too soon to call. If he does, he will probably last 8 years, possibly with another Republican run after. If he doesn't, then he'll probably be gone in 4 years.
>>721212068 Alright, I'll bait. Let's say I have a church, and I refuse to perform the rite of matrimony to a gay couple. Isn't there any other churches in the state or legal departments where the gay couple can marry? Or have I closed down ALL churches in the state and replace them with my own version of the church?
Not the guy you're arguing with but I think it has something to do with the fact that the first amendment grants you t he right to belong to whichever religion you choose, not to enforce the tenets of that religion.
e.g. A jewish doctor can't force circumcision on someone just because it's part of his religious beliefs, and I can't sacrifice children to my canaanite gods just because I believe it will keep my young forever.
There are limits to what you are allowed to do in the name of your religion, and as a society it's clearly been decided that you're not allowed to operate a business that can refuse people things on the basis of religion.
>>721212488 The same can be applied to any moral high ground people think they have. Let's say abortion is legal, but I'm a good christian doctor who refuses to perform an abortion. Am I imposing my set of believes into the laws of the state, this banning abortion, or am I simply refusing because of my believes?
>>721212427 >If you decrease the power of the federal government, doesn't that mean you increase state government, thus creating a bigger government?
No. It's a neutral equation. You can have 100% of government. If 80% is federal, 20% is then state. If you give the States 40% then the federal naturally drops to 60%. It's about who makes the same decisions for their community.
>>721212500 What the FUCK are you talking about? What religion has been forced to close their doors? Zero. If anything the only religion under fire from the government is absolutely Islam....by Republicans.
>>721212529 At what point did I imply I was alt-right? I didn't. Liberals just label everything and now it's gone to making tiers of labels until they just look retarded. All it does is show they don't have many (if any) logical positions.
>>721212589 Do you have reading comprehension problems? I used that analogy to express what the difference is between a believe and a fascist state. But since you've probably never lived in a fascist state, and don't have care enough to know what one is, you are being retarded.
>>721212068 Anon, I'll be absolutely honest with you. I'm at work and i find this amusing. However, I have no intention of wasting my time trying to argue with you. The problem isn't even with the understanding of fascism, but we hit bumps with basic stuff like arguing that the effort to guarantee basic human rights to certain groups (like the right to be treated equally and not be discriminated against) is a characteristic of fascism, because it doesn't allow people to do what they want. You don't seem to understand the concept of freedom of religion. Should islamists be allowed to apply their religious beliefs over others? In which situations? Where do you draw the line? physical action?
>>721212580 You don't have to perform the abortion, and as long as you don't interfere with her seeking one from another doctor who doesn't have that moral conflict.
Abortion is a topic though that is very different; I appreciate that in many pro-lifer's view, abortion is murder, and saying 'it's just cells' is meaningless - I mean, we are all 'just cells', really. Whilst I am pro-choice for pragmatic reasons, I do sympathise with the pro-life view somewhat - except the very few who, say, murder doctors or blow up abortion clinics like THAT is somehow pro-life.
>>721211797 in right-wing fascism there is >nothing against the nation, therefore against the state representing it in left-wing fascism >nothing against the society, therefore against the state representing it
only difference is the key both sides connect with. right wing uses ethnicity and culture, left wing position in working class
>>721212333 but refusing to sell cake is a perfect example of beeing a bigot. It is discrimination against gays, for whiever reason (most likely a very oportunistic and selective interpretation of the bible)
>>721212282 Freedom of Religion is a person's ability to choose what and how to believe and practice, not what a person can and can't allow others to do. For example, many religions have at one point practiced forms of sacrifice (Christianity, Islam, etc.). If my religion called for me to sacrifice a non-believer or a non-believer's property (sheep/goat), should my right to practice my religion outweigh the other's? Keep in mind I'm not advocating or even comparing sacrifice to say, access to birth control, I'm just offering up a scenario in which my right to practice infringes on someone else's rights.
A business can refuse service, but what they can't do is use their religious beliefs as a basis to discriminate against a group of people because it then infringes on the same right they're utilizing.
>>721212801 >However, I have no intention of wasting my time trying to argue with you. But let me just make this claim or two >The problem isn't even with the understanding of fascism, but we hit bumps with basic stuff like arguing that the effort to guarantee basic human rights to certain groups (like the right to be treated equally and not be discriminated against) is a characteristic of fascism, because it doesn't allow people to do what they want. >You don't seem to understand the concept of freedom of religion. Should islamists be allowed to apply their religious beliefs over others? In which situations? Where do you draw the line? physical action? You don't seem to understand basic logic or the meaning of the words you're using. Good luck with your retardation. >not with whom you were originally conversing, just amazed and had to stop scrolling >inb4 you respond I really don't care. (this is the sentiment you should have ended upon in your post)
>>721212880 Have you ever considered the fact that making a profit from an individual whose lifestyle your religious views conflict with could be perceived by some as accepting and even condoning said lifestyle? That could be bad for plenty of people.
>>721213052 I never said you were normal. Since when is it normal to go online and derail political discussions by making fun of people for liking anime? I don't even particularly like anime, just sayin' look where you fucking are. Do you go to abortion clinics and make fun of whores too?
>>721212793 The age old argument that if you don't tolerate my intolerance you are intolerant too. The intent to guarantee rights to others does not equals the intent to deny those rights. How can you not understand that?
I can't see the difference between all of the Christians in this country demanding to be allowed to force their beliefs on everyone and the Sunni and Shiite govts in the middle east that do the same thing...
>>721213073 If you don't want to sell to someone because they're rude, or smelly, or annoying, or any other reason, that's fine.
The problem is when you refuse based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc, is discrimination.
The thing is, the man didn't completely 'build and maintain' the business by himself. Police and courts, merely by existing, significantly reduce loss, and security costs. Can you imagine if he had to hire security to protect his stock from armed robbers who had no law to fear? Or, even worse, someone richer who has hired more guys with bigger guns?
That's just one example, but the fact is that the very society itself allows for the man to have the opportunity to start a business.
And as much as he benefits from the existence of government, law, police, and courts (plus sewerage, roads, and much more HE didn't build), he sometimes has to bite the lemon about HIS obligations to society.
Or he can move his business to lawless Namibia or somewhere. Discriminate freely.
>>721212880 Opportunistic is a great way to describe it because not only does it allow the owner to maintain their religious reasoning, however misguided it may be, but it also elevates that business in certain communities which in turn may increase business profits. For example, you deny a gay couple a cake and it makes the news, a couple days later people who are also anti-gay donate and use the business to help support it.
This business model is then repeated to take advantage of that section of the population, and at some point the already shaky religious grounds for denial are now no longer even involved and it's now simply just wholesale discrimination for profit.
I understand that this may look like/is a slippery slope fallacy, but discrimination is a tricky thing when truly understanding someone's reason for discriminating in the first place is hard to do. Especially if the discrimination is something like race or orientation instead of simply an unruly customer.
>>721212907 >I would too, unless I were in charge of potentially lethal hardware or powerful software in which case I would feel responsible, regardless of any others opinion, if they were to injure another human being against their will in actions derived from my assistance. >You're not coming to my business asking for a sservice That's not the situation at hand, though. You're the accuser in this hypothetical situation where you can call anyone who falls under the appropriate category a bigot. This makes you a bigot. People who call other people bigots are bigots themselves. There is not escape from my superior logic, faggot.
>>721211258 Democrats: You don't want to sell a cake to a gay couple because of your religion? We're going to tell you you have to or close your business >Discrimination is illegal, either serve everyone or don't operate. You have a choice, to either make cakes or peddle bigotry.
Democrats: You don't want to perform gay marriage in your church because your religious beliefs don't agree with it? Don't care. Do it or we'll close your business/church. >No church has ever been forced to carry out a gay marriage. The federal government is required to recognize all citizens equally, marriage has become a government institution, as well as a religious one. If republicans hadn't injected religion into government this wouldn't even be an issue
Democrats: Don't want to pay for contraception/abortions for your employees because your deeply-held religious beliefs disagree with the murder of unborn children? >The Supreme court of the US says that business are NOT responsible for birth control and contraception if they have sincerely held religious beliefs that prohibit them and US gov money goes to abortions.
Democrats: Bigger government, more control of individual lives, more taxation >Regulations governing how much business can fuck over individuals is a good thing. The government is very wasteful but I like having a military defending me, roads to drive on, electricity and water etc...and Republicans are the ones trying to legislate when women's bodies belong to the government.
Democrats: Don't want/need to buy this product? We'll force you to buy it or we'll penalize you a few hundred/thousand dollars every year >The only product this applies to is health insurance. I generally agree that the ACA is retarded, should have been single payer
Republicans: Smaller government, states rights, less taxation >less regulations for big business, abandon laws and regulations helping people, less taxes for the rich, more taxes for the poor
>>721213073 The man in question cannot shoot harmless people that come inside. He also cannot punch them. He also cannot verbally offend them for no reason. He also cannot have slaves working there, even if they are ok with it. He cannot commit anything that the law considers a crime or that offends other people's rights. Discrimination, for religious, sexual, or racist reasons, is one of those thigns wich he can't do, inside or outside his business.
>>721211258 >Republicans: Smaller government, states rights, less taxation.
Aren't states rights just shifting government, not making it smaller?
How is less taxation good if it's focused on the already rich, whilst barely impacts financials for the struggling poor?
Why are republicans so 'anti-welfare' when they support billions of dollars spending on subsidies, bail-outs and no-interest business loans that are essentially 'corporate welfare' for businesses too lazy to get efficient and work hard to earn a 'living profit'?
>>721213064 I'm not defending this dude, because he obviously attacked the camera and should answer for those actions, but when you instigate confrontation and do not leave someone alone when asked to, you shouldn't be surprised when someone follows through on a threat.
This isn't a liberal/conservative thing, all people should realize that fact. Some people follow through on threats especially if they're being instigated. The lady was LOOKING for confrontation and she got what she was looking for. Again, doesn't make what he did right at all.
>>721212959 Lmao I bet you're the same faggot that used the shoe comparison. Just because you realized how stupid of a comparison you made doesn't mean you can go and say you didn't make it. >that's like if taco bell put tomatoes on my taco when I didn't want any >I didn't just compare a taco to abortion Okay, pal.
>>721213465 So why is discrimination against rude or smelly people "that's fine" but discrimination against race or religion is bad? The person being discriminated experiences the same result whether it's because of their race, religion, odor or appearance.
Smelly-ness, rudeness or annoying behavior could just be cultural differences, you fn bigotted hipocrite.
>>721213216 but you are lawfully obliged to treat them as you would treat others. It's not a pet in the back. it's only folloing the law (not to say following international treaties of basci human rights)
>>721214057 Fantasy is thinking there's some magical law out there that makes it illegal for a business owner to flip his shit and say whatever he wants to you for whatever reason. You clearly don't know any bar owners.
>>721214232 Probably, yes. But taxes aren't the ONLY obligation you have.
The law states what it states. If you don't like it, petition your political representatives, vote in your local elections - HEY LOOK! Trump is looking to keep a lot of his election promises it's working!
OR, do what businesses do when they don't want to pay tax - move to a country with different tax laws.
>>721211258 Don't be so edgy. Not all democrats wants all of these liberty-killings laws. Protestors are rarely representative for the silent majority. I personnaly believes that there is a balanced middle-ground between allowing anything for the ideal of "freedom", – which would basically set everyone back to a "survival of the fittest" society which can only fail as the very base of society relies on the synergy developped by helping each other –, and the ideal of "fairness/equality" which of course in an extrem form leads to the destruction of individual freedom and a fascist state as you pointed out.
>>721213707 You have the obligation to refrain yourself from discrimination. In your personal life as well as in your worklife. You cannot deny people things because of their race. That is a good thing anon. The right to buy your stuff isn't in question here. What is in question is your right to discriminate (which not only doesn't exist, but is also considered illegal).
>>721211258 >Democrats: Don't want to pay for contraception/abortions for your employees because your deeply-held religious beliefs disagree with the murder of unborn children? Don't care. Do it or we'll close your business/charity. Wait, what..? Why the fuck would companies need to pay for contraception and abortions for their employees?
>>721214430 Protestors aren't even there to riot against Republicans for the most part. They are these pseudo-anarchists that wear all black and use these actual protests as a venue to do what they like to do, riot. Sure some of them are probably happy to "rage against the machine" but I expect a large portion of them don't really give a fuck about the immigration ban.
>>721214430 >Protestors are rarely representative for the silent majority
The silent majority rarely matters. Most Germans were good people but the Nazi's which were the minority took over Germany and tried to kill off all jews, the silent majority didn't matter. When Japan invaded China and killed millions of Chinese citizens during WW2 the silent majority of Japan didn't matter.
Here's one. Why the fuck is the pill considered a 'medical necessity', but not condoms?
>doesn't prevent STD's >only practical for one gender >literally a 'choice', abstinence is another one
Condoms are cheaper, work for both genders, significantly reduce STD's, are practically equally effective contraception and have a greater variety of types so as to minimise allergies or other reactions preventing use.
>>721213977 I'm not american. I do not possess full knowledge of your penal code. However, I am a criminal lawyer and can guarantee you that in a LOT of countries, "name-calling" and offensive comments are punishable by law. That's meant to defend peoples objective and subjective honor. If no such thing exists in the US, than I stand corrected: you are allowed to curse any and every costumer that enters your store. I really feel that that shouldn't be the case, though
>>721214516 >You have the obligation to refrain yourself from discrimination. I need you to rev up both of your decaying brain cells and support this arg before you go on. >In your personal life as well as in your worklife. Not a complete thought but I get it; refer to the above comment. >You cannot deny people things because of their race. I can deny them service based on their attitude or mannerisms, both are things that tend to accompany race. >That is a good thing anon. Good and Evil are concepts based on context and subjectivity. I disagree and again you've failed to support your supposedly obvious claims. >The right to buy your stuff isn't in question here. It literally is. "not providing services because of your intolerance of my life choices is textbook bigotry" >What is in question is your right to discriminate (which not only doesn't exist, but is also considered illegal). It is not, and I retain that right. I can discriminate against the drunk, the stupid, the reckless, and the ugly. All of these people can be turned away if you have the appropriate context. The context being any of these people walking into my place of business and demanding service.
>>721214770 by your smart observation, I would assume you think any form of rule of law is fascism. Laws are exactly that. ways of telling you what you can't do. Anon, the prohibition against violence, unless in very specific situtaions, and your right to property, are what protects you from getting robbed of all your belongings. It is not a natural phenomenom. does that sounds like fascism to you too?
>>721215263 Yep. There are millions of people roaming around like the SIMS only yelling those 6 statements on repeat all day. You probably wouldn't like it here. Don't immigrate. Stay where you are you soft pussy.
>>721215107 Me? I never felt the need to press charges because of insults. I am merely stating there it's very common for the law to meddle in such affairs. Defamation and slander are other examples of crimes which the doctrine usually refers to "crimes against honor". Most are really harmless, and it falls upon the judicial system to evaluate whhich ones are harmless and which ones aren't. As far as I can remember, most penal codes that have those previsions also descriminalize situations like arguments, meaning those actions would only be criminal when they are deliberate and uncalled for offenses against others, with some degree of severity as to cause some lasting effect on the victim. I see no problem with that. I have dealt with more than a few cases where offenses were enough to demand judicial interference.
>>721215585 Religion -a particular system of faith and worship. plural noun: religions "the world's great religions" -a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. "consumerism is the new religion"
But okay kid. Don't be upset because you know it's true.
>>721215727 I think religious freedom refers specifically to the first definition though; you could just as easily argue a conservative government forces people to 'adhere to their religious beliefs of not getting abortions or gay marriages".
Democracy is literally a balance of millions of conflicting wants to try and reach a result the majority is happy with.
There will always be things you are allowed to do but don't think people should, and things you want to do but can't. No matter who you are or what you consider yourself politically.
>>721216021 Because those states are generally the ones with larger populations, cities, and economies.
As such, they are generally more dynamic places with much more cultural change, therefore a greater propensity towards progressive political ideas.
Coincidentally but not directly related to this, as larger economies they generally tend to have greater resources for education, as well as better medical facilities and welfare, leading to an increased quality of life for all, including healthier mental development.
Thirdly, and also separately though related, as bigger cities with many businesses, they also attract more intelligent people from other states, therefore causing an increase in the average IQ.
>>721216540 It's a complicated Obama care bullshit thing.
Instead of using taxes to build a public medical fund (like our Medicare), because Americans hate taxes, they instead have your employer pay your insurance, then receive a rebate or something.
So what it is, is your boss pays your insurance, which covers medical procedures, including abortions, as well as many other things, because abortions are legal and it separation of church and state is a thing.
But Americans are all 'making companies pay for their employees abortions"
>>721211258 I do not, nor have I ever, called anyone a fascist in a critical sense. So, if my beliefs are fascist, that does NOT make me a hypocrite.
Anyway, what you're describing isn't even fascism. It's authoritarianism. Fascism is authoritarianism plus nationalism, the latter of which is something liberals vehemently oppose. If what you're trying to say is that liberals are the real AUTHORITARIANS, then yes, I happily concede that we are. But I still don't see how we're the real fascists.
I knowingly and wholeheartedly support the philosophy of authoritarian non-nationalism. The government of a nation SHOULD suppress the diversophobic attitudes of assholes, because antagonizing those we perceive as "other," rather than striving to adapt to them, is how wars start, and war is quite obviously a threat to national security.
>>721211597 From Merriam-Webster; Fascism: A political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.
>>721217296 >because antagonizing those we perceive as "other," rather than striving to adapt to them, is how wars start No, wars start when the struggle to adapt to a bunch of fundamentally different people INEVITABLY fails. Nationalism is the tribute we pay to the part of us that will always need its in-groups, any other approach is not only callow, but much less realistic in its understanding of the human condition.
>>721217948 Winning the collegial vote and losing the popular vote means that people living in less densely populated areas remain represented in politics. If only the popular vote counts, politicians will focus their attention only on big cities because more voters will live there and less densely (but not less important areas) will be ignored.
The issue of your two party system is unrelated to a collegial vote or a popular vote system.
>>721217948 The EC exists, at the fundamental level, to prevent marginalization. If elections were a matter of population-games then you could just as easily win by inviting a bunch of people from shitholes through your borders and bribing them to vote liberal with white people's money while shoving them all into big cities where they can't shit all over the serene countryside. The EC prevents this from being as effective without simultaneously eradicating the vote of the individual. It just rounds of the extreme edges.
It's sort of poetic that the left is against it for precisely that reason.
>>721218234 To add. If you look at American elections, your candidates fly all over the country, address and talk to people of all walks of life. Where the politicians only pander to and invest in big cities (like Spain if I am not mistaken).
>>721218074 >accuses liberals of exalting nation >submits as evidence the fact that they exalt a bunch of things that are decidedly not nations
>accuses liberals of exalting race above the individual >submits as evidence the fact that recent violent protests by liberal extremist minorities have exalted INDIVIDUAL (themselves) over RACE (white people) which is indeed also super wrong but is in fact the exact opposite
as for the rest yeah you're spot on, except that the last one is, again, the work of liberal extremist minorities, not liberals as a whole
>>721211967 You know being left doesnt mean you want communism? You are borderline retarded. Its like saying all right-wing government want gaz jews. I guess you are from USA because your education screams 'kill me'
>>721218102 >fundamentally different people >the human condition Pick one. Or, better yet, let me pick for you: number 2.
There's no such thing as "fundamentally different people." There are certain traits common to all people without exception. We, the left, demand peaceful unity on the basis of these traits, without regard to other differences. It has been and will continue to be difficult, but it's not impossible, and we will have it one day.
>>721218074 >I'll protest, riot, cause property damage in the 1,000s regardless if I get arrested because the liberal agenda is more important and I'm willing to be a martyr
You've got to remember, progressive liberalism is Utopianism. They reject the fundamental struggle that must exist at all levels of life. They reject freedom of speech on the grounds that it could cause conflict and struggle if "misused". They reject the idea of having restraint in the face of vices like sex, drugs, food, sloth and so on, because to live a life of discipline instead of permissiveness is to live a life of struggle instead of ease and gratification. They reject the notion of social struggle - that ingroups will be naturally competitive with each other, and therefore shouldn't be forced to get along artificially. Utopianism doesn't just fail to achieve its ends, it usually achieves exactly the opposite.
Generally, people with a more realistic view of the world create more practical rules for it. Chivalry, for example, existed as a way of taking something vicious like war and agreeing to certain limitations for the sake of humanity, rather than writing silly little essays about "fuck war! war should be done away with forever because it's mean!" Realism mitigates and humanizes.
But most importantly, Utopianism holds that a reward of infinite value is achievable. When a reward of infinite value is at stake, it follows that the ends must always justify the means. They don't seek to mitigate human disaster, they seek to obliterate human conflict, even if it means neutering the human spirit and violating the things that make us people.
That is why the leftist riots. That is why he punches wrongspeakers in the face.
>>721212427 > military equipment Cut it half and you still have with lower taxes enough money. If you cut the black budget over trillions from Pentagon too, you have enough money for food, home and university education for everyone.
>>721218952 >They don't seek to mitigate human disaster, they seek to obliterate human conflict, even if it means neutering the human spirit and violating the things that make us people. Damn right we do. Because the obliteration of human conflict has a greater moral value than the preservation of the human spirit. In fact, I've said many times before, and I'll say it again, that neuro-eugenics may not be a bad approach to world peace.
>>721218655 >The constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life. If he exists, I certainly have no knowledge of him.
You've misunderstood. There is the human condition that forms the basis for mankind, and there is the cultural dressing laid upon that understanding that forms a fully fledged human. The human condition is consistent among us all, which is why any civilization is created with the same basic tenets about things like marriage, tradition, holidays, virtues and policy on outsiders. Each one goes about them differently, but everyone with the wherewithal to build civilization has understood, for example, that you don't just let anyone through you walls. It is only the inheritors and destroyers of their work who are convinced otherwise.
But a full human being is not exclusively the human condition, they are the cultural application of it, and no two large groups of people are, will, or, as a matter of public record, ever have over come their differences in that regard. It is a pipe dream. It is toxic Utopianism at its most destructive.
>>721215568 >>721219164 I picked one out from my state that's based on religious morals. >Unmarried couples may not commit “lewd acts” and live together in the same residence. I'm a criminal and I believe this is unjust.
>>721219232 >But a full human being is not exclusively the human condition, they are the cultural application of it Not if culture itself is outlawed. >and no two large groups of people are, will, or, as a matter of public record, ever have over come their differences in that regard Not if the differences are prevented from developing to begin with. >It is a pipe dream. It is toxic Utopianism at its most destructive. Destructive indeed. Like the chisel destroys the stone.
>>721219193 ^ and this is exactly why those living under Communism, even though they'd never experienced any other way of life, would admit that they knew, though they knew not how, that their way of life was truly and grotesquely unnatural.
Utopianism commits the ultimate evil - the incidence of inhumanity in the hopes of ending tragedy. That it creates infinitely more tragedy in the process is only gravy - 100 million deaths laid at the feet of Communist regimes were not half so profoundly disgusting as the half-lives those people were made to live beforehand. The Utopianist discovers all to late that their perfect human is an automaton inconvenienced with a soul.
But the moral perspective is skewed, because happiness does not exist without sadness. Glory is begotten by tragedy. The Utopianist would deny our souls their highest heights out of a cowardly, cretinous fear of our lowest depths.
>>721219599 >Utopianism commits the ultimate evil - the incidence of inhumanity in the hopes of ending tragedy. Not an evil. Ending tragedy is more important. >That it creates infinitely more tragedy in the process is only gravy - 100 million deaths laid at the feet of Communist regimes were not half so profoundly disgusting as the half-lives those people were made to live beforehand. Less disgusting, perhaps, but also less moral. >But the moral perspective is skewed, because happiness does not exist without sadness. I claim not that it does; only that sadness is more to be avoided than happiness is desirable. >Glory is begotten by tragedy. At too great a cost. >The Utopianist would deny our souls their highest heights out of a cowardly, cretinous fear of our lowest depths. Because the lowest depths are lower than the highest heights are high.
>I'd rather live god damn it, even if it kills me. No. You wouldn't. You may think you would now, but you'll realize one day you'd rather have given up.
>>721219675 >You have to actually be sculpting something. We will.
>an automaton inconvenienced with a soul This is how things *start out* under socialism, but they're always crushed too soon to go further. The ultimate goal is as follows: that by degrading the human to an automaton, we strip away what protects the soul--and in doing so, we free it to our scrutiny and craftsmanship, and develop it into something superior, which will *naturally* live within the bounds of nonviolence and non-discrimination, without even *craving* to do otherwise. (This is where neuro-eugenics comes in.) *Then* we can put the human part back, by getting rid of the authoritarian system. It's like installing Linux on an MS Surface, you might have to disable the Secure Boot for awhile first.
>>721220174 "Therein the patient must minister to himself" Over four hundred years ago and Shakespeare still knew something you're loathe to admit: There is no technical fix for the problems of humanity.
>>721219736 What I believe to be the implication of the post proposes that our laws are secular when in fact, there is no discernable political reason to prevent unmarried individuals of the opposite sex from merely living together, but there are several religious reasons. (the unmarried individuals committing lewd acts is arguably politically relevant) >>721215329
>>721213429 >see something not related to own current world-view >start attacking the person instead of the argument >"win" the argument over who watches anime or not >laugh at your opponents ability to not point out your reading comprehension >???? >profit/orgasm i'd assume it goes something like this
>>721220407 I suppose it depends what you mean by overwhelming. We get astroturfed enough that it's definitely not the case one way or another, but you'd be surprised at the numale kiddies and womanposters we get here. Everyone likes to fashion /b/ as the worst thing on the Internet, which usually means right-wing, but enough liberals come here to try and talk over /b/tards that it's not so sure.
>>721211258 Retarded OP says fascism means never questioning government then gives several examples of liberals protesting the government to get laws changed. Literally the exact opposite of the point OP was trying to prove.
>>721212746 >>721212746 No, it really fucking isn't. It would be, perhaps the same as Taco Bell telling you that they don't have tomatoes, and that if you want a taco with tomatoes, you should find another taco place. And there would be absolutely nothing wrong with that.
You're backwards in this. You're trying to equate not doing something to forcibly doing something.
>>721221355 My point, you illiterate shithead, is that churches are not being forced to marry gay people. For some reason people in this thread keep saying that churches are being forced to marry gay people when that is not the case and never has been the case.
>>721211258 Okay Ill bite, but only for 2 specific things. Dont consider myself a democrat, but it just irritates me.
>Democrats: You don't want to sell a cake to a gay couple because of your religion? We're going to tell you you have to or close your business. I do not believe democrats think this way. The problem solves itself really. A company that is discriminatory will never truly see the prfit and growth that a company that does not discriminate. Even Chick-Fil-A, which is known to be of an extremely religious background, doesnt have a "No fags allowed." sign on their door. And at most CFA I have been to, several of the male employees were obviously homosexual. So it really isnt a problem when a store decides to discriminate. It really does take care of itself.
>Democrats: You don't want to perform gay marriage in your church because your religious beliefs don't agree with it? Don't care. Do it or we'll close your business/church. Once again, I do not think this is how Democrats think. I do believe their belief is really more based on a governmental level, state and federal, to simply recognize gay marriage the same way they would between a man and a woman. I dont think they have a problem just going to a courthouse or something like that and getting it officially. And there are more than enough churches that naturally support it as well. Its not something that needs to be forced.
While I dont disagree that you could find dozens of people who identify as democrat who do believe those things you are saying, I could also find dozens upon dozens of republicans who hate Muslims. That doesnt make me suddenly start thinking that every single one of them are xenophobic. I would like an actual response, as I gave one.
I love watching muricans both get fundemental concepts of political philosophy so amazingly wrong. Facist ideology implies 2 fundemental concepts. First and foremost ultimate authority of the state as it was mandated by national charter with no provision for change nor interpretation.
Second, a position that the nation is the perfect embodiment of above mentioned authority. Subjects like nationalism or ethnic homogenous policy can be used by Facist movements easily but are not inherent. Authoritarianism is a requirement though. So Democrats who reject any form of debate or dissent. Ed Snowden is a traitor, because he is a traitor we will not discuss the NSA spying on normal citizens. Both facist but Democratic and Republican party positions.
Wahabist Islam calls for a multi ethnic facist state ruled under Sharia law as defined by the Quran. Its neither democratic nor universal. I don't think there is anything wrong with scrutiny of these type of individuals. Especially when they choose to live in a democratic society. Most Muslims I know think Whabist Islam is a ridiculous idea. Most Muslims I know go to the Mosque a few times a year max as well. (Births, deaths, marriage and free food on the last day of Ramadan )
>>721211258 More like globalism, get with the times righty, world markets and shit now, you aren't living on a prarie with neighbours 5 miles away that you see twice a month, gotta have rules that make it generally good for everyone.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.