So the atheist "movement"...

[Sparhafoc]

It's ironic that Tree's appeals to fear of all these different groups, whether they be criminal Mexicans,

How about you stop lying about my position?

Well, how about you SHOW that I am lying about your position first rather than asserting my supposed dishonesty as usual?

I oppose illegal immigration and there's nothing "hostile" about telling foreigners to respect the borders of the US and migrate legally if they want to migrate at all.

Irrelevant. You also suggested that Mexicans are criminals.

The Mexican government would not appreciate 11 million Americans all jumping the border with no papers, would they?

Presumably, it would depend a lot on the context.

property-stealing communists,

Communist ideology relies on stealing property.

No, no it doesn't.

always entails policies that are apparently designed to maximize hostility and cause the very conflicts he's supposedly warning us of.

And your solution to conflict is to just get along despite clear irreconcilable differences that are going to lead to conflict anyway on far worse terms.

And yet "my solution" (one you espoused for me) provably works because I live with Muslims and none of them have yet tried to murder me.

Kind of a problem for your garbled hate-mongering, isn't it?

You're only delaying the inevitable. At every point in history when communists and other totalitarians were not challenged sufficiently, they went on to cause irreversible damage.

I am all for challenging totalitarians, but I don't see either communists or Muslims as necessarily being totalitarians, regardless of your assertions to the contrary. Ironically, you are espousing an aspect of totalitarianism where you simply judge entire sections of the populace as personae non gratae and seek to rile public sentiment against them, paint them as a real and present danger, and limit their freedoms.

Except "white supremacist neo-Nazis" then you're happy to maximize hostility with them,....

It's funny how you claim I am lying about your position, but then you just keep making my position up for me.

At no point have I ever suggested that I want to do anything about white-supremacist neo-Nazis, however you repeatedly attempt to portray your viciousness as normal due to a false parity you have willfully manufactured out of thin air.

... so you're not even consistent with your "let's all just get along" shtick. You selectively apply it.

Not only have I never once remotely suggested anything like 'let's all get along' - it being a strawman you've just made up - but I've also countered your numerous instances of lying about my alleged position regarding white-supremacists.

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=184856#p184856

The problem, of course, is that I have never, in any way shape or form, advocated or advanced any argument about doing anything about any of these groups. Again, this is you trying to make me take a position which isn't mine. There is no parity here, it's an evasive tactic you keep using so you don't need to answer, or to pretend that your format of argumentation is justified because I am doing it.

In reality, I am not the one making hundreds of posts arguing against any group of people. Whereas you factually are doing that.

There is no parity whatsoever, which is why I keep rejecting it. You might not think I have a right to own my own position, but I will not allow you to make my position for me.

I don't think anyone on this forum would accept you making up their position for them. It is not a situation that can produce any reasoned discussion.

Again, Tree, while you may think your discursive malfeasance is a useful strategy, the people of this forum are too sophisticated to fall for such bullshit.

 

[Tree]

Right, take a step back, stop posting nonsense, think first.

Where did I say Mexicans are criminals? The only thing even remotely close to it is that I said Mexico has a higher criminality rate than the US.

It's absurd that you think communism doesn't rely on theft.

It takes only ONE person refusing to give up his property to the collective. What then? How is communism going to be achieved without force? Do you think realistically you can get even 10 random people to give up their property, let alone everyone in the country or the world?

I'm not worried at all about Christians trying to replace national law with the 10 commandments. The only real controversy is whether or not they can be placed on government land as a monument.

Nobody has tried it anyway because:

1. it wouldn't work, you'd never have a functional legal system with just 10 rules, it's too simplistic for the world we live in
2. they're not required too, only the moral part is valid, the legal part isn't

Um, yes of course I would, considering there's no way ever of knowing whether any individual knows absolutely everything about any given topic, nor is there any consequent assumption that they're obliged to agree.

If you think it's okay to be a National Socialist under some circumstances, then I don't think I can say much to reason with you. There is literally no common ground to be had if you're going to be defensive about that ideology. It shows your moral compass is completely broken.

I am all for challenging totalitarians, but I don't see either communists or Muslims as necessarily being totalitarians, regardless of your assertions to the contrary. Ironically, you are espousing an aspect of totalitarianism where you simply judge entire sections of the populace as personae non gratae and seek to rile public sentiment against them, paint them as a real and present danger, and limit their freedoms.

Freedom without any accountability for the outcome of your choices is the real danger here.

How would you like it if someone broke your window and then denied any responsibility because "well, it's my hammer, I have a right to do what I want with it, your window was in my way"?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Right, take a step back, stop posting nonsense, think first.

Are you projecting at me again?

Where did I say Mexicans are criminals? The only thing even remotely close to it is that I said Mexico has a higher criminality rate than the US.

You also said that their country was a shithole, that Mexico is sending the US its problems, and made a slew of remarks about how any and all illegal Mexicans must-needs, by definition, be criminal - even the ones who were brought as infants. I understand how you want past batshit comments to be forgotten (like the Muslim assassin roommate) so that you can pretend you're being reasonable, but no one is obliged to forget your past statements. As I've pointed out: you're free to retract them if you don't want to own them anymore.

It's absurd that you think communism doesn't rely on theft.

It's fuckwittery that you do.

It takes only ONE person refusing to give up his property to the collective. What then? How is communism going to be achieved without force? Do you think realistically you can get even 10 random people to give up their property, let alone everyone in the country or the world?

So you're appealing to a consequence that doesn't even follow logically because it's based on the same erroneous assumption you're supposedly trying to show, ergo even your chosen argument doesn't support your claim.

In reality, communism is about social ownership of the means of production, not about ownership of personal items. Given how you don't know this elementary fact about communism, it really shines a light on the numerous times you've confidently asserted such nonsense about it.

I'm not worried at all about Christians trying to replace national law with the 10 commandments.

Of course you're not.

The only real controversy is whether or not they can be placed on government land as a monument.

They can't be, although historical ones which have been in place for decades can remain.

Nobody has tried it anyway because:

Umm? As I've said to you many times; your confidence is not a proxy for reality.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/27/534558892/ten-commandments-installed-at-arkansas-state-capitol-aclu-plans-lawsuit

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/10/hamilton.ten.commandments/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/06/28/supreme-court-bars-commandments-from-courthouses.html

I chose the last source especially for you.

1. it wouldn't work, you'd never have a functional legal system with just 10 rules, it's too simplistic for the world we live in

Obviously, but also irrelevant.

2. they're not required too, only the moral part is valid, the legal part isn't

Irrelevant, Christians aren't obliged to agree with your preferred exegesis.


Also, I think everyone can note that what I was actually talking about was...

Asking a Muslim if they want sharia is like asking a Christian if they want the 10 commandments. Over and over again, we see Christian groups try and finagle the 10 commandments onto government property, so some people obviously are highly motivated by it. But it would be absurdly simplistic to say that all Christians want this, or even that the Christians who do want it actually mean they want to replace national laws with the 10 commandments.

And when you first mistakenly read this and said:

You actually compared wanting Sharia law to wanting to place a statue of the 10 commandments on government land?

No further comment, your honor.

I immediately corrected your comprehension error:

No, I actually compared wanting Sharia law to wanting the 10 commandments enshrined as law.

Of course, everyone else can see that I used the example of trying to have the 10 commandments installed on government property to show that some Christian groups are motivated to forward their religious tenets in place, together with, or to supersede secular laws, rather than as itself, the act of installing the monument, being functionally equivalent to wanting sharia. But obfuscate enough and maybe you'll never even need to address the point, which will obviously be preferable for you.

Um, yes of course I would, considering there's no way ever of knowing whether any individual knows absolutely everything about any given topic, nor is there any consequent assumption that they're obliged to agree.

If you think it's okay to be a National Socialist under some circumstances, then I don't think I can say much to reason with you.

Yeah, you keep saying that you can't reason with me, but that is indicative only of your capacity for reason, not because of any insurmountable logic problems with anything I've written. Also, it's ironic how you proclaim to be against totalitarianism but also argue to make some forms of belief illegal. The problem really lies here in your ability to reason period.

I think people are perfectly entitled to believe whatever they want - whether they be Muslims, or white-supremacists, or communists, or pedophiles or anyone at all - but that doesn't mean they get to enact their beliefs in society or to enforce those beliefs on others. My position (yes, they would be positions I hold rather than the litany of positions you attempt to manufacture for me) is, of course, wholly consistent with my recurring argument as to how Muslims and Christians are perfectly allowed to believe what they want just so long as they don't try to force other people to also obey those religious compunctions.

There is literally no common ground to be had if you're going to be defensive about that ideology. It shows your moral compass is completely broken.

Whereas in reality, this just shows how far removed you are from reason.

You assume that disagreeing with you equates to defending the thing you're attacking.

Rather, it's just me demolishing your poor arguments.

Also, your entire response was an appeal to emotion - you offered no substance whatsoever - and you simply used your refusal to engage in discussion as a stalking horse to regurgitate your preferred format of argumentation: ad hominem.

My morality or capacity for morality is not contingent upon espousing positions you agree with.

I am all for challenging totalitarians, but I don't see either communists or Muslims as necessarily being totalitarians, regardless of your assertions to the contrary. Ironically, you are espousing an aspect of totalitarianism where you simply judge entire sections of the populace as personae non gratae and seek to rile public sentiment against them, paint them as a real and present danger, and limit their freedoms.

Freedom without any accountability for the outcome of your choices is the real danger here.

No, it's not. The accountability of your choices is called 'law', at least in terms of society's reaction.

How would you like it if someone broke your window and then denied any responsibility because "well, it's my hammer, I have a right to do what I want with it, your window was in my way"?

I would say that they broke my window, just as I would say to you that your argument doesn't know whether it wants to be a strawman, a red herring, or a non-sequitur. Perhaps it's trying to be all three at once?

 

[Tree]

Yeah, you keep saying that you can't reason with me, but that is indicative only of your capacity for reason, not because of any insurmountable logic problems with anything I've written. Also, it's ironic how you proclaim to be against totalitarianism but also argue to make some forms of belief illegal. The problem really lies here in your ability to reason period.

I argued no such thing. Please point out where I said believing Islam should be illegal.

I think people are perfectly entitled to believe whatever they want - whether they be Muslims, or white-supremacists, or communists, or pedophiles or anyone at all - but that doesn't mean they get to enact their beliefs in society or to enforce those beliefs on others.

Some things blur the line between mere belief and action. Believing all manner of crazy things is one thing if you keep it to yourself. Telling others that your beliefs are good and should be put in practice blurs the line. So for example I can tell people that taking the elevator during a fire escape is good, but I will bear at least some moral culpability if people follow that bad advice and die as a result. Actively participating in and supporting an organization that promotes harmful acts blurs the line between belief and action.

What do you mean by enactment?

If someone for example is a Muslim and does terrorism to enact Sharia, that's pretty straightforward forcing your beliefs on others.

What if they're instead trying to use the force of the government to enact Sharia, without personally being violent. I think that's still a problem because it's still a violation (or at least an attempted violation if unsuccessful) of the non-aggression principle.

Government is primarily instituted to safeguard life, liberty and property of its citizens. Every group listed above poses a risk to that and should at the very least be closely monitored so that we can act immediately when treasonous or otherwise illegal action is taken against the country.

Furthermore, even if we do none of this, the rest of society can choose to treat them as pariahs in the private sphere. Pro-pedophile activists and white supremacists are already pariahs. Communists maybe a little less, but they're certainly no invited on TV to talk about how oppressed they are because of "communism-phobia". Muslims are given a total pass. Maybe this should change?

My position (yes, they would be positions I hold rather than the litany of positions you attempt to manufacture for me) is, of course, wholly consistent with my recurring argument as to how Muslims and Christians are perfectly allowed to believe what they want just so long as they don't try to force other people to also obey those religious compunctions.

Since you compared this with pedophiles, I wonder. Do you think it's "bigoted" if I don't want to hire a known pedophile advocate as a school teacher or any position that involves working with kids? Do you think it's bigoted if I don't want my kids anywhere near one and won't be friends with one?

You also said that their country was a shithole, that Mexico is sending the US its problems, and made a slew of remarks about how any and all illegal Mexicans must-needs, by definition, be criminal - even the ones who were brought as infants. I understand how you want past batshit comments to be forgotten (like the Muslim assassin roommate) so that you can pretend you're being reasonable, but no one is obliged to forget your past statements. As I've pointed out: you're free to retract them if you don't want to own them anymore.

It IS a shithole. Look up every human development metric, it's a terrible place to live in.

It IS true that the Mexican government hasn't done a damn thing to stop illegal immigration from their country.

It IS true that illegal immigration is an illegal act (by definition). If you don't want to be called out on it, then migrate legally or don't migrate at all, very simple.

Infants are not not culpable, but once they reach adulthood, they are if they remain illegally in the country. They should fix it.

In reality, communism is about social ownership of the means of production, not about ownership of personal items. Given how you don't know this elementary fact about communism, it really shines a light on the numerous times you've confidently asserted such nonsense about it.

A distinction without any merit.

Why does it matter if I use my car to drive around or use my car to drive others around to make money? It's still my car. You're not entitled to get it.

How I use my property, whether it's as an end-user or to make more money, none of your business.

Communism is a failed ideology that always leads to poverty and violence.