Gov. McAuliffee: You Are not Welcome

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Perfectenemy

Is that the new buzz word larping?.

I didn't want to say anything, but the people claiming the alt-right are just LARPING is a new low in mental midgetry.

I can't believe people have been twisted around so much they actually believe that crap.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

It paves the way for the thought police.

Exactly,

First they came for the white supremacists, and because I'm not one, I said nothing ...

Then they came for ...

We've seen this play out before.

Martin Niemöller would be rolling in his grave knowing you're using his famous quote to defend Nazis.

First they came ..." is a poem written by German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984). It is about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power

Hmmm. Who he wrote the poem about sounds like a lot of people right here on ATS recently, trying to intellectualize support for these Nazis..

You just misinterpreted their comments to confirm your bias towards them but completely failed to understand the content of the messages. I didn't spot any Nazi supporter on ATS but hey i guess that means i'm one of them. This is getting ridicilous and frankly accusing people of being Nazi sympathizers just because you don't like there opinions on this subject is just plain stupid.

If you sympathize with Nazis, you're a Nazi sympathizer.

It isn't any more complicated than that. Even though people like you talk yourself in circles to hide from that simple fact.

Nothing here or in other threads remotely indicated that's the case. You just throw these accusations around to make you feel better about yourself.

Anything intelligent to say? Or just more personal attacks?

You realize personal attacks are a sign of a lost argument, right?

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Perfectenemy

"Denying rights to groups that historically have denied rights to others simply makes you a part of a group that is denying rights to others."
-DBCowboy

Hypothetical question:

Would you support the rights of a pedophile group who convened to promote their pedophilia and remake the country in their own image?

Or would what they want be so morally wrong you couldn't see yourself standing with them?

I'm just curious where you draw the line.

Hate to break it to you but the LGBTPGQWDVBGH crowd is already promoting pedophelia and people who point that out are labeled as racist,transcontinentalphobic,mysoginist and what not. You're a a little bit late to the party and btw Pedophelia is still illegal and a crime in america but last i checked promoting white supremacy and LARPing as a Nazi is not. Your analogy is flawed sorry.

Nope, not flawed at all. Again, you're talking in circles in an effort to obfuscate the point I'm making.

How about you? Would they have your support? "Free speech" and all that..

Yes it is but since i'm a nice guy i'll help you out on this one.

Would you support the rights of a black group who convened to promote their black supremacy and remake the country in their own image?

Yes i would even if i didn't necessary agree with them because race is just a bull# concept that shouldn't even play a part in our reality. See it's really easy.

a reply to: underwerks

Hypothetical question:

Would you support the rights of a pedophile group who convened to promote their pedophilia and remake the country in their own image?

Or would what they want be so morally wrong you couldn't see yourself standing with them?

I'm just curious where you draw the line.

I haven't participated in the Big Thread about the Charlottesville rally. But, I have been perusing various posters' comments and find the whole discussion fascinating.

This question you propose in this post, underwerk's, is an interesting one. I'm a big free speech advocate, and I cringe when anybody wants to suppress it, even when it is rhetoric I don't like. But, you bring up an interesting conundrum regarding speech advocating pedophilia. My knee jerk reaction would be to say "of course not...that's different"!

Yet, did you know that there are academics and other so-called "professionals" that have begun to do just that?! They want to label pedophilia as a 'sexual orientation' that removes the stigma from the label!!!

So, my question back at you is this: Should these people be allowed to advance their view? Should these people be allowed to advocate for chipping away at the age of consent till it is somewhere near puberty? If they held a protest against the current age of consent, what would YOU think?

ETA: I see Perfectenemy beat me to it!

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Perfectenemy

"Denying rights to groups that historically have denied rights to others simply makes you a part of a group that is denying rights to others."
-DBCowboy

Hypothetical question:

Would you support the rights of a pedophile group who convened to promote their pedophilia and remake the country in their own image?

Or would what they want be so morally wrong you couldn't see yourself standing with them?

I'm just curious where you draw the line.

As far as I am aware being a pedophile is illegal, being a Nazi is not.

If you are just talking about sex with kids, I believe that falls under kink not criminal, if they file the paperwork and get permission then yes a group that wants to have sex with kids but has not still has the right to assemble in a peaceful way.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Perfectenemy

Is that the new buzz word larping?.

I didn't want to say anything, but the people claiming the alt-right are just LARPING is a new low in mental midgetry.

I can't believe people have been twisted around so much they actually believe that crap.

The Alt-Right is comprised of a really tiny group that couldn't even mobilize more than 10k people to attend a protest. You're telling me that we should be scared of a minority. Racist much? See i can play the spin game too.

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Perfectenemy

"Denying rights to groups that historically have denied rights to others simply makes you a part of a group that is denying rights to others."
-DBCowboy

Hypothetical question:

Would you support the rights of a pedophile group who convened to promote their pedophilia and remake the country in their own image?

Or would what they want be so morally wrong you couldn't see yourself standing with them?

I'm just curious where you draw the line.

As far as I am aware being a pedophile is illegal, being a Nazi is not.

If you are just talking about sex with kids, I believe that falls under kink not criminal, if they file the paperwork and get permission then yes a group that wants to have sex with kids but has not still has the right to assemble in a peaceful way.

They already exist and they are called NAMBLA. I looked them up after South Park mentioned them.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Fair enough. Just seems like a waste to argue about content you refuse to watch. I never said you couldn't ask a simple question, that's what I did too.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: underwerks

Hypothetical question:

Would you support the rights of a pedophile group who convened to promote their pedophilia and remake the country in their own image?

Or would what they want be so morally wrong you couldn't see yourself standing with them?

I'm just curious where you draw the line.

I haven't participated in the Big Thread about the Charlottesville rally. But, I have been perusing various posters' comments and find the whole discussion fascinating.

This question you propose in this post, underwerk's, is an interesting one. I'm a big free speech advocate, and I cringe when anybody wants to suppress it, even when it is rhetoric I don't like. But, you bring up an interesting conundrum regarding speech advocating pedophilia. My knee jerk reaction would be to say "of course not...that's different"!

Yet, did you know that there are academics and other so-called "professionals" that have begun to do just that?! They want to label pedophilia as a 'sexual orientation' that removes the stigma from the label!!!

So, my question back at you is this: Should these people be allowed to advance their view? Should these people be allowed to advocate for chipping away at the age of consent till it is somewhere near puberty? If they held a protest against the current age of consent, what would YOU think?

ETA: I see Perfectenemy beat me to it!

Thank you for a thoughtful response. I thought those had gone the way of the dinosaur around here lately.


I couldn't see myself supporting a pedophile rally any more than I can a Nazi rally. Both ideologies are based on taking the rights and liberties from another group. Both dehumanize people into objects to make sense of their ideologies.

I believe in free speech, but I also believe that groups who's sole purpose is to dehumanize and take the rights of others don't deserve those same rights.

Then again, where do you draw the line? It is a conundrum, for me as well.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Perfectenemy

Is that the new buzz word larping?.

I didn't want to say anything, but the people claiming the alt-right are just LARPING is a new low in mental midgetry.

I can't believe people have been twisted around so much they actually believe that crap.

See i can play the spin game too.

I'm sure everyone is well aware of that.

a reply to: joemoe

If the police kept them far apart none of this would of happened.

Heather Heyer, 32 year old resident of Charlottesville, VA

was killed in a vehicular homicide by James Alex Fields Jr from Ohio a couple of blocks away after the police had cleared the area in which confrontations were occurring.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: ketsuko

It paves the way for the thought police.

Exactly,

First they came for the white supremacists, and because I'm not one, I said nothing ...

Then they came for ...

We've seen this play out before.

Martin Niemöller would be rolling in his grave knowing you're using his famous quote to defend Nazis.

First they came ..." is a poem written by German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984). It is about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power

Hmmm. Who he wrote the poem about sounds like a lot of people right here on ATS recently, trying to intellectualize support for these Nazis..

You just misinterpreted their comments to confirm your bias towards them but completely failed to understand the content of the messages. I didn't spot any Nazi supporter on ATS but hey i guess that means i'm one of them. This is getting ridicilous and frankly accusing people of being Nazi sympathizers just because you don't like there opinions on this subject is just plain stupid.

If you sympathize with Nazis, you're a Nazi sympathizer.

It isn't any more complicated than that. Even though people like you talk yourself in circles to hide from that simple fact.

Nothing here or in other threads remotely indicated that's the case. You just throw these accusations around to make you feel better about yourself.

Anything intelligent to say? Or just more personal attacks?

You realize personal attacks are a sign of a lost argument, right?

It wasn't meant as an insult but merely as a statement how i perceived your comments. I rarely use personal insults because they don't help in getting my point across. I also value honesty above else and you would know if i wanted to insult you i can tell you that.

a reply to: underwerks

That's just it. You don't have to support it.

It's like saying if you admit that the law allows for them to have this rally, you somehow support what they stand for and that's false.

Just saying they have the right to speak their piece and hold a rally is not an implicit support of what they do or think. Better we know they're out there. Better everyone gets a good look so people can make up their own damn minds about it than that we try to ban them.

Isn't that the argument with certain illicit substances? You ban it and it takes on the air of the mysterious? It becomes the forbidden fruit? Do you want to make them victims of the government when every other hateful group out there would be allowed, even the communists ... and communists have had their political ideologies attached to just as much death and mayhem as Nazis.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: underwerks

Hypothetical question:

Would you support the rights of a pedophile group who convened to promote their pedophilia and remake the country in their own image?

Or would what they want be so morally wrong you couldn't see yourself standing with them?

I'm just curious where you draw the line.

I haven't participated in the Big Thread about the Charlottesville rally. But, I have been perusing various posters' comments and find the whole discussion fascinating.

This question you propose in this post, underwerk's, is an interesting one. I'm a big free speech advocate, and I cringe when anybody wants to suppress it, even when it is rhetoric I don't like. But, you bring up an interesting conundrum regarding speech advocating pedophilia. My knee jerk reaction would be to say "of course not...that's different"!

Yet, did you know that there are academics and other so-called "professionals" that have begun to do just that?! They want to label pedophilia as a 'sexual orientation' that removes the stigma from the label!!!

So, my question back at you is this: Should these people be allowed to advance their view? Should these people be allowed to advocate for chipping away at the age of consent till it is somewhere near puberty? If they held a protest against the current age of consent, what would YOU think?

ETA: I see Perfectenemy beat me to it!

Thank you for a thoughtful response. I thought those had gone the way of the dinosaur around here lately.

I couldn't see myself supporting a pedophile rally any more than I can a Nazi rally. Both ideologies are based on taking the rights and liberties from another group. Both dehumanize people into objects to make sense of their ideologies.

I believe in free speech, but I also believe that groups who's sole purpose is to dehumanize and take the rights of others don't deserve those same rights.

Then again, where do you draw the line? It is a conundrum, for me as well.

You just described every religion in existence. Now what? I think you simply misunderstood me and others by saying we support Nazi rallys. I and others support their right of free speech to hold the rally but not the cause in general. This makes a huge difference in my book.

Perhaps I'm just cynical and jaded but after watching it live and re-watching the video all I heard was, "I am announcing my candidacy for the President of the United States."

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Perfectenemy

"Denying rights to groups that historically have denied rights to others simply makes you a part of a group that is denying rights to others."
-DBCowboy

Hypothetical question:

Would you support the rights of a pedophile group who convened to promote their pedophilia and remake the country in their own image?

Or would what they want be so morally wrong you couldn't see yourself standing with them?

I'm just curious where you draw the line.

Someone already beat you to it, only they used ISIS instead of pedophiles as an example.


Free speech is often a burden. It's not easy.

In our society we punish actions, not thought.

If we start punishing thought, we'll be in far more trouble than what we're currently facing.

To answer your question, everyone has a right to free speech. We cannot be a society where we start punishing thought.

Ever.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

That's just it. You don't have to support it.

It's like saying if you admit that the law allows for them to have this rally, you somehow support what they stand for and that's false.

Just saying they have the right to speak their piece and hold a rally is not an implicit support of what they do or think. Better we know they're out there. Better everyone gets a good look so people can make up their own damn minds about it than that we try to ban them.

Isn't that the argument with certain illicit substances? You ban it and it takes on the air of the mysterious? It becomes the forbidden fruit? Do you want to make them victims of the government when every other hateful group out there would be allowed, even the communists ... and communists have had their political ideologies attached to just as much death and mayhem as Nazis.

Peoples attitudes on ATS lately go way past just making it known that the law allows for Nazis to have a rally. You yourself used a famous anti-Nazi quote in support of Nazis, as if we are all in danger if Nazis are prevented from spreading their hate.

I'm not talking about banning any type of speech. It just seems to me a lot of people are making excuses for the current Nazism because of their political leanings. And their hate for the left.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Perfectenemy

"Denying rights to groups that historically have denied rights to others simply makes you a part of a group that is denying rights to others."
-DBCowboy

Hypothetical question:

Would you support the rights of a pedophile group who convened to promote their pedophilia and remake the country in their own image?

Or would what they want be so morally wrong you couldn't see yourself standing with them?

I'm just curious where you draw the line.

Someone already beat you to it, only they used ISIS instead of pedophiles as an example.


Free speech is often a burden. It's not easy.

In our society we punish actions, not thought.

If we start punishing thought, we'll be in far more trouble than what we're currently facing.

To answer your question, everyone has a right to free speech. We cannot be a society where we start punishing thought.

Ever.

So is that a yes?

originally posted by: underwerks
And their hate for the left.

It might seem like that, because the _hate_ you've described has been hard earned.

And since we're uttering famous quotes, this one springs to mind: You reap what you sow.

Understand that I fully blame minorities and liberals for what happened in Charlottesville. They were the catalyst.

a reply to: underwerks

Now you're just being an ass.

Reading comprehension troubles?

Yes.

The answer is yes.

Even pedophiles have a right to free speech.