File: 1567889761410.jpg (867.95 KB, 2133x1200, 711:400, dc1rbog-7377b99c-7de6-47df….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Lets give two hypothetical scenarios: 157 posts and 12 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.
Let's say, science discovers a way for two men to reproduce with each other. The result is always a baby boy and the men born from this process are able to repeat it and reproduce with other men as well, when they reach sexual maturity.
Now let's also say that, through some mechanism, it was possible for a person to quickly rid the world of all human females, in such a way that no one would be able to stop the process once begun. All biological women would suddenly disappear from the Earth and cease to exist.
Would men alone create a better society than the current one? A "better" society in this context meaning a society with less crime, less violence and less inequality for it's members. And if so, would someone be morally right, or even morally obligated to commit this act?
I am a tad curious, though, how you would answer these questions yourself, if you don't have any belief in rights.
Why must somebody seeking asylum be allowed into a country?
Why shouldn't we have slaves?
I hardly think that's accurate, since these rights questions only came up recently, and have absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether or not we should judge people based on characteristics they are born with, in the same way we would with actions.
The only reason the rights question has come into play was because you kept bringing up irrelevant things, and I kept having to explain why they are irrelevant.
It's also incredibly annoying how you only respond to microscopic portions of my posts. Usually with the demand for something completely different, as though any other arguments presented are completely worthless to you.
It makes it rather difficult for me to justify writing out a large response to you. maybe instead of doing that, I should simply point you in the direction of the general philosophers throughout history who had wrote on rights. i
If you study a bit on American history, it should become pretty quickly clear. since you keep doing these single line replies, I think that's what I'm going to have to start doing. That or just posting videos explaining it since you won't listen to me near as I can tell.
File: 1568427301394.png (641.54 KB, 903x683, 903:683, Is this for real.PNG) ImgOps Google
I feel like I need to bring this up again;
Somehow, because I have an objection to judging people based on their gender, as in something they are literally born with, with no actions creating, I am a hypocrite, because I also think we should build a wall to prevent people from entering a country illegally.
Rights literally do not play into this at all. You don't have a right to not be judged for something you didn't do, it's just basic fairness.
I think this is just trying to drag people down a rabbit hole in the desperate hopes that you can avoid their actual augmentations. Because I don't think there is any reasonable way anybody could conflate a characteristic you are born with like gender to preventing people from crossing a border illegally.
Like, I'm not sitting here calling you a hypocrite for your stance on economics. I am fairly sure whatever your stance is on economics, it has nothing to do with your argument that the world would be better without men, right?
>>1800>if you don't have any belief in rights.
Woah! I NEVER said that. If you're going to accuse other people of misinterpreting your intentions, you should do well not to do the same. >>1801
It doesn't matter if no one's ever asked you these questions directly before. These are questions you should have asked yourself long ago.
If you don't have concrete answers for what "rights" are and who decides those rights, and your base your principles, at least in part, on those "rights", then how can you expect anyone else to understand what your principles are and how they operate? >>1802
This has less to do with the OP and more to do with understanding your principles as you have set them forth in this thread. Without understanding those, it's hard to have a moral conversation about anything.
You still have not defined what you think "rights" are and who you think grants them.
>>1803>Woah! I NEVER said that. If you're going to accuse other people of misinterpreting your intentions, you should do well not to do the same.
I am a bit confused on where you think they come from, then.
As you put it, "So what decides what a person's "rights" are? Do you arbitrarily pick them yourself? Do you believe in a higher power? ">It doesn't matter if no one's ever asked you these questions directly before. These are questions you should have asked yourself long ago.
I said nothing relating to this statement that makes it makes sense, so I'm going to assume it's a complete mistake on your part. I have no idea what it could be referring to, what it's implying, or what it's about. It looks like it's just completely randomly placed here. I can only assume you misread something.>If you don't have concrete answers for what "rights" are and who decides those rights, and your base your principles, at least in part, on those "rights", then how can you expect anyone else to understand what your principles are and how they operate
I do have those, it's just a pain in the ass to get to, especially over a cell phone.
The problem is that they are irrelevant to this conversation.>This has less to do with the OP and more to do with understanding your principles as you have set them forth in this thread. Without understanding those, it's hard to have a moral conversation about anything
my definition of Rights is irrelevant to the conversation in any capacity, though, that's my problem.
You've accused me of hypocrisy for something that does not conflate.
so what I'm going to do now is I'm going to call you a hypocrite because of your stance on men, because your standards for economics.
I'm going to require you to explain your standards for it economic matters in their entire complexity, in detail, and unless you do that, you're apparently hypocritical.
Would that make sense to you? Would that be justified? Would that not be a blatant nonsensical rabbit hole that has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation, but only exists so that you can try to move the goalposts around as hard as you possibly can, in order to attempt to prove yourself right?>You still have not defined what you think "rights" are and who you think grants them.
Because it is still irrelevant.
I'm going to need you to now to find your particular standards for what constitutes extremism, and the exact methodology of which the government should go to in order to combat said extremism.
If it's okay to just bring up random shit I am getting quite tired of letting you be the only one to do it.
File: 1568430811133.png (362.52 KB, 600x537, 200:179, 1540426152272.png) ImgOps Google
I'd say that there's a broad division between two kinds of rights: (1) basic human rights like free speech and self-defense, and (2) specific legal rights, like a right to collect Social Security benefits or as in a contract that grants you a right to buy a certain number of shares of a certain stock at a certain price on a certain day.
In regard to talk about basic human rights, I'd say that it's just an abbreviation for talk about what a system of ethics mandates. E.g., "Mallory infringed Alice's right R
" means that Mallory acted contrary what what the system of ethics requires in a specific way.
File: 1568431043729.jpeg (13.12 KB, 395x424, 395:424, D5ci1RYWwAEbj3Y.jpeg) ImgOps Google
Let's start over, because I'm just straight up going to ignore your pulling random irrelevant shit in from now on:
It is wrong to judge people for something they have not done.
This is why sexism and racism is wrong. You are assuming things about the individual not reflecting of the whole.
Rights do not come in to this rationale in any capacity whatsoever, so I'm going to have to ignore any rights nonsense, since they do not apply whatsoever.
We aren't discussing where I think they come from. I'm asking YOU where YOU think they do, so that I don't have to assume anything about you. If I have my own, personal answers to those questions. >>1804>I said nothing relating to this statement that makes it makes sense
"It doesn't matter if no one's ever asked you these questions directly before." is DIRECTLY a response to >I hardly think that's accurate, since these rights questions only came up recently>>1804>I do have those, it's just a pain in the ass to get to, especially over a cell phone.
You are free to wait until you have a computer to answer them. This isn't a race. >>1804>The problem is that they are irrelevant to this conversation.
Perhaps to the OP, but not to the conversation you and I are having at this moment about your principles.
You're only insisting they do not apply because you want the topic of our discussion to be something else. I want the topic of our discussion to be the clarification of your principles and how they relate to rights.
If you are unable to clarify your principles, then we can't use them or anyone else's as a measure of what is and isn't "right".
>>1807>We aren't discussing where I think they come from. I'm asking YOU where YOU think they do, so that I don't have to assume anything about you. If I have my own, personal answers to those questions.
I have no interest in discussing it. It only came up because you decided to act like a dick and claim I was being hypocritical, by pointing to something that does not logically follow what so ever.>"It doesn't matter if no one's ever asked you these questions directly before." is DIRECTLY a response to
Right. So misread.>You are free to wait until you have a computer to answer them. This isn't a race.
I have no interest in doing so, since it is irrelevant.
Maybe if you start a thread about that, I'll respond.
Otherwise, it holds no bearing, and I've no interest perusing the rabbit hole further.>Perhaps to the OP, but not to the conversation you and I are having at this moment about your principles.
I have no interest in doing so with someone like you, I'm afraid, Manley.
You've never understood up until this point, either on this thread or elsewhere, so I've no reason to presume you'll actually listen now. But either way, if you want to make a thread for that purpose, do so.
Calling me a hypocrite for something that has no logical resemblance is just not worth engaging.>>1808
No. That would be a nasty assumption on your part.
Wanna know how I know?
Because I've given you the reason it's irrelevant.
You refuse to accept those arguments, instead demanding I answer you anyway > I want the topic of our discussion to be the clarification of your principles and how they relate to rights.
And I, to be quite frank, do not give a single flying fuck whatsoever whatever the hell you want.
It shouldn't come as a surprise, but I don't like you.
So my arguments are going to pertain only to what I disagree with, and the relevant aspects to demonstrate that. Not some random tangent you demand to explore.>If you are unable to clarify your principles, then we can't use them or anyone else's as a measure of what is and isn't "right".
Fine. It was irrelevant to the discussion anyway. I already explained this a good several times here.
Going to be frank with you, man, I've offered plenty of times to actually discuss things with you, before. If you're actually interested in finding out what I think, fine. Finally hit me up on discord. But keep in mind that it'll be a give-and-take. I'm not going to talk to someone who isn't talking, after all. You want answers about me, then I'll have to have answers about you.
Things already got pretty heated, but before things get any more out of hand I feel like I should step in.
Cheeky Bear, explain how building a wall relates to the hypothetical presented in the OP so everyone is on the same page.
I feel like Glamorous Hedgehog is being a hypocrite because he is against asking an extremely hyperbolic and impossible hypothetical about removing men from a society, but is for the actual real-world removing of another group (undocumented immigrants) from the United States.
Glamorous Hedgehog claims that these two things aren't comparable because being undocumented is a crime while being a man isn't. He claimed that it is his "principles" that make him take the stance that breaking the law means one is a criminal undeserving of consideration for their circumstances.
When I pointed out that at one time in this country, helping slaves escape was also a crime, he rebuked that, now claiming that one is allowed to break the law if rights are being violated.
When I asked him to explain who defines "rights" and what they are, he neglected to do so.
So we are pretty far off from the original point, but my issue was not wanting to make any assumptions about his motivations and principles, which required the answers to those other questions.
Definitely a long path, but you can see all the steps.
So in short, the current question posed in the discussion is who decides what "rights" people have, which is both directly and indirectly relevant to the thread's original topic of wiping out an entire gender if it would significantly improve the lives of the other gender. This is pretty normal for science fiction, actually, with the hyperbolic situations presented in stories having parallels with our modern day situations.>>1809
Glamorous Hedgehog, you're certainly free to step out of the discussion, but the question is presented to you as such: Who defines what "rights" someone has? Without knowing that, it's easy to say that anyone and everyone has a "right" to come to America while no one has "rights" regarding its ownership. That someone is currently claiming rights over America's land doesn't necessarily matter, because people have certainly claimed rights before only for those rights to be revoked and you yourself have agreed that this revocation was in the right. And more directly to the OP, one gender could claim to have more rights than the other and wipe them out without an objective source of "rights".
>>1812>Glamorous Hedgehog claims that these two things aren't comparable because being undocumented is a crime while being a man isn't. He claimed that it is his "principles" that make him take the stance that breaking the law means one is a criminal undeserving of consideration for their circumstances.
Never said either of those things.
I said that illegally entering in a country is an action. Something you must do, first, as opposed to something you are born with like gender.
I never said consideration should not be leveled for circumstances, and in fact I specifically addressed instances of kids who were taken over the boarder.
I believe the first issue is the primary cause of your misunderstanding of my position
I can't be too understanding, though, as I literally addressed this, specifically, clarifying several times explicitly what I meant.
Which unfortunately leaves me believing you, as I had said, were not reading my posts. Which leads me back to my earlier suggestion that there's not much point going down rabbit holes with you when you don't actually bother to look at what I am saying.
Well in >>1786
You responded to
"without any regard to the circumstances behind the decision to take that action." with >Yes, that is accurate. That is because I have principles. It is never okay to steal, for example, regardless of your circumstances.
What other way is there to read this besides >the stance that breaking the law means one is a criminal undeserving of consideration for their circumstances.
You say that a child brought here against their will deserves consideration, but that any adult who chooses to cross the border illegally does not. This is not me assuming things. You said this. But >>1813
has brought us up to speed on the current topic.
That's fair, I should've worded it better.
What I meant was that basically I'm not inclined to worry about why something was done, as far as desperation goes, as opposed to somebody who literally didn't have any choice, such as a child, or somebody trafficked in such as in the case of sex trafficking, basically.
In any case, as stated, several times at this point, my contention is nothing to do with rights, but specifically to do with unfair judgments based on somebody's born characteristics. I've stated this several times, so I have no interest in discussing rights with you.
If you do wish to discuss this, please contact Drowy (that is who I have them under on discord anyway) as they had offered to mediate prior, and thus have my contact information.
I'm afraid to do to the conversations I've had with you in the past, I'm rather on the inclined to continue a dialogue through text, so my specific requirements for any discussion like that would be that it is over voice. that is because I believe you won't constantly misrepresent, miss here, or just flat-out you ignore what I said if it is verbal.
Like I said, I don't really have interest in following that line, because it was irrelevant to my contention with the topic as he had presented it. It's not the right violation that would make me upset in regards to the genocide angle, even. It's the injustice of it.
That was why I had issue with him claiming I was a hypocrite, and why I have major contention with the bringing up rights, since it does not apply in any capacity to anything I've argued at that point. It did not determine my rationale for saying that it is wrong to judge all men or something that they did not do, but rather, something they are merely born as.
If you wants to discuss rights, he should either make a thread for it, or like I suggested contact me directly.
I do want to ask, though; it was my understanding that Manley had been perma banned. Was that inaccurate?
establishes that you can claim I'm misrepresenting you or lying about what you said when you clearly said something that could be (and often could only be) interpreted the way I describe. It is my opinion that this happens often.
So I'm inclined not to believe you see this happening in other instances when it did not, and I can out and out tell you that it has never been my intention to even misrepresent something you have said intentionally.
has established that my questions about rights and who decides them are inline with the OP's hypothetical. If you don't wish to discuss that, that's your pejorative. But I am not in the wrong for traveling down this train of thought.
That's your prerogative. But it's why I have no interest in treating you with any extra benefits, when it comes to any of our conversations.
you can have your opinion, and I will maintain mine. My experience suggests contrary to what you claim. It's entirely possible that you and I both have a particular blind spot in this regard, however, that does not mean I am obligated to answer anything you demand of me when I feel it is not relevant to the conversation.
Unfortunately, this being an anonymous board, I am liable to slip up, and not realize when it is you I am talking to. So, there may be instances where I give you the consideration I would give for anyone else, that I no longer feel you deserve. I mainly point to sounds but I hope you understand, if I suddenly pull it out from under you, it's because I realized who you were.
I have presented my arguments why you were wrong to push this particular argumentation, and I'm afraid your appeal to authority is irrelevant from my point of view. Hitler was in charge of Germany, that did not make him right, yes?
I'm afraid Zecora was not here for this entire conversation,and evidently missed the several dozen times I've pointed out that it had nothing to do with rights. So I do not give one single flying fuck whether or not you think you were wrong, it's completely irrelevant to me. I believe you were wrong. I will state that as a fact, because I believe it is objectively so. If you want to argue this, go for it, but an appeal to authority is not an argument
by the way, the way you've continued to dodge that particular aspect, even now, is exactly why I do not care what you think, I do not trust you, I think you're incapable of either representing me in an honest manner, or even listening to my points, and why I think you are ultimately only after pushing the conversation around as far as you can go, to dodge the condemnation of your own actions that you've presented prior.
because once again, I have stated so many damn times, it's not about right in the slightest. It's about simple Justice. You don't condemn people for something they didn't do. That's it. It's just flat fairness.
File: 1568437746807.png (104.56 KB, 458x217, 458:217, 1224214.PNG) ImgOps Google
You know, now that I think of it, this is what you've always done from the start. This is how you generally got around any condemnation on your part, any arguments against what you're doing, any self examination of your own principles and ideals.
Thinking about it, this is how you've always turned conversations around. You avoid specifically and directly responding to similar questions you demand of others.
You make claims about them, while refusing to acknowledge any claims about yourself.
You suggest hypocrisy more things never stated, never believed, while dodging any potential critique in that regard of your own true this same deflective method.
I don't know why I never noticed it before. I don't know why on till now I've entertained it. Perhaps it's because I generally try to give people a modicum of consideration, of courtesy, in my conversations. so, when something like that presents itself, I tried to explain exactly what I mean, or what I stand by, even if it's not actually relevant, or if it's simply not accurate to what I said.
I'm going to try to stop doing that.
from now on if you say something I didn't say, I'll just say I didn't say it. If you bring up something that's irrelevant, I will only say it's irrelevant. I won't bother explaining it, or entertaining it, I will engage as though this is an actual debate, rather than a discussion. As though this is somebody trying to use, as I believe it is, a particular tactic to push a narrative, as opposed to actually discuss things
>>1822>if you say something I didn't say, I'll just say I didn't say it.
You mean like in >>1815
where I proved you actually said it?
What rule would I be violating?
What rule requires me to entertain your diversionary tactics?
what I am saying that I am going to start doing is assumed that you were arguing in bad faith, essentially. That's all. Rather than give you the courtesy to explain my position specifically, my rationale, or elaborate, I am simply going to shut down things that are irrelevant, or items that are not reciprocated, in the same way as you would in a proper debate, as opposed to a discussion.
To my knowledge, this is not against the rules in any capacity.
All that I am saying I'm going to do here is treat you as you constantly demonstrate yourself to be.
No, I mean in the other half of it.
If you present something I said mistakenly, I will acknowledge it. I'm not opposed to viewing my flaws.
Let's not pretend that this was the only item of what you claimed I said, and I simply did not.
You've demonstrated a single mistake. You'll have to do more than that if you are going to act like this is the way it is for everything.
If it is, it shouldn't be. Not when people are actually arguing constantly in bad faith, specifically ignoring chunks of your posts repeatedly to push a false narrative of their position.
If I'm entirely honest with you, I think the whole anonymity of it is a bad idea to begin with. Specifically because of people like yourself.
Not everybody engages in good faith. Not everybody acts with consideration for those they're discussing things with. You've directly said you wouldn't bother answering a question I asked of you, so why should I answer questions you ask me question mark why should I entertain your rabbit holes, when you've demonstrated you have no interest in bothering with anything I ask you about?
It's a nonsensical standard. You expect things of others that you never were separate. This was the case for you on the other boards, just the same as it is here. That is why anonymity doesn't really work out that well, at least on here. not if you were wanting to maintain healthy dialogue and discussion, in any case.
If it is my fault, I will demand that you demonstrated. As you did in this case. Otherwise, I will simply persist and telling you that's not what I said, without extrapolating further.
as I've already pointed out, you ignore my extrapolation. Otherwise you wouldn't assume that I was arguing about rights all this time. I literally address that dozens a fucking times in this thread.
And because it didn't benefit your argument, you ignored it. Because you do not want a proper discussion. You want to win. You aren't interested in exploring ideas, you simply want to set others as wrong
Fine, I say. Two can play at that game.
Isn't manly supposed to be perma banned?
I think you must have missed my questioning of that earlier.
I never refused to answer any questions you asked of me. You just didn't really ask me any.
My questions about rights were in line with the OP. You can refuse to answer them, but >>1813
establishes that they were NOT "irrelevant" to the OP.
I'm afraid I do have to respond to this, since he's outright saying something that isn't true.>>1832>>>1807
I had asked you your stance on rights, and he responded with>"We aren't discussing where I think they come from. I'm asking YOU where YOU think they do, so that I don't have to assume anything about you. If I have my own, personal answers to those questions"
I am fine with discussing the topic, just not in an argument along these lines, since it does not apply.
If you do want to discuss that particular topic, I recommend, like I said, talking to Drowy, as they have my discord, and so you would be able to contact me directly in that regard. My only requirement would be that we do it over voice, and that it be a give and take situation
I know Drowy. But I really don't see the point in the attempt, since you've already stated you're going to assume I'm arguing in bad faith and you won't give me the same considerations you give other people.
Why would I bother if you've already taken such a hostile attitude before we even begun. And it would be much worse in a private conversation, because it is not against the rules there.
Look, you can do whatever you want. If you suspect a poster is me, then by all means, please, ignore that post and go somewhere else. But what you can't do is assume someone is arguing in bad faith or disregard their arguments because you think it's a particular poster you don't like. That is literally against the rules here, like it or not.
My discord's at Acis#1230
You can hit me up directly if you want, I mostly suggest Drowy as they offered to be a mediator in the past, but, honestly, if you're actually talking
to some one, just about in any situation, things go smoother. Easier to understand and be polite when they're actually saying things to you, directly, as opposed to over text on the internet. >>1837
That's the main reason I'd want to do it directly, over voice.
Because I don't think you would
do what you've done here. Or at least it'd be a lot harder.
I'll give you the consideration if you engage me, directly, over Discord. The problem is, your behavior here is pushing me to a particular standard when it comes to talking to you.> And it would be much worse in a private conversation, because it is not against the rules there.
You could literally leave the call at that point. How would that be worse than a public place that doubles as something of a home for people?>But what you can't do is assume someone is arguing in bad faith or disregard their arguments because you think it's a particular poster you don't like. That is literally against the rules here, like it or not.
Then cite the rule.
I've not seen it.
The closest I got is >1b) Part of contributing constructively is understanding and addressing the reasoning behind an opposing view. While this can be a tedious task and will generally not be officially enforced, please make an effort to at the very least avoid "talking past" someone when presented with a counterargument. Simply doubling down on your initial point does not advance a discussion.
Which, honestly, could be well argued to apply more to your posts than mine, or potential posts belonging to me.
It goes against the rules of civility, progression of topics and is needlessly hostile.
If Bob (Pesky Panda) argues that crunchy peanut butter is better than creamy peanut butter, and you respond with "I think you're Bob, so your argument is invalid" that is NOT discussing the argument on it's own merits.
I disagree. I do not see anything that'd suggest it does.>If Bob (Pesky Panda) argues that crunchy peanut butter is better than creamy peanut butter, and you respond with "I think you're Bob, so your argument is invalid" that is NOT discussing the argument on it's own merits.
Is that what I suggested doing?
No. Of course it isn't.
Though it's a great representation of why
I'll be doing what I actually am. Which is simply, not falling for Bob's bait.
If, for example, Bob decides to push the nonsensical idea that I am a hypocrite because I, say, think that it isn't acceptable to judge people based on gender, but I think that people are responsible for the actions they do, I can simply reply "Those are not the same thing. The first is irrelevant of the second."
No need to do anything extra. No need for further explanation. If you don't get it, too bad.
File: 1568441004597.png (49.56 KB, 218x227, 218:227, 4.png) ImgOps Google
Your appeal to authority doesn't prove anything.
I can say, however, I stated numerous times that my position had absolutely no relation to the rights angle, so claiming I was hypocritical as a result does not logically follow.>Other people could still discuss it. In fact, I'm actually interested to see where this line of question about rights that you seem to dislike so much actually goes with someone willing to discuss it.
What line of question?
You raised it to claim I was a hypocrite.
Or did you forget what you yourself said?>>1779>"And what if someone said "What if you could remove all illegal immigrants from the US?"">>1780>"Illegal immigrant is not a race, gender, or orientation. so once again, I fail to see any relevance of any kind to the given conversation.>"You become an illegal immigrant by doing an action. Namely, entering a country illegally.>"It is in no way shape or form comparable to a race or a gender. Saying so is frankly completely insane.">>1781>"Still, answer the question. Would you be ok with that hypothetical. If you could snap your fingers and remove all illegal immigrants from the country.">>1782>"I am not a fan of removing people from existence in any capacity. Thanos snapping or otherwise.>"I'm somebody that has a bit of a problem with the potential for AI, primarily because of the ethical questions involved with ever turning off an AI.>"I think as a general thumb of rule if you're going to kill anyone you need to have a damn good reason for it. I'm not even in favor of the death penalty, when it comes to extreme cases. Primarily because I don't trust any system enough to be able to justify such an action to the absolute certainty required.>"So what's the relevance of this question?>"Does it have any?">>1783>"Your other post in the other thread suggested you are in favor of a illegal immigrant free United States. So your only issue is the "killing" aspect of the scenario.>"If we re-word the scenario to say that the men are simply relocated. Perhaps to another Earth-like planet with resources where the men could live, would you then stop having a cow?">>1784>"I think that it's quite fair game to say it would be far better if people did not break your country's laws to get in, yes.>"Literally addressed that already>"See >>1780 and maybe start actually fucking reading what I've said, instead of constantly asking irrelevant shit.>"You becoming illegal immigrants by doing something. You do not become a man by doing something. You just are a man. That is simply how you were born.>"Judging people for violating the law, and judging people for what they happened to be born as, are two incredibly different items.>"If you've paid attention to what I've said in this thread, it would have been obvious that the killing angle isn't my major issue here. My biggest problem oh, I would say, is the rather extreme sexism and bigotry.>>1785>"But you write off all illegal immigrants as criminals, without any regard to the circumstances behind the decision to take that action. You're judging people based on a decision they may have made out of desperation. But you have no qualms with unilaterally removing them. Many of them didn't even MAKE a choice, and were brought here as infants.>"Not to mention, you might claim it's not about race, but a negligible amount of the US's undocumented immigrants are white people. >"Like it or not, it's a racial topic.>"You've spent all this time arguing over a ridiculous, hyperbolic scenario which could never, ever happen and calling out the "dangerous" outlook of the original OP. Yet you endorse things that can and are happening based on your own outlook on those people. >"I'd say that's pretty hypocritical."
You can also see here exactly what i was getting at, when I said you actively ignored me when I brought up, repeatedly, my position.
I said several times the same thing. There's a difference between doing something, and being born as something.
Zecora can believe whatever he wants. Doesn't make it true. Claiming it does is just an appeal to authority, and doesn't make it reality.
...Except they're the ones who decide whether or not something is or isn't on topic when that is disputed. And he decided that it WAS on topic.
But whatever. You don't want to discuss that topic anyway. I will discuss it with someone who does.
In the capacity that they determine what's allowed? Sure.
But like I said, it's still irrelevant, as I pointed out.
You keep doing you, though. Somehow discuss the "topic" of how it's totally hypocritical to think that judging people for the characteristics they're born with like gender is wrong, but building a wall is fine. I'm sure that'll totally lead to some interesting conversations. /s
Sure, man. That's why I can literally cite the entire fucking conversation, where I repeatedly say over and over "There's a difference between doing something, and being born as something.". This
right here is why I say you're a dishonest guy. This is why I say you are here arguing in bad faith. This
is why I say you're not interested in actual conversation, exploration, dialogue, or anything. You're just after trying to do whatever you can to claim you're right. That's all you've got. It's why you'll demand, repeatedly, over and over again, that others answer your inane, stupid, backwards questioning, while refusing to ever respond in kind to any questions asked of you.
This repeated refusal to ever actually engage with people, not just jam words in their mouth and dance around like you've somehow done something clever, all the while ignoring anything anyone actually raises up.
You want to act like it's somehow unjust, like I'm somehow treating you poorly, when you repeatedly pull shit like this. You say I've taken a "hostile attitude before we even begun", when you start off with this shit.
Going to be honest with you; I think this is why you never wanted to talk outside of Ponychan.
I think this is why, despite my constant offerings, especially during your little political ban, you always squirmed away from it. Because you'd not have any real way to accept such an offer, and yet still claim I'm
the one who's supposedly holding things up. I'm
somehow the one who's never let productive conversation happen.
It just wouldn't work out to answer someone's call for private dialogue where concerns of reputation and appearance no longer matter. After all, if you did that, you might actually have to start treating them like they're human.
No, the reason I don't want to talk to you outside of the site is because You've done nothing but show stubborn adherence to what you already believe and have never shown me any interested in listening to my side. I think that you won't listen and it would be a waste of time.
Not to mention, I think a lot of your views are abhorrent and I believe have genuine reasons to be afraid