I'm perfectly calm. I guess anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as you must seem unreasonably mad in your eyes.
No need to continue the senseless accusations. I apologise. Your post seemed to have some charge to it, hence the comment. I directed the post before that one to Mahogany.
And here I am, thinking that committing any type of senseless harm goes against common sense. I'm not even telling you to stop being against refugees because that'd be stupid and disrespectful, but at least realize that was unprofessional behavior, especially from a journalist (who are supposed to be unbiased resources).
Tell me then, why did the refugee deserve it? If you give me a good enough reason that doesn't go against the non-aggression principle and common sense, I'll consider it.
Oh no, it was absolutely a joke about her being a hero. If she was a "hero", she would've hit him square in the face and accepted the consequences, instead of tripping him and then denying it all on court. What she did was morally wrong in more than just one way.
I'm guessing you took the joke seriously after I wrote the sjw having a problem with differing opinions post, which I do stand by. Mahogany is on the other side of the spectrum, being the polar opposite of Bird, with neither thinking about what the other side might have to say about something and are always quick to blame people.
I never even said that everyone shares my same opinion about the clip because I'm talking to someone who doesn't. That'd be contradicting myself.
which is clearly not true, as you can see from the reactions you got.
You insinuated that by denying my viewpoint. I know for a fact that many of the people I talked to after that reacted with disgust and said how she's a monster, yet would have done NOTHING to help the fellow out if they were at the scene.
The response I got here was from you, a mentally deficient child and Maho, none of who I personally know, so I can't say whether you truly stand behind that guy or the journalist, which makes your point moot.
It only comes to show just how polarised this place is. You can't have any complex opinions on any kind of matter, as you're immediately branded one thing or another.
Even IF I was on the side of the journalist (which I'm not), who has the right to question it? Pure hatred is just as valid of a reason as any. That also answers your question about me stating a valid reason for hating an individual.
Yeah, I know you're going to say how it's morally wrong to hate someone based on one of their attributes, but the entire topic is debatable. Is it really all black and white? Does someone become "evil" when the majority decides it or is it based on some kind of moral code? If so, doesn't that further prove that majority decides what the rights and wrongs are? Does that not completely shatter the objectivity of the matter in question?
It's far too complex of a topic to discuss with this kind of audience. Not until some more mature people arrive.