I didn't even notice your post, chill your titties, lad.

As for the behaviour being unacceptable, it's only according to your standards, and your standards are formed by your own opinion on a matter, so it's entirely subjective.
My opinion is as valid as yours, Bird's, or Maho's. You simply have to accept that.

As for everyone in the world sharing your opinion about the clip, I have really nothing to say, as that would only prove your naivete.

yet I'm 100% sure she just did what everyone thought about.

FuZ wrote:

too bad she didnt kicked more of them

Foxtrot wrote:

I'm perfectly calm. I guess anyone who doesn't have the same opinion as you must seem unreasonably mad in your eyes.

Foxtrot wrote:

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.

Foxtrot wrote:

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.

Aurani wrote:

Politely refusing to talk to you doesn't seem to work.

You can go to the local gun store, buy a shotgun and off the mongrel parents who gave birth to a defective child such as yourself. Goodbye, mutt.

Mahogany wrote:

I love how people treat refugees as a bad word nowadays because they forget what the actual meaning of the word is

Mahogany wrote:

I love how people treat refugees as a bad word nowadays because they forget what the actual meaning of the word is

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.

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.

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?

Foxtrot wrote:

How is that even relevant, Mahogany

Aurani wrote:

If it was mindless murder, I would definitely have no way of playing Devil's advocate, but she HAD to have a damn good reason (and the concept of hatred applies here as one) to do such things in front of cameras and thus the whole public, as she felt it was justified.

Aurani wrote:

That's the thing. If you and I declare her actions as immoral and against common sense, does that not mean we're simply deciding what's right based on the fact that we're in numerical advantage compared to her?

Aurani wrote:

If it was mindless murder, I would definitely have no way of playing Devil's advocate, but she HAD to have a damn good reason (and the concept of hatred applies here as one) to do such things in front of cameras and thus the whole public, as she felt it was justified.

Mahogany wrote:

Aurani wrote:

That's the thing. If you and I declare her actions as immoral and against common sense, does that not mean we're simply deciding what's right based on the fact that we're in numerical advantage compared to her?

Holy fucking shit
Her actions are immoral because she's causing harm to another human being how hard is this to grasp

Aurani wrote:

If it was mindless murder, I would definitely have no way of playing Devil's advocate, but she HAD to have a damn good reason (and the concept of hatred applies here as one) to do such things in front of cameras and thus the whole public, as she felt it was justified.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read. Steve Stephens went and shot innocent people while literally broadcasting it himself on facebook live, so obviously he had a perfectly valid and justified reason for it, and the police shouldn't have bothered tracking him down?

Mahogany wrote:

Antlia ur my new favorite poster <3

Mahogany wrote:

I'm difficult to please

johnmedina999 wrote:

Mahogany wrote:

Antlia ur my new favorite poster <3

Mahogany wrote:

I'm difficult to please

Antlia- wrote:

that man was holding a child that looks about 7-8 years old. I don't think you can justify hurting a kid.

FuZ wrote:

Antlia- wrote:

that man was holding a child that looks about 7-8 years old. I don't think you can justify hurting a kid.

less mouths to feed by the government

B1rd wrote:

Yep, getting an abortion on a baby that big would basically be murder.

The point of the cartoon is to show that people care more about the fetus than the mother and a living child

B1rd wrote:

Well the premise that pro-life people accept is that abortion is murder. I think they are also against murder of women and children. I can't see any logical inconsistency.

Railey2 wrote:

The way you both argue against this suggest that you don't understand my reasoning. You could have easily answered all the questions raised in your posts yourselves.

B1rd wrote:

If everyone thought like you, then no one would vote or do anything. We wouldn't have the abolition of slavery or equality before the law because everyone would think "well one person isn't going to have an impact so I won't even try". No one votes because they think that their vote will change the outcome of an election, they vote with the confidence that millions of other people will do the same and that way they will effect change (not that I think voting is a good way to do that, but that's besides the point).

Your vote doesn't change anything and you still can't affect how many people abstain, or who these people would vote for if they didn't abstain.
It's completely irrelevant what's being voted on, for that matter. The fact is: Your vote doesn't change the outcome of the election in a meaningful way, and neither does it change how many people "think like that".
And it will never happen that "everyone thinks like that", which is also independent of how I vote. The non-voters will always be something between 30 and 50%, sometimes a bit lower sometimes a bit higher. But you get the point.

B1rd wrote:

If we look at it in the other way, why don't you litter? You littering isn't going to trash the city. Why do you recycle? You recycling isn't going to have any impact on sustainability. Why don't you print your own fake money? You doing that won't have any noticeable impact on inflation. In the same way that doing bad stuff is still bad even if it's not going to have a large impact by itself, doing good things is still good even if they don't have a big impact by themselves.

I don't litter because I don't like seeing litter on the streets, it's ugly. Also: Unlike voting I'm having an immediate effect on other people because SOMEONE has to pick it up at the end of the day.
I don't really care about recycling because yes you're right: Doesn't really change anything. The only reason I recycle is because not recycling would get me into trouble with the city.

Lol fake money

I still want to live a moral life, so i don't do stuff that I think of as bad (mostly, heh)



Either way: Arguing with "the collective" is pointless because it's another thing that I can't meaningfully affect. If you had understood the argument, you would have understood that too.

If you want to convince me, you either have to argue how the maxim is wrong, or how my vote has a meaningful effect after all. That's the way to go against my argument.


Oh and btw. Voting does matter when it comes to local elections, for example, where only very few people vote. Or elections where you can predict the result to be INCREDIBLY close.

Cheers

Antlia- wrote:

B1rd wrote:

Yep, getting an abortion on a baby that big would basically be murder.

The point of the cartoon is to show that people care more about the fetus than the mother and a living child

Antlia- wrote:

Khel is right about causation causing correlation
These women died because they needed an abortion. For example, when you're pregnant you're feeding 2 mouths, if you can hardly feed yourself how can you feed someone else? That among many other reasons is why women get abortions in the first place. The decrease in funding leads to less availability obviously. So these women, still in need of an abortion, turn to unsafe methods of getting them (this is where the hanger stereotype came from ).