Is the World Safe for Conversation Anymore?
SatInUGal said:Full context of Trump quote here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595321
You're telling me this was taken out of context:
And you are telling me that the above is less of a big deal in a leader than allegations of hair-sniffing based on doctored video.
If you are "100% against assault, period," then there are so many reasons Trump should be your least favorite president ever.
This is why I feel that your words are not edible at all.
The "children" victims of Biden's hair lust The grown women victims of Biden's hair lust
Trumps "partners" are willing participants. The beauty queen scene is ripe with risque behavior kinda like Studio 54 if you were there you were playing the game
This does not in any way excuse Trump he is a womanizer he loves women he enjoys p___y .
What's Biden's excuse?
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595321
You're telling me this was taken out of context:
And you are telling me that the above is less of a big deal in a leader than allegations of hair-sniffing based on doctored video.
If you are "100% against assault, period," then there are so many reasons Trump should be your least favorite president ever.
This is why I feel that your words are not edible at all.
The "children" victims of Biden's hair lust The grown women victims of Biden's hair lust
Trumps "partners" are willing participants. The beauty queen scene is ripe with risque behavior kinda like Studio 54 if you were there you were playing the game
This does not in any way excuse Trump he is a womanizer he loves women he enjoys p___y .
What's Biden's excuse?
cold_fusion said:what's the point of debate when at least one of the two parties/groups of adults come to the occasion with not an inch space to accept what's being presented beyond doubt.
Do not pretend you're debating when in reality you are fully committed to not accept anything that the other side is bringing to the 'discussion'.
Debating I say automatically stops when one party attacks the person and not their views. Ego feeding and keyboard warring is all what it achieves. The so called silent majority may be silent but certainly ain't blind.
Those who are open to what's fair and true are seen by all. Those that are never going to accept whatever, however undeniable the truth, the other party is presenting are seen for what they're doing.
Emotional responses do not help when it comes to fairness. Yes it is safe to converse. Safe if you're dealing with it in the spirit of fairness towards ALL.
Yet when authoritarians control the narrative. "Fairness towards ALL" becomes a pipe dream. The U.S. was born out of free speech. That America is gone. We let it get stolen. There is no longer free speech, free press or free elections. If you dare to venture from the prescribed info, tech oligarchs will silence you. They did it to the most power man in politics. The world called bullshit... But it still happened. Now they are set on silencing the population. Several poets on this site will cheer it on, foolishly thinking they will still have free speech. They no nothing of history. The Bolsheviks, Maoists and Nazis all first put the conservatives against the wall and then after the liberal intelligencia.
Do not pretend you're debating when in reality you are fully committed to not accept anything that the other side is bringing to the 'discussion'.
Debating I say automatically stops when one party attacks the person and not their views. Ego feeding and keyboard warring is all what it achieves. The so called silent majority may be silent but certainly ain't blind.
Those who are open to what's fair and true are seen by all. Those that are never going to accept whatever, however undeniable the truth, the other party is presenting are seen for what they're doing.
Emotional responses do not help when it comes to fairness. Yes it is safe to converse. Safe if you're dealing with it in the spirit of fairness towards ALL.
Yet when authoritarians control the narrative. "Fairness towards ALL" becomes a pipe dream. The U.S. was born out of free speech. That America is gone. We let it get stolen. There is no longer free speech, free press or free elections. If you dare to venture from the prescribed info, tech oligarchs will silence you. They did it to the most power man in politics. The world called bullshit... But it still happened. Now they are set on silencing the population. Several poets on this site will cheer it on, foolishly thinking they will still have free speech. They no nothing of history. The Bolsheviks, Maoists and Nazis all first put the conservatives against the wall and then after the liberal intelligencia.
runaway-mindtrain said:
Yet when authoritarians control the narrative. "Fairness towards ALL" becomes a pipe dream. The U.S. was born out of free speech. That America is gone. We let it get stolen. There is no longer free speech, free press or free elections. If you dare to venture from the prescribed info, tech oligarchs will silence you. They did it to the most power man in politics. The world called bullshit... But it still happened. Now they are set on silencing the population. Several poets on this site will cheer it on, foolishly thinking they will still have free speech. They no nothing of history. The Bolsheviks, Maoists and Nazis all first put the conservatives against the wall and then after the liberal intelligencia.
Do you agree that there is/can be more than one way of getting something/somewhere? There can be more than one way of achieving something? In no way am asking whether the ends justify the means.
Yet when authoritarians control the narrative. "Fairness towards ALL" becomes a pipe dream. The U.S. was born out of free speech. That America is gone. We let it get stolen. There is no longer free speech, free press or free elections. If you dare to venture from the prescribed info, tech oligarchs will silence you. They did it to the most power man in politics. The world called bullshit... But it still happened. Now they are set on silencing the population. Several poets on this site will cheer it on, foolishly thinking they will still have free speech. They no nothing of history. The Bolsheviks, Maoists and Nazis all first put the conservatives against the wall and then after the liberal intelligencia.
Do you agree that there is/can be more than one way of getting something/somewhere? There can be more than one way of achieving something? In no way am asking whether the ends justify the means.
cold_fusion said:
Do you agree that there is/can be more than one way of getting something/somewhere? There can be more than one way of achieving something? In no way am asking whether the ends justify the means.
I am not sure what your questions are?. I was referring to freedom to speak your opinion. There is one internet. The controllers of the main market places for decimation speech in the western world, at least, are fully run by authoritarians. They banned the President of the U.S. from all major outlets. Why would I have more freedom? Free speech is dead. Thus, true freedom is dead. What can be achieved without the ability to speak about it???
Do you agree that there is/can be more than one way of getting something/somewhere? There can be more than one way of achieving something? In no way am asking whether the ends justify the means.
I am not sure what your questions are?. I was referring to freedom to speak your opinion. There is one internet. The controllers of the main market places for decimation speech in the western world, at least, are fully run by authoritarians. They banned the President of the U.S. from all major outlets. Why would I have more freedom? Free speech is dead. Thus, true freedom is dead. What can be achieved without the ability to speak about it???
runaway-mindtrain said:
I am not sure what your questions are?. I was referring to freedom to speak your opinion. There is one internet. The controllers of the main market places for decimation speech in the western world, at least, are fully run by authoritarians. They banned the President of the U.S. from all major outlets. Why would I have more freedom? Free speech is dead. Thus, true freedom is dead. What can be achieved without the ability to speak about it???
I asked a simple question.
I will repeat , do you agree that there can be more than one way to achieve something ? To get somewhere?
The freedom of speech you speak of was never absolute. How many states in the US have passed hate speech laws?
Yes freedom of speech does exist but only in limited ways. It was never absolute even in the US. If there was there never would've existed the defamation laws. If there was absolute freedom of speech then why did the governments in general disallowed the terrorism propagandists from the mainstream social media platforms? Yes there is a great degree of tolerance in general in the West and especially in the US for freedom of expression. That was never absolute.
Laws are there to address consequences of actions that the (democratic) society's collective (majority's) will. Most politicians claim they're there to protect. Unfortunately one freedom cannot supersede other freedoms.
All religions including atheism claim no other path is better. All other are wrong. Ideologies and their staunch believers will deny all proofs/evidences to the contrary. Does that make them correct?
I am not sure what your questions are?. I was referring to freedom to speak your opinion. There is one internet. The controllers of the main market places for decimation speech in the western world, at least, are fully run by authoritarians. They banned the President of the U.S. from all major outlets. Why would I have more freedom? Free speech is dead. Thus, true freedom is dead. What can be achieved without the ability to speak about it???
I asked a simple question.
I will repeat , do you agree that there can be more than one way to achieve something ? To get somewhere?
The freedom of speech you speak of was never absolute. How many states in the US have passed hate speech laws?
Yes freedom of speech does exist but only in limited ways. It was never absolute even in the US. If there was there never would've existed the defamation laws. If there was absolute freedom of speech then why did the governments in general disallowed the terrorism propagandists from the mainstream social media platforms? Yes there is a great degree of tolerance in general in the West and especially in the US for freedom of expression. That was never absolute.
Laws are there to address consequences of actions that the (democratic) society's collective (majority's) will. Most politicians claim they're there to protect. Unfortunately one freedom cannot supersede other freedoms.
All religions including atheism claim no other path is better. All other are wrong. Ideologies and their staunch believers will deny all proofs/evidences to the contrary. Does that make them correct?
SatInUGal said:Full context of Trump quote here:
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595321
You're telling me this was taken out of context:
Yup. Your assertion above lacked the consensual context that was there. Still glad he apologized for being a dick, though. He was still being a total dick, consensual or not. Nearly no self control - that’s just low-class.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37595321
You're telling me this was taken out of context:
Yup. Your assertion above lacked the consensual context that was there. Still glad he apologized for being a dick, though. He was still being a total dick, consensual or not. Nearly no self control - that’s just low-class.
runaway-mindtrain said:
I speak my opinions only for my homeland the U.S. I have no authority to speak for any other country. I am well versed in American history and current goodness and fuckery that happens in the U S. But it would be very arrogant to think I know about anywhere else. I have traveled to many countries but I have only lived here. I wish only the best for Australia.
That sounds fair. I wish you all the best too!
I speak my opinions only for my homeland the U.S. I have no authority to speak for any other country. I am well versed in American history and current goodness and fuckery that happens in the U S. But it would be very arrogant to think I know about anywhere else. I have traveled to many countries but I have only lived here. I wish only the best for Australia.
That sounds fair. I wish you all the best too!
cold_fusion said:Yes it is safe to converse. Safe if you're dealing with it in the spirit of fairness towards ALL.
Yes, the OP was generated with the intolerant in mind.
The intolerant are scary.
Just look at their threatening language on TV. Floating kill lists and drone strikes on American citizens! It’s at peak crazy right now.
We’re seeing Trump framed for preplanned violence he had nothing to do with that was orchestrated by his enemies to hurt him and the general conversation around election fraud. (See: John Sullivan aka Jaden the liberal storming the capitol to get Trump out on the 6th)
Yes, the OP was generated with the intolerant in mind.
The intolerant are scary.
Just look at their threatening language on TV. Floating kill lists and drone strikes on American citizens! It’s at peak crazy right now.
We’re seeing Trump framed for preplanned violence he had nothing to do with that was orchestrated by his enemies to hurt him and the general conversation around election fraud. (See: John Sullivan aka Jaden the liberal storming the capitol to get Trump out on the 6th)
EdibleWords said:
Yes, the OP was generated with the intolerant in mind.
The intolerant are scary.
Just look at their threatening language on TV. Floating kill lists and drone strikes on American citizens! It’s at peak crazy right now.
We’re seeing Trump framed for preplanned violence he had nothing to do with that was orchestrated by his enemies to hurt him and the general conversation around election fraud. (See: John Sullivan aka Jaden the liberal storming the capitol to get Trump out on the 6th)
Do you respect their right to air differing views on Trump?
As your ex president has had stated during the domestic disturbances he's president of law and order. Aren't laws there to protect the citizens' right to life and liberty? Implying that those who endanger/threaten other fellow members of the society regardless of their political social standing in the society must face consequences for it?
Does freedom of speech mean that the scary, threatening language must be tolerated?
Yes, the OP was generated with the intolerant in mind.
The intolerant are scary.
Just look at their threatening language on TV. Floating kill lists and drone strikes on American citizens! It’s at peak crazy right now.
We’re seeing Trump framed for preplanned violence he had nothing to do with that was orchestrated by his enemies to hurt him and the general conversation around election fraud. (See: John Sullivan aka Jaden the liberal storming the capitol to get Trump out on the 6th)
Do you respect their right to air differing views on Trump?
As your ex president has had stated during the domestic disturbances he's president of law and order. Aren't laws there to protect the citizens' right to life and liberty? Implying that those who endanger/threaten other fellow members of the society regardless of their political social standing in the society must face consequences for it?
Does freedom of speech mean that the scary, threatening language must be tolerated?
cold_fusion said:
Do you respect their right to air differing views on Trump?
I do, sans their opinion on crushing and canceling everyone who disagrees. I don’t respect the rhetoric being discussed, which is beyond a disagreement.
As your ex president has had stated during the domestic disturbances he's president of law and order. Aren't laws there to protect the citizens' right to life and liberty?
I’m not the one looking to deplatform and drone bomb others.
Implying that those who endanger/threaten other fellow members of the society regardless of their political social standing in the society must face consequences for it?
What threat do you refer to? Political hyperbole? Opinion? I’m referring to seriously intimidating brown-shirt leftist ideas, like the ones Michelle Beller espoused or CNN’s bizarre world of intolerant scare-talk.
Does freedom of speech mean that the scary, threatening language must be tolerated?
What do you mean? Who is scaring who?
I’m witnessing aggressive liberals pushing fascist ideas, trying to scare everybody, even other progressives.
Do you respect their right to air differing views on Trump?
I do, sans their opinion on crushing and canceling everyone who disagrees. I don’t respect the rhetoric being discussed, which is beyond a disagreement.
As your ex president has had stated during the domestic disturbances he's president of law and order. Aren't laws there to protect the citizens' right to life and liberty?
I’m not the one looking to deplatform and drone bomb others.
Implying that those who endanger/threaten other fellow members of the society regardless of their political social standing in the society must face consequences for it?
What threat do you refer to? Political hyperbole? Opinion? I’m referring to seriously intimidating brown-shirt leftist ideas, like the ones Michelle Beller espoused or CNN’s bizarre world of intolerant scare-talk.
Does freedom of speech mean that the scary, threatening language must be tolerated?
What do you mean? Who is scaring who?
I’m witnessing aggressive liberals pushing fascist ideas, trying to scare everybody, even other progressives.
EdibleWords said:
Yes, the OP was generated with the intolerant in mind.
The intolerant are scary.
Just look at their threatening language on TV. Floating kill lists and drone strikes on American citizens! It’s at peak crazy right now.
We’re seeing Trump framed for preplanned violence he had nothing to do with that was orchestrated by his enemies to hurt him and the general conversation around election fraud. (See: John Sullivan aka Jaden the liberal storming the capitol to get Trump out on the 6th)
More lies.
I thought at first you were just trolling, but I wonder now if you might have a more insidious agenda.
Yes, the OP was generated with the intolerant in mind.
The intolerant are scary.
Just look at their threatening language on TV. Floating kill lists and drone strikes on American citizens! It’s at peak crazy right now.
We’re seeing Trump framed for preplanned violence he had nothing to do with that was orchestrated by his enemies to hurt him and the general conversation around election fraud. (See: John Sullivan aka Jaden the liberal storming the capitol to get Trump out on the 6th)
More lies.
I thought at first you were just trolling, but I wonder now if you might have a more insidious agenda.
Noble_Incubus said:
More lies.
I thought at first you were just trolling, but I wonder now if you might have a more insidious agenda.
WTF?
https://youtu.be/ohIFDaJ-hoI
