Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Upper_Krust

Member Since: Fri Aug 21, 2015
Posts: 216
In Reply To
Norvell

Member Since: Sun Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 2,113
Subj: Re: Sure, lets go.
Posted: Tue Nov 28, 2017 at 04:28:30 pm EST (Viewed 158 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Sure, lets go.
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 at 02:53:53 pm EST (Viewed 170 times)



    Quote:
    ...and Moral Arbiter Norvell determines who IS and IS NOT Filth, because only he has the truth.



    Quote:
    I'm stating my opinion, not stating yours.


That's true, but its an opinion that demonizes millions of people simply for having different politics.


    Quote:
    Since you'll look to turn this around to Trump inevitably; exactly what 'Evil' has he committed?



    Quote:
    Well if we define evil as falling below the minimum standards of decency -- such as cheating, lying, stealing (as the Bible would define evil) -- then Trump qualifies as an evil human being. If you define evil more abstractly, like preying upon bigotries and using ethnic/racial scapegoats for his 'supporters' to focus their anger on (aka demagoguery), then he also qualifies there. If you define evil as standing silent in the face of evil behavior (thus empowering evil) -- or further, lavishing praise on the likes of Putin and Deuterte for their authoritarian and murderous actions, then Trump would qualify as evil. Evil could also be (even more abstractly) defined as trying to undermine the qualities of truth, such as when Trump and his minions attack the media for legitimate reporting. Lying to avoid accountability has been defined for many years -- across the political spectrum -- as being a quality of a bad person.


So...

1. NO actual crimes
2. Some manipulation within the law (for business purposes)
3. Common sense dressed up by the Left as ethnic/racial scapegoating
4. Demagoguery...something every single politician is 'guilty' of.
5. Standing silent in the face of evil*; I'll presume a reference to Charlottesville where he DID condemn the violence (on all sides and additionally every specific group).
6. Praising Putin/Deuterte**; strong leaders in very harsh countries. But lets not pretend ALL governments don't engage in illegal activities and murder behind the scenes to protect their own interests...CIA anyone?
7. Calling out Fake News for exactly what it is. Fake. Too many examples of this to even know where to begin.

*pot calling the kettle black as regards the Left refusing to condemn BLM violence, Antifa violence and so on.

**while those on the Left have been praising Castro for DECADES so again hypocrisy upon hypocrisy.


    Quote:
    You set the bar for evil at Hitler level or KKK level (barely). I set it lower. I draw my line in the sand at the simplest, barest minimum of human decency. If you can't cross that minimum threshold, you are not a good person. And you sure as hell shouldn't be in a position of leadership. This is simply something we differ on.



    Quote:
    - Do you mean the Evil of cutting down ILLEGAL immigration...something Obama was already doing.



    Quote:
    Calling them rapists,


Calling SOME (of the ILLEGAL immigrants) rapists, thieves, murderers and bringing drugs, while others are good people.

ie. Simply stating the facts.


    Quote:
    calling all Muslims anti-American.


I think he said "The US is not loved by many Muslims". You could extend that to 'The West' and it still might apply. He has also said "I think Islam hates us" which, going by various passages from the Koran (and other holy scriptures) you could easily make a case for.

Personally I'd rather see and treat people as individuals, but you've consistently called millions of people ugly human beings (because of their politics) so you are being a hypocrite if you call anyone else out for it...aren't you Norvell?


    Quote:
    Do you mean the Evil of extreme vetting of migrants from Islamic countries...again you also admitted vetting was already extreme under Obama (and indeed it was Obama's list of especially problematic countries he blocked)



    Quote:
    Curiously, Trump leaves out the true source of extremism in the Islamic ideology -- Saudi Arabia. I wonder why. Notice how none of the attacks would have been covered be his 'travel ban'? Curious indeed.


I don't think its curious at all (and of course lets not forget the Saudi's are big Clinton donors); I think its to do with power/wealth and influence. If the US shuns/mistreats Saudi Arabia then the great likelihood is that country will take its money elsewhere.

That said, Saudi Arabia looks to be at something of a crossroads right now (current civil affairs notwithstanding) with the influence of Oil (worldwide) lessening year by year.

So the Saudi influence on the global stage is weakening.


    Quote:
    Was it the Evil of Birtherism, how dare he question Obama's questionable birthplace...but lets sweep under the rug it was HILLARY who started those rumours.



    Quote:
    It wasn't Hillary whatsoever. But I like how you obfuscate the truth by suggesting that one rogue operative who was immediately denounced is equal to running a deliberate and targeted campaign of lies for 6 years. This is what we call a false equivalency. Look it up.


So it was 'only' Hillary's Press Secretary...I am sure she knew nothing about it. ;\)


    Quote:
    ...and Communists the world over did the same.



    Quote:
    I'm not a Communist. Maybe you should adjust your aim.


You're saying Nazis are bad (which I agree) but you always conveniently omit extremism on the Left. Maybe you should widen your gaze.


    Quote:
    Now I do actually agree with you vis-a-vis the Milgram Experiment. But no Authority figure here (whether Trump, Obama, Le Pen or otherwise) is calling for unspeakable atrocities or persecution of anyone upholding the law.



    Quote:
    The whole point of neo-fascism is to repackage fascism as legitimate ideology.


From Dictionary.com: In fascism, the people are looked at as a bundle — one body that must be controlled by the government with absolute force. There’s no option to vote, no chance to impeach a leader, and no freedom to stand up against the governing body.

That's not whats going on in the US, France or anywhere in the western world.

But hey, lets look up Totalitarian Dictatorships.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_totalitarian_regimes#Left-wing_totalitarian_states

My goodness, what a shock, lets see we have:

Communist Dictatorships
Islamic Dictatorships
Left-Wing Dictatorships

Don't see any Fascist (even though the Nazis were Socialists of course) or Right Wing Dictatorships.

Seems that the Left is actually far more Authoritarian than the Right.


    Quote:
    ...and the racist stuff is totally made up by you to demonize him and his supporters.



    Quote:
    Ethnic bigotry also qualifies as racism.


The 'bigotry' of wanting to cut down on ILLEGAL immigration and terrorism. Sounds terrible.


    Quote:
    I don't consider Negradamos a viable leader of BLM. And anyone who suggests that white people should be put in interment camps would be denounced as crazy, unless they were selling an agenda against BLM.


I agree IT IS CRAZY.


    Quote:
    I just read it but I don't see what your point is?



    Quote:
    That you didn't look for opinion of MLK at the time, and that he wasn't considered the hero then as he is in retrospect.


But he wasn't considered a terrorist and didn't make any racist comments himself.


    Quote:
    I don't see how any of that stems from anything MLK said as being racist, I haven't seen a single racist quote from the man.



    Quote:
    I never made that claim. I said that he was seen as a threat and proponent of violence. You aim is off with regard to my statements.


He was seen as a threat to the establishment yes, and some of his supporters committed violence (nothing he was responsible for though) but he didn't call for any violence or racial hatred of any kind.


    Quote:
    That's because it wasn't evidence, at no point is it referenced that Jane still has all Sif's memories and skills.



    Quote:
    List the qualities of worthiness, that have never been defined by any writer. Go ahead.


A Self sacrificing hero who does not lift the hammer for their own self aggrandizement but to specifically help others.

1. Bill can lift the hammer because he wants it to save his people - not personal power.
2. When Cap lifts it, its to save Thor - not himself.
3. Masterson initially touches it while grabbing Thor's hand in an attempt to save Thor.
4. In Thor: Son of Asgard, Thor is unable to lift the hammer until he needs it to save the kidnapped Sif.

Cancer-stricken mortal Jane Foster is never shown lifting the hammer (WHICH WAS ON THE MOON) and likely must have just been GIVEN the darn thing...like same way she is given everything else without earning it (his name, fighting skill, worthiness etc.).




You address Omnipotence...tread carefully.
Posted with Google Chrome 62.0.3202.94 on Windows NT 4.0
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2018 by Alvaro Ortiz and Dave Galanter. Software Copyright © 2003-2018 Powermad Software