No. Terrorism=unacceptable. But that doesn't mean the rest of the people who want to be free shouldn't be allowed because that would be "giving into terrorism". What's more, maybe you should be differentiating between people.
That's racism m8
I never said this was terrorism.
I don't differentiate
I just said you can't put up with it, since it's a form of protest that I, at least, consider unacceptable. You know, armed and trying to create a military compound. This is why I was saying you can't just Noncentral Fallacy. Everyone can play at that game, and then no one gets anywhere, and nothing useful gets done, no facts become revealed, no one is taught by the discussion. That's politicks, not debate. I come here to debate, not to politick.
Opinions useful when voiced, but stop where they start
And the people of South Carolina have to abide by rules decided by a small council of appointed officials who preside over all major policy decisions and have essentially irrevocable veto power. That doesn't make the Supreme Court a tyrannical government. And maybe I simply don't know enough about Hong Kong, but from what I can tell it's largely separate from mainland China, and autonomous in a lot of ways. Which would seem like they get more self-rule via democracy than most of China.
Absolute farce, they get to pick from a list of officials who are all chosen loyalists of the PRC. Imagine if in your elections you got the choice between someone working for Donald Trump, someone working for Donald Trump, someone working for Donald Trump, someone working for Donald Trump and someone working for Donald Trump. That you get to vote for someone on that list is not really much of a consolation that you don't live in the parts of America where Donald Trump directly appoints officials.
Perfect, no. Additionally, you are equating 'does not benefit them primarily' with 'unjust', which I hold to be a false equivalency, possibly because I use a different definition of just.
Justice tends to be one of those words thrown around...
I don't know. I do know that issues with elected officials hold true in a lot of places, and corruption is an issue separate from the one I thought/think we're discussing. I'm getting confused as to what the original point here was with all the other stuff layering over it.
Whether there is an imperative to obey officials
Whilst not untrue, occupying a federal building with weapons and declaring it a sovereign state seems a lot more like disproportionate response to your buddies still being in prison after burning down forest to cover their poaching. I mean, don't get me wrong, fearmongering bullshit is politician thing to do, but I think that's usually why people try and do Republics, to have a 'buffer zone'. Which is only as effective as their terms are long, really...
Yeah I agree with you that is hilarious, they want attention lest they would've just done a micronation shit and flown under the radar
Right. Except that one is the discontent of people about their buddies being in prison for burning down federal lands, and the other is upset because of a history of violence and oppression against their ethnic group, and quite possibly family, village, and friends. These are not equivalent. Again. Noncentral fallacy. Both belong to the set 'making state to escape oppression'. They do not both belong to the set 'large numbers of people with similar desire in similar location, enough to actually create a state'. They do not both belong to the set 'under a government with a relatively recent history of genocide'. They do not both belong to the set 'oppression type:victims of ethnic prejudice'. They do not both belong to the set 'oppression level: able to occupy a federal building with weapons and not get blown up within 24 hours'.
H E L L F I R E W E N, M A K E M E X I C O G R E A T E R A G A I N
I understand that you don't. I'm asking you to give the discussion the degree of seriousness it deserves. Which is to say, the same amount all debates do. Go in with rigor, bring up evidence, respect your debating partner. "Use as many words as needed m8, Erdogan did nothing wrong" is not actually sufficient words. I could see possible reasoning for it, but to actually be convincing, you have to articulate that argument. And considering your responses to some of the other questions, I know you're more than capable, and willing when it suits you, which is why it is so frustrating that you don't with the bigger questions. If you don't want to have a serious discussion in detail, that's fine, but say so. Don't just brush it off with lolspeak and one-liners. Give me an argument I can engage with, not one I have to look up first.
I see this as a very small issue. Sure, all big things spring from small issues, but you'd have to go full retard to really turn this situation into civil war. Something on the scale of executing all Mormons. Saying Erdogan did nothing wrong is sufficient. Bombing separatists is goodbad depending on how valuable you are to the current American regime.
Mexicans ethnically, or Mexicans as in citizens of Mexico? Because either way I would be having none of it, it's just the level of response that would differ. You wanna protest or secede? Fine, file the paperwork, make your case, blahblahblah. Trying to take a bunch of other people with you, more than want to secede, with your secession, through violence? No. Trying to do it to get attention, through threats of force, implied or otherwise? No. You work through the channels of civilization. It's the same reason I hate that mentality of 'If everyone has guns, we'll be safe." Because that's worked out so very well in [fill in African/East European/Middle Eastern country in turmoil here]. Everyone with guns makes everyone twitchy, not polite.
What if they tell you paperwork is for scrubs and they have guns and you don't? The thing about bureaucracy is that people only fear it so much as bureaucrats have people with guns to enforce paper, paper is otherwise not scary. Bureaucracy never stopped the Mongols from Mongolian'in all over the world. Arab swords and Slavic spears did. And foreign proxy groups running amok are hardly representative of their own nations' people, any less than Al Qaeda represents Afghans.
Libertarians are right-wing in American terms because they're pro-market, but they're liberal in the older sense of the word.
And progressives are very illiberal with their desire to curtail free speech and pursue military action on vaguely defined terrorists, traitors and treasonous filth. Hellfire on Edmund Snowman now
As far as I know, reactionary wants to go back hundred plus years, to before how things were in their younger days, even, while conservatives just want things to go back to being like 'the good old days'. I mean, ideally, progressives would push the country forward and conservatives would keep that progress in check to prevent stuff from getting out of hand, and that's almost what it's like now, except horribly distorted and twisted. Progressives should be the idealist party, and conservatives should be the practical party, and they should push against each other so that a balance between what is right and what is necessary can be struck.
Ideally progressives should be pushing forward, not degenerating, and conservatives should actually conserve something instead of selling priceless things for worthless dollars
That's life for you
Author
Topic: Murrican Politics Megathread 2016: There Will Be Hell Toupée (Read 1465802 times)