RE: Did Charlottesvilel mean anything?
September 4, 2017 at 1:58 pm
(This post was last modified: September 4, 2017 at 2:45 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(September 4, 2017 at 11:43 am)bennyboy Wrote:(September 4, 2017 at 9:50 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: It wasn't those who opposed the white supremacists who respected the right to free speech so much they were willing to use their very own cars to ram those whose opinions they disagree with.You are speaking dangerously right now. "They" weren't driving. If you want to demonize all those who were there protesting the removal of a landmark they valued, you'll have to demonstrate that they generally supported that action, or were complicit in some way. You are part of many groups-- if any one in any of your social circles committed a crime, would you accept your share of blame?
You need to be a little more open and a little more tolerant of opposing views, and not to lump those people together in the way you are doing right now. When some demented atheist eats a baby somewhere, are you going to stand by while atheism becomes condemned by the president, or maybe even outlawed? Will you be fine accepting cuffs and being led off to jail because someone whose beliefs intersect partially with your own did something wrong?
No, you won't. So don't use the rhetoric that leads down that road lest you be the victim of it some day.
No, I am speaking of the dangerous, not speaking dangerously. landmark they value my ass. What they value is the cause the traitors those landmark depicts killed for, not the land mark. But you seem particularly sensitive to the dangerous being spoken of as dangeous, and resorts to barely veiled leering threats. why, I wonder?
