Yeah this kind of logic certainly won't lead do genocidal eugenics programs. Thanks for another gem from the mind of MOgliE.

This kind of quality debate is why everyone has so much faith in your judgement.

This is the usual quality debate I expect of you. This is just a straight up lie. Not only do several people on this forum excuse this behavior, many high profile media organizations continue pushing lies about the story, and these kids are still being threatened and attacked on social media. The school even had to close for security reasons.

What does any of this have to do with me personally? What makes me a victim here even? You are going to hurt your rectum pulling all this stuff out of your ass if you aren't careful. Don't bust an O ring. Just because people THINK they are pro-freedom doesn't mean they are. People's heads are so full of lies they can justify anything now days, including functionally being a nazi whilst claiming to be fighting for "truth" and "freedom". The fact that you don't understand what I was talking about below regarding Orwell explains why you don't understand this concept here. Words are just cudgels to most people now days, and they barely understand them let alone how to use them.

That is why people LIKE YOU are so fucking dangerous. You are a true believer. You run around expecting the world to always be as it presents itself, never doing any of the intellectual work it takes to truly understand yourself and others, believing what people tell you never seeking any confirmation of these points before you run around spewing them as immutable truth and acting on them. It is just a matter of time before some one hands you a brown shirt and tells you to march, or maybe a red scarf? You are a ball of highly charged emotion with a thin candy layer of logic on the outside, waiting to be directed at a target so you can melt down all over them.

YOU are the problem, YOU are the threat, YOU are the reasons events like what happened to the Convincing kids happen. You only care about the facts that serve your existing belief system and the rest is summarily dismissed. This is the kind of mentality that is going to lead the US as well as the world into civil war.




You know why I am especially rude and condescending to you in particular? It would be one thing if you were just dumb, I see dumb people all the time. The reason I don't like you is because you run around with all the confidence and authority in the world, but barely understanding anything you preach to others about, and that is dangerous to others. To me it is like dangling raw meat in front of a big cat, I can't resist reminding you how full of shit you are before you set more brush fires of stupidity.

If you yourself had read Orwell, or even had a passing familiarity with some of his work, you would know in his book 1984 that he specifically referenced the redefinition of words to the point that they eventually became the exact opposite meaning of what was intended. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength. Not to mention he SPECIFICALLY mentions FACE CRIME.







 There are various political stances in Orwell's work. He even directly wrote about this phenomena in his essay "Politics & The English Language", about how politicians will manipulate words until they are meaningless for their own gain. The point being that this is exactly what we see now as the left projects every accusation made against them against their opponents, flipping the meanings of words on demand depending on who it suits. So now that you are done demonstrating to everyone you have not only not read any Orwell, let alone read this thread, maybe you want to make an actual point?

I don't see any disconnect, and you yourself cited the facts that I stated from those same government sources. People can apply for asylum at a port of entry. This is a fact. it is illegal to cross the border without authorization at a designated checkpoint. This is a fact. "The majority come here legally" I already addressed. Not only can you not prove this conclusion, it is irrelevant. It is like saying robbery happens more in this town so lets not enforce against robberies in this town. Also where exactly are stats on undocumented illegal immigration collected if it is undocumented? Any numbers you have are at best an estimate. Now if you are done pretending I am being irrational and unwilling to listen to facts, care to discuss the topic?

I have seen more people than I can count that think of themselves as moderates or centrists, but the fact is The Overton Window has moved SO FAR left that former classic liberals are now described as far right. So you being "moderate" could be anywhere between moderate and Mao Tse Tung. While I doubt you are quite that far left, a lot of the rhetoric and talking points you use are in fact far left talking points and policies.

I give a fuck what you have to say. You could sway me. Unfortunately so far it seems you have been operating from assumption then building facts around that to make a case rather than understanding what you are presenting first and going from that position. If you don't want to butt heads with me, I understand, but if you are bringing contrary facts to the table I will integrate them. Unfortunately any contrary facts you have brought are inconsequential to the premise, even of these side issues you insist on diverging off into. I do feel we are still communicating, I just fear you didn't get the result you were hoping for here. Hopefully we can continue a discussion.

Unfortunately I fear this entire scenario is just an attempt at diverting from and ending any discussion of the double standards held for "liberals" and "conservatives" in the media and among some individuals. Wearing a hat in support of the president excuses harassment and threats of violent actions for the other, but openly racist acts on the left are excused with a whimper, not to mention all the violence and other various crimes often attributed to the right every time ANTIFA shows up and attacks for example.

Related article: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-01/coming-us-china-proxy-war-venezuela

You are purposely conflating the difference between crossing the border illegally and legally going to a point of entry. They are not the same thing no matter how much you equivocate. The point being it is not a requirement to illegally enter the country to file for asylum. Nothing is wrong with enforcing border policy no matter how many appeals to emotion you make about it.

You make claims that more people cross illegally than illegally. Tell me, how do you measure illegal undocumented crossings? Even if you can your argument is invalid. It is like saying most robberies are muggings and not pickpockets, so we shouldn't bother stopping pickpockets.

I am not interested in your virtue signalling about classes. I am interested in having an on topic discussion about this event and how it clearly demonstrates double standards you and others hold as you excuse violence for imaginary face and hat related crimes.




That is not a complete definition... nor was what I said an ad hominem attack. Pointing out your ignorance on a subject with reasoning and supporting evidence is a counter argument at least.

It is hard to see things when you don't even bother looking...

So, I don't have a counter argument... even thought I immediately responded with counter argument? I am condescending not because a sense of grandiosity, but due to the fact I find you not to be intellectually honest, and I think you are projecting more than a little bit.

The question is not if people can walk away, it is what is the cost of them walking away? If people have no incentive to cooperate and invest in a community, what is going to be left of it? What is going to be the resulting quality of interaction here?

I am trying to get everyone involved in this matter to realize we NEED a standard of evidence for leaving negative ratings of either theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. Unless that line is drawn as a basic standard the trust system will never be anything more than noise, confusion, enabling scams, and drama. Maybe Theymos makes the rule. Maybe we all mutually agree on it, maybe just some of us do.

Perhaps I may seem "angry all the time" because I am being dog piled, slandered, dismissed, etc by various people who would rather make this a drama than a discussion, because this discussion might change things for them.

You might want to look up what the world hyperbole means. Also people contribute to this place as well even if it is the private property of Theymos. He has sought to decentralize its leadership some what. People spend lots of time, money, and energy building reputations and industries on this forum. Acting like people can just walk away without penalty, or that these things have no real world effects is just infantile.

Yes it does sound like every society ever, perhaps we should take lessons from those systems of law and apply them here? Such as a standard of evidence for accusations and some form of due process. I don't speak for most people, but you do?

Some interesting related reading:

https://managemagazine.com/article-bank/leadership/toxic-leaders-destroy-people-organisations/

https://coachfederation.org/blog/the-rise-of-toxic-leaders-in-organizations-2

This is another issue that always seems to get swept under the rug because it makes people uncomfortable. What about a father's reproductive rights? While I don't advocate for women being forced to carry children against their will, as we explained earlier getting pregnant is largely a choice to begin with as we have many options to prevent this even if you are sexually active. Both parents choose to engage in sex.

After that point the man has no further say in what happens, but he is also financially responsible for the upbringing of that child until 18 years of age if the mother so chooses. It seems to me there should be some kind of counterbalance of rights and responsibilities here, or at least some kind of option for the father to be released of these rights and responsibilities if the child is carried to term against his wishes. Without this there is quite a clear double standard of rights. This combined with some kind of clearly defined term limit (with the usual physical health, rape, incest, etc exceptions), and perhaps some informed consent protocols IMO would go a long way toward deflating this conflict of ideologies.

While this thread title is obviously extremely hyperbolic, I think the question in concept is at least a valid one. There is something to be said for the concept of due process, and there are real consequences for ignoring dissent. In the case of this forum it is essentially a giant engine of drama and scams. When rules apply to some people but not others not only is confusion created but disregard for the authority of those that wield it in general. In the end this fast and loose style talks lots of freedom and decentralization, and delivers lots of cliques, systemic abuse, and results counter to what most people desire in their user experience.

So, once again, what is stopping them from applying at a port of entry? Crossing the border any place other than an authorized checkpoint is a crime regardless of your endless equivocation. You don't seem to know what the meaning of an ad hominem is, so please stop using that term, at least until you understand what it means. This is way off subject anyway. It is almost like you know you can't win a debate about the topic at hand so you need to keep bringing up countless other red herrings to argue about to distract from this. After all, you can't have anyone looking too close at how these double standards are applied to "your team" with zero accountability, and how violence is excused against "the other".

You mean like everyone else around here is being so rational? What about here and here? No one seems to be able to address any of these points, just constant topic sliding tactics like you are doing right now with that post.

Lets just put aside the fact the US consulates are for all intensive purposes are legally US soil and are venues for legally applying for asylum, as are border checkpoints.

Are there any on topic subjects you would like to discuss?

It is not just what I want, it is what lots of people around here have wanted for a long time, but unfortunately any time they make an objection people like you dismiss them as a scammer or an alt, therefore it falls to others around here with a reputation to speak up about it. You act like I am going to get some prize out of this. I will not (other than a more functional forum). What I will get however is a gang of stalkers looking for anything they can to use against me. Don't worry I am sure your mob of inquisitors will dig something up to accuse me of sooner or later. If not I am sure they will just invent something.

I made several logical arguments which no one seems to be able to address here and here. It just seems to be a continual cycle of people who disagree with these points making personal attacks and dumb comments, then acting like there is nothing but dumb comments when I respond. Maybe post something other than dumb comments? I did. You try.



Here come the sock puppet supports now. I guess everyone who criticizes the trust police is a sock, an alt, or a scammer, but if you are using the socks it is perfectly acceptable right? It is almost like you are running out of logical arguments and need to start bringing in "new people" in order to try to maintain your preferred narrative without looking like the dog piling mob that you are actually a part of.



Yeah, please do ignore me. It will make it much easier for me to tell everyone else who is trying to have a logical debate why this system is a problem without knee jerk interference from the peanut gallery. I am not sure what purpose advocating excluding me from trust lists accomplishes other than you demonstrating yet again you use the trust system as punitive punishment for anyone who dares criticize your behavior, and the behavior of your clique.

Of course I must be delusional or have some hidden agenda right? Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically guilty and deserving of retribution are they? Thanks for once again demonstrating you should never be in a position to judge others.

Whataboutism. But it is not the truth. A political opinion in the form of a hat is not equivalent to screaming racial slurs. So because you choose not to share your political views, no one else should have a right to? I love the nice touch of how you simultaneously say it is dumb to wear a MAGA hat because some one might attack you and then talk about ANTIFA like they are a mythical creature and not a designated terrorist organization responsible for organizing many violent acts. You get the gold for mental gymnastics for today.

"And how do you apply for asylum, without crossing the border?" LOL. Could you display your ignorance on this subject any more clearly? There are lots of ways, such as approaching a checkpoint and filling out an application, a US consulate in their nation, as well as various NGOs who I am sure would be more than happy to help.

P.S. If you are going to use Shakespeare quotes don't mangle them and the intended meaning.

I think arguments for and against here are often mischaracterized. In my personal opinion, I find abortion a repugnant act, but also recognize that there are some valid arguments for it. It seems to me that we have gone well beyond these valid arguments now and have just gone full blown allowing "abortion" on demand, even after birth. The new laws on the books and New York and being debated now in Virginia demonstrate this.

In my opinion most of the push back against abortion is a result of the shift from abortion being a rare last resort, kind of intervention, to a method of contraception in lieu of others. There is no reason abortion needs to be used as a form of contraception for consensual sex. By definition this is a choice, and you also have the choice to use contraceptives of various sorts to prevent insemination to begin with, or God forbid not engage in sex with some one you don't plan to partner with long term.

There are a lot of things people are not taking into consideration when they look at this debate. Of course it is about as white hot of a contentious debate as any, so most tend to avoid it all together, and as a result get very limited superficial information. Also frankly, if you want real information on this subject, you have to look at some VERY depressing, unpleasant, and sick facts, and there is not much motivation for people to jump into that dumpster of medical waste.

For one, no one ever bothers informing these women that they could have long lasting health issues resulting from abortion, and that each abortion they have makes their chances of raising a viable child later more slim. It seems to me this is just a denial of personal responsibility being wrapped in a veil of choice, and having it being maximally abused until everyone is acclimated to the new standard, and then pushing it even further so no one ever has to take responsibility for their actions. This is a dangerous trend leading to Eugenics and genocide.

This is going to be turned into a system for exterminating disabled children. If women can chose to "abort" the baby at birth, then if the child has a disability they can choose to simply kill the infant. Furthermore no one addresses the profit motive here for keeping these discarded children alive just a little bit longer in order to harvest their very valuable tissues. This is going to get out of control really fast, especially when you combine it with a state run single payer healthcare system. You will not be paying the bills, so you don't get a choice any more when it really comes down to it down the line.

I don't think abortion needs to be banned, but I definitely think the direction we are heading is in Mengele territory, and we need to have a major correction on how approach the subject of abortion as a culture, and treat it more like an emergency medical procedure than a more complicated morning after pill.

That is not an extreme comment at all. Many people make the mistake of thinking the USA is monolithic. Even (or especially) the kind of agencies that organize these types of things have white hat and black hat factions within them. There is most certainly a risk of more of the same interventionist smash and grab type war policies we have seen a lot of in the past. This threat however should also be counterbalanced with the risk of allowing China to fill that power vacuum in the region, and the even greater war that would result in a build up of Chinese influence in South America.

Make no mistake they have a high priority of doing this as a sort of tit-for-tat reaction to the US presence in the South China sea, and their stance on Taiwan. In a lot of ways there are a lot of parallels here between Venezuela now and what happened between the USA and the USSR in Cuba during The Bay of Pigs operation run under George H.W. Bush (as CIA not POTUS). This could be a watershed event here. Hopefully this time everyone keeps their heads.

I am not at all a fan of interventionist policies, however the fact that Trump is actually pulling out of Syria and scaling down other conflicts is a strong indicator to me that he will not be seeking a similar scenario there. Time will tell.

Oh is it? I thought the MAGA hat according to you is some racist symbol. So the MAGA hat is a racist symbol but actual blackface is not? The very fact that many people are making death threats by definition means people are defending the death threats on the Covington kids. In fact your buddy here just did. It is not just the fringe elements, but also elements such as yourselves backing up this narrative of justified retribution for... for what exactly no one has been able to detail... but they were wearing MAGA hats and they are white so they must be guilty of something right? The mainstream media is ABSOLUTELY complicit as they not only reported lies, they they doubled and TRIPLED down reporting even more fake stories about these kids in the hopes to distract from the fact the original report WAS A LIE. Don't worry this will all be proven in court. This is what a real journalist does when they report false information here.




The consequences of WHAT ACTIONS. Why not hold this person who shares your political values responsible for his actions wearing actual blackface? Why is it these boys are held responsible for , and the media, the left, and everyone calling for attacks and harassing these kids are not responsible for their incompetence, threats, and actual crimes? So, they are politically engaged in an opinion you do not agree with, so that justifies these attacks on them how? Crossing the border illegally is a crime, that is why they are in cages, this is not an argument.

I disagree with your baseless slander against certain regions, but for the sake of argument lets say there is a K.K.K. town U.S.A. That town and the people in it still have to obey the law. Now while you might be well advised to not go there, if you chose to do so YOU WOULD HAVE EVERY RIGHT to, and if people committed crimes to prevent you from doing so THEY should be held responsible for THEIR actions. Your reasoning is invalid, and this is the definition of double standards via the lens of Critical Theory. Some face criminals are more equal than others I guess.

Is everyone else seeing this pattern of substituting pith and snark in lieu of any logical arguments completely?