It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Like I've said before, the non-PC movement was started by the MSM and their bull# rhetoric, I would hope a site such as ATS would recognize bull# when they see it. Not any more, we toe the line and hold up their rhetoric as just and true.
So ... you'd like to silence all these "PC People" then ... ?
They shouldn't say these things or disagree with accepted dogma?
What's the solution?
(Notice the "?")
originally posted by: NeoSpartan
a reply to: Gryphon66
Maybe he can answer my question first.
But hey, if you want to die for defending him, be my guest.
I sure won't be helping you when they come to kill you.........
1) No I'm not saying that.
2) No one is.
3) No it is not.
He says it, it's a threat, yet, when you say the same thing, it's a proclamation of your independence?
The cognitive dissonance is at maximum here.
originally posted by: NeoSpartan
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
This is not the question you didn't answer yet.....
But ok,
1) No I'm not saying that.
Well, you are suggesting someone is going to die over comments made.
2) No one is.
But you are suggesting someone is going to die over comments made, so there must be a killer.
3) No it is not.
It sure looks like a veiled threat or at least some form of vindication.
This is the question I requested you to answer;
Why come up with this "hypothetical" scenario involving the death of a racist or xenophobe? What is the function of it in relation to your OP. From what context did this idea originate?
Why did you...
And if that's what anyone was advocating for here ... I'd absolutely agree with you.
It's not. Charlie is stating that he will not die for homophobes, racists and pedophiles.
To contradict that, to diminish it ... to imply that such a statement is dangerous somehow ... is that not the actions of the very PC you're condemning?
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66
And if that's what anyone was advocating for here ... I'd absolutely agree with you.
It's not. Charlie is stating that he will not die for homophobes, racists and pedophiles.
To contradict that, to diminish it ... to imply that such a statement is dangerous somehow ... is that not the actions of the very PC you're condemning?
I am still unable to see how we should let people die for saying anything. The only justifiable punishment for words is more words. Take Charlie Hebdo, for instance. Yes, I think we should defend free speech with our lives. I think we should defend holocaust deniers even, as Noam Chomsky and Chris Hitchens did, at great cost to their careers.