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.

 

Trump says the 'alt-left' bears some responsibility for violence in Charlottesville

page: 24
62
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL my bad. I didn't click your links. I just saw the part about owning slaves until possibly 1852 and assumed you were quoting from there.

But yes, opposing the institution of slavery did not mean they weren't racists. Even in the north they were still racist. Why do you think there was a civil rights movement up through the 60s?




posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

You called for violence against nazis for wrong think.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Perfectenemy

In philosophical argumentation, and this is what this is in a small way, one can compare a gnat to a buffalo to make clear understanding.


That’s what you’re missing. It doesn’t matter that you don’t agree with me, what matters is whether you can understand me

and you obviously don't

One day you will, I hope for your sake.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: Perfectenemy

Your just out of out intellectual league If I may say


You deal with the spirit of the analogy not the literal story…


The concept of force and the idea of the good versus evil is what I’m referring to

You have no ideas just emotion




Which side is good?

Antifa?

Explain to me in what context this is good.



Or this.



Seeing as how you are in a superior intellectual league, could you please give me a sweet analogy that explains why a "good" group needs to violently attack innocent people like this?



Everything is relative my friend.

In WWII we fought with the greatest murderer in world history Stalin.

But at the time compared to Hitler he was good.

Good and bad are relative propositions

You see what I mean



So you are comparing antifa to the greatest murderer in history but saying we can't criticize them?



Again you’re taking an analogy as a literal judgment. That’s not the way it works.

You lose the point I’m trying to illustrate.

And that is that good and evil are relative

Here's another analogy to make you guys understand


If you are drowning and your enemy or someone you hate comes to save you and you say "no go away" and drown. Does that make sense.


Without Stalin in WWII we would have lost


Maybe without these people standing up to these nazis more people may have died.


No your analogies are just nonsensical that's all. You're grasping at straws here because you struggle to find a logical comparison but Antifa is unlike any other groups you have ever seen. However you could describe them as a fringe group that seperated from BLM but only the members already prone to violence joined forces.
edit on 15-8-2017 by Perfectenemy because: gremlin stole my bike



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

Neither side is legitimate.



Violence used for political purposes is always wrong.

It is not a matter of left and right, liberal and conservative, Republican or Democrat.


I have to say, these past few weeks conversations with you have been eye opening.

If people could see the post history between us, they would see that we were both snarky and antagonistic toward each other.

But the more I learn about you, the more I realize that while we have policy and other disagreements, we actually are in agreement in a great many issues.

I guess what I am trying to say is




posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: kruphix

Are you arguing that you have the right to abridge another's free speech?


Interesting how you come to that conclusion...not sure how...but interesting.

How exactly would I take away someone's free speech?


By punching them for saying something you don't like.


They are still free to say whatever they want...they aren't free from the consequences of saying what ever they want.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

You're missing the third party. Who was the victim of the nazis and kkk in Charlottesville which required antifa thugs to save them? In ww2 it was surrounding countries, non aryans, and jews. In your new analogy it's some innocent girl. Who is being terrorized by a nazi march?
edit on 15-8-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL my bad. I didn't click your links. I just saw the part about owning slaves until possibly 1852 and assumed you were quoting from there.

But yes, opposing the institution of slavery did not mean they weren't racists. Even in the north they were still racist. Why do you think there was a civil rights movement up through the 60s?


Because the South was given free rein to implement Jim Crow and Segregation after about 1877?

Lee, as opposed to some, at least recognized the evil incumbent in slavery.

He just argued that Blacks were backward as a people and required the discipline of slavery to whip them into shape as it were, and not only that, he thought it was God's will.




edit on 15-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: kruphix

You called for violence against nazis for wrong think.


Doesn't stop them from saying anything they want...just provides some consequences for their deplorable behavior.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

That was the prominent thinking of basically everyone at that time.


I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.

-The Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I'll say this I watched several videos on what happened and I'm concerned it really does look like a set up. This group went to court to get a federal injunction to protest after the city removed their permit. Then 30 min before the rally was to start a state of emergency is called this of course overides the judges order. Then they remove these people from the park with police on full riot gear pushing them into anti fa waiting on the streets. To leave the rally they they had to run down street's lined with protestor while being pepper sprayed and having urine thrown on them.

The police no where to be seen once they pushed them into the waiting crowds. This of course creates clashes and violence insues. The police created a dangerous situation then walked away. Yes I saw some disturbing things from thus at right like the torch March the night before my god hard to believe that these a hats still exist. But they legally had a right to be there and they were set up by the mayor to be hurt. I throw this at the feet of the mayor and the police that woman would still be alive if they didn't set the scene of violence allowing two hostile groups to just duke it out.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

So you're saying you do have the right to abridge their speech. Got it.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: kruphix

Are you arguing that you have the right to abridge another's free speech?


Interesting how you come to that conclusion...not sure how...but interesting.

How exactly would I take away someone's free speech?


By punching them for saying something you don't like.


They are still free to say whatever they want...they aren't free from the consequences of saying what ever they want.


Well the law disagrees with you. You are not free to punch someone to shut them up.

I can't believe I have to explain this to you.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

Neither side is legitimate.



Violence used for political purposes is always wrong.

It is not a matter of left and right, liberal and conservative, Republican or Democrat.


Oh # time to prepare for the ice-age because hell just froze over. I fully agree with you.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

you have to be some kind of brain dead retard to think this way



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

Neither side is legitimate.



Violence used for political purposes is always wrong.

It is not a matter of left and right, liberal and conservative, Republican or Democrat.


Oh # time to prepare for the ice-age because hell just froze over. I fully agree with you.


That's been happening a lot lately.

Don't worry ... it will pass.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're an American first. We do have common ground even if it's only a little.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Actually ...



The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9–0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words', those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] … have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."


Fighting Words Doctrine



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're an American first. We do have common ground even if it's only a little.


We have lots of common ground.

We are conditioned to concentrate on our differences.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Not only conditioned, but life in America has been above the fray for so long, we neglect the foundation. It's not often that there is a major threat to the foundation. But when there is, our commonality seeps through.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join