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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."