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.

 

Boston let's have a conversation or mb not Foul Language Alert

page: 19
19
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Not true. There were people on both sides that were there to fight. Among those there were no victims.


It is very true. A counter protester is there to counter protests. The right to protest is part of our fundamental human rights.




posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66

nice that you choose to omit your quote
you cant defend it so may as well ignore it
"promised" violence is not violence
meeting speech with violence is bad


You are a bald faced liar. My full quote is quoted in full by me above.

You are the one that can only cut and paste a sentence fragment and make stupid claims.

Yes, legally a direct threat of violence is the same as violence ... it's called assault.

Ask the Secret Service.

that is not your quote it was mine

now a threat of violence is violence?




or promised violence (like marching down an American street carrying Nazi flags, White Supremacist flags and torches, shouting Nazi slogans) is self-defense


promised violence is not violence
no matter how many ways you try to describe it, speech is not violence
your quote is simply wrong



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Yes, in some cases it is people doing what they criticize.

In others, put whatever word you want in place of hypocrisy, if it means that much to you.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



You have applauded a poster that called for the elimination of all trump supporters, you have no right to make moral judgements about anyone.


After what you did yesterday, I don't think you are in any position whatsoever to make any moral judgments yourself, or lecture anyone else for that matter.


You mean pointing out how ats has many people willing to defend or downplay suggestions of eliminating all trump supporters?

But yes, I can see how you would be upset at people seeing that.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Yes, in some cases it is people doing what they criticize.

In others, put whatever word you want in place of hypocrisy, if it means that much to you.


It does mean much to me. In this very thread people are equating words and marches with violence, and it doesn't help that you are charging others with something they didn't do.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Some protesters where there to fight. You can't argue against that.

It is also part of fundamental human rights to counter-protest. Adding counter before protest doesn't make it different than protesting.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




You mean pointing out how ats has many people willing to defend or downplay suggestions of eliminating all trump supporters? But yes, I can see how you would be upset at people seeing that.

I was shocked quite frankly.
Any US citizen has the right to protest, no matter how detestable their cause is.
No one should be eliminaated for their opinion.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

Funny because the word duplicity means: "deceitfulness in speech or conduct, as by speaking or acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter;"

Yet, it is a synonym of hypocrisy. Of course you know what I meant and just want to argue semantics, which seems to be what happened yesterday.

Well, it is a text based medium.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66



You're defending Nazis. That doesn't make you one, it makes you an snivelling apologist.


It is only acceptable to confront extreme fascists, in his eyes, if they are to the point of killing millions.

By that time in my opinion, it's too late.


That is a lie.

you defend silencing people who are not in any way connected to Nazis because apparently they are on the verge of killing millions.

I assume you also would recommend silencing communists too, who also killed millions?

Let me know how many rights we have to give up because you are worried Nazis are on the verge of killing millions.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



You mean pointing out how ats has many people willing to defend or downplay suggestions of eliminating all trump supporters?


Well, there's that out-of-context narrative again.

But no. I was referring to you not being able to properly defend yourself, being called out by several members in this thread about how you are taking his words out-of-context, and decided to bail from this thread and create your own on the topic, which specifically called-out one particular member, which caused others to do the same, and then eventually the mods had to close down the thread because in creating such a thread, you violated T&C's.

And only then did you decide to come back to this thread to continue your narrative.

Epic douche move.



But yes, I can see how you would be upset at people seeing that.


Why would I be upset that you are creating a false narrative for political purposes? I think you did yourself more harm with your posts than the other member did with his.

We now know you are dishonest and cannot be taken seriously.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Grambler




You mean pointing out how ats has many people willing to defend or downplay suggestions of eliminating all trump supporters? But yes, I can see how you would be upset at people seeing that.

I was shocked quite frankly.
Any US citizen has the right to protest, no matter how detestable their cause is.
No one should be eliminaated for their opinion.


I know.

Its disgusting to see these people defending this.

Apparently, calling out agasint calls of political genocide makes you immoral.

But I guess defending free speech makes you a nazi, so what do you really expect.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



But yes, I can see how you would be upset at people seeing that.


Not really, you're the one who's upset about nothing at all. Readers will make up their minds, there's no need to repeat the same old debate again.

Maybe, just to add another thought, you should ask yourself why so many neo-nazis happen to be Trump-supporters, too. Any ideas?



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: TheTory

Some protesters where there to fight. You can't argue against that.

It is also part of fundamental human rights to counter-protest. Adding counter before protest doesn't make it different than protesting.


Yes they were there to fight the people impeding and threatening their right to rally. You cannot argue against that. Are counter protesters there to fight people impeding and threatening their counter protest?



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Apparently, calling out agasint calls of political genocide makes you immoral.

It doesn't make you immoral.

Erroneously calling out against calls of political genocide makes you wrong.
edit on 23-8-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



That is a lie.


No it's not. You said it. It has to be Nazi level of gassing millions. Or would you now like to make claim to a lesser level of atrocity in which it is ok to confront extreme fascists?



you defend silencing people who are not in any way connected to Nazis because apparently they are on the verge of killing millions.


No. I did not. That is a lie.



I assume you also would recommend silencing communists too, who also killed millions?


Silence them? Of course not, but I'd meet them on the streets, just like the fascists, if it came to the point of not having any other option.



Let me know how many rights we have to give up because you are worried Nazis are on the verge of killing millions.


Give up? None. Pure hyperbole.

Let me know what number of people have to die before you find it acceptable to oppose fascism.

Ok?



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheTory
Yes they were there to fight the people impeding and threatening their right to rally. You cannot argue against that. Are counter protesters there to fight people impeding and threatening their counter protest?

Yes, they were there to fight and so were some on the other side.

How is that different than what I said?



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Funny because the word duplicity means: "deceitfulness in speech or conduct, as by speaking or acting in two different ways to different people concerning the same matter;"

Yet, it is a synonym of hypocrisy. Of course you know what I meant and just want to argue semantics, which seems to be what happened yesterday.

Well, it is a text based medium.


Sure, I'm being a stickler. Manslaughter is a synonym of murder. One is guilty of one or the other, not both.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Yes, they were there to fight and so were some on the other side.

How is that different than what I said?


One group was there to hold a rally. The other group was there to disrupt the other's rally.



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TheTory

I already gave you the word that would have been a better fit, "Duplicity", being two-faced. Why are you still going on about it?



posted on Aug, 23 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 







 
19
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join