NATION

PASSWORD

Petition to ban Donald Trump from UK reaches 300,000

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Hurdegaryp
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54204
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Hurdegaryp » Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:40 pm

Valaran wrote:
Hurdegaryp wrote:Yeah, the majority of people subscribing to Judaism are Caucasian, just like the people in the Middle East and Europe. Amazing, is it not?

hm?
Is your point that Jews are ethnically homogenous, or was it something I missed?

The 19th centuries views concerning the races of humanity as developed in the Western world have been obsolete for ages, because science tends to improve itself.
CVT Temp wrote:I mean, we can actually create a mathematical definition for evolution in terms of the evolutionary algorithm and then write code to deal with abstract instances of evolution, which basically equates to mathematical proof that evolution works. All that remains is to show that biological systems replicate in such a way as to satisfy the minimal criteria required for evolution to apply to them, something which has already been adequately shown time and again. At this point, we've pretty much proven that not only can evolution happen, it pretty much must happen since it's basically impossible to prevent it from happening.

User avatar
Valaran
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21211
Founded: May 25, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Valaran » Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:42 pm

Hurdegaryp wrote:
Valaran wrote:hm?
Is your point that Jews are ethnically homogenous, or was it something I missed?

The 19th centuries views concerning the races of humanity as developed in the Western world have been obsolete for ages, because science tends to improve itself.


I'm not denying that, but I wasn't aware that I was using those theories either.
I used to run an alliance, and a region. Not that it matters now.
Archeuland and Baughistan wrote:"I don't always nice, but when I do, I build it up." Valaran
Valaran wrote:To be fair though.... I was judging on coolness factor, the most important criteria in any war.
Zoboyizakoplayoklot wrote:Val: NS's resident mindless zombie
Planita wrote:you just set the OP on fire

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:07 pm

Geilinor wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
I agree. So who decides that? Me the right-center neoconservative monetarist? You? Hitler? Etc.?

I mean I agree the guy is an asshole who says stupid things. So your solution is to not let him come to the UK? Are you fucking kidding me?

If they can stop extremist Muslim preachers, why not Trump?


Free speech? Difference between advocating for the violent overthrow of a state or nation versus being a prick.

User avatar
Soldati Senza Confini
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 86050
Founded: Mar 11, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Soldati Senza Confini » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:08 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Geilinor wrote:If they can stop extremist Muslim preachers, why not Trump?


Free speech? Difference between advocating for the violent overthrow of a state or nation versus being a prick.


Eh, to be fair, the UK has a different conception of "free speech" than the United States.
Soldati senza confini: Better than an iPod in shuffle more with 20,000 songs.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.

"When it’s a choice of putting food on the table, or thinking about your morals, it’s easier to say you’d think about your morals, but only if you’ve never faced that decision." - Anastasia Richardson

Current Goal: Flesh out nation factbook.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:09 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Geilinor wrote:If they can stop extremist Muslim preachers, why not Trump?


Free speech? Difference between advocating for the violent overthrow of a state or nation versus being a prick.


Give him real political power like office and let's see if he'll just stick to bluster.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41256
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:09 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Geilinor wrote:If they can stop extremist Muslim preachers, why not Trump?


Free speech? Difference between advocating for the violent overthrow of a state or nation versus being a prick.


In fairness, Europe is pretty anti-concentration camps these days. There was a bit of a thing a while back and it's not really seen as okay any more...

User avatar
Ugatoo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1509
Founded: Nov 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ugatoo » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:09 pm

Gauthier wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
Free speech? Difference between advocating for the violent overthrow of a state or nation versus being a prick.


Give him real political power like office and let's see if he'll just stick to bluster.

As a non-American, please, PLEASE, don't try to call his bluff.
Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology but only remember learning about photosynthesis
Unlike marijuana, religion and capitalism will kill you.
Kannap wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:Is Ugatoo really here on their anti-rape crusade? Like seriously, TET is for having a laugh, not a soapbox for someone's rants.


We should banish Ugatoo from TET *nods*

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:13 pm

Gauthier wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
Free speech? Difference between advocating for the violent overthrow of a state or nation versus being a prick.


Give him real political power like office and let's see if he'll just stick to bluster.


Couldn't you say that for a lot of people? I mean at the end of the day he's a person saying shitty things. They're talking about banning him not because he's saying the people of the UK should rise up and commit jihad against their government. They're talking about banning him because they find his comments offensive.

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41256
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:14 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Gauthier wrote:
Give him real political power like office and let's see if he'll just stick to bluster.


Couldn't you say that for a lot of people? I mean at the end of the day he's a person saying shitty things. They're talking about banning him not because he's saying the people of the UK should rise up and commit jihad against their government. They're talking about banning him because they find his comments offensive.


How about freedom of association? The right to choose who you want to associate with?

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:15 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Gauthier wrote:
Give him real political power like office and let's see if he'll just stick to bluster.


Couldn't you say that for a lot of people? I mean at the end of the day he's a person saying shitty things. They're talking about banning him not because he's saying the people of the UK should rise up and commit jihad against their government. They're talking about banning him because they find his comments offensive.


Like how people in the US signed a White House petition to deport Piers Morgan because he didn't worship the Second Amendment?
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:16 pm

Gauthier wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
Couldn't you say that for a lot of people? I mean at the end of the day he's a person saying shitty things. They're talking about banning him not because he's saying the people of the UK should rise up and commit jihad against their government. They're talking about banning him because they find his comments offensive.


Like how people in the US signed a White House petition to deport Piers Morgan because he didn't worship the Second Amendment?


So that somehow justifies it? Two wrongs don't make a right.

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41256
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:18 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Gauthier wrote:
Like how people in the US signed a White House petition to deport Piers Morgan because he didn't worship the Second Amendment?


So that somehow justifies it? Two wrongs don't make a right.


Why does Trumps free speech trump the free speech of the people who signed the petition?

User avatar
Ugatoo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1509
Founded: Nov 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ugatoo » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:18 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Gauthier wrote:
Like how people in the US signed a White House petition to deport Piers Morgan because he didn't worship the Second Amendment?


So that somehow justifies it? Two wrongs don't make a right.

How so? Killing Hitler makes the world better.
Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology but only remember learning about photosynthesis
Unlike marijuana, religion and capitalism will kill you.
Kannap wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:Is Ugatoo really here on their anti-rape crusade? Like seriously, TET is for having a laugh, not a soapbox for someone's rants.


We should banish Ugatoo from TET *nods*

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:23 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
So that somehow justifies it? Two wrongs don't make a right.


Why does Trumps free speech trump the free speech of the people who signed the petition?


People have the right to sign any petition they want. People also have the right to speak their minds. I don't have a problem with any of this and I don't think the petition will amount to much. But I think it's concerning you have people who want to ban somebody simply because they don't like what he has to say.

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19950
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:24 pm

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
Free speech? Difference between advocating for the violent overthrow of a state or nation versus being a prick.


Eh, to be fair, the UK has a different conception of "free speech" than the United States.

Anyone wants know know how true this is look up our libel laws.
Hollywood wishes it had libel like we do.

User avatar
Ugatoo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1509
Founded: Nov 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ugatoo » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:24 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
Why does Trumps free speech trump the free speech of the people who signed the petition?


People have the right to sign any petition they want. People also have the right to speak their minds. I don't have a problem with any of this and I don't think the petition will amount to much. But I think it's concerning you have people who want to ban somebody simply because they don't like what he has to say.

I love that anti-sjw mentality. When it's something or someone you support it's censorship, when it's something you don't like it's freedom.
Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology but only remember learning about photosynthesis
Unlike marijuana, religion and capitalism will kill you.
Kannap wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:Is Ugatoo really here on their anti-rape crusade? Like seriously, TET is for having a laugh, not a soapbox for someone's rants.


We should banish Ugatoo from TET *nods*

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:25 pm

Ugatoo wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
So that somehow justifies it? Two wrongs don't make a right.

How so? Killing Hitler makes the world better.


Metaphysicals are pointless. Honestly. We can debate the pros and cons to a hypothetical till we die. But it's pointless. You don't have a choice to kill Hitler.

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41256
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:26 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
Why does Trumps free speech trump the free speech of the people who signed the petition?


People have the right to sign any petition they want. People also have the right to speak their minds. I don't have a problem with any of this and I don't think the petition will amount to much. But I think it's concerning you have people who want to ban somebody simply because they don't like what he has to say.


The majority of people who signed it may think that way, but the petition starter seems a little smarter than that. Read the petition text, see what you think about it.

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:26 pm

Ugatoo wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
People have the right to sign any petition they want. People also have the right to speak their minds. I don't have a problem with any of this and I don't think the petition will amount to much. But I think it's concerning you have people who want to ban somebody simply because they don't like what he has to say.

I love that anti-sjw mentality. When it's something or someone you support it's censorship, when it's something you don't like it's freedom.


I don't support Trump. I hate him and I think he's a fucking moron. But he's entitled to his opinions. That's not a crime.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:28 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Ugatoo wrote:I love that anti-sjw mentality. When it's something or someone you support it's censorship, when it's something you don't like it's freedom.


I don't support Trump. I hate him and I think he's a fucking moron. But he's entitled to his opinions. That's not a crime.


Neither is signing the petition. You're acting like it's a direct vote to ban Trump from the UK.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Imperializt Russia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 54847
Founded: Jun 03, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Imperializt Russia » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:29 pm

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:
Why does Trumps free speech trump the free speech of the people who signed the petition?


People have the right to sign any petition they want. People also have the right to speak their minds. I don't have a problem with any of this and I don't think the petition will amount to much. But I think it's concerning you have people who want to ban somebody simply because they don't like what he has to say.

Welcome to the concept of "a population".

Those people will always exist.
Warning! This poster has:
PT puppet of the People's Republic of Samozaryadnyastan.

Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Also,
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 126517
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Libertarian Police State

Postby Ethel mermania » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:30 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
So that somehow justifies it? Two wrongs don't make a right.

Why does Trumps free speech trump the free speectolerant h of the people who signed the petition?

it doesn't it only infriges on trumps speech if the ban is carried out. it just shows there are 300,000 intolerant jerks, in the UK

User avatar
Mike the Progressive
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 27544
Founded: Oct 27, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Mike the Progressive » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:31 pm

Gauthier wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
I don't support Trump. I hate him and I think he's a fucking moron. But he's entitled to his opinions. That's not a crime.


Neither is signing the petition. You're acting like it's a direct vote to ban Trump from the UK.


I'm not. I think I said earlier I just found it concerning this many people want to ban him simply because they dislike his discourse.

User avatar
Fartsniffage
Post Czar
 
Posts: 41256
Founded: Dec 19, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Fartsniffage » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:32 pm

Ethel mermania wrote:
Fartsniffage wrote:Why does Trumps free speech trump the free speectolerant h of the people who signed the petition?

it doesn't it only infriges on trumps speech if the ban is carried out. it just shows there are 300,000 intolerant jerks, in the UK


More like half a million at this point. And he's not being banned from speaking, just being denied a venue in which to do so. Does even the first amendment guarantee a venue for speech?

User avatar
Ugatoo
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1509
Founded: Nov 27, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Ugatoo » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:38 pm

Fartsniffage wrote:
Ethel mermania wrote:it doesn't it only infriges on trumps speech if the ban is carried out. it just shows there are 300,000 intolerant jerks, in the UK


More like half a million at this point. And he's not being banned from speaking, just being denied a venue in which to do so. Does even the first amendment guarantee a venue for speech?

It doesn't even guarantee you and audience.
Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology but only remember learning about photosynthesis
Unlike marijuana, religion and capitalism will kill you.
Kannap wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:Is Ugatoo really here on their anti-rape crusade? Like seriously, TET is for having a laugh, not a soapbox for someone's rants.


We should banish Ugatoo from TET *nods*

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: -Astoria-, Alvecia, Amenson, American Legionaries, Eahland, Grand matrix of Dues ex machina, Shrillland, Southeast Iraq, Stellar Colonies, Thermodolia, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads