NATION

PASSWORD

Two Senators want Antifa labled domestic terrorists

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

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Estanglia
Minister
 
Posts: 2287
Founded: Dec 31, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Estanglia » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:06 pm

Strahcoin wrote:
Grenartia wrote:As an antifascist (as all truly moral and ethical people should be), this is simply a transparent attempt to eliminate political opposition. First its us, tomorrow it will be the rest of you.

Also, how the fuck can antifa be a "terrorist organization" when its not even a fucking organization?

It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.


You just admitted that it's not an organisation. So how exactly are you going to consider it terrorists?

Strahcoin wrote:
Cossack Khanate wrote:Disclaimer: I only read the OP

Frankly, antifa is turning into a domestic terrorist organization. There is nothing political behind this. Whether you are conservative or liberal, hell even if you are anti-fascist or fascist, you can agree that antifa has gone too far too many times in the past, and has disrespected the keepers of the peace.

Unless you are fine with the use of violence to achieve leftist change, then there is no way you can support Antifa’s actions.

Agreed.

Vassenor wrote:
Remember, throwing milkshakes at people is the worst terrorism possible. :roll:

It's rude, disrespectful, and unwarranted. Anyone with common sense knows this.


Rude and disrespectful, sure. Unwarranted, not necessarily.
Yeah: Most of capitalism, some of socialism, egalitarianism, equality
Meh: Brexit, the EU, the UN
Nah: Some of capitalism, most of socialism, discrimination, justifying discrimination, authoritarianism

Political compass test:
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.9

8 Values.


Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"

Reploid Productions wrote:Two pages in... and everybody is pretty much agreeing that "This is fucking stupid!"? Dear gods, NSG agreeing on something?! I SPOTTED A UNICORN!!

User avatar
Diopolis
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13159
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:07 pm

Vassenor wrote:
Strahcoin wrote:It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.


Veterans protect our nation from enemies. They risk dying and never seeing their families again so that we would be free. World War II veterans fought Nazi Germany to prevent Hitler from expanding his totalitarian, murderous government to the rest of the world.

Veterans should be respected.


You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

This idea among the left that Trump actually plans on instituting a dictatorship which suppresses dissent and rules with an iron hand is the rough equivalent of the rightist idea that Obama was personally going to go to the house of every gun owner and force them to attend a coke fueled gay sex orgy to celebrate the birth of Karl Marx.
Trad-Catholic, hispanophile Texan distributist and paleoconservative.
Economic left -3.88, authoritarian 6.15
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.
St Generalissimo Francisco Franco, pray for president Trump!

User avatar
Strahcoin
Envoy
 
Posts: 253
Founded: Jun 01, 2019
Right-wing Utopia

Postby Strahcoin » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:10 pm

Galloism wrote:
Israeli Commonwealth wrote:Yeah. Here is my belief...
If you don't like the best country on Earth, the United States of America, then fucking leave faggot.

Eh, I mean, free country. You can dislike it.

In fact, we (as a nation) have a time honored tradition of protest involving buying an American flag and burning it when we’re (again as a nation) are upset about something.

But that’s burning an inanimate object, not beating the carriers of it. Burning a flag harms no one. Beating a flag carrier harms someone.

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.
Not all NS stats/policies may be used.
A 15.428571428571... civilization, according to this index.
On this index, my army is a 6-6-8.
OOC: I support (not necessarily in order) conservatism, capitalism, patriotism, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, pro-life, low taxes, strong national defense, assimilation, legal immigration, science, death penalty for the worst crimes, anti-communism, anti-fascism, anti-socialism. There are only two genders. Nation mostly represents my views.

User avatar
Highever
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1862
Founded: Dec 21, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Highever » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:14 pm

Strahcoin wrote:
Galloism wrote:Eh, I mean, free country. You can dislike it.

In fact, we (as a nation) have a time honored tradition of protest involving buying an American flag and burning it when we’re (again as a nation) are upset about something.

But that’s burning an inanimate object, not beating the carriers of it. Burning a flag harms no one. Beating a flag carrier harms someone.

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

How does exercising the rights given by the constitution disrespect the constitution?
ΦΣK
⚦ Through the souls of your brothers and sisters I take My place amongst the Three; through their pleasure I ascend my Throne. Pleasure, for Pleasure's sake! ⚦
Remember Bloody Sunday
A wise man once said, ("We all dead, fuck it")
There's something in the water
Jolthig wrote:Use Soresu and not Juyo.
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.

User avatar
Strahcoin
Envoy
 
Posts: 253
Founded: Jun 01, 2019
Right-wing Utopia

Postby Strahcoin » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:20 pm

Estanglia wrote:
Strahcoin wrote:It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.


You just admitted that it's not an organisation. So how exactly are you going to consider it terrorists?

Strahcoin wrote:Agreed.


It's rude, disrespectful, and unwarranted. Anyone with common sense knows this.


Rude and disrespectful, sure. Unwarranted, not necessarily.

1. First of all, I was considering a hypothetical. I did not "admit" that antifa is not an organization. I said "even if". Second of all, not all terrorists belong to organizations. Lone terrorists exist, just as lone murderers or thieves exist.
2. The victim is often an innocent. If throwing a projectile at an innocent isn't unwarranted, nothing isn't.
(Not to mention the milkshake may ruin their clothing, or nobody made sure the victim wasn't lactose intolerant.)
Not all NS stats/policies may be used.
A 15.428571428571... civilization, according to this index.
On this index, my army is a 6-6-8.
OOC: I support (not necessarily in order) conservatism, capitalism, patriotism, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, pro-life, low taxes, strong national defense, assimilation, legal immigration, science, death penalty for the worst crimes, anti-communism, anti-fascism, anti-socialism. There are only two genders. Nation mostly represents my views.

User avatar
Strahcoin
Envoy
 
Posts: 253
Founded: Jun 01, 2019
Right-wing Utopia

Postby Strahcoin » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:27 pm

Pacomia wrote:
Israeli Commonwealth wrote:Yeah. Here is my belief...
If you don't like the best country on Earth, the United States of America, then fucking leave faggot.

Best country on Earth is somewhat debatable. One thing making it not the best country on Earth is that you can still get beat up for carrying its flag.

Oh yeah, and the mass shootings.

Mass shootings exist in many other places.

"Hate speech" can result in jail time in other nations (such as Canada). Of course, since there's no official definition for "hate speech", people in social "democracies" could be arrested for saying things "minority groups" simply don't like (which, I suspect, includes burning flags representing their cultures).

And, of course, authoritarian nations will attempt to suppress all forms of dissent.
Not all NS stats/policies may be used.
A 15.428571428571... civilization, according to this index.
On this index, my army is a 6-6-8.
OOC: I support (not necessarily in order) conservatism, capitalism, patriotism, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, pro-life, low taxes, strong national defense, assimilation, legal immigration, science, death penalty for the worst crimes, anti-communism, anti-fascism, anti-socialism. There are only two genders. Nation mostly represents my views.

User avatar
Strahcoin
Envoy
 
Posts: 253
Founded: Jun 01, 2019
Right-wing Utopia

Postby Strahcoin » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:32 pm

Vassenor wrote:
Israeli Commonwealth wrote:You misunderstand. Criticising is not hating per se. I fucking hated Obama, but I respected him as President. If you dont then no, leave.


What has Trump done to earn our respect?

  • Reduced unemployment levels to record lows
  • Defeated ISIS
  • Lowered taxes
  • Started building the wall and consequently protecting honest American citizens from illegal immigrants
  • Did not attempt to appease the fake news media
  • ...And more, all while donating nearly all of his salary from being president.

There's a list here, in case you're curious.
Not all NS stats/policies may be used.
A 15.428571428571... civilization, according to this index.
On this index, my army is a 6-6-8.
OOC: I support (not necessarily in order) conservatism, capitalism, patriotism, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, pro-life, low taxes, strong national defense, assimilation, legal immigration, science, death penalty for the worst crimes, anti-communism, anti-fascism, anti-socialism. There are only two genders. Nation mostly represents my views.

User avatar
Estanglia
Minister
 
Posts: 2287
Founded: Dec 31, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Estanglia » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:34 pm

Strahcoin wrote:
Estanglia wrote:
You just admitted that it's not an organisation. So how exactly are you going to consider it terrorists?



Rude and disrespectful, sure. Unwarranted, not necessarily.

1. First of all, I was considering a hypothetical. I did not "admit" that antifa is not an organization. I said "even if". Second of all, not all terrorists belong to organizations. Lone terrorists exist, just as lone murderers or thieves exist.
2. The victim is often an innocent. If throwing a projectile at an innocent isn't unwarranted, nothing isn't.
(Not to mention the milkshake may ruin their clothing, or nobody made sure the victim wasn't lactose intolerant.)


1) My question still stands. Antifa isn't an organisation, at best it's a group of antifascist organisations. How exactly are you gonna label Antifa terrorists?
And if it's actually an organisation, prove it.

2) Hence the not necessarily. I wouldn't call it entirely unwarranted when a total jackass takes a milkshake to the face.
Yeah: Most of capitalism, some of socialism, egalitarianism, equality
Meh: Brexit, the EU, the UN
Nah: Some of capitalism, most of socialism, discrimination, justifying discrimination, authoritarianism

Political compass test:
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.9

8 Values.


Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"

Reploid Productions wrote:Two pages in... and everybody is pretty much agreeing that "This is fucking stupid!"? Dear gods, NSG agreeing on something?! I SPOTTED A UNICORN!!

User avatar
Galloism
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61160
Founded: Aug 20, 2005
Father Knows Best State

Postby Galloism » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:39 pm

Strahcoin wrote:
Galloism wrote:Eh, I mean, free country. You can dislike it.

In fact, we (as a nation) have a time honored tradition of protest involving buying an American flag and burning it when we’re (again as a nation) are upset about something.

But that’s burning an inanimate object, not beating the carriers of it. Burning a flag harms no one. Beating a flag carrier harms someone.

While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.
Venicilian: wow. Jesus hung around with everyone. boys, girls, rich, poor(mostly), sick, healthy, etc. in fact, i bet he even went up to gay people and tried to heal them so they would be straight.
The Parkus Empire: Being serious on NSG is like wearing a suit to a nude beach.
New Kereptica: Since power is changed energy over time, an increase in power would mean, in this case, an increase in energy. As energy is equivalent to mass and the density of the government is static, the volume of the government must increase.


User avatar
Proctopeo
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Sep 26, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Proctopeo » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:52 pm

Galloism wrote:
Strahcoin wrote:While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

You can exercise your freedom of speech to directly express contempt for freedom of speech. Exercising it in such a way that implies such contempt is definitely possible.
Center-right libertarian LockeabooEconomic: 5.25
Meme addict :^)Social: -3.74
Manga is literatureWill probably retake once every month or so, last updated 3/8/2019
RIP Balk
Crockerland wrote:Yes, we are aware, the Israelis protect their civilians with weapons while the Palestinians protect their weapons with civilians.

User avatar
Highever
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1862
Founded: Dec 21, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Highever » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:54 pm

Proctopeo wrote:
Galloism wrote:Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

You can exercise your freedom of speech to directly express contempt for freedom of speech. Exercising it in such a way that implies such contempt is definitely possible.

I would argue that trying to dissuade people from exercising their rights in certain ways shows far more contempt for freedom of speech than flag burning.
ΦΣK
⚦ Through the souls of your brothers and sisters I take My place amongst the Three; through their pleasure I ascend my Throne. Pleasure, for Pleasure's sake! ⚦
Remember Bloody Sunday
A wise man once said, ("We all dead, fuck it")
There's something in the water
Jolthig wrote:Use Soresu and not Juyo.
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.

User avatar
Strahcoin
Envoy
 
Posts: 253
Founded: Jun 01, 2019
Right-wing Utopia

Postby Strahcoin » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:55 pm

Vassenor wrote:
Strahcoin wrote:It is not an attempt to eliminate political opposition. It is an attempt to reduce domestic terrorism.

Even if antifa isn't an "organization", it can still be considered terrorists.


Veterans protect our nation from enemies. They risk dying and never seeing their families again so that we would be free. World War II veterans fought Nazi Germany to prevent Hitler from expanding his totalitarian, murderous government to the rest of the world.

Veterans should be respected.


You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No, I don't see how labeling a violent group that attempts to forcibly silence opposing views can be abused to suppress dissent.

Gormwood wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No chance at all Trump supporters in government will hand out Antifa labels like Oprah.

Well, Trump and the vast majority of his supporters (myself included) value the freedom of speech and oppose fascism...

Highever wrote:
Strahcoin wrote:While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

How does exercising the rights given by the constitution disrespect the constitution?

Galloism wrote:
Strahcoin wrote:While I agree that beating a flag carrier is worse than burning a flag, I still think it should be illegal.

The flag of the United States represents not the government, but the Constitution. The Constitution granted our freedom of speech, and people died for it. Burning the American flag essentially implies contempt for the freedom of speech. Of course, without the freedom of speech, flag burners could easily be arrested.

Therefore, burning the American flag is disrespectful and hypocritical to say the least. If someone doesn't like America, there's no reason why he/she can't emigrate.

Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

I'll give you an analogy:

Supposes a parent decides to give his/her three children some more freedoms. He/she decides to remove the curfew previously set upon the children. The first child doesn't exercise this new freedom and instead stays home at late-night. The second child does exercise this new freedom, but thanks his/her parent for it. The third child exercises this new freedom, but continues to call the parent "restrictive" and "unreasonable", and the freedom "not enough". Assume that the parent has been reasonable in all other aspects.

The first child would be the American who doesn't criticize his/her government. These kinds are rare, for the government consistently fluctuates in ideology. There is no need to revoke his/her freedom.
The second child would be the America who criticizes his/her government, but not the Constitution's First Amendment. These kinds are more common, ranging from reasonable liberals to reasonable conservatives. Assuming the second child does not cause, inflict, or recieve harm with the new freedom, the parent should not revoke it.
The third child would be the flag-burner: directly using given freedoms to attack them. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the parent to re-institute the third child's curfew.
Not all NS stats/policies may be used.
A 15.428571428571... civilization, according to this index.
On this index, my army is a 6-6-8.
OOC: I support (not necessarily in order) conservatism, capitalism, patriotism, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, pro-life, low taxes, strong national defense, assimilation, legal immigration, science, death penalty for the worst crimes, anti-communism, anti-fascism, anti-socialism. There are only two genders. Nation mostly represents my views.

User avatar
Proctopeo
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9990
Founded: Sep 26, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Proctopeo » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:58 pm

Highever wrote:
Proctopeo wrote:You can exercise your freedom of speech to directly express contempt for freedom of speech. Exercising it in such a way that implies such contempt is definitely possible.

I would argue that trying to dissuade people from exercising their rights in certain ways shows far more contempt for freedom of speech than flag burning.

Definitely, but there is something to be said that burning a flag shows contempt for the country that the flag represents, and its values. It shouldn't be banned, but depending on the values of the country, it can be a really important red flag about the person.
Center-right libertarian LockeabooEconomic: 5.25
Meme addict :^)Social: -3.74
Manga is literatureWill probably retake once every month or so, last updated 3/8/2019
RIP Balk
Crockerland wrote:Yes, we are aware, the Israelis protect their civilians with weapons while the Palestinians protect their weapons with civilians.

User avatar
Highever
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1862
Founded: Dec 21, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Highever » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:59 pm

Strahcoin wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No, I don't see how labeling a violent group that attempts to forcibly silence opposing views can be abused to suppress dissent.

Gormwood wrote:No chance at all Trump supporters in government will hand out Antifa labels like Oprah.

Well, Trump and the vast majority of his supporters (myself included) value the freedom of speech and oppose fascism...

Highever wrote:How does exercising the rights given by the constitution disrespect the constitution?

Galloism wrote:Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

I'll give you an analogy:

Supposes a parent decides to give his/her three children some more freedoms. He/she decides to remove the curfew previously set upon the children. The first child doesn't exercise this new freedom and instead stays home at late-night. The second child does exercise this new freedom, but thanks his/her parent for it. The third child exercises this new freedom, but continues to call the parent "restrictive" and "unreasonable", and the freedom "not enough". Assume that the parent has been reasonable in all other aspects.

The first child would be the American who doesn't criticize his/her government. These kinds are rare, for the government consistently fluctuates in ideology. There is no need to revoke his/her freedom.
The second child would be the America who criticizes his/her government, but not the Constitution's First Amendment. These kinds are more common, ranging from reasonable liberals to reasonable conservatives. Assuming the second child does not cause, inflict, or recieve harm with the new freedom, the parent should not revoke it.
The third child would be the flag-burner: directly using given freedoms to attack them. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the parent to re-institute the third child's curfew.

And how exactly does burning the flag cause or inflict harm from burning a flag beyond you not personally liking the sentiment? This basically sounds like "theres freedom of speech until I dont like what they're saying", and that is hardly freedom of speech.
ΦΣK
⚦ Through the souls of your brothers and sisters I take My place amongst the Three; through their pleasure I ascend my Throne. Pleasure, for Pleasure's sake! ⚦
Remember Bloody Sunday
A wise man once said, ("We all dead, fuck it")
There's something in the water
Jolthig wrote:Use Soresu and not Juyo.
Charlie Chaplin wrote:Nothing is permanent in this wicked world, not even our troubles.

User avatar
Estanglia
Minister
 
Posts: 2287
Founded: Dec 31, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Estanglia » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:59 pm

Strahcoin wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No, I don't see how labeling a violent group that attempts to forcibly silence opposing views can be abused to suppress dissent.


Because there isn't one Antifa. At best, Antifa is a group of organisations referred to with one name because they all have the same goal: stop fascism. Here is where it can be abused because you can just chuck an antifascist group under the Antifa umbrella and call them terrorists even when they have done nothing wrong.
Yeah: Most of capitalism, some of socialism, egalitarianism, equality
Meh: Brexit, the EU, the UN
Nah: Some of capitalism, most of socialism, discrimination, justifying discrimination, authoritarianism

Political compass test:
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.9

8 Values.


Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"

Reploid Productions wrote:Two pages in... and everybody is pretty much agreeing that "This is fucking stupid!"? Dear gods, NSG agreeing on something?! I SPOTTED A UNICORN!!

User avatar
The World Capitalist Confederation
Minister
 
Posts: 3490
Founded: Dec 07, 2018
Corporate Police State

Postby The World Capitalist Confederation » Sun Jul 21, 2019 2:59 pm

Strahcoin wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
You don't see how labelling something as nebulous as "Antifa" a domestic terrorist group can be abused to suppress dissent?

No, I don't see how labeling a violent group that attempts to forcibly silence opposing views can be abused to suppress dissent.

Gormwood wrote:No chance at all Trump supporters in government will hand out Antifa labels like Oprah.

Well, Trump and the vast majority of his supporters (myself included) value the freedom of speech and oppose fascism...

Highever wrote:How does exercising the rights given by the constitution disrespect the constitution?

Galloism wrote:Um, please explain how exercising freedom of speech implies contempt for freedom of speech.

I'll give you an analogy:

Supposes a parent decides to give his/her three children some more freedoms. He/she decides to remove the curfew previously set upon the children. The first child doesn't exercise this new freedom and instead stays home at late-night. The second child does exercise this new freedom, but thanks his/her parent for it. The third child exercises this new freedom, but continues to call the parent "restrictive" and "unreasonable", and the freedom "not enough". Assume that the parent has been reasonable in all other aspects.

The first child would be the American who doesn't criticize his/her government. These kinds are rare, for the government consistently fluctuates in ideology. There is no need to revoke his/her freedom.
The second child would be the America who criticizes his/her government, but not the Constitution's First Amendment. These kinds are more common, ranging from reasonable liberals to reasonable conservatives. Assuming the second child does not cause, inflict, or recieve harm with the new freedom, the parent should not revoke it.
The third child would be the flag-burner: directly using given freedoms to attack them. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the parent to re-institute the third child's curfew.

Don't you think that assuming the parent is reasonable in all other aspects is kind of breaking the analogy here? The American government, in many ways, isn't reasonable nor fair to its own citizens. A more apt analogy would be the parent removing the curfew but then putting secret surveillance devices in the children's possessions.

Meelducan wrote:He probably wouldn't get an endorsement from Weight Watchers.

New Political RP here!

User avatar
Strahcoin
Envoy
 
Posts: 253
Founded: Jun 01, 2019
Right-wing Utopia

Postby Strahcoin » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:02 pm

Estanglia wrote:
Strahcoin wrote:1. First of all, I was considering a hypothetical. I did not "admit" that antifa is not an organization. I said "even if". Second of all, not all terrorists belong to organizations. Lone terrorists exist, just as lone murderers or thieves exist.
2. The victim is often an innocent. If throwing a projectile at an innocent isn't unwarranted, nothing isn't.
(Not to mention the milkshake may ruin their clothing, or nobody made sure the victim wasn't lactose intolerant.)


1) My question still stands. Antifa isn't an organisation, at best it's a group of antifascist organisations. How exactly are you gonna label Antifa terrorists?
And if it's actually an organisation, prove it.

2) Hence the not necessarily. I wouldn't call it entirely unwarranted when a total jackass takes a milkshake to the face.

1. Simple. Every "person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims" should be labeled as one, just as sexual assaulters are labeled as "sexual assaulters". Increasing the police budget would help finding those people.
2. True... However, the few times bad people are attacked do not justify the many times innocents* are. Besides, calling the police to apprehend the bad person and give him/her a trial would be more just and fair.

*"Innocent" used in this context means a person who has not committed a crime or other immoral act.
Not all NS stats/policies may be used.
A 15.428571428571... civilization, according to this index.
On this index, my army is a 6-6-8.
OOC: I support (not necessarily in order) conservatism, capitalism, patriotism, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, pro-life, low taxes, strong national defense, assimilation, legal immigration, science, death penalty for the worst crimes, anti-communism, anti-fascism, anti-socialism. There are only two genders. Nation mostly represents my views.

User avatar
Estanglia
Minister
 
Posts: 2287
Founded: Dec 31, 2017
Anarchy

Postby Estanglia » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:04 pm

Strahcoin wrote:
Estanglia wrote:
1) My question still stands. Antifa isn't an organisation, at best it's a group of antifascist organisations. How exactly are you gonna label Antifa terrorists?
And if it's actually an organisation, prove it.

2) Hence the not necessarily. I wouldn't call it entirely unwarranted when a total jackass takes a milkshake to the face.

1. Simple. Every "person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims" should be labeled as one, just as sexual assaulters are labeled as "sexual assaulters". Increasing the police budget would help finding those people.


So, not the 'group' Antifa, just violent antifascists.

2. True... However, the few times bad people are attacked do not justify the many times innocents* are. Besides, calling the police to apprehend the bad person and give him/her a trial would be more just and fair.

*"Innocent" used in this context means a person who has not committed a crime or other immoral act.


Sure.
Last edited by Estanglia on Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yeah: Most of capitalism, some of socialism, egalitarianism, equality
Meh: Brexit, the EU, the UN
Nah: Some of capitalism, most of socialism, discrimination, justifying discrimination, authoritarianism

Political compass test:
Economic Left/Right: -0.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.9

8 Values.


Torrocca wrote:"Your honor, it was not mein fault! I didn't order the systematic genocide of millions of people, it was the twenty kilograms of pure-cut Bavarian cocaine that did it!"

Reploid Productions wrote:Two pages in... and everybody is pretty much agreeing that "This is fucking stupid!"? Dear gods, NSG agreeing on something?! I SPOTTED A UNICORN!!

User avatar
Vassenor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46264
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Vassenor » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:07 pm

Strahcoin wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
What has Trump done to earn our respect?

  • Reduced unemployment levels to record lows
  • Defeated ISIS
  • Lowered taxes
  • Started building the wall and consequently protecting honest American citizens from illegal immigrants
  • Did not attempt to appease the fake news media
  • ...And more, all while donating nearly all of his salary from being president.

There's a list here, in case you're curious.


>Defeated ISIS

:rofl:

>Lowered Taxes

For the rich. The average American hasn't actually benefited from the Cut Cut Cut Act.

>Started building The Wall

Uh, no, he hasn't, but keep telling yourself that.

>Did not attempt to appease the fake news media

If by that you mean screamed like a spoiled toddler every time some outlet said anything even slightly negative about him.

So no, not a whole lot to be worth repsecting.
Jenny / Sailor Astraea
WOMAN

MtF trans and proud - She / Her / etc.
100% Asbestos Free

Hufflepuff/Team Mystic

User avatar
Vassenor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46264
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Vassenor » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:08 pm

Strahcoin wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
Remember, throwing milkshakes at people is the worst terrorism possible. :roll:

It's rude, disrespectful, and unwarranted. Anyone with common sense knows this.


That doesn't make it terrorism.
Jenny / Sailor Astraea
WOMAN

MtF trans and proud - She / Her / etc.
100% Asbestos Free

Hufflepuff/Team Mystic

User avatar
US-SSR
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1242
Founded: Aug 02, 2018
Corporate Police State

Postby US-SSR » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:08 pm

Am I the only one seeing the irony in the fact that two Senators who think anyone who feels in the least threatened has the absolute right to shoot anyone else dead want to label people whose offenses amount to harassment and fisticuffs "domestic terrorists?"
No quid pro quo!
No phony Emoluments Clause!
Rudy who?
You're unconstitutional!
You should be impeached!

User avatar
Greater vakolicci haven
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 14298
Founded: May 09, 2014
Anarchy

Postby Greater vakolicci haven » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:09 pm

Vassenor wrote:
Strahcoin wrote:
  • Reduced unemployment levels to record lows
  • Defeated ISIS
  • Lowered taxes
  • Started building the wall and consequently protecting honest American citizens from illegal immigrants
  • Did not attempt to appease the fake news media
  • ...And more, all while donating nearly all of his salary from being president.

There's a list here, in case you're curious.


>Defeated ISIS

:rofl:

>Lowered Taxes

For the rich. The average American hasn't actually benefited from the Cut Cut Cut Act.

>Started building The Wall

Uh, no, he hasn't, but keep telling yourself that.

>Did not attempt to appease the fake news media

If by that you mean screamed like a spoiled toddler every time some outlet said anything even slightly negative about him.

So no, not a whole lot to be worth repsecting.


Read linky, make better arguments.

User avatar
LiberNovusAmericae
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5794
Founded: Mar 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby LiberNovusAmericae » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:31 pm

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Vassenor wrote:
>Defeated ISIS

:rofl:

>Lowered Taxes

For the rich. The average American hasn't actually benefited from the Cut Cut Cut Act.

>Started building The Wall

Uh, no, he hasn't, but keep telling yourself that.

>Did not attempt to appease the fake news media

If by that you mean screamed like a spoiled toddler every time some outlet said anything even slightly negative about him.

So no, not a whole lot to be worth repsecting.


Read linky, make better arguments.

It is a Trump propaganda site. Not every fact there is going to be accurate. He did do some good things, but that man far from walks on water.
Last edited by LiberNovusAmericae on Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Nova Cyberia wrote:Thank you. I appreciate your respect for my low opinion of you.
Call me Liber for short.
Not to be confused with Novus America. We are different people with very different political opinions.

User avatar
Union of Sovereign States and Republics
Envoy
 
Posts: 315
Founded: Nov 16, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Union of Sovereign States and Republics » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:40 pm

LiberNovusAmericae wrote:
Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Read linky, make better arguments.

It is a Trump propaganda site. Not every fact there is going to be accurate. He did do some good things, but that man far from walks on water.

At least he made peace with North Korea, the boogeyman of our time.
Current IC Year: 2003
The Union of Sovereign States and Republics; USSR WE'RE NOT COMMUNISTS, DAMMIT!
In 1991, a plane carrying would-be conspirators of an armed coup crashed in the Crimean Peninsula. Without the coup, the Union of Sovereign States treaty was signed; and the USSR survived...
Current Ruling Party: Social Democratic Party of the Soviet Union (Alexander Lebedev)
News: USSR Joins the EU
[SCHEDULE: News Changed 3-5 PM EST]


User avatar
LiberNovusAmericae
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5794
Founded: Mar 10, 2018
Left-Leaning College State

Postby LiberNovusAmericae » Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:47 pm

Union of Sovereign States and Republics wrote:
LiberNovusAmericae wrote:It is a Trump propaganda site. Not every fact there is going to be accurate. He did do some good things, but that man far from walks on water.

At least he made peace with North Korea, the boogeyman of our time.

It won't last as there really wasn't a deal. He also seems to love Kim's dictatorial rule, which is not a characteristic that should be welcomed in a U.S. President.
Nova Cyberia wrote:Thank you. I appreciate your respect for my low opinion of you.
Call me Liber for short.
Not to be confused with Novus America. We are different people with very different political opinions.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aclion, Cekoviu, Definitely Not Trumptonium, Evil Dictators Happyland, Galloism, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Gravlen, Greater Arab State, Heloin, Infected Mushroom, LiberNovusAmericae, Nea Videssos, Page, SD_Film Artists, Serconas, South-East Antarctica, The Huskar Social Union, The New California Republic, Valrifell, Zurkerx

Advertisement

Remove ads