paperfist
Diamond Member
you should read a history book because it seems you don't know a goddamn thing about the subject. jesus christ the idiocy on this board sometimes.
This must be a case where intolerance is okay
you should read a history book because it seems you don't know a goddamn thing about the subject. jesus christ the idiocy on this board sometimes.
No its not. Have you been watching more Fox than usual as of late?That’s a pretty illiberal thing to say. The left used to proudly proclaim that it may not agree with what you have to say but they would defend your right to say it. That seems to be lost.
Yeah. Thing is we already had a debate about the Nazi thing.That’s a pretty illiberal thing to say. The left used to proudly proclaim that it may not agree with what you have to say but they would defend your right to say it. That seems to be lost.
Yeah. Thing is we already had a debate about the Nazi thing.
60 million people died in that argument because we let things go too far in the first place.
So no. We won't defend your right to say whatever you want. That road leads to a lot of people dying.
Not trying to claim victim status. That's the domain of progressives.
Trying to point out that everyone loudly proclaims their principles until they actually feel bound by them. Then they appeal for exemptions, claim extenuating circumstances, etc.
So true because Trump Nazism is OK. We just need to evolve the population far enough to see that. Maybe the deaths of 60 million disagreers Americans will change people’s minds.What is your logic here? Nazis and Nazi beliefs are bad, but, are you saying that once an argument has been had, its done and everyone should move on? I think you need some nuance because that works for dismissing the Nazi debate, but, it also dismisses anything that society has accepted which would limit social progress. There was a time when the debate about gay marriage had been settled, yet, had we not continued we would not have it today.
So true because Trump Nazism is OK. We just need to evolve the population far enough to see that. Maybe the deaths of 60 million disagreers Americans will change people’s minds.
What is your logic here?
That we don't want another 60million people dead?
Well your argument seems to revolve on Nazism becoming acceptable through social change.Agreed. Did you miss all the other words that were written? They would seem important to give you an understanding of what was asked.
Well your argument seems to revolve on Nazism becoming acceptable through social change.
Which is kinda what every right thinking person is trying to avoid.
There's no effort or maturity required in dismissing opponents as monsters. It's easy, lazy, and betrays a childish unwillingness to extend to opposing intellects and ideas the respect that you demand be shown to yours.
No. Weird that is your understanding.
My argument is that your position would not only throw out the bathwater, but the baby as well. When your position is that any argument society has had and a side has won, we should not have that argument again. The problem with that is it would also mean that any immoral position that society holds would and should be enforced would would limit social progress. I then suggested that you take a more nuanced approach that would allow us to still condemn Nazis and Nazi beliefs while still challenging society's immoral positions.
The bolded isnt my position.
we dont have the arguments again.
Yes, it is.
Yeah. Thing is we already had a debate about the Nazi thing. (Already had the debate, we being society)
60 million people died in that argument because we let things go too far in the first place. (It went badly)
So no. We won't defend your right to say whatever you want. That road leads to a lot of people dying. (Having the debate leads to 60 million dead)
So unless your argument is 60 million is the threshold, the understanding would be if we had an argument, it went badly, we dont have the arguments again.
I read him as saying that issues can and should be revisited at need, but not repetitive rehashings of the SAME argument.
Thats not "any argument society has". Nazism isnt the same as the right for gay people to marry.
In the abstraction of the argument, they are both subjects that were debated that had negative externalities. I am glad we had both debates, and I am glad one lost and the other won out in the US.
You are also throwing in a new bit, which is "any argument". How can you tell when one subject is worth fighting for, and another is not?
That rehashing is completely needed though.
You cant abstract both those arguments. One of them called for the extermination and subjugation of untold millions of people and led to the deaths of 60 million people, the other was about gay people getting married. One of those things you can have a debate about.
My argument was specific to Nazism, you added "any argument".