>who have people voting illegally, left and right.
Actually that's just plain untrue. Voter fraud like that is extraordinarily rare - so incredibly rare that it has zero statistical impact on any elections. Even in countries with far worse infrastructure than the USA it's not a major factor. It takes a truly extreme idiot to try and do that, because the risks are incredibly high, the odds of getting caught are overwhelmingly against you - and the reward is insignificantly small. There just aren't enough people THAT dumb to have any impact whatsoever.
Election fraud by *adding* votes is effectively non-existent, removing the OTHER guy's votes is far easier to do, far easier to get away with and far more effective. You see that happen in every election in every democracy. But fake voters don't happen often enough anywhere to have altered any election results in history. Hell even in Zimbabwe they don't try *that*.
That was a plural "you" referring to conservatives in general, not you in particular. But historically - whenever conservatives and liberals have been at war -the conservatives have lost. In the US the most obvious example would be the civil war. A major factor in that victory was access to a lot of highly educated people - who tend to make good generals because they tend to be good at coming up with better tactics.
>So you think it is smart to stay inside and hide I did not say "stay inside" - I am talking about stealth and superior tactics, not cowardice. With stealth and superior tactics an underarmed and outnumbered force can, and repeatedly has, defeated forces that both outgunned and outmanned them. Ironically - a sniper would count as stealth - but there are even better stealth tactics one might use.
Well I'm no geologist and clearly your sources are more informed than the newspaper article I read on Kivu a few weeks back and opted to use as an example.
I never suggested history is a myth - just that you are ignorant of it, and what you think history is - is mostly mythological.
I never once suggested the A-team or MacGuyver was real, that was your strawman, I merely suggested that the values taught in the latter are more valuable than those taught in the former. Fiction does teach values and those values are most certainly real.
And the thing about a smarter brain than yours is - you will never manage to PUT a bullet through it. It's smart enough to avoid being in the path of bullets (and I don't mean by any kind of supernatural means - I just mean by knowing how to not be where you think it is). It takes a real idiot to get killed by a gun - with the sole exception of crowd shooters and snipers, but those are rather exceptional cases.
What exactly do you think a psychological addiction actually is ? Because what it actually is - is a genuine feeling of need, that is actual chemical and electrical signals in the brain - utterly indistinguishable from those present when the other organs sent those signals. The experience and the symptoms are no less severe. The need is not experienced as any less real. Just because the original trigger has been removed, doesn't mean the resulting patterns which those neural networks have formed just dissapear, they still act as if the need is there (because brains - being fairly well evolved tend to anticipate needs) the symptoms don't go away until the brain is rewired, which can take a very long time and be incredibly difficult.
This also implies that addictions to non-chemical things are no less severe than the other kind - despite the fact that they are of a different origin. In a very real sense - obsessive compulsive disorder is merely addiction. Go ask any therapist how easy that is to cure - hint it's extremely difficult and without drug treatments virtually impossible.
Yet another American who proves your country cant cook decent meat on a fire to save your life. Almost every culture has a bbq tradition... only in America could it be stripped of socializing, turned into something quick (its supposed to be many hours if joy) and used to produce gunk nobody else would want to eat.
Nah... ill stick to the true way. No meat on until the fire is burned out. You cook over hot coals.:p
He says as if thats something different. Your brain is physical. Everything that happens in it is physical. Psychological addiction is 100% physical addiction. The chemicals in the brain are not ghostly ether. The feelings, desires and thoughts are not immaterial nothingness. They are the operation of a physical organ and their physical effects are 100% real and no less severe than those from any other organ. Even the most vapid emotion is a real, physical experience. Science has known this for decades.
Actually history shows that everytime that ideology has ever attacked the other anywhere in the world it lost. Badly. I see no reason to expect the next time to be any different. Its like the myth of how the NAZIS disarmed the jews. It never happened and the Jews were waging an armed resistence against the NAZIs throughout the war. If they hadnt the holocaust may well have succeeded.
Fair point - in practice though, it's a LOT easier to make votes dissapear than it is to fake them. Which is why republicans have become such masters at it. There are a million legal ways to prevent somebody's vote from counting. Hell they got so good at it than in the last midterms they managed to secure a record number of state governments and record majorities in both houses - with a minority of the actual votes (and when you consider that republican turn-out was well above 70% in that election while democrat turnout was below 50% and democrats STILL got more votes - it spells a disastrous presidential election for them - dems tend to turn up well in those and state level gerrymandering isn't nearly as effective there).
Remember that video in 2012 of Karl Rove looking shocked and refusing to believe the results as they came in - thinking it impossible that Romney could be so trounced ? Yeah... this year he'll probably have a heart attack.
Odd how Obama-care has done the exact OPPOSITE of bankrupting private insurance or destroying the health system. Having millions more people actually able to GET healthcare is the opposite of destruction and as for the insurance companies - they've been raking it in and scoring record profits under this newly regulated regime. If there is a reason to be critical of obamacare it's the one the liberals have: it was a giant hand-out to the insurance companies and you could achieve a lot more a lot cheaper if you just did medicaid for all.
>I'm pretty sure we can discount the rest of what you say.
Feel free to do so, I have neither the need nor the desire to convince or impress you. Just consider this. We both know there are bad people in the world with guns. I do not feel the need to own one to keep myself safe from them. You may think me foolish, but I think you a coward. I can't imagine why one would think you would need a gun to defend yourself from gunmen... and I have the science backing me up, all studies bar none find that guns are absolutely terrible for self defence. It's not just a cowardly solution - it's a horribly ineffective one.
>BTW the A team never killed anyone.
I never said they did - it is actually quite remarkable how they could fire thousands of bullets at people and never hit anybody. I was merely contrasting somebody who relied on lots of heavy arsenal with somebody who relied on outsmarting his opponents because he hated guns.
The thing is - everything you say is true - and none of it matters one bit.
This is about the perceptions people have, this is about what people in those countries are afraid off - and what they see as injustice, and what causes some of them to come to the conclusion that all Americans are evil and deserve to die.
No amount of context is going to change that. It's just not how people think and it doesn't matter one bit if you think I'm just some wishy-washy liberal either.
The fact is - when local evils do shit, people see it as their problem, when Americans get involved, anybody that dies is seen as a foreign invader bullying them. You can call that unfair all you want but it won't change human nature. Nobody likes having foreigners telling them what to do, how to live or killing their people - even if those foreigners claim it's to kill the evil people who were harming them (and even if that's true).
The only wars America can ever fight on foreign soil without being hated for it are those where one of the following conditions hold: 1) The country in question attacked America first, that hasn't been true of any war since World War 2 and Pearl Harbour (no 9/11 was not an attack by a country and the one country you could come closest to arguing was responsible is one of the only in the region America has never been at war with). 2) You were ASKED to come. The people you are "rescuing" had requested your help. By and large America doesn't often show up when their help is requested (which only makes the perception problem worse) and do show up where their help wasn't wanted - which makes the claim of "helping" seem dubious in the extreme and certainly never get you much gratitude.
Just try turning it around... would you be happy if the Russian Military showed up un-asked and started bombing Washington and New York next year to protect you from Trump's evil ? Would you feel they are helping ? Would you consider your dead family an acceptable loss ?
Nobody else will ever feel any different.
Deal with it - America has not been seen as heroes anywhere outside your own shores (and even there only by Republicans) since the 1960s and your international image has only gotten worse ever since. You are seen as arrogant, imperialistic bullies that insist on enforcing your will on the world, destroying other people's democracies and installing dictators anytime some people go about electing a leader that chooses the welfare of their own people over American corporate interests and invading places on the flimsiest excuse whenever they don't want to give you whatever resources they have for peanuts.
It's probably not an entirely fair perception, but it is the perception that's out there - and you are working very hard to cement it I see.
Well, you would then need to convince the communist party to bring that suit at this time, when it would harm a candidate they likely support. They certainly don't believe he is one of them, but they also certainly consider him a better ally than any other candidate. I don't see it likely they'll choose your side.
That defense may work. But first Sanders would have to actually charge you with slander. Which he has not done to anybody. What may be a defense in court is utterly irellevant if the matter does not come before court. Even then I am by no means sure you are right. More likely the judge would rule he has to deal with the slander case based on the law as written and its legitimacy is not a factor and cannot become one as neither party would have standing to sue the government. Roberts has been notoriously finicky about standing.
Obamacare is decidedly NOT socialist. It was based on the healthcare reform Mit Romney instituted in his state as governor, with enhancements suggested by the Heartland Foundation - one of the most far-right uber-capitalist "thinktanks" (actually lobyists) in the United States. The guys who lead the climate-denial brigade wrote that damn healthcare law. Its as far removed from socialist as you can get - it's far right ultra-capitalist healthcare with some regulatory reform thrown in.
The amazing thing has been watching republicans fight tooth and nail against a law THEY WROTE - and demanded for years. They apparently stopped loving it the moment a democrat (and a black one at that) actually passed it.
>Plenty of freedom fighters around the world and throughout history refrain from inciting terror among civilians.
There's probably nobody in the world who strikes more terror into the hearts of civilians than the US Military. There's a reason Noam Chomsky keeps pointing out that the unwritten part of the FBI's definition of "terrorism" must be "unless it's us doing it".
The Iraq civilian death toll is well over a hundred thousand. Nobody even knows exactly how many people have been killed by drones in Pakistan but we do know that a lot of them were civilians - often civilians who just happened to park next to a target that may or may not be a legitimate target (we can't really tell if they are because we don't get to know who they are). How many civilians got killed in Libya ? What about Afghanistan ? And all that is before we even consider the impact of having neighbourhoods flattened - everything you built up over a lifetime of labour blasted to smithereens in seconds along with your neighbors...
In a grand irony - there may be no more effective way to create terrorists than the war on terror. Look what Americans have done over the most little of imagined slights by the US government. McVeigh - the recent invasion of Vanilla ISIS in Oregon - and that's over such stupid things as "having to pay to let your cattle graze on federal land". Now imagine what it does to a community when the neighbourhood gets flattened by a bombing raid, children and grandmothers killed, homes destroyed, food and income lost. It is just about a statistical impossibility for ANY of those bombing raids to have NOT made SOMEBODY angry enough to want to blow Americans up at any cost.
Odd... I remember saying that in 2001. I remember saying that the dumbest idea in history is the Bush suggestion that you can rid the world of terrorists by killing all the terrorists. It was always going to lead to there being more terrorists than before he started... I wish I had been wrong.
Those camps go down as FDR's single worst mistake. Not even the most ardent democrat considers them a good thing. Hell Takei was actually in one, publicly calls them out and has drawn the same paralel as you do. Democrats tend not to imagine their heroes were flawless. FDR was one of the great presidents yet when he issued those orders he fucked up badly. Now compare that to how Reagan-worshippers react when you remind them that their beloved leader committed high treason and even his fall-guy never went to jail.
You are wrong that this is *more* FDR than Hitler though. Hitler's original speeches justified rounding up Jews for exacty the same fears. A vague association with the great Jewish banking families. Which ironically was an utterly tenuous claim since all the Jewish banking families were Sephardic while Jews in Germany were all Azkanazi - a group of largely poor and struggling people with no significant political or economic power or any real ties to their wealthier cousins that entered Europe via Spain 200 years before them. Nearly everyone in FDR's camps walked out again. Hardly anybody in Hitler's camps did. Both claimed right to the end that they all would. Hell Hitler's second in command still claimed they did at nuremburg when the camps had been found and the evidence presented. How much are you willing to bet that Trump promising they will walk out again is the former and not the latter ? More importantly: what would you be willing to bet if you were one of them ?
It can never be anything but evil if those numbers are not the same. Every religion on earth teaches that and atheists recognize it as foundational and universal to morality: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Anytime you are willing to subject somebody to an experience you would not want to be subjected to yourself you have become unadulterated evil. All evil acts have that in common and no argument can redeem it nor any threat justify it. Jesus recognized it. Budha recognized it. Muhammed said the same thing. Even Richard Dawkins have called it the morality evolution bred into us to ensure survival and which rationality demands (though I would argue he is failing to live up to his own ideals sometimes but nobody does that perfectly). Would you be okay if somebody suggested locking up in camps a group that includes you because some people who claim to be members have done bad things even though your group have dissavowed them repeatedly and raised more money for their victims than all other charities combined ? (Bet you didnt know that Muslim charities have raised more money to help terorist victims than all others combined). Would you ?
If you would consider that an injustice if done to you then you are pure unadulterated evil if you fail to protest any and every person (especially those seeking political office) who woud suggest doing it to anybody else. Even if you love everything else they say and hate every other candidate. That should be an insurmountable difference or you are no different than Rudolph Hess at best.I look forward to seeing your anti-Trump poster.
In most countries where abortion is banned - it already is, and very often it gets charged as murder. Just last year Saudi Arabia executed a woman for the crime of having a miscarriage.
Slashdot Mirror
>who have people voting illegally, left and right.
Actually that's just plain untrue. Voter fraud like that is extraordinarily rare - so incredibly rare that it has zero statistical impact on any elections. Even in countries with far worse infrastructure than the USA it's not a major factor. It takes a truly extreme idiot to try and do that, because the risks are incredibly high, the odds of getting caught are overwhelmingly against you - and the reward is insignificantly small.
There just aren't enough people THAT dumb to have any impact whatsoever.
Election fraud by *adding* votes is effectively non-existent, removing the OTHER guy's votes is far easier to do, far easier to get away with and far more effective. You see that happen in every election in every democracy. But fake voters don't happen often enough anywhere to have altered any election results in history. Hell even in Zimbabwe they don't try *that*.
Kenya was a pure brainfart.
That was a plural "you" referring to conservatives in general, not you in particular. But historically - whenever conservatives and liberals have been at war -the conservatives have lost. In the US the most obvious example would be the civil war. A major factor in that victory was access to a lot of highly educated people - who tend to make good generals because they tend to be good at coming up with better tactics.
>So you think it is smart to stay inside and hide
I did not say "stay inside" - I am talking about stealth and superior tactics, not cowardice. With stealth and superior tactics an underarmed and outnumbered force can, and repeatedly has, defeated forces that both outgunned and outmanned them. Ironically - a sniper would count as stealth - but there are even better stealth tactics one might use.
Well I'm no geologist and clearly your sources are more informed than the newspaper article I read on Kivu a few weeks back and opted to use as an example.
I never suggested history is a myth - just that you are ignorant of it, and what you think history is - is mostly mythological.
I never once suggested the A-team or MacGuyver was real, that was your strawman, I merely suggested that the values taught in the latter are more valuable than those taught in the former. Fiction does teach values and those values are most certainly real.
And the thing about a smarter brain than yours is - you will never manage to PUT a bullet through it. It's smart enough to avoid being in the path of bullets (and I don't mean by any kind of supernatural means - I just mean by knowing how to not be where you think it is). It takes a real idiot to get killed by a gun - with the sole exception of crowd shooters and snipers, but those are rather exceptional cases.
Somebody :P at the end
1) DIdn't see the
2) Can't take a good-natured ribbing on an utterly insignificant topic
3) Was born without a sense of humor.
Let me know which, if it's number 3 I'm sure we can set up a kickstarter for your support fund.
What exactly do you think a psychological addiction actually is ? Because what it actually is - is a genuine feeling of need, that is actual chemical and electrical signals in the brain - utterly indistinguishable from those present when the other organs sent those signals. The experience and the symptoms are no less severe. The need is not experienced as any less real.
Just because the original trigger has been removed, doesn't mean the resulting patterns which those neural networks have formed just dissapear, they still act as if the need is there (because brains - being fairly well evolved tend to anticipate needs) the symptoms don't go away until the brain is rewired, which can take a very long time and be incredibly difficult.
This also implies that addictions to non-chemical things are no less severe than the other kind - despite the fact that they are of a different origin. In a very real sense - obsessive compulsive disorder is merely addiction. Go ask any therapist how easy that is to cure - hint it's extremely difficult and without drug treatments virtually impossible.
Yet another American who proves your country cant cook decent meat on a fire to save your life.
Almost every culture has a bbq tradition... only in America could it be stripped of socializing, turned into something quick (its supposed to be many hours if joy) and used to produce gunk nobody else would want to eat.
Nah... ill stick to the true way. No meat on until the fire is burned out. You cook over hot coals. :p
He says as if thats something different. Your brain is physical. Everything that happens in it is physical. Psychological addiction is 100% physical addiction. The chemicals in the brain are not ghostly ether. The feelings, desires and thoughts are not immaterial nothingness. They are the operation of a physical organ and their physical effects are 100% real and no less severe than those from any other organ.
Even the most vapid emotion is a real, physical experience. Science has known this for decades.
Thats what Hitler did. From 19 seats in parliament in a liberal democracy with lots of checks and ballances to absolute power in basically one night.
Actually history shows that everytime that ideology has ever attacked the other anywhere in the world it lost. Badly. I see no reason to expect the next time to be any different.
Its like the myth of how the NAZIS disarmed the jews. It never happened and the Jews were waging an armed resistence against the NAZIs throughout the war. If they hadnt the holocaust may well have succeeded.
Most things conservatives believe are myths
Fair point - in practice though, it's a LOT easier to make votes dissapear than it is to fake them. Which is why republicans have become such masters at it. There are a million legal ways to prevent somebody's vote from counting. Hell they got so good at it than in the last midterms they managed to secure a record number of state governments and record majorities in both houses - with a minority of the actual votes (and when you consider that republican turn-out was well above 70% in that election while democrat turnout was below 50% and democrats STILL got more votes - it spells a disastrous presidential election for them - dems tend to turn up well in those and state level gerrymandering isn't nearly as effective there).
Remember that video in 2012 of Karl Rove looking shocked and refusing to believe the results as they came in - thinking it impossible that Romney could be so trounced ? Yeah... this year he'll probably have a heart attack.
Odd how Obama-care has done the exact OPPOSITE of bankrupting private insurance or destroying the health system. Having millions more people actually able to GET healthcare is the opposite of destruction and as for the insurance companies - they've been raking it in and scoring record profits under this newly regulated regime.
If there is a reason to be critical of obamacare it's the one the liberals have: it was a giant hand-out to the insurance companies and you could achieve a lot more a lot cheaper if you just did medicaid for all.
>I'm pretty sure we can discount the rest of what you say.
Feel free to do so, I have neither the need nor the desire to convince or impress you. Just consider this. We both know there are bad people in the world with guns. I do not feel the need to own one to keep myself safe from them. You may think me foolish, but I think you a coward. I can't imagine why one would think you would need a gun to defend yourself from gunmen... and I have the science backing me up, all studies bar none find that guns are absolutely terrible for self defence. It's not just a cowardly solution - it's a horribly ineffective one.
>BTW the A team never killed anyone.
I never said they did - it is actually quite remarkable how they could fire thousands of bullets at people and never hit anybody. I was merely contrasting somebody who relied on lots of heavy arsenal with somebody who relied on outsmarting his opponents because he hated guns.
The thing is - everything you say is true - and none of it matters one bit.
This is about the perceptions people have, this is about what people in those countries are afraid off - and what they see as injustice, and what causes some of them to come to the conclusion that all Americans are evil and deserve to die.
No amount of context is going to change that. It's just not how people think and it doesn't matter one bit if you think I'm just some wishy-washy liberal either.
The fact is - when local evils do shit, people see it as their problem, when Americans get involved, anybody that dies is seen as a foreign invader bullying them. You can call that unfair all you want but it won't change human nature. Nobody likes having foreigners telling them what to do, how to live or killing their people - even if those foreigners claim it's to kill the evil people who were harming them (and even if that's true).
The only wars America can ever fight on foreign soil without being hated for it are those where one of the following conditions hold:
1) The country in question attacked America first, that hasn't been true of any war since World War 2 and Pearl Harbour (no 9/11 was not an attack by a country and the one country you could come closest to arguing was responsible is one of the only in the region America has never been at war with).
2) You were ASKED to come. The people you are "rescuing" had requested your help. By and large America doesn't often show up when their help is requested (which only makes the perception problem worse) and do show up where their help wasn't wanted - which makes the claim of "helping" seem dubious in the extreme and certainly never get you much gratitude.
Just try turning it around... would you be happy if the Russian Military showed up un-asked and started bombing Washington and New York next year to protect you from Trump's evil ? Would you feel they are helping ? Would you consider your dead family an acceptable loss ?
Nobody else will ever feel any different.
Deal with it - America has not been seen as heroes anywhere outside your own shores (and even there only by Republicans) since the 1960s and your international image has only gotten worse ever since. You are seen as arrogant, imperialistic bullies that insist on enforcing your will on the world, destroying other people's democracies and installing dictators anytime some people go about electing a leader that chooses the welfare of their own people over American corporate interests and invading places on the flimsiest excuse whenever they don't want to give you whatever resources they have for peanuts.
It's probably not an entirely fair perception, but it is the perception that's out there - and you are working very hard to cement it I see.
Well, you would then need to convince the communist party to bring that suit at this time, when it would harm a candidate they likely support. They certainly don't believe he is one of them, but they also certainly consider him a better ally than any other candidate. I don't see it likely they'll choose your side.
That defense may work. But first Sanders would have to actually charge you with slander. Which he has not done to anybody. What may be a defense in court is utterly irellevant if the matter does not come before court.
Even then I am by no means sure you are right. More likely the judge would rule he has to deal with the slander case based on the law as written and its legitimacy is not a factor and cannot become one as neither party would have standing to sue the government. Roberts has been notoriously finicky about standing.
You need to watch more MacGuyver and less A-team dude. There are a thousand ways to win a gunfight and only the dumbest one involves having a gun.
Obamacare is decidedly NOT socialist. It was based on the healthcare reform Mit Romney instituted in his state as governor, with enhancements suggested by the Heartland Foundation - one of the most far-right uber-capitalist "thinktanks" (actually lobyists) in the United States. The guys who lead the climate-denial brigade wrote that damn healthcare law.
Its as far removed from socialist as you can get - it's far right ultra-capitalist healthcare with some regulatory reform thrown in.
The amazing thing has been watching republicans fight tooth and nail against a law THEY WROTE - and demanded for years. They apparently stopped loving it the moment a democrat (and a black one at that) actually passed it.
>Plenty of freedom fighters around the world and throughout history refrain from inciting terror among civilians.
There's probably nobody in the world who strikes more terror into the hearts of civilians than the US Military. There's a reason Noam Chomsky keeps pointing out that the unwritten part of the FBI's definition of "terrorism" must be "unless it's us doing it".
The Iraq civilian death toll is well over a hundred thousand. Nobody even knows exactly how many people have been killed by drones in Pakistan but we do know that a lot of them were civilians - often civilians who just happened to park next to a target that may or may not be a legitimate target (we can't really tell if they are because we don't get to know who they are).
How many civilians got killed in Libya ? What about Afghanistan ? And all that is before we even consider the impact of having neighbourhoods flattened - everything you built up over a lifetime of labour blasted to smithereens in seconds along with your neighbors...
In a grand irony - there may be no more effective way to create terrorists than the war on terror. Look what Americans have done over the most little of imagined slights by the US government. McVeigh - the recent invasion of Vanilla ISIS in Oregon - and that's over such stupid things as "having to pay to let your cattle graze on federal land". Now imagine what it does to a community when the neighbourhood gets flattened by a bombing raid, children and grandmothers killed, homes destroyed, food and income lost. It is just about a statistical impossibility for ANY of those bombing raids to have NOT made SOMEBODY angry enough to want to blow Americans up at any cost.
Odd... I remember saying that in 2001. I remember saying that the dumbest idea in history is the Bush suggestion that you can rid the world of terrorists by killing all the terrorists. It was always going to lead to there being more terrorists than before he started... I wish I had been wrong.
Those camps go down as FDR's single worst mistake. Not even the most ardent democrat considers them a good thing. Hell Takei was actually in one, publicly calls them out and has drawn the same paralel as you do. Democrats tend not to imagine their heroes were flawless. FDR was one of the great presidents yet when he issued those orders he fucked up badly. Now compare that to how Reagan-worshippers react when you remind them that their beloved leader committed high treason and even his fall-guy never went to jail.
You are wrong that this is *more* FDR than Hitler though. Hitler's original speeches justified rounding up Jews for exacty the same fears. A vague association with the great Jewish banking families. Which ironically was an utterly tenuous claim since all the Jewish banking families were Sephardic while Jews in Germany were all Azkanazi - a group of largely poor and struggling people with no significant political or economic power or any real ties to their wealthier cousins that entered Europe via Spain 200 years before them.
Nearly everyone in FDR's camps walked out again. Hardly anybody in Hitler's camps did. Both claimed right to the end that they all would. Hell Hitler's second in command still claimed they did at nuremburg when the camps had been found and the evidence presented.
How much are you willing to bet that Trump promising they will walk out again is the former and not the latter ?
More importantly: what would you be willing to bet if you were one of them ?
It can never be anything but evil if those numbers are not the same. Every religion on earth teaches that and atheists recognize it as foundational and universal to morality: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Anytime you are willing to subject somebody to an experience you would not want to be subjected to yourself you have become unadulterated evil. All evil acts have that in common and no argument can redeem it nor any threat justify it. Jesus recognized it. Budha recognized it. Muhammed said the same thing. Even Richard Dawkins have called it the morality evolution bred into us to ensure survival and which rationality demands (though I would argue he is failing to live up to his own ideals sometimes but nobody does that perfectly).
Would you be okay if somebody suggested locking up in camps a group that includes you because some people who claim to be members have done bad things even though your group have dissavowed them repeatedly and raised more money for their victims than all other charities combined ? (Bet you didnt know that Muslim charities have raised more money to help terorist victims than all others combined).
Would you ?
If you would consider that an injustice if done to you then you are pure unadulterated evil if you fail to protest any and every person (especially those seeking political office) who woud suggest doing it to anybody else. Even if you love everything else they say and hate every other candidate. That should be an insurmountable difference or you are no different than Rudolph Hess at best.I look forward to seeing your anti-Trump poster.
The difference is simple and stark. No matter what weapons you have brains can always make better ones. But no weapon can make better brains.
Hating on many races is MORE racist than hating on just one.
In most countries where abortion is banned - it already is, and very often it gets charged as murder. Just last year Saudi Arabia executed a woman for the crime of having a miscarriage.
When the personal attack is based on a group-attribute, it's an attack on the whole group.