i didn't click any of your links. i don't care what shithole you came from. i don't care about you. i care about your ignorant definition of freedom which is clearly wrong, because it is unfortunately rife throughout society and guides many morons' perceptions of right and wrong
your definition of freedom is immature, that of a teenager. no, that's infair to teenagers, as many do appreciate responsibility. but for someone like you, a cognitive immature child, freedom apparently only means some government sticking cattle prongs up your ass or whatever the fuck animates your cold war era fantasies
the simple truth is most impositions on freedom come from irresponsible people around you, those who do not care what they do and how it might limit your freedoms
true freedom is "i can do whatever i want, as long as i don't impinge on the freedom of others"
an immature douchebag thinks "i can do whatever i want, who cares who i hurt or what i damage"
the problem, the abuse that hurts actual freedom, is shitbags who go around constantly ranting about freedom, when their conception of freedom has absolutely nothing to do with actual freedom, and are really the rationalizations of immature children who either are
1. maliciously trying to avoid the consequences of their actions, or
2. are so fucking ignorant they don't understand their actions even have consequences
morons and malicious people are the ones who truly damage the respect for freedom, and they are always the ones whining about "freedom" when they are caught or asked to account for or pay for the consequences of their irresponsibility
take for example the douchebag who blasts his stereo at 3 AM. the guy next door calls the cops, and when they knock on his door, the douchebag is going to whine about tyranny and oppression from above, like you do
when in actuality the only imposition on true freedom, the freedom of the guy trying to get some sleep, is done by the immature douchebag who thinks he can do whatever he wants, who cares about the consequences, that that is "freedom"
this notion that government is only the threat to freedom is equally immature and ignorant. it can often if not mostly come from the immature teenagers like yourself in general society who constantly infringe on the freedom of others. it can also come from the government. but in a civil society with respect for freedom, the cops are usually protecting the rest of us from the freedom destroying losers like the guy who blasts his stereo at 3 AM, morons with a shallow ignorant understanding of what freedom is, like yourself
a sense of responsibility is the only way you arrive at a true mature understanding of what freedom is. if everyone were responsible, there would be no need for laws, or government
but unfortunately we need laws and government, to keep immature children like yourself who whine about tyranny and oppression because the cops told you you can't play your stereo at 3 AM
it is really quite simple: you don't know what freedom is. you are an immature child who whines and pouts because there are natural limits on what you can do in life: the freedoms of others around you
I should have added: I have 0 interest in paying for anybody else's service under the gun of a government thug.
good for you you fucking moron
i take it you don't drive since auto insurance is mandatory
the insurance is mandatory because the us government is a conspiracy to take away your freedom for laughs... i mean, avoiding the low iq paranoid schizophrenic mental diarrhea of braindead retards... it is that way because nobody likes a freeloading asshole who causes great damage and then can't pay the fucking bill
just like it is with health insurance you blind dumb mentally ill fuck
freeloading is not freedom
this is the absolute truth: you don't even understand what freedom is
you confuse it with irresponsibility. you are an immature shallow dimwit
the founding fathers were extremely skeptical of religion
you will remember (if you are educated) that much of the 1600s in europe were spent with catholics murdering protestants and protestants murdering catholics and many perturbations in between. because "it came from god" as you say meant different things to different violent bigots, and they were therefore entitled to murder those who did not believe as they did. much like the reason daesh (ISIS) gives for murdering shias today
most of the first europeans to come to these shores were in fact fleeing such religious persecution. which is not a cute word for "tut tutting and walking by sternly" but mass murder
By international standards, even the Democratic party is to the right on a lot of issues (mostly economic at this point) than the rest of the developed world.
you're making an absolute judgment on the entire society, when the only logically valid determinant of left and right is within the society itself
regardless of the fact you think a phrase like "developed world" makes your arbitrarily determined authority valid in any way. as if economic output and ideological "purity" go hand in hand
1. if you don't have health insurance and you break your arm, your shallow immature teenaged "principles" will quickly give way to pain and you will go to the hospital
2. at the hospital, we will not turn you away because our policies are not social darwinistic cruelty, in spite of assorted sadistic dim bulbs like yourself wanting then to be
3. then you will avoid the bill, or declare bankruptcy
so in your words, you don't champion freedom, you champion freeloading, you low iq douchebag crackpot
there is nothing in the concept of freedom that champions irresponsibility. in fact, if everyone in society were responsible, there would be no need for laws or government, and everyone would be absolutely free
maximizing freedom goes hand in hand with maximizing responsibility. the only ones who are "oppressed" (ie, told they can't freeload off of others) are the irresponsible immature teenagers like yourself who need to understand how a truly free and responsible person navigates life: don't make me pay for your healthcare because you are an irresponsible child
"in which i continue to change the topic and think i'm still making a point"
let's see if i can play your game:
your'e wrong because doctors in the uk don't use stethoscopes as much as in the usa. which proves that the american healthcare system has the best pancreatic treatment regime in the world. so we can conclude that the australian doctor supply is weak and therefore single payer is an absolute failure
how am i doing following your argumentative "style"?
i'm sorry. i didn't notice the "arbitrary society {XYZ} is the authoritative definitive determinant of ideology in the world against which all are judged" icon floating above your head. i will now show the due deference to someone of your obvious ideological authority
if i say you can't rape, does that mean i am saying i will rape you?
if i say you can't listen to loud music at 3 AM, does that mean i am going to blast loud music at 3 AM?
if i say you can't shoplift, does that mean i am saying i am going to rob you?
so in what hysterical propaganda addled feeble excuse for a brain does it make sense that if i tell you you can't persecute gays, that that is the same thing as i am now going to persecute you for your religion?
what the fuck?!
where do you hysterical stupid fucks come from?
how the fuck can you equate "don't persecute people" with "i am going to persecute you"
how does your dimwitted piece of shit brain make that leap, and that somehow makes sense to you?
what international standards? saudi arabia? malaysia?
you mean netherlands or denmark, right? those are just arbitrary points, not Magical Authoritative Determinators of Ideology, Anointed By God, which you apparently believe for some ignorant reason
the truth is, every society has some who resist change, and some who accelerate it. the center is determined by the center of that society, at that time. and this center is always moving. and it is the only logically valid measure of center, left, and right. for that given society. at that given time
there are liberal saudis. in the usa or the netherlands they would be called conservative. there are conservative dutch. in saudi arabia or the usa they would be called liberal. whose ideologically measure is magically more authoritative? none, you imbecile
in fact, the usa has plenty of countries more conservative than it, and plenty more liberal than it
if you really reached for some magical bullshit measure of ideology globally, rather than society-by-society (the only valid measure), then the usa is actually a moderate middle-of-the-road country
because pandering to and forming a coalition with the social conservative loony conservatives is the only way libertarian/ fiscally conservative types stand a chance. american-style libertarian wish fulfillment fantasy on economic topics is equally ruinous and logically incoherent, it just leads to plutocratic domination in reality, rather than various historically and economically ignorant scenarios libertarians believe in (which is why plutocrats prefer to financially support conservative candidates)
with the split you envision, the domination of liberals and progressives will be ensured, and society will advance economically and socially
if what you do has no effect on anyone else, enjoy your religion
if what you do infringes on the freedoms and rights of others, for whatever reason, you deserve to be fined and/ or imprisoned
why is that so hard to understand?
it's not possible to stand for freedom and liberty and also stand for a religion which asks you to limit the freedom of others. there is a logical contradiction there. and you need to make up your mind which side you stand on
and if your decision is to limit my rights for your religious reasons, then fuck you you liberty destroying piece of shit and enjoy prison you douchebag freedom denying fuck
Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins
i attack a low iq ignorant logically incoherent interpretation of what religious liberty means. that's not an affront on religious liberty, but an affront on morons. are you a moron who doesn't understand what religious liberty means, or are you a troll?
and btw, you are correct: i do not tolerate intolerance. which is not the same thing as intolerance itself
"i despise you because you hate black people" is not the same thing logically as "i hate black people"
asshole bigots who get offended when their intolerance is not tolerated are simply walking talking examples of logical incoherence and low iq
Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2]
in other words, a great way to extend tolerance in this world is to fight intolerance
there's no inconsistency if you actually understand the principles this country was founded upon. there is only inconsistency with previous bullshit that ran afoul of the founding principles of this country as artifacts of their time period
it's a process of refinement to get closer to the original intent: maximization of freedom
which should be obvious in the case of gay marriage (it is not a defilement of religious liberty, as no one has the "liberty" to impose their religion on others)
and in the case of health insurance, to be free from finance crippling or premature death inducing inefficient health care arrangements
Slashdot Mirror
i didn't click any of your links. i don't care what shithole you came from. i don't care about you. i care about your ignorant definition of freedom which is clearly wrong, because it is unfortunately rife throughout society and guides many morons' perceptions of right and wrong
your definition of freedom is immature, that of a teenager. no, that's infair to teenagers, as many do appreciate responsibility. but for someone like you, a cognitive immature child, freedom apparently only means some government sticking cattle prongs up your ass or whatever the fuck animates your cold war era fantasies
the simple truth is most impositions on freedom come from irresponsible people around you, those who do not care what they do and how it might limit your freedoms
true freedom is "i can do whatever i want, as long as i don't impinge on the freedom of others"
an immature douchebag thinks "i can do whatever i want, who cares who i hurt or what i damage"
the problem, the abuse that hurts actual freedom, is shitbags who go around constantly ranting about freedom, when their conception of freedom has absolutely nothing to do with actual freedom, and are really the rationalizations of immature children who either are
1. maliciously trying to avoid the consequences of their actions, or
2. are so fucking ignorant they don't understand their actions even have consequences
morons and malicious people are the ones who truly damage the respect for freedom, and they are always the ones whining about "freedom" when they are caught or asked to account for or pay for the consequences of their irresponsibility
take for example the douchebag who blasts his stereo at 3 AM. the guy next door calls the cops, and when they knock on his door, the douchebag is going to whine about tyranny and oppression from above, like you do
when in actuality the only imposition on true freedom, the freedom of the guy trying to get some sleep, is done by the immature douchebag who thinks he can do whatever he wants, who cares about the consequences, that that is "freedom"
this notion that government is only the threat to freedom is equally immature and ignorant. it can often if not mostly come from the immature teenagers like yourself in general society who constantly infringe on the freedom of others. it can also come from the government. but in a civil society with respect for freedom, the cops are usually protecting the rest of us from the freedom destroying losers like the guy who blasts his stereo at 3 AM, morons with a shallow ignorant understanding of what freedom is, like yourself
a sense of responsibility is the only way you arrive at a true mature understanding of what freedom is. if everyone were responsible, there would be no need for laws, or government
but unfortunately we need laws and government, to keep immature children like yourself who whine about tyranny and oppression because the cops told you you can't play your stereo at 3 AM
it is really quite simple: you don't know what freedom is. you are an immature child who whines and pouts because there are natural limits on what you can do in life: the freedoms of others around you
my eyes dimmed with skepticism then completely rolled over here
why is it that you ignorant hysterical fucks just lie?
you have no idea what freedom is
really
you're an immature teenager
good for you you fucking moron
i take it you don't drive since auto insurance is mandatory
the insurance is mandatory because the us government is a conspiracy to take away your freedom for laughs... i mean, avoiding the low iq paranoid schizophrenic mental diarrhea of braindead retards... it is that way because nobody likes a freeloading asshole who causes great damage and then can't pay the fucking bill
just like it is with health insurance you blind dumb mentally ill fuck
freeloading is not freedom
this is the absolute truth: you don't even understand what freedom is
you confuse it with irresponsibility. you are an immature shallow dimwit
the founding fathers were extremely skeptical of religion
you will remember (if you are educated) that much of the 1600s in europe were spent with catholics murdering protestants and protestants murdering catholics and many perturbations in between. because "it came from god" as you say meant different things to different violent bigots, and they were therefore entitled to murder those who did not believe as they did. much like the reason daesh (ISIS) gives for murdering shias today
most of the first europeans to come to these shores were in fact fleeing such religious persecution. which is not a cute word for "tut tutting and walking by sternly" but mass murder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
this is why the very first amendment, the establishment clause states:
essentially, your thinking and your words are anathema to the foundation of this country
the historical lesson was very clear to the founding fathers of what you have when religion dictates government: mass murdering hell
btw, i mean it when i say the founding fathers were extremely skeptical of religion:
http://hwarmstrong.com/christi...
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2...
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/...
http://www.liberalamerica.org/...
i stopped reading there
do you understand the reality of the topic you are injecting your ignorance into?
here is where you did that:
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
you need a secretary to keep track of your own bullshit from comment to comment?
you're making an absolute judgment on the entire society, when the only logically valid determinant of left and right is within the society itself
regardless of the fact you think a phrase like "developed world" makes your arbitrarily determined authority valid in any way. as if economic output and ideological "purity" go hand in hand
1. if you don't have health insurance and you break your arm, your shallow immature teenaged "principles" will quickly give way to pain and you will go to the hospital
2. at the hospital, we will not turn you away because our policies are not social darwinistic cruelty, in spite of assorted sadistic dim bulbs like yourself wanting then to be
3. then you will avoid the bill, or declare bankruptcy
so in your words, you don't champion freedom, you champion freeloading, you low iq douchebag crackpot
there is nothing in the concept of freedom that champions irresponsibility. in fact, if everyone in society were responsible, there would be no need for laws or government, and everyone would be absolutely free
maximizing freedom goes hand in hand with maximizing responsibility. the only ones who are "oppressed" (ie, told they can't freeload off of others) are the irresponsible immature teenagers like yourself who need to understand how a truly free and responsible person navigates life: don't make me pay for your healthcare because you are an irresponsible child
did you read what you replied to?
read. then reply
"in which i continue to change the topic and think i'm still making a point"
let's see if i can play your game:
your'e wrong because doctors in the uk don't use stethoscopes as much as in the usa. which proves that the american healthcare system has the best pancreatic treatment regime in the world. so we can conclude that the australian doctor supply is weak and therefore single payer is an absolute failure
how am i doing following your argumentative "style"?
i'm sorry. i didn't notice the "arbitrary society {XYZ} is the authoritative definitive determinant of ideology in the world against which all are judged" icon floating above your head. i will now show the due deference to someone of your obvious ideological authority
you'd think google would be interested in cracking down on that, as that is a definitive deterrent against contributing to their app ecosystem
if i say you can't rape, does that mean i am saying i will rape you?
if i say you can't listen to loud music at 3 AM, does that mean i am going to blast loud music at 3 AM?
if i say you can't shoplift, does that mean i am saying i am going to rob you?
so in what hysterical propaganda addled feeble excuse for a brain does it make sense that if i tell you you can't persecute gays, that that is the same thing as i am now going to persecute you for your religion?
what the fuck?!
where do you hysterical stupid fucks come from?
how the fuck can you equate "don't persecute people" with "i am going to persecute you"
how does your dimwitted piece of shit brain make that leap, and that somehow makes sense to you?
why are you so fucking ignorant?
what a load of ignorant bullshit
what international standards? saudi arabia? malaysia?
you mean netherlands or denmark, right? those are just arbitrary points, not Magical Authoritative Determinators of Ideology, Anointed By God, which you apparently believe for some ignorant reason
the truth is, every society has some who resist change, and some who accelerate it. the center is determined by the center of that society, at that time. and this center is always moving. and it is the only logically valid measure of center, left, and right. for that given society. at that given time
there are liberal saudis. in the usa or the netherlands they would be called conservative. there are conservative dutch. in saudi arabia or the usa they would be called liberal. whose ideologically measure is magically more authoritative? none, you imbecile
in fact, the usa has plenty of countries more conservative than it, and plenty more liberal than it
if you really reached for some magical bullshit measure of ideology globally, rather than society-by-society (the only valid measure), then the usa is actually a moderate middle-of-the-road country
my point is simply a refutation of the social conservative fallacy that homosexuality is "unnatural"
of course the existence of something in the natural kingdom does not mean automatic endorsement in morality
most notably, social policies nothing more than social darwinistic cruelty endorsed by many conservatives
but thank you for making a ridiculously broad statement without any logical coherence
i hope so too
because pandering to and forming a coalition with the social conservative loony conservatives is the only way libertarian/ fiscally conservative types stand a chance. american-style libertarian wish fulfillment fantasy on economic topics is equally ruinous and logically incoherent, it just leads to plutocratic domination in reality, rather than various historically and economically ignorant scenarios libertarians believe in (which is why plutocrats prefer to financially support conservative candidates)
with the split you envision, the domination of liberals and progressives will be ensured, and society will advance economically and socially
if what you do has no effect on anyone else, enjoy your religion
if what you do infringes on the freedoms and rights of others, for whatever reason, you deserve to be fined and/ or imprisoned
why is that so hard to understand?
it's not possible to stand for freedom and liberty and also stand for a religion which asks you to limit the freedom of others. there is a logical contradiction there. and you need to make up your mind which side you stand on
and if your decision is to limit my rights for your religious reasons, then fuck you you liberty destroying piece of shit and enjoy prison you douchebag freedom denying fuck
i don't understand what you mean
and what is your "point"? that freedom and liberties are a joke? the subject matter of intolerance is funny?
there are hordes of low iq intolerant bigots in the usa
equal rights for blacks in the 1960s did not magically end racism
likewise, after today's ruling, homophobia will continue to persist in this world
and all of us americans who love liberty will still need to push back against the prideful ignorance and moronic hate
go ahead and laugh. i take the topic seriously. sorry
i attack a low iq ignorant logically incoherent interpretation of what religious liberty means. that's not an affront on religious liberty, but an affront on morons. are you a moron who doesn't understand what religious liberty means, or are you a troll?
and btw, you are correct: i do not tolerate intolerance. which is not the same thing as intolerance itself
"i despise you because you hate black people" is not the same thing logically as "i hate black people"
asshole bigots who get offended when their intolerance is not tolerated are simply walking talking examples of logical incoherence and low iq
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
in other words, a great way to extend tolerance in this world is to fight intolerance
there's no inconsistency if you actually understand the principles this country was founded upon. there is only inconsistency with previous bullshit that ran afoul of the founding principles of this country as artifacts of their time period
it's a process of refinement to get closer to the original intent: maximization of freedom
which should be obvious in the case of gay marriage (it is not a defilement of religious liberty, as no one has the "liberty" to impose their religion on others)
and in the case of health insurance, to be free from finance crippling or premature death inducing inefficient health care arrangements
nevermind that homosexuality is widely recorded across the animal kingdom
homosexuality is completely *natural*
after a few more stupid fossils die off, yes