Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Loren Pechtel]

Of the three sins listed, WHY would 'marrying outside one's race' be considered sinful? Because I kind of get the other ones even though I don't agree with sin as a concept.

aa

You could have someone who thinks races should be kept pure without thinking one is better than another. We see it in animal breeding. But even if it were a good idea that ship sailed long ago.

That’s not very accurate. First of all, people are not animals nor kept for breeding. This includes black people, who, in slavery were treated livestock and bred to maintain or increase supply.

Secondly, most animal breeders are indeed people who consider some breeds better than others , especially for their purposes. Within the breed, individuals are selected specifically for certain characteristics, with the desire to strengthen or compliment certain traits and to ‘breed out’ other characteristics.

Finally, the concept of race is a human invention, a construct invented to rank groups of people by the most easily discernible characteristics.

I'm thinking along the lines of pet breeds. How well an animal matches the standard for the breed is valued separate from any value the breed has or does not have. Which is how my mother ended up with a half Persian show cat/half alley cat. The owners of the show cat simply left it behind when they moved.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You completely misunderstand the comparison.

You want to effectively ban them from society because you are afraid of some of them. Exactly like wanting to remove the bad parts of town.

Exactly what part of my views can be interpreted by a reasonable and rational person as wanting to ban transgender people from society as a whole? Be specific.

By painting targets on them. Targets we already know bring violence down on them.

Again... Exactly what part of MY VIEWS paints targets on them?

You want to push the MtFs into the men's--in more liberal areas this will work. But it will push the FtMs into the women's. And we've already seen this cause violence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow what disingenuous tripe.

Protest, and not allowing the to drag us away to camps, that is not terrorism, and acting like it is is a great indicator whether someone is a Nazi.

Nobody is dragging you off to a camp. Put your persecution complex away for a while.

El Salvador says otherwise.

Jarhyn isn't in El Salvador, and is a US citizen. Nobody is dragging Jarhyn off to any camps.

They haven't come for him yet. But they are dragging people off to camps. Just because it's not your in-group yet doesn't make it not a very big problem.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Mechanism

Lee Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

The Loud Part

Charlie Kirk: You wanna go thought crime? I'm sorry. If I see a Black pilot, I'm gonna be like, "Boy, I hope he's qualified."
...
That's not an immediate … that's not who I am. That's not what I believe.
...
I want to be as blunt as possible because now I'm connecting two dots. Wait a second, this CEO just said that he's forcing that a white qualified guy is not gonna get the job. So I see this guy, he might be a nice person and I say, "Boy, I hope he's not a Harvard-style affirmative-action student that … landed half of his flight-simulator trials."
...
It also … creates unhealthy thinking patterns. I don't wanna think that way. And no one should, right? … And by the way, then you couple it with the FAA, air-traffic control, they got a bunch of morons and affirmative-action people.

The Quiet Part

Young Republicans: if your pilot is a she and she looks ten shades darker than someone from Sicily, just end it there. Scream the no no word.

 

[Jarhyn]

Wow what disingenuous tripe.

Protest, and not allowing the to drag us away to camps, that is not terrorism, and acting like it is is a great indicator whether someone is a Nazi.

Nobody is dragging you off to a camp. Put your persecution complex away for a while.

El Salvador says otherwise.

Jarhyn isn't in El Salvador, and is a US citizen. Nobody is dragging Jarhyn off to any camps.

They haven't come for him yet. But they are dragging people off to camps. Just because it's not your in-group yet doesn't make it not a very big problem.

And like we can look through historical documents and find probably a dozen or even hundreds -- and if we were lucky enough that all documents survived, though they didn't; many were spoken into the mere air, perhaps even a million we might have millions -- examples of someone in Nazi Germany saying something that translates very similar being spoken to some jew or trans person or someone else the Nazis attacked.

I bet we could find almost as many examples, had digital communication been the standard at the time, of those same people full-throatedly supporting the actions (if not methods) of the Holocaust later.

Emily seems unconcerned about the whole push to restore conversion camps being implemented by the same people who play the drums she marches to.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hey, I get that logic isn't any of your strong suits -- if you were logical you wouldn't be leftists in the first place

Ahem.

In Bomb#20's defense, maybe he isn't insulting us.

You say that like insulting you would be a bad thing. Why, do you have some objection to insults, Mr. "your argument is clever, but it's evasive."? You said that to me because you are illogical and because you are malicious. You do not have an intellectually honest reason to accuse me of being evasive.

I did not call you personally either evasive or clever. I called your argument clever but evasive. A person can have a clever argument but not be generally clever themselves, theoretically. Likewise, a person can have a super genius argument but be a dimwit. The same is true for an evasive argument. A person can submit an evasive argument but generally not be an evasive person. Or they can submit an argument that is completely relevant and hits all the necessary points but generally speaking they could be an avoidant person. Finally, whether or not my reason for calling your argument evasive is intellectually honest resides in the substance of my argument, not any of the things you are focusing on in the above sentences such as conflating descriptions of your argument with descriptions of you.

Maybe he cares about us in the same way Charlie Kirk cared about trans people--calling us defective for our own good.

Save your sarcasm for when you have a case.

Well my sarcasm was illustrating a valid case as I demonstrate below.

I didn't claim Kirk called trans people defective for their own good ...

Full stop. I didn't claim that you claimed Kirk called trans people defective for their own good.

Continuing on:

and you do not have an intellectually honest reason to insinuate that I did.

I did not insinuate that you claimed Kirk called trans people defective for their own good.

However, YOU did imply everyone in the thread arguing against you was personally illogical, not merely their arguments. I gave you and Kirk both the benefit of the doubt in my sarcastic post to say that you both were saying such insulting things to try to benefit trans (in the case of Kirk) and us (in the case of you). The sarcasm works whether or not either is true and remains an open-ended question in the sarcasm.

In summary, your post is illogical. No, that doesn't mean that you personally and generally are an illogical person.