[–] Floppyhorsecock ago
The golden rule is get rid of all the niggers spics and kikes and you dont need many rules.
[–] WorldClown [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You haven't met enough White People if you really believe that.
[–] Floppyhorsecock 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I meet better whites than you apparently.
[–] WorldClown [S] 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Did I call for it? I am making informed observations. Sharing my finger held up in the wind.
Are you worried that the feds are going to shut Voat down for 'calls to violence' when the television is sloppy with calls to violence hourly? NYT writers hired after saying 'kill all white people'
get your silly as back home and eat your trix.
[–] Fuhrer1488 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
So? Whats wrong with violence? Do you actually think we can fix everything with kind words and politics?
[–] Hey_Sunshine 1 point 0 points 1 point (+1|-1) ago
Who are we that we should get to decide whether the action of another is wrong or right? Is it not better to live according to one's own conscience?
If you believe the propagandist needs to die, how is it mine or anyone else's place to argue what you believe?
Do as thou wilt
[–] WorldClown [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I trust my conscience to a limit. My own biases and my own arrogance and my own flaws.
[–] Grizzible 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
What happens when?...
Man #1 is a piece of shit liar and thief. He also, snatched an old ladies purse in front of Man #2. Man #2 is awesome. He helps his neighbors out, never lies, steals, or cheats at anything, But Man #2 also lives by your golden rule. When Man #2 sees despicable Man #1 acting like a fool, stealing and beating an old lady before stealing her purse, Man # 2 decides he is going to get back at Man #1, or show him some justice. One day Man #2 finds Man #1 in an alley. Man #2 beats up #1 and steals his wallet to give the money back to the old lady...
Just then Man #3 observes Man #2 beating and stealing the wallet of Man #1. Man #3 has never met the despicable Man #1 or hero Man #2, and therefore has no judgement of either, prior to the alley beating. Man #3 now believes #2 is a thug, beating up a helpless man. What if #3 decides he is going to wait a while and plot a way to get back at man #2?
Does this become a viscous cycle?
[–] WorldClown [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
If you are interested in exploring this question I heartily suggest 'The Politics of Experience' by R.D. Laing.
[–] WorldClown [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Yes they call it an eye for an eye we all go blind.
To avoid that cycle - two things:
Follow Obama's advice "You gotta aim before you shoot, folks." - which is hypocritical from him as they declared anyone hit by their drones as de-facto enemy combatants. But it is still good advice. Evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. Propagandists are just easy targets because they publicly damn themselves.
Don't let man #3 see you.
[–] WorldClown [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Whose Set?
[–] AbalbalAndPhoenix 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Relativism is like having a compass without a magnetic needle.
[–] Had ago
You sound like a jew. This is all jew logic, and we are better than that.
Why would you let others dictate your actions and responses so completely? You are your own man, and you know what is right unless you are a nigger, a gypsy, or a jew. Don't let anger trick you into being less than you are. We are builders, not destroyers. That is what we have all of the darker skinned people for.
I'm not saying I disagree with vigilante actions in the case of someone escaping justice, I just don't like your overall message of letting others effectively decide your morality in each situation. It seems like it allows you to succumb to your emotions and do whatever you feel is right, which is cowardly.
[–] WorldClown [S] 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago (edited ago)
Your response is so irrational and so completely changes the meaning of my query and my statements that I don't think you tried very hard.
You seem to me like someone who wins prizes just for existing. You din't have to try and make sense because in your cloistered world you can do no wrong.
Are you a rich idiot?
[–] Had ago
No. I'm someone who is trying to make heads or tails of your convoluted morality.
I don't have any issue with your willingness to kill people as I am not some Christcuck that thinks all life is valuable. A murderer should receive justice, and death is a fair penalty for murder.
I don't, however, think it is ever OK to lie in any situation, and I do not change my morals or the way I treat people based on their actions.
You are allowing the other person to control you. In a sense, you let them dictate your actions and you become their bitch. Treat everyone the same, don't let them decide how well you should treat them.
Would you torture someone because they tortured another person? Would you rape someone because they are a rapist? Where is your line? You are rationalizing poor behavior saying "they deserve it, because they did it too!" It is incredibly juvenile. Do better.
And just to answer your original query, I do think people who create and use propaganda to incite violence deserve punishment based on the severity of the violence, potentially including death.
[–] WorldClown [S] ago
"I just don't like your overall message of letting others effectively decide your morality in each situation"
The message is to establish parameters of my own to allow me to act consistently and logically by adhering to a well-considered set of principals and rules.
It is wholly irrational to transfer agency from my own set of principles to another person. It's insane. So right off the bat you are making wacky baseless assertions.