French Presidential Election, Vol. 2

[Acidbaron]

Would you rather become independent or kick the south out of Belgium?

Independent, separating would require us splitting up a lot of things including national debt, so kicking out is not even on the table.

[Deleted]

It's nto a freedom, because that freedom was taken away. It's the restriction of a freedom that he supports. Otherwise, you are saying that legalizing slavery is not restricting freedom, because there's a law. It's ridiculous to cite the existence of a law as the justification for it.

If it isn't a freedom, why do you accuse me of hating freedoms? This is really hilarious.

[Machismo]

That doesn't even make any sense.

You support taking away a freedom, plain and simple. That freedom that you wish to take away causes absolutely zero harm, making it a net reduction in total freedom. Sad!

[Slant]

At least you're proud of your open borders policies. I'm still proud to restrict you that insanity. And I don't see it as authoritarianism or taking away your "freedoms".

Just to make it clear, Europe doesn't have an open border policy outside the EU. Never had. Not likely to have one in the future. So, whatever it is you're on about, it must be about internal EU policy of open borders between EU countries. And fuck yes, we're proud of that. My parents could never just pack the car and go drive to the coast of Italy because they feel like it... I can. I did. That, my friend, is freedom of movement. Heck, I could pack stuff here and go work in Italy tomorrow if someone offered me a job. That is freedom of movement. That slob from Egypt? Not so much able to work in Italy at a moment's notice.

[Machismo]

If it isn't a freedom, why do you accuse me of hating freedoms? This is really hilarious.

It isn't a freedom, because oppressive asshats chose to take away that freedom. They hate freedom, and they restricted it. The freedom became illegal, shame!

[Deleted]

You support taking away a freedom, plain and simple. That freedom that you wish to take away causes absolutely zero harm, making it a net reduction in total freedom. Sad!

You said that it's not a freedom. If I ban your "freedoms", then, in your opinion, they no longer exist - they're not freedoms and I can't hate any freedoms, since those I "hated", no longer exist.

You don't make any sense dude.

[Machismo]

You said that it's not a freedom. If I ban your "freedoms", then, in your opinion, they no longer exist - they're not freedom and I can't hate any freedoms, since those I "hated", no longer exist.

You don't make any sense dude.

You hate freedom enough to take it away. They had freedom, then it was restricted, sad!

You support continuing to restrict such freedoms.

[Slant]

She did, it was a landslide between the two, but it's still the strongest ever showing for someone so far right than I think it's naive to imagine far right politics is going to fall away in France.

Well, as a centrish guy way outside any traditional spectrum observing France from the outside... they do have a lot of problems that need addressing.

[Deleted]

Just to make it clear, Europe doesn't have an open border policy outside the EU. Never had. Not likely to have one in the future. So, whatever it is you're on about, it must be about internal EU policy of open borders between EU countries. And fuck yes, we're proud of that. My parents could never just pack the car and go drive to the coast of Italy because they feel like it... I can. I did. That, my friend, is freedom of movement. Heck, I could pack stuff here and go work in Italy tomorrow if someone offered me a job. That is freedom of movement. That slob from Egypt? Not so much able to work in Italy at a moment's notice.

That's fine, but you're not following the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

You hate freedom enough to take it away. They had freedom, then it was restricted, sad!

You support continuing to restrict such freedoms.

Well, it's not a freedom. So?

[Mayhem]

It's funny how people don't realise the economic power behind the EU when they try to deal with countries 1:1. "Hey, Germany, wanna make a deal?" - "Uh, nope, you gotta go to the EU!" - "But they're much bigger than you, we won't get a good deal from them!" - "Well... duh!"

"No no, Sorry Mr. President but it is with France like it is with Germany, you have to talk to the EU if you want a trade deal with us.

What? You are also part of the EU? Damn how big is this thing?!"

[Machismo]

That's fine, but you're not following the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, it's not a freedom. So?

It was,, until authoritarian nationalists took it away. Now it's a freedom that has been restricted, sad! Why do authoritarian nationalists hate freedom so much?

[Runenwächter]

It's nto a freedom, because that freedom was taken away. It's the restriction of a freedom that he supports. Otherwise, you are saying that legalizing slavery is not restricting freedom, because there's a law. It's ridiculous to cite the existence of a law as the justification for it.

For it to be taken away or restricted it has to exist in the first place. Provide proof for it being a freedom of natural existence in the absence of restriction.
Provide your arguments why there is universal moral obligation to get rid of this restriction. For example by explaining why that the restriction of that one freedom creates less freedom overall as opposed to the argument that restricting one freedom means granting a greater amount of freedom to the parties involved (like restricting the freedom to bash in the head of everyone you dont like).

[Slant]

That's fine, but you're not following the discussion.

To be fair, you two aren't really having much of a discussion. Mostly, because you aren't interested in a discussion. You're just interested in proving him wrong and possibly maneuvering him into a position where he'd have to admit hating freedoms, which is a ridiculous notion in itself. Basically, you are wasting everyone's time.

[Deleted]

It was,, until authoritarian nationalists took it away. Now it's a freedom that has been restricted, sad! Why do authoritarian nationalists hate freedom so much?

That "freedom" never existed.
Are you saying that people who created their nations in the past were authoritarian nationalists?

[Slant]

"No no, Sorry Mr. President but it is with France like it is with Germany, you have to talk to the EU if you want a trade deal with us.

What? You are also part of the EU? Damn how big is this thing?!"

I chuckled irl... That is actually a very likely scenario!

[NED funded]

Macron fucking walked to the sound of the European Anthem. Nationalist BTFO.

[Deleted]

To be fair, you two aren't really having much of a discussion. Mostly, because you aren't interested in a discussion. You're just interested in proving him wrong and possibly maneuvering him into a position where he'd have to admit hating freedoms, which is a ridiculous notion in itself. Basically, you are wasting everyone's time.

It's not like I can have any discussion with him. That's impossible.
By the way, HE is accusing me of hating "freedoms", not the other way,

[Machismo]

For it to be taken away or restricted it has to exist in the first place. Provide proof for it being a freedom of natural existence in the absence of restriction.
Provide your arguments why there is universal moral obligation to get rid of this restriction. For example by explaining why that the restriction of that one freedom creates less freedom overall as opposed to the argument that restricting one freedom means granting a greater amount of freedom to the parties involved (like restricting the freedom to bash in the head of everyone you dont like).

The ability to move existed long before government did. Therefore, that freedom existed, and was taken away.

My moral obligation is simple. People should be free to do what they want, so long as it does not harm others. Crossing an invisible line does not cause any harm. Now, if you can show how such a simple action causes harm, I'm all ears.

- - - Updated - - -

That "freedom" never existed.
Are you saying that people who created their nations in the past were authoritarian nationalists?

The freedom to move existed long before any government restricted it.

[Slant]

For it to be taken away or restricted it has to exist in the first place. Provide proof for it being a freedom of natural existence in the absence of restriction.
Provide your arguments why there is universal moral obligation to get rid of this restriction. For example by explaining why that the restriction of that one freedom creates less freedom overall as opposed to the argument that restricting one freedom means granting a greater amount of freedom to the parties involved (like restricting the freedom to bash in the head of everyone you dont like).

Dude, I read that twice... and still didn't get what you wanted to say. You may want to rephrase that. :P

[Elegiac]

The freedom to move existed long before any government restricted it.

Sure, if you believe in rights and freedoms as mythological constructs handed down by the divine as opposed to what they actually are.