Berekrly "Free Speech Feyival"

[Sykol]

What do you mean? That I am smarter than my opponent, you? Very much so. If that is the case, yes, you can compare me to her.

I have never met an intelligent person who claimed to be so. Thank you for helping me keep the streak alive.

[Elba]

Is this a serious question?

No. He thinks morals are irrelevant. Yet objects to punching Nazis. For some reason. Hmmm.

[Freighter]

No. He thinks morals are irrelevant. Yet objects to punching Nazis. For some reason. Hmmm.

Anyone sane would object to normal citizens attacking people for their political beliefs. Only extremists would agree it's permissible.

[Mistame]

Yeah, nah, someone who wants to fuck kids is a pedo.

Owning your stupid again. Cool.

[Dreknar20]

What is the basis of law? Hint, hint.

Say, didn't Germany make a law against Jew?

Or US against inter-racial relations?

Wonder that those were based on.

[Elba]

Because in a democratic society the State has a monopoly on violence.

Why? How did we come to that decision? What made people decide that? Could it be moral conviction?

[Orbitus]

I have never met an intelligent person who claimed to be so. Thank you for helping me keep the streak alive.

I clearly am smarter than you since you cannot grasp that a terrorist attack that killed one and injuring 19 is worse than a bike lock assault and a possible molotov cocktail that didn't hurt anyone that I know of.

[sarahtasher]

You do realize that 1860 was more than 150 years ago and all those people are dead and gone, right?

You should really tell that to the dudes at Charlottesville.

[Freighter]

I clearly am smarter than you since you cannot grasp that a terrorist attack that killed one and injuring 19 is worse than a bike lock assault and a possible molotov cocktail that didn't hurt anyone that I know of.

One attack is not justification for another attack. Both should be locked up.

[OrcsRLame]

Why? How did we come to that decision? What made people decide that? Could it be moral conviction?

The founding fathers read John Locke and decided, "Yeah, that sounds like a pretty good way for society to function."

If you're asking why John Locke came to the conclusions that he did, I honestly don't know, but I would assume that it was a combination of moral impressions and complex ideas based on those impressions. You know, like how all human thought arises in consciousness.

[Elba]

Anyone sane would object to normal citizens attacking people for their political beliefs. Only extremists would agree it's permissible.

Because they find it morally objectionable.

Owning your stupid again. Cool.

I'm not the one who argues fucking kids is okay because semantics.

Say, didn't Germany make a law against Jew?

Or US against inter-racial relations?

Wonder that those were based on.

Do you object those laws? Why?

[Freighter]

Because they find it morally objectionable.

I don't find it morally objectionable to attack nazis. I however find it to be problematic to stability in society if you allow people to go fighting others because of their political beliefs. It will create chaos. There can be no order if you let people beat each other up for their beliefs with no repercussions.

[jibberbox85]

Not wanting to tolerate intolerance, doesn't make someone a bigot.

Intolerance for what? We got two guys here who mentions *intolerance* but somehow accept a group that needs to demolish buildings, acts like thugs to other people while pushing them around, and disrupt people from their given rights in this country. Guess it's alright to support a Nazi/ Fascist group, and then make claims about intolerance?

[sarahtasher]

So, in addition with the nearly psychotic obsession with one bike lock incident (hint : obviously a crime), I take that you somehow assume that street fights loosely tied to political militancy are a dangerous precedent and never occurred beforehand.

Hint : I will let you google. You will be happy, you will be able to blame violent democrats attacking republicans voters and preventing them to vote.

And again, for the record, no one especially dislike the Nazis for brutal street fights with the opposition. In addition that SA crybabies tended to lose such fights against Communist voters when Daddy was not in power, everyone used that tactic in Germany in the 30s....

[Orbitus]

One attack is not justification for another attack. Both should be locked up.

And they are. I am not saying that they shouldn't be locked up for their attacks. I am saying that I am glad I am on a side that isn't carrying out terrorist attacks and killing people.

[Stop Pretending]

how nice

Yamering about morals.

Yet advocating causing harm, bloodshed, and pain to fellow people. You know as you would say shit 'normal people' disapprove of

We kinda had a big war to defeat Nazis once. Maybe you heard, maybe you also heard about what they fought for, and advocated for. If not, then sorry about the shitty education you recieved.

[Elba]

I don't find it morally objectionable to attack nazis. I however find it to be problematic to stability in society if you allow people to go fighting others because of their political beliefs. It will create chaos. There can be no order if you let people beat each other up for their beliefs with no repercussions.

Why is your desire for stability more important than other's desire to crush fascists?

[Sykol]

I clearly am smarter than you since you cannot grasp that a terrorist attack that killed one and injuring 19 is worse than a bike lock assault and a possible molotov cocktail that didn't hurt anyone that I know of.

You talk like a 16 year old who thinks he's smart because he's probably a little bit more intelligent than the other mouthbreathers his age. My advice to you is to stop taking yourself so seriously; people might like you if you do that. Get some real world experience and quit seeing things as either-or. Life isn't black and white, and you can be against one thing without advocating another. You should also use your own brain and quit regurgitating what I'm guessing your...social studies and history teachers(?) have been pounding into your head about what's happening in the world right now.

[Orbitus]

Intolerance for what? We got two guys here who mentions *intolerance* but somehow accept a group that needs to demolish buildings, acts like thugs to other people while pushing them around, and disrupt people from their given rights in this country. Guess it's alright to support a Nazi/ Fascist group, and then make claims about intolerance?

Are you claiming that Antifa is a Nazi/Fascist group? Because that is pants-on-head retarded.

[Freighter]

Why is your desire for stability more important than other's desire to crush fascists?

You can't have people taking matters into their own hands. What will happen is massive conflicts. You can crush nazis without beating people up for their beliefs.