Deathly Afraid of a Trump President

This is funny. Are you saying that those "hostile" people will vote for democrats who are actually pro same-sex marriage? You won't know who these people will vote for, really.

Moreover, what is "maximum freedom" anyway? What kind of freedom measurement(s) are you using? Why are you concluding that the goal of LGBT people should be maximum freedom? Surely LGBT rights can be and are secured in societies with partial press freedom (according to the Freedom of the Press reports - South Africa). Even economic freedom doesn't have to be too high (according to the Economic Freedom of the World indices - Iceland).

Saying "it's only in a society that isn't free that two gay people getting married is a problem" really makes me wonder what kind of freedom measurements you're using. There are free countries (e.g. Germany, Australia) in which there is still no same-sex marriage. Surely, free societies can still have problems with the concept of same-sex marriage.

 

With incomplete information and actively misleading statements from the Bush administration. That was a mistake many made, including Trump in voicing his support. Yes, I think the Iraq War was a deep mistake. It is one for which Mrs. Clinton has repented. It is a mistake Trump pretends did not occur.

Both expressed conditional support - Mrs. Clinton's being far more sophisticated in its reasoning, stating support if it led to the prevention of Saddam Hussein acquiring weapons of mass destruction. That she voted for an invasion on those conditions, and members of the Bush administration only later admitted it had insufficient evidence to justify the invasion, does not mean unqualified support or total complicity in the decision.

Additionally, remember the American government's fraught relationship with Saddam Hussein's Iraq since the Gulf War and the discovery enormous quantity of chemical and biological weapons found in the 1990s. All that context makes it easy to understand fears that Hussein had acquired weapons of mass destruction - real concerns about non-nuclear infringements of Iraq's obligations were combined with suspicions about nuclear weapons, leading to a decision that was wrong but reasonable for a senator with incomplete information at the time and a conditional approval she expected to be honoured.

Furthermore, the Franco-Russian-Chinese threat of a veto in the Security Council was reminiscent of Russian meddling in Kosovo-related affairs and French indecision in Rwanda for geopolitical reasons. Clinton's belief in the responsibility to protect led to her see that veto as low politics and great power plays, rather than as a wise institutional check on US force, because in the recent past and her own experience it had been the former rather than the latter. In those cases, her husband's administration was attempting to prevent genocide and in the latter case the Security Council failed abysmally and the US didn't fill the gap.

Her decision was not right, as it turned out. But to say that she should have had better foresight in that historical and personal context is a tall order - faced with misinformation, historical precedents that showed how successful American intervention could be and loaded with fresh memories of a disastrous genocide which occurred after failing to intervene, I'm not sure many of us would have done differently in her shoes.

A man who renounced the KKK and became a civil rights-friendly senator. That's no smoking gun. I thought it was an outright lie because of how poorly it was reported, but you've just presented it deliberately misleadingly to the point where your outrage was not reflective of reality. The man described it as his greatest shame.

Immigration is a net economic benefit to everyone involved, unless it causes too much labour to drain away from their place of origin. To recognise that is not to do harm to those people. It is as Christine Lagarde says, a very valid supplementary reason to support immigration-friendly humanitarian policies, if not the whole rationale.

You can compare the horrific rhetoric of nativism and violence that Trump has inspired with the possibility that the Clintons are too cold in their analysis of the economic benefits of immigration. The Clintons come out as more compassionate, even if I believed they had no moral convictions about refugees' rights.

It's demonstrably false to state that no Muslims will integrate. When given economic and social opportunities, Muslims become integral parts of their communities in the West. That has successfully happened in Australia and Canada where Muslim newcomers were given the resources necessary to participate in their societies and where there are low levels of radicalisation.

There will be no flood under Clinton. There will be the gradual settlement of of a proportionally tiny number of refugees and continuation of current border policies - that is, monitored and restricted in a way Europe hasn't been able to do. On top of that, you don't get a Muslim ban under Trump in reality, because it's likely such a ban would be constitutionally invalid. What you would get is increased radicalisation because the president of the United States has declared Islam to be a fundamental enemy of America. That isn't safe. That encourages backlash. And it is wrong on a principled level - to single out a religion and cultures as inherent evils denies them humanity and refuses to engage with them at all.

But you just haven't demonstrated this at all. You gave a deliberately misleading piece of information with no context and your position on Muslims doesn't end up working out even if it were true, because Trump simply won't have the constitutional power to stop Muslims from being in your country.

--

Perhaps what I find most scary about Trump's support is that even when he's demonstrably false, even when there's a clear comparative with Clinton, he still receives cheers where she receives distrust. So much of that support occurs in an information vacuum, with shocking hatred of Clinton that defies all attempts at civil discussion.

It is deeply disheartening that Trump has so radically shifted American political discourse, shaken institutions to their core and disrupted attempts at racial healing and overcoming social acceptance of sexism and misogyny. That isn't acceptable. Not now, not ever.

 

She voted for a war with no basis. No one in Iraq attacked us. When you attack someone who did nothing to you then you are initiating violence against them.

You're struggling to spin voting for a war with no basis as not voting to blow up innocent people. You can't really believe that.

https://youtu.be/eTMR3vlcOao

43 minutes in Bill Clinton talks about how immigrants are propping up programs for "old white guys". That is disturbing. He isn't even trying to hide it. He is effectively admitting that he sees immigration as a means to an end.

I don't doubt immigration can help, but what kind of immigration are we talking about? One smart, rational person immigrating? Well, okay. Masses of people with completely different values immigrating into a country that they want to conform to them? That's different.

When masses of Muslims, who we know are going to include many who hate gay/bi/trans people, start immigrating into those countries and cultures that have become more tolerant of the gay/bi-trans community, then there are going to be problems. It's not like crossing a national border is going to magically make someone who hates gay people change their mind. Mass immigration of Muslims to more gay friendly cultures is not going to be good for us.

You're lumping all Nazi's together and branding them as the most conservative group on Earth? Really? No distinction in the various branches? Surely this is of importance, one can be talking about Werk Glaube und Schoenheit, but some other person may be talking about the Deutsche Glaubensbewegung. Don't lump all Nazi's together, it really looks kind of silly.

If you read what I just wrote in a brand new topic you would think I was crazy. Or dangerous. Or a Nazi sympathizer.

Did every Nazi hate Jews and gays? Of course not. What does that have to do with every other Nazi who does? One peaceful Nazi is grounds for being in support of allowing the immigration of thousands and thousands of Nazi's into a mostly peaceful Jewish or gay community? That sounds silly to me.

Again, I'm not saying every single Muslim is bad, and again, there is a difference between a single rational moral compassionate Muslim immigrating to a Western country like America or somewhere in Europe.

Let's look at a different example of mass immigration. If Southern Alabama immigrates to Tokyo do you really think they are going to integrate into that society and start praying to boulders in the woods, and worshipping statues? Or are they going to make Southern Alabama in Tokyo? How will that affect their culture? Will they all be 100% tolerant and go play DDR with them?

It's not that Hillary isn't my cup of tea as you put it. It's that I'm not going to vote for someone who voted to attack people, including women and children, who didn't attack us. I don't really enjoy voting for murderers.

Also, here are your numbers for foreign born immigration population growth in the U.S.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj-vbfHlovQAhXIWSYKHfDQAMQQFggaMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pewhispanic.org%2F2015%2F09%2F28%2Fmodern-immigration-wave-brings-59-million-to-u-s-driving-population-growth-and-change-through-2065%2F&usg=AFQjCNE8Khzn2r9K-TvA9e0CbW_nTNPYzg&bvm=bv.137132246,d.eWE

---------- Post added 2nd Nov 2016 at 07:26 PM ----------

I don't think it's funny, and yes immigrants statistically vote for the left.

What is slavery? 100% control from one person or people over the life of another person or people. Now using this, answer your own question.

See above.

Because who you love or how you identify isn't an issue in a completely free society. Why am I having to explain this to you?

So would you prefer 75% freedom to 100%?

What freedom measurements are you using? How free is Australia if people who love each other and aren't hurting anyone with their love can't get married?

I find it fascinating how many people on this site seem to be defending backwards practices.

Am I seriously arguing with someone on a site dedicated to giving a safe space to gay/bi-trans people about how there are "free societies" where people who love each other can't be married and that's just cool with them?

Why are you on this site if you don't want the world to get to the point where places like this aren't needed? Is this just a fun hobby for you?

 

OMG this. A lot of people criticize Hillary on her OLD stance on gay marriage back in the day, even though this opinion probably applies to everyone else too.

Fun fact, I'm gay. Also fun fact, I used to HATE gay people. I would show disgust whenever two men showed interest in each other and I openly called them slurs. I also said lesbians were disgusting and I wouldn't befriend them in case they hit on me. Now....I realized I was gay and I show disgust toward homophobes, the same homophobe I was when I was a teenager. I bet I wasn't the only LGBT supporter to start out as a homophobe either.

To the person you quoted (not you gaytheist): Wow, she supported DOMA in 1996?? Seriously? That was 20 years ago. None of us were the 20 years ago as we are today, hell, I bet plenty of our members on this very website were homophobes, against same-sex marriage and pro-DOMA 20 years ago.

 

I think you've dramatically misunderstood Quem's point. I also think you would be better tying the discussion more relevantly in line with the question at hand.

Freedom can be measured in a great many ways - the institutional structures of government, the specific array of laws to guarantee civil liberties, cultural restrictions on behaviour and access to the economy.

At no point did Quem suggest that Australia or Germany should not have same-sex marriage. What he did suggest is that Australia and Germany are free societies for other reasons. Their entrenched democratic structures, efficiency of government the safety of voting, workplace protections and collective bargaining rights among other factors actually have them ranked higher than the United States in The Economist's Democracy Index. LGBT people benefit from all of those things. Those things allow LGBT people to be free, even without marriage. In fact, Australia and Germany have more comprehensive anti-discrimination laws for LGBT people in the workplace than the United States does. Ultimately, they're freer than the United States even without same-sex marriage.

There are widely accepted indices for freedom, such as The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index and the Freedom in the World report, which are probably far more useful in measuring free societies than going by a definition you've casually thrown out at us.

These figures already place the United States quite low among the full democracies. Trump's religious intolerance, the attempts to inspire voter intimidation, his potential refusal to accept a result that favours Clinton, his desire to weaken press freedom because it has proved hostile to his demagoguery and the Republicans' intention of disrupting the smooth operation of government under Clinton could push it into the flawed democracies category. This process could happen whoever wins, because Trump's disruption has spread into the arena of voters' safety, civil discourse and a democratic culture of accepting the legitimacy of the opposing party when it wins.

Even if he didn't directly discriminate against LGBT people, there are many civil and political freedoms you can cherish of which Trump is the antithesis. That is why so many people are scared. Because as LGBT people, we have a twofold interest in preserving institutional stability and rule of law not only for the sake of their capacity to act as tools of developing LGBT rights, but also for because we are people with broader interests in our rights as citizens, members of a varied cultures and as economic actors than just as LGBT people.

 

Here's another clear example of how dangerous Donald Trump would be for gays and lesbians: Donald Trump pledges to sign anti-LGBTQ ‘First Amendment Defense Act’ / LGBTQ Nation

 

Maybe. Why don't you let him say that?

Don't tell me what would make me better please. Thank you.

Anti-discrimination laws at work, but you just can't gain the same benefits from being committed to each other that straight people get.... and that's not discrimination how?

Freedom, as I already pointed out, is not the same thing as "less slavery".

If I take 100% of the fruits of your life, that's called slavery. If I only take, let's say 97.5% or 78.2%, that doesn't mean you are "free". That just means I've dialed back how enslaved you are.

The same is true of "Well we have anti-discrimination" That doesn't mean you are free. Nor does it mean you are "more free" than another country. You are either free or you aren't. If you can't get married to the person you love, well, you aren't free and that sucks.

In fact, I take back the term maximum freedom, because it doesn't make sense. You are either free or you are not. Maximum freedom is just freedom. All chains removed.

Yep... see above.

Just stop it. The press here is out of control. Almost everything they say about Trump is completely out of context, is a strawman, is a misrepresentation, etc.

Honestly, if you can't see how the press has created a narrative about Trump, and is pumping out WWII levels of propaganda then I don't know what to say.

When 90%+ of reporters are donating to the left you know there is a bias.

When there are videos of people in the DNC admitting that they go start fights at Trump rallies to make him look bad, well, I don't know if that qualifies as rigging an election, but it sure stinks like it.

How is a man the antithesis of concepts? That makes no sense. That's like saying Obama is the antithesis of a unicorn.

You're right, I'm more that just sexuality and gender issues, but you aren't convincing me that Hillary Clinton, or the Australian model of government, or anything else is providing me with what should already be inherent. I don't need a government to grant me the right to present a certain way, or love who I want. Do you?

 

SkyWinter, I find it ironic that you are calling people out for misrepresenting Donald Trump and "neglecting context" of his statements, yet here you are trying to claim that Hillary is a black-hating KKK-endorsing bloodthirsty warmonger? Hyperbole much? Out of context much? Why do you neglect the beam in your own eye?

 

I'm sure he will. But I had every opportunity to make a point in a public discussion.

No you really would be better off not getting the thread shut down because you're not on topic. That's annoying for everyone.

I didn't say they're not non-discriminatory. I said that there are varying ways those freedoms can appear. Same-sex marriage is not an exceptional right among the many LGBT people have fought for and that Australia and Germany are not unfree just because they don't have same-sex marriage.

It isn't particularly reasonable to measure freedom as so dichotomous as to be absolute or nonexistent. And I think you've admitted that - being less enslaved is the corollary to being more free.

Freedom exists on a scale and it's hard to give comparative values to different forms of freedom. I can vote, have my voice heard in public, I can make money and get an education and feel safe from oppression. That I am not free to marry doesn't mean I am not free at all.

Somebody who has a right to marry but can't vote, make enough money to survive, can't access education and has no public voice due to oppressive political circumstances or the inaccessibility of media and government institutions is almost certainly less free than me.

But I just don't buy that reasoning. If I have the option to consult the standard used in political science and discuss with reference to material we can all access, that is far better than what you have personally decided is the definition.

I am not free to marry. That's not great. But it does not negate the enormous benefits of freedom I have in my civil, economic and political rights. It's delusional to have polar extremes only - that makes Australia and Saudi Arabia morally equivalent.

But even further, it's also just not possible to be utterly free within a society. There are always constraints on your actions. Laws exist to protect us from others and restrict us from harming others. There are always chains, but we accept them as positive things. Your position either ignores that or declares anyone but a feral child to be a slave.

And even if I accepted that definition, then I would just celebrate the wonderful diversity of ways to be enslaved and how to live the best possible life in those circumstances.

You simply do not have the authority to declare your opinion to be the framework for any such discussion. That's just unfair on anyone who wants to talk to you.

1 - Be specific.

2 - That is not my burden of proof if you can't demonstrate the ways in which it occurs. I think it's fair to comment that you don't know what to say because you really don't have anything to say.

3 - First, I'd like a source. But second, I'll just point out that journalists are horrified by the threats Trump has made to the press, confused by the incoherence of his attempts to form policy positions, opposed to the structural damage he brings to US party politics and the misogyny and racism he espouses. Journalists do not have an obligation to play by normal standards of two-party politics when Trump is so egregious.

Fact checking rather than saying 'he said, she said' is vital in balancing out the disruption Trump has brought to a once stable Republican party and a duty news sources owe to their audience to be honest and give context to events.

4 - I've discussed this very issue on this forum before. The source is absolutely unreliable, because it has been caught out forging, doctoring, selectively editing and decontextualising its 'explosive' claims.

In comparison, Trump has insinuated that the election will be rigged and encourages his people to be on the watch for anyone who appears suspicious, which, combined with his rhetoric about the inner cities and 'other communities' being responsible for voter fraud, could end up in voter intimidation. Let's hope it doesn't.

And finally, to dispute that pillars of American democracy - reliable news sources like the New York Times - are so readily dismissible while openly partisan outlets with no journalistic standards like Breitbart or Project Veritas must be true is paranoid to the extreme. It rejects a democratic tradition of shared truths and high investigative standards that guarantee a contest of ideas rather than two incompatible factual worlds. That polarises and delegitimises democracy.

Don't be facetious. The man's actions and beliefs are opposed fundamentally to those values.

First, you haven't told me how Trump accomplishes those things or rebutted my responses to your hysteria about Clinton's record.

Second, even if those rights are inherently valuable, they must be practiced in the context of a government-reliant society. You will have to argue that we need to dispense with government, which is a burden I don't think you're capable of carrying argumentatively. Yes, I do think I need governments to recognise those rights. But most damningly to your argument, I think, is the fact that those rights only matter in a context where there is a government. Rights and law go hand-in-hand. Rights are merely the sum of our expectations from an ordered society in exchange for our obligations.

--

I think this exchange is representative of a great deal of Trump's support. It's not really about him or Clinton. It's not structured. It's fantastical and removed from specific concerns of governance or party politics. It's divorced from the realities of the power of the US president. It's a rejection of everything the United States relies on to function, and that' such a scary irony for a campaign that claims to want to make America great again, when it bases itself on chipping away at what has made America institutionally and culturally strong.

 

Okay. First question, are you voting for Hillary? Second question, what would you need to see that would convince you not to vote for her? Third question, if I show you the thing that you say you would need to not vote for her, would you do it?

Here's why I'm asking: Lot's of people claim to be be reasonable. They say they are swayed by evidence and arguments. Yet, when you give them a reasonable well thought out argument on why they should or shouldn't do something they just go "meh, whatever".

Case in point, the people in this thread trying to argue that they are free because they get to vote. Or because they aren't as oppressed as some other society. When I say "It's not freedom to not be able to marry the person you love" I don't get people saying back to me "Hey you know I never thought about that before. You're right. I'm not free."

Nope.

I get a wall of defensive text, people telling me to stay on topic, etc.

The point being people don't like it when you point out the chains that bind them. Not being able to marry who you love is a chain. Caps lock time: I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO TELL ANYONE ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD SOMETHING THEY SHOULD ALREADY KNOW.

Just based on this alone I'm not convinced anyone here will actually listen to anything else I say, or any argument I make, or any proof I give when they are still trying to justify how free they are that they can't get married as gay/bi/trans/whatever.

There is a certain level of cognitive dissonance that seems to be happening.

 

Are you voting for Trump? What would you need to see that would convince you not to vote for him? If I show you the thing that you say you would need not to vote for him, would you do it?

"when you give them a reasonable well thought out argument"

This is the crux of your problem. Who says your argument is reasonable and well-thought out? You believe it is. That doesn't mean it actually is. Is it reasonable and well-thought simply because it is your own argument? People here are arguing against you because they do not believe your argument to be as flawless as you believe it to be, yet instead of arguing back, and showing the strength of your own point, you instead complain that people aren't agreeing with you.

Which brings me to my conclusion on your behavior: You only want people to agree with you. You only value responses that agree with your own and completely tune out everything that contradicts it. Your whole purpose in responding to this thread is supremely arrogant. This is a discussion forum. Not an "impose my opinion on other people and cry when they don't agree with me" forum. You are not discussing. You are imposing. You are overly confident in your own opinions and your own ability to reason, which, from what I've seen so far, is not as impeccable as you believe it to be. Cognitive dissonance? Your post is cognitive dissonance.

Listening =/= agreeing. You seem to think it is.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

If you go back and look I used the term "maximum freedom". I then said a few posts later that "I take that back, because it doesn't make sense."

I'm more than willing to change my mind if you make a good argument. I'm more than willing to change my mind because something else makes more sense.

By the way it's a complete strawman to paint me as crying that I'm not getting my way or trying to impose my views on others. Oh, god no, my horrible views that .... gasp... you should be able to marry who you love! ...and oh no! ...reduced slavery isn't really freedom... lol What bizarre opinions I'm trying to force on the LGBT community. If this community doesn't get that then what hope is there that the majority of straight cis-gendered folks will?

This is sad times for our community.

 

Okay, I don't really want to read the entire debate that seems to be going on here, but I'll just say that I'm more scared of Hillary than Trump.

She's ready to go to war with Russia. Her wanting a no-fly zone in Syria would practically declare war. That's danger if I've ever seen it. Also, that is in the present.

Trump might be saying the dumbest things, but at the very least he hasn't said he wants WWIII.

Anyway, he could start it by other means if he's dumb enough, so it goes back around. These elections are terrible and I'd probably move if I lived in the US.

 

Again, the actual content of your views isn't what I'm taking issue with here--it's your attitude toward other arguments and other posters. It's this dismissive attitude that any response not in complete accordance with your views is completely unsatisfactory and not worth responding to. I get that you value this position on freedom of yours highly and can't fathom how anyone could possibly disagree with it (but they are showing you how!), though I also think you're misrepresenting other users here: there are very few people here who don't support equal marriage or don't support a support a society that allows for freedom of the LGBT community. But to take any quarrel with something you say as a complete rejection of this key argument of yours is not fair. And if you actually engaged with the people who are arguing with you, you wouldn't see it that way.

 

A no-fly zone does not entail declaring war and it's probably the best of four shitty options.

The first is to attempt to enforce the failed ceasefire accords which are so riddled with loopholes they mean nothing and because of Russia's preeminence in the conflict are pretty unenforceable. The second is to directly engage Assad's forces, which would be publicly unviable. The third is to do nothing and let Assad whittle down the legitimate opposition in the pretence that they're terrorists, which just leads to an oppressive dictator in a shrivelled state in opposition to ISIL alone, hardly the last two actors in Syria we want to survive.

The fourth, then, is a humanitarian corridor protected by a no-fly zone enforced by the US, EU and other allied forces.

It would be diplomatic suicide to deliberately breach a no-fly zone created for humanitarian purposes. Putin probably doesn't want a war over that. A safe zone with a no-fly condition is not controversial internationally and it would be difficult for Putin to justify opposing it in its entirety.

Russia needs a resolution to the Syrian conflict even more than America does - Putin's domestic reputation and chances of political survival depend on it, as far as you can read from Russian internal politics. Getting back on the initiative with a no-fly-zone may help America and the EU shape that resolution in Syria and get political transition underway. Russia can't afford the war forever and the longer Assad stays in power the less valuable the Syrian alliance gets.

That is the calculated gamble the no-fly-zone amounts to. I don't think that's something to be scared of when the alternative is that Syria continues to implode until all its factions are so weak and can suck no more blood out of the country that they must stop fighting. The human and cultural sacrifice is too great not to act.

I don't think that's warmongering from Mrs. Clinton at all.

 

You claim I'm being dismissive and not engaging...yet...*gasp*...here I am. How can I be dismissive and not engaging while actually engaging. Not engaging would be not posting at all.(which I'm considering: see below) I've already had many multi quoted post chains above where I'm responding point by point to people. I've been more than indulging in engagement.

Now maybe I've stopped responding to certain posters, but after a point in a debate I have to decide what is worth my time. I'll talk to someone all day who is reasonable and compassionate and logical. If you're not those things then I have to cut it off after a while. I'm not going to continue engaging in my own self abuse talking to people who aren't reasonable.

When you don't agree with basic principles like what is and isn't freedom it's time to walk away because there is nothing else to discuss.

---------- Post added 3rd Nov 2016 at 01:54 AM ----------

Yup. You've got it right Rainbow. Here's a good video that backs up your point and refutes what was said above to counter you.
https://youtu.be/mEsTv5cUFg0

 

Did some more digging and found this:
https://youtu.be/4yxHGeAb8uY

Holy crap. A four star general says controlling Syrian air space means war with Syria and Russia. Essentially WWIII. This is getting serious. And guess which American political candidate running for President wants a no fly zone? Hmm...

 

Well the Cubs had a smaller probablility of winning the World Series than Trump...

 

You can say that she voted for the war with no basis, but that's not true. Sure, you can find her reasons (and reasoning) poor, but that doesn't mean that there was no basis. The point still stands. You feel that her reasons were poor so you conclude there was no basis, resulting in you concluding that she voted to blow up innocent people. Your conclusion "there is no basis" doesn't follow, sorry.

Again, I don't see anything wrong with him admitting such things. He simply takes a certain perspective (one motivated by economic theories). You are focussing on Bill Clinton only, yet your original statement was "The Clintons have no love of refugees except as tools". There is not sufficient evidence to conclude this (unless you cherrypick certain things: "Bill Clinton's perspective: the truth!" & "Hillary's sentiments: lies!").

That's simply not how it works. Hillary has said several times that she does care. Your conclusion that there is no care from the Clintons towards refugees is simply not supported by their statements.

Then you go on saying, in my opinion, something very important: I don't doubt immigration can help, but what kind of immigration are we talking about? Unfortunately, you go on rambling about mass immigration. A shame. You seem to be oblivious to the fact that this is not what Hillary plans on doing (causing mass immigration). If you'd actually watch the three presidential debates (or go to her website, I don't care), you should be able to understand her standpoint and views on the matter.

Not sure about the point you're trying to make here, but this seems like a huge fail to me.

First of all, I've not mentioned Nazis at all. I have never claimed they are the most conservative group of people. This is a straw man. The comparison/argument you are making/trying to make fails completely, as I've not mentioned Nazis at all.

I will clarify my reasoning. You said "[...] Muslims, the most conservative group on Earth, [...]". I bring up the fact that there are major differences in various Muslim branches, as it's very important. I was hoping that you were familiar with the distinction between Sunnis, Shi'a and other major branches (such as the Ahmadiyya branche). Wahhabism is known as a very conservative branche within the Sunni branche. The same can be said about Salafism (also in the Sunni branche). Yet Sufism (can be considered a major branche of Islam) is known to be very peaceful.

I encourage you to look up these things. For some reason, you are lumping all Muslims together and branding them as "most conservative group" of people. To me it looks like you have not much of an idea what you're talking about. That's okay though, I don't expect people to know these kind of things, but it may be convenient that you look these things up before you make such sweeping statements.

Again, this makes not much sense. Doesn't even seem like you're even trying to give a proper response. Within branches, there is obviously still variation amongst individuals. None of this is what I tried to point out.

Your question "One peaceful Nazi is grounds for being in support of allowing the immigration of thousands and thousands of Nazi's into a mostly peaceful Jewish or gay community?" completely misses the mark. In fact, consider what I said towards you:

"Then you illustrate your point with some empirical case, which doesn't prove anything, nor does it add anything to the discussion."

In this case, you (rhetorically?) ask me something and you use one peaceful Nazi as an example. One peaceful Nazi doesn't mean that all Nazis are peaceful, nor does it (in anyway) imply that "thousands of thousands of Nazis" entering some area is a good idea. I wouldn't say such a thing, as empirical cases like that don't prove anything.

You can use "one example" to counter a point. If I were to say "smoking will always cause lung cancer", then using "my Grandma always smoked and never got lung cancer" is enough to counter the point being made. I wouldn't use such cases to support a claim. You could've known this, really.

Ah well, that wasn't clear from your post, you see. Imagine something like this:

A: Christians are evil!
B: Woah, that's rude, there are many types of Christian you know.
A: I didn't say that every single Christian is evil, there are good and bad Christians obviously.

Looks kind of... Strange? Why is A making the first statement in the first place? I do believe you when you say you didn't mean all Muslims, but your initial statements are not properly defined in my opinion.

Sigh, what's the point of this example? Do you believe that people in Tokyo pray to boulders in the woods? If so, how many do that? Surely not everything. I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with "100% tolerant". Tolerance is subjective.

And again, mass immigration.

If you see Hillary as a murderer, then that's okay. I don't get why you're suggesting me that link..? I've already read that (but that's not too important as you couldn't know that), but I don't see the relevance. You're worried about the population growing more due to childbirth of immigrants?

Do you know why I think it's funny? These "hostile to LGBT" kind of immigrants you are talking about, will be voting for "pro LGBT democrats". That's what you're suggesting. Isn't that, to say the least, peculiar? As I said, you won't know what these people vote for.

Interesting, you are dodging the question by asking me about slavery. You can actually look up the definition of slavery in a dictionary. I don't have my own definition of slavery, unlike you it seems.

I'm not going to use that flawed definition of slavery (compare it to a dictionary definition if you want to) to answer my own question towards you.

Moreover, you are simply running in circles here. You seem to define "maximum freedom" based on slavery which is "100% control from one person or people over the life of another person or people" according to you. Then I can easily ask you how you would define "100% control". You see, you have not defined this.

Therefore, your "see above" doesn't convey any message other than "I think I have answered it but I actually haven't".

My question was "Why are you concluding that the goal of LGBT people should be maximum freedom?" which was obviously based on the fact that I did not know your definition of "maximum freedom". Thus, you can be surprised (or whatever) that I am asking you that question, but it's very logical to me. I think it would have been very strange if I got that statement without even knowing what "maximum freedom" was in your opinion.

I don't see how the last question is even relevant. Moreover, I don't think there's such a thing is "75% freedom" or "100% freedom". I think that is very obvious based on the questions I've been asking you.

-

As Aussie said, you didn't seem to get my point (at all). That's okay, but why are you jumping to conclusions..? Why are you stating all kinds of things that I have never said?

1. I never suggested that I am "cool" with free societies where LGBT people cannot get married
2. I never said that I don't want the world to come to the point where websites like EC are not needed

It's one thing to misunderstand people, it's something else to put words in their mouth. You should be careful with that, really. It's definitely not something I appreciate in a regular discussion.

So back to your statement. You said "In a completely free society two gay people getting married isn't an issue". Remember that I didn't understand your definition of completely free (and it still doesn't make sense to me). Anyways, I used Germany and Australia for a specific reason. As Aussie said, these countries are considered free. Yet, same-sex marriage has not been made legal yet.

So what does this mean? This means that societies can be considered free without having same-sex marriage. Note that this doesn't disprove your point (as "completely free" is improperly defined), but it is valuable. It means that societies can be free regardless of same-sex marriage.

-

I would like to also debate you on the replies to Aussie, but he does that very well himself. I hope that you do realise that I'm not debating you on the fact whether you would vote for Trump/Hillary or not. I am merely replying to certain statements that you've made, most which are wrong or not necessarily true.

Lastly, I really suggest you not to draw conclusions if you don't really get the line of reasoning or some of the premises (you also did this to Aussie). The reason I ask you questions is because some of your positions are unclear to me. Thus, I wish to understand your perspective and reasoning. Not to "prove a point" or attack you.

Cheers,

Quem

 

Trump scares the shit out of me, and he's leading the polls now. What the fuck, America? Hey, at least we'll have our first dictator!