TakeYouToTasker

You don't know what the heck the drivers motives were, or if he even had motives and it wasn't just an accident. No one does at this point. How can you possibly claim to know that it's terrorism? Further, even if his motives were to kill Antifa members with his car, that doesn't make it terrorism. It makes it First Degree Murder, but not terrorism. Again, "terrorism" has a specific meaning.

No, that's good news. Who the !@#$ wants to go to Chicago? Jokes aside, you could stand to engage in just a bit of introspection and intellectual honesty.

I'm on the side that says being offended by history is stupid, and giving ground to those who wish to sanitize it while labeling those who disagree Nazis is even more stupid. These are the same !@#$s who want to undo the entire Enlightenment because minorities weren't represented in it's philosophers, and believe anything Euro-centric to be evil. These are dangerous zealots espousing a dangerous philosophy, and they shouldn't be appeased.

On the issue of slavery, almost all of history was with the slavers. Every nation, every race, every religion. Again, what you're engaging in is dangerous.

Robert E. Lee was a "great man" by historical standards, and the lens you speak of in not shared by all, even in the modern sense. For example, as a libertarian rights theorist, I find the concept of slavery to be abhorrent. Probably more abhorrent than most, given my thoughts about free association, and government compulsion; and yet I still find Lee to be a remarkable man, as the man was far more than his slaves. Removing the statue is sanitizing history because it asserts that Lee's entire life, everything he accomplished, believed, and said, is not to be celebrated because he was a slave owner, as if that fact somehow undoes everything the man was. It ignores the entire history of humankind in favor of a revisionism built on a foundation of feelings rather than facts. It's ugly, and dangerous.

This wasn't one of those questions. This was a deliberate attempt to prop up a narrative in favor of restricting speech, and an argument in favor using the power of the state to shut down an opposing ideology. But you knew that already.

Not as I see it. The question is do we want to cede ground to an ideology hell bent on sanitizing history because of their feelings, who equate disagreement with Nazism.

Terrorism has a specific definition. It has nothing to do with trucks.

Their bannerman is gone, but there are still a few other lurking around. They're much less vocal though.

Framing it poorly, and without a drop of nuance; but I think you knew that. You're a bright guy, and I'm 100% certain that you know those aren't monuments to racism or slavery. They aren't sitting there, here in 2017, to antagonize people. There is a new phenomenon, given our society's rush to endow victims with hero status, and advent (onslaught?) of Critical Race Theory, to seek out cause to be offended and outraged where none exists.

Community is important, but it is only community if it is voluntary. Involuntary community is slavery. What you just described: your skills which have value, the knowledge that you do not possess all necessary skills, the knowledge that others have the skills you need, and that you have skills they need, is a fertile breeding ground for capitalism and freedom of exchange. Capitalism is nothing more than forced altruism (borrowed from Ben Shapiro). If I recognize that you have something which I need, I must give you something which you need in exchange in order to obtain it. The freedom for us to meet and make this exchange on voluntary terms is the very basis of modern civilization, and ensures that all individuals must work toward the collective betterment. IE. If you don't give me something I want/need, you can't obtain what you want/need. Thus by working for our own betterment, and embracing freedom, the betterment of all is achieved.

Well, yeah, that's because you don't have enough understanding about human motivations to make informed decisions, and you aren't a very moral person. Nothing individuals do is motivated by anything other than self-interest. It's how we are designed. Even the things which appear the most selfless are done because the doer is rewarded by satisfaction for their deed. You prefer, however, to bend individuals to your will at the barrel of a gun as opposed to embracing "live and let live".

Empty platitude. Please explain the middle path between freedom and extermination, and why it is desirable. The truth is that all of the greatest advances in human history are due to the embrace of freedom post-Enlightenment, and that isn't something which should be discarded. Sometimes the barbarians really are at the gate.

This is how the left fights. - Anyone who disagrees with their dogma is a Nazi - Vocalizing disagreement is hate speech - Hate speech is actual violence which is not Constitutionally protected and is OK to meet with actual violence in return - History is offensive, and must be erased How can anyone who doesn't agree with the left on this not stand up and fight against them? They've told you how they plan to fight, and what they plan to do to you and your beliefs. They're entire goal is to erase people who think differently, and their history, from existence. They can't be allowed to win.

None at all to date. But don't let that interrupt The Narrative.

Everyone but the drugs is the French in the War on Drugs.

That's well articulated.

The Bills should grant him his release and allow him to pursue the post season elsewhere.

No one would have paid to go watch the Utah Magic Underpants.

On the upside, that would prevent the Clintons from running for office again.

It didn't start on that scale in Weimar.

They're an organization of militant communists.

Force was used on doctors to compell them, against their will, to over prescribe opiates? Who forced them? How did they employ their use of force? Damnit.

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic in that post. The posting styles are different, and this poster is actually inquisitive, and has been, to date, open to persuasion given a better counter argument. I'm actually fairly confident that this will be one of those times as soon as he allows himself to dispassionately review the facts, and stops trying to work his way through difficult problems with his feelings. The fact that he just attempted to dismis an argument built on internal logical consistency as "lawyer language" leads me to believe he's almost there.