https://x.com/javiernegre10/status/2080377188356964710?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
"The two great cities of the Anglo-Saxon world are governed by Muslim-communists, London and New York. Can you imagine the two largest cities in the Arab world governed by conservative Christians? Multiculturalism is the greatest scam of the century and of the West. It is an invasion."
In all seriousness, can anyone imagine a Christian (conservative or not) being the leader of Cairo, Riyadh, Damascus, or Tehran?
No. I cannot imagine a conservative Christian, especially a modern MAGA-type Christian, running a very large city but think about what that means....
ReplyDeleteTo run a very large city like London or New York City - full of a great diversity of humanity - in a free republic, that means you have to WIN the election. You have to convince the majority of the people that your ideas are the best.
And so, no, I can't imagine a Christian extremist or a Muslim extremist winning in a large diverse city because their ideas are just not winnable or convincing. In fact they are often dangerous or at least sound dangerous and a threat to human rights.
Are you thinking about this from that point of view? What is it about religious extremism, whether Muslim or Christian or otherwise, that is failing to convince large cities everywhere to vote for them?
Isn't it just possible that their views and policies are considered untenable and ill-advised at best, and contrary to a free republic at worst?
I suppose you can easily support the idea that people in large cities should only vote for the candidates that they think are the best and present the best, most practical, most rational ideas?
Dan
I couldn’t have aborted this for anything. The spectacular degree to which you’ve missed the point is truly astounding. The level of idiocy surpasses anything I’ve ever seen from you.
DeleteThat you think a communist with absolutely zero accomplishments in the real world is somehow a paragon of ability to govern is confounding. His actions so far are already having a negative effect on NYC, but who cares, right?
I’m gobsmacked by the display of a complete lack of comprehension.
Also do you see how problematic and xenophobic and irrational it is to call it an invasion when people win elections and you really wish they hadn't?
ReplyDeleteThat's not, literally not, an invasion. It's a free republic. It's the idea, the marketplace of ideas where the best ideas should win.
This plays into the racist Great Replacement Theory conspiracies.
"These people are not like us. They are invaders. They are monsters. They are a threat! Cats and dogs living together! Mass hysteria!! Aaaagghhhh!!!"
Don't do that. Be better. If you can't present ideas that win people over, the problem is either your ideas or your presentation or both.
Dan
The stupidity continues.
DeleteI repeat:
ReplyDeleteIsn't it just possible that in large diverse cities, conservative "Christian" views and policies are considered by fellow citizens untenable and ill-advised at best, and contrary to a free republic at worst?
If not, how are you trying to explain it? Do you have any data for that theory? Maybe people of color who are more urban in nature or more foreign or not as smart as you are as a white Christian. Is that your guess?
Dan
You repeating stupidity doesn’t magically make up for how spectacularly you’ve missed the point.
DeleteYour ignorance, bias, stupidity and partisanship has blinded you.
Maybe reading for understanding is the problem.
ReplyDeleteThis is hilarious on so many levels. But then, as a text-book example of a useful idiot, Dan's incapable of recognizing the success of his kind toward their ultimate goal. I'm certain a montage of Dems explicitly promoting the notion of exploiting immigration to alter the ideological leanings of the voting public away from the GOP, and thus American principles. It was never a conspiracy "theory". That's just what people like Dan are told by their overlords. This actual conspiracy is pretty much achieved or we'd never have an ashhole like Mandami running our largest city. His doing so isn't a matter of "diversity". It's a matter of stupidity, apathy and the fact that so many believe his bullshit is feasible.
ReplyDeleteDan's kind has so badly moved our culture away from the founding principles that it would indeed be next to impossible for a conservative Christian to be elected to high office. It wouldn't be because proposed policies are detrimental in any way. Dan certainly can't explain which policy of even a bad example of a believer like Trump is bad! So, if the following is true:
"Isn't it just possible that in large diverse cities, conservative "Christian" views and policies are considered by fellow citizens untenable and ill-advised at best, and contrary to a free republic at worst?"
...that citizens in large "diverse" cities view conservative Christians in such a negative way, it's not because the policies are truly "untenable and ill-advised at best, and contrary to a free republic at worst". It's because the citizens are stupid, selfish and immoral. Again, Dan's wholly incapable of finding fault with any policy a Christian conservative might propose. He just asserts they would be, mostly because his perversions would be outlawed or restricted.
It’s been hilarious and it’s just getting better.
DeleteRe: missing the point...
ReplyDeleteWhat pray tell do you think the point is coming from your far right extremist dude?
https://globalextremism.org/post/convicted-spanish-agitator-joins-maga/
I'm just dealing with your literal quotes, which say...
"The two great cities of the Anglo-Saxon world are governed by Muslim-communists..."
He is correct in noting these two gentlemen are Muslims. He is incorrect in stating that they are communist. New York's mayor is a democratic socialist, not a communist. The London mayor is not even a democratic socialist. He's more of a slightly left democrat.
So the dude is leading with what he thinks is inflammatory language, making false claims about these two mayors, who were elected by the majority of their constituents. A free democratic-republic.
He then asked the question...
"Can you imagine the two largest cities in the Arab world governed by conservative Christians?"
I literally just answered the question. No, I can't imagine a conservative extremist winning an election in a diverse metropolitan city in a free republic.
That's a literal answer to his literal question.
Now I know he's likely trying to inflame passions of people who are concerned about great takeover theories and that sort of thing. "These people are not like us!" Do you think he's NOT doing that in asking this question? If not, what do you think the point of his question is?
He then made two unsupported claims, which are both objectively false claims.
"Multiculturalism is the greatest scam of the century and of the West. It is an invasion"
Multiculturalism is not a scam. That's just stupidly false. It's just the reality that we live in a big diverse world with all sorts of cultures. Multiculturalism just affirms that this is generally a good thing. Do you think, in your head, that multiculturalism is not a good thing?
He also falsely states that this is an invasion. That's inflammatory language suggesting an organized attack by outsiders. People from different cultures just have to move to places where there is the liberty to do so. It points to the success of free republic ideals. Are you suggesting that there's some sort of invasion happening, organized and malignant? If so, do you recognize how insane that sounds?
So what DO you think the point is if not that? You know, what he just literally said.
Dan
Please, please, keep this up. The utter ignorance is astonishing. Do not stop, this is so freaking hilarious.
DeleteThe level of ignorance and stupidity is staggering, but the arrogance and confidence in the ignorance and stupidity just makes it better.
"That's a literal answer to his literal question."
DeleteNo, it's not, because I don't think the two largest cities in the Arab world are either "diverse" or in a truly "free republic". Thus, you didn't answer his "literal question", but your intentionally and self-serving alteration of his question.
"Multiculturalism is not a scam. That's just stupidly false."
DeleteIt's not false at all. It's the "diversity is our strength" lie, particularly when diversity refers to tolerating those who have no desire and make no effort to assimilate and become Americans in the truest sense of the word. The following is from 2010, but nothing has changed about the nonsensical leftist meme of "multiculturalism" as explained herein:
https://www.danielgreenfield.org/p/5-biggest-lies-about-liberalism
The free flow of migrants across our borders without regard for our immigration laws is, by definition, an invasion. To pretend some of those invading are not doing so to attack us from within is childish naivete...something at which you are truly expert.
Art,
DeleteI’ll take your response a step further. Not only are the largest cities in the Muslim world none of those things, in the big picture of history none of them holds a candle to NYC and London in terms of importance.
False claims and dodging reasonable questions and repeating conspiracy theories do not speak well of any of y'all. You should be ashamed and may that shame cause you to repent and be better.
ReplyDeleteYou were caught. You endorsed stupidly false claims. Just admit it, apologize, and move on.
Dan
Oh Dan,
DeleteSo predictable. You make yourself look like a moron, miss the point, double down on missing the point, then pivot to your same old BS script.
Last time you pulled out the tired old “don’t answer questions” script I went back and answered everything at least once.
You continued to ignore questions and didn’t even have the common courtesy to acknowledge that I’d answered your BS questions.
Now you’re reduced to the same old BS, because you don’t even know what you’ve missed and all you have is to fall back on your stock attempts to establish dominance.
Dear Dan Trabue,
ReplyDeleteI have a sincere question for you to answer if you do not mind me asking. Are you better educated than Marshal Art and/or Craig?
Here's the problem you're having.
ReplyDeleteI'm pointing out what the fellow objectively literally said.
You said I'm missing the point.
I pointed out the literally objectively false claims in what the guy said.
You're saying I missed the point.
You don't answer questions and say it's me not answering questions.
I ask you to clarify and you run and hide. You're beaten on every point and this is the sad low state you've reduced yourself to. You're a cowardly pig wallowing in mud and I'm not sure that you even know it.
This is just sad.
Dan
Yes, it is sad that you so quickly and so obviously revert to type. Big claims, announcing that you’re retiring that, claiming that everyone but you is making false claims. It’s predictable, tired, boring, ridiculous, absurd, and completely uncreative. Just the same old crap.
DeleteI’m laughing at you because you still haven’t figured out what you’ve missed and choose bluster and empty accusations.
Thanks for the entertainment.
Jon...
ReplyDeleteI have a sincere question for you to answer if you do not mind me asking. Are you better educated than Marshal Art and/or Craig?
I imagine we all have roughly the same kind of schooling. I don't know. I've got a bachelors degree in social studies/special education and some master's level courses in urban planning and environmental education. In my first two years of community college, I "majored" in journalism and served on the newspaper staff. I've had additional certifications in disability services.
For what it's worth.
I suspect we're all three fairly well-read. You'll have to ask them for their specifics.
None of that matters, though. Objective facts are objective facts, whether someone has a degree or not. Sound reasoning is sound reasoning, whether you have a degree or not. Bad reasoning is bad reasoning, whether you have a degree or not.
Notice how Dan calls a conservative Christian (the only true kind of Christian) a "Christian extremist" compared to "Muslim extremist." The man (I think he's a man) loves Muslims and hates true Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI think that it’s more of a desire to draw a false moral equivalence between the two.
DeleteThat a Muslim extremist is much more likely to kill a Christian that vice versa is irrelevant.
I agree, Craig. And in doing so, he positions himself as "reasonable" or "rational" while ignoring how far astray he is from Truth or pretending he hasn't strayed at all...which is ludicrous.
DeleteGlenn...
ReplyDelete"how Dan calls a conservative Christian (the only true kind of Christian) a "Christian extremist" compared to "Muslim extremist."
To be clear I have not said and do not think that all conservative Christians are conservative extremists. When I'm talking about Christian extremists I'm talking about the ones with the most extreme conservative and anti-human rights views. Not all conservative Christians.
I would further allow that in the Muslim extremist world there is much more likelihood for human rights abuses and harm than even in most places of the conservative Christian extremist world. At least in the modern United States, Christian extremists mainly want to curtail and deny human rights to women and LGBTQ folks, immigrants and others. They're not usually looking to kill them. Not usually.
But that's a pretty low bar. Yes, conservative Christian extremists are not as bad as Muslim extremists in other nations that are more theocratic and autocratic. If you want to congratulate yourselves on not being THAT bad, go for it. In the meantime the rest of us are struggling to make sure that human rights progress that has been won, are not lost thanks to modern conservative Christian extremists.
Just to clarify where you all are having some trouble understanding.
Dan
"When I'm talking about Christian extremists I'm talking about the ones with the most extreme conservative and anti-human rights views."
DeleteIn other words, a fiction your kind has invented. Conservative Christian views aren't "anti-human rights". Such views are those of YOUR kind, beginning with, but not solely, the murdering of children in utero. Can't get much more "extremist" and "anti-human rights" than that!
"At least in the modern United States, Christian extremists mainly want to curtail and deny human rights to women and LGBTQ folks, immigrants and others."
This you lying again. You're falsely invoking the words "human rights" and applying them to infanticide, sexual perversity and illegal immigration.
" If you want to congratulate yourselves on not being THAT bad, go for it"
How condescending for a murdering pervert to presume that we're "bad" at all, particularly in comparison to the likes of you and your kind. That crap might work at your Blog of Lies and Perversions, but not here. And hey...I'm really, really sorry you're struggling so much to defend those horrors.
Nobody wants to deny anyone "human rights", this is simply BS.
DeleteCraig...
ReplyDelete"That a Muslim extremist is much more likely to kill a Christian that vice versa is irrelevant."
Not in the United States, where we're from. In our nation, where we have input and control, it is Muslims who are more likely to be targeted for attacks and harm than the other way around. Right?
Beyond that I would be more than glad to agree that in Muslim nations that are run by extremist Muslims it is non-Muslims that are probably more likely to be harmed although I have not seen that data. Do you have such data?
Regardless, my takeaway is that it is religious extremism that we have to be concerned about, whichever religious sect is involved in the extremism and violence. Here in the U.S. we had more troubles with conservative extremists than Muslim extremists. Since this is where we live and where I have input on how we set our policies to deal with such things, I am in favor of doing things to minimize conservative extremism that causes harm.
I get it's easier and more comfortable to condemn those people far away who are doing bad things, where you have no real control. But humanity and human rights begin at home.
It is for this reason we want our nation to remain a progressive nation that defends human rights and not an extremist nation.
Agreed?
Dan
I love the goal post move there. To move from “kill”, to some vague “attacked”. But by all means, show me the data to back up your claim that Muslims are violently attacked more than they violently attack.
DeleteYes, I’ve posted all sorts of data over the past year or so.
I agree that you’re probably pretty pleased with driving the conversation away from your complete missing of the point of the post.
"In our nation, where we have input and control, it is Muslims who are more likely to be targeted for attacks and harm than the other way around. Right?"
DeleteNo. You're not right at all. Talk about "stupidly false and unsupported claim"!
"Here in the U.S. we had more troubles with conservative extremists than Muslim extremists."
Wow! Dan's chosen to stack his stupidly wild and unsupported claims!
"I am in favor of doing things to minimize conservative extremism that causes harm."
Good luck finding some...as you continue promoting infanticide and sexual depravity as if you're doing the Lord's work.
" It is for this reason we want our nation to remain a progressive nation that defends human rights..."
Like the "right" to murder your own children and to indulge in detestable sexual behaviors. Got it.
He really only means Christian conservative extremism.
DeleteThe other goal post move is to pretend as if it is reasonable to separate the US from the rest of the world in order to make a rhetorical point.
DeleteTo be clear. I do look at the behavior of Muslims across the globe, especially how they treat non Muslims and how they act in Europe.
ReplyDeleteAnd it seems you're pretty pleased to continue with this nonsensical, childish, "But I'm not going to TELL you the point of the post..."
ReplyDeleteI can read. I saw the words that you quoted and I responded to those literal words. If you had some hidden meaning in quoting those words, it's not my fault for not reading your mind. I addressed HIS questions and HIS words.
As to your question...
In all seriousness, can anyone imagine a Christian (conservative or not) being the leader of Cairo, Riyadh, Damascus, or Tehran?
No. I can't imagine Christians being elected to leadership positions in vastly Muslim majority states/cities. Or any place that are lacking in strong progressive free republic values and systems.
I can't imagine a Muslim being elected in Uganda, for instance. And that is because it is a majority Christian nation with limited rights/outright oppression for non-Christians and even those who might be Christians but not the "right" kind (ie, the kind that Glenn and Marshal would like reject as Christians).
Again, the problem is religious extremism, not Christianity nor Islam. Progressive, peace-loving, justice-oriented, human rights-affirming religious people are not oppressors or abusers of human rights. Religious extremists often are.
And there was no goal post move. I'm noting the reality that in the US (a progressive, human rights-affirming nation) there tends to be much less deadly violence and when violence occurs HERE, it's more likely to be towards Muslims, not Christians.
Do you disagree?
(Another question to ignore.)
You’re right that I’m not going to explain the point of the post to you. Use your vaunted Reason and figure out,
DeleteYes, absent proof, of course I disagree.
You and the ignoring questions trope is getting old after the last thread where I took the time to answer your absurd questions, all of them at least once, and you ignored questions I asked.
The double standard is strong with you, but I get that you need something to bitch about and a way to change the subject.
But yeah, moving the goalposts from “kill” (and rape) to “attack” was pretty obvious.
"...when violence occurs HERE, it's more likely to be towards Muslims, not Christians.
DeleteDo you disagree?"
Another stupidly wild and unsupported lie, so of course I disagree. Dan couldn't support this if I helped him invent false evidence.
To be clear. I do look at the behavior of Muslims across the globe,
ReplyDeleteTo be clear: Religious Muslim extremism is a serious problem around the globe. Just like religious Christian extremism like the have in Uganda.
The enemy is religious extremism.
Really, there’s a genocide in Uganda where Christians are slaughtering Muslims?
DeleteIf you say so.
Really. That sounds like a claim which demands evidence or an apology. Dan will provide neither.
DeleteMore lies and obfuscations from Dan, who hates real Christians and loves Muslims (refusing to believe NO real Muslim is peaceful). His ignorance is his bliss.
ReplyDeleteOnce again I'll repeat what I've already said, thankfully Christian extremism is not as bad as Muslim extremism most often these days. In Uganda you're only likely to be jailed for being gay and not as likely to be executed, for instance. They'll only give Muslims a hard way to go but they won't kill them. Once again that's a pretty low bar. At least we're not as awful as those Muslim extremists who actually kill people. We only oppress them. If you're satisfied with that, well that's on you.
ReplyDeleteDan
That Dan digs up one example of a "Christian" country acting in ways he doesn't like, is somehow supposed to balance out the 57 Muslim majority countries and millions of Muslims trying to impose Sharia across the globe.
DeleteOf course, I've never been supportive of Christians trying to invent some sort of Christian Sharia in order to govern.
If, as Dan suggests, morality is NOT objective then there is no way to claim that Uganda's treatment of people is immoral. It's clearly legal per their laws and is supported by their population.
Deletehttps://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/us/mosques-targeted-2017-trnd
ReplyDeletehttps://forward.com/fast-forward/371801/five-american-mosques-burned-surge-islamophobia/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anti-Muslim_violence_in_the_United_States
For starters.
Dan
Because there haven’t been lots of churches burned over the last few decades.
DeleteOf course, this is just a goal post move. Trying to act as if damage to property is the same as murder.
https://apps.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v2i7-508.pdf
DeleteIt's not like I don't post multiple examples of Muslim violence against non Muslims.
Hell, the 250,000 rapes in the UK should be enough.
Also just to be clear about the facts, it is very rare for any Muslim state, as an act of the state, to actively kill Christians. Rather it is almost always the act of outsider extremists who call themselves Muslim.
ReplyDeleteIf you all get to disavow Christian extremists who call themselves Christian and engage in violence (as you tend to do), then why are you not giving that same grace to Muslims? Could it be bigotry?
No true Scotsman, indeed.
Dan.
This is quite the claim to make with no proof.
DeleteI will simply note the presence of laws in at least 32 Muslim countries that make it illegal to convert to Christianity, and impose the death penalty for this crime.
I'll further note the reality, that I've posted stats on many times, that in every country conquered by Islam the native Christian and Jewish population has been eradicated. Whether that is through genocide, ethnic cleansing, or immigration, doesn't matter because the result is the same.
And of course, Dan's idea of a "Christian extremist" is one who perpetrates violent crime and who was raised in a Christian environment. How many of these alleged "Christian" extremists screamed something akin to "Alahu Akbar" before murdering or destroying? Any of them? How many have claimed to be doing the Lord's work without immediately being committed?
DeleteWe don't disavow what's proven to be true. That's why we disavow Dan's claim to be a Christian, because it hasn't been proved true.
What's proven true here is that islam teaches violence as a means of spreading their fake religion. As such, the true muslim outsider is the muslim who renounces those teachings and does so publicly in an attempt to reform the "faith". One doesn't hear of too many such people because it costs money to exist in hiding.
The enemy is religious extremism. The enemy are those who do not support human rights for all, whether they are of your group or not. Whether your religion disagrees with who they are or what they do, or not. That is religious extremism and that's the threat.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to take a stand and join with me, you and I can always stand against those who commit deadly violence in the name of their religion. Just don't be a hypocrite about it. I invite you to join me in that consistent opposition to deadly violence and oppression and in support of human rights for all.
Dan
The problem with joining you in "taking a stand" is that your "stand" against those on one side pf the political/ideological divide tends to be very loud/specific/vociferous, while your stand against the other side tends to be vague/generic/milquetoast/half hearted.
DeletePerhaps if you could be consistent, I'd consider it.
"The enemy are those who do not support human rights for all..."
DeleteLike people in utero.
"If you want to take a stand and join with me, you and I can always stand against those who commit deadly violence in the name of their religion..."
OH! I see! So to commit deadly violence against the most innocent and vulnerable of our kind...the unborn...is fine so long as you don't abortion in the name of your so-called "religion"! Got it. Child abuser!
I don't stand with purveyors, promoters and defenders of infanticide and sexual perversion in the name of "progressive" "Christianity". You are the enemy.
Whatever you say.
ReplyDeleteYou DON'T think zealots who act contrary to human rights should be opposed?
ReplyDeleteThis should be an easy unifying point.
Dan
Well, I guess this means that don’t actually read, understand, and remember what gets said here at my blog.
Delete1. In the US “zealots” have just as much 1st amendment right to advocate zealously for their views as everyone else.
2. Therefore “opposition” looks different here than it does elsewhere.
3. In most Muslim countries, simply talking about YHWH, openly reading or discussing the Bible, will get you branded as a heretic and get you expelled, jailed or executed.
4. In most communist countries, “zealots” for anything but communism end up in camps or dead.
I do not oppose free speech, regardless of the content. I do oppose those who would limit free speech.
Those who act contrary to the laws, should be tried and punished.
Abortionists like Dan are by definition acting contrary to the human rights of the unborn. The worst part of it is there is arguably far less legitimate argument for being among them, and far less arguably is that Dan's kind has only cheap rationalizations. And this from the asshat who likes to cite "the least of these" to posture as morally superior. What a vile hypocrite!
Delete"You DON'T think zealots who act contrary to human rights should be opposed?"
ReplyDeleteBy "acting contrary to human rights" Dan means we do so when we refuse to permit the LGBTQ!+++ agenda being taught to children, when we say children should not be mutilated into "trans" kids, when we say that there is no such thing as people changing there sex, when we say no woman has the right to murder her unborn child, when we say no man should be in women's sports or private place regardless it they want to pretend to be women, when we say homosexual behavior is an abomination before God and should not be sanctioned, etc, etc, etc.
It's likely that Dan means, contrary to Dan's hunches about what human rights are. Because Dan clearly has his own ideas about human rights.
DeleteThe problem I see is Dan's inconsistency when it comes to who is acting contrary to human rights. If it's some tiny fringe groups of christians, then they need to be stopped at all costs. When It's tens of millions of Muslims, then we just need to understand that those tens of millions don't represent the few Muslims that Dan wants to pretend represent Islam.
Human rights, I mean the obvious...
ReplyDelete"Inherent Dignity: Rights belong to people simply because they are human, not because a government grants them.
Rule of Law: Laws must apply equally to all citizens and protect individuals from unfair state actions.
Limited Government: Constitutions restrict what ruling majorities can do, ensuring minority groups keep their fundamental protections."
I also affirm that classic definition of liberty, that is, you have the right to swing your fist until it hits someone else's face.
You boys have the right to worship how you wish. You have the right to marry who you choose. You have the right to go to school or not go to school and choose the career of your choice. You have the right to have an abortion or other medical procedures or not. You have the right to be self-determining.
What you DON'T have a right to is tell OTHER people what they can do, especially when it's based on your personal little human religious traditions. Because no one gives a flying damn about your little human traditions. I mean you do but not everyone does and that's okay.
We don't have to bow to your religious opinions, traditions and the policies you would put in place because of your human traditions. Likewise you don't have to bow to my personal human traditions. As long as you're not hurting anyone you're free to do what you want. You're not free to cause harm. You're not free to cause oppression. In other words I believe in human rights for all, not just me, straight white guys of a particular human religious tradition.
Welcome to the free world. If you don't want to live here, you can leave and found your own oppressive theocracy. It would be a shame and pathetic and almost certainly collapse under its own inanity and arrogant stupidity , but you are welcome to do that.
Just don't ask me to join your little cults. Whether that cult is Muslim extremism or Christian extremism. No thanks.
Dan
Well, I admire the commitment. Dan's gonna define what "human rights" are, and he's gonna do it as if it's not just his opinions on the topic.
DeleteHe's right that human rights are "endowed by the Creator", not by any government. Whether or not he supports worldviews and politicians that agree with the principle is another matter. But he got one right and should be congratulated for that.
In theory, I agree with his opinion on the "rule of law", yet in practice we see so many examples across the globe of laws being unequally applied, and so little criticism of any examples but Dan's bogeymen that I can't take this seriously despite his opinion being theoretically correct.
Coming from someone who backs a political party which is actively electing and supporting candidates who are supporting or engaging in expanding the power of government, I'm not buying this BS. FYI, not all constitutions are either created equal or followed.
So, you do agree that you are free to exercise your right until it infringes on someone else's right, in any and all circumstances? Or just the fist thing?
I'm not sure what to do with Dan's list of individual "rights", because most of them don't actually seem to be rights. But, even if they are, does that mean that I am free to exercise those rights without regard to how they affect others, or demand that others must support my rights in any and every way?
Strangely enough, we have these things called laws (and a constitution) which literally do tell "OTHER people what they can do". Further, those laws and constitutional restrictions are absolutely based on "human traditions", some of which may be based on religious precedent. Perjury, pretty much derives from "Thou shall not lie.", Murder pretty much derives from "Thou shall not murder.", but feel free to pick and choose as you wish.
I understand your frustration, at not understanding the point of the post, and your desire to hijack the comment thread. All of your ranting might be more interesting if you and your political/religious soul mates were not engaging or advocating for things that contradict your rant.
You're the one arguing that Islam and Christianity are equally True, and supporting Talarico who actually is advocating enacting law based on his interpretation of Scripture, not us.
But really, I admire the commitment.
"Inherent Dignity: Rights belong to people simply because they are human, not because a government grants them."
DeleteUnless the people are still in the womb and then scum like Dan subjectively and selfishly assert they aren't people worthy of "inherent dignity".
"Rule of Law: Laws must apply equally to all citizens and protect individuals from unfair state actions."
Unless the people are still in the womb and then scum like Dan subjectively and selfishly assert they can be murdered for the slightest reason in the most barbaric manner.
"Limited Government: Constitutions restrict what ruling majorities can do, ensuring minority groups keep their fundamental protections."
Unless the people are still in the womb and then scum like Dan subjectively and selfishly assert they're a minority group not worthy of protecting from scum like Dan and his kind.
"I also affirm that classic definition of liberty, that is, you have the right to swing your fist until it hits someone else's face."
But those like Dan have no problem ignoring the liberty and life of the unborn, to whom they do far worse in the vilest and ugliest of manner, than merely hit the child in the face.
" You boys have the right to worship how you wish. You have the right to marry who you choose. You have the right to go to school or not go to school and choose the career of your choice. You have the right to have an abortion or other medical procedures or not. You have the right to be self-determining."
Just not those in the womb you scum have murdered in the most cruel in inhumane manner. You've robbed them of their "right" to do any of those things and you dare suggest you're a Christian. You couldn't insult our Lord more by your disgusting and false pretense of concern for human rights.
"What you DON'T have a right to is tell OTHER people what they can do, especially when it's based on your personal little human religious traditions."
So, you can't demand no one murder YOU because of YOUR ant-Christ unhuman traditions. Got it. Thanks for the clarity.
"As long as you're not hurting anyone you're free to do what you want. You're not free to cause harm. You're not free to cause oppression."
Ah...so we're back to THIS crap, abortionist Dan. Make up your mind.
"In other words I believe in human rights for all..."
In HONEST words, this is a straight up, bald-faced lie. This isn't a "free" world in which we live so much as a world in which liberty has become license to please the self...as creatures born with a sin-nature are wont to do. This is the world you praise when it devolves and decays further from God's Ideal. Yours is the true cult.
Craig...
ReplyDelete"Dan clearly has his own ideas about human rights."
I'm referencing the typical definition of human rights. If you want to define it atypically, that's on you.
Craig...
"The problem I see is Dan's inconsistency when it comes to who is acting contrary to human rights."
Except that you can't point to an inconsistency at all.
Craig...
"If it's some tiny fringe groups of christians, then they need to be stopped at all costs."
I'm speaking about the mainstream of MAGA GOP. You have a president that you support who is actively assassinating people without due process in open waters. You have a president and an administration that is actively fighting against women's rights to choose how to deal with their pregnancies. I'm talking about an administration that is actively trying to undermine rights for LGBTQ folks. For immigrants. These are human rights abuses. I can't be more clear.
Assassinating someone in a boat in the ocean because you think they might be drug dealers is criminal. It's just fucking hellishly, grotesquely, demonically criminal. That you don't understand the abuse of human rights doesn't mean it's not an abuse of human rights.
If it were a Democrat president who was assassinating Christian missionaries on the shores off of Madagascar, you would raise hell and rightly so. You can't just assassinate people. We have human rights. Supports the notion of due process. Do you understand that simple objective reality?
The difference then is that I oppose the Democrat engaging in extra-judicial assassinations and the Republican doing the same. I'm consistent. I oppose Muslims implementing laws in other nations that deny rights to women or to LGBTQ folks and I oppose it here in the U.S. I am consistent.
The thing is, you have more in common with extremist Muslim nations than I do. That you have been caught in inconsistency and support of abuses of human rights does not make me wrong. That you don't understand it doesn't make me wrong.
Dan
Your typical definition, not some official definition.
DeleteSure I can, you bitch and moan about “human rights abuses” when you think some people engage in them, and you’re silent when others actually do engage in them.
I posted the legal justification under maritime law for the interdiction of drug smugglers in international waters. You didn’t pay attention then, so you can’t play this BS game now.
You claim to be consistent, yet you sit silently by when it’s not one of your bogeymen.
Craig...
ReplyDelete"You're the one arguing that Islam and Christianity are equally True, and supporting Talarico who actually is advocating enacting law based on his interpretation of Scripture, not us."
Except both of these stupidly, stupidly false claims are not factual or based in reality or any kind of facts and shit. That you make stuff up doesn't make it true. That you pull shit from your ass doesn't mean that anyone but you is going to eat it.
Dan
Really, you are not suggesting that Talarico is accurate in his claims, and you haven’t been arguing for some sort of moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity?
DeleteMarshal, proving my point, said ...
ReplyDelete"those like Dan have no problem ignoring the liberty and life of the unborn..."
Etc., etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum.
I fully understand that humans in YOUR little human religious tradition... religionists who agree with your human traditions, think that the fetus has an equal right to life as the woman bearing the fetus. You all think, in your little human tradition, that YOU should decide what's best for that woman and her fetus, not her.
But you know what? To hell with you and your human tradition. You don't get to decide for everyone! That's precisely the point.
Not all religions, not all religious traditions, not all human philosophies agree with your little opinion that you can't prove. Nor can we prove that the fetus doesn't have equal rights to the woman bearing the fetus. It's not a provable point. Ancient Jews did not think that way nor do many current Jews. For instance.
The point being, you do not get to impose your particular religious human opinion on others. You don't want to divorce, have an abortion, to marry a guy...? DON'T. But leave your hands off the rest of us. Your right to swing your fist ends at our collective noses.
It is not universally accepted that that blob of a fetus, or later on that more fully formed fetus, has a similar right to life that outrules a woman's right to decide and make her own medical decisions. That's just the objective fact of it all.
You simultaneously clearly make the point for us and at the same time do not understand why you're wrong. But the fact is, it doesn't matter that you don't understand. You are wrong. Move on.
Dan
What a bizarre, and fact free, rant. You don’t seem to have a problem expecting others to live by your human traditions, while failing to realize that you’ve literally just defined how law works.
DeleteYou’re right, though. If you don’t want to marry a 9 year old, don’t. If you don’t want to own slaves, don’t. If you don’t want to rape girls, don’t. If you don’t want to blow up innocent people, run over gay, stab or shoot people, don’t.
That the “blob of a fetus” is a unique, individual, living, human seems immaterial to you.
That whole “least of these” thing doesn’t apply to the actual least, most innocent, and most vulnerable humans on the planet.
Really. This little turd of an effeminate boy seems to think that truth and fact are only true and factual if people accept them as such. By this measure, there's no problem with Dan being offed the way his kind offs the unborn. No one can prove his life has equal rights to ours, and muslims certainly don't agree he has equal rights to them so long as he pretends to be Christian.
DeleteBut our founding fathers were quite clear in asserting to hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. The conceived have clearly and factually been created, but Dan denies them the right to life the founding father agreed is endowed upon them by their Creator, ostensibly the God in Whom Dan pretends to believe.
This asshole refers to people as "blobs" due to the stage of human development in which they find themselves. But they are far less "blobs" than Dan is a large pile of shit and far more deserving of having their right to life defended than shitheels like Dan who defend the fictitious "right" to murder them in utero. But because of their size, age and location, scum like Dan presume to suggest their right to life is subordinate to the vile adults who couldn't control their passions and now demand the child pay the price. This piece of shit dares speak of oppressors and abusers and "bullies"! There's no just cause to abort. EVER! That's scientific fact.
So thus, as I've stated before, Dan is evil. He's no Christian.
That Dan wants to allow the right to life to be withheld from some unique, individual, humans based solely on their stage of development, for the (almost always) convenience of one other person is beyond question. He loves the stock buzzwords which hearken back to a time when we were truly ignorant regarding human development in utero. To a time before Drs were able to operate on "blobs of tissue" in utero and before babies could survive prior to 21 weeks of gestation. At this point, the pro abortion position is the anti-science position as well as lacking any foundation outside of feelings and convenience. The argument boils down to "A mother should be able to end the life of her child at any time, for any reason, and that the State should encourage and pay for the abortion.
Delete“No. I cannot imagine a conservative Christian, especially a modern MAGA-type Christian, running a very large city but think about what that means....
ReplyDeleteTo run a very large city like London or New York City - full of a great diversity of humanity - in a free republic, that means you have to WIN the election. You have to convince the majority of the people that your ideas are the best.”
What Dan seems to be saying here is that when we look at those running America’s largest cities (NYC, Chicago, LA, SF, Baltimore, Minneapolis/StPaul, Portland, and Seattle that we can assume that they are the best and brightest. That their cities are run exceedingly well, and that they are exemplary.
If only there were matrices and indicators that we could use to measure how these geniuses are doing.
We just watched one of the cities that Dan seems to think are to well run for a "Christian conservative" to win, have a mayoral campaign which was rigged to exclude someone who was NOT a "Christian conservative" by any measure but who was running against the status quo and corruption.
Delete