On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 6:05 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >>> if somebody is obviously struggling to find lame excuses to defend the >>> indefensible just because it's a minority screaming about a >>> >>> ancient injustice or demanding that free speech be curtailed on college >>> campuses you can be pretty sure he's a liberal. >>> >> >> > >> Well, not in my case. Firstly I abhor what's happening in college >> campuses and I highly value free speech. >> >> Secondly, I do not blindly defend minorities. For example, I am 100% on >> the side of Charlie Hebdo and I think that, if Muslims want to live in our >> society, then they better get used to the idea that we can say whatever we >> want about Muhammad. >> > > Good but be warned, your liberal membership card could be revoked; > Wow, that would ruin my day... Seriously though, I have no sympathy for liberals. I think they are less bat-shit-crazy than the conservatives, but even that seems to be changing with this new wave of Social Justice Warriors. Bo > if you tried to give a speech on the above on many college campuses self > described liberals would prevent you from doing so. > > >> > >> I am a pacifist and I oppose the initiation of force. I do accept the use >> of force in self-defense. > > > > Then you're not a pacifist, I'm not a pacifist either, and neither are the > heroes of Kung Fu movies even if they do talk about the virtues of pacifism > while they're beating the shit out of people. Martin Luther King > > and Gandhi > were pacifists, we're not. > > > >> Now, you can argue that the native Hawaiians >> > > Are "native Hawaiians" people who were born in Hawaii or is that > insufficient, do you also have to have the correct bloodline to be allowed > into that exclusive club? > > >> > >> have no legitimate claim over the mountain, >> > > I do say that, and I further argue that even if the court found they have > a legal claim over the mountain (because of who their ancestors were) > they are ignorant barbarians for not letting it be used for something as > glorious as a thirty meter telescope, especially when there are only 2 > other places on the planet where such an instrument could be built. > > >> > >> I am more than willing to listen to your arguments. But you start by >> assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a moron, and that makes >> discussion harder. >> > > Then I guess the discussion is going to get harder because I am making 2 > assumptions and both seem entirely reasonable to me: > > 1) Anyone who opposes the Thirty Meter Telescope because they believe the > construction noise will disturb the sleep of Mother Earth and Father Sky is > a moron. > > 2) Anyone who feels it is his duty to make lame excuses for people in the > above category is also a moron. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
