An Appropriate Thread

[Shusha]

There ya go José

Here's the questions again:

It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?

 

[Fenton Lum]

This is america, no one really gives a fuck about any morality, it's just a tool for subjugating others.

 

[Pete7469]

It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality.

Yes. Certain groups of people do not share western values, and people in many third world countries are taught to hate this country beginning in school.

It is morally correct to create borders between nations.

Absofuckinloutly.

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity.

It's morally incorrect for a government to segregate people within it's own borders who are citizens and entitled to constitutional rights by any category I can think of aside from criminal. If people within that border choose to segregate themselves... well everyone has a right to hate people. I don't want liberals living in my state. I wouldn't push for a law though.

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's.

It's the responsibility of the government to provide for the safety of the citizenry as much as is reasonably possible. I don't care if they build a fuckin Berlin wall From San Diego to Brownsville.

 

[Pete7469]

This is america, no one really gives a fuck about any morality, it's just a tool for subjugating others.

Speak for yourself.

Most Americans I have ever known values morality, ethics, standards, even fuckin manners and decent conduct.

Libturtds spaz out about "trigger words" and shit they had to invent, and those are the people always parroting the same stupid shit you did.

 

[ChrisL]

There ya go José

Here's the questions again:

It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?

1. Depends.
2. Yes.
3. Depends on the circumstances.
4. Yes.

 

[Coyote]

No. Yes. No. Depends (it can be abused)

 

[Fenton Lum]

This is america, no one really gives a fuck about any morality, it's just a tool for subjugating others.

Speak for yourself.

Most Americans I have ever known values morality, ethics, standards, even fuckin manners and decent conduct.

Libturtds spaz out about "trigger words" and shit they had to invent, and those are the people always parroting the same stupid shit you did.

I'm talking about actions, you're talking about words and fantasy.

 

[Fenton Lum]

This is america, no one really gives a fuck about any morality, it's just a tool for subjugating others.

Speak for yourself.

Most Americans I have ever known values morality, ethics, standards, even fuckin manners and decent conduct.

Libturtds spaz out about "trigger words" and shit they had to invent, and those are the people always parroting the same stupid shit you did.

"It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality."

That bastardization of morality, yeah, they do.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There ya go José

Here's the questions again:

It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?

Apply these questions to your own home and property, and therein find the correct answers.

 

[P F Tinmore]

There ya go José

Here's the questions again:

It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to drive people out of their homes and shoot them if they try to return?

 

[José]

Originally posted by Shusha
It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?

Despite decades of multiculturalist indoctrination in America the fact remains that nations are

an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.

the definition of nation

China and Japan are in their most basic definition asian tribes/countries/nation-states.

A China with a white or black majority would not be China anymore it would be another country.

The United States is in its essence a white, european country.

One of the reasons the United States is classified as part of the West is exactly its white majority... otherwise, extremely westernized countries like Japan would be part of the western civilization as well.

Preventing mass immigration from destroying the asian identity of China, the black identity of Nigeria, the pre-Columbian Indian majority of North America and the United States european identity was/is, therefore, not only morally correct but also an absolute imperative to guarantee the survival of one of the core components of those peoples/nations.

Even racial dictatorships like 19th century America, South Africa under apartheid and Israel have the right to protect their racial composition against FOREIGNERS, individuals whose historical homeland is not comprised by the territory of the state, like when Israel deports illegal Somalis, Nigerians, etc... but never against the NATIVES OF THE LAND, this is no longer immigration control, this is dehumanization, supremacism ethnic, moral depravation.

It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?

Borders between real countries, yes.

Fake borders separating ethnocratic states from ethnic enclaves, no.

Even supremacist states can have real borders with neighboring countries like the ones South Africa under Apartheid had with Mozambique and Zimbabwe, and Israel has with Egypt and Jordan (a de facto border).

The "pseudo-borders" South Africa had with the bantu homelands and Israel has with Gaza and the WB do not qualify as real borders, they are just the limits of the ethnic enclaves imposed by the ethnocratic state to preserve their artificial ethnic majorities.

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?

As Pete has pointed out in a previous post the government cannot promote racial, religious segregation but individuals must have a reasonable degree of freedom of association.

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?

Checkpoints, walls and no-go zones separating real nations yes.

Despite all the global commotion, America would be well within her rights to build a wall along the mexican border because there is no ethnic supremacism involved.

But if the "hostile actor" is not a foreign country or national but displaced natives of the land then the checkpoints and walls serve a clearly supremacist, dehumanising purpose.

 

[José]

Originally posted by PF Tinmore
It is morally correct to drive people out of their homes and shoot them if they try to return?

It is immoral only if you recognise the fact that the palestinian people have the same human value as Ruby Bridges:

If you do not recognize that Palestinians and Ruby Bridges have exactly the same set of human rights it can't possibly be immoral.

If Palestinians have only 10% of the natural rights Ruby Bridges was born with then it becomes more an issue of "pest control" than of human rights.

Until recently you were a lone voice in the wilderness stubbornly insisting against all odds that Ruby Bridges and the palestinian people had exactly the same rights but having your voice completely muffled by the greatest, most ellaborate and expensive propaganda machine ever set up in the history of mankind.

But the tide is turning.

With each passing day, more and more of your fellow Americans are finally conceding the fact that Ruby Bridges and the palestinian people share a common humanity, a common set of universal rights.

 

[Challenger]

Bravo José!

 

[Phoenall]

There ya go José

Here's the questions again:

It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to drive people out of their homes and shoot them if they try to return?

You mean like the arab muslims have done to the Jews for the last 1400 years ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

There ya go José

Here's the questions again:

It is morally correct to exclude people from movement or immigration based on their ethnicity or former nationality. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to create borders between nations. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to segregate people based on their race, religion, or ethnicity. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to protect a nation's citizens from hostile actors through the use of checkpoints, walls, no-go zones and LEO's. Yes or no?

It is morally correct to drive people out of their homes and shoot them if they try to return?

You mean like the arab muslims have done to the Jews for the last 1400 years ?

For the hundreds of years that Palestine was under Ottoman rule, I have not seen one incident of a Jew claiming his land.

 

[Shusha]

... Ruby Bridges and the palestinian people share a common humanity, a common set of universal rights.

Of course. As do the Jewish people.

 

[Shusha]

José

A few comments:

I find your use of racial terms (white, black, asian) to be abhorrent. I find your description of the US as a "white European" nation to be abhorrent. I find the idea of ethnic supremacism to be repulsive, including the accusation that one particular ethnic group believes themselves to be superior to others (you are aware that is an old anti-semitic canard, yes?)

We agree that it is permissible, even encouraged, to have nations which represent a homogeneous ethnicity or culture, based on the principle of self-determination and the preservation of that culture. (Although I hope we also agree that the rights of minority ethnic groups or cultures within that nation must be safe-guarded and protected.) We agree that it is permissible to have borders between these nations and that each nation has the right to control who passes those borders. We even agree that it is permissible for nations, in order to preserve their ethnic and cultural integrity, to control immigration. (Although, I would suggest that this be expressed in positive terms where immigration by those of the nation's ethnicity and culture is encouraged and never expressed in terms of refusing people of a certain ethnicity, race or religion. And I would also suggest that not all nations are founded on the principle of homogeneity and for these nations diversity is to be embraced. Canada and the US are examples.)

Where you go sideways is with Israel and wanna-be Palestine. Your case is built around the idea that Israel and Palestine are not yet "real" nations and therefore there should be no segregation. But you also say that people should have freedom of association and the right to build nations based on ethnic homogeneity.

Now, if you are going to argue, in principle, that until a treaty is signed and a boundary is created between two "real" nations (Israel and Palestine) that there can be no segregation and all peoples should have freedom of movement within the territory, I'm not going to argue with you. Unless you apply that principle only to Arabs and not to Jews. Then I will remind you that your argument is inconsistent and discriminatory.

Let me give you some examples: You will agree that Jewish people can buy property and build a house, a town, or anything else they want anywhere in the territory in question, say, in the middle of Ramallah, or Gaza City. You will agree that all laws which forbid the sale of property to Jews are immoral and illegal and will be abolished. You will agree that Jews are permitted to use any of the gates to access the Temple Mount and be permitted to hold any type of service, religious practice or worship there. You agree that pilgrimages of Jewish people in large numbers to places which are Holy to them must be allowed on religiously appropriate times and dates.

Of course, if you DO argue for this principle, you will have to explain to me what practical steps you believe to be morally correct and appropriate to prevent, reduce and respond to the inevitable violence which will occur between the two groups who are currently quite antagonistic towards one another.

 

[P F Tinmore]

José

A few comments:

I find your use of racial terms (white, black, asian) to be abhorrent. I find your description of the US as a "white European" nation to be abhorrent. I find the idea of ethnic supremacism to be repulsive, including the accusation that one particular ethnic group believes themselves to be superior to others (you are aware that is an old anti-semitic canard, yes?)

We agree that it is permissible, even encouraged, to have nations which represent a homogeneous ethnicity or culture, based on the principle of self-determination and the preservation of that culture. (Although I hope we also agree that the rights of minority ethnic groups or cultures within that nation must be safe-guarded and protected.) We agree that it is permissible to have borders between these nations and that each nation has the right to control who passes those borders. We even agree that it is permissible for nations, in order to preserve their ethnic and cultural integrity, to control immigration. (Although, I would suggest that this be expressed in positive terms where immigration by those of the nation's ethnicity and culture is encouraged and never expressed in terms of refusing people of a certain ethnicity, race or religion. And I would also suggest that not all nations are founded on the principle of homogeneity and for these nations diversity is to be embraced. Canada and the US are examples.)

Where you go sideways is with Israel and wanna-be Palestine. Your case is built around the idea that Israel and Palestine are not yet "real" nations and therefore there should be no segregation. But you also say that people should have freedom of association and the right to build nations based on ethnic homogeneity.

Now, if you are going to argue, in principle, that until a treaty is signed and a boundary is created between two "real" nations (Israel and Palestine) that there can be no segregation and all peoples should have freedom of movement within the territory, I'm not going to argue with you. Unless you apply that principle only to Arabs and not to Jews. Then I will remind you that your argument is inconsistent and discriminatory.

Let me give you some examples: You will agree that Jewish people can buy property and build a house, a town, or anything else they want anywhere in the territory in question, say, in the middle of Ramallah, or Gaza City. You will agree that all laws which forbid the sale of property to Jews are immoral and illegal and will be abolished. You will agree that Jews are permitted to use any of the gates to access the Temple Mount and be permitted to hold any type of service, religious practice or worship there. You agree that pilgrimages of Jewish people in large numbers to places which are Holy to them must be allowed on religiously appropriate times and dates.

Of course, if you DO argue for this principle, you will have to explain to me what practical steps you believe to be morally correct and appropriate to prevent, reduce and respond to the inevitable violence which will occur between the two groups who are currently quite antagonistic towards one another.

You say you agree with many of these principles. Perhaps this could be a basis for discussion.

 

[montelatici]

José

A few comments:

I find your use of racial terms (white, black, asian) to be abhorrent. I find your description of the US as a "white European" nation to be abhorrent. I find the idea of ethnic supremacism to be repulsive, including the accusation that one particular ethnic group believes themselves to be superior to others (you are aware that is an old anti-semitic canard, yes?)

We agree that it is permissible, even encouraged, to have nations which represent a homogeneous ethnicity or culture, based on the principle of self-determination and the preservation of that culture. (Although I hope we also agree that the rights of minority ethnic groups or cultures within that nation must be safe-guarded and protected.) We agree that it is permissible to have borders between these nations and that each nation has the right to control who passes those borders. We even agree that it is permissible for nations, in order to preserve their ethnic and cultural integrity, to control immigration. (Although, I would suggest that this be expressed in positive terms where immigration by those of the nation's ethnicity and culture is encouraged and never expressed in terms of refusing people of a certain ethnicity, race or religion. And I would also suggest that not all nations are founded on the principle of homogeneity and for these nations diversity is to be embraced. Canada and the US are examples.)

Where you go sideways is with Israel and wanna-be Palestine. Your case is built around the idea that Israel and Palestine are not yet "real" nations and therefore there should be no segregation. But you also say that people should have freedom of association and the right to build nations based on ethnic homogeneity.

Now, if you are going to argue, in principle, that until a treaty is signed and a boundary is created between two "real" nations (Israel and Palestine) that there can be no segregation and all peoples should have freedom of movement within the territory, I'm not going to argue with you. Unless you apply that principle only to Arabs and not to Jews. Then I will remind you that your argument is inconsistent and discriminatory.

Let me give you some examples: You will agree that Jewish people can buy property and build a house, a town, or anything else they want anywhere in the territory in question, say, in the middle of Ramallah, or Gaza City. You will agree that all laws which forbid the sale of property to Jews are immoral and illegal and will be abolished. You will agree that Jews are permitted to use any of the gates to access the Temple Mount and be permitted to hold any type of service, religious practice or worship there. You agree that pilgrimages of Jewish people in large numbers to places which are Holy to them must be allowed on religiously appropriate times and dates.

Of course, if you DO argue for this principle, you will have to explain to me what practical steps you believe to be morally correct and appropriate to prevent, reduce and respond to the inevitable violence which will occur between the two groups who are currently quite antagonistic towards one another.

You seem to think that those that believe what was done to the Muslims and Christians of Palestine was immoral just because the people that took the place of the inhabitants happened to be of the Jewish faith, you would be wrong. The same people that believe that the eviction of the Muslim and Christians and their subjugation by the Jews, that came from elsewhere, have the same view towards the Boers in South Africa, who did the same thing, were Christians.

You keep forgetting that the Zionists that went to Palestine and took over were Europeans, who had no right to expel and subjugate the native Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine.

 

[Hollie]

José

A few comments:

I find your use of racial terms (white, black, asian) to be abhorrent. I find your description of the US as a "white European" nation to be abhorrent. I find the idea of ethnic supremacism to be repulsive, including the accusation that one particular ethnic group believes themselves to be superior to others (you are aware that is an old anti-semitic canard, yes?)

We agree that it is permissible, even encouraged, to have nations which represent a homogeneous ethnicity or culture, based on the principle of self-determination and the preservation of that culture. (Although I hope we also agree that the rights of minority ethnic groups or cultures within that nation must be safe-guarded and protected.) We agree that it is permissible to have borders between these nations and that each nation has the right to control who passes those borders. We even agree that it is permissible for nations, in order to preserve their ethnic and cultural integrity, to control immigration. (Although, I would suggest that this be expressed in positive terms where immigration by those of the nation's ethnicity and culture is encouraged and never expressed in terms of refusing people of a certain ethnicity, race or religion. And I would also suggest that not all nations are founded on the principle of homogeneity and for these nations diversity is to be embraced. Canada and the US are examples.)

Where you go sideways is with Israel and wanna-be Palestine. Your case is built around the idea that Israel and Palestine are not yet "real" nations and therefore there should be no segregation. But you also say that people should have freedom of association and the right to build nations based on ethnic homogeneity.

Now, if you are going to argue, in principle, that until a treaty is signed and a boundary is created between two "real" nations (Israel and Palestine) that there can be no segregation and all peoples should have freedom of movement within the territory, I'm not going to argue with you. Unless you apply that principle only to Arabs and not to Jews. Then I will remind you that your argument is inconsistent and discriminatory.

Let me give you some examples: You will agree that Jewish people can buy property and build a house, a town, or anything else they want anywhere in the territory in question, say, in the middle of Ramallah, or Gaza City. You will agree that all laws which forbid the sale of property to Jews are immoral and illegal and will be abolished. You will agree that Jews are permitted to use any of the gates to access the Temple Mount and be permitted to hold any type of service, religious practice or worship there. You agree that pilgrimages of Jewish people in large numbers to places which are Holy to them must be allowed on religiously appropriate times and dates.

Of course, if you DO argue for this principle, you will have to explain to me what practical steps you believe to be morally correct and appropriate to prevent, reduce and respond to the inevitable violence which will occur between the two groups who are currently quite antagonistic towards one another.

You seem to think that those that believe what was done to the Muslims and Christians of Palestine was immoral just because the people that took the place of the inhabitants happened to be of the Jewish faith, you would be wrong. The same people that believe that the eviction of the Muslim and Christians and their subjugation by the Jews, that came from elsewhere, have the same view towards the Boers in South Africa, who did the same thing, were Christians.

You keep forgetting that the Zionists that went to Palestine and took over were Europeans, who had no right to expel and subjugate the native Muslim and Christian inhabitants of Palestine.

When do majority absentee landowners from Egypt, Syria and Lebanese become native inhabitants? Such a silly little boy.

At what point in time, during the various invasions that swept across the geographic area of your mythical "country of Pal'istan" did the invading Moslems become a "native population"?