The Decay Of American Culture- Is this the result of the Godless, anything goes, no moral order type of society that Democrats have built?

[BlindBoo]

Should the inferior race, the white supremacists, be tracked by the federal government? Maybe have a serial number tattooed on them? Perhaps a GPS implant so the government can control them? We all know whites are the biggest threat to the Reich and must be dealt with...

Already covered by the Jews in space. The WS are identified and then secretly tagged by the lasers (that's what they're really for ya know). Those fine people are being tracked already. It's a shame, really.

 

[White 6]

Should the inferior race, the white supremacists, be tracked by the federal government? Maybe have a serial number tattooed on them? Perhaps a GPS implant so the government can control them? We all know whites are the biggest threat to the Reich and must be dealt with...

High tech idea, but you'll never sell it here now or in another 250 years.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And a high suicide rate.

But thank Buddha that they don't kill themselves with guns - because that would be bad instead of good...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Already covered by the Jews in space. The WS are identified and then secretly tagged by the lasers (that's what they're really for ya know). Those fine people are being tracked already. It's a shame, really.

Ah, so you smoked a whole bag of crystal all by yourself, then huffed paint thinner.

Must be Thursday....

 

[Uncensored2008]

High tech idea, but you'll never sell it here now or in another 250 years.

I'm just asking. The Reich needs to keep track of Der Juden, the hated whites. Everyone from Reich Minister Garland to Xi's Man Quid Pro has told us of the threat the hated whites pose and how government must control this menace.

What is your plan? Your final solution, to the white people problem?

 

[White 6]

I'm just asking. The Reich needs to keep track of Der Juden, the hated whites. Everyone from Reich Minister Garland to Xi's Man Quid Pro has told us of the threat the hated whites pose and how government must control this menace.

What is your plan? Your final solution, to the white people problem?

I was not aware there was any general problem, specific to white people. Do you have some kind of grudge?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I was not aware there was any general problem, specific to white people. Do you have some kind of grudge?

I don't, but Quid Pro does.

Biden says White supremacists are the greatest domestic terror threat in America

President Joe Biden participates in a CNN town hall in Wisconsin. Follow here for the latest.

edition.cnn.com

 

[White 6]

I don't, but Quid Pro does.

Biden says White supremacists are the greatest domestic terror threat in America

President Joe Biden participates in a CNN town hall in Wisconsin. Follow here for the latest.

edition.cnn.com

Funny, I though he was talking about white supremacist, not normal white people. I don't like white supremacists either. I don't like fire breathing radicals of any stripe, religion, political party affiliation, color or creed, and I'm only 129 miles or so, from the birthplace of the KKK.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Funny, I though he was talking about white supremacist, not normal white people.

ROFL

Yes, and Hitler was talking about "greedy Jews" not normal Jewish people..

I don't like white supremacists either. I don't like fire breathing radicals of any stripe, religion, political party affiliation, color or creed, and I'm only 129 miles or so, from the birthplace of the KKK.

All whites are Der Juden, "white supremacists."

That's how scapegoating works.

The fascist left has their scapegoat, white people, who are to blame for all ills in the world.

You've never met anyone in the KKK, nor have I. The hatred spewed by democrats is hatred of the white race - period. You know this as well as I do.

 

[White 6]

ROFL

Yes, and Hitler was talking about "greedy Jews" not normal Jewish people..



All whites are Der Juden, "white supremacists."

That's how scapegoating works.

The fascist left has their scapegoat, white people, who are to blame for all ills in the world.

You've never met anyone in the KKK, nor have I. The hatred spewed by democrats is hatred of the white race - period. You know this as well as I do.

Well, they haven't gotten around to me, but PJ says I intimidate people. I don't see it, myself.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, they haven't gotten around to me, but PJ says I intimidate people. I don't see it, myself.

Quid Pro says that you are a terrorist for having white skin.

 

[Curried Goats]

With you? You'd change the results to fit your agenda. You have a habit of doing dishonest shit like that.

"Objective Morality?" ROFL

Okay Goat Curious, it is objectively proven that murder is harmful to society.

{Murder invokes a particularly virulent and long-term form of bereavement, which can lead to post-traumatic stress disorder. Moreover, the degree of violence across the world has created a tertiary victim, that of global society itself}

https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/09627250608553401.pdf

Now, you are both low-brow and unethical, so you'll either lie, equivocate, or use the usual Nazi "nuhn uhn" response.

But this objectively proves a moral precept.

Well first, whether murder is objectively harmful to society is not the same thing as saying murder is morally wrong. You could say porn addiction is harmful to society yet its still perfectly legal because as a society we value freedom, even the freedom to harm ourselves, over safety. So which would more harmful, restricting freedom so people couldn't get hooked on porn or allowing them to even if it is somewhat harmful?

The second problem I have is that murder is defined as the unlawful killing of others. It doesn't just mean the taking of any life, it means taking life in a manner that's against the law, which is arbitrary. Back when there was slavery in this country it wasn't illegal to kill your slave but do you think that still made it morally wrong? That would indicate that legality and morality are two separate things.

In fact whenever we talk about old slaving Founders you yourself make the case for moral relativism. You tell me that we can't judge them because it was a different time. Now, this is a stupid argument because it infers morality is relative to time rather than people, and because you do judge them to be good and heroic for throwing off the yolk of tyranny from King George, you just shamelessly turn around and ignore their tyranny against Black slaves, but it is still an argument for moral relativism all the same.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Well first, whether murder is objectively harmful to society is not the same thing as saying murder is morally wrong. You could say porn addiction is harmful to society yet its still perfectly legal because as a society we value freedom, even the freedom to harm ourselves, over safety. So which would more harmful, restricting freedom so people couldn't get hooked on porn or allowing them to even if it is somewhat harmful?

The second problem I have is that murder is defined as the unlawful killing of others. It doesn't just mean the taking of any life, it means taking life in a manner that's against the law, which is arbitrary. Back when there was slavery in this country it wasn't illegal to kill your slave but do you think that still made it morally wrong? That would indicate that legality and morality are two separate things.

In fact whenever we talk about old slaving Founders you yourself make the case for moral relativism. You tell me that we can't judge them because it was a different time. Now, this is a stupid argument because it infers morality is relative to time rather than people, and because you do judge them to be good and heroic for throwing off the yolk of tyranny from King George, you just shamelessly turn around and ignore their tyranny against Black slaves, but it is still an argument for moral relativism all the same.

That something is popular enough to be made legal doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm to society.

Alcohol is perfectly legal but we know it is extremely harmful to society.

 

[Curried Goats]

That something is popular enough to be made legal doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm to society.

Alcohol is perfectly legal but we know it is extremely harmful to society.

But whether or not it causes harm or even whether or not it's legal isn't the same thing as proving it's morally wrong. Some people would believe it's morally wrong to drink and cheat on your wife and we could track how that behavior is objectively harmful, but at the same time not think either of those two things should be illegal.

If you want to prove moral objectivism you need proof beyond the standard of legality and harm.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well first, whether murder is objectively harmful to society is not the same thing as saying murder is morally wrong. You could say porn addiction is harmful to society yet its still perfectly legal because as a society we value freedom, even the freedom to harm ourselves, over safety.

Equivocating.

Are you trying to claim murder is "perfectly legal?"

Further, I just cited a study demonstrating the damage murder does to society.

I started this noting you are dull of wit and dishonest, so this is expected.

So which would more harmful, restricting freedom so people couldn't get hooked on porn or allowing them to even if it is somewhat harmful?

Equivocation rejected.

I proved that murder is objectively harmful to society.

The second problem I have is that murder is defined as the unlawful killing of others. It doesn't just mean the taking of any life, it means taking life in a manner that's against the law, which is arbitrary. Back when there was slavery in this country it wasn't illegal to kill your slave but do you think that still made it morally wrong? That would indicate that legality and morality are two separate things.

Laws against murder are hardly arbitrary.

As noted, even before we made you democrat vermin free your slaves, you were prohibited from killing them.

James Wilson - a white man: Executed in Texas in 1854 for murder of a black slave.

In fact whenever we talk about old slaving Founders you yourself make the case for moral relativism. You tell me that we can't judge them because it was a different time. Now, this is a stupid argument because it infers morality is relative to time rather than people, and because you do judge them to be good and heroic for throwing off the yolk of tyranny from King George, you just shamelessly turn around and ignore their tyranny against Black slaves, but it is still an argument for moral relativism all the same.

I understand your desperation to equivocate.

You were stupidly dishonest and got called on it.

Get over it.

 

[Curried Goats]

Equivocating.

Are you trying to claim murder is "perfectly legal?"

No. I'm claiming (rightly) that murder is a legal term. All murder by its legal definition is illegal. But murder isn't the same as killing. Sometimes, killing people is perfectly legal such as when a citizen kills someone in self defense or when a Founding slave Master killed one of his slaves. If that same slave had killed his master that, under American law at the time, would be murder, but would you find it immoral? Murder doesn't mean immoral, it means against the law.

Further, I just cited a study demonstrating the damage murder does to society.

Which again doesn't make it immoral. You could also show how black slaves murdering white slaving American Founders did damage to white slaver American society but would that make it immoral?

I started this noting you are dull of wit and dishonest, so this is expected.

No, you are. You have no interesting retorts. You don't even seem to understand the fundamental difference between legality, which is arbitrary and subjective and different country to country, and the notion of objective morality, which infers something greater than the opinion of the majority or governments.

Equivocation rejected.

I proved that murder is objectively harmful to society.

Which is not the same as proving murder is immoral as evidenced by my example of slaves murdering slavers in a slaver society.

Laws against murder are hardly arbitrary.

Arbitrary in the sense that what is and isn't murder is just a reflection of that societies moral codes and not evidence of some grand objective right or wrong. In a slaver society, killing slavers is murder.

 

[surada]

Isn’t this just another case of Democrats manifesting the problems they later bitch about?
Where were all the “mass-shooters” in 1980 when America was American and american culture was celebrated and not denigrated?
When will Democrats realize that they can’t get out of their own way?
Literally, every single policy and ideal they push compromises the moral integrity of America/American’s.
There’s more to come Dems….this is what you built….the Lefts America.

United Kingdom vs United States: Crime > Violent crime Facts and Stats

Murders, Murder rate per million people, Intentional homicide rate, Murder rate, Murders per million people

www.nationmaster.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

No. I'm claiming (rightly) that murder is a legal term. All murder by its legal definition is illegal. But murder isn't the same as killing. Sometimes, killing people is perfectly legal such as when a citizen kills someone in self defense or when a Founding slave Master killed one of his slaves. If that same slave had killed his master that, under American law at the time, would be murder, but would you find it immoral? Murder doesn't mean immoral, it means against the law.

That's nice - utterly irrelevant, but nice.

Fact: Murder Harms society - it is an objective moral position.

Which again doesn't make it immoral. You could also show how black slaves murdering white slaving American Founders did damage to white slaver American society but would that make it immoral?

Murder is absolutely immoral.

No, you are. You have no interesting retorts. You don't even seem to understand the fundamental difference between legality, which is arbitrary and subjective and different country to country, and the notion of objective morality, which infers something greater than the opinion of the majority or governments.

Which is not the same as proving murder is immoral as evidenced by my example of slaves murdering slavers in a slaver society.

Arbitrary in the sense that what is and isn't murder is just a reflection of that societies moral codes and not evidence of some grand objective right or wrong. In a slaver society, killing slavers is murder.

The point being, that when you democrats murdered your slaves, it was both immoral and illegal.

Of course the fact that you had (and continue to have) slaves at all is immoral.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Isn’t this just another case of Democrats manifesting the problems they later bitch about?
Where were all the “mass-shooters” in 1980 when America was American and american culture was celebrated and not denigrated?
When will Democrats realize that they can’t get out of their own way?
Literally, every single policy and ideal they push compromises the moral integrity of America/American’s.
There’s more to come Dems….this is what you built….the Lefts America.

Of course it is. Not one of them will every take responsibility for it. There’s always spin, blame and excuses from the leftists.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

Even when we standardize it by getting annual averages, GOP administrations still have 29 times more indictments, 64 times more convictions, and 24 times more prison sentences.

Of course you’re right but for the wrong reason. Prosecuting republicans is for nothing is at the top of the democrat campaign strategy. It works on its sheep every time.