Black People Need a Safe State in America—Let’s Make It Georgia

Let me remind you that the Nazis were justly punished for mass genocide. You are going to have to take your "Mass murder is okay as long as you make a law saying it is" argument to someone dumb enough to buy it. Perhaps a lobotomy patient?

Seriously: you are arguing that authoritarianism isn't really authoritarianism so long as the authoritarian regime excuses themselves. Congrats: you have successfully found the single most authoritarian defense of authoritarianism.

But there is a very easy way for me to tell if you are being honest or just making **** up off the cuff. If this is really what you felt about the law, then you'd condemn the Founding Fathers. After all, everything England was doing to us at the time was illegal, and our rebellion was illegal. What am I actually going to find if I go look and what you've had to say about the Founding Fathers? That's what I thought.

 

But as I said, from their point of view the weren't doing something illegal. Beside they got their Eugenics idea from the American which practiced it until the late 60's in some state. Vermont just appologized for forced sterilizations of native, blacks and french-canadian.

Why should I care about the Founding Fathers? They did some pretty nasty thing in their past. So did the brits, the french, hell just about everybody. And at one time, all of it was legal.

What you're arguing about is MORALITY! Is it moral to consider another human being of not being a human being but a common tradable good? Is it moral to send people to death camps for being jewish, polish or romani? To both of those question I would personnaly say NO! But was it legal and was society accepting of those thing at one time, YES IT WAS! And for most of human history the LEGAL won over the MORAL. What you consider authorianism can also be part of one culture and not systemic, that is it comes from the ground up instead of the top down of society.

 

Also, while the nazi were punished, the russian, chinese, japanese, french, british weren't. Neither were many who organized and participated in the more recent Rwanda and other genocide.

 

I tried to, but you seemed to have lost the thread of your own argument and now don't claim to understand it.

 

. . . how is that different from any other authoritarian regime?

And? How does that make the Nazis less authoritarian. BTW, you really, really need to realize that this forum has a search feature, and you've admitted in the past that the Nazis were authoritarian, so I know you aren't being honest when you try to go back on that now.

If you don't care about them, then why did you call them visionaries? Forgot about that search feature again, didn't you?

And some laws are unjust. To claim that all actions of the state are, de facto, justified is (wait for it) AUTHORITARIANISM!

No, but whether or not someone is human is an empirical question, not a moral one. Black people are people.

So your new argument is that authoritarianism isn't authoritarianism . . . if it wins? You keep replacing one bad argument with another. I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying your far left subjectivism.

 

And? What does that have to do with whether or not they were authoritarian? Why do you keep trying to change the subject?

 

I’m not going to rule out the possibility that I’m an idiot, but I’ve been seeing a lot of posters with uncharitable interpretations of my posts followed by a refusal to back up the interpretation.

Are you all working off of the same rhetorical study guide or something?

 

we're debating. I can debate about bstuff I don't agree with.

 

My statement was that ethnostates are authoritarian. You've gone on to claim that authoritarian regimes aren't really authoritarian if they think they are justified, or they make authoritarian laws, or if it wins. None of those claims address my statement, and all of them are bull **** on their own. And the arguments you make here are directly contradicted by other statements you've made on the forums, so you've either changed your mind or you are (wait for it) being hypocritical. Which is it?

 

They can also be cultural in nature. As I said it can come from the bottom (culture) or from the top (systemic/authorianism) or both. If it's cultural then it isn't authorianistic in nature.

And again, this is a debate forum. You can debate about things you don't agree with personnaly.

 

Then you don't understand what an "ethnostate" is.

What the hell are you even talking about? I'm pointing out inconsistencies in your beliefs, not saying "we can only debate if we agree." Where do you come up with this ****?

 

Of course I do, but you just can't accept that.

You seem to think that someone can only debate from a position that they agree with personnaly. I'm saying that I can, for debating purpose, play the evil bad guy if I want to. You see as a youngster I was heavy into role playing game and quite a good game master. I can easilly switch from the good guy to the bad guy if that is required of me. If everybody on PF play the same side of the coin then you have an echo chamber not a debate forum.

 

An ethnostate involves laws. Not just cultural norms. Please look it up.

If you can't be honest about what you are actually advocating, then you can't engage in an honest discussion. If you want to play devil's advocate, the honest thing to do is to identify when you are doing so, not to make a slurry of mutually exclusive claims.

An echo chamber is when everyone involved agrees with one another. Making honest arguments in favor of something you actually believe is not an "echo chamber." For a debate forum, you need people who disagree . . . not people who disagree with themselves. Never learned that kind of thing in your RPGs? Did you have to fight yourself in order to play an RPG? No. If you can understand that, then you can understand why your argument is complete bull ****.

Oh . . . wait . . . let me guess . . . you didn't actually mean anything you said in this post, right?

 

Laws can come from the desires of the population in relation with cultural behavior/norms.

 

I'm sorry that you're so set in your belief on how or what can somebody can debate about. Can I recommend Facebook instead?

In the mean time I don't need you approbation to debate on any subjects that I feel the need to. Maybe you should put me on ignore, but then I may consider this a surrender on your part. Your choice!

P.S.: See how I refrained to acll you dishonest while you keep accusing me of it. Yeah, that's you getting frustated. Maybe take a break?

 

You can debate about whatever you want, but misrepresenting your position isn't "debate."

I have no doubt you would resort to that kind of nonsense.

I do get frustrated with intellectual dishonesty, that's true.

 

Or from an authoritarian regime. And when a population enforces it's "norms" through law, it is no longer purely cultural.

 

Again, with the accusation. The last weapon of somebody losing an argument.

 

You have yet to actually address anything I've said. And misrepresenting your positions IS intellectually dishonest. That's not an accusation, just an accurate appraisal.

 

You've to add that purely to make your argument work. Glad you agree then, that laws can come from the bottom up. They can also totally disregard morality thus they can make thing that we today think is unnaceptable, were totally fine back then. In some cases, it took losing a war to make them unnaceptable.

 

I adressed everything you said, you just disagree with what I say.
There isn't any rules on PF that says that someone has to have only a single position.
As I said, I don't need your appraisal or approbation.

 

Yes, adding facts is part of how you make arguments work. You should give it a shot.

No one claimed otherwise, nor is it relevant to the discussion. Authoritarianism can come from the bottom up.

Whether or not someone is human is an empirical matter. You are arguing that the Almighty State gets to determine who is human in one breath and then saying that such an Almighty State wouldn't be authoritarian in the next. If the Almighty State gets to circumvent empirical reality, then yeah, that's pretty damn authoritarian.

You can pretend you don't understand that, but at this point it looks like we've established that all of your "debate" in this thread is just you pretending and not an honest argument.

 

Being intellectually honest is not a requirement to join the forum. You are just as within your rights to be self-contradictory and hypocritical as I am in pointing out that this is, in fact, what you are doing. And, no, you haven't actually addressed my claim.

 

It's as much a legal matter, proven by historical records. Are you denying that some peoples were considered less than a human being in the past?
The state is the people that forms it. Without the peole there is no state.

Beside, you can't even prove that you exist at this moment. Or that I exist for that matter. Maybe we're just part of a big simulation being run by our cat overlords.

 

You must be really suffering here at PF then.