Forums - Politics Discussion - Antifa Protestors Throw Garbage at Conservatives Eating Breakfast.

DonFerrari said:
Pemalite said:

Then we are pretty much agree on everything. (Except the Burqa).
The Hypocrisy is real though on both sides of the political spectrum, people need to call them out on it more often rather than make excuses for "their team".

I'm sure there are plenty hypocrisy within right wing movements, I just disagree on the Burqa case because of the reason they are against, but that in the end is very pointless disagreement.

Much more relevant, are right wing or antifa doing many violent protests or at least both are generally peacefull?

If they didn't want to be hypocrites, then they shouldn't wear the masks while protesting against other forms of facial coverings.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypocrite

They are pretty the very definition of it.

Aeolus451 said:

Burgas aren't meant to hide their identity during crimes or to keep from being fired. It's not comparable to antifa masks or masks in general. It covers the whole body most of the the time and it could be seen as oppressive to women considering it's origins and function.  It's meant to cover women's femininity. It could also be seen as hypocritical to support something like burqas and feminism. If the alt-right of Australia oppose antifa wearing masks yet they wear them just as much then that's good enough proof of them being hypocritical.

I don't agree with the Burqa for other fundamental reasons.
But I do not believe it to be repressive as everyone in Australia is free to wear they want, what a religious book says is ultimately irrelevant to that point.
If tomorrow a Muslim lady wakes up and says "I ain't wearing that" then all the power to them, no one can stop her. Literally. No one.

In the same vein, from interviews and documentary's and Muslim women I have conversed with, some actually do choose to wear it... And good for them, they are free to do so.

I am literally arguing for the constitution and freedoms, but I also strongly condemn all religions equally for other reasons. (I.E. No religion has met the burden of proof for their claims of their God/God's existing and other historical cues and thus I will actively criticize them.)

Is the Burqa comparable to Antifa masks? Shit yes, so to say otherwise is disingenuous.
Both cover the face. Both hide the individuals identity. Both can use that anonymity to inflict harm or chaos upon others.

But Antifa aren't protesting against the Burqa, the far right are, meaning Antifa aren't being hypocrites, doesn't mean they are right in their approach though.

Aeolus451 said:

It's not women's right to kill their babies. The right sees the unborn child as a person while the left doesn't. Because the right sees the unborn child as a person, it's life deserves protection even if It's against what the ill-intentioned mother wants. It's ultimately about human rights and when exactly unborn children are protected by those rights. That's the point of contention for both sides. When a pregnant woman is killed, it's counted as two homicides or two accidental deaths. When a pregnant woman uses drugs then the baby dies from it or the unborn baby dies as the result of a diet, there's a bunch of criminal charges held against the woman. Why? Because a unborn baby is considered a person except when a woman wants to abort it.

It's an issue of ownership of the body.
The person born into said body ultimately should have the last say of what happens to said body.

The baby in question is more than welcomed to live with it's own power on it's own, but should not be afforded the ability to live at someone else's expense.

Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Let's say I had two failing kidneys... And you were a compatible donor, should I then be obligated to force you to give up a kidney? Do I not deserve protection? Do I not deserve life? No. You are more than able to say no.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 15 August 2018

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
Pemalite said:
DonFerrari said:

I'm sure there are plenty hypocrisy within right wing movements, I just disagree on the Burqa case because of the reason they are against, but that in the end is very pointless disagreement.

Much more relevant, are right wing or antifa doing many violent protests or at least both are generally peacefull?

If they didn't want to be hypocrites, then they shouldn't wear the masks while protesting against other forms of facial coverings.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypocrite

They are pretty the very definition of it.

Aeolus451 said:

Burgas aren't meant to hide their identity during crimes or to keep from being fired. It's not comparable to antifa masks or masks in general. It covers the whole body most of the the time and it could be seen as oppressive to women considering it's origins and function.  It's meant to cover women's femininity. It could also be seen as hypocritical to support something like burqas and feminism. If the alt-right of Australia oppose antifa wearing masks yet they wear them just as much then that's good enough proof of them being hypocritical.

I don't agree with the Burqa for other fundamental reasons.
But I do not believe it to be repressive as everyone in Australia is free to wear they want, what a religious book says is ultimately irrelevant to that point.
If tomorrow a Muslim lady wakes up and says "I ain't wearing that" then all the power to them, no one can stop her. Literally. No one.

In the same vein, from interviews and documentary's and Muslim women I have conversed with, some actually do choose to wear it... And good for them, they are free to do so.

I am literally arguing for the constitution and freedoms, but I also strongly condemn all religions equally for other reasons. (I.E. No religion has met the burden of proof for their claims of their God/God's existing and other historical cues and thus I will actively criticize them.)

Is the Burqa comparable to Antifa masks? Shit yes, so to say otherwise is disingenuous.
Both cover the face. Both hide the individuals identity. Both can use that anonymity to inflict harm or chaos upon others.

But Antifa aren't protesting against the Burqa, the far right are, meaning Antifa aren't being hypocrites, doesn't mean they are right in their approach though.

Aeolus451 said:

It's not women's right to kill their babies. The right sees the unborn child as a person while the left doesn't. Because the right sees the unborn child as a person, it's life deserves protection even if It's against what the ill-intentioned mother wants. It's ultimately about human rights and when exactly unborn children are protected by those rights. That's the point of contention for both sides. When a pregnant woman is killed, it's counted as two homicides or two accidental deaths. When a pregnant woman uses drugs then the baby dies from it or the unborn baby dies as the result of a diet, there's a bunch of criminal charges held against the woman. Why? Because a unborn baby is considered a person except when a woman wants to abort it.

It's an issue of ownership of the body.
The person born into said body ultimately should have the last say of what happens to said body.

The baby in question is more than welcomed to live with it's own power on it's own, but should not be afforded the ability to live at someone else's expense.

Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Let's say I had two failing kidneys... And you were a compatible donor, should I then be obligated to force you to give up a kidney? Do I not deserve protection? Do I not deserve life? No. You are more than able to say no.

The live on it's own is pretty silly point.

Unless you want to abort kids under 5 years old. None of them can life without being at someone else expense.

The baby without any interference will become a child, and it's its own body.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Pemalite said:



Aeolus451 said:

Burgas aren't meant to hide their identity during crimes or to keep from being fired. It's not comparable to antifa masks or masks in general. It covers the whole body most of the the time and it could be seen as oppressive to women considering it's origins and function.  It's meant to cover women's femininity. It could also be seen as hypocritical to support something like burqas and feminism. If the alt-right of Australia oppose antifa wearing masks yet they wear them just as much then that's good enough proof of them being hypocritical.

(1) I don't agree with the Burqa for other fundamental reasons.
But I do not believe it to be repressive as everyone in Australia is free to wear they want, what a religious book says is ultimately irrelevant to that point.
If tomorrow a Muslim lady wakes up and says "I ain't wearing that" then all the power to them, no one can stop her. Literally. No one.

In the same vein, from interviews and documentary's and Muslim women I have conversed with, some actually do choose to wear it... And good for them, they are free to do so.

I am literally arguing for the constitution and freedoms, but I also strongly condemn all religions equally for other reasons. (I.E. No religion has met the burden of proof for their claims of their God/God's existing and other historical cues and thus I will actively criticize them.)

Is the Burqa comparable to Antifa masks? Shit yes, so to say otherwise is disingenuous.
Both cover the face. Both hide the individuals identity. Both can use that anonymity to inflict harm or chaos upon others.

Aeolus451 said:

It's not women's right to kill their babies. The right sees the unborn child as a person while the left doesn't. Because the right sees the unborn child as a person, it's life deserves protection even if It's against what the ill-intentioned mother wants. It's ultimately about human rights and when exactly unborn children are protected by those rights. That's the point of contention for both sides. When a pregnant woman is killed, it's counted as two homicides or two accidental deaths. When a pregnant woman uses drugs then the baby dies from it or the unborn baby dies as the result of a diet, there's a bunch of criminal charges held against the woman. Why? Because a unborn baby is considered a person except when a woman wants to abort it.

(2) It's an issue of ownership of the body.
The person born into said body ultimately should have the last say of what happens to said body.

The baby in question is more than welcomed to live with it's own power on it's own, but should not be afforded the ability to live at someone else's expense.

Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Let's say I had two failing kidneys... And you were a compatible donor, should I then be obligated to force you to give up a kidney? Do I not deserve protection? Do I not deserve life? No. You are more than able to say no.

1. I agree with you up to that last bit. It doesn't matter what they could be used for. It matters what they're typical used for. The burqa is a head and/or body covering meant to hide the feminine features of women from the general public. They don't use them to commit crimes with. The masks antifa uses are only to hide them from identification while they commit crimes. Would it be hypocritical of me to wear a scary mask during Halloween when I oppose antifa wearing masks? No. The masks are worn for different reasons.

2. I disagree. It's about the personhood of the unborn child and if a child is more important than the mother's convenience. It's why society is always arguing over in how many weeks is a unborn child is considered a person and can't be aborted. Women know what could happen if they have unprotected sex with biological males. They are accepting the risk  when they choose not to use any birth control. They are choosing exactly what they do  with their body up til they are no longer responsible for just their own life.

Children can't live on their own til they are a teenager. They are going to live at someone else's expense til then. We're supposed to be their protectors because they can't protect themselves or fend for themselves. They are innocent and defenseless. As much as we mock people of the past for their actions and call them monsters by today's standards, they would probably call us monsters for how we treat children.



Pemalite said:
Mr Puggsly said:

Well if there are white supremacist groups making a ruckus, the media would love to cover it. I mean if the KKK and Nazis came together to harass democrats at restaurants, I'd like to think we would see some coverage.

I saw plenty of coverage during Trumps campaign where some groups were giving the Nazi salute to trump.
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-38057104/hail-trump-white-nationalists-mark-trump-win-with-nazi-salute

I am not even American and I saw it, which says it all.

Mr Puggsly said:

I despise the left, they've become an extreme party. That's not just my view by the way, the wackiness of the left is arguably moving republicans to the center.

Well. The left isn't a party, so that's a mistake on your behalf.

The left is fine, the right is fine, it's just the far-left and far-right are shifting and becoming more vocal, which in-turn is grating to some people.
End of the day... Regardless of how much anyone whinges and complains about the left or right... Both political divides will continue to exist as long as people do.

More people in the center isn't a bad thing either.


Mr Puggsly said:

Cost effective healthcare generally means long waits

I can assure you with 100% certainty that you are wrong.
How do I know? Because I work in emergency services in a system that is universal and cost effective.

Mr Puggsly said:

 and government deciding what is essential.

It's not as black and white as that.

Mr Puggsly said:

 Also, a lot of countries opt for a mix of socialized and private healthcare because often the social option kinda sucks. Otherwise everybody would just go with the social option.

My own country has a mixed system. And the social option is fantastic.
What happens is once you exceed a certain tax thresh-hold, the social option will no longer be free, thus making private healthcare the more viable option.
The more you know.

Socialized healthcare in my country not only provides a better standard of care, lower wait times... But it does so at a lower price.
If I was to injure myself, I could walk into the hospital and get it looked at straight away.

The mixed system still causes the healthcare budget to account for over 10% of our GDP. And that’s increasing every year. Last year the expenditure on healthcare growth was 3.6%, lower than the 4.7% 4-year average but still high compared to our real GDP growth of 2.7%. It won’t be long before it becomes unsustainable.

As for the quality of the social option, I’ve never used it and cannot comment on its quality. Hopefully I never have to.