The Nehor wrote:You discuss disenfranchising people and it receives universal approval and you think this is a good thing?
Yes I do. Disenfranchising a certain group of people, in a certain context, for a certain reason. There's a whole world out here which doesn't think the same way as you guys do in the US. And the amazing fact is, they just might be right.
I'm glad you're so civilized. I propose we set up internment/reeducation camps for Jehovah's Witnesses, Gays, obese women, and anyone who watches soap operas. Here's hoping for universal approval.
This is an appeal to the argumentative fallacy of the 'slippery slope'. It doesn't actually address the issue. I know you're capable of addressing the issue, and I know that you're capable of doing so intelligently without personal rancor or abuse (I've seen your posts), and I was actually looking forward to a rational discussion of the topic with you. If it's not to be, it's not to be, but the choice is yours.
I think a society that can seriously discuss that level of discrimination without outrage or anger is sick.
Every society practices a range of politically sponsored discrimination. Your own country practices discrimination of political enfranchisement, as you well know. So it's not about discrimination, it's just about where you draw the lines.
By the way, capital punishment in Australia was outlawed more than 20 years ago. Our society views it as savage, barbaric, and primitive. We think a society that can seriously discuss that kind of punishment without outrage or anger is sick. Takes all kinds, doesn't it?
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|