You’ve been so insistent about this prediction that I almost think you’ll be disappointed if it doesn’t happen.

Oh, damn, I hadn’t heard that Brennan and Molly were ending the comic on this page. That’s such a shame.

We will not necessarily see all of the outcomes of coercing Max within this arc. If there are serious negative consequences for her actions with Max, they are likely to be long-term, not immediate, for reasons other commenters have already described.

My expectation is that this will come back to bite Alison in a future arc, in an unexpected way that raises the tension and stakes of that arc. But I’m not going to say “such and such will definitely happen,” because I don’t know. I have to wait and see, just like you.

You may be waiting a very long time, since webcomics are produced slowly and months of real-time can pass before even a day goes by in-universe.

You can do whatever you want. I’m not your mother.

By the same token, I’m allowed to think you’re being completely unreasonable.

That would be me thinking you’re being unreasonable, yes.

Yes. We won’t know the entirety of what happens in the story until the entire story exists.

It wouldn’t be a deus ex machina if it were the result of what happened in this arc.

I don’t think whatever happens will happen on the final page, although I can’t definitively state that it won’t. I think it’s most likely that, in a future arc, a long-term consequence of the Max incident will come back to haunt Alison and complicate whatever she’s dealing with at that time.

That’s always a risk with serial fiction. Either you limit yourself to completely resolving each arc within itself, or you lay a foundation for far-off payoffs and risk your audience losing interest in the foundation before you get to the payoff.

But my personal opinion is that it’s most important to adjust the pacing for archival readers, since most “reading of the comic” that takes place over the long term will be archival. An archival reader won’t be waiting months or years for the payoff. That’s just a sacrifice we make for the privilege of getting to observe and comment on the production of the comic in real time.

Exactly–it could be either of those things, so it’s premature to make statements like “everything will be wonderful forever and the moral is tyranny is great.” We don’t know. All we know is that she wasn’t immediately punished, which is entirely reasonable under the circumstances. How could Max possibly mobilize a meaningful “counterattack” in so little time?

“Possibly the people you slam on”

Having a different opinion is not slamming. I argue with people’s IDEAS being wrong. I don’t insult the person directly. Don’t bring up the Scott thing – that was attacking his mentality of making a moral equivalency (which I’ve since found he elaborated on). If you can’t separate someone arguing with your ideas from attacking you directly, you’re basically the same as Alison. Case in point. I disagree with almost everything Stephanie has said on this entire story arc. However, I think she’s a decent person and if we ever met in real life, I’m pretty sure we’d get along even when disagreeing with each other. Sort of how Scalia and Ginsberg were polar opposites politically and judicially, but were socially friends.

“saying that you’re a minority,”

You do realize I’m referring to minority opinion on this forum, right? I’m not referring to being a racial minority (which I am) or an ethnic minority (which I am) because I don’t consider just being a minority to be something worthy of protecting, except for when you have a minority OPINION. That’s why the country was set up the way it was – to protect against tyranny of the majority or protect the powerless people from the loudest among us or those with the most power.

“that everyone should have understood that you didn’t actually mean what you said,”

How about this. After I’ve explained what I meant by what I said, you take the explained meaning as being what I said instead of harping on what you did not understand me saying in the first place? Or would you rather keep harping and insulting based on the first post because you can’ argue with what I’m actually meaning and need to rely on a strawman argument instead?

“that you never said you’re smarter than nearly everyone else here”

I said I’m intellectually correct. I consider a lot of people intellectuals who might be absolutely wrong. And I also said 30 to one is fair when debating me because I have thirty people dog-piling on me .

“that holding you responsible for having said what you said is cherry-picking”

If you ignore everything I said except one statement taken out of context or without looking at the later elaboration, that’s actually the definition OF Cherry-picking.

You’re adorable.

“Possibly if you want to not be slammed on you”

Oh hon, I don’t care if people slam on me. That’s sort of the point. If I cared I’d never post here half of my opinions. I just have very little respect for slam me en masse as they sit in a bubble of like-minded opinions and are unwilling to hear differing opinions without attacking the person making them

“should try not treating people you disagree with like that automatically makes them inferior to you.”

I consider IDEAS to be superior or inferior, not people. And I don’t attack the person personally. And yes, don’t bring up Scott again. Even with him I was attacking the mentality of his statement, which he apparently elaborated on, and when Roman pointed out that elaboration, I apologized for calling his mentality psychopathic, although anyone who does have the mentality which I was describing WOULD be clinically psychopathic. Attacking the mentality of a particular opinion – not the person. Once he separated himself from that mentality, I can’t attach the perjorative to him anymore.

Because I have the capability of separating a person as an individual from them having crazy ideas or ideas that I find to be stupid, ignorant, or psychopathic in nature if brought to its ultimate conclusion. For example, you’re a utilitarian. I think utilitarianism is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history, and only works well on a small scale. Whenever it’s been used on any sort of large scale, liberty and personal freedom always is destroyed as a result, resulting in a despotic rule because utilitarianism, when applied to government, isn’t actually about ‘doing more good than evil’ – it’s about ‘I think I know better than you about what you should do, so I will make you do what I want by force if necessary.’

However, I have no doubt that you are, personally, a good person. You just have ideas that I find horrific when it comes to utilitarianism. I find the same thing for someone who would put compare premeditated murder of an innocent person with execution of a guilty person, and I would find that sort of moral equivalency to be a psychopathic mentality. Which Scott is apparently not. But even if he was, I wouldn’t necessarily be attacking him – just his ideas. People are not defined by just one idea they have.

I also notice that this whole ‘attacking someone’s character’ is only allowed when directed at someone like me, because I don’t see you or anyone else running to my defense at the MULTIPLE posts which directly attacked my character (not that I need protecting), or even at the many, many posts I’ve dealt with which attack me as a person (as a lawyer, as an educated woman, etc).

And by the way, calling someone a fat cow IS a personal attack. Saying they are overweight and unhealthy is not necessarily, or saying a person is fat might not be, because you could argue that it might be skewing their opinion on the ‘healthy at any size’ movement is not.

Saying their idea on something is stupid, wrong, ignorant, hypocritical, or even psychopathic (if the idea that you think they’re arguing is indeed something that would require a psychopathic mentality in order to justify) is not. Especially when it’s based on how the person has read the statement given to them without correction by that person.

I’ll give a general example. While recording a deposition dealing with an asbestos lawsuit, one of the plaintiffs was making the complaint that their lawsuit was based on them having shortness of breath, which is a symptom of asbestosis and mesthophilioma. The guy was also 360 lbs and smoked a couple of packs of cigarettes a week. The other attorney asked irritatedly, on record, if the guy was having shortness of breath because he was incredibly fat. Probably shouldn’t have said the word ‘incredibly’ but it was accurate. He wasn’t doing it to insult the person directly – he was bringing into dispute on the deposition the idea that the shortness of breath was from asbestosis, rather than from being morbidly obese. And the attorney was definitely annoyed with this plaintiff and probably used the ‘incredibly’ in a pejorative way. But if the lawsuit was about a workman’s compensation case that had nothing to do with his weight, the words ‘incredibly fat’ would never have come up. And if they did, THEN it would be a personal attack.

“I think you often don’t approach people that way.”

I approach people with a measured response in how they approach me (except that I don’t go for the personal attacks). You’re respectful to me, so I’m respectful to you. I am aware, though, that I don’t get the same ‘defenders’ as other people do because of having differing viewpoints, which I find rather hypocritical of certain people. Or it might just be that people don’t feel like becoming the targets of post attacks as well, which I can understand. I just tend not to care when people attack me with words. I worry more about sticks and stones than names.

“I think that you would have considered it a personal attack if someone called you a psychopath based on the ideas you’ve expressed.”

Actually I would have just argued about why what I said was not something that’s remotely psychopathic and why. They could call my opinion heartless if they’d like instead, but I could also argue against that as well.

“Yet you always have a rationalization for why it doesn’t count when you do it.”

Yes, I am good at rationalizing my responses, because my responses tend to be based in rational thinking.

“”Fat cow” is to “overweight” as “psychopath” is to “holds ideas I find reprehensible.”

Actually it isn’t. Psychopathic is a clinical term. It means a mental state o abnormal or violent social behavior (while sociopathic means just lacking a sense of moral responsibility for ones actions – ie, having no conscience). It’s not the same as saying the person holds ideas which I find reprehensible. I find Bernie Sanders to have reprehensible ideas because I consider socialism to be rather reprehensible whenever it’s put into practice by the government on a large scale, and it almost always leads to bankruptcy, tyranny, or both. I don’t consider the man to be evil though – he’s probably one of the nicer people who were running – just a nice person who has idiotic ideas.

Fat Cow, however, is insulting. Saying someone is fat isn’t necessarily (at least not always, depending on the context). I can’t think of any context in which fat cow would not be insulting, though.

“People often use clinical terms as insults.”
I use clinical terms as clinical terms.

“You are certainly not qualified to diagnose someone with psychopathy over the internet”
I didn’t. I described the mentality that I thought he was espousing as being that of a psychopath. I don’t know Scott from anyone else. Don’t know anything about him other than his post.

“so it would be unreasonable to claim that you were just using the clinical definition and didn’t intend it to be insulting. ”

Except for the fact that in our long thread I did explain it in clinical terms multiple times.

“An argument about a webcomic is not among the contexts where “psychopath” is not an insulting term.”

Sure it can be. Depends on what we’re talking about.

“Explaining it in clinical terms is meaningless when you’re not qualified to apply the clinical definition to anyone.”

I’m more than qualified to know how to use a definition. You do not need to be a psychologist to use the word. You just need to use ‘google.’

To paraphrase Ben Shapiro, “I don’t need 7-Year Degree in Sociology to know BS when I hear it” – or in my case, I don’t need a 7-Year degree in Psychology to understand how the definition of psychopath applies to a mentality.

So no Stephanie. You’re wrong. Unless you think that everyone who is not an attorney can not use the words of legal terms? Which should make most of my debates with other people on internet forums a LOT easier, since I can then tell them they’re not allowed to argue with me until they’ve gotten a JD, an LLM, and passed at least one state bar (and maybe get federal sponsorship like I have so that we can be on an even playing field).

“To use a comparison here, “autistic” is a clinical term, but that doesn’t mean you can go around calling people you disagree with autistic and then claiming “it wasn’t an insult, I meant it in the clinical sense.””

Depends on if the person was talking in a way which can be defined as autistic, actually. Why you have taken it upon yourself to be the language police is confusing to me, actually, telling me what I can and cannot say based entirely on how much schooling and licensing I’ve had in a particular subject. Actually if someone did say that the person was acting mildly autistic, they might be referring to a person’s inability to socially interact and communicate with others, combined with repetitive behaviors.

Wow, I knew the definition of autism and I’m not even a therapist. I just have google. I’m betting you might know the legal definitions like mens rea or res ipsa loquitur and not have been to law school. You could just google it then apply it to your argument.

“No. You are not qualified to diagnose someone with a clinical mental illness. ”

And it’s a good thing that I did not then! I stated that the mentality he was displaying (which turned out to NOT be the mentality he was displaying after he clarified) is psychopathic. That requires being able to understand a definition. It does not involve diagnosing a person like a patient. Which is good, since even psychotherapists would not diagnost a person based on one sentence on the internet, but they could still say that a particular mentality is, by definition, psychopathic.

“if you go around calling people “psychopaths,” just about every single person who sees that is going to perceive it as an insult.”

Again, it depends on if the mentality they’re displaying is psychopathic. Not that they are themselves psychopaths.

“It is essentially universally understood that those accusations are insults.”

Good thing that I’ve clarified about a dozen times that I’m using the word from a clinical definition, and I don’t need a degree in order to understand a definition of a word. I just need to be literate.

“And if a particular phrase you’re using is perceived by everyone who hears it as an insulting personal attack, then you should maybe acknowledge that it’s offensive and stop fucking doing it, instead of doubling down.”

I can’t help if other people are going to cherry pick what they read, especially after I’ve explained what I mean by the word in context. Heck, feel free to take the word out of context more if you’d like and ignore the rest of the thread.

Cut and paste what I’ve said from anywhere else in this thread, since at this point I’m just repeating myself to you.

Honestly Stephanie, after you upvoted Zorae’s post, I’m not sure I care much about what you think about what is and is not a personal insult.

Stephanie, just check this page for a search for ‘douche canoe.’ I’m pretty certain it only comes up a couple of times, on the posts that you’ve upvoted.

And it’s not your reasons for upvoting that I’m taking note of. Its your hypocrisy of upvoting specific posts which are literally namecalling me, personally, while simultaneously telling me not to make personal attacks as if attacking ideas and mentalities with a clinical definition are the same as attacking a person. Yes, because douche canoe is a … clinical term I’m assuming?

Pretty much everything you’re saying right now on this topic is just too hypocritical to take seriously at this point until you reconcile this dual stance of upvoting people who make personal attacks while lecturing me on the same thing, sorry.

Ah yes, because the outlook Alison has taken from this is: “I should use my power to coerce innocents more often, this is great!”

And not: *Puking out of guilt* “I did a terrible thing because it’s the only way I knew how to do it. I need to learn how to communicate better or this is going to happen again and I really don’t want that to happen.”

But hey, it’s easy to overlook/undervalue certain events in the comic and only fixate on the ones that perpetuate your beliefs.

And today’s youth? In danger of embracing tyranny? Really? Considering a majority of the people under the age of 30 voted for Hilary, I’m fairly certain today’s youth already has the correct idea about tyranny. Can’t say the same for the elderly though.

I was talking about it from the way Alison seems to have reacted.

I’m personally all for examining it a bit more dispassionately and recognizing that by resorting to tyranny she’s lost access to a valuable asset. It really was a pretty ineffective course of action in this instance.

In other words you view Max as resource.

Sorry about that.

Except it’s not murdering someone for $5, it’s punching someone in the face for $5. And then taking only $5 like you said you would. And not for you to eat, but for an entire orphanage to (somehow) be fed for life off that measly $5.

And the dude said, “I once killed a dude for $1, it turned out he didn’t have any money at all, and I still regret my actions”. Not, “Don’t feel guilty”.

She’d do it again because it’d mean saving all those orphans again, it’s not like she’s willing to condemn those orphans to starvation for the needs of one, greedy asshole. But, she’s also said that she wants violence to be a ‘last possible resort’ sort of thing rather than her goto method. Because she’d much rather talk the dude into giving her $5 than beating it out of him.

“millennials? WAAAAY more in favor of tyranny than classical liberals. Against free speech, fine with violence as a response to words you don’t like… ”

Yeah, I have no idea where that’s coming from. Most millennials seem to be for simply not being douchebags to other people. Never seen them against free speech. Unless you mean the ones that are for punching Nazi’s, which seems like a wonderful mindset for our youth to have.

“I voted third party but I’ve been over this in the past forums.”

Ah, so you voted for Trump. Cool of you to admit to supporting tyranny in real life after all this posturing on the internet.

“Who are ‘the elderly?’ What’s the cutoff age?”

Considering the majority of people above 30 voted Trump, guess I’m saying the majority of people above 30? Obviously not all of them are douche canoes, but for some reason a majority of them are (or at least morons). Although that’s rather horrifying since I’m not too far off that age, no idea how the majority of people born just a few years before me could be so awful.

“I’m not actually okay with anyone being physically assaulted in lieu of legal action. Even if it’s directed at deserving people at first, that way lies mob rule, and the most vulnerable people (which doesn’t correlate with people who have awful views; we are not living in a Saturday morning cartoon and the shoulder angel cannot count on winning a physical altercation with the shoulder devil) getting murdered.”

Clearly, based on Zorae’s dictates (and he is far wiser than the rest of us plebes), you are therefore a nazi who needs to be punched, and forced to agree with him. Since he knows better than you do.

“That said, the people Izo seems to be aligning herself with–older people, people who voted for Trump or for Gary Johnson, self-described champions of free speech, may call themselves classical liberals or libertarians but not classical libertarians”

Modern day libertarians ARE essentially the same as classical liberals. We believe what liberals USED to believe in. To quote Dave Rubin, who is a liberal, gay jewish man, “I did not leave the left. The left left me.” Watch the Rubin Report. It’s great, really.

But nah, according to Zorae, he’s a nazi who voted for Trump. A gay, jewish nazi Trump supporter. Except he didn’t. He voted for Gary Johnson as well, and his reasoning was ‘if I voted for Hillary, it’s telling the Democrats that I support having candidates like Hillary instead of BETTER Democratic candidates.’ Which is rather good reasoning.

“reacted with as much or more outrage to Milo Yiannopoulos getting banned from Twitter as to Richard Spencer being punched”

Mainly because we don’t like when free speech is silenced, not because we agree with those speakers. I’m probably a lot closer to Ben Shapiro’s way of thinking when it comes to free speech than Milo, since Milo is more of a provacateur than a lecturer, sort of like Howard Stern. Except he’s a gay british jewish/catholic conservative Trump supporter who only dates muslim and black men exclusively. Nazis are weird, amirite?

“and generally cheer when people they call “SJWs” are driven out of public forums,”

Pretty sure they cheer about people who are disruptive and trying to shu down the speeches getting thrown out, not because they’re ‘SJW’s.’ Heck, Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos tend to ASK for people on the left to speak first – Shapiro because he likes having an intellectual debate with someone with differing opinions, and Milo because, and I quote ‘it’s more fun when they disagree with me.’

I’ve seen videos of people with very leftist viewpoints who ask questions or criticize speakers like Steven Crowder, Milo, Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and quite a few others where they ask critical questions or criticize without being disruptive, and they are not asked to leave. It’s the ‘being disruptive’ aspect, not the viewpoint aspect that’s the problem. People like who I mentioned above actually tend to love when they have debates with people who do NOT think like they do, as long as those people are not trying to actively shut down the speech period. That’s the opposite of an echo chamber. That’s a marketplace of ideas.

“Since Nazi’s are people for the literal killing of others based on their religion/race/sexual preference, no Beroli is not a Nazi.”

Gotcha. So you just think it’s okay to use violence on other people if they have different political or philosophical opinions from you, but not because of their religion, race, or sexual preference. Good to know. That totally makes you not fascist at all. Not even a little bit.

“I understand disagreeing with physical violence.”

I’m glad that at least one of my opinions are on the Zorae-Approved list, so that I will not be subjected to violence for that one by you.

Very, very good to know.

“It’s honestly not a bad position to have. It’s just one that I think is a bit idealistic.”

So….. how many people have you personally physically attacked for not doing what you say to do? Probably none, since I’m sure you only associate with good, decent people who have your exact same opinions on everything.

“Again, I’m calling literal Nazi’s Nazi’s. Please stop attempting to say what my views are.”

Well, you did say I was a Trump supporter so you’re being a bit hypocritical there. Also, you didn’t call Nazis Nazis. You said that Millennials today have no problem with free speech, UNLESS it comes from nazis (at which point the punchings begin). You then proceeded to ignore all of my post from the pew research, USA Today, the LA times and a few other reports on how 40-50 percent of millennials seem to want limits on free speech for what they consider ‘offensive’ speech, which is troublesome since ‘offensive’ is very subjective. Which is why I said that a lot of millennials have a problem with the very notion of free speech. I also used a bunch of quotes of famous, intellectual giants from history who are far smarter than either of us. In short, offensive speech needs to be protected, because you never know what will be considered offensive, and it’s not up to you to judge what another person can and cannot say if it’s not leading to direct intentional harm or violence against another person (ie, the ‘fire in a crowded theater’ exception and ‘direction to assassinate’ speech). For example, your entire post before had been offensive to me, yet I strangely am fine with you posting it without being subjected to violence to make you change it.

“You and he may not have been supporters, but you definitely didn’t try to stop him.”

Voting for one tyrant in order to stop another tyrant is not a victory. It just means the Democrats will keep putting people like Hillary up for the vote instead of good candidates. I’ll vote for who my conscience dictates to vote for, thank you very much. You know, too bad you and everyone else didn’t vote for someone like Gary Johnson instead. He might be a bit of a pothead and not the brightest bulb, but he’s not corrupt.

“Instead you threw your vote away because you wanted to ‘send a message’.”

No, I voted for someone who has my political beliefs, rather than be a mindless peon. Voting for one person because you hate the other person is a mind-bogglingly stupid reason to vote for anyone.

“One that said your principles mattered more than the safety and well being of others.”

Yeah! Screw principles! They’re for suckers! It’s a good thing we have people like you, who I’m guessing you are implying don’t have principles, to tell the rest of us what to do. /s

I guess this is why you should use violence on me. To force me to vote for the person you want…. or the person you don’t not-want. That’s the democratic way. God bless America.

Also who’s safety are we talking about? Because the stuff you’ve been saying doesn’t make me feel particularly safe.

“I don’t know enough about all of these people you’re talking about to make a comment on them.”

Then you should learn something about them.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a second wave feminist from the 60s, a professor at Brandeis University, and a classical liberal who stood up for actual feminism and women’s rights. Today she gets shouted down for NOT being a third wave feminist and actually promoting discussion with people of other viewpoints through rational debate. She also runs a vlog called The Factual Feminist.

Sam Harris is a noted liberal atheist and neuroscientist. He’s often seen in atheist circles as one of the ‘Four Horsemen of New Atheism’ along with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, and the late Christopher Hitchens. He’s drawn sharp criticism for his stance against Islam as a religion, although in the past he never seemed to get he same criticism about his stance against Christianity. Most of his books are about morality, neuroscience, terrorism, self-defense, and most importantly, free will. He’s given two speeches at TED and promotes secularism and science in his podcasts, and runs a foundation called Project Reason, which encourages critical thinking and wise public policy via the promotion of scientific knowledge.

Ben Shapiro is the former editor at large of Breitbart (he quit over the Corey Lewandowski incident and Breitbart’s refusal to stand behind reporter Michelle Fields), a best-selling author, pro-pacifist, a Harvard-graduate lawyer, a syndicated columnist, and probably the best debater currently around. He’s an orthodox jew, one of the biggest promoters of the ‘Never Trump’ movement, and largely libertarian in most of his political beliefs. He’s also massively hated by the more radical elements of the left, and frequently the subject of attempts to have him banned from college campuses when they have him speak. He’s married to a jewish-Moroccan woman who’s a doctor, and was once physically accosted and threatened with a beating (specifically that she would “send him home in an ambulance” while grabbing his neck) on live TV by transgender activist .Zoey Tur, who later also twittered that she wanted to curb-stomp him. The Alt-Right also HAAAAAAAAAAATES him. The man is an absolutely brilliant debater.

Milo Yiannopoulous. Well he’s a very right wing Trump supporting provocateur who I’m pretty sure says half the things he says just to get a rise out of people. He’s a pretty bad debater but mainly because he says most stuff for shock value (sort of like Howard Stern, except he’s gay and very political). I’m not a huge fan of him but I support his right to speak without being shut down. He was huge on Twitter, is a major Trump supporter, and claims to be a cutural libertarian. Although again, I pretty much think that’s just because Libertarians don’t try to shut down his right to speak like many more fascists elements do, even if they disagree with stuff that he says. He’s a flambouyantly gay, sometimes drag-queen, jewish-but-practicing-catholic British immigrant who exclusively dates black men and muslim men and refers to Trump as ‘Daddy.’ He got banned on Twitter recently because of stuff that some of his followers said about Leslie Jones and for his criticism and some of his retweets in regards to the movie remake of Ghostbusters (apparently a lifetime ban). Several of his university speeches have resulted in people using violence, death threats, and mass rioting to prevent him from speaking.

“So I’m going to do so. Also, not that it really matters, but I am a woman.”

You’re right. It doesn’t matter that you’re a woman. So am I by the way, and that doesn’t matter either.

“Usually, it’s customary to use ‘they’ when talking about people on the internet whose gender you don’t know.”

Something you said in the past made me think you were a guy. I’ll refer to you as ‘she’ now that I know. Honestly I don’t care much though. I’ve had people calling me ‘he’ for years now online (despite many times saying I’m a woman) and I don’t really care. Just makes me more impressed when they say ‘she.’ Couldnt care less what people call me on the internet though

“Nope, just people that call for the extermination of others.”

Gotcha. You’re against abortions. Good to know.

“You’re right! Gold star for you!”

Psst, hon. Read the rest of the paragraph. You missed pretty much all the pertinent stuff. I’m pretty sure you’ll take away my gold star.

“Probably because I don’t attack people for not doing what I say. Although I’d do it if the thing I said to do was something like “don’t hurt me” or “don’t hurt that person”, which are quite reasonable reasons to attack people for not listening to you.”

You would not attack someone for not doing what you say, although you would attack someone is the thing was them telling you to not hurt them.

I have no idea what you’re saying now. Would you like to re-write this paragraph?

“Honestly, that’s a really vague statement.”

You’d definitely know about vague statements after your last statement.

“It’s a case by case basis as it should be (imo).”

Annnd you’re going to write a single law which encompasses all case-by-case statements somehow of when it’s acceptable or not acceptable to use violence to force another person to do something? Or are you just talking pure chaos of everyone deciding on their own when it’s acceptable to use violence? Hey, I like your car. I think this is an acceptable excuse to use violence because I don’t have a car and I might eventually use the car to help someone else.

Must be a wonderful car-jacker defense.

“No, I said you’re vote contributed to him winning the election.”

Actually, I did not contribute to him winning the election and you don’t seem to understand how U.S. elections work. My state went for Hillary anyway.

“Not the same thing. I read this reply before the other one, chill out. I’m fine with you posting this as well.”

No idea what you’re referring to now.

“Nope, but it definitely would make a lot of people living in this country a lot safer than they are today.”

In what way? We’d probably be at war with Russia at this point. That does not sound particularly safe to me, given they have nuclear weapons.

“Although I’m not certain why you consider Hilary a tyrant.”

Waaaay too much info that I’d need to give and waaaay on a tangent.

Not to mention doesn’t really matter since you only voted for her because you hate the other candidate, not because you like her.

“Sure she’s hella corrupt, but she’s not a tyrant.”

Oh she can definitely be both. She’s a real multitasker, that lady is.

“Although, I honestly don’t want to hear anything more on that subject. But feel free to exercise your freedom of speech to do so if you wish.”

Without you considering me a bigot for not voting for Hillary? Good. I guess you’ll just keep calling my actions the actions of a douche canoe instead. Since douche canoes do have actions. And are a real thing. There are many canoes that are made of douches. As is the way in all civilized debates.

“Nope, saying that you placed more importance on them than the safety and well being of others. But hey, thousands of people may die/suffer now because you were too good to prevent a tyrant from being elected. Glad you’ve got those principles valued so high :D.”

Woah, who died? Who suffered? I’d like names and statistics. I’m sure you have facts and statistics on this right? It’s definitely not just hysterical fear-mongering, because you’re against that sort of stuff. You told me so. You told me that only douche canoes create fear mongering.

“For all the harping you do on utilitarianism for enabling tyranny, you’re a shinning example of how deontology can do the same.”

How so?

Also how am I a shining example of deontology? I havent said anything about obligation or duty. Just that I vote for people who hold my values and I do NOT vote for people just to tow the party line.

If anything, YOU’RE being a deontologist. Deontology is the study of the nature of duty and obligation, and you’ve gone out of your way to say that people should vote for Hillary JUST so Trump wouldn’t win, as if it’s a person’s duty to vote for someone in order to prevent someone else from winning (as if it’s an either-or decision, or as if people who hate Hillary would suddenly vote for him because they hate Trump more WITHOUT being a massive deontologist. For that matter, Gurwara is a deontologist as well as that’s the reason he gave for shooting the doctor. Obligation to his promise over ‘right and wrong.’

Again, I’m a libertarian. I’m of the opinion that people are intelligent enough and capable enough to make their own decisions for actions which affect themselves. You don’t seem to understand this concept. You don’t seem to understand a great many concepts, honestly, and I don’t mean that as an insult. It’s just an observation I’ve noticed with you on politics, economics, philosophy, and the law.

“Never said we should use violence on people to make them vote correctly. My gosh you take things to extremes.”

… you’ve said, multiple times in this thread, that you find it acceptable to use violence to make people do what you want, or not say certain words, on a case by case basis.

You don’t seem either willing or capable of giving any firm descriptions though. You just seem to ‘wing it’ with what you find acceptable and not acceptable with extremely vague terms. Society can’t work with how you’re describing how things should be. You’re using far too many subjective terms as universal, static rules.

“Thanks for the big info dump on all those people. I’ll take it with a grain of salt since I don’t particularly trust the source it’s coming from.”

You could always use Google. Or watch them on Youtube.

I’m heartbroken that you don’t trust me though. I hope you’ll do some research, but I have my doubts that you will based on what I’ve seen of you in this thread. You don’t seem (and I might be wrong since I only know you from this thread) to rely that much on research, but rather on your ‘gut instincts’ in fairly vague terms, even when what you’re saying is very contradictory.

“I think it was the way you were taking liberty with what you assumed my views were that made me irritated that you did the same with my gender.”

I don’t know. There’s something that made me think of you as a type of ‘male feminist’ who didn’t really believe what they’re preaching, but just saying it because it’s standard rhetoric. Sort of a moot point really.

“Plus I’d been reading through some extreme feminist rhetoric”

It’s sort of distressing that you don’t know who Christina Hoff Sommers is, I have to say.

“the thought of being mistaken for a man was distressing 😛 (guess I couldn’t help having some of that feeling rub off on me lol).”

Not sure why it matters really. It’s not like you were going to beat my arguments by virtue of having a vagina or penis. Words don’t really care about sex organs.

“Gotcha. You’re against abortions. Good to know.”

*finger guns* Eyyyy. Because Nazi beliefs to exterminate an entire people is the equivalent of women removing a cluster of cells from her body.

“I have no idea what you’re saying now.”

*I don’t attack people for not doing what I say.
*Although I would attack a person for not doing what I said if the thing I (note I’m saying it) said was:
a. “Don’t hurt me”
b. “Don’t hurt that person”
*As in I would attack someone who was hurting me after I told them not to

“Annnd you’re going to write a single law which encompasses all case-by-case statement”

Who said anything about writing a law? I simply said what my beliefs were. Not saying that our system should change to support them. My God, could you imagine if the system was completely rewritten to suit any random person’s beliefs?

“Must be a wonderful car-jacker defense.”

Nope, that’s a bad one. Here: “I stole your car because my friend got shot, we were in the middle of nowhere with no way to contact anyone, and I needed a way to get them to the hospital. As soon as I got them there I was planning on returning the car back where I found it with a note with my information if you wanted me to pay for the cleaning or anything”.

I’d say that’s a pretty reasonable defense. But that’s up to whatever jury/judge on the case to decide. I’d disagree with their ruling if they put the person away, although I wouldn’t expect them to change it just because it didn’t match up to what I personally wanted to happen.

“My state went for Hillary anyway.”

Oh gosh, my apologies. I didn’t know. Then yes, you personally did not contribute. Although people like you that lived in states that did vote third party did.

“No idea what you’re referring to now.”

Contributing to Trump winning =/= being a Trump supporter. Unlike you, I don’t make claims about others/their beliefs without them first saying so. Well except for you directly contributing to him winning, I suppose I made an assumption about the state you lived in. And once you pointed that out I apologized for making said assumption.

“In what way? We’d probably be at war with Russia at this point.”

Oh please, don’t start making predictions about what would’ve happened. How about we stick to the things that have happened? Like the travel ban or the bathroom policy for trans highschool students. I’d include the millions of people losing their healthcare, but thankfully that got struck down. Although that was a real and valid fear many people had before the election.

“Without you considering me a bigot for not voting for Hillary? Good.”

Oh no, that won’t change. You could still talk about her if you wanted, as that is your right. Thank you for refraining though, that whole election was tiresome and I’m still in shock that it actually happened the way it did.

“Woah, who died? Who suffered? I’d like names and statistics.”

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/for-many-refugees-trumps-travel-ban-is-a-death-sen/

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/13/hate-crimes-since-the-election-heres-whos-been-targeted-since/21712876/

But hey, we’re only *checks watch* two months into his presidency. I’m certain no one else is going to suffer directly as a result of his election.

“If anything, YOU’RE being a deontologist.”

Nope, that was a Utilitarian action. I chose the lesser of two evils. A Utilitarian believe the ends justify the means (which I believe is sometimes true). By refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, people who voted third party, made joke votes, or didn’t vote at all (for that specific reason) showed that their principles/duty to not voting for someone they considered evil mattered more than the result. Which is definitely a Deontological action.

You might not be one, but you took an action because you didn’t think the ends justified the means. And now we have a tyrant because so many people thought the same 🙂

“Again, I’m a libertarian. I’m of the opinion that people are intelligent enough and capable enough to make their own decisions for actions which affect themselves. You don’t seem to understand this concept.”

There you go again, making claims about other people. I never said you weren’t a libertarian.

“Society can’t work with how you’re describing how things should be. ”

You’re right! Good thing I’m not describing how I think society should work and am instead describing my beliefs as they pertain to a single event in a fictional comic. Of which the protagonist is virtually unaffected by the laws in said fictional comic. Or singular events in hypothetical situations.

Haha, that’s three times I’ve gotten marked as spam. I realize it doesn’t mean much in the grand scheme of things, but I don’t want to leave this as it is. So let’s try yet again.

Because Nazi beliefs to exterminate an entire people is the equivalent of women removing a cluster of cells from her body.

I would attack someone who was hurting me or someone else after I told them not to. Hence why your statement, “Attack people who don’t do what you say” is vague as there are cases where it is justified.

I’ve simply said what my beliefs were. Not saying that our system should change to support them. My God, could you imagine if the system was completely rewritten to suit any random person’s beliefs?

“My state went for Hillary anyway.”
My apologies, I didn’t know. Then yes, you personally did not contribute to his election. Although people like you that lived in states that did go for him did.
Contributing to Trump winning =/= being a Trump supporter. Unlike you, I don’t make claims about others/their beliefs without them first saying so. Well except for you directly contributing to him winning, I suppose I made an assumption about the state you lived in. And I apologize again for making said assumption.

“In what way? We’d probably be at war with Russia at this point.”

How about we stick to the things that have happened? Like the travel ban, the beginning of the Lakota Pipeline again, or the bathroom policy for trans highschool students. I’d include the millions of people losing their healthcare, but thankfully that got struck down. Although that was a valid fear many people had before the election.

As for actual people suffering, well there’s all those refugees who were in dire need of medical care and were denied access to that of the US, thus endangering their lives. There’s the increase in hate crimes since the election because the message that a bigot can be president has emboldened people to act on their similar beliefs. And the aformentioned Lakota Tribe. But hey, we’re only *checks watch* two months into his presidency. I’m certain no one else is going to suffer directly as a result of his election.

My vote for Hilary was a Utilitarian action. I chose the lesser of two evils. A Utilitarian believe the ends justify the means (which I believe is sometimes true). By refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils, people who voted third party, made joke votes, or didn’t vote at all (for that specific reason) showed that their principles/duty to not voting for someone they considered evil mattered more than the result. Which is definitely a Deontological action.

I never said you weren’t a libertarian.

“Society can’t work with how you’re describing how things should be. ”
You’re right! Good thing I’m not describing how I think society should work and am instead describing my beliefs as they pertain to a single event in a fictional comic. Of which the protagonist is virtually unaffected by the laws in said fictional comic. Or singular events in hypothetical situations.

Edit: Maybe it’s because I don’t view the world in black and white and believe that universal rules can’t exist without sometimes punishing innocent/well meaning people. I recognize that society doesn’t work that way, nor is there a consistent way to make it completely fair. But that doesn’t mean I can’t personally disagree with some of the ways it works without desiring to to tear it all down simply because it’s not perfect.

I don’t know who’s flagging your comment (I have a guess, but it’s unprovable and so that guess may be unfair), but now that it has a reply, it won’t disappear if someone else does it.

Hrm, I can’t respond to Zorae’s post, and there’s soooo much I want to respond about, if only for the massive inaccuracies that she’s written.

So I’ll respond here.

“Because Nazi beliefs to exterminate an entire people is the equivalent of women removing a cluster of cells from her body.”

While it’s arguable whether a zygote or a fetus or any other step in the birth process is a full human being (and lets face it, you don’t have the be-all-and-end-all on that), at some point in the birth cycle, it is definitely human, and at ALL points in the birth cycle, it’s a living organism, even if you won’t classify it as human yet. And at some point, it is extermination of other life.

Not to mention the huuuuuge hypocrisy that you show when you’re for bodily autonomy in the case of abortion rights for women, but against it when it’s about forcing someone to do something that you want them to do if it’s NOT about abortion rights for women. Hell, based on your hypocritical views, you could argue that, even if the fetus/zygote/etc was NOT a human life (which I tend to think that it is, just from a scientific standpoint, which makes the rest of what I’m going to say moot if it was being directed at someone else who DID think more than one ‘human body’ was involved), then someone should be justified in forcing the woman to give birth, since you don’t think that bodily autonomy is important anyway.

“I would attack someone who was hurting me or someone else after I told them not to.”

Then you should, by that logic, be on Max’s side. He was hurt by Alison. He told her to stop. She didn’t stop until he complied with her demands.

“Hence why your statement, “Attack people who don’t do what you say” is vague as there are cases where it is justified.”

Nothing vague about it. We have the exact scenario here in the comic, and you can apply that to real world scenarios as well. For example, lets say I HAD been a Trump supporter and voter (I wasn’t, but lets play pretend for a moment)…. would you think you’re justified in using force to MAKE me vote for Hillary? What if I’m in a swing state? Would you feel justified in calling for force to make me? A whole lot of ‘antifa’ would (and the whole antifa thing is bs to begin with, since they’re hardly ‘anti-fascist’ when they’re using fascist actions to try to force their beliefs on others anyway).

“I’ve simply said what my beliefs were”

You’ve been arguing with me non-stop based on your beliefs.

“My God, could you imagine if the system was completely rewritten to suit any random person’s beliefs?”

It would be chaos. Which is what your arguments of ‘it’s justifiable to force people to do what you want’ would lead to if it was ever put into practice. Not just majority rule, but tyranny OF the majority, which is exactly what the Founding Fathers were concerned about when they made the nation a Republic instead of a Democracy. To prevent tyranny of the majority, or tyranny of the more vocal among us silencing those more silent.

That’s why what Alison did is so abbhorent to me. Because she puts her own personal views, at any particular moment in time, as more important than other people’s to the point where she doesn’t just argue about it (which would be acceptable) but she uses physical force to force others, who have done NO harm to anyone else, to comply (which is not acceptable).

“My apologies, I didn’t know.”

It shouldn’t matter. If shouldn’t matter where I live. You have no moral superiority over me to tell me what my vote should or should not be.

“Then yes, you personally did not contribute to his election. Although people like you that lived in states that did go for him did.
Contributing to Trump winning =/= being a Trump supporter.”

The hilarious thing is you really do think that, rather than think that Hillary ran a crappy campaign or that you all should have just voted third party instead of the ONE crappy candidate you were given for Democrats.

“Unlike you, I don’t make claims about others/their beliefs without them first saying so.”

…. the hypocrisy of this sentence is so mind-blowing.

“How about we stick to the things that have happened?”
I have been. Even Hillary’s advisors, the generals, and the Russians have said that her actions would have likely led to war. With a nuclear-armed Russia. Talk about ‘utilitarian’ choices there?

“Like the travel ban,”
Wasn’t a ban. 90 day travel freeze from 7 countries which had been decided on by Obama, which you clearly don’t seem to realize. And the reason for those countries being chosen by Obama was not because they’re muslim, but because the countries do not have any sort of vetting process to figure out who they are when they come into this country, which is based on a law that was passed in 1954, by Democrats, supported by Democrats, written by Democrats, and used ONCE before, by Democratic President Jimmy Carter.

“the beginning of the Lakota Pipeline again,”
Not really sure why the pipeline is a bad thing. Especially considering there’s more environmental problems involved in transferring the oil via trucks on the roads, not to mention more cost, more risk, and less jobs. Plus the oil would still be going out – just to Russia via additional pipelines being built, rather than the Keystone pipeline. Plus it’s one of thousands of pipelines which get constructed, the rest of which people like you seem largely quiet or ignorant of. Only way to prevent the need for it is to send the world back a couple of hundred years to a pre-industrial society. Then you’ll only have mass starving, a minimalization of technology, etc.

“or the bathroom policy for trans highschool students”
Actually Trump is fine and supportive of transgender people using any bathroom they want. Trump Towers allows it and Caitlin Jenner is a huge Trump supporter because of it. If anything, Trump is probably one of the most trans-supportive Republicans that’s ever been elected. Just sayin’.

What he does support, though, is states rights. He’s sort of consistent on that at least. Which is probably why many libertarians are not freaking out about Trump, even if they’re usually not massive Trump supporters. You know, the same states rights that people on your side of the aisle only support when arguing about sanctuary cities, but strangely don’t any other time?

“I’d include the millions of people losing their healthcare,”

Seriously, nothing you’re saying is even remotely accurate. Millions aren’t losing their health care when the ACA goes down. The ACA is a horrible law, by the way, that should have been struck as unconstitutional (if not for that idiot Roberts deciding he was a legislator and NOT a judge and changing the law when even Obama said it was NOT a tax) and only encourages doctors to NOT accept medicare in the first place and the ACA. I have family who are doctors, so I do know how to payment ‘plan’ goes. The ACA also relies on young people paying for older people by forcing young people to have plans that they simply do not need, and pretty much screws family plans totally. Trumpcare also sucks btw and THAT’S what is getting struck down – the ACA is still being repealed, with it’s $12,000 deductibles and ‘It’s a tax, it’s not a tax’ forcing of people to get something they don’t want. You know what would work better? Gasp. Capitalism. Removing the limitations on where insurance companies can sell their policies, which would force different plans to have to compete with each other, rather than forcing people to buy one particular plan rather than another in another state. Why do you think Lasik eye surgery has gone down from $20,000 per eye to $4,000 for both? Because there’s competition involved. When insurance companies don’t have to compete with each other, they can form blocs that screw the consumer. When they have to compete with each other, or have to deal with new insurance companies that will compete by offering better prices, then you would start seeing more affordable insurance.

“Although that was a valid fear many people had before the election.”

You and I have a really different definition of ‘valid’ – talk about fear mongering. Wow.

“As for actual people suffering, well there’s all those refugees”

Refugees. How’s that been working out in Belgium, Germany, and the other countries? You know, the places where they’re having full grown adults claiming to be 14 year olds. Or the rape gangs. To the point where Merkel is beginning to realize she made an awful mistake. By the way most of the ‘syrian refugees’ are not actually refugees, or even Syrian. Just sayin’.

“who were in dire need of medical care”

Where’d you get this pseudo-fact from?

“and were denied access to that of the US, thus endangering their lives.”

Got another proposal. Offer the ‘refugees’ safe zones IN the middle east, supported by UN troops (actually sorry, UN Peacekeepers have had a nasty habit of being involved in rape and murder, so going to say US troops instead)…. so… Middle east safe zone, supported by US troops, where the ‘refugees’ can have access to medical help. Bam! Compassionate to the suffering without allowing hundreds of thousands of un-vetted people into the country as a drain on economic services and a potential national security threat if they can’t be properly vetted (which even Hillary advisors said they could not be).

“There’s the increase in hate crimes since the election”

Actually there hasn’t been. There’s definitely been an increase in people trying to fake hate crimes and getting caught though. There’s also been an increase in rioting, but a lot of that’s from ANTI-Trump protesters.

“because the message that a bigot can be president has emboldened people to act on their similar beliefs.”

Again, not sure how Trump is a bigot. He’s just stupid. Most of his kids converted to judaism. He’s married to an immigrant (a legal immigrant). He’s pro-LGBT rights. He puts hispanic and black people at the highest levels of his companies. Where is this ‘bigotry?’ Is it because he said he wanted to ban muslims? Because I think that’s just him speaking stupidly because he is a stupid person, not a bigot, since he hasnt actually tried to ban all muslims (the ‘muslim ban’ was for 7 countries, which Obama chose, for reasons of them not being able to vet properly, and one of which we were currently at war with, and did not include another 43 muslim-majority countries, who could still come in without any problem).

Trump IS sexist – yeah that I’m pretty sure he is since he has a habit of cheating on his wives then marrying the person with whom he cheated, although I consider Hillary to be at least as bad for women, ironically. Given what she did to the women who Bill molested or how she supported Bill after he cheated on her with and verbally slammed the women. Although Trump does seem to not have a problem putting women in high positions of power, despite his sexist attitudes in his personal life.

“And the aformentioned Lakota Tribe.”

Uh…. how has the Lakota tribe (ie, Sioux) been harmed by Trump?

“But hey, we’re only *checks watch* two months into his presidency.”

Pssh, I’m going to guess that you were calling for his impeachment within the first two minutes of his presidency.

“I’m certain no one else is going to suffer directly as a result of his election.”

You haven’t actually shown anyone who’s suffered yet anyway. Look, I’m not a Trump supporter, but if you keep crying wolf over BS stuff that doesn’t exist, if and when he does something that’s ACTUALLY wrong or criminal, people are just going to look at you and say ‘yeah there they go again, making up stuff.’

“My vote for Hilary was a Utilitarian action.”

No, you voted clearly on party lines, which is deontological…. not because of ‘good’ – Hillary is anything but ‘good.’

And that’s another problem. You making assumptions that, in this example, one is good and the other is bad. When it’s actually one is bad and the other is stupid.

“I never said you weren’t a libertarian.”

You seem to think that I’m a Trump supporter because I did not vote for Hillary though. Just because I did not vote for someone who is a criminal does not mean I support someone who’s does not have a filter on his speaking voice for saying dumb crap because he’s used to being able to say anything he wants since he’s insanely rich. Just because I fact check you when you bring up the often clearly false narratives being thrown out there daily does not mean I dont think there are probably REAL stories out there about Trump that aren’t being reported because the media is too busy believing Buzzfeed about fake stories of Russian hookers peeing on him. You want me to agree with you on something about Trump? Use the Trump-Care proposed law as an example, because we’d probably find common ground there. Use the fact that he doesn’t seem to really respect women in general, because I’d have a lot more difficulty arguing in his defense there as long as you don’t try to tie in his disrespect for women with abortion or LGBT stuff, since for both of those he seems to actually be more Democratic about in the first place and I’d wind up having to point that out.

“Of which the protagonist is virtually unaffected by the laws in said fictional comic.”

And the fact that she is unaffected by laws makes it even more vital that she doesn’t start subjectively deciding what other people should do, since she can’t get held to the same standards as other people, which is a really good way to lead to an authoritarian tyrant or Hitler-esque fascist society with Alison in the place of ‘der Fuhrer.’

To quote Peter Parker: With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.

“Maybe it’s because I don’t view the world in black and white”

You seem to when it comes to trump voters, and people who did not vote for Hillary all but arent on the Bash Trump bandwagon, and people who did not vote for Hillary at all but ARE on the Bash Trump bandwagon in the same basket.

One might even call it a deplorable basket. A Basket of deplorables, if you will.

“I recognize that society doesn’t work that way, nor is there a consistent way to make it completely fair.”

One way you definitely can’t make it fair is to have one overpowering god-king/god-queen deciding for everyone else what to do by virtue of overwhelming might. That’s most of human history – most of bloody, tyrannical human history, pre-civilization, pre-liberty, pre-individual rights.

“But that doesn’t mean I can’t personally disagree with some of the ways it works without desiring to to tear it all down simply because it’s not perfect.”

I do agree with you here. But the difference is I’m not calling you evil just because you voted for Hillary, and if Hillary had won, I wouldn’t be saying ‘you should have voted for Trump.’

https://68.media.tumblr.com/6457fb587cf7920c6ee1806b88efbae1/tumblr_nejkoqLwRf1r9da42o1_500.jpg

It hasn’t exactly been hidden what Hillary has done. Insider Trading at Whitewater. Suspected involvement in multiple murders, including that of Vince Foster. The cover-up of Benghazi. Public smearing of her husbands molestation and rape victims. Violation of federal rules on record keeping of classified materials in the private email server (which Patraeus WAS found guilty of for faaaar less), as well as hiding evidence, then attempting to destroy and actually destroying evidence when she had the private server wiped, ignoring and lying under oath about multiple demands by Congress to turn over government emails, bribery charges using the Clinton Foundation as a front and Bill’s speaking fees and donations to the Clinton Foundation as the payment method for everything from access to the Secretary of State (and possibly to the President, which we can’t know since she wiped so much of the information and violated) to the sale of 24 percent of the United States uranium mines effectively to the russians, perjury, sale of high-tech secrets to China (documented by Judicial Watch) in 1996, Travelgate, Hillary’s missing law firm billing records from 1994, which then mysteriously turned up in the White House in 1996 (part of Whitewatergate scandal), The cattle future scandals (more insider trading), the hiring of an Iranian multimillionaire with ties to Tehran in 2008 as her National finance director (which was actually another bribe for which she got payments of over $100,000 between 2005 and 2008), who was later convicted of running a Ponzi sceheme in 2010, financial mismanagement and fraud in the Clinton Foundation in the amount of over $17 million ccording to the report written by Charles Ortel and the WND in Public Filings, as recently as 2015….

There’s seriously so much stuff she’d ACTUALLY done, and which even the reports showed that she did, but it was decided to not prosecute him for no reason other than she is Hillary Clinton. This has gone on for decades now of her getting away with crime after crime, lying about it in the face of definitive proof of what she claims didn’t happen (or proof that things she said happened did NOT happen). And that’s before you even get to the trail of bodies which seem to follow the Clintons for decades as well (even if they were involved in a quarter of the people who turn up shot in the head, in the back, or ‘committing suicide under mysterious circumstances,’ that’s still more than enough that ANYONE else would be in prison for decades, even just for the smaller crimes.

Not to mention we would be at war with the Soviet Union had she been elected if we are to believe even some of what she said during the campaign itself. According to her own advisors and multiple generals.

And I’m not going to be a Trump defender (Trump’s biggest problem is he has a sort of diarrhea of the mouth where he just blabs on anything that pops into his head at a given moment with no internal filter to say ‘hey, maybe this is a dumb thing I’m saying’ then doubles down on it because he’s stubborn), because I’m in a state where it doesn’t really matter anyway and I voted for someone who actually shares many of my political opinions on liberty and individual rights, Gary Johnson, who is pretty much a pothead but someone who has no criminal history and actually respects and follows the Constitution (even if he doesn’t know where Aleppo is, which lets admit it, most people probably didn’t until it became a big story)…. but voting for her would have told the Democrats that it’s fine for them to put forth people like HER as the Presidential nominee, when there are better choices available like Jim Webb, Bill Richardson, Martin Heinrich, Joe Manchin, Jerry Brown…. hell, they could have run Joe Biden and the Democrats would have definitely won with Joe Biden . The Democrats needed to realize they were going down the wrong track with backing Hillary (and cheating to ensure Hillary was the nominee instead of, say, Bernie Sanders, during the primaries).

And frankly I found that if people really wanted a woman as President, the Republicans were running one who was far better than Hillary or Trump – Carley Fiorina, who is both intelligent and NOT loaded with scandals and criminal cover-ups and not saying idiotic things every other time she opens her mouth. She wasn’t nominated, so I didn’t really care much about the other Republican candidates (except maybe Rand Paul, who’s the closest thing to a Libertarian that has ever been in the Republican Party, but he sometimes makes some really dumb decisions as well out of what I can only assume is pride).

“So…. you’re saying it’s okay to punch people in the face to take $5 from them if you are feeling hungry and don’t have the money to buy food that costs $5?”

Way to utterly miss what I said. I said, “but for an entire orphanage to (somehow) be fed for life off that measly $5”. And you know what? Yeah, I’d say it’s okay to punch people in the face to take $5 from them and then somehow magically feed an entire orphanage for the rest of their lives. I mean, if the dude doesn’t want to give up $5 to feed an entire orphanage, then sure.

“You just implied that any time a person has any excuse, they can mug and assault another person.”

No, I just implied that if they have a really really ridiculously good excuse, then sure. But in real life, that $5 is not going to feed an orphanage, so probably not really applicable.

“Also, he clearly did NOT regret his actions, and he never said he did.”

Guwara: “But for that damned gun, I could have lived guiltless and clean”.

“By the way, send me $200. I want to feed some orphans and if you don’t send me the money”

Hey, if you could somehow legitimately prove that you’d use that money to feed orphans and I was at a financial point where I could afford it, then I’d totally send you the money to feed them. Because I’m not an awful person who only cares about myself. And if someone asks me for help for the sake of others at little cost to myself then I’m all for doing it. But my personal character has nothing to do with the comic, now does it?

“Except it wasn’t her last possible resort. Want? Doesn’t matter if she would do the same thing again. Which she said she would.”

Because she didn’t have the skills or the realization at the time. She wants to do better in the future.

“Give me $5. What should I do to you if you say no? Should I try to think of other ways to earn $5, try to find someone else who might give me $5, or just chalk it up to the idea that the world does not revolve around me and I might not get $5 period?”

I mean, that’s not really the same situation since other ways and other people exist to give you $5. But if you could explain more about why you needed the $5 then I might agree (again because I’m not a selfish prick, or at least I don’t think I am). And that’s what Alison wants to try and accomplish.

“Actually I mean the idea of ‘offensive speech’ being illegal”

Ah, I’m sorry I could not read your mind across the internet and determine what exactly you meant by saying ‘millennials support tyranny’. I take a bit of offense at you automatically assuming my views on the subject since it was clear I didn’t know exactly what you meant. Although since you were somewhat right about them, I guess I can’t be too upset.

Honestly? Hate speech probably should be illegal. For the same reason it’s illegal to yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded room. It’s done as a way to incite violence and really has no place in society. You can espouse whatever views you want (within reason, obviously wanting to kill all people of a certain ethnicity is not an acceptable view to have let alone tell people of that ethnicity), but once you start dropping slurs, you’re only doing it to hurt/incite other people. Obviously it’d have to have some very very specific wording to prevent tryanny from arising from that sort of law.

“Ah. So apparently you never learned how to read.”

Made my opinions clear in the post down below. Going to leave this one alone.

“So… if you’re older than 30…. you are elderly. I …. see…..”

I was kind of being facetious about the elderly comment. I apologize for that. I was going off the same statistics I used before. And it was horrifying to learn that the majority of people above 30 voted for Trump and his tyranny (I assumed the age would be much older).

“Let me guess, only the people who agree with everything you say are not. Good to know. Your bubble must be really fun to live in.”

Nope, just people that believe in demeaning women, hate/fear mongering of immigrants/muslims, the further mistreatment of minorities, unnecessary and unrealistic solutions that are not actual solutions (the wall), tyranny in general, and helping out the wealthy %1 at the expense of everyone else. I’m not sure how thinking those sort of people are bad people is itself bad?

Heh, I was going to write out how I don’t think you’re a ‘douche canoe’ and you have differing views from me. But then I remembered that you contributed to the election of the President we have now. You’re not a full on ‘douche canoe’ (I mean, it’s not like you voted for him), but still some lesser variety of a ‘douche’. Anyone who puts themselves above others in that sort of scale is, honestly. Not illegal to be one, just means I don’t like you nor would I want to associate with you *shrug*.

But don’t worry, I’m calling your actions those of a douche. Not you personally. Totally not the same thing.

“You should look for ways to make sure you don’t become 31 then.”

Hah, if only. But that’s fine, I assume other sensible people of my age will retain their wits as they age and not stoop to supporting tyranny just for having lived longer. If not, then I’ll happily be in that minority that doesn’t.

“If only they had your stunning intellect and knew right from wrong (ie, your right from wrong).”

Oh man, I hope not. I think I’m pretty smart, but I’m definitely not ‘stunning’. And I know I don’t get ‘right from wrong’ correct quite a bit. I do wish they’d realized how awful of a person Trump is before they’d voted for him and the gravity of what voting for him would mean. Although who knows, maybe they were just grossly misinformed, the votes were skewed because of Russia’s possible interference, or some weird other third reason that would mean that almost half of the people in this country aren’t bigots.

I agree it’s poor taste. I had a problem with my long posts getting marked as spam and I got tired of reposting them. I assumed that by upvoting them they’d be less likely to be marked as spam. So far all the ones I’ve upvoted haven’t been marked as spam (although that might just be coincidence). Usually if I come back and see others have also upvoted I’ll remove mine.

Second, I can’t say things for Stephanie (although apparently you think you can, as well as for anyone else). But I called your actions ‘those of some sort of a lesser douche’. Not the same 😛

The entire orphanage thing came from my reply. Because your example isn’t equivalent. Robbing someone to feed yourself is an act that benefits only yourself. I’d understand the desperation that led to such an act, although I would not condone it. The magical orphanage was the closest thing I could think of to compare to ‘everyone gets organ transplants forever’.

“As opposed to finding a way to feed that orphanage which does not involve beating someone else up.”

*shrug* didn’t say it was a good example. Also, if I came across someone that needed $5 to feed a magical orphanage I’d probably give them the money.

How about this, I view Robin Hood as a heroic figure. Not really a ‘psycopathic’ view to have. And he totally stole from ‘innocent’ rich people to give to the poor. Was it the best way to help them? Probably not, but many people still consider it a heroic thing to have done. Also, the ‘perfect solution’ of going overseas and finding a way to forcibly bring King Richard back to stop the kingdom from needing to fund a horribly expensive war/ransom wasn’t a very realistic option.

I’m not advocating for some sort of military state where only my views are correct and people can attack others for not believing in whatever view they have. Just saying that if it’s for a good enough cause, and in very specific cases, then I’m kind of okay with resorting to violence (especially if you attempted non-violent methods first and those didn’t work).

“Well since you took offense at what I said, I suppose you should want what I said banned? Also it wasn’t clear that you didnt know what I meant”

My post: “Yeah, I have no idea where that’s coming from. Never seen them against free speech.”

It wasn’t until your next one that you explained fully what you meant by it, and it was full of rhetoric acting like I’d fully supported it. And no, again I said “hate speech/slurs”, being offensive isn’t something that should be made illegal.

“Based on who’s interpretation of what is considered hate speech?”

I don’t know, how about the same interpretation of what’s considered hate crimes?

“Actually it’s NOT the same reason given though. Not even close.”

Except it is. If a white dude goes into a predominately black neighborhood and shouts the N word at the top of his lungs, then it’s the exact same thing.

“I guess most of the Founding Fathers, under your interpretation, have no place in society then. In fact, your speech could be considered hate speech against someone with a different political view.”

Man, for saying that you don’t, you have some really thin skin you know that? Have I dropped any slurs? Have I said that all that oppose me should be tortured/raped/killed? Have I made vulgar comments about your person? Or have I only used childish insults and statements that I disagree with certain people/think their bad people? Please don’t demean the term ‘hate’ to mean ‘disagreement’ when there are people out there that truly suffer from it.

“Really. Pray tell me what the wording would be. I’m a lawyer. I’d love to hear this.”

Well, as I am not a lawyer, I wouldn’t have the pretense to attempt to do such a difficult job without the proper training and understanding of the law. Obviously I don’t know how such a law should be worded. But if one was put forward I could do my best to understand it, whether there were any bad implications contained in it, and then would support it after doing said research on it. Since that’s the way our government works (or at least supposedly does).

“What is ‘elderly?'”

Why? What does it have anything to do with this thread? I was simply making the comment that a majority of older people are the ones who literally voted for a tyrant and seem to be the ones that need a lesson in tyranny.

“So… I’m guessing you’re against sharia law?”

That whole list there was a list of what I considered made a person a ‘douche canoe’. Again, not illegal thoughts to have, just ones that I consider bad and what would make me call someone a ‘douche canoe’.

“I’m hoping that douche has some clinical terminology?”

Nope, because I don’t call people clinical terms when I know only what google has told me about them. I merely call them childish insults to help get across my point that I don’t like the things they believe. But since being a ‘douche’ isn’t a thing that you can map to a clinical problem that real people have and suffer from and shouldn’t be thrown around freely as an insult as that implies that the people that suffer from it should be looked down on, I guess that makes me worse at debating.

“Wait…. waitwaitwait. So…. anyone who puts themselves above others is a douche?”

“In that sort of scale is”. I’m sorry, I didn’t contribute to hurting the safety and well being of thousands of people so no. Although sure, I guess everyone’s a little bit douche-y. Again, since it’s a childish insult that merely delivers my opinion of ‘not good but more-so’, it’s not really that big of a deal.

“I knew I forgot to use the /s a few times in my post….”

Hah, I could tell the sarcasm was there, but it was amusing to take it at face value. It also was meant to dissuade you from going on about me thinking highly of myself (as I really don’t), but since you then went on to call me ‘God-Queen’ in the next post I guess it was ineffective.

“Ignore the fact that it’s not ‘interference with the election'”

*shrug* It was not my intention to get into an argument about the election. I was merely making a statement about how the results have made me feel a bit disillusioned with the world in general. I’m a cynic on small scale things but I was an optimist at heart.

Well, my reply has been marked as spam twice now. So I’m going to attempt to condense my response and not carry on with this format of defending myself against each of your points which has been creating longer and longer replies.

I added the orphanage because stealing to feed yourself, while understandable, is still a self serving action, making it not equivalent to Alison’s actions. It’s not realistic since the example that I’m agreeing with is also not realistic.

I’m not advocating for some sort of military state where only my views are correct and people can attack others for not believing in whatever view they have. Just saying that if it’s for a good enough cause, and in very specific cases, then I’m personally okay with resorting to violence (especially if you attempted non-violent methods first and those didn’t work).

I said I don’t support “hate speech/slurs” being protected, being offensive isn’t something that should be made illegal. Please don’t demean the term ‘hate’ to mean ‘disagreement’ when there are people out there that truly suffer from it.

As as I am not a lawyer, I wouldn’t have the pretense to attempt to do such a difficult job without the proper training and understanding of the law. Obviously I don’t know how such a law should be worded. But if one was put forward I could do my best to understand it, whether there were any bad implications contained in it, and then would support it after doing said research on it. Since that’s the way our government works (or at least supposedly does).

That whole list there was a list of what I considered made a person a ‘douche canoe’. Again, not illegal thoughts to have, just ones that I consider bad and what would make me call someone a ‘douche canoe’. I don’t call people clinical terms when I know only what google has told me about them. I merely call them childish insults to help get across my point that I don’t like the things they believe. But since being a ‘douche’ isn’t a thing that you can map to a clinical problem that real people have and suffer from and shouldn’t be thrown around freely as an insult as that implies that the people that suffer from it should be looked down on, I guess that makes me worse at debating.