Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "Waarom ik links nu links laat liggen" video.
-
TheJudge01 The NRA was supportive of southern civil rights leaders being armed to defend themselves against KKK attacks. NRA opposed Democrat gun control legislation aimed then as now to remove the protection of poor folks and minorities. Many civil rights leaders of the time were open and enthusiastic members of that fine organization. If MLK had been for gun control in the '60s, he would not have been a civil rights leader.
As for immigration and Mexicans, Latin American labor organizer and civil rights leader Cesar Chavez was adamantly opposed to illegal immigration, rightly seeing it as an attempt by US employers to undercut entry level US workers (then and now). Your opinions on such matters are by no means dominant among women, and we have a formal means of collectively citing their general will. We call it an election. Illegal immigrants, like all lawbreakers, can be constitutionally deprived of their rights by due process. Women AMERICANS, Mexican AMERICANS, and Muslim AMERICANS are not systematically deprived of their rights in this country, tendentious claims to the contrary notwithstanding regardless of source. There is such a thing as objective truth.
What you are calling the "right" now are precisely the ones who support and uphold civil rights, especially enumerated constitutional rights. And as your post admits THAT IS WHY you disagree with them (2nd amendment is an enumerated civil right). Legitimate rights are freedom "TO" (to act to do something) bogus rights are freedom "FROM" (government restrictions on your neighbor's freedom to act) or free stuff. Freedom of speech as opposed to free beer.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@82boulou All religions together (and there is no morally valid reason to consider them all together, but let's for the sake of argument) for all time cannot begin to match the death toll of atheist societies in the 20th century. And the death toll continues in the holdout states to this day.
When and where atheists had all the power, hundreds of millions of their own citizens were killed, not to mention the deaths and property loss in the wars of conquest they started, all the books burned, slander, and whistle blowers shot. But you would do things differently, right? This follows naturally from your avowed willingness to settle a question of fact by the application of force and coercion: "I would ban". If you acknowledge no universal standard off morality, and especially if you attribute murder to your opponents, and are already willing to settle points of fact by the use of force (which makes you an obscurantist), you have all the mental tools you need to "justify" the next holocaust, which will follow like clockwork when you get power.
When and where Protestants had all the power, just before and during the Victorian era, they abolished slavery in the West and on the high seas, established limited government, freedom of speech and religion, democracy, universal education, and a flowering of knowledge, technology, and prosperity. If you are humanist enough to like any of these things banning religion is counterproductive to that goal.
1
-
1