a lot of rightwingers have been arguing that freedom can't protect itself and place "security" above freedom. now the obvious problem with this is that when you argue against freedom to protect freedom, you're defeating your own argument. your argument really becomes "freedom is bad"
so im thinking how can you protect freedom since sacrificing freedom is not protecting it and all i can think of is diplomacy, especially since i doubt "terrorists" view themselves as anti-freedom. maybe some people do but most people aren't voluntary tools. so really, the only practical way i can see to protect liberty is through diplomacy, because by fighting fire with fire in this situation you effectively burn down your own side
but how do you negotiate peace between radically different ideologies especially when one violates human rights
haha i get it because meetterry posts a lot of threads so any thread that isnt an opinion thread or some other circlejerk is a meetterry thread and he says greetings epicmafia community oh boy thats a good one im surprised i havent seen this posted a dozen times before
deletedalmost 10 years
mouth breather and lobotomized. real heated insults being tossed around in this volcano
Is this the thinly veiled racism thread? I got confused because Terry usually makes them. Don't take his thing. Also, economic freedom isn't afforded to the immigrants or the poor. At least not to the same extent that the rest of the country has it, "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" is sounds good ideologically. However, class mobility and advancement opportunities have shrunk in the last 20 years. I shouldn't take the bait, no point trying to debate a mouth breather.
the freedom is economic freedom or freedom of lifestyle. it's a matter of inhibitions. muslims don't get strip clubs or prostitutes, so such things are of the devil
one thing i'll give islam is nobody should draw muhammad because that's r*tardedly antagonist. it's literally equivalent to picking on some outcast kid in ur school or something. dude is going to shoot up the school
deletedalmost 10 years
I don't like that it's assumed that peace = freedom. Having freedom is a rigorous bumpy road that will not always be a peaceful one.
As for peace itself, it's viable. The pursuit of peace should be one sought by all, but if there's "no possible peace between slavers and liberators" that just shows that hey, it takes time. It takes time for freedom and it takes time for peace, and if we can get both it should be our priority to sustain that status.
