16
ApparentlyImAHeretic 16 points ago +16 / -0

you may have a point there, video evidence repeatedly shows that UK police are massive pussies.

12
ApparentlyImAHeretic 12 points ago +12 / -0

with what weapons? the UK does not honor the right to bear arms or the right to self-defense.

3
ApparentlyImAHeretic 3 points ago +3 / -0

the first amendment is an article that ensures the government cannot restrict the free speech of the citizens, to paraphrase. as far as I'm aware, these registrars are not part of the government.

if memory serves, the thing that ensures free speech on the Internet is section 230 of title 47 of the United States code. this section essentially ensures that websites that host third-party content cannot be held liable for said third-party content. in the past, this protection was provided so long as the service provider was considered a platform and not a publisher. however, that line is been blurred over the past several years with content moderation reaching beyond removing illegal content.

31
ApparentlyImAHeretic 31 points ago +32 / -1

alright Texas. the feds were allowing a harmful condition that was negatively impacting your state, and you took the security of your state into your own hands. the feds are now removing your ability to secure your own borders, and insisting that you go by their extremely lax security to the detriment of your state. what are you going to do about it?

we're waiting!

2
ApparentlyImAHeretic 2 points ago +2 / -0

"there are no bad tactics, only bad targets"

I will repeat their philosophy until the heat death of the universe because people still don't understand how the left operates. Hypocrisy, lies, deceit, even murder are permissable to them, so long as the person affected is an acceptable target.

3
ApparentlyImAHeretic 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is one of my all time favorite anime, partially because it's unapologetically indulgent, but also because it has healthy lessons on brotherhood and grief, as well as optimism in the face of stacked odds.

I do recommend the show over the movie, as the movie glosses over some important plot points in favor of extending the epic battles, but they're both good.

1
ApparentlyImAHeretic 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lifting tyranny imposed by the state is still lifting tyranny, even if its the feds doing it. especially in this era of fake and gay elections.

Would you consider the first or second amendments to be tyrannical?

1
ApparentlyImAHeretic 1 point ago +1 / -0

redefining terms is not an argument.

Gay marriage was explicitly illegal. "Legalizing" it was simply removing that government intervention.

1
ApparentlyImAHeretic 1 point ago +1 / -0

and what happens when a busybody in DC decides you are unfit to vote because of some bullshit criteria like the color of your skin or your participation in a certain political movement? Would you still think denying certain people the right to vote is fair, or even practical?

1
ApparentlyImAHeretic 1 point ago +1 / -0

I indeed believe the government has no business butting into our relationships when nobody is getting hurt. that's my point.

I am not picking and choosing laws or applications. Authorities 100% have a right to police behavior and actions that cause harm to those who did not/cannot agree to being involved. Things like public indecency, theft, assault, child exploitation, etc.

But when people of sound body and mind, and of legal age, agree to something, it is tyranny for authorities to stop them.

11
ApparentlyImAHeretic 11 points ago +12 / -1

didn't we threaten to invade Syria over their alleged use of chemical weapons? Why does Israel get a pass?

7
ApparentlyImAHeretic 7 points ago +8 / -1

devil's advocate: hamas and other islamist militants do use dirty tactics like false surrender all the time. IDF soldiers are probably ordered to shoot anyone who tries to get close on sight.

12
ApparentlyImAHeretic 12 points ago +12 / -0

don't women get groped in the trains

bruh, lay off the hentai.

by Lethn
5
ApparentlyImAHeretic 5 points ago +5 / -0

why do you concern yourself with the opinions of journalists?

4
ApparentlyImAHeretic 4 points ago +4 / -0

so at what point do we concede on immoral behavior? Do we not allow skateboarding or extreme sports because they endanger the rider? Do we ban sports cars because they have inferior utility to suvs? Do we do away with video games because they are a waste of time? On whose authority can you certify that these immoral things are/aren't worthy of attention?

To impose ones own morality on everyone, no matter how righteous, is still tyranny. The only way to avoid this tyranny, in my view, is to adhere to these very simple rules:

  1. my rights end where yours begin
  1. your rights end where mine begin

In other words, do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›