Liberalism In Action

Author: ethang5 ,

Posts

Total: 82
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Denmark Introduces Checks On Swedish Border To Combat Terrorism, Travel ...

Denmark to impose controls at Swedish border amid crime wave - The Telegraph

As Bombings Spread, Denmark Closes Border With Sweden - Breitbart

Denmark closes borders with Germany as migrants head to Sweden

TRUMP WAS RIGHT!… Denmark Closes Its Border with Sweden as Bombings Spread.

In February 2017 President Trump held a rally in Florida in front of thousands of supporters

During his speech President Trump referenced the increased violence in Sweden due to the tremendous influx of refugees.

They ran attacks all day Sunday claiming Trump said there was a terrorist attack in Sweden.

But Trump was right. Migrants are changing the face of Sweden.

The bombings and violence have continued to escalate in once peaceful Sweden.

On Monday Denmark closed its border with Sweden as bombings spread.

Read the main stream media links above, and you will find no mention of the criminals being immigrants or Arabic.


In 2010 it became the first Nordic country to be hit hit by an attack linked to Islamic terror. The two bombs which detonated in the capital killed only the bomber, Iraqi born Taimour Abdulwahab.

Since then one Isil inspired plot to make pressure bombs was disrupted by police and in 2016 a teaching assistant and a male student in a school in an immigrant area were killed in a racially motivated sword attack.

Integration has remained a problem in the country where the relatively high numbers of immigrants compared to a population of just under 10 million means it has one of the highest rates of immigration per capita in northern Europe.

The numbers have been rising steadily since the 1990s, and in 2015 Sweden accepted a record number of more than 160,000 refugees.

Sweden used to be nice and peaceful, with low, low crime. Today, rape and terror are rife. What did they think would happen if they brought in hundreds of thousands of Arab Muslims from backward cultures?

Of course, liberals will deny the truth right before their eyes and squeal racism, islamophobia, or some other such nonsense.

Hey Sweden. Now your country Look's more like Afghanistan. Are you happy now? Denmark, you're next.

You have to be brain dead not to know that 200,000 Arab Muslims plunked down into your country will change your country towards an Arab Muslims culture.

And what is Arab Muslim culture? Socially primitive, and violent.

Liberalism says all cultures are equally good. If so, why is Sweden now a dump? Why is Denmark closing its borders? Why are Swedes now dying from swords and bombs?
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @ethang5
TRUMP WAS RIGHT!… Denmark Closes Its Border with Sweden as Bombings Spread.
Just by looking at the headline you are wrong.

Denmark adding in checks doesn't equal Denmark closes their borders.

Please tell me how much you are stretching. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @ethang5
I am guessing you are opposed to liberalism.

What do you want instead?


coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,455
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @ethang5
There are many things wrong with this post, including a fundamental misunderstanding of what liberalism is.

Liberalism does not contend that all cultures are equally good.  This is wrong.  This is closer to multiculturalism/cosmopolitanism, but they do not make claims that any culture is "good" so much as that no one culture has the right to impose its norms on another.  Liberalism is not multiculturalism or cosmopolitanism.  These are different animals.  With some irony, liberalism takes both multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism to task for this belief.

The position that no culture is superior to any other culture (which is not the same thing as saying that all cultures are good, btw.), and more specifically the position that no culture has a right to impose its norms on any other culture, is generally describable as a "relativist" position.  When I say "relativist" in this post, that is what I mean.  Hopefully that clears up any lingering confusion.

Liberalism is anti-relativist, for at least these reasons:

1. Liberalism contends that there exists such a thing as human dignity; that all humans have human dignity; and that the dignity all humans have is equal, such that this state of having dignity is at once a human universal and a condition of being human. 
2. In that all people have co-equal dignity, this state of co-equal being is inherent to us all; and implies that all people are themselves, equal in worth and value in relation to one another. 
3. In that all people are equal in worth and in relation to one another, this state of being implies an equally universal normative ethic by which we all ought to treat each other -- whether we act as individuals in relation to one another, or by and through the state. 
4. That universal normative ethic is what we understand to be universal human rights.  
5. Universal human rights are prior to any culture because culture, which emerges from society, which emerges only after entry into some social contract; are superior to the norms of any culture, as all cultures are specific to their time, place, and context.  
6. As such, to the degree that any cultural norm conflicts with universal human rights, the culture is itself offensive to human dignity; and therefore the cultural practice in such offense must yield to the degree it conflicts. 

The relativist rebuttal is this:

1. But what are human rights, other than a claim that Western ethics are superior to those which conflict with it? 
2. In no sense are these Enlightenment-era ideals "universal" any more than the Christianity from which they emerged is "universal". 

The Liberal reply is:

1. That is a thinly-veiled attack on the source of the argument (i.e., western Liberalism and Christianity), which does nothing to rebut the argument for universal human rights grounded in humanity's co-equal state of being.
2. Even if you, the relativist, did successfully rebut this grand narrative; people are still people, they are still equal, and the available alternatives (on which you cannot reasonably rely, because you, too, agree that things like sharia law's requirement of honor killing rape victims and apostates, for example) are too hideous to bear.  

Relativist, in reality, is too forgiving a word for the "you do you, I'll do me" worldview.  In reality, to abdicate moral responsibility by saying that no culture is superior to another; is to surrender any claim to the possibility of right and wrong itself.  As after all, if there are no standards by which the conduct of others can be measured; there is no mechanism to distinguish that which is wrong from that which is right.  There is no "right for you, wrong for me."  There is only what is right, and what is wrong.  It either is, or it is not.  

But this is the debate that liberals and multiculturalist types, and progressives face at length. 

However, your mistake is not uncommon.  For example, Yasmine Mohammed in her recent book "Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam" explores this theme, though she recklessly uses the word "liberal" where she should have used the word "progressive" in general, or "multiculturalist/relativist" in particular.  Despite this, I recommend it.  Before reading Mohammed's book, It would be worth reading a book I used to teach out of written by Susan Moller Okin called "Is multiculturalism bad for women?"  Obviously, it is.  

This is just one of the very complex contradictions which forms the basis of an emergent civil war on the left, as it manifests now, between progressives and liberals.  But to coherently participate in that dialogue, one must understand the meaning of the terms; and attribute them only those precepts with which they are associated.  Hopefully this post will help you do that. 
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @TheRealNihilist
TRUMP WAS RIGHT!… Denmark Closes Its Border with Sweden as Bombings Spread.

Just by looking at the headline you are wrong.
It was the headline on several websites.

Denmark adding in checks doesn't equal Denmark closes their borders.
They did temporarily close their border. And there were not checks before. Isn't there supposed to be free movement between EU states?

Please tell me how much you are stretching. 
If "stretching" is posting multiple news websites saying the same thing, I'd say, "a lot".

I am guessing you are opposed to liberalism.
You're sharp.

What do you want instead?
Not allowing boatloads of moron Muslim terrorists into your safe, beautiful, peaceful country in the name of multiculturalism.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @coal
There are many things wrong with this post, including a fundamental misunderstanding of what liberalism is.
OK.

Liberalism does not contend that all cultures are equally good.  This is wrong. 
I know, but perhaps you need to tell liberals that.

This is closer to multiculturalism/cosmopolitanism, but they do not make claims that any culture is "good" so much as that no one culture has the right to impose its norms on another. 
Do you know any multiculturalist who is not also a liberal?

Liberalism is not multiculturalism or cosmopolitanism.  These are different animals.
Multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism are subsets of liberalism. But seeing the abject failure of multiculturalism, smart liberals want to decouple now.

With some irony, liberalism takes both multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism to task for this belief.
When? Where?

The position that no culture is superior to any other culture (which is not the same thing as saying that all cultures are good, btw.),
True, and both comments are equally wrong, and liberal.

...and more specifically the position that no culture has a right to impose its norms on any other culture, is generally describable as a "relativist" position.
And liberal.

When I say "relativist" in this post, that is what I mean.  Hopefully that clears up any lingering confusion.
No one seems confused on what liberalism means. It is liberals who hold the position that no culture has a right to impose its norms on any other culture, even when immigrants enter another country.

Liberalism is anti-relativist, for at least these reasons:

1. Liberalism contends that there exists such a thing as human dignity; that all humans have human dignity; and that the dignity all humans have is equal, such that this state of having dignity is at once a human universal and a condition of being human.
Ok

2. In that all people have co-equal dignity, this state of co-equal being is inherent to us all; and implies that all people are themselves, equal in worth and value in relation to one another. 
Ok

3. In that all people are equal in worth and in relation to one another, this state of being implies an equally universal normative ethic by which we all ought to treat each other -- whether we act as individuals in relation to one another, or by and through the state. 
Ok

4. That universal normative ethic is what we understand to be universal human rights.  
Irrational. Ethics are not rights, and cannot be. You are simply doing what liberals do, that is, declare their belief are right, and applicable universally. This is illogical.

Rights are conferred. Or else you are simply declaring rights. In that case, anyone's declaration is as valid as yours.

This is why we now have liberals now declaring silly things like money, jobs, or transenderism are human rights.

5. Universal human rights are prior to any culture because culture, which emerges from society, which emerges only after entry into some social contract; are superior to the norms of any culture, as all cultures are specific to their time, place, and context.  
The concept works in so far as human rights are universal, but what are human rights and what are not?

6. As such, to the degree that any cultural norm conflicts with universal human rights, the culture is itself offensive to human dignity; and therefore the cultural practice in such offense must yield to the degree it conflicts. 
Again, all you've done here is to declare your opinion on "human rights" superior to all others.

The relativist rebuttal is this:

1. But what are human rights, other than a claim that Western ethics are superior to those which conflict with it
2. In no sense are these Enlightenment-era ideals "universal" any more than the Christianity from which they emerged is "universal"
The Liberal reply is:

1. That is a thinly-veiled attack on the source of the argument (i.e., western Liberalism and Christianity), which does nothing to rebut the argument for universal human rights grounded in humanity's co-equal state of being.
No. You are being deceptive. The attack goes to the validity of anyone making a list of " human rights" and calling them universal. The relativist is not questioning your source, he is saying your source has no more validity than any other.

2. Even if you, the relativist, did successfully rebut this grand narrative; people are still people, they are still equal, and the available alternatives (on which you cannot reasonably rely, because you, too, agree that things like sharia law's requirement of honor killing rape victims and apostates, for example) are too hideous to bear.  
Thus, everyone must share your beliefs. Are you aware that the Muslim can (and has) correctly used the exact same argument?

No one is disagreeing that people are intrinsically equal. The disagreement is in what this means.

Relativist, in reality, is too forgiving a word for the "you do you, I'll do me" worldview.  In reality, to abdicate moral responsibility by saying that no culture is superior to another; is to surrender any claim to the possibility of right and wrong itself.  As after all, if there are no standards by which the conduct of others can be measured; there is no mechanism to distinguish that which is wrong from that which is right.  There is no "right for you, wrong for me."  There is only what is right, and what is wrong.  It either is, or it is not.  
Do you know any liberals who agree with this?

But this is the debate that liberals and multiculturalist types, and progressives face at length.  
Because that is exactly what liberals do.

However, your mistake is not uncommon.
Neither are those now trying to call it a mistake. You have correctly stated how the positions should be, we find in reality that every relativist is liberal.

For example, Yasmine Mohammed in her recent book "Unveiled: How Western Liberals Empower Radical Islam" explores this theme, though she recklessly uses the word "liberal" where she should have used the word "progressive" in general, or "multiculturalist/relativist" in particular.  Despite this, I recommend it.  Before reading Mohammed's book, It would be worth reading a book I used to teach out of written by Susan Moller Okin called "Is multiculturalism bad for women?"  Obviously, it is.  
I understand your retreat. Both  multiculturalism and feminism have been proven bankrupt. But when every  progressive and multiculturalist/relativist is also a liberal, your distinction is meaningless.

This is just one of the very complex contradictions which forms the basis of an emergent civil war on the left, as it manifests now, between progressives and liberals.
There is no emergent civil war on the left. Every progressive is liberal. You being perhaps a more sane liberal, wish to divorce himself from the more irrational positions of the progressive liberals, but yours is meaningless distinction. 

But to coherently participate in that dialogue, one must understand the meaning of the terms; and attribute them only those precepts with which they are associated.  Hopefully this post will help you do that. 
This post tries to do that, but will fail because reality contradicts it.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @ethang5
They did temporarily close their border. And there were not checks before. Isn't there supposed to be free movement between EU states?
Wait so if EU isn't completely free movement of people they don't support it?
Then the US doesn't support free speech because they have anti-discrimination laws limiting speech.
If "stretching" is posting multiple news websites saying the same thing, I'd say, "a lot".
Breitbart is propaganda. I have never heard of euractiv. Only two of them I know and none of two said they closed their borders. Please read through the first two again 
Forbes as in October 2019 talking about an event in November 2019. Meaning they are speaking about it not telling us what occurred because it didn't happen when they released the news. They also said this "The temporary border checks–planned to start in mid-November 2019 and last up to six months".
Telegraph are also talking about a event in November 2019 when they released the news at October 2019. Please find something more relevant and reliable. If it wasn't clear not Breitbart and during of after the event.
Not allowing boatloads of moron Muslim terrorists into your safe, beautiful, peaceful country in the name of multiculturalism.
Safe? Crime still occurs with or without Muslims.
Beautiful? There is plenty of trash places that Muslims weren't apart of.
Peaceful? That would mean there is no crime whatsoever. From what I understand Muslims didn't start that either.

So let me ask you again "What do you want instead?"
AntonZenz123
AntonZenz123's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2
0
0
3
AntonZenz123's avatar
AntonZenz123
0
0
3
doesnt sound very liberal but it does make sense
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,455
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @ethang5
I don't think you have the capacity to engage in a discussion of these topics.  

ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
I don't think you have the capacity to engage in a discussion of these topics.  
Lol. OK Coal.

It's good to know you still think I'm equal you in value even if not in intelligence.

My human rights feel respected.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @TheRealNihilist
They did temporarily close their border. And there were not checks before. Isn't there supposed to be free movement between EU states?

Wait so if EU isn't completely free movement of people they don't support it?
Who said anything about support?

Then the US doesn't support free speech because they have anti-discrimination laws limiting speech.
Why are you talking about support?

If "stretching" is posting multiple news websites saying the same thing, I'd say, "a lot".

Breitbart is propaganda. I have never heard of euractiv.
What you know is of no importance.

Only two of them I know and none of two said they closed their borders. Please read through the first two again
None of them mentioned immigrants or Muslims either. They are called fake news for a reason.

Forbes as in October 2019 talking about an event in November 2019. Meaning they are speaking about it not telling us what occurred because it didn't happen when they released the news. They also said this "The temporary border checks–planned to start in mid-November 2019 and last up to six months".
Tell us why they have now started to check.

Telegraph are also talking about a event in November 2019 when they released the news at October 2019. Please find something more relevant and reliable. If it wasn't clear not Breitbart and during of after the event.
OK boss. I will go find what you like. While I do that, can you tell us the increase in crime in Denmark and Sweden since 2014? Do you know?

Not allowing boatloads of moron Muslim terrorists into your safe, beautiful, peaceful country in the name of multiculturalism.

Safe? Crime still occurs with or without Muslims.
So safety doesn't exist? No country can be called a safe country? Would you rather a trip to Switzerland or Afghanistan?

Beautiful? There is plenty of trash places that Muslims weren't apart of.
Right, those places have increased with the influx of primitives.

Peaceful? That would mean there is no crime whatsoever.
Only to a moron.

From what I understand Muslims didn't start that either.
No one said anything about starting.

So let me ask you again "What do you want instead?"
I answered you. You wanted to play obtuse liberal. The clueless liberals in Sweden will continue to too. And their once safe, beautiful, peaceful country will go down the tubes.

Sweden and Denmark, once the very definition of safe, peaceful, successful countries, are now havens for thugs flinging bomb and raping women.

And the clueless liberal, will turn a blind eye so as not to break his liberal code that says immigrants are wonderful, and ignorant muslim immigrants are even wonderfuller. Lol.

Germany tried that stupidity and the people forced the government to halt that lunacy. Spain, Hungary, Poland, Brazil, and Phillipines have followed.

Stay tuned on northern Europe. Sooner or later, liberalism loses to reality.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
Who said anything about support?
I am talking to someone who is too much of a coward to be for the things he talks about. So basically whenever I do make a worthwhile argument instead of actually rebutting it you are going to say well I don't support it. 
What you know is of no importance.
If you are having a discussion of feelings please do tell me because I'll immediately stop talking to you.
None of them mentioned immigrants or Muslims either. They are called fake news for a reason.
?? Prove it fake news. Oh wait are you going to say who said anything about support?
Tell us why they have now started to check.
This seems like a knowledge question. You really should've changed your earlier statements. Remember this "What you know is of no importance.". I would say I don't know. Here you can come in and state your knowledge or feelings whichever you decide to use.
OK boss. I will go find what you like. While I do that, can you tell us the increase in crime in Denmark and Sweden since 2014? Do you know?
Wow pivot? So unexpected. Please stay on topic.
So safety doesn't exist? No country can be called a safe country? Would you rather a trip to Switzerland or Afghanistan?
So you can't actually rebut my points so you are going to pivot yet again? Do try to answer what I said.
Right, those places have increased with the influx of primitives.
What? I saying even without immigrants there are still plenty of trash places. 
Only to a moron.
Don't know what peace means and calls me a moron. 
No one said anything about starting.
Oh wow so whenever I say something that you can't defend you are going to feign ignorance. It is pretty boring for you to say nothing of substance but I would've expected nothing less.
I answered you.
Saying no multiculturalism. Still leaves me with other question. Do you want a dictatorship, monarchy, communism or anarchism?
The clueless liberals in Sweden will continue to too. And their once safe, beautiful, peaceful country will go down the tubes.
It was neither completely peaceful, beautiful or safe in the first place. 
Stay tuned on northern Europe. Sooner or later, liberalism loses to reality.
You sound just like lefties instead of Europe it is America. I guess horseshoe theory has more substance than I actually thought. 
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @ethang5
above
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @TheRealNihilist
Who said anything about support?
I am talking to someone who is too much of a coward to be for the things he talks about. So basically whenever I do make a worthwhile argument instead of actually rebutting it you are going to say well I don't support it.
What I said had nothing to do with support. Rebut my argument, not your assumptions.

What you know is of no importance.

If you are having a discussion of feelings please do tell me because I'll immediately stop talking to you.
Context Clyde. What websites you know or don't know matters little to me. I don't post based on what you know or accept.

And stop threatening to stop talking. Just do it if you're going to.

None of them mentioned immigrants or Muslims either. They are called fake news for a reason.

?? Prove it fake news.
They didn't mention truth that was detrimental to liberalism. Proof.

Oh wait are you going to say who said anything about support?
How is fake news related to support?

Tell us why they have now started to check.
This seems like a knowledge question.
And the fact that you can't answer shows you lack the knowledge.

You really should've changed your earlier statements.
No. I state what I like. Sorry.

Remember this "What you know is of no importance.". I would say I don't know.
Because you're a liberal. The fake news doesn't know either.

Here you can come in and state your knowledge or feelings whichever you decide to use.
They are starting to check because the border is being overrun with ignorant Muslim terrorists they themselves let into their country.

OK boss. I will go find what you like. While I do that, can you tell us the increase in crime in Denmark and Sweden since 2014? Do you know?

Wow pivot? So unexpected. Please stay on topic.
Lol. You don't that either. Go learn. The internet is free.

So safety doesn't exist? No country can be called a safe country? Would you rather a trip to Switzerland or Afghanistan?

So you can't actually rebut my points so you are going to pivot yet again? Do try to answer what I said.
What you said needs no answer. Sweden was a safe country. Safe doesn't mean no crime exists. I usually will not spend much time on factitious points.

Right, those places have increased with the influx of primitives.

What? I saying even without immigrants there are still plenty of trash places. 
Non-sequitur. I did not say the country had no trash, and only an dummy would think, "beautiful country" means no trash.

Only to a moron.
Don't know what peace means and calls me a moron.
I did not call you a moron. I said only a moron would think "peaceful country" means no crime whatsoever. Do you qualify?

No one said anything about starting.

Oh wow so whenever I say something that you can't defend you are going to feign ignorance.
Ignorance of what? Why would I have to defend something I didn't say?

It is pretty boring for you to say nothing of substance but I would've expected nothing less.
It's OK that you miss the substance. Everyone cannot have a high IQ. Don't worry about it.

I answered you.
Saying no multiculturalism. Still leaves me with other question. Do you want a dictatorship, monarchy, communism or anarchism?
Why do you even think I want something? I'm showing how liberalism has resulted in a once beautiful developed country being reduced to a 3rd world hellhole.

The clueless liberals in Sweden will continue to too. And their once safe, beautiful, peaceful country will go down the tubes.
It was neither completely peaceful, beautiful or safe in the first place.
And no one said it was. But it is much less beautiful, peaceful, and safe than it used to be.

Stay tuned on northern Europe. Sooner or later, liberalism loses to reality.

You sound just like lefties instead of Europe it is America. I guess horseshoe theory has more substance than I actually thought. 
When liberals have to abandon their cherished leftist values in the face of hard reality, everyone wins.

Bringing busloads of primitive Muslims into modern, civilized cultures like Denmark and Sweden will wreak those cultures.

Reality is a hard university, but no one fails its classes. You just repeat till you learn or die.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @coal
I don't think you have the capacity to engage in a discussion of these topics.  
Nailed it. lol

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @ethang5
What I said had nothing to do with support. Rebut my argument, not your assumptions.
"Wait so if EU isn't completely free movement of people they don't support it?
Then the US doesn't support free speech because they have anti-discrimination laws limiting speech."
I just remembered I said nothing about you supporting whatsoever. If it wasn't clear "support it" refers to Denmark supporting free movement of people. Are you saying they don't and this clearly rebut your arguments. America has restrictions to when they use "free" so does Denmark. If you say I also disagree with America then I would have to think of a different argument. 
They didn't mention truth that was detrimental to liberalism. Proof.
Define liberalism.
And the fact that you can't answer shows you lack the knowledge.
Then enlighten me.
No. I state what I like. Sorry.
Even if you are contradicting yourself it doesn't matter. Noted. 
"What you know is of no importance."
"Tell us why they have now started to check."

Clearly asking me what I know doesn't matter then asks what do you know about the cause of these checks.
Because you're a liberal. The fake news doesn't know either.
??? Define fake news.
Lol. You don't that either. Go learn. The internet is free.
So you don't know either? If you do why not show some evidence?
Sweden was a safe country. Safe doesn't mean no crime exists.
What does it mean? Do tell.
Non-sequitur. I did not say the country had no trash, and only an dummy would think, "beautiful country" means no trash.
You say I did not say there is no trash then contradicted yourself by saying beautiful country means no trash.
Please tell me you know what a contradiction is.
Why do you even think I want something?
So you want nothing?
TRN:It was neither completely peaceful, beautiful or safe in the first place.
ethang5:And no one said it was.

And I quote "Not allowing boatloads of moron Muslim terrorists into your safe, beautiful, peaceful country in the name of multiculturalism."
No qualifier was made that it would become less safe. You simply said by virtue of Musim terrorist the country would no longer be safe, beautiful or peaceful. 
liberalism loses to reality.
What do you propose as a solution instead of liberalism as in another political ideology?
Bringing busloads of primitive Muslims into modern, civilized cultures like Denmark and Sweden will wreak those cultures.
Yet again stating Denmark and Sweden were civilized before Muslims then they became uncivilized. You do know you are not saying less right meaning it is going from 10 to 0?
Reality is a hard university, but no one fails its classes. You just repeat till you learn or die.
I don't think you have stepped into a university. Given your lack of knowledge on this subject. All I need to say is America has the same restrictions with the word free, your links don't support some grand conspiracy. I mean some people are just helpless in their own delusion. 
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,113
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
Good post Ethang
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @Dr.Franklin
Thanks Doc. Saw your post on JWs. That was dead right.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @TheRealNihilist
What I said had nothing to do with support. Rebut my argument, not your assumptions.

"Wait so if EU isn't completely free movement of people they don't support it?
I don't know and I don't care. I said nothing about support. If you want to start a discussion on a new topic, start a new thread.

I just remembered I said nothing about you supporting whatsoever.
I know.

If it wasn't clear "support it" refers to Denmark supporting free movement of people.
I did not say Denmark didn't.

Are you saying they don't and this clearly rebut your arguments.
Lol. You obviously don't know my argument. They do support the free movement of people between EU states, but they have to behave differently now because reality has forced them.

America has restrictions to when they use "free" so does Denmark. If you say I also disagree with America then I would have to think of a different argument.
Whether I disagree with your claim about America is irrelevant. My argument has nothing to do with support or freedoms. Your argument about America has nothing to do with what I'm saying, thus, I can ignore it.

They didn't mention truth that was detrimental to liberalism. Proof.

Define liberalism.
Don't put dictionary makers out of business. Look it up yourself.

And the fact that you can't answer shows you lack the knowledge.

Then enlighten me.
I'm trying to, but you seem to be allergic.

No. I state what I like. Sorry.

Even if you are contradicting yourself it doesn't matter. Noted.
As long as you remember that your thoughts are not reality.

"What you know is of no importance."
"Tell us why they have now started to check."

Clearly asking me what I know doesn't matter then asks what do you know about the cause of these checks.
The two "knows" referred to different things. That I have to tell you this should embarrass you.

Because you're a liberal. The fake news doesn't know either.

??? Define fake news.
News that is lacking validity due to valuing liberal dogma over truth.

Lol. You don't know that either. Go learn. The internet is free.

So you don't know either?
If you believe my not doing what you want means I don't know, sure.

If you do why not show some evidence?
Because it would not help you.

Sweden was a safe country. Safe doesn't mean no crime exists.

What does it mean? Do tell.
Look up "safe countries" and read slowly.

Non-sequitur. I did not say the country had no trash, and only a dummy would think, "beautiful country" means no trash.

You say I did not say there is no trash then contradicted yourself by saying beautiful country means no trash.
Read it again slowly.

Please tell me you know what a contradiction is.
Read it again slowly and then get back to me. Real slow now.

Why do you even think I want something?

So you want nothing?
I want a club sandwich but that is irrelevant here no?

TRN:It was neither completely peaceful, beautiful or safe in the first place.
ethang5:And no one said it was.
And I quote "Not allowing boatloads of moron Muslim terrorists into your safe, beautiful, peaceful country in the name of multiculturalism."
No qualifier was made that it would become less safe. You simply said by virtue of Musim terrorist the country would...
I said "did", not "would".

...no longer be safe, beautiful or peaceful.
Where is the word "completely" you added in? "completely peaceful, beautiful and safe" is different from, "peaceful, beautiful and safe". Words have meanings.

...liberalism loses to reality.

What do you propose as a solution instead of liberalism as in another political ideology?
Common sense works nicely.

Bringing bus loads of primitive Muslims into modern, civilized cultures like Denmark and Sweden will wreak those cultures.

Yet again stating Denmark and Sweden were civilized....
Notice no "completely".

..before Muslims then they became uncivilized.
They became less civilized. Why is such simplicity difficult for you?

You do know you are not saying less right meaning it is going from 10 to 0?
Your numbering system is your own.

Reality is a hard university, but no one fails its classes. You just repeat till you learn or die.

I don't think you have stepped into a university. Given your lack of knowledge on this subject.
OK. And if a university was teaching liberal stupidity, I would not step into it.

All I need to say is America has the same restrictions with the word free, your links don't support some grand conspiracy.
Of course they don't. Who said there was some grand conspiracy? I'm not talking about restrictions on freedom or conspiracies. Your reading comprehension is really poor.

Take that chip off your shoulder, and read more slowly.

I mean some people are just helpless in their own delusion.
Lol. I agree.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @ethang5
They do support the free movement of people between EU states, but they have to behave differently now because reality has forced them.


What is reality again?
Whether I disagree with your claim about America is irrelevant. My argument has nothing to do with support or freedoms. Your argument about America has nothing to do with what I'm saying, thus, I can ignore it

Clearly you can't engage with a hypothetical. Do you support America's restrictions on speech or are you going to avoid the question just because you think it is not relevant. Hypotheticals are relevant and mine can be clearly seen to be as close to the topic at hand. 
Don't put dictionary makers out of business. Look it up yourself.
Okay then given I asked you a question wanting you to answer but you don't want to answer it I will be also making this difficult. Liberalism isn't multiculturalism.
I'm trying to, but you seem to be allergic.
This must be how you converse with people. Saying nothing of substance.
The two "knows" referred to different things. That I have to tell you this should embarrass you.
Not explained nor in what you said did you add a qualifier. This is a real problem with you that you can't even clearly lay out what you say then blame your shortcomings on me.
News that is lacking validity due to valuing liberal dogma over truth.
Is liberal pretty much attached to everything? Damn you must be obssessed to liberalism.
Wrong defintion and here is the actual one: consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional news media (print and broadcast) or online social media.
If it wasn't clear you would have to show they are being deliberate in their disinformation. I don't think you can read minds nor bother to argue so I guess you won't be able to support the claim you make. Nothing new and I doubt this will change anytime soon. 
If you believe my not doing what you want means I don't know, sure.
Please clarify this.
Because it would not help you.
So basically instead of actually supporting your claims with evidence you are saying it wouldn't change my mind? I see the opposite. You realize I am asking the right questions, you don't want to find evidence so that your precious worldview isn't challenged. I know it must be hard to have such a flimsy reality but if you are right then all this would do is reinforce what you know. If you don't care about what is true then don't give evidence but I would like for you to say that before I claim that you don't care.
Look up "safe countries" and read slowly.
So I should be fulfilling your burden of proof? Must be really difficult trying to be someone who says things, gets annoyed and says to the other person go look up the information.
Read it again slowly.
What? So when I give you a clear contradiction you don't know what to do and tell me to read what I said again? You should read again maybe it would actually help you realize the contradictory of the two statements.
Read it again slowly and then get back to me. Real slow now.
Again nothing of substance. With the way things are going it would seem like you don't care about truth instead how truth conforms it your reality.
I want a club sandwich but that is irrelevant here no?
Nothing of substance yet again.
I said "did", not "would".
I mean at this point I think you are intentionally missing out the point I was trying to make so much so you are correcting things that need no correction. If it wasn't clear even if I said did instead of would it wouldn't change my point. You do know that right?
Where is the word "completely" you added in? "completely peaceful, beautiful and safe" is different from, "peaceful, beautiful and safe". Words have meanings.
It was an oxymoron given peaceful requires no crime to occur so yet again pointing out little details instead of the points I am making.
Common sense works nicely.
Anarchism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Communism or other (do tell what other or you know do what you have been doing this entire time)?
Notice no "completely"
You are actually like without qualifiers like more or less the other person is supposed to understand no I don't mean complete civility but pretty much anyone knows civility isn't on a spectrum until you put it on one. It isn't my fault you can't clearly lay out what you say. 
They became less civilized. Why is such simplicity difficult for you?
Oh so a key word is removed and now you blame me for your shortcomings? Damn it must be hard for you to understand when you have done wrong. Nice moving the goalposts as well.
OK. And if a university was teaching liberal stupidity, I would not step into it.
At this point I don't even think you even know what the word liberal means.
Who said there was some grand conspiracy?
Do you think multiculturalism works anywhere?
And who started this and who is carrying it on?
I want to see if you have the bravery to state the conspiracy you are apart of?
Lol. I agree.
Anyone reputable in any important subject would side with me.  
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @TheRealNihilist
They do support the free movement of people between EU states, but they have to behave differently now because reality has forced them.

What is reality again?
The thing that continues after you fall asleep.

Whether I disagree with your claim about America is irrelevant. My argument has nothing to do with support or freedoms. Your argument about America has nothing to do with what I'm saying, thus, I can ignore it

Clearly you can't engage with a hypothetical.
I can when I want to.

Do you support America's restrictions on speech
Some yes and some no.

...or are you going to avoid the question just because you think it is not relevant.
It isn't.

Hypotheticals are relevant and mine can be clearly seen to be as close to the topic at hand.
I made this topic and I disagree. But OK.

Okay then given I asked you a question wanting you to answer but you don't want to answer it I will be also making this difficult.
You've been making it easy so far??

Liberalism isn't multiculturalism.
This belongs in the thread of the person who said liberalism was multiculturalism.

I'm trying to, but you seem to be allergic.

This must be how you converse with people. Saying nothing of substance.
Lol. When you don't like what is said you say it lacks substance.

The two "knows" referred to different things. That I have to tell you this should embarrass you.

Not explained nor in what you said did you add a qualifier. This is a real problem with you that you can't even clearly lay out what you say then blame your shortcomings on me.
You think "peaceful" means "completely without crime" and you blame me for being unclear?

News that is lacking validity due to valuing liberal dogma over truth.

Is liberal pretty much attached to everything?
Most dumb things, yes.

Damn you must be obssessed to liberalism.
Perhaps. Obsession is subjective.

Wrong defintion and here is the actual one: consists of deliberate disinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional news media (print and broadcast) or online social media.
My definition was more accurate. Traditional news media outlets are all liberal, and all fake.

If it wasn't clear you would have to show they are being deliberate in their disinformation.
Why do you think every liberal thought Hillery would win? Why are they shocked each time the Supreme court finds in Trumps favor? Why do you think they all thought the Mueller report would depose Trump?

Would you like to place a bet on the Impeachment outcome?

I don't think you can read minds nor bother to argue so I guess you won't be able to support the claim you make.
Why would I need to be able to read minds to support a claim I made?

Nothing new and I doubt this will change anytime soon.
I haven't a clue what you're talking about. So OK.

Please clarify this.
Because it would not help you.
You seem to have a vague objection to me and it's corrupting your perception. You see my responses through your lens, and some responses will be perceived by you into something hurtful to you. I do not wish to hurt you. I kinda like you.

So basically instead of actually supporting your claims with evidence you are saying it wouldn't change my mind?
No. I don't care about changing anyone's mind. I said it wouldn't help you. It would hurt you.

I see the opposite. You realize I am asking the right questions,
Everyone thinks their questions are the right ones. Everyone isn't always right.

...you don't want to find evidence so that your precious worldview isn't challenged.
Strange then that I would come to a debate board and speak to people with different worldviews to mine, isn't it?

I know it must be hard to have such a flimsy reality but if you are right then all this would do is reinforce what you know.
Well, either I'm right, or I have a flimsy reality (whatever that is!) I doubt it can be both.

If you don't care about what is true then don't give evidence but I would like for you to say that before I claim that you don't care.
Caring about truth as paramount is what makes conservatives, conservatives.

Look up "safe countries" and read slowly.

So I should be fulfilling your burden of proof?
Your education is not my burden. Read slowly because it will help your reading comprehension.

Must be really difficult trying to be someone who says things, gets annoyed and says to the other person go look up the information.
I'm never annoyed online.

Read it again slowly.

What? So when I give you a clear contradiction you don't know what to do and tell me to read what I said again?
You misread what I said. I know this because you misquoted what I said. Read it again slowly.

You should read again maybe it would actually help you realize the contradictory of the two statements.
OK. When you're less upset, read it again and you'll see you misread. There is no contradiction.

Again nothing of substance.
That is excellent advice to someone with a reading comprehension problem.

With the way things are going it would seem like you don't care about truth instead how truth conforms it your reality.
OK.

I want a club sandwich but that is irrelevant here no?

Nothing of substance yet again.
You asked.

I said "did", not "would".

I mean at this point I think you are intentionally missing out the point I was trying to make so much so you are correcting things that need no correction.
I wanted it corrected now before your poor reading comprehension cemented it into truth for you.

If it wasn't clear even if I said did instead of would it wouldn't change my point. You do know that right?
Yes. But you point was still wrong. Peaceful does not mean, completely peaceful, and beautiful does not mean without trash whatsoever.

Where is the word "completely" you added in? "completely peaceful, beautiful and safe" is different from, "peaceful, beautiful and safe". Words have meanings.

It was an oxymoron given peaceful requires no crime to occur... 
Untrue. Some crimes are not violent. Also, if you were right, the earth would have no peaceful countries. That is obviously untrue.

...so yet again pointing out little details instead of the points I am making.
No matter how strongly you believe otherwise, completely peaceful, beautiful and safe countries" is different from, "peaceful, beautiful and safe countries".

Common sense works nicely.

Anarchism, Dictatorship, Monarchy, Communism or other (do tell what other or you know do what you have been doing this entire time)?
You asked and I answered. My answer was correct and appropriate. So it wasn't one you like, eh.

Notice no "completely"

You are actually like without qualifiers like more or less the other person is supposed to understand no I don't mean complete civility but pretty much anyone knows civility isn't on a spectrum until you put it on one.
You put it on a spectrum when you added in "completely". No sane person thinks " peaceful country" means without crime. I do not play with silliness.

It isn't my fault you can't clearly lay out what you say.
Then perhaps your poor reading comprehension is my fault, right?

They became less civilized. Why is such simplicity difficult for you?

Oh so a key word is removed and now you blame me for your shortcomings?
Your "key" word "completely" was not mine, thus, I could not have removed it.

Damn it must be hard for you to understand when you have done wrong. Nice moving the goalposts as well.
Lol. You really think in absolutes till qualifiers are given? How old are you?

OK. And if a university was teaching liberal stupidity, I would not step into it.

At this point I don't even think you even know what the word liberal means.
I wish I didn't. That would mean there were none, and the world would be a better place.

Who said there was some grand conspiracy?

Do you think multiculturalism works anywhere?
Yes. When the cultures are similar enough, and when it is done slowly enough for those with the primitive culture to assimilate properly. And in the movies it works.

And who started this and who is carrying it on?
Who started what?

I want to see if you have the bravery to state the conspiracy you are apart of?
Lol. If a person was part of a conspiracy, he would not admit it. And as I told you, I'm not talking about any conspiracy.

If you think there is one, fine, but that's you, not me.

Lol. I agree.

Anyone reputable in any important subject would side with me.  
And look, I agreed.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @ethang5
I am trimming this down.
Whether I disagree with your claim about America is irrelevant. My argument has nothing to do with support or freedoms. Your argument about America has nothing to do with what I'm saying, thus, I can ignore it
Having border checks is not against the principle of free movement of people.


ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,474
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
Having border checks is not against the principle of free movement of people.
No one said it was.

But it is a change from their original position. Conservatives predicted it. Liberals called them islamophobic.

Who's doing what they called islamophobic now? Liberals.

Why are they doing now what they once condemned the conservatives for considering? Liberals.

Why the change?

They just graduated from the university of reality and have realized their liberal position was stupidity.

Too bad innocent Swedes had to die before the morons came to their senses. And people wonder why far right parties are gaining popularity.
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
8
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
8
11
--> @ethang5
But it is a change from their original position.
Let me repeat myself again: "Having border checks is not against the principle of free movement of people."

coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,455
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @Dr.Franklin
It's not a good post at all.  It's an astonishingly low-quality rant of nonsense that barely rises to a level of C- work at a community college.