Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Infidel144]

"History has taught us that concentration camps should be liberated.
We cannot & should not wait until 2020, w/ the hope that we defeat Trump, to free these children.
We should liberate them NOW - by any means necessary."
Shaun King
https://twitter.com/shaunking

"Armed 69-year-old ‘antifascist’ shot dead after firebombing immigration centre"

"A rifle-armed 69-year-old has been fatally shot by the police after throwing incendiary devices at an immigration centre in Tacoma, Washington
Officers were called to the privately run prison at around 4am where the man, identified in local media as Willem Van Spronsen of Vashon Island, had set a vehicle alight with the explosives."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9004131.html

[PointOfViewGun]

Also from Shaun King from the same link:

I swear, I am not trying to be inflammatory. I don’t mean this as a threat of violence or physical force, but I thought that concentration camps were supposed to be liberated. I thought that kids being held against their will in such atrocious conditions were supposed to be rescued. I don’t know what that kind of rescue would look like in present-day terms, but I know this much: My soul is uncomfortable with where we are.

[Gaidin]

They will, because liberals care more about not being called racists than enforcing laws.

Yea. There are admittedly many people that don't use legality as a measuring stick for ethics. Slavery was legal. The Holocaust was legal. Segregation was legal. Pardon me if I don't use legality as a measuring stick for ethics. I prefer to not be measured by what was legal. I preferred to be measured by how I roll back the unethical legal methods.

America literally has functional concentration camps along its southern border. Literal legal functional concentration camps with people sleeping and standing cheek by jowl with a focus on Hispanics. I care not one wit if they crossed the border illegally or if they crossed the border legally but stayed out their visa so are now here illegally. The way they are crammed in there and treated makes them concentration camps. And they are legal. We treated the Japanese better in World War 2 and we treated the Japanese like utter . So, pardon me if I don't care to hold myself to the standard of American Law right now.

[Basil II the B.S]

Yea. There are admittedly many people that don't use legality as a measuring stick for ethics. Slavery was legal. The Holocaust was legal. Segregation was legal. Pardon me if I don't use legality as a measuring stick for ethics. I prefer to not be measured by what was legal. I preferred to be measured by how I roll back the unethical legal methods.

America literally has functional concentration camps along its southern border. Literal legal functional concentration camps with people sleeping and standing cheek by jowl with a focus on Hispanics. I care not one wit if they crossed the border illegally or if they crossed the border legally but stayed out their visa so are now here illegally. The way they are crammed in there and treated makes them concentration camps. And they are legal. We treated the Japanese better in World War 2 and we treated the Japanese like utter . So, pardon me if I don't care to hold myself to the standard of American Law right now.

Ahahahaha liberals are once again comparing border enforcement to slavery and the Holocaust. Anything less than letting anyone in is ''genocide'' and ''concentration camps''. You are calling for the abolition of border controls on ''ethical grounds'' because dishonest criminal immigrants use their kids as battering ram to enter the country illegaly. It's actually hilarious how insane, factually incorrect, morally reprehensible your argument is. If there's one ''genocide'' that's ongoing is the one perpetrated by immigrants against Americans by the kind of policies that you argue for.

You call that ''ethical''? You are arguing for the complete destruction on the country, and let's be clear on this one, if there are no controlled borders, then there's no country. Everyone knows what you liberals are up to. The subversion of American demographics to turn it into a one party state like the California. Immigrants are a tool to rig elections. There's nothing ''ethical'' about your argument. You are calling for the abolition of border controls with an anti-democratic, un-American, treacherous and subversive goal behind. Your subversion of democracy is more important than the safety of your own fellow citizens whom are raped and murdered by the criminal immigrants you want to import for political reasons.

This is a good evidence that your side has declared war against American citizens, against the Constitution, against Rule of Law. I am glad that people are finally seeing you for what you are.
Let's also be clear on who supports Gaidin's argument and why:


''No borders, no wall, no US at all''. This is what liberals want. Gaidin has made it clear: border enforcement is unethical. Antifa tell us what are the liberal goals: the destruction of the US, under ''ethical reasons'' of course.

[Infidel144]

Also from Shaun King from the same link:

By "from the same link", do you mean he wrote that in his twit post, or by clicking on another link to an article he wrote for The Intercept, which does not use the words "by any means necessary"?

[Gaidin]

Ahahahaha liberals are once again comparing border enforcement to slavery and the Holocaust.

And you think a concentration camp and a death camp is the same thing. There are historically recorded instances of concentration camp somewhere in the world at some point since the late nineteenth century at any given time. Even Pence says these conditions are unacceptable. And Congress has passed funding to improve the conditions so you, sir, literally have no leg to stand on this debate. Your own conservative Vice President says this is being handled poorly. And that is while he is being a Fake Christian and dodging most of the questions about his visit to the Migrant Center. DHS can either spend that 4.5 billion allocated dollars and improve conditions. Or Trump can look like the next endorser of Concentration Camps.

[Basil II the B.S]

You brought up slavery and the Holocaust as comparison. Are you backtracking your retarded liberal argument?

[Infidel144]

"Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp

[Gaidin]

You brought up slavery and the Holocaust as comparison. Are you backtracking your retarded liberal argument?

Nope. I said those two things were legal when they occurred. So was segregation in America in the 1960's, which required the domestic deployment of the 101st Airborne to do anything about once SCOTUS said Segregation was illegal. I was responding to a post where you care more about enforcing laws. Guess what America is doing right now that is technically legal.

[PointOfViewGun]

By "from the same link", do you mean he wrote that in his twit post, or by clicking on another link to an article he wrote for The Intercept, which does not use the words "by any means necessary"?

It's in the link shared in the very same post you copy pasted from. The article is there to build up on his words.

[chriscase]

If you have questions or concerns about moderation actions or policy, please PM a moderator or post in the appropriate Commentary thread.

[Infidel144]

It's in the link shared in the very same post you copy pasted from. The article is there to build up on his words.

So it would be this one "by clicking on another link to an article he wrote for The Intercept, which does not use the words "by any means necessary"".

The twit post was promoting the article in The Intercept.
"By any means necessary" includes violence. Such as that done by Willem Van Spronsen.

Maybe Shaun King is too stupid to realize this.

[Basil II the B.S]

Nope. I said those two things were legal when they occurred. So was segregation in America in the 1960's, which required the domestic deployment of the 101st Airborne to do anything about once SCOTUS said Segregation was illegal. I was responding to a post where you care more about enforcing laws. Guess what America is doing right now that is technically legal.

The list of things that were legal at a certain point is endless. You chose the Holocaust and slavery because you thought it was a fitting comparison to detention of criminal immigrants.
Do you stand by your comparison yes or no?

[PointOfViewGun]

So it would be this one "by clicking on another link to an article he wrote for The Intercept, which does not use the words "by any means necessary"".

The twit post was promoting the article in The Intercept.
"By any means necessary" includes violence. Such as that done by Willem Van Spronsen.

Maybe Shaun King is too stupid to realize this.

Do you think it also includes nuking Washington D.C.?

[Infidel144]

Do you think it also includes nuking Washington D.C.?

If it is necessary to stop NazICEs...

[Gaidin]

Do you stand by your comparison yes or no?

Of why you shouldn't use legality as a guideline for ethics? Yes. This is really a point you should stop pressing. It's very conceptually simple and I really don't have to give ground on it at all. And there's no point you can make to make me seem unreasonable. All the law says is what you can be legally do. Not what is morally or ethically right based on some ethical system. An entirely different and unique debate altogether.

If you wish to emphasize what is legal and only what is legal, I'm sure you live a very...legal life and you will never have any issues whatsoever as long as you keep up with what your own country passes for law.

[Basil II the B.S]

No no no no. You chose a comparison which is the most extreme you could possibly find, namely detention for criminal immigrants and the Holocaust, aka genocide. Do you stand by it yes or no?

You can always say: ''ok that was dumb, here's a more proper comparison, the liberal narrative by AOC comparison detention of criminal immigrants to the Holocaust is utterly retarded''. Then I move on.

[95thrifleman]

No no no no. You chose a comparison which is the most extreme you could possibly find, namely detention for criminal immigrants and the Holocaust, aka genocide. Do you stand by it yes or no?

You can always say: ''ok that was dumb, here's a more proper comparison, the liberal narrative by AOC comparison detention of criminal immigrants to the Holocaust is utterly retarded''. Then I move on.

The ethical point is valid. Law is not the measuring stick of ethics. In living memory gay people in my country where subject to chemical castration or prison simply for having consensual sexual acts with someone of the same sex. The father of computers and creator of the WW2 Enigma machine, Alan Turing, was subject to this "legal" torture.

Trying to twist a failed argument into a detention centre/holocaust debate is a typical act of desperation.

America has a disturbing habit of ignoring morality to justify security. The Japanese in WW2, GITMO, these detention centres etc, all disturbing examples. Not to mention the American embrace of slavery, eugenics and racial segregation social scourges which all took hated "liberals" to eliminate.

[Basil II the B.S]

Here's another one. Are you really comparing detention of criminal immigrants to the Holocaust?

[Gaidin]

"Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp

Quoted for reference.