Re: on why are you a bunch of racist pricks?

On 8/18/26 9:26 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 20:52:20 -0700, dart200
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> On 8/18/26 8:50 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 20:28:33 -0700, dart200
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/18/26 5:54 PM, Creon wrote:
>>>>> At Mon, 17 Aug 2026 21:44:50 -0400, Noah Sombrero <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Aug 2026 17:00:30 -0400, Wilson <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/17/2026 3:37 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/17/26 8:18 AM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2026 10:39 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/26 7:24 PM, Dude wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/16/2026 4:40 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> something both liberals and libertarians shit all over everyone's
>>>>>>>>>>>> basic freedom of movement just to keep their damned ungodly
>>>>>>>>>>>> narratives from croaking out completely
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 7/8 people on this planet are enslaved to their nation state and
>>>>>>>>>>>> capitalism will have nothing to do with solving the lack of basic
>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom on this planet
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You can't have open borders in a welfare state.
>>>>>>>>>> i'm sorry... why can't you have a global welfare state?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> rhetorical question dud: it's because capitalism hasn't been
>>>>>>>>>> prosperous enough
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> basically we have closed borders and shit on the basic freedom of 7/8
>>>>>>>>>> of the total global population because capitalism needs to maintain
>>>>>>>>>> it's ungodly stupid narrative of "general prosperity"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>      > you people are fucking psychos tbh
>>>>>>>>>>      >
>>>>>>>>>>      > #god
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A nation is more than the dirt. It's mostly the people who live there.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you allow unlimited migration against the will of the people who
>>>>>>>>> are currently living in a place, that's an infringement on their
>>>>>>>>> person, their humanity. Vast numbers of new people who don't fit in
>>>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> uhhh ... these aren't extraterrestrial aliens were talking about, they
>>>>>>>> are also humans. i think ur the one who's lost their humanity u fucking
>>>>>>>> racist tard
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> lives and ways of the current resident could (and likely would)
>>>>>>>>> destroy their nation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the sf bay area where i'm from is 35% white, 30% asian, 25% latino, 5%
>>>>>>>> black, and 5% other. i can assure you that we haven't "lost" our
>>>>>>>> humanity u racist tard. in fact one of these reasons i don't want to
>>>>>>>> move away from the bay is the multicultural aspect and the fact people
>>>>>>>> here aren't generally racist pricks like urself...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But collectivist ideology places the immigrant above the residents who
>>>>>>>>> are already there, because "muh feeeelz!".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> violating basic freedom of movement by chaining 7/8ths people on this
>>>>>>>> planet to their nation states is not just a matter of "muh feeeelz" you
>>>>>>>> inhumane prick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They just don't care about the people and the lives and that would be
>>>>>>>>> destroyed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lol, u really don't think capitalism is that powerful of economic
>>>>>>>> system, eh? ur whole narrative of "general progress" is that much of a
>>>>>>>> fragile pile of godshit eh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's not racist to want to preserve your heritage and the same would
>>>>>>> apply if all of the people were white or any other race.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think would happen if several million Russians fleeing Putin
>>>>>>> wanted to move to one of the smaller islands in the Philippines?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fallacy alert:  ad absurdum.  You really gotta cut that out, wilson.
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, don't look now -- but logical arguments aren't fallacies simply
>>>>> because there are colloquial Latin names for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> An "ad absurdum" argument is perfectly valid.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> creon is correct about that ad absurdum is a valid argument style, the
>>>> term noah was looking for is slippery slope fallacy
>>>
>>> Not so.
>>
>> ???
> 
> Wiki calls it Reduction ad absurd um
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

did u read that noah? it's a valid argument, not a fallacy ...

-- 
hi, i'm nick!
let's end war 🙃