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

On Tue, 18 Aug 2026 22:22:46 -0700, dart200
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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 ...

Yes, I read it.  Strange that it did not say that to me.  Time to
wander off into the wilderness mumbling to myself.
-- 
Noah Sombrero mustachioed villain
Don't get political with me young man
or I'll tie you to a railroad track and
<<<talk>>> to <<<YOOooooo>>>
Who dares to talk to El Sombrero?
dares: Ned
does not dare: Julian  shrinks in horror and warns others away