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

On 8/19/26 5:26 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
> 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

  | In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"),
  | also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to
  | absurdity"), apagogical argument, or proof by contradiction, is the
  | _form of argument_ that attempts to establish a claim by showing that
  | following the logic of a contrary proposition or argument would lead
  | to absurdity or contradiction.

no where in that initial definition does it mention fallacy, nor does it 
mention fallacy in the rest of page except for related links


> wander off into the wilderness mumbling to myself.

bet

-- 
hi, i'm nick!
let's end war 🙃