Which country is/was more free?

[opebo]

South Africa.  I'm not quite sure how South Africa wasn't a very free country.

Racist

huh?

I believe BRTD is referring to the fact that the Africans were slaves of the whites.

As for modern Germany, it is much more free than modern America.

[opebo]

I believe BRTD is referring to the fact that the Africans were slaves of the whites.

Huh?  I was a slave to ... which white person?

You are not an African, you are a white imperialist.

[opebo]

I believe BRTD is referring to the fact that the Africans were slaves of the whites.

Huh?  I was a slave to ... which white person?

You are not an African, you are a white imperialist.

He was born in Africa

What does that have to do with it?  He was born to white imperialists who were there as overseers of the slaves.

[opebo]

I believe BRTD is referring to the fact that the Africans were slaves of the whites.

Huh?  I was a slave to ... which white person?

You are not an African, you are a white imperialist.

He was born in Africa

What does that have to do with it?

Being born in Africa kind of makes you an African.... unless of course, you say that only blacks can be African.  In that case, you're a racist for looking at skin color, and you're telling me that Egyptians are not African.

I think of Egyptians as Arabs. 

[opebo]

I believe BRTD is referring to the fact that the Africans were slaves of the whites.

Huh?  I was a slave to ... which white person?

You are not an African, you are a white imperialist.

He was born in Africa

What does that have to do with it?

Being born in Africa kind of makes you an African.... unless of course, you say that only blacks can be African.  In that case, you're a racist for looking at skin color, and you're telling me that Egyptians are not African.

I think of Egyptians as Arabs. 

They're still African.  What about Ethiopians?  Or Sudanese?

Only the black Sudanese are Africans.. their Muslim overlords are Arabs.  Ethiopians?  They look black to me.

[opebo]

There's so many shades of Black that it's really, really arbitrary to declare just some of them as "African."

But the fellow who is very, very pink, and is standing over the very black looking fellows with a whip in his hand is hardly 'African'.

[opebo]

There's so many shades of Black that it's really, really arbitrary to declare just some of them as "African."

But the fellow who is very, very pink, and is standing over the very black looking fellows with a whip in his hand is hardly 'African'.

Africa is a continent.  Thus, 'African' cannot be considered a race.  It seems like you think huge chunks of North Africa aren't 'African' either.

No, more Arab/Muslim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, well your murderous ancestors killed nearly all they encountered, making their 'possession' of this continent a bit more indisputable.  Richius's lazy ancestors merely parasited themselves upon slaves, so when those slaves threw them off, they were rejected by the continent they had briefly ruled over. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see how anything I post is contradictory to my views.

[opebo]

Let me say, dear opebo, that the fact remains that whether or not they're imposing subjective preferences on other people's personal lives is a matter of opinion, i.e. not a moral absolute.

No, that is a factual absolute, not a moral absolute.

[opebo]

Let me say, dear opebo, that the fact remains that whether or not they're imposing subjective preferences on other people's personal lives is a matter of opinion, i.e. not a moral absolute.

No, that is a factual absolute, not a moral absolute.

So the idea that West Virginia votes on the wrong issues is a factual absolute?  Sounds more like an opinion.

Why do you apply statements I made about one thing to completely unrelated things.  Yes, I have opinions.  Is that OK with you?

The fact that West Virginians are voting to impose their subjective preferences upon other's personal lives is factually correct.  My dislike of that is of course subjective.

You seem to be obsessed with semantics, and I'm the first to admit my statements are not always perfectly worded and clear.  Who's are?  Sometimes when I say 'wrong' I mean I don't like it, and sometimes I mean it is factually wrong.  Lastly, I occasionally mean that I think the person's reasoning or priorities are actually self-destructive, as in the case of the poors in WV prioritizing making gays and secularists miserable rather than themselves better off - obviously they're free to do that, I'm just criticising them.  I'll try to be more clear in future.

[opebo]

Now, the idea that West Virginia voters want to control other people's personal lives is a bit nonsense if you state this as fact; why is this, their alleged opposition to abortion and gay marriage?  First of all, you do not need a marriage license to participate in gay sex in West Virginia, just like any other kind of sex, and abortion is a matter of life, not choice, so I don't see how they're oppressing women by being opposed to killing women (and men) who aren't born yet.

But the mere fact that you care about other's personal activities that have no effect upon you shows you are an intolerant.  Besides, we weren't talking about gay sex, we were talking about marriage.

Obviously opposition to abortion and gay marriage are attempts to control other people's personal lives.

[opebo]

As I stated, this is not the case with abortion.  I've never met an anti-abortion person who's reason for their position is because they want to "oppress" women.

Their intention is irrelvant.   They are meddling, based on what they believe to be 'objective morality', and not based on any effect abortions have upon them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with migrendel that marriages of any kind are rather distasteful, but I'm deeply offended that any class of people is treated unequally based on the fiction of objective morality.

[opebo]

As I stated, this is not the case with abortion.  I've never met an anti-abortion person who's reason for their position is because they want to "oppress" women.

Their intention is irrelvant.   They are meddling, based on what they believe to be 'objective morality', and not based on any effect abortions have upon them.

This is only your opinion, yet you continue to state it as fact.

No, it is what they give as a rational for their behaviours.  They think abortion is 'wrong'.  Enough said.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You compare marriage to slavery, yet you want to expand it?  If I were you I'd want to get rid of all forms of it, not vote yes on gay marriage and then go and yell about how bad marriage is to begin with.
[/quote]

Where did I compare marriage to slavery?  Not in the above post.  I said it was 'distasteful'.  But just because I dislike something, why should I want other's not to have access to it?  I'm not an intolerant.  Let them be married, I just wouldn't care for such a miserable lifestyle.

[opebo]

You have implied that marriage and slavery are similar many times before, if not outright stated so.  Also, I think rape is 'wrong.'  Am I subjecting my personal preferences over people's lives?

Yes.  A more appropriate way of approaching the issue of use of force of one citizen upon another is not to say it is 'objectively wrong', but rather that all (or most) citizens subjectively wish to be free of such attacks on their person, and the State engages in a social contract with them, promising to attempt to prevent such infringements.