patrick.net

Wow, on the basis on National Origin.

Amazing Neoliberal Fascism is more hypocritical with every passing day. There isn't a declared war.

Russian is a race now?

Racism is discrimination on national origin.

Compare with after 9/11, despite the terrorists coming from mostly Saudi Arabia and a few from Egypt and elsewhere, the Media and the President carried out a "Don't you dare be racist by holding nationals of that country to stringent vetting standards for entry". And forbade airport security and then the TSA from National Origin bias for boarding security checks by law.

RWSGFY says

Russian is a race now?

No, there is only one race, the human race. But people are more familiar with racism than bigotry. Regardless of what you call it, it's wrong to discriminate against anyone based soly on their ethnicity.

Mostly peaceful racist account freezings!

NuttBoxer says

RWSGFY says

Russian is a race now?

No, there is only one race, the human race. But people are more familiar with racism than bigotry. Regardless of what you call it, it's wrong to discriminate against anyone based soly on their ethnicity.

It's not "based on ethnicity", it's based on the country of origin. Russia is an empire state with at least 20 ethnicities living in it. And since it's a corrupt state all money being syphoned out of it should be suspect. If you are American (or Estonian, German, Mexican...) of Russian ethnicity nobody would "discriminate" against you. So stop the hysterionics: you guys are starting to sound like these lefty BLM fucks crying "racist oppression" at every turn.

RWSGFY says

Russia is an empire state with at least 20 ethnicities living in it. A

Okay, Saudi Arabia has Nepalese, Indians, French, Germans, etc. working in it. I believe Hundreds of Thousands of just Filipinos.

The EU is treating some of National Origin different than others, in contrast with the US policies a few months after 9/11.

RWSGFY says

country of origin

I'm thinking, it's not even that. It's probably the current citizenship that matters, and likely not across the border.

NuttBoxer says

RWSGFY says

Russian is a race now?

No, there is only one race, the human race. But people are more familiar with racism than bigotry. Regardless of what you call it, it's wrong to discriminate against anyone based soly on their ethnicity.

No, it isn't. People have right to discriminate however they like. It's human nature. Everyone stay out of everyone else's business. Except the government...it's wrong for representative government to discriminate for any other reason than meritocracy reasons.

RWSGFY says

If you are American (or Estonian, German, Mexican...) of Russian ethnicity nobody would "discriminate" against you.

You need to expand, because based on what I see here you are literally stating the opposite of the facts.

WineHorror1 says

People have right to discriminate however they like.

Was talking about morality, not capability.

NuttBoxer says

WineHorror1 says

People have right to discriminate however they like.

Was talking about morality, not capability.

I'll go even farther. The civil rights act should have been limited to the government with the elimination of affirmative action...a.k.a. Affirmative Racism. Freedom really can solve some problems. I believe people, if left to their own accord, would eventually self segregate and be much happier for it. At least the majority would. IMO.

We already self segregate based on economic factors.

If Russians were black or Muslim it would be called wrong by our media. But they are white, so ok to discriminate by our self loathing culture.

WineHorror1 says

I'll go even farther. The civil rights act should have been limited to the government with the elimination of affirmative action...a.k.a. Affirmative Racism. Freedom really can solve some problems.

I never consider governments involvement, i.e. the law, in matters of right and wrong. Morality is imprinted on us from birth, it's part of who we are. And we all know, discriminating against someone just because they're Russian is wrong.

You can lie on patnet, but you can't lie to yourself.

NuttBoxer says

WineHorror1 says

I'll go even farther. The civil rights act should have been limited to the government with the elimination of affirmative action...a.k.a. Affirmative Racism. Freedom really can solve some problems.

I never consider governments involvement, i.e. the law, in matters of right and wrong. Morality is imprinted on us from birth, it's part of who we are. And we all know, discriminating against someone just because they're Russian is wrong.

You can lie on patnet, but you can't lie to yourself.

I give more weight to freedom than I do to morality.

So you know doing whatever you want, even when it harms or kills someone else is the definition of a sociopath.

Just trying to get you to follow your idea to it's logical conclusion.

NuttBoxer says

So you know doing whatever you want, even when it harms or kills someone else is the definition of a sociopath.

Just trying to get you to follow your idea to it's logical conclusion.

Come on, the argument for freedom is strong. Of course freedom doesn't mean I can simply go out and kill someone. A crime is not a crime unless there is a victim. Please don't come to me with lame ass arguments that have been hashed forever. Even a 5 year old knows that you can't do that. You think government can do anything about morality?

WineHorror1 says

Of course freedom doesn't mean I can simply go out and kill someone.

So you are willing to curtail your freedom if the results would infringe on someone else's freedom, such as the freedom to live. And you do that because you are a good person with moral convictions. I would then posit that morality is actually higher than freedom in your estimation.

WineHorror1 says

You think government can do anything about morality?

---

No, and for elaboration, I refer you to my previous comments in this thread.

NuttBoxer says

WineHorror1 says

Of course freedom doesn't mean I can simply go out and kill someone.

So you are willing to curtail your freedom if the results would infringe on someone else's freedom, such as the freedom to live. And you do that because you are a good person with moral convictions. I would then posit that morality is actually higher than freedom in your estimation.

WineHorror1 says

You think government can do anything about morality?

---

No, and for elaboration, I refer you to my previous comments in this thread.

There is no arbiter on earth. The best we can do is put freedom first. And, yes, freedom means for all. Asking me if I believe freedom means I can go kill someone or not is a tired and old rebuttal.

We each stand in judgement of ourselves, but our morality does not come from us. It is imbued by our Creator. And He will be the final judge.

Biden molests children. Not because freedom is bad, but because he is immoral. Without morality, freedom loses it's humanity.

Freedom doesn't mean harm others. Why are you tying freedom to harm? Why are you trying to make it sound like freedom is inherently harmful?

If you're freedom is always more important to you than acting morally, I believe that's the hierarchy you've outlined, at some point that will mean making a choice to do something harmful to someone else. Freedom in the context of moral restraint is wonderful. But if morality is completely forgone, or an afterthought, what other conclusion can we logically draw?

NuttBoxer says

If you're freedom is always more important to you than acting morally, I believe that's the hierarchy you've outlined, at some point that will mean making a choice to do something harmful to someone else. Freedom in the context of moral restraint is wonderful. But if morality is completely forgone, or an afterthought, what other conclusion can we logically draw?

I did not eliminate morality. I said I put more weight on freedom than morality. Simply because there is no arbiter on earth. Morality is more subjective that freedom is, imo. Let me ask you...freedom or safety, which is more important?

WineHorror1 says

Freedom doesn't mean harm others.

Harm? For example, lets talk about that dude swimmer that is beating all the girls.....is he harming girls sports? Or are the protests supporting the rights of the girls harming him?
Both I would suspect depending on whose side you are on. So who gets do decide what HARM is? And what is moral or immoral?

Freedom would allow the NCAA to exclude this dude. Also, people don't have to attend these events. People could ridicule him mercilessly until he quits. Remember the story about a men's only golf course some years ago? They were forced to accept women. That's not freedom.