Sign into an existing account

Nah, recreate all the YT "shooting tests" gelatine is jsut not the real thing.

I learned that many years ago.

One condemned man swallowed rocks. That broke the sword and with the remaining remnant the samurai killed himself as the sword was so expensive that he was ruined.

Are you also good with persecuting Christians because they are the first ones that persecute their religious opponents upon seizing power?

Are you also good with persecuting NSDAP proponents because they are the first ones that persecute their political enemies upon seizing power?

Either you are for freedom of speech, or you are not. If you propose persecuting those who speak out versus your values, then you are in the NOT category. Here on this forum, that should make you a pariah, but sadly, pretty much everyone here is "YEAH! FUCK THEM! SHUT DOWN THEIR SPEECH BECAUSE I DONT LIKE WHAT THEY SAY!" but do it unironically.

And their own, even after the longs knifes are dull they still keep at it.

She was fired for depicting pedophiles as an "unjustly persecuted" minority in a room full of children.

Are you Cathy Newman now? kek


That's a heck of a sentence. Had to re-read it 3 times to understand your idea. I think it was because it was written "backwards", where the subject is the object (I forget the grammarian term, apologies). Did I get this right? "The targets of pedophilia need to assume that the pedo-pushers are merely political opponents, and not necessarily predators, per se." That was how you interpreted and responded to what I wrote?

Fair enough. To note: I was not in the classroom, so I was not privy to the actual discussion or how it began, but if I had been,m my assumption is by using the "absurdity" principle, or the "extreme" situation, where you make your point by going WELL beyond the reasonable, for effect rather than for truth. Rush Limbaugh used this absurdity principle as his main argumentation formula, and it was rather annoying when he did it when I listened to him back in the 90s.

Basically, I saw it as the teacher explaining what Arthur Miller was trying to say was that using labels to separate the 'other' from the 'norm' just devolves into name calling and language games, as the 'dirty commie pinko' to one is the 'democratic socialist' to another, and just the mere accusation makes one a criminal is inherently wrong when we go into these extreme labeling.

Just look around here, ffs. Imagine if everyone who is called a pedo would actually be burned at the stake, simply because someone else typed it in a forum once. Is that justice? Should everyone who has been typed at as 'pedo' be treated as if they actually committed child rape, as in if I type, "dalai_llama is a pedo", then the state should come in and arrest you for actually having intercourse with a child, and then execute you, as well, on the evidence that 'well, being a pedo is bad, therefore, since you were lableed 'pedo', you are bad, and deserve death." Not the best society to be in, IMO. However, if you changed the wording to separate child rapists from MAPs or whatever, you can punish the bad, and still simply abhor the MAP without having to go full death sentence for 'wrongthink'.

I agree it's a shitty example the teacher used - but again, I was not in the classroom, and texas has passed a law where you can't talk politics in class, so she couldn't have used 'Ds vs Rs'. I just view this as another case of common sense tossed out the window so that a bunch of internet tough guys can ruin some stranger's life simply for the rush of dopamine with their faux outrage.

Jesus, dude, you responded to my comment FOUR TIMES? Unhinged much?

LOL.

Her name and location are available, so I'm sure she is on someone's list.

Seek help or move to Africa.

Degenerate faggot child rapist is better.