Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

poizon

Members
  • Content count

    1,981
  • Joined

  • Last visited

7 Followers

About poizon

  • Rank
    Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    IxTJ

Converted

  • Gender
    Male
  • Personal Text
    Qui vivra verra

Recent Profile Visitors

2,145 profile views
  1. Can you be specific? How is this butthurt being manifested. I'm not purposefully playing ignorant here. I'm genuinely interested in what you mean specifically. I agree, as long as noone's rights are actually infringed upon and the law is being followed. I see, so non-white women get it harsher yet generally women get it easier despite the fact that you just said So what if a black man or a black woman murdered a white man. Who's sentence would be lighter?
  2. Whoa whoa, did you just say that there's bias against women when it comes to murder cases? or did I read that wrong?
  3. Ah, ok. Glad to know you're not one of those people then. I must have totally misinterpreted your post in that other thread. Interesting how you chose to simply dismiss the claim rather than refute it though. It's not like I specifically quoted you on it or anything. What's so remarkable about it? What do you mean by suspect in this context? You mean like the 4 you dodged and purposefully cut out of my quote? Personally, I don't have anything to say that would get me thrown in jail such as yelling fire in a crowded movie theater but there are other things that I could talk about that could get me into social trouble. AKA have social repercussions for having an unpopular opinion, but it's not against the law to disagree with me and I wouldn't be jailed for my words alone. There's plenty of people who've been beaten for their beliefs whether they're PC or not. People ought to be protected from physical violence though. Mainstream: "the ideas, attitudes, or activities that are regarded as normal or conventional; the dominant trend in opinion, fashion, or the arts." Still don't think the majority of Americans are walking around thinking "Hmmm, whites are superior to me" or "Hmmm, i'm white, therefore I'm superior". Hmmm, define "better". American culture often tells us that Asian-Americans are the smartest. Is that Asian supremacy? African-Americans dominate a lot of the music industry and sports. Is that black supremacy? Tons of actors are Jewish. Is that Jewish supremacy? I mean, it's constantly shown to the American people every day through media that actors, athletes, musicians, etc. are often majorly one race giving the idea that perhaps those races are superior in that field. Would you say that's misleading and there should be more White-Americans in certain sports, or more White-Americans in the mainstream music industry? Yes, I agree. The agendas of neo-nazis should not come true. They are completely against the constitution and everything America stands for. But I care that neo-nazis are protected by the law becuase if they aren't, then who's to say that other groups should not be protected as well? Neo-nazi's rights are your rights too. You're saying something that one of them would probably say. "The law can protect their rights. I sure as hell won't and will not care if anyone else doesn't either." could be said by a racist about blacks for example. Does this mean that Asian, Mexican, White etc.-Americans shouldn't care about African-American issues? If being a part of a group is the only reason to support a group, then that's some irresponsible **** for a citizen of a civilized democracy. Now I'm possibly a Nazi according to you? Tell me you're joking.
  4. You think that neo-nazi's aren't marginalized?? I'm going off of the official definition of marginalized here btw "treat (a person, group, or concept) as insignificant". Well I got the impression that to you "unequal" mean't lower class and "equal" meant higher class. That's what my intuition got and that's why I said that. In my position with my definitions of equal and non-equal. I simply believe that everyone is unequal. I would say that any group of people can opress another. Maybe on different scales depending on the group but no group is 100% free from oppression. Definition I'm going by : "keep (someone) in subservience and hardship, especially by the unjust exercise of authority.". I don't think that neo-nazis' beliefs are mainstream or accepted. I'd love to hear how you think that's true though. I guess you could say a form of white supremacy was a part of the foundation of many western countries, but what does that have to do with modern times? Are you insinuating that our current society is ruled by the same concept? Regardless of what a group wants, its voice will be heard and its people protected by the law period. I don't know what you're trying to say with that whole gratitude comment
  5. I think this quote here says it quite clearly what your position is. Who's gloating? What dreams have I spoke of? Where did I propose that people will flock to Nazism? Where have I stated that Nazi's should/should not be vilified? Well what about that talk about gender pronouns in Canada? Wasn't that a huge issue? Is it still? I'm not too up to date on it. You can talk bad about Nazis all you want but under the law they should be just as protected as you or me. Based on the quote above, I get the feeling you're the one who's selectively supporting rights for specific groups of people but not for anyone who you don't agree with. You can of course correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just making an observation based on what you've said (the bolded specifically). I've been talking nothing but free speech, equal rights, and the reality of "equality" and you think I'm the kind of person that would want "self-censorship by virtue of browbeating from FOS advocates."?
  6. It's a discussion about the equality mindset and freedom of speech is just a vehicle in which people use to change the law to make things unequal (like you mentioned about people wanting to take a minority groups' rights away for example). "And if we're all trash than let it be so. I can live with that. " What? We could simply use the LGBT and neo-nazi example again. They both attempt to marginalize each other but don't seem to have enough power to have their way (thankfully). ...... added to this post 21 minutes later: Agreed and oh, that is interesting.
  7. I'll address your points by the paragraph. 1. But you said 2. Yeah, I was being sarcastic. There's also minority groups that advocate for taking away other minority groups' rights. 3. I can't accept that we're all unequal generally while supporting that everyone be treated equally under the law? There's no black and white equal and "unequal" people. No one is equal.
  8. I'm saying that privilege shouldn't have anything to do with your rights. Whether you're a "privileged" rich man or a homeless lady living in the streets, you are guaranteed basic rights and there shouldn't be any advocacy for changing that. The problem is that we have many groups of people that are all treated differently by the law. I see where what you say connects to the discussion now. If we are to be logical about this, then obviously the LGBT community should enjoy the same rights as others but so should everyone else.
  9. I didn't know that neo-nazis were a majority group Yeah, because we've never heard of anyone ever say anything about taking rights away from minority groups before equality should include everyone. It doesn't matter whether you're privileged or not. Why even mention that?
  10. Equality =/= fairness Equality of opportunity =/= fairness equal rights =/= fairness The very nature of the human world does not = fairness as no one is equal at all.
  11. The ones that claim to be for equal rights but advocate for something completely against it. I'd argue that there's people of every group that think this way hence the OP. As Distance mentioned, you can find it in the BLM movement, many have already pointed out that you can find it in the feminist movement, you can find it just about everywhere even if the group itself or everyone involved doesn't, you'll still find it somewhere. The point of the discussion is to try and understand where this illogical mentality comes from hence the reason why i posted it in this sub forum.
  12. *sigh* no. my argument is everyone's right should be equal. However, some people argue against equal rights. Freedom of speech to get your opinion across is different from trying to push legislation to give extra rights or to take rights away from certain groups of people. I find that wrong. Plus, look at the bolded, I didn't say that. I said the reverse of that.
  13. Because in a democracy our law is effected by the wills and opinions of the people. If the people of the land don't respect everyone's rights equally, then eventually what reason is there for the law to? The law protects the people effected by the hate beliefs if they get violent. Just as the law should protect hate groups if they are physically harmed by someone else.
  14. Respect isn't the point maiohmy. It's about infringing on the rights of others. For example, do you believe that people have a right to walk down the street without physical harassment for their beliefs? Because if you do then you must believe in that right to be applied to all citizens, including neo-nazis, no matter how much you disagree with them. It's the same reason why civilized people don't go around beating the crap out of one another for disagreeing iwth them. The law is supposed to respect everyone's rights equally.
  15. I've read a lot of the discussions that both of you have. I find them interesting. I completely agree with you regarding that people have equal rights under the constitution and law but not extra rights. I don't remember enough of the debate you had with maiohmy to really state my opinion on that but what you bring up is relevant to what I'm trying to discuss. For some people, belief in equality and belief in equal rights are confusing to them. I believe that everyone should have equal rights and equality of opportunity. However, I expect that a logical person would understand that just because you believe in equal rights, treatment, and opportunity, under the law, does not mean that you are automatically of higher moral grounding considering the fact that people are and never will be truly equal in a respects. For example, using the thread I mentioned earlier, neo-nazis and the LGBT community were brought up. Both groups are human and therefore should be treated with the same respect under the law. Where I have issues is that for some reason, people can claim to be for equal rights yet advocate for discrimination against neo-nazis and other groups.