zapatos

I think a very straightforward method to minimize the impact of the alt-right is to keep opposing sides separate during demonstrations. As others have pointed out either directly or indirectly, we are losing the real message because people are equating the two groups, as both are guilty of violence. If we can keep the two sides separate then the only thing to talk about is the message the two sides represent, which is basically racism vs equality (or some version of that). Generally speaking, the alt-right will lose that battle in the minds of most people.

Welcome Blackflags! Glad to have you with us.

All I did was ask whether something asserted was actually said by a person or if it was inferred. In any other thread I would have received an answer and we would have moved on. In this thread it seems that if someone does not immediately get in line that they are suspect and their motives must be questioned.

Maybe in the Politics Forum. Usually you are a stickler for evidence. Yeah, any disagreements here seem to be on the fringes. It's more difficult to have conversations when the topic generates so much emotion.

Heh heh. No, it's a nice break.

Yes, I've since read the excerpt from Delta1212 and watched much of the video. They've made their position quite clear. I don't think they are open to or capable of reason.

I said nothing about 'intent'. I asked if Is there was a 'creed', or if we have interviews with any of those protesting saying that they believe things like "...all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed." Chanting Nazi slogans and giving the Sieg Heil salute are evidence of neither.

Sorry, I missed it. Thanks.

Several references in this and other posts to what they believe. Do we have any of this on record? Is there indeed a 'creed', or do we have interviews with any of those protesting that they believe things like "...all Jews, blacks and gays should be forcibly removed, subjugated or executed."? I am addressing a point you made. Just not the one you want me to address.

And you double down. Trump would be proud.

It was my down vote. MigL raised the issue of whether we were treating both sides in a fair manner, which in my mind is always a good check. To suggest he is 'dumb' for doing so is not acceptable, and an indication that perhaps you are indeed being biased. I was surprised someone voted it back up. I imagine there are monuments to Hirohito in Japan. You seem to be forgetting that the South was also part of the U.S. Should the 'South' accept monuments to Grant in the North? Certainly the behavior of many Northern soldiers left much to be desired.

This being a scientific forum you'll appreciate that precision is important. If you do insist that bacteria have 'desire', perhaps you can tell me where in bacteria desire originates. In humans that is in the brain. I'm unaware of a similarly functioning structure in bacteria.

Neither evolution nor bacteria have desires.

How exactly would you define "near infinite"? That sounds a lot like "a little bit pregnant".

Flying into NK airspace will likely be considered an act of war. North Koreans found with radios we give them will likely be in some serious trouble. Do we even have planes that fly at 20-30 km altitude?

Because you keep making comments pointing out that people without Asperger have problems.

No one is suggesting that only people with Asperger have issues.

Sure. And I really could have picked any nuclear powers but I chose them as they are relatively small players. In addition to iNow's very good description... The point I was making was that the approach to any nuclear power is not based on what happened with them today but what has happened with them over a longer period of time. India and Pakistan could harm the United States with nuclear weapons, but the reason we are not dealing with them like we deal with NK is because they have not been threatening us or our allies in a prolonged fashion like NK has been. While we have had spats with Pakistan, and Pakistan with India on an ongoing basis, none of the three has a history of nearly continuous threats of annihilation of the other. If someone shows you a bat and threatens to hit you with it every time you see them, you tend to act toward them like they might actually follow through one of those times.

So why doesn't The bombardment of Yeonpyeong count? I agree that I am unwilling to limit my comments to the unrealistically narrow view of the conflict that you are trying to force on the discussion. And don't complain about me insulting you when you call me a troll. It's rather hypocritical.

So give me the damn cutoff already. And then explain why the US attacking other nations is relevant but NK attacking other nations is not.

Don't blame me if you cannot adequately convey what you meant to say. "Proliferation" does not mean 'giving to other countries' whether you used those examples or not.

Absolutely not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Yeonpyeong

If you want to constrain your questions, then please do so before I answer them and not after I answer them. I assume the shelling of Yeonpyeong is also outside the scope of what you consider relevant. The current situation has everything to do with what North Korea has done in the past. There is a reason we treat North Korea and their acquisition of nuclear weapons differently than we treat India, Pakistan and Israel.

You are correct. I did not attempt to address the other part. Nor did I address a number of other questions asked by many other people in this thread. It is difficult to look at a small time slice and get an accurate view of a situation. North Korea did not suddenly begin threatening others in 2017. Acting like its previous history has nothing to do with the present makes for a poor analysis. Launching missiles toward Japan or shelling South Korean islands cannot be removed from the present analysis just because they didn't happen in the past two weeks.

That's not what you said. Read your question again. Or is this a magical goalpost thing?