Search results for query: *

Don't punch anyone for thinking or saying anything. To do so makes you an initiator of violence and immoral. It's not a special case, it's a universal principle. The belief might cause them to commit a crime and it might not. We can't predict the future, so we aren't justified in hurting...

A belief can cause someone to act in accordance with it, but it doesn't remotely guarantee that they will. Otherwise everyone would practice what they preach, but we know that isn't true. Agreeing with something awful isn't a crime and it isn't immoral. Hell, they may not even agree with it...

Since none of us can be sure if it would "cause people to act on it" we have to proceed with innocent until proven guilty. And even if we knew some amount of people would commit violence, we wouldn't be justified in initiating violence against those believers/adherents who wouldn't. So seeing...

An awful idea spreading is undesirable but it isn't immoral. Again, better ideas are needed to stop bad ideas. No it's a principle, which means it's universal. The initiation of violence cannot be morally justified against thoughtcrime.

Incorrect. If their only "crime" is thoughtcrime then initiating violence against them is immoral. People have the right to believe and speak whatever they desire. The only moral way to combat bad ideas is to amplify good ideas.

I can think of quite a few ways. Consider the fact that a healthy slice of the planet is relatively apolitical. I suppose one could argue that being apolitical is revealing in and of itself. But imo, it's not very insightful into who a person is. Besides, a person's stated political...

Good lord your parents have failed you. Therapy. Seek it.

I suggest therapy. Lots and lots of therapy.

Expect a pm today or tomorrow.

You do have to deal with that, and you're spouting nonsense. You can't erase my experience, or anyone in my family's experience, or anyone that I care about experience. You're welcome for your reality check.

Everyone has the right to make generalizations about any group of people, disabled or not. Deal with it.

You're simply spouting off about harmful assumptions as if it's a fact. It's not.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Not that I need be personally connected to autism to make this argument. Edit: Click this thread to learn about my connection to ASD i am not throwing away my shot

I've already acknowledged that in my first reply. I said functioning labels needn't be used if you're uncomfortable with them or a special case, but the severity of the disability needs to be measured. Implying a more indepth assessment of impairment. No, it doesn't give off that impression...

Yeah, I disagree with that. If a person, family, or organization doesn't feel comfortable using functioning labels, then by all means, don't. But my family, and more importantly, the autustic community (and even the larger special needs community) in my area use them all the time to great...

It was a mistake to give Batman a son in the main continuity. Sorry Damian fans.

Unpopular opinion: logical consistency gives ideologues headaches.

If you and I, as gun owners, can't behave in ways that greatly decrease our risk of injury with our firearm, then we also couldn't be capable of greatly increasing our risk of injury with our firearms through our behaviors - which is beyond absurd.

It's clear you don't understand statistics. You're under the impression that every gun owner has an equal accident risk, but they don't. Similar to how everyone isn't equally likely to commit suicide or suffer a heart attack. You can't take macro statistics and map them onto an individual or...

I can't make much sense out of what you're saying here. Are you suggesting you'd need to see studies to confirm that people commit suicide with knives and medication? Kill, harm, or threaten bad people who would hurt or kill my family. Yes. That's a good thing. That's why law enforcement...