This was a very weird reply. The first half actually answers my questions (and clarifies what you originally meant) but the second half is really weird and more often than not based on completely misinterpretations of my positions.
For clarification, I don't mind people "someone pointing out the fucking fact that some people that kind of looked like you fucked over and took advantage of and fucking straight up murdered another group of people that kind of don't look like you for fucking oil (it's not always fucking oil, but it sure has been a lot recently)." It doesn't bother me in the slightest because they aren't my actions.
As for the sacrifices conversation, I do remember that. I also explained why it was a poor argument and gave two (arguably three) examples. You might also recall that only did you accept my point at the time but when you followed up with more "semi-veiled insults" (your words), I again pointed out how they were wrong and I was not just basing my positions on self-interest.
I really don't understand why your response is so vitriolic and when you seemed to get such a warped opinion of me. It's quite a stretch to go from being in favour of mixing cultures to "you'd be okay with killing people over land." There's a big difference between those and, since my stance on violence is generally pacificism, it really doesn't fit with my values at all. You're really twisting my words, I did not claim to know better than people what to do with their own culture. My position is that we should be separated by race and we should embrace other cultures and the aspects of them which improve our own. Unless we've gone completely down the rabbit hole, separating people by race is racism, a society which embraces diversity is the opposite.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~
This was a very weird reply. The first half actually answers my questions (and clarifies what you originally meant) but the second half is really weird and more often than not based on completely misinterpretations of my positions.
For clarification, I don't mind people "someone pointing out the fucking fact that some people that kind of looked like you fucked over and took advantage of and fucking straight up murdered another group of people that kind of don't look like you for fucking oil (it's not always fucking oil, but it sure has been a lot recently)." It doesn't bother me in the slightest because they aren't my actions.
As for the sacrifices conversation, I do remember that. I also explained why it was a poor argument and gave two (arguably three) examples. You might also recall that only did you accept my point at the time but when you followed up with more "semi-veiled insults" (your words), I again pointed out how they were wrong and I was not just basing my positions on self-interest.
I really don't understand why your response is so vitriolic and when you seemed to get such a warped opinion of me. It's quite a stretch to go from being in favour of mixing cultures to "you'd be okay with killing people over land." There's a big difference between those and, since my stance on violence is generally pacificism, it really doesn't fit with my values at all. You're really twisting my words, I did not claim to know better than people what to do with their own culture. My position is that we should be separated by race and we should embrace other cultures and the aspects of them which improve our own. Unless we've gone completely down the rabbit hole, separating people by race is racism, a society which embraces diversity is the opposite.
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~John Stuart Mill~