- Re: First they came or the anarchists ... Archived Message
Posted by mack
on December 17, 2019, 6:50 pm, in reply to "Re: First they came or the anarchists ..."
|
Whole lot of silliness going down. I sought to make the comparison in order to illustrate a hypocrisy. The endorsement of state run elections of any sort should really be anathema to a self-proclaimed 'anarchist'. To pick and choose which ones to endorse is an abandonment of ethics and with them go any integrity you claim for yourself. This particular 'anarchist' does like to claim it for himself; a lot; pretty much every day. No different from a religious nut. The hypocrisy multiplies when said 'anarchist' goads, repeats, insults, installs himself as moral arbiter, is ALWAYS right about everything, and then... sarcastically laments the lack of empathy shown him (just a few threads down; I nearly pissed myself when I saw that!). This from the person who shows all that empathy when he's indulging himself in poking and provoking people who are hurting. This isn't the behaviour of an anarchist; it's the behaviour of an attention seeker. I'm pretty sick of it myself. That was the point of my post. Silly, I know. Btw, if there was a vote on TLN to decide if someone was to get banned or not - let's say it's the 'anarchist', for argument's sake. Would you accept 52-48 as 'must be implemented to be right' and therefore support the decision; or might you take another position? PS I would take another position |