> I have my doubts there's much *thought* going on in Chuck's head when he comes out with that nonsense. But in any case, it isn't what he thinks, but what he says, that disturbs me.
>
You choose to insult me personally instead of arguing against what I am saying. This tells me that YOU refuse to engage in any thinking and are merely engaged in defending your precious middle class privilege and social democratic views.
> To my mind, when someone publicly advocates the necessity of dispersing people, they are as guilty as the people who actually do it. If the advocated dispersal of people is going to result in millions of deaths, it is at the level of a crime against humanity. The advocates of crimes against humanity, the advocates of genocide, mass murder, slavery, torture and other such horrendous crimes, have to take responsibility for what they advocate. The sad truth is there's some weak-minded people who might act on such nonsense.
>
You are seriously fucked in the head. I never argued for any of this bullshit. I'm simply saying that living a life based on freedom and ecological sustainablitiy would necessitate a decentralization of the population. Better for us to figure out how to do this know, then to let environmental circumstances make it much worse 20-30 years down the line.
> Society has a duty to prevent such horrors. Chuck's freedom of speech is no excuse to tolerate the spread of threats against the very life of millions of people. The appropriate response to such utterances is imprisonment. The same goes for the authors of racist slurs, homophobic hatred and the like.
>
Fucking nazi!
Why don't you drag your fascist ass into the nearest leftist bookstore or public library and spend some time reading what people have been writing on the environment and technology. I know, Bill, that you think that your food magically appears in the supermarket and that your waste in mysteriously transported into another dimension, but perhaps it's time for you to find out how the other 6 billion people on this planet live their miserable lives.
> Don't try to change the subject. In principle I don't support coercion, I advocate a society in which systematic coercion would be abolished. The difference between me an Chuck is that I believe people have to choose that freely, he wants to herd them to it like cattle.
Typical. More words forced in my mouth. Another asshole claiming that he doesn't support coercion, right after he advocates putting me in jail for my views.
Pathetic.
<< Chuck0 >>
Personal homepage -> http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/index.html Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/
"...ironically, perhaps, the best organised dissenters in the world today are anarchists, who are busily undermining capitalism while the rest of the left is still trying to form committees."
-- Jeremy Hardy, The Guardian (UK)