Lies that could lead to more murder are horrible. Imagine somebody lying to each of your parents separately. The lies take hold and in a fit of rage your dad murders your mom and goes to prison. Kids put in the foster system, abused. No idea is horrible? Please.
Nope. That just means your parents are unstable emotional psychopaths just like most of the left. Lies mean nothing without proof, and anyone willing to believe anything without significant, and even indisputable proof, depending on the topic at hand/lie, is a fucking 🤖🧠.
Who decides what is and what isn't a lie? Where is the line between insanity and righteous fury?
Lennon was allegedly assassinated because of a book. Should we ban all books because fiction is a lie that has caused more murder, and thus books are horrible? Or, should we assume the man claiming a century-old book told him to kill someone today was insane?
I will agree that some ideas are horrible, but it's ridiculous to argue that opinions on historic events should be oppressed because it can lead to horrible ideas in the present. It's like banning sugar because it could eventually lead to a meth addiction. Yes, it's technically possible to go from point A to point B, but it's fallacious to assume that most (or even enough) people will turn out the same way to justify such a ban. The more likely answer is that the person that went from A to B had more problems than just access to sugar to get to that meth addiction, and maybe one should target something else to fix it.
Lies that could lead to more murder are horrible. Imagine somebody lying to each of your parents separately. The lies take hold and in a fit of rage your dad murders your mom and goes to prison. Kids put in the foster system, abused. No idea is horrible? Please.
Nope. That just means your parents are unstable emotional psychopaths just like most of the left. Lies mean nothing without proof, and anyone willing to believe anything without significant, and even indisputable proof, depending on the topic at hand/lie, is a fucking 🤖🧠.
Who decides what is and what isn't a lie? Where is the line between insanity and righteous fury?
Lennon was allegedly assassinated because of a book. Should we ban all books because fiction is a lie that has caused more murder, and thus books are horrible? Or, should we assume the man claiming a century-old book told him to kill someone today was insane?
I will agree that some ideas are horrible, but it's ridiculous to argue that opinions on historic events should be oppressed because it can lead to horrible ideas in the present. It's like banning sugar because it could eventually lead to a meth addiction. Yes, it's technically possible to go from point A to point B, but it's fallacious to assume that most (or even enough) people will turn out the same way to justify such a ban. The more likely answer is that the person that went from A to B had more problems than just access to sugar to get to that meth addiction, and maybe one should target something else to fix it.
you mean, like the evening news?
I think he left off [that stating it should be illegal].