Which country is/was more free?

[Ebowed]

Obviously modern day Germany. How is this even a question?

Germany is a fascist hell-hole.

[Ebowed]

As for modern Germany, it is much more free than modern America.

That isn't what the thread asked. 

[Ebowed]

I believe BRTD is referring to the fact that the Africans were slaves of the whites.

Huh?  I was a slave to ... which white person?

You are not an African, you are a white imperialist.

He was born in Africa

[Ebowed]

I don't see how anything I post is contradictory to my views.

How about this:

They're way too worried about unimportant things like the top tax rate and not enough about things like legalization of drugs and prostitution, preservation of abortion, etc.  In other words they prioritize economic issues way too much over social issues.

This is priceless.  I remember the day that you were criticizing the state of West Virginia for voting social issues over economic issues.

Well of course - because they vote the wrong way on social issues.  They prize oppressing gays, women, etc. over their own economic interests.

So basically you're a hypocrite.  You claim not to believe in morals or ultimate truth, that everything is relative and that freedom comes from making up your own standards.  But West Virginia votes "the wrong way."

After some prodding he gave your usual b.s.: "I mean they vote in a way I don't like - to impose their subjective preferences on other people's personal lives."  Let me say, dear opebo, that the fact remains that whether or not they're imposing subjective preferences on other people's personal lives is a matter of opinion, i.e. not a moral absolute.  It's quite typical, really.  Say your crazy opinions as if they were fact, get caught in a trap, say that it was just your opinion, and then give another "fact," all while throwing your moral relativism all over the place.  Being a moral relativist takes a lot of work, as I can see, and opebo hasn't quite mastered it.  In fact, I've never met anyone who has.  Consider a typical conversation between me and a moral relativist like this:

Moral Relativist: There are no absolutes.  Everything is a matter of opinion.

Me: Well, that's just your opinion OR There are no absolutes?  Absolutely?

Moral Relativist: *silence*.

Face it, there is a right and wrong.  Many people may not have a problem with many things, but you're one of the few crazies that doesn't believe murder or rape are immoral.

[Ebowed]

There's so many shades of Black that it's really, really arbitrary to declare just some of them as "African."

But the fellow who is very, very pink, and is standing over the very black looking fellows with a whip in his hand is hardly 'African'.

Africa is a continent.  Thus, 'African' cannot be considered a race.  It seems like you think huge chunks of North Africa aren't 'African' either.

No, more Arab/Muslim.

Islam isn't a race either.

[Ebowed]

There is a huge difference between moral relativism, and the actual belief that there is no truth.

The idea that there is no truth is a contradiction in itself that it says there is no truth, which is a statement that intends to be true when in fact, if there is no truth, it cannot be true.  I imagine people who don't believe in truth must have their heads spinning in circles.  By the way, I don't see much difference between the two beliefs; obviously you need to be pretty crazy to believe either.

[Ebowed]

Let me say, dear opebo, that the fact remains that whether or not they're imposing subjective preferences on other people's personal lives is a matter of opinion, i.e. not a moral absolute.

No, that is a factual absolute, not a moral absolute.

So the idea that West Virginia votes on the wrong issues is a factual absolute?  Sounds more like an opinion.

[Ebowed]

As you said in the other thread, my semantic policing has "bourne fruit", and why not?  I have nothing better to do.  I think we can both agree that this forum is addictive as hell.

Now, the idea that West Virginia voters want to control other people's personal lives is a bit nonsense if you state this as fact; why is this, their alleged opposition to abortion and gay marriage?  First of all, you do not need a marriage license to participate in gay sex in West Virginia, just like any other kind of sex, and abortion is a matter of life, not choice, so I don't see how they're oppressing women by being opposed to killing women (and men) who aren't born yet.

[Ebowed]

As I stated, this is not the case with abortion.  I've never met an anti-abortion person who's reason for their position is because they want to "oppress" women.

As for gay marriage, who cares anyway.  It's one of the most boring political issues out there.  migrendel is opposed to gay marriage (obviously for different reasons than West Virginians) but you can't call him intolerant, can you?

[Ebowed]

As I stated, this is not the case with abortion.  I've never met an anti-abortion person who's reason for their position is because they want to "oppress" women.

Their intention is irrelvant.   They are meddling, based on what they believe to be 'objective morality', and not based on any effect abortions have upon them.

This is only your opinion, yet you continue to state it as fact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You compare marriage to slavery, yet you want to expand it?  If I were you I'd want to get rid of all forms of it, not vote yes on gay marriage and then go and yell about how bad marriage is to begin with.

[Ebowed]

You have implied that marriage and slavery are similar many times before, if not outright stated so.  Also, I think rape is 'wrong.'  Am I subjecting my personal preferences over people's lives?