In this Spectrum Street Epistemology episode in NYC, we kicked off with the claim, "Are Haitians eating people's pets?" But the conversation quickly shifted to bigger issues: trust in legacy media, the power of big government, and discrimination against Haitians in the U.S.
This is a perfect example of how sometimes people are right that something wrong is going on but they get the details wrong. Let me explain...
Within Haiti, the #1 religion is a mix of Catholicism and African Vod0o and I do realize that sounds like conspiracy theory non-sense but look it up yourself; I would is someone made this claim. The largest group in terms of religious faith, that makes up the immigrants flooding into the UK are Muslim and what do they do once in the UK? They continue to practice their faith some going so far as to stop to prey in the middle of teh road blocking traffic. Part of the Haitian faith involves animal sacrifices and in Haiti they sacrifice animals like cats. So is it really hard to believe that maybe what's actually going on is that the Haitians there are killing small animals but not to eat but as part of he faith?
Sometimes people are right and wrong at the same time. You can forget the media doing it;s job to sift thru the claims to find the truth because their goal is to promote specific narratives, ideas and beliefs; not to report the news.
Left unsaid is why adults possibly would want a “respectful” discussion with those intent on breaking the law? We wouldn’t.
We are supposed to be under the rule of law. Campaigns for legislative office are the “discussions” requested. Once the legislator is in office and legislating, a society under law obeys & enforces the law. Anything else is the rule of man based on the opinion du jour, and decidedly NOT the rule of law. I have no interest in having a calm discussion with a murderer, and the difference between that murderer and a shoplifter or illegal alien is a difference not of substance, but only of degree.
This nonsensical “discussion” is indistinguishable from the term “bipartisanship,” which entered the political lexicon following the return of the GOP from the political wilderness in 1994, and simply means: do what the left wants.
It’s nonsense on stilts and deserves to be treated as such.
Campaigns are “discussions,” elections are conclusions. And then the losing side MUST follow the rules of the winning side until and unless the losers can change the rules by winning the next election. Any moves toward resisting the rules that follow the “discussion” is substituting the rule of man for the rule of law.
This is a perfect example of how sometimes people are right that something wrong is going on but they get the details wrong. Let me explain...
Within Haiti, the #1 religion is a mix of Catholicism and African Vod0o and I do realize that sounds like conspiracy theory non-sense but look it up yourself; I would is someone made this claim. The largest group in terms of religious faith, that makes up the immigrants flooding into the UK are Muslim and what do they do once in the UK? They continue to practice their faith some going so far as to stop to prey in the middle of teh road blocking traffic. Part of the Haitian faith involves animal sacrifices and in Haiti they sacrifice animals like cats. So is it really hard to believe that maybe what's actually going on is that the Haitians there are killing small animals but not to eat but as part of he faith?
Sometimes people are right and wrong at the same time. You can forget the media doing it;s job to sift thru the claims to find the truth because their goal is to promote specific narratives, ideas and beliefs; not to report the news.
Peter - The substack site is much easier to view/read now; thank you.
Thanks for the suggestion!
Left unsaid is why adults possibly would want a “respectful” discussion with those intent on breaking the law? We wouldn’t.
We are supposed to be under the rule of law. Campaigns for legislative office are the “discussions” requested. Once the legislator is in office and legislating, a society under law obeys & enforces the law. Anything else is the rule of man based on the opinion du jour, and decidedly NOT the rule of law. I have no interest in having a calm discussion with a murderer, and the difference between that murderer and a shoplifter or illegal alien is a difference not of substance, but only of degree.
This nonsensical “discussion” is indistinguishable from the term “bipartisanship,” which entered the political lexicon following the return of the GOP from the political wilderness in 1994, and simply means: do what the left wants.
It’s nonsense on stilts and deserves to be treated as such.
Campaigns are “discussions,” elections are conclusions. And then the losing side MUST follow the rules of the winning side until and unless the losers can change the rules by winning the next election. Any moves toward resisting the rules that follow the “discussion” is substituting the rule of man for the rule of law.
I posted videos of immigrants doing these kinds of things.
URL?