Lurker > Sephiroth1288

Arcvalons posted...

Should those that call for your extermination, imprisonement, or the curtailing of your rights because you're a liberal, socialist, communist, immigrant, gay, trans, black, jew, etc. be allowed to continue spouting their hateful rethoric?

Yes. It is immoral to assault someone even if they have ideas you find abhorrent.

If you're talking about an immediate threat, that's one thing. But if we accept that it's ok to assault Nazis, then it should be ok to assault Communists and anyone who adheres to an Abrahamic religion, since they too expouse ideas that lead to persecution, suffering and extermination.

You ok with that? You won't say shit if someone decks a muslim guy out of nowhere because Islam teaches people to hate certain people?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Arcvalons posted...

If you are antifascist of any sort, you are Antifa.

So if you oppose using threats and violence to subdue those who dissent against your ideology, you're Antifa?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

His stance on Net Neutrality is shit.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Glass_Phantom posted...

What would you like to talk about then?

Care to explain why it isn't worrisome that over half the muslims in the world want the law of the land to be Sharia?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

hockeybub89 posted...

When people talk about wanting socialism in America, they are typically, regardless of how accurate it is, speaking of places like Scandanavia. They want increased socialist elements. They are not saying "Venezuela and Romania sound awesome. We need some of that." I guess there are people out that want pure socialism, but there are people out there who want pure capitalism too.

It's true that socialist policies only have a prayer of functioning as long as they are propped up by capitalism, but once again, even Scandinavian countries are moving away from their "socialist" policies because of how much damage it's done to their economies. Norway can somewhat weather the storm because it has oil money, but Sweden dropped off the list of the world's top economies almost immediately after adopting the nanny state ("socialist") policies in the 60's after amassing great wealth in the decades beforehand from having a free market.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

"Any idiot could take a loan of a million dollars and turn it into a billion", says a guy who took a student loan of $40,000 and turned it into a debt of -$80,000.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Terra-enforcer posted...

Bloodychess posted...

Thanks for the spoilers on Freiza guise

The title literally says spoilers. And the response to Freiza was a hard "no" so...problem?

The title says DBZ spoilers

DBS isnt DBZ
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Thompson posted...

Denmark is a monarchy and doesn't have a president.

Prime Minister, whatever.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

If you are against Scientology, you are against science.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

CrimsonRage posted...

Look at all those Scandinavian dictatorships for proof.

Scandinavian countries aren't socialist. The existence of government programs, while socialist in concept, are not what makes a country socialist (also they are all moving towards a freer market; remember when the president (edit: prime minister) of Denmark asked Bernie to stop calling his country socialist because they have been moving away from it for a long time?)
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

JE19426 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

It doesn't, strictly speaking. There are crazy people who support anarcho-socialism, I guess.

And those are the only options? Really?

Since anarchy is the absence of a state, yeah, if you as a socialist don't want a government to control the means of production then your only option is to have no state.

In one case you have a handful of government leaders in control of the entire country, and in the other case you have this weird tribal society of millions where everyone has to collectively decide how much plastic to purchase in order to produce playing cards.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

JE19426 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

What do you call the central organizing body of a community?

The state.

Where does it say you need the organisating body to own it?

It doesn't, strictly speaking. There are crazy people who support anarcho-socialism, I guess.

Unless you're an anarchist, socialism entails the government controlling everything. That's why so many socialist countries turn into dictatorships.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

JE19426 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Socialism specifically requires the state to take ownership of the means of production.

No, it doesn't.

so·cial·ism

NOUN

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

What do you call the central organizing body of a community?

The state.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

frozenshock posted...

When you have a dictator with absolute power over his people, it doesn't matter one bit whether he calls his system right wing or left wing

Socialism specifically requires the state to take ownership of the means of production.

That's why leftism naturally lends itself to totalitarianism.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

So Blizzard has the comedic insight of a SNL skit

Not terribly impressive.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

EyeWontBeFooled posted...

You have a very juvenile view of this issue, I hope you grow up, or at least troll better than this.

Look, another pleb defending forced theocratic doctrine.

Had no idea CE was full of fundies.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Objection, that's not a tree house, it's a house on stilts
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Glass_Phantom posted...

You say that, and I think you're very much mistaken. You've mixed up the cause with the effect, and as a result, you're seemingly willing to condone the horrific abuses of dictators in order to guarantee "peace."

Look how you're trying to change the subject. You probably aren't even aware of it yourself because of how subtle it is, but it's interesting how your defense mechanisms are so dishonest.

You made the claim that dictators in the middle east want their people at odds with each other so that they would be less inclined to fight the real enemy, the dictator themself.

But only an absolute fool would look at the before and after today and conclude that there was less infighting in countries during the dictators' reigns.

Of all the issues I brought up in my first post, you chose to only argue the Muslim point and ignore all the others, presumably because you thought this would be the one you could win an argument on. I'd really hate to see how misinformed you are on all those other things if that's the case.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

He's just a less-than Palpatine

Just like Rey is a less-than Luke and Kylo is a less-than Vader.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Glass_Phantom posted...

The oppression of Gaddafi and al-Assad triggered popular revolts. Terrorists were able to sow their seeds in the intervening chaos while the cowardly West refused to commit peacekeepers. Dictatorship is not a sustaining model for the Middle East. It's also not a moral or ethical model. Telling Muslims, "You are a savage, primitive people, and therefore you will be forced to live in a dictatorship without any hope" is a big part of the reason why Muslims hate the West and are motivated to commit terrorism, religion aside. Terrorism is about a lot more than religion, its also about identity. People become radicalized if they feel persecuted.

I do not say that muslims are savage, primitive people.

I do say that Islam is a savage, primitive religion that pushes savage, primitive doctrines. There are good muslims, of course, but these people are good in spite of Islam, not because of Islam.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Glass_Phantom posted...

Who preaches hatred against Jews, women, and homosexuals? "The religion?"

Yes.

And who controls the religion in the Middle East?

People who study the Quran and requisite Hadith

The autocrats of the Middle East control the religion. The dictator in Tehran, and the dictator in Saudi Arabia. The Middle East is rife with dictatorships. Do you really think anything is said or done in those countries without the head of the snake sanctioning it? That is how a dictatorship works.

And as it turns out, it's real easy to get people to submit to a dictatorship when there's a theocratic dogma you can impose on the masses with little to no resistance.

And what does the dictator stand to gain by allowing such hatred to be preached? It keeps the people divided, fighting amongst themselves instead of fighting against the snake who lords over them.

Right, because the middle east way more chaotic when Hussein and Gaddafi were in power</sarcasm>

Civil wars, I'd imagine, are bad for any ruler regardless how evil they are.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Glass_Phantom posted...

Very nice graphic. I love how it takes the "Red Letter Media" approach by being so huge and formidable-looking that psychologically, it almost places itself above refutation. (I think human minds are conditioned to be easily-spooked by things that are big and imposing like that.)

Lol. You are actually contending that I have given you too much evidence that I am correct.

I think you need to have a long, serious think about the implications of your automatic rejection of factual data.

It's also very difficult to respond to point-by-point, since there are so very many points, and the doing so would be so very long and painstaking. Therefore I edited your graphic a little to remove everything that's useless. I hope you don't mind.

Do you have any fucking idea what Sharia is and what it entails? Do you actually see no issue with imposing theocratic laws onto a country?

Ironically enough, you probably shit yourself when Christians in the US try to force creationism into science classes. Well, imagine that, but also pushing for executing homosexuals, women who commit adultery, and anyone who apostates from Islam. Now you would be getting an idea of what Sharia law looks like.

My rebuttal is: yes, there are a lot of Muslims in the world that have beliefs I think are wrongheaded. Some of them are even beliefs I consider to be evil. I won't be drawn into the mistake of laying everything that's wrong in the Islamic world at the feet of Islam, though, when it simply isn't true.

Uh, I'm pretty sure Islam is the source of everything wrong with Islam.

It's kind of an elementary association.

People are people. Muslims are not more likely to be evil on account of their religion; we can see that here in the United States, where Muslims tend to be a lot more liberal. No, they're made to be more evil on account of their circumstance. Folks like you will never admit that though, because just as the dictator in Tehran stands to gain politically by manufacturing hatred towards heretics and apostates, you stand to gain politically by manufacturing hatred towards Muslims. It allows you to create an incentive for "protecting" your countrymen and members of your ethnicity from outsiders, which you parlay into votes and political support. Your ways aren't very much different.

It's really amusing that someone who claims to be on the side of "social justice" is telling me that I stand to gain political power by admonishing a religion that preaches for hatred against Jews, women, homosexuals, and anyone who refuses to follow their bronze-age theocratic doctrine.

And the fact that you can't see the irony there is depressingly hilarious.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Glass_Phantom posted...

I don't put feelings before facts. I only don't confuse facts with stereotypes, then rely on those stereotypes to form an opinion of millions if not billions of people.

It is politically incorrect to say that Muslims are overrepresented in terrorism stats, but it's still a fact. No, that doesn't imply all Muslims are terrorists, but it does imply that Islam is destructive in a way Christianity and Judaism are not.

I don't silence people I disagree with. I only reprimand people for spreading hate.

Do you equate "spreading hate" with violence? Have you not seen so many other "SJWs" call hate speech a form of assault, and therefore it is justified to respond to it with physical assault?

I don't even know what "spreading a postmodern narrative in schools instead of empirical evidence" means. Sounds like buzzwords.

Postmodernism in a nutshell the idea that all opinions can be valid because there are an infinite number of ways to interpret the world. It's basically the cornerstone of leftist thought, and why they are so quick to reject empirical evidence.

I don't defend the most radical interpretations of Islam. I think those interpretations and the human rights they abrogate are evil. I only recognize Islam is a religion which is capable of being exploited for good or for bad, just like Christianity, and not everyone follows the same restrictive teachings.

But the majority of muslims have radical interpretations of Islam

I don't advocate for Marxism, but I advocate for a system where we pay enough into the system to help support each other and are proud to do it.

Even though there's an inverse relation between government spending and economic growth?

I don't want women to make more money than men, but I do recognize there is a gender pay gap in this country resulting from the disparate careers men and women choose, and I think that ought to be put right by fixing misogynistic workplace cultures and making sure women aren't discriminated against for having children.

Except the reason men and women choose to do different jobs is because of inherent psychology, not society.

Do you think the reason the prison population is 90% male is because our court system is sexist against men?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

You say that social justice is "right", but I fail to see what's so virtuous about putting feelings before facts, about violently silencing people you disagree with, about pushing a postmodern narrative in schools instead of a narrative based on empirical evidence, about defending Islam and Sharia, about advocating for Marxism, about repeating debunked myths like the wage gap, about demanding taxpayers pay for prisoners' sex changes.....

Need more examples of how social "justice" is the modern-day ideological equivalent of ass cancer?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Wedding of peace.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

LittIefinger posted...

Who gains from terrorist attacks?

Muslims seeking to spark a revolution that would lead to a global caliphate.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

old
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

ROBANN_88 posted...

on the bright side, though.
i have heard that it could be good in the sense that now, the US isn't gonna be in future negotiations and thereby fuck it up from the inside.

Fuck it up? We were basically footing the bill.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

When's the last time you saw a major celebrity endorse violence against gay people?

Anyone?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

ZMythos posted...

If the US wants to look like a world leader, then it needs to act like one.

I would say the first step to being a leader worth following is to not be duped so easily.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Doom_Art posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

I bring up at the very least military spending and net neutrality every time you accuse me of not disagreeing with him on anything.

A) I've never seen that
B) Coerced, tepid disagreement doesn't mean much

A) You haven't been paying attention then
B) No one on CE argues that doing away with net neutrality is a good thing or that we should spend even more on our military, so of course you won't see me bringing those up. What point is there in preaching to the choir?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Mike_Stanton posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

You really can't talk about how bad the Paris climate deal is for the US without talking about Obama since he's the one who agreed to it...

So, like I said...

Mike_Stanton posted...

If Obama was so bad then you can't compare Trump to him in order to prove that Trump is good.

Lol last time I made a balance sheet to compare Trump and Obama people like you were all "No fair, Obama had 8 years to be shit! You can't compare them!"

Besides, this topic isn't a comparison. I was explaining why the climate deal is so shit and why it's good we aren't in it anymore. Really I didn't have to being up Trump or Obama at all to make my point.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Doom_Art posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Things I don't agree with Trump on:

Increasing military spending
Doing away with Net Neutrality
Hiring Washington insiders for his cabinet

You've never mentioned any of those

I bring up at the very least military spending and net neutrality every time you accuse me of not disagreeing with him on anything.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Doom_Art posted...

You've never disagreed with him on s*** lol

Things I don't agree with Trump on:

Increasing military spending
Doing away with Net Neutrality
Hiring Washington insiders for his cabinet
Still not getting around replacing Obama's employees
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Doom_Art posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

being independent doesn't mean always agreeing

And yet that's exactly what you do lol

But I categorically don't agree with everything Trump does...
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Mike_Stanton posted...

Yet another pro-Trump Mal_Feasant topic that amounts to little more than "Obama did this Obama did that, therefore Trump is good." If Obama was so bad then you can't compare Trump to him in order to prove that Trump is good. lol Mal_Feasant

You really can't talk about how bad the Paris climate deal is for the US without talking about Obama since he's the one who agreed to it...

Also, why do people keep making my username into puns for derogatory words? "Mal Fet" is already a derogatory phrase, you Philistines.

Doom_Art posted...

Why doesn't it surprise me that Mal, the independent libertarian is defending something Trump did lol

being independent doesn't mean always agreeing or always disagreeing with a politician...that would be the pinnacle of partisanship.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

ZMythos posted...

I'd rather pay an extra ten dollars a year if it means my kids don't grow up underwater

Well they won't anyway, but India will gladly take your $10.

DarthAragorn posted...

0.6 degrees over how long?

80 years
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

clearaflagrantj posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

So why is everyone mad at the US for leaving for a paltry reduction in temperature increase by 0.6 degrees?

Jesus Christ you are a fucking dumbass if you think 0.6 degrees doesn't mean anything.

Bear in mind that's the best case scenario for this deal and it doesn't take into account private enterprise improving emission reductions.

Didn't think I'd have to spell that out again after I wrote it all in the OP, but here we are.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

In the best case scenario, the effects of the deal with America's support would cause the increase of the earth's surface area temperature to slow by six tenths of a degree. And it's no wonder, since the world's biggest polluter, China, has almost no major restrictions placed on it by the accord while the US has more than most every other country. The doomsday scenarios of a 5 degree increase in SAT over the next 80 years doesn't take any consideration to the free market reducing emissions naturally, such as advances in fracking and the electric car market becoming more affordable.

Note how government attempts to help the environment often turn out disastrous and costly, like all the subsidy money to Obama's favorite solar company Solyndra. Germany has paid so heavily into wind power that they need to sell their energy at a negative price point and lose money because there are no batteries that can store the energy for the inevitable droughts they will get due to times with less wind.

So to counter all this tremendous loss, Obama decided the American taxpayer would pay the most into the green energy fund. Meanwhile, the first and third biggest contributors to the world's CO2 emissions are nowhere near the top of the list for paying into the fund, and in fact we would be paying India so that they can carry on basically as they always have.

So why is everyone mad at the US for leaving for a paltry reduction in temperature increase by 0.6 degrees? Oh yeah,

Obama decided the American taxpayer would pay the most into the green energy fund.

---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Literally Commiefornia.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6f/66/b9/6f66b9fd0ff8499b8600ee989397524e.jpg
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

deupd_u posted...

Lightsasori posted...

Never, I only heard it from people online, though they could be lying.

I watched a documentary about asexuality, which filmed the leaders of AVEN, the big asexual movement organization. It was fine until the producer said, "So, none of you have ever had sex?" and the head of the organization said, "Well, actually, we all have sex, all the time, with each other. It's purely a social thing, instead of a biological thing. And if we're all asexual, there's no 'cheating.' We can all have several boyfriends and girlfriends and just all love each other."

That really painted my view of the entire thing, honestly.

So then "asexual" is basically a load of crap
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Pretty sure "asexual" means you reproduce through budding as opposed to having a mate.

God, what is it with progressives and their unrelenting war on the dictionary
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

bump
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

D-Lo_BrownTown posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Imagine being so devoid of personality that you feel like your identity is being threatened when other people who aren't like you have a thing that you have.

Every facebook person I know with an autistic kid is posting this like three or four times now.

They're whole thing is that if they get banned their kids won't be able to have them and suddenly they need them to survive in the world or something.

If they genuinely can't function well without them then it should be really easy to get a doctor's note to let them keep theirs even if they are banned.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Imagine being so devoid of personality that you feel like your identity is being threatened when other people who aren't like you have a thing that you have.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

The fact that you do...well, it says a lot about you.

1. Yes, you do. Quite often actually
2. I don't want that at all. In fact I dare you to find me calling anyone here a fascist ever, aside from one or two people on the political board who actually advocate for kicking out everyone who believes differently than them.

So wait, you recognize the moral bankrupcy of changing the definition of fascist to this, and you know that no one is calling for a change to the definition of liberal (which I don't use as a perjorative since I myself identify as a liberal), but you make the false equivalency anyway between some trolls using words wrong and an attempt by Google to change the meaning of a word?

Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing?
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Google the word "liberal" and tell me if the popular usage by trolls is represented there, like it is with "fascism".

Why do you and others use liberal as an insult then? You can't have it both ways

I don't use liberal as an insult, but if I did, I still wouldn't want the dictionary changed in order to suit my bias.

The fact that you do...well, it says a lot about you.
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248

Bio1590 posted...

Leave it to Mal to never let something go.

7 hours and counting

Lol is this a serious post
---

The person who writes for fools is always sure of a large audience.
Friend Code: 2723-9696-7248