Lurker > Jesserae

NoxObscuras posted...

JFC. Whenever I read these I always hope that they're fake. Like... are guys really that bad? That 2nd guy went on a whole ass rant over one compliment.

Some are, I've only met one dude like that in my entire life, he would also try to sabotage the relationships of people he knew out of jealousy, he'd make fake facebook accounts and message peoples partners saying they were cheating and would say really weird shit to some of the guys back at uni like "I'll look after so and so if you die, don't worry", He'd talk about how all women are whores because he's such a nice guy and he can never get a girlfriend so it's clearly a problem with women, dude was a easy 9/10 too so this is how big of a piece of shit he was, then tinder happened and he no longer had to actually talk to women to try to get laid, honestly tinder probably saved a few lives here, he spoke like a highschool shooter.

Tenlaar posted...

He said that compassion fatigue, which is a very real thing, led to alcoholism which killed him.

They would have to know what compassion is to understand friend, but thank for wording it better than I did.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

If I needed it, I'd go to volunteer organisation and I'd statistically speaking most likely be helped by a conservative.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Could you be anymore dishonest?, could you be anymore shameless?.
Your behaviour is incredibly disgusting for someone who claims the moral high ground through their political affiliation.

Jabodie posted...

So what bullshit have y'all been talking about for 100 posts? The discussion was basically over with this one.

Except that was incorrect, significant was meant literally, and I shared the numbers later showing the significant difference in charitable acts, it's not a small amount.

Tenlaar posted...

It never stops being relevant if someone thinks some members of your team shouldnt have the same rights as everyone else and actively push for that goal.

So it's relevant when you are knee deep in water stacking sand bags next to a conservative to save the home of someone who's politics neither of you know, but there you both are helping.

AmishDoinks420 posted...

Its a pretty good indication of where someone is mentally, yes. Especially if its the language you were born into.

It's more indicative of their access to education, this is an incredibly racist statement you've made.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

People can see exactly what I said earlier in the thread and the context, you are only serving to make yourself look like a cruel and dishonest person, you might fool someone who enters at this point but everyone else can see how shamefully you're acting.

Tenlaar posted...

Its unfortunate because in order to best help the communities in need we often end up in partnerships with people like preachers who give anti-LGBT sermons or like to be vocal about their feelings on infanticide. I would much prefer it if we could do what we do without having to passively condone people with hateful, bigoted beliefs.

You don't have to condone it at all, all you have to do is help, in a crisis political belief is irrelevant, you wouldn't ask a man if was a conservative before you saved him from drowning.

AmishDoinks420 posted...

This grammar has to be intentional lmao

Grammar and typo mistakes, the cornerstone of the online leftist debate strategy.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Pick a singular aspect and an unimportant aspect comparatively to say education and medicine and then exaggerate to the utmost limit. I guess you really are shameless and disgustingly disrespectful to a deceased aboriginal elder.

Tenlaar posted...

I work for a secular disaster relief non-profit that is staffed almost entirely by very lefty people. We end up partnered with religious based groups basically everywhere we go, and unfortunately they tend to be quite conservative.

That's fantastic, I respect that immensely, but why is it unfortunate to work with conservatives when you both have same goal of helping people?, where does politics even play a role in on the ground disaster relief.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

How can you even pretend to hold a moral high ground with takes like this, aren't you ashamed of yourselves?, how do other leftists look at this behaviour and support it.

COVxy posted...

To get the conversation to a point where only an absolute moron would read TC's points and believe them (and potentially spread them).

And yet everything I've said has only been reinforced and the only thing you've got to show is projection, ignorance and defaulting to personal attacks, 5 pages of leftism 101.

averagejoel posted...

this is completely, 100% false. it doesn't even "work" for most people in the imperial core; never mind the rest of the world

Australia has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Excellent job prospects, a strong economy and world-class financial services make it a desirable place to live and work. With higher standards come better rates of pay, but a higher cost of living.

What's 100% false?, people risk their lives to get to Australia because it's such a great place to live.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Dodging what? he was a man that appreciated a great deal of things that colonialism brought, he wasn't held down by the shackles of endless victimhood and embraced that which brought him joy, unfortunately the joy he received helping others eventually waned as his empathy for the conditions of others deteriorated his mental health.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You can respect aspects of cultures you don't entirely agree with you know?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The man was fond of cars, heavy metal (I fucking know right, champion), modern medicine and education, WOW shocking.

averagejoel posted...

that's on you for defining charity too broadly

No it's on you for cherry picking a part that suits your position.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

The system works for the vast majority, the problem is an incompatibility of culture, it's unfortunate.

averagejoel posted...

no, society is not improved by charity. charity is a way for wealthy people to get tax cuts while laundering their reputation

Don't pretend I haven't mentioned the multiple forms of charity conservatives engage in outside of financial contributions.

Rathinor posted...

TC does not appear to be a very intelligent person

cry more, confronted with irrefutable evidence that conservatives are far more active in improving the lives of others is shocking to you I know, but just saying "you dumb" makes you look like children, if you don't want this reality to be true go out and help your community instead of burning them to the ground.

pinky0926 posted...

The evidence shows that conservatives give more charity donations. Your poor argument implies society is only improved through charity.

No you are projecting that position in order to make my argument appear weaker, society is improved through charity of which more conservatives participate.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

My grandfather was a proud aboriginal elder (yes I'm not American), a kind and intelligent man with respect for his history and culture and for the technological and educational benefits of colonialism, he worked for 4 decades as an aboriginal disability worker, a truly great man taken to soon by alcoholism he used to self medicate the stresses and anxiety of seeing his people struggle and suffer in a westernised society.

ThyCorndog posted...

You know this means that for every dollar a liberal gives, a conservative gives a dollar and 30 cents, right? That's significant, but it's not overwhelming and whatever other hyperbolic language you're using

And yet the leftists narrative is conservatives are vile greedy monsters, the evidence shows conservatives are doing far more to improve the lives of the people around them than liberals, going far beyond financial, actually giving their homes, lives and blood to those in need.

ThyCorndog posted...

Is this your first scientific paper? Significant means what the other posters are saying. For example, finding that a medicine helps 5% of people more than another medicine would be said to be significant. Even if that means it went from helping 60% of people to 63% of people

A religious person is 57% more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person.
Conservative households in America donate 30% more money to charity each year than liberal households.
If liberals gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the U.S. would jump by about 45%.

These aren't 5% figures, they are significant in the literal term.

pinky0926 posted...

You'll notice I didn't say conservative at all in my post

And I'm just pointing out conservative Americans do far more than apply temporary band aids, they take care of abused children, literally walk through flames, give the literal life blood in their veins so another might live.

pinky0926 posted...

In general the American habit of sticking a temporary band-aid on social ills by banking on the occasional gregarious acts of charity by well-off people is really bizarre

The charitable acts of conservatives go far beyond financial, Foster carers, volunteer firefighters, blood donators, all overwhelmingly conservative.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Exactly, why do leftist argue in bad faith all the time?, changing language and pretending their alternate meaning was the intention?

Devilanse333 posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/4/0/AAH8t1AADOjY.jpg

I linked a scientific article, I guess it's not research when the results damage the leftist narrative.

COVxy posted...

Only a moron would believe you.

Only someone being deliberately disingenuous or suffering a severe case of cognitive dissonance would try to interpret significantly as such,

Significantly
adverb
in a sufficiently great or important way as to be worthy of attention.
"energy bills have increased significantly this year"

That certainly means "crossed a decision threshold" and not that bill had increased by a large amount.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

You think creation is cheap? materials, labour, transport, the man needs it.

COVxy posted...

It's a statistical term to mean "crossed a decision threshold". Has no implication for the size or importancd of an effect.

That's not how it's being used, "conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals", it's really that simple, significantly is referring the greater participation of conservatives in charitable acts.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Higher incomes and more charitable, where is the trolling exactly?

COVxy posted...

Except significant doesn't mean what you're trying to suggest it does, and you cut off the portion of the abstract that directly contradicts what you say.

Like, the overall mean is slightly biased towards conservatives, but it's not strong, and that bias almost entirely depends on structures of organized religion and individual wealth.

Significant doesn't mean significant?.
How do you account for a conservative majority in active volunteer roles like fire fighters?

DocDelicious posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/3/3/AAYLmLAADOjR.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/0/3/4/AAYLmLAADOjS.jpg

Pay special attention to the income status.

So not only do conservatives have a better work ethic, they are also more likely to improve the lives of people around them with fruits of their labour.

COVxy posted...

That's very blatantly not what the article you posted says.

Following scientific data collection and coding procedures, we identify 421 effect sizes from 31 empirical studies. Our meta-analysis results suggest that political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals at an overall level

Significantly, almost entirely, tomayto tomahto.

Giblet_Enjoyer posted...

Why are conservatives considerably more likely to not know the proper usage of "then" and "than"?

I realised I did that immediately and assumed correctly that would be the first and likely only thing leftists bring to this conversation.

Irony posted...

They're not

You only have to google "Left or right more charitable?", I even linked the top article so you don't even have too.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34429211/#:~:text=Our%20meta%2Danalysis%20results%20suggest,giving%20varies%20under%20different%20scenarios.

When it comes to helping those in need conservatives are more willing and more active than liberals, from monetary donation to active roles like volunteer fire fighters, community food drives and even fostering at need children.
The political ideology of left would lead people to believe they are altruistic but statistically altruism in action is almost entirely conservative.

Why don't the left actually make constructive progress towards their goals? as opposed to constantly observed destructive actions like violent riots, doxxing/attacks on individuals and small business and cancel culture.

Slayerblade11 posted...

She's not wrong though. You can get a body like that lifting a few days a week, the thing is it takes many years of consistency. Especially without drugs. Most people quit after a few months.

Noo, I was a PT (Cert 4) 18 through 21, This body requires a minimum of 10 hours of training a week, a strict diet and without drugs 18 months at a minimum, it's a complete lifestyle commitment.
Woman's beauty standards on the other hand, just don't eat like a pig, maybe a little cardio, or if cosmo, women's weekly and Kalvin Klein are to be believed eat like a pig, all the time, drip feed yourself butter through an IV while you sleep so there's no downtime on your caloric intake.

darkmaian23 posted...

Contraceptives
Gay Marriage
Interracial Marriage

I don't think you'll sell this is a problem to conservatives lol

Please TC train me in the ways of edge, I've recently started posing with my mall Katana's, what is the next step I should take?

Nichtcrawler X posted...

No, not really. Sure, I am here, but for the most part, PotD, like any other predominately American community, does not reach that far left.

$350 million in damages from far left "peaceful protests" in Minneapolis alone, 140 cities participated in these "peaceful protests", I think 25 people that died as a result wouldn't exactly call them peaceful. The far left in America is larger than the entire population of my country.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Oh, so

We already know Covid is likely going to become endemic, it's not going anywhere and the available information we have shows natural immunity is as good and in some cases better then the vaccine (I've linked an article to an Israeli study already).

Still no acknowledgment or explanation to the reduced global mortality compared to the last decade?, even though we are apparently living through a deadly pandemic, the worst in 100 years.

Metalsonic66 posted...

Because it reduces the likelyhood and severity? Not sure if trolling or just incredibly ignorant

Clinical trials and real world data show that COVID-19 vaccines are highly effective to prevent severe illness with COVID-19. For example, data from the United Kingdom shows that these vaccines also significantly reduce the risk of severe COVID-19, including hospitalisation and death, in older adults.

For those already in a high risk category. why exactly would we want to reduce transmission in low risk groups when natural immunity has been proven so effective? seems like a better option then locking down the whole world over and over and over. Vaccination and isolation for the high risk, living a normal life for the rest of us.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/968553

Not going to acknowledge that the morality rates fell from 2012 during the worst Pandemic in 100 years?

adjl posted...

Not really. The only opinions that get censored get censored on the basis of being terrible opinions that nobody should have, not on the basis of their political leanings (e.g. you getting warned for insisting that the Covid vaccines were dangerous and there's a grand conspiracy to cover that up: that's not a "right-wing opinion," that's just plain dangerous misinformation). It turns out that a lot of such deplorable opinions are associated with the right wing, but that's largely coincidental.

Vaccine doesn't stop you from getting it, doesn't stop you from spreading it, so why are they running on a narrative of getting vaccinated to protect others? clearly only those who are considered at risk should need it "if" it reduces symptom severity. 0.1% death rate in under 60's over 75% of those 0.1% had chronic pre-existing conditions (Aus stats), billionaires experience record wealth growth while middle class experiences record losses, 2012 death per thousand people all cause mortality 7.743, 2021 in the middle of the "Worst" pandemic in 100 years all cause mortality 7.645.

There are 101 reasons to be asking questions, the shady history of pfizer, moderna and J&J only compound people's distrust further, transparency is key to trust and here pfizer is trying to hide all it's data for 75 years so the people affected are fucking dead before they can learn the truth, why would they do that?