Lurker > Machete

Vicious_Dios posted...

I don't feel like reading back through all of that backlog from the last time I spoke here.

Yes you do
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

It appears the cuck account is gone now too
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

Good. That user has been asking for trouble constantly for a while now. No excuse for the bullshit he's been doing.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

I didn't say anything about 'meme' in my first post, just my next one, and it was directed at a very specific type of atheistic thinking.

The rest of your post with all of the talk about nazis... I don't know what psychedlic substance(s) you've taken that dragged you into that bizarre tangent, but the whole thing has nothing at all to do with the conversation. That is blatant trolling and it is offensive to bring stuff like that up when it has nothing to do with what is being spoken about here. Why you would do that when you have bad stuff on the histories of 3 accounts is beyond me, but you lost any benefit of any doubt that I extended you only because you were fun in jackbox a few times. You don't want to actually discuss anything on the topic at hand. Okay. That's that.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

Lonestar2000 posted...

I call bullshit.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/09/fentanyl-falling-ill/

yeah I just read an article about how the validity/factuality of this is being disputed

this is the one I read: https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-deputys-drug-collapse-questioned-202556818.html

---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

Gwynevere posted...

Isn't CRT only taught at the college level anyway

Conservatives are great at working people up over literally nothing

I think that's what happened here. Maybe AlonelBreak just got exposed to some right wing talking points and formed an opinion based on that but when questioned here, was unable to explain or even describe any of it and got flustered as a result. That scenario would fit the profile.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

CarrieChan posted...

Topic detailing falls under disruptive. Still a violation.

I honestly don't remember what she said and that site doesn't archive her posts.

So you're talking a bunch of shit about someone in regard to something you don't remember?
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

lolife67 posted...

How can anyone present a convincing argument against something you still haven't stated? I and others have asked you a few times to specify what exactly you find wrong with CRT but you haven't really done so. You've been very vague and deflecting.

Yeah, he listed like 2-3 vague things he doesn't like about it and ignored requests for examples of that. Like, how is anyone supposed to even know if they agree or disagree when he doesn't even explain what he's talking about?
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

CarrieChan posted...

The attention seeking, topic derailing, misandry. Lots of things. Hell, half of Conflict's suspension topic was about her.

What and how much did she actually say in that topic before foaming-mouth dogpiling happened and how much do you think the topic would have actually been about her otherwise?
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

CyricZ posted...

I'm not denying she got herself banned.

But to deny that there was a pack of users here committed to chasing her away from engaging on this board is dishonest.

It's a sort of rabid lemming effect. You see the same users/typee of users always doing it to a handful of people.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

shockthemonkey posted...

Youre continuing to post without engaging with anything regarding CRT. Just like you have all topic.

He is being very selective about what he even responds to as well
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

MushroomMuncher posted...

No True Scotsman

I don't know what that means
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

sutree posted...

without engaging with what Ben said

The takeaway here is that malcolm nance had heard of ben shapiro before
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

AloneIBreak posted...

is there anything about CRT that any of you would challenge or criticize?

If you could answer my questions in post #69 (nice), I could maybe answer this question.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

MushroomMuncher posted...

So what you're really saying is atheists who convert after a near death experience aren't real atheists because they were "influenced" by nearly dying and seeing something.
"This isn't the deep dark void of nothing I was promised"

What do you mean by "really" in that question?
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

JimiHendrix posted...

You would never apply this reasoning to atheism lol which makes your post absolutely moot

You really looked at this topic and said what people say about Christianity isnt grossly exaggerated?

Also, my definition of faith doesnt come from Christianity, it comes from a dissatisfaction of people over complicating things through the use of what they deem is more accurate terminology. If you reduce words down, basically what youre left with IS faith/hope/whatever youd like to call it

I would absolutely apply to atheism, of doing so was valid... only, I don't see examples where it is that are actually genuine examples. "I used to be christian but then I became atheist because <bad thing happened> and therefore either god doesn't exist or god sucks for making/letting that happen" is the most obvious one, but that's the meme shit I was talkkng about. People who genuinely turn to atheism over something like that sit at the kids' table and I wouldn't even engage there. You and I are not talking kids' table stuff here.

"Makes your post absolutely moot" would not even be an effective way to ignore the portions of it that you don't want to address, even if you could make any sort of case to call it moot, which you can't.

What did people say about christianity that is or isn't exaggerated and what do you assume I think about any posts in this topic that are not the posts I directly responded to? That half italicized question is presumptuous beyond description. Stick to my actual post. I wouldn't say to you: "You really looked at this topic and said jesus is literally the doorknob for my parents' upstairs bathroom door and sings michael jackson songs on a loop at 2:37 am every night.?" If I did, it would be equally ridiculous and presumptuous as the question you randomly threw in my dorection here for no reason at all.

It isn't over-complicating to properly define context of words. Reducing words down to conveniently equate the psychology of everyday mundane and near-automatic occurrances in human nature to an active choice to subscribe to a specific religious belief system (whichever one might choose) is silly and again, excessively simplified. I don't really know what to call it when you counter "you're overly simplifying" with "no, you're overly complicating!" but that's... interesting I guess.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

AloneIBreak posted...

The occasional hostility towards science and objectivity are the only things that really bother me. I also think CRT inserts race in some places where class is probably more important, but Ive been wrong before.

I dont consider Kendi to be CRT and generally like him, but Ive heard him say denial is at the heart of racism. I hope I dont have to point out the fallaciousness of assuming that someone disagreeing with you is proof of your argument.

I should preface this by stating that I don't know much about crt and only have a grasp on the basic premise of it.

What exactly about it is hostile toward science and objectivity?

What is that person calling denial that might also be interpreted as just "disagreeing" as you put it?
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

--Zero- posted...

he tricked me

we're all supposed to automatically dismiss him

Yes. Now you understand
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

JimiHendrix posted...

You employ faith everyday and carry doubts like any normal human would, I know aetheism became mainstream and is the norm now (because lets face it, what yall have described absolutely is NOT Christianity, people havent been religious for quite some time considering what you guys cite these people would believe in) but to have people to turn to those beliefs because they dislike what theyve seen? To me that hardly counts as unbiased. At least I tried a faith on for size, rejected it, and then found my own reasons fo come back to it after exploring other religions.

What is the process for most atheists? Look at religion and or have a bad experience with it and then just default to the other side? How do you think Christianity caught on? Lol

Then theres the whole well logically crowd who has never stepped away from logic in any form for any reason at all, not even to inspect their own lives.. the very same logic and sciences do allow for religion to exist, theyre just biased and want to exterminate it

This post doesn't really hold up though. You're using the term faith too loosely and trying to over-simplify what you're actually discussing. "Everyday faith" is more a combination of hope and trust, with hope applying to things uncontrollable (one doesn't have faith in the desired outcome so much as one hopes for it because it is the desired outcome) and trust applying to circumstances where a degree of control can apply or be made to apply (one doesn't have faith that someone will make the desired decision so much as one trusts that they will see it as the right decision and will choose it as such).

People tend to turn to beliefs that reflect their own experiences so those who choose religion are often predisposed to it, albeit in some cases subconsciously and/or through outside influences they may not even realize. For example, you won't find a native in the Amazon rainforest who has never even been alerted to the existence of outisde cultures suddenly developing an interest in christianity or islam without having ever learned they exist. That sort of thing just does not happen. An atheist who converts to a literal fore and brimstone fundamentalist christian after a near death experience involving fire, equating to hell by the association of the experience, is influenced by said association because there was a predisposition there.

As for the last 2 paragraphs, well that is all hypergeneralization and over-simplification to an asinine degree, and it suggests that your perspective of the people you disagree with in this conversation comes exclusively from memes, and should get you wrotten off as simply low effort trolling... but your first paragraph has enough substance to rule that out, and suggests that your views on atheism and agnosticism as genuine, though misguided.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

--Zero- posted...

Well hey I gave an non bias response to the video. I should have known better lol. Fuck Ben, he's wrong blah blah blah!

*non-biased (bias is a noun, biased is an adjective)

You didn't. Non-biased would mean recognizing that there is no such thing as a seriius discussion with that person, and nothing they try to do is ever an attempt at good faith. Insults would show bias on one side, and validation would show it on the other.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

Full
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

--Zero- posted...

Ben was trying to have a serious discussion

"The sun was trying to reach -200 degrees celsius"
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

kelemvor posted...

Is that what you took from my post? Really? I was talking about the democrat party not alienating some of it's traditional voting blocs.

For example, in my cul-de-sac there are 2 latin families, both from South America, and they vote R

"I make insightful and valid points and the proof is that I know a few people of color"
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

UnfairRepresent posted...

theists don't have a gateway to believing the 500,000 other religions they weren't taught about

this realization at a relatively young age, combined with the fact that I was only ever a "believer" in the sense that I had been too young to really think to question what I had been told.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

why did #16 even bother posting? lmao
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

Shezarr posted...

AlphaCuck is ledbowman

Ah right. Shame how that user turned out...
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

Which one is that?
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

DogOfPeace posted...

including that one weirdo who created the hate speech subreddit and made accounts named after errors genitals. Ironically, he was saying errors topic should be closed because it is not constructive, what a joke

Error even posted screenshots of that user messaging him on several error genitals accounts demanding attention.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

pojr posted...

Yeah I thought that was strange, I noticed that too. The suspension seems kind of delayed.

It happens from time to time. It also had a delay to show someone as suspended, and when it did, they were still listed on my block list as their main user level instead of -1. That took longer to display properly.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

mybbqrules posted...

Jesus, I've posted in two seperate topics today where someone was bitching about moderations and then they got suspended again.

I wonder if there's some kind of record for this?

Were you in the jennifer aniston topic too? An antivaxxer was melting down in it and also got suspended
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

"Not an anti vaxxer"

it was pretty clear that an earlier statement from that user stating "I've had vaccinations before!!" meant "I'm not against vaccinations in general, but I don't believe in covid vaccines" (probably because of believing horseshit and bullfuck conspiracy theory trash from fake news peddlars)
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

mybbqrules posted...

I was in that topic.

He was in full on melty mode.

It got deleted right when I went to lol at him for it
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

Very_Unreliable posted...

I'm trying to make a point

And failing
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

limp-bizkit-89 posted...

b-but muh free speechz!! Lmao

Soeaking of guesswho, he showed back up today whining about mods again and shitposting and went back knto suspension very quickly.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

Funkydog posted...

Being blocked by the poster spouting anti vax rhetoric makes me feel so sad :(

Maybe they are just blocking everyone that doesn't agree with their antivax nonsense. I barely said anything though and it was before the user showed up.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

Mr Hangman posted...

Yeah at level 130 you can do whatever you want. If you're interested in Legendary, just go for it. Playing more Expert at level 130 won't prepare you any better.

Yeah. It's more that I just didn't want to jump 2 difficulties at once. I wanted to get a feel for expert first.

Makes sense for the early stuff. On current character, I relied a lot more on actovely practicing skills rather than buying training. Restoration and conjuration are tougher for that since they seem to take forever (bound weapons seem to help for conj though). Smithing isn't bad. Enchanting is decent. Alchemy was slow at first but once I found out about giant toes extending duration on some potions, holy shit (and damn those potions sell for like 2k+ each too).

I also feel like level gain management is important too. I normally like to sneak all the time and spam muffle for fast leveling but in legendary, that seems counterproductive because of enemy level scaling. I didn't really sneak before this character but sneak attacking is really fun so I would definitely utilize that.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.

Shezarr posted...

Looks really stupid. If I wanted to play Souls I'd play Souls.

Yeah this is an issue woth this mod for me. I really don't want anything to do with souls games.
---

I do not receive notifications, so using the @ feature will not do anything. I might see your post and respond though if I have already been in the topic.