Why are there so many left-wingers on NSG?

[The Reasonable]

Cynics aren't necessarily people who spit and scorn at the world...and never have I said "life isn't fair, suck it up". What I am when I referred to myself as cynical is that I still want to make the world a better place, but those measures have to disincentivize any possible abuse by moochers.

You're a realist then. Someone who understands the abuse people can do and acts to ensure it doesn't outpace the good people can do are realists.

Cynics portray the world as if it will never get better - as if we're all equally screwed (except the rich) and the best thing to do is just exploit your fellow man since you're all in the same shit-hole together and you're not gonna ever get out.

The problem though is that the social democrats on this site are idealists who underplay the amount of abuse that goes on with well-meaning programs such as welfare and think that harsh punishments for criminals is somehow barbaric because it doesn't fit with their ideals of a "civilized society".

[North Calaveras]

Well..........what did you say about Muslims then?

Screw that, just send some links.

no problem, we got into an arguement about nationalism and i said that i could be proud of my nation yet still remain open minded

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=198817&p=10862111#p10862111'

just keep reading to see more bullshit

[Agymnum]

You're a realist then. Someone who understands the abuse people can do and acts to ensure it doesn't outpace the good people can do are realists.

Cynics portray the world as if it will never get better - as if we're all equally screwed (except the rich) and the best thing to do is just exploit your fellow man since you're all in the same shit-hole together and you're not gonna ever get out.

The problem though is that the social democrats on this site are idealists who underplay the amount of abuse that goes on with well-meaning programs such as welfare and think that harsh punishments for criminals is somehow barbaric because it doesn't fit with their ideals of a "civilized society".

That's where the line blurs.

Some people such as myself agree that the death penalty is too harsh a punishment for the state to impose, considering that it is not above the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Others agree that the death penalty is a necessary evil for society to exist, that without it criminals are not deterred enough to be able to curb crime efficiently or eliminate threats effectively.

In essence, this is a battle no one's ever going to win. However, the left-wing allows debate. The right-wing seems insistent that disagreement must indicate that you're an evil "commie socialist" who deserves to rot in Hell, scorned by the lightning and thunder of an angry God.

[Chulainan]

Screw that, just send some links.

no problem, we got into an arguement about nationalism and i said that i could be proud of my nation yet still remain open minded

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=198817&p=10862111#p10862111'

just keep reading to see more bullshit

Well do you think your way of life is better than any others?

[North Calaveras]

no problem, we got into an arguement about nationalism and i said that i could be proud of my nation yet still remain open minded

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=198817&p=10862111#p10862111'

just keep reading to see more bullshit

Well do you think your way of life is better than any others?

No, it's a differen't way of life

define "better"?

btw i repeatidly asked for evidence and got none in return.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

You're a realist then. Someone who understands the abuse people can do and acts to ensure it doesn't outpace the good people can do are realists.

Cynics portray the world as if it will never get better - as if we're all equally screwed (except the rich) and the best thing to do is just exploit your fellow man since you're all in the same shit-hole together and you're not gonna ever get out.

The problem though is that the social democrats on this site are idealists who underplay the amount of abuse that goes on with well-meaning programs such as welfare and think that harsh punishments for criminals is somehow barbaric because it doesn't fit with their ideals of a "civilized society".

As far as criminals, death sentences are irreversible and expensive, and the state has a bad record of accuracy. As far as things below that level, no love lost if the guy was a malicious asshole.

[Chulainan]

Well do you think your way of life is better than any others?

No, it's a differen't way of life

define "better"?

btw i repeatidly asked for evidence and got none in return.

I've read that, but this did interest me a lot.

"You go into a thread about a white shooter and the first comment you make is LETS NOT FORGET THAT AT LEAST HES BETTER THAN MUSLIMS"

Did you do this, I won't lie, if you did then he's right. Even if it was just you saying that terrorists are a bigger issue than a white shooter, wouldn't he still be counted as a terrorist?

If that is what happened the yes he is right, if it is not, then it is not.

[North Calaveras]

The problem though is that the social democrats on this site are idealists who underplay the amount of abuse that goes on with well-meaning programs such as welfare and think that harsh punishments for criminals is somehow barbaric because it doesn't fit with their ideals of a "civilized society".

As far as criminals, death sentences are irreversible and expensive, and the state has a bad record of accuracy. As far as things below that level, no love lost if the guy was a malicious asshole.

How often are people sentenced to death that are innocent? I can understand if it was a problem but if it's very tiny I don't see an issue(just human error, it happens, like with anything)

also bullets are cheap

[North Calaveras]

No, it's a differen't way of life

define "better"?

btw i repeatidly asked for evidence and got none in return.

I've read that, but this did interest me a lot.

"You go into a thread about a white shooter and the first comment you make is LETS NOT FORGET THAT AT LEAST HES BETTER THAN MUSLIMS"

Did you do this, I won't lie, if you did then he's right. Even if it was just you saying that terrorists are a bigger issue than a white shooter, wouldn't he still be counted as a terrorist?

If that is what happened the yes he is right, if it is not, then it is not.

even if i did say that, which I did not, i said that islamic terrorism is more rampant that's all

btw again he wouldn't provide suffienct evidence when asked

[Chulainan]

As far as criminals, death sentences are irreversible and expensive, and the state has a bad record of accuracy. As far as things below that level, no love lost if the guy was a malicious asshole.

How often are people sentenced to death that are innocent? I can understand if it was a problem but if it's very tiny I don't see an issue(just human error, it happens, like with anything)

also bullets are cheap

It's not just human error to the families of the dead innocent.

[Agymnum]

As far as criminals, death sentences are irreversible and expensive, and the state has a bad record of accuracy. As far as things below that level, no love lost if the guy was a malicious asshole.

How often are people sentenced to death that are innocent? I can understand if it was a problem but if it's very tiny I don't see an issue(just human error, it happens, like with anything)

also bullets are cheap

So you'd be okay if one of your friends was part of that 'very tiny human error'. Really, now?

You can let someone out of jail if you were mistaken about the case. You can't resurrect someone from the electric chair or flush his body of poison and bring him back to life.

[North Calaveras]

How often are people sentenced to death that are innocent? I can understand if it was a problem but if it's very tiny I don't see an issue(just human error, it happens, like with anything)

also bullets are cheap

It's not just human error to the families of the dead innocent.

obviously

[North Calaveras]

How often are people sentenced to death that are innocent? I can understand if it was a problem but if it's very tiny I don't see an issue(just human error, it happens, like with anything)

also bullets are cheap

So you'd be okay if one of your friends was part of that 'very tiny human error'. Really, now?

You can let someone out of jail if you were mistaken about the case. You can't resurrect someone from the electric chair or flush his body of poison and bring him back to life.

shit happens dude, what I said does not imply im okay with these mistakes, im just willing to accept them.

[Agymnum]

I've read that, but this did interest me a lot.

"You go into a thread about a white shooter and the first comment you make is LETS NOT FORGET THAT AT LEAST HES BETTER THAN MUSLIMS"

Did you do this, I won't lie, if you did then he's right. Even if it was just you saying that terrorists are a bigger issue than a white shooter, wouldn't he still be counted as a terrorist?

If that is what happened the yes he is right, if it is not, then it is not.

even if i did say that, which I did not, i said that islamic terrorism is more rampant that's all

btw again he wouldn't provide suffienct evidence when asked

See that's the issue, you act like being Muslim is what defines terrorists. The Al-Qaeda are terrorists who use Islam as an excuse to justify the killings of millions of innocents. They are not Muslim.

That would be like calling Adolf Hitler a Christian terrorist jut because he used Christianity as his champion platform for eliminating the Jews. Doesn't follow.

[Norstal]

As far as criminals, death sentences are irreversible and expensive, and the state has a bad record of accuracy. As far as things below that level, no love lost if the guy was a malicious asshole.

How often are people sentenced to death that are innocent? I can understand if it was a problem but if it's very tiny I don't see an issue(just human error, it happens, like with anything)

also bullets are cheap

There's some things that human error can be tolerated. Some examples would be friendly fire during wartime.

There's some things that human error cannot be tolerated. Such as this. Such as USDA failing to inspect meat and other farm products. Why? Because it's easily preventable. Innocent deaths from death penalties are easily preventable by abolishing the penalty altogether.

[North Calaveras]

even if i did say that, which I did not, i said that islamic terrorism is more rampant that's all

btw again he wouldn't provide suffienct evidence when asked

See that's the issue, you act like being Muslim is what defines terrorists. The Al-Qaeda are terrorists who use Islam as an excuse to justify the killings of millions of innocents. They are not Muslim.

That would be like calling Adolf Hitler a Christian terrorist jut because he used Christianity as his champion platform for eliminating the Jews. Doesn't follow.

Since when? being a terrorist is being a terrorist, regardless of religion, there just so happen to be tons of muslim ones as opposed to other faiths THAT"S IT.

wtf is up with people jumping to conclusions about me when they can't get evidence.

[Agymnum]

See that's the issue, you act like being Muslim is what defines terrorists. The Al-Qaeda are terrorists who use Islam as an excuse to justify the killings of millions of innocents. They are not Muslim.

That would be like calling Adolf Hitler a Christian terrorist jut because he used Christianity as his champion platform for eliminating the Jews. Doesn't follow.

Since when? being a terrorist is being a terrorist, regardless of religion, there just so happen to be tons of muslim ones as opposed to other faiths THAT"S IT.

wtf is up with people jumping to conclusions about me when they can't get evidence.

Perhaps you should stop throwing around weighted statements without first considering their possible impact on people. Maybe then you would attract less criticism.

[Chulainan]

I've read that, but this did interest me a lot.

"You go into a thread about a white shooter and the first comment you make is LETS NOT FORGET THAT AT LEAST HES BETTER THAN MUSLIMS"

Did you do this, I won't lie, if you did then he's right. Even if it was just you saying that terrorists are a bigger issue than a white shooter, wouldn't he still be counted as a terrorist?

If that is what happened the yes he is right, if it is not, then it is not.

even if i did say that, which I did not, i said that islamic terrorism is more rampant that's all

btw again he wouldn't provide suffienct evidence when asked

Yes it is, but why bring it up in the first place, it seems odd to go on to a thread about a white shooter and state this, the thread didn't have anything to do with this. If you believe this man should be ignored simply because there are more Muslim terrorists than white, then you are wrong.

If your argument was that "but the Muslims are worse" which is what it sounds like to an outside observer such as myself as Islamic terrorists are by definition Muslim, and by saying they are more rampant on a thread on a white shooter it makes it out like you are stating that they are worse because they are Muslim. This would be xenophobic.

You stated this on a thread about a white shooter........why even? It does seem highly suspicious.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

As far as criminals, death sentences are irreversible and expensive, and the state has a bad record of accuracy. As far as things below that level, no love lost if the guy was a malicious asshole.

How often are people sentenced to death that are innocent? I can understand if it was a problem but if it's very tiny I don't see an issue(just human error, it happens, like with anything)

also bullets are cheap

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocen ... th-penalty

From the innertubes. But its not just the innocence rate. Even if it were 100% guilty there on the row, you would still have a much higher rate of cost to execute somebody (and I still don't know why).

[North Calaveras]

even if i did say that, which I did not, i said that islamic terrorism is more rampant that's all

btw again he wouldn't provide suffienct evidence when asked

Yes it is, but why bring it up in the first place, it seems odd to go on to a thread about a white shooter and state this, the thread didn't have anything to do with this. If you believe this man should be ignored simply because there are more Muslim terrorists than white, then you are wrong.

If your argument was that "but the Muslims are worse" which is what it sounds like to an outside observer such as myself as Islamic terrorists are by definition Muslim, and by saying they are more rampant on a thread on a white shooter it makes it out like you are stating that they are worse because they are Muslim. This would be xenophobic.

You stated this on a thread about a white shooter........why even? It does seem highly suspicious.

no it's not xenophobic AT ALL

"an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange"

key word being unreasonable

is it unreasonable to assume there are more islamic extremists than there are christian ones?

and I even stated that both are terrible and both are unacceptable and both are equally bad in that very same thread.

[Emile Zola]

The problem though is that the social democrats on this site are idealists who underplay the amount of abuse that goes on with well-meaning programs such as welfare and think that harsh punishments for criminals is somehow barbaric because it doesn't fit with their ideals of a "civilized society".

It must be nice to come to your conclusions without any evidence. Where is the proof that there is large scale abuse of welfare? If what you say it's true then this front page news. Instead we get the occasional individual story of welfare abuse or some anecdote here on NSG.

What is the point of "harsh punishments"? Is it deterrence? Shouldn't the murder rate be less in countries with the death penalty? Does corporal punishment work? You will find out that harsh punishments do not work and do not deter people from crime. That most crimes originate from poverty and lack of education and opportunity. Which is why us misguided lefties support programs to help these "moochers".

[North Calaveras]

How often are people sentenced to death that are innocent? I can understand if it was a problem but if it's very tiny I don't see an issue(just human error, it happens, like with anything)

also bullets are cheap

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocen ... th-penalty

From the innertubes. But its not just the innocence rate. Even if it were 100% guilty there on the row, you would still have a much higher rate of cost to execute somebody (and I still don't know why).

It's because of feeding them for a few years waiting for there exectuion, making sure everything is in order, paying for special types of executions(lethal inejction takes lots of chemicals etce tc)

a bullet is much cheaper, though it's uglier

[Agymnum]

Yes it is, but why bring it up in the first place, it seems odd to go on to a thread about a white shooter and state this, the thread didn't have anything to do with this. If you believe this man should be ignored simply because there are more Muslim terrorists than white, then you are wrong.

If your argument was that "but the Muslims are worse" which is what it sounds like to an outside observer such as myself as Islamic terrorists are by definition Muslim, and by saying they are more rampant on a thread on a white shooter it makes it out like you are stating that they are worse because they are Muslim. This would be xenophobic.

You stated this on a thread about a white shooter........why even? It does seem highly suspicious.

no it's not xenophobic AT ALL

"an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange"

key word being unreasonable

is it unreasonable to assume there are more islamic extremists than there are christian ones?

and I even stated that both are terrible and both are unacceptable and both are equally bad in that very same thread.

Considering that a lot of Christians in the Bible Belt are rather intolerant (they just aren't as violent about it - at least, not yet), I'd say it's a bit unreasonable.

[North Calaveras]

no it's not xenophobic AT ALL

"an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange"

key word being unreasonable

is it unreasonable to assume there are more islamic extremists than there are christian ones?

and I even stated that both are terrible and both are unacceptable and both are equally bad in that very same thread.

Considering that a lot of Christians in the Bible Belt are rather intolerant (they just aren't as violent about it - at least, not yet), I'd say it's a bit unreasonable.

No not even a bit, at least not in the modern world, during the past you could make that arguement.

[Agymnum]

Considering that a lot of Christians in the Bible Belt are rather intolerant (they just aren't as violent about it - at least, not yet), I'd say it's a bit unreasonable.

No not even a bit, at least not in the modern world, during the past you could make that arguement.

I'm sorry, could you clarify a bit?