I laughed more than I should have.
Advertisement
by Wallenburg » Fri May 26, 2017 10:08 am
by Soldati Senza Confini » Mon May 29, 2017 8:11 am
The Alma Mater wrote:Datlofff wrote:
War is hell, civilians die
But you do not have to be the devil.
I think what really bothers people about Manning is that she took their heroes away. The USA has always had a herocomplex for "our boys abroad", the semper fi of the marines. Brave men fighting to protect freedom.
But Manning showed that way of too many of them in reality are only concerned with sticking their dicks in unwilling recipients and firing bullets into weak childres flesh for points, as if it wqs a computergame.
She is like the jerk who not only told you Santa is not real, but that the man in the suit is also a wanted pedophile. Just realise it is ok to cry over that.
by Internationalist Bastard » Mon May 29, 2017 3:29 pm
by Kannap » Mon May 29, 2017 4:34 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:He hates the gay chinese, it's weird, he is ok with the gay, he is ok with chinese, but gay Chinese. Watch the fuck out. Puzzles the fuck out of us.
by UCE Watchdog of the Puppets » Tue Jun 06, 2017 7:37 pm
by UCE Watchdog of the Puppets » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:16 pm
by Genivaria » Sun Jun 11, 2017 11:13 am
Cannot think of a name wrote:Neo Balka wrote:
Trump could take a shit and liberals would complain about either how small or large it is while also believing that their own shit smells like roses.
While you stand by denying it's shit.
Maybe it's shit, but it's the best shit.
It's shit but he shit in a toilet.
He didn't shit in the toilet but it's not that big a deal.
He shit his pants in public but that's not unusual.
Okay, it's unusual to shit ones pants in public, but it's a good sign.
Alright, it's not a good thing but you have to understand he's new to this. He's not a career shitter.
Fine, fine, it's bad for someone to shit their pants in public but Clinton would shit on Obama in public and where was the outrage?
No, I don't have any evidence of Clinton shitting on Obama, but it's thats because of the media and their blatant shitting in toilets agenda.
etc.
by Tinhampton » Mon Jun 12, 2017 7:56 am
by Xuskeuclite » Mon Jun 12, 2017 9:33 pm
by Tinhampton » Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:45 am
Candlewhisper Archive wrote:(Capitalist option)
(Communist option)
(Green option)
(Please everyone/spin doctor option)
Yeah, this issue looks good to go, submit it when your'e ready.
by The Blaatschapen » Thu Jun 15, 2017 1:07 pm
Tarsonis Survivors wrote:For your sake, I will try one last time.ThePeacekeepers wrote:Nobody has to do anything, I have said that several times but you seem to not understand. You did not have to reply to me or my posts but you CHOSE to do so.
Firstly, and this direly warrants addressing, You don't get to credibly make that appeal, when you declared something like this: 'By the grace of the Lord God Yahweh have I come to understand these things and more. This the truth I have come to the knowledge of."
You don't get to appeal to banality, and claim you wanted a civil intellectual discussion, when your intro was to make a declaration that the Lord God has bestowed upon you direct revelation and divine truth. That doesn't invite discussion, that commands acquiescence. Perhaps you think you're just invoking poetic piety and not wanting to take credit for your own deductions, but that is not how such a declaration is received, especially to those with differing opinions. In actuality, you are claiming your deductions have the weight of God's authority.
If you simply had asked to discuss, what the Bible says on the construction of the universe, and how we square that with what we know through scientific discovery, that would have been a perfectly, amicable, salient, thought provoking discussion, which multiple members of different sects, and even faiths, could really come together in a profitable dialectic. But that's not what you did. I honestly don't think you understand the difference, between exploratory discussion, and telling people what they should believe.
Now,First show in the bible where it says (the earth is not flat, the sun was not commanded to stand still, the sun and moon and the stars were not created within the firmament, the firmament was not impregnable, the lord did not put water above and below the firmament, and finally sheol is not the grave which would be on earth) after that we can discuss what science has to say. All those things I pointed out with scripture but none have even glanced at what was provided and instead have only read that I said the earth is flat, that is the definition of willful ignorance, at the very least ignorance of what the bible says.
No, it's not. We know what it says. That's what you're not getting. We know what the Bible says. There are no verses, that retcon the creation story of genesis. We know this, so nobody bothered to even try. However, that does not mean you are right, because we also know what humans have come to know through scientific investigation (much of which was done by Christians). As a collective people, through thousands of years of discovery, we have come to know that the earth, is a sphere. We can even calculate the arc of the earths curvature, and apply that curvature into calculations, that allow us to navigate with precision. If the world was flat, all modern nautical and aeronautical navigation would be inaccurate because navigational techniques incorporate the curvature of the Earth into their course calculations. The science on this matter isn't merely opinion. It has been demonstrably proven beyond the point of doubt. This isn't a matter of faith, or belief, or opinion. This is known, it is knowledge. Simply rejecting any contradictory, but relevant info that does not conform to your paradigm, does not dispel the veracity of the info, but only highlights the feebleness of yours. For instance: If the World was flat as described in Genesis, then the science would reflect it. The physical dimensions of the Earth are a tangible quality, thus we would be able to witness such a thing.
Now we could discuss what this conflict between scripture and science implies for our religion. We could discuss possible reconciliations with science and the Genesis story. We could discuss Ancient Israelite moods and conceptions toward the physical world and how they approached it. We could explore what the Bible says, as perhaps being propositionally inaccurate, but mimetically accurate. We could discuss the possibility that the Bible, being written by humans would reflect the preconceptions of the people writing it, therefore might not be scientifically accurate, given that they were ignorant of later generations' discoveries. We could even discuss some of the nuances in the language, perhaps the many different meanings that the Ancient Israelite's meant by "immovable." We could even explore that perhaps the Biblical cosmology, is not meant to convey a definitive physical claim, but rather an allegorical cosmology in a vertical context that serves as a representation for their moralistic paradigm. All of these, are viable courses for discussion, simply because there's actually room for discussion.
What you have instead argued for, is that the Bible should trump science, even in the case of something proved beyond legitimate contestation. That what we believe to be true should not be reconciled with what we know to be true, but rather our beliefs should supplant what our knowledge. This is the very epitome of anti-intellectualism.
Therefore, we unequivocally dismiss out of hand, your argument because it is, in short, ridiculous.
That restriction, exists only in your own mind, and is not mandated to this thread,(or even Christian theology). This thread exists to discuss Christianity, it is not however necessarily, a Christian oriented discussion. All angles of investigation are valid, especially in this case.If we were in a thread dedicated to science and not a thread dedicated to Christianity I would ask for scientific evidence first and biblical evidence second. Since that is not the case it will always be in this thread the bible first and science second,
because that is what the Lord God Yahweh has said.
I would point out in the bible where it says to do so but honestly it is pointless to waste anymore time trying to reason with you.
Again thank you for the blessing, and may the Lord God Yahweh find you.
No, He has not. At no point, has God said "Ignore science, put the Bible first." You are elevating the Bible to an idolatrous level. You are also assuming, by taking an overly literal interpretation, that there is a hard choice between the Bible and Science, when an apparent contradiction is found. No such dichotomy necessarily exists.
If you wish to reasonably discuss the conflict between the Old Testament and Scientific discovery, I will entertain it. If you simply wish to proclaim something, and reject all contradictory evidence that isn't scripture, then you've wasted everybody's time.
by Tinhampton » Fri Jun 16, 2017 12:07 am
by Genivaria » Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:41 pm
Cannot think of a name wrote:Nulla Bellum wrote:
Was just wondering what said map would look like, lol.
I see...how do I explain this?
Okay. Say there's like this big outdoor...thing...like an instillation or a fish hatchery or something. And there's lots of kids there for various reasons. And there's this totally interesting thing and you're trying to learn more about it. But there's all these kids yelling really loud and running around. And you mutter, "I just wanted to learn about fish breeding..." and then one of the kids over hears you so they run over and slap you on the back and yell, "YOU'RE IT!" and you try to explain, "No, look. I'm not playing, I'm here for the fish" and they just start dancing around yelling "YOU CAN'T CATCH ME!"
I don't want to catch you. I don't want to be a prop in your foreplay with some other poster. I don't give a shit about your crusade and have zero interest in proving or disproving your dumbass premises. You could quit jacking each other off, or not. It'd be great if you didn't and maybe just talked about this shooting, but after sixty pages threads go where they go.
But let me be absolutely clear because you thought what you wrote was funny enough to laugh at it yourself. I'm not part of your whole...thing. I'm here for the fish. Go fuck with the other kids.
by Eastfield Lodge » Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:35 am
Glamour wrote:Look, this is actually not that complicated. We are living in times were emotions and egos are running high and people's views of things are being clouded by the haze brought about by both.
If you drive a van into people to kill them, you are a mass murderer. If you kill people by any means for political or religious reasons, you are a terrorist. If you are part of an organisation which promotes violence or hatred against any large-scale political or religious group, because of their politics or religion, for example against all Muslims, all Catholics or all Protestants, then that is an extremist group. If you have extreme views concerning taking action in terms of your (extreme) vision of what society should be and how to force it into your vision, or destabilise it to the point where it will then have to be rebuilt by "the winners", you are in danger of being radicalised. If you spread these extreme, religiously and politically motivated views with the intent of calling others into physical or violent action or into holding hateful views, with the caveat when they do being "well, I didn't do anything", then you are actually an extremist who is trying to radicalise people. If you are doing so coming from a religious perspective then you are a form of extremist called a hate preacher, like Abu Hamza. If you are doing so from a political perspective then you are also an extremist, like Katie Hopkins, who has called for a "final solution" and for gunboats to be sent to massacre refugees, on the basis of their non-nationality, non-white ethnicity, non-secularist religious views, and so on. If she passionately argued that we had to deport known potential terror suspects or she passionately argued that we had to stop taking in refugees, for any number of social, legal, philosophical, moral, practical and so on reasons - which yes, may encompass the fact that they are of a different culture and it may be problematic to integrate them all in the volume with which they were coming to Europe after the refugee crisis - then that would be part of civilised debate. But notice, that she is not interested in civilised debate. She is an extremist and she called for a final solution, and for gunboats to shoot refugees out of the fucking water as they fled for their lives. She is, it is plain to see, a Neo-Nazi. The United Kingdom fought the Nazis. She could have been a high profile Leave campaigner, and there are valid points of merit for leaving the EU, ranging from our role in the Iraq war potentially making us a terrorist target (although Hopkins would never accept, probably, that our role in anything has anything to do with anything), to the fact that free movement did mean that anyone who obtained a passport in any EU country could come here and that that was a security risk, to the idea that we cannot sustain heavy migration. Fine. And people may passionately disagree.
But when you start saying, amid a climate where we are leaving the EU, that "Britain" and "British values" and "British culture" and all of us are under attack and at war with "radical Islamic terrorists", where you try to pump this mantra into the minds of people so that they eventually are psychologically primed to associate terror with Islam and Islam with radicalism, and that "Western men" need to "stand up"... when Katie Hopkins says all of that stuff, she is an extremist.
Anyone who listens blindly and in the throes of high emotion to anyone with these type of extreme, destabilising, demagogic views, which, because of the potential they have to destabilise the society, are actually a national security risk when they are acted upon - with said action taken upon the basis of extremist views called terrorism - is in danger of being radicalised. If someone listens to the EDL leader saying Finsbury Park mosque “has a long history of creating terrorists and radical jihadists and promoting hate and segregation”, and they do not understand that that in itself is a radical response to the situation which itself promotes hate and segregation, then they need to really reassess their capacity for objectivity and stop actually being triggered.
Paul Joseph Watson said something along the lines of, "Why isn't it that 'the left' are saying that it's just because white extremists need more hugs? Why aren't they saying that the response is more vigils and peace and love? Why are they calling immediately on the media to call the white van driver a terrorist when usually the response is not to call Muslims terrorists after an attack?"
This is really indicative of his outlook on life and his inability to think with empathy or nuance. Firstly, this is not a "left-right" issue. Some of the Islamic extremists who want sharia law are probably hardcore communists in their view of economics. Some of the right-wing extremists who believe their indigenous culture as related to ethnicity, nationality and class should come above all else and are willing to promote violence to that end are wealthy business owners who would love nothing more than unfettered capitalism and corporate tyranny under a fascist state. The issue is not of left versus right, it is actually about social libertarianism versus social authoritarianism. The thing that all extremists have in common is that they are authoritarian, which is alright, because we do need diversity, but that they are authoritarian in the EXTREME to the point that either they want to radicalise others to carry out violence promoting their extreme authoritarian views, against the other extreme authoritarian end of the scale who they view as being in competition with them for domination of the culture and society. Meanwhile, they view "liberals" or "the left" as "snowflakes" and a joke who are oblivious to the state of war that, in the extremist's mind, the culture is actually engaged in. And that goes for Islamic or right-wing extremists. Secondly, there will be more hugs and peace and love, because most people want to live in a co-operative society, because they are not religious or political extremists and do not view this or any attack perpetrated by an Islamist extremist through a necessarily political or religious lens, but rather through a human one - there will also be vigils as there always are, FOR THE VICTIMS, PAUL JOSEPH WATSON. NOT AS A SHOW OF SUPPORT FOR THE GODFORSAKEN KILLER, WHETHER HE OR SHE IS A WHITE MUSLIM, A WHITE SUPREMACIST EXTREMIST LIKE THE ONE WHO SHOT UP THE CHURCH IN CHARLESTON, AN ANTI-ISLAMIC EXTREMIST LIKE THE ONE WHO SHOT THE CHILDREN ON THE ISLAND OF UTOYA, A PAIR OF SATANIST, NIHILIST EXTREMISTS LIKE THE ONES WHO DELIBERATELY TARGETED CHRISTIANS AT COLUMBINE, A SECTARIAN CHRISTIAN EXTREMIST OF THE UDF OR THE IRA WHO TRIED TO BLOW UP MARGARET THATCHER, and so on. The vigils are a human affair, not a political one, and they are not to be laughed at unless you are a psychopath. And thirdly, why are the media calling on people to call the van driver a terrorist? Because as I have explained, he is one, and it is important for us to have balance because we seriously do not want to be looked upon or start to transform into a fascist state. We must be even-handed. The right-wing media in the UK was also extremely anti-Muslim for years before any attack happened in the UK, before ISIS ever existed, and the general tone of the media here regarding everything is so utterly dismissive of logic and unbiased reporting as to be a constant exercise in surrealist tragicomedy. Now is not the time for crazy shit all over the papers, making much ado out of ethnicity, religion and minority cultures for the sake of selling papers alone, but unfortunately that is exactly what the UK print media has done for a very, very long time and people who live here realise it and hold the media to account with a bit more thought than constantly spouting "fake news" concerning everything they don't agree with.
Actually, the majority of the population here realised even before a white man drove a van into a crowd of Muslims, that it is a terrible thing to imagine anyone driving a van into any crowd of innocent people, and that anyone who does it for any reason to do with religion or politics is, quite simply, a terrorist and should be referred to as such. Anyone who encourages or implies that these things should be done is an extremist and could be radicalised into actually planning to do these things or doing them, in which event they would be a terrorist. That extremists exist within every ethnicity, every religion (it is also worth pointing out that a religious fundamentalist is different from a religious extremist) means that terrorism is not a problem for Islam to deal with or "root out in their communities", it is a social problem in a multicultural society which applies across the board, and I believe around one third of referrals to anti-extremism programmes have been for right-wing extremists.
We have terms for these things in the UK. In the USA, they have unmitigated free speech because of the constitution. Here, we have had a backlash against what people have called "political correctness", which they viewed as censorship, but in actuality it is simply the polite standard of speech recognised as necessary to avoid everyone going mad at one another. Everyone has gone mad at each other in America because they have never valued political correctness. This is also probably why there is no real recognition of right-wing extremism in the USA or of the idea that religious extremism could become a thing there, or any adequate explanation for the view behind mass shootings that occur, or that it could become a fascist state quite easily. Years ago I used to see people who loved guns in the US argue that, "a car could also be used to kill or maim people, like a gun is, so why are cars not banned"? At the time I thought it infantile in terms of an argument in favour of guns but of course, it was plausible then and is actually self-evident now. As an argument against murderers, which hopefully everyone would argue against. However, I have to say that if the population of the UK had guns, who the hell knows what would have happened by now with all of the tensions for the past few years and with all of the different political viewpoints, cultures, religions and so on. Although I do appreciate that the US has its constitution, I am glad we don't, because like a religious text, there are many interpretations of the constitution and that is perhaps the problem over there. There are many political extremists with the simplest part of the constitution, free speech, meaning it will slowly descend into a screaming match until there are "winners".
I am glad that the Prime Minister highlighted that diversity is our strength even when some people seemed to believe that we had turned our face away from that with Brexit. I am surprised that some people seem to believe that what the terrorist at Finsbury Park did was not "sickening", or that people are trying to rationalise away his terrorist status. I am surprised, but not shocked. In general I feel like we will cope with things now and that we are going through historical change but not total madness and anomie, which I had feared for a while. That is reassuring. The thing people must remember is that regardless of what happens now, Western European societies and North American society is multicultural, and there can be no undoing that, and we need to stop with this group mentality and be even-handed in our treatment of incidents. If Katie Hopkins or Tommy Robinson had their way, and Islam was viewed by the majority as an ideology to be angered by and to stop, then you would end up with either re-education camps or a civil war. And none of those would be good for Britain. They are pushing a version of patriotism that is extremist, white supremacist and warped. I can now, looking back on Brexit and the general election campaign, see how there has been a lot of political performance art which has realigned the definition of patriotism with actual British values, and against every kind of extremism. I hope that in America the current political crises are sorted soon and then we will all be on the right track again. And it is probably about time for the US to stop sanctioning Russia as well.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Jun 24, 2017 6:03 pm
by Tinhampton » Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:48 am
by Giovenith » Mon Jun 26, 2017 1:55 am
Katganistan wrote:Taking off the mod hat here.
"All Muslims are terrorists" and such like comments are already dealt with under the rules banning trolling. It's textbook "All X = Y" trolling.
The purpose of allowing distasteful opinions to be aired when they are aired civilly is to expose the ideas and to allow them to be argued. Thus, they do not fester in silence with no one to disagree with them, and persons who may not be involved in the discussion as well as people who are might be swayed if they see how illogical the arguments and how reprehensible others see them.
By silencing them entirely, you allow a clannish echo-chamber where all they hear is that they are right, and oppressed, and heroic. By exposing such arguments to being torn down logically, you may change minds -- if not of the participants, then of posters hanging back and observing because they aren't sure which way they really go yet.
by Katganistan » Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:24 am
Thanks, Giovenith.Users browsing this forum: Dakran, Mingulay Isle, Necroghastia, Querria, The Orson Empire, Umeria
