Total posts: 3,192
-->
@oromagi
- This legislation specifically protects dissent. [3.1.c]
- fivesix defines DESIRE as:
- "the mission (an ambition or purpose that is assumed by a person or group of NGOs who lobby for the introduction of such legislation. In short: the debate does not concern the desire of *government* to create the law, rather that of *the group* behind the introduction of it to government.
- Conservative Kevin Waugh is straightforward about his mission, "teaching the truth." There is no evidence of any other individual or group behind Waugh's leglistation.
- Since no non-governmental mission is indicated, this example contradicts fivesix's generalization.
- fivesix says Canada's bill is an example showing that non-governmental forces are more driven by a desire to criminalize dissent than to protect Jews but no non-govermental influences are even indicated in the creation of this bill and everything about Waugh's bill prioritizes truth-telling in the public transmission of history rather than suppression of dissent.
So it is your contention that fivesix's argument suffers not from the position he/she assumes, but his/her generalized and erroneous reference--i.e. Jewish NGO's as opposed to a single legislator, Member of Parliament Kevin Waugh?
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Is a false claim. There never was a peaceful society. To claim that people can create one when they have no working plan for that and when history disagrees with existance of peace is wrong. To disregard history in anything would be a mistake.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem.
Hence, the difference between online site and society. We dont know what users do in real life.
Have you engaged a violent altercation in every conflict of which you've been party?
Entire history is humans competing and being eager for conflict.
You've observed this?
Is an irrelevant claim, since society is not made from minority in society.
Argumentum ad populum.
Is a false statement. Verbal conflict is just an introduction for violent conflict, that being an introduction to war.
An erroneous logical biconditional. I'll repeat: CONFLICT =/= VIOLENCE.
Is irrelevant, since it doesnt affect the correctness of the claim.
Are you correct? That's what we're trying to find out.
I am all for peace, but I know its just a fairy tale.
Then how are you "for it"?
Even peaceful groups turn violent and abusive after some time.
All of them? List them for me.
The entire point of humanity is competition for power
And that's presumably your point as well? And mine?
If you wont compete for power, you will be oppressed by those who will.
Slave or a Master, huh? I reject both. Now what?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Pfizer probably got a very good deal purchasing this legislation.
Which makes the suggestion that these pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer are an example of "Capitalism" that much more ridiculous. They're nothing more than quasi-socialist crony corporations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Mind you, this "gift card" is most likely tax funded out of the massive Covid expense account. It's money that has to be spent once allocated.
Only the government can rob you, provide you something with money or resources they've stolen from you, and call it a "gift."
Created:
-->
@Bella3sp
All members I've seen are males in both debates and forums.My question is, why? Why do you think most are male rather than females?
Because most of the members here, I presume, happen to be male. Now if you're asking the reason forums such as this one tend to draw in an overwhelmingly male presence, then it is my opinion that forums provide a medium for those, who are prone to isolating themselves, or just keeping to themselves, to express themselves in the absence of conventional social consequences. Whereas mediums like popular social media, e.g. twitter, facebook, instagram, tiktok, etc. have an overwhelmingly female presence because it allows them to publicize their personal lives, eliminate anonymity, and draw attention to themselves in a low risk environment. Why aren't there more openly female debaters on sites like this one? I don't know -- you tell me.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
History tells us that in times of peace, humans start to slowly group and turn against each other. We see this literally everywhere.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem.
This need to demonstrate superiority (which they all have) is what produces the conflict.Verbal conflict escalates into violence. If one side seems "right" in the conflict, that is irrelevant. All sides are eager for the conflict.
We've all engaged verbal conflict as members of this site. Not one time, at least to my knowledge, has said conflict escalated to violence.
In fact, we see that throughout history people were eager for conflict and basically just waited for the excuse to do it.
You've observed them just engaging conflict just for the sake of engaging conflict?
The church supported the crusades. Muslims supported endless wars for islam. Germans supported Hitler. Russians supported Stalin. Americans supported Bush. Japanese supported their emperor.
Not all.
People cannot possibly function without a conflict, as the people cannot function without disagreement and disagreement always leads to conflict.
CONFLICT=/=VIOLENCE.
Some people might say "peace is possible". However, peace doesnt exist in any society today, and it did not exist in any society before. Therefore, we have no reason to believe that peace is possible.Even peace with nature is not possible, since humans have the compulsive need to destroy nature.Humans cannot live without killing something and reproducing to the point of where population is unsustainable.Even societies that seem peaceful from the distance are actually full of internal conflicts and people there are stepping on each other all the time.There can be "little less violence", but there cannot be "no violence".Kim Jong il believed that only a society with single-minded unity can be a peaceful society. If disagreement doesnt exist, neither does conflict. However, even when all people agreed on some principles, there were still disagreements on other things and violence was still present.
The ones who typically state "peace is impossible" are usually the one who sanction and/or perpetrate violence.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
- (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
- (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
- (a) if they establish that the statements communicated were true;
- (b) if, in good faith, they expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
- (c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds they believed them to be true; or
- (d) if, in good faith, they intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of antisemitism toward Jews.
How do these caveats undermine the affirmation of the subject's resolution?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I got a text yesterday from my healthcare provider saying if I come in for a "free" Covid vaccine, I would get a 75 dollar gift card.What is your reaction to that scenario?
If we assume, for lack of a better term, "good intentions" then I would presume that your healthcare provider is trying to incentivize you into serving the best interests of your health. If we assume financial motivations--which would be likely in my opinion--then your provider is merely trying to hedge against the prospect of your hospitalization--and therefore its financial liability--by encouraging your taking the vaccine. If we assume the "worst intentions," which in my opinion is just as likely considering the excessive and disingenuous media coverage, as well as the outright lies concerning the vaccine by public officials, then I would presume a concerted, nefarious effort to have the people en masse inject a substance into their bodies which they do not fully understand, under the pretext of "public safety."
Created:
Posted in:
What is a man?
An adult male human being whose role in reproduction is prominently characterized by insemination.
How does a man behave in social interactions?
However he sees fit.
Is there a general/cultural standard of how a man should express himself socially?
Yes.
Are there psychological traits that are generally associated with men and women?
Yes.
Do these psychological traits result in uniform personalities among men and women?
No.
Are there any psychological traits that are prevalent and beneficial to one sex, but rare and detrimental to the other?
No.
What does it mean to be a man in one's self-identification?
That is up to the individual.
Are men disposable?
To whom are they disposable?
Athias, are you a man?
Yes.
What does being a man mean to you?
I follow my father's example, given that he's the most prominent male figure in my life. Be good to yourself and to those about whom you care. Don't hold grudges; say what you mean; never deny accountability; self-discipline; maintain your wisdom and intelligence; stand by your choices, etc.
Has your mother or female members of your family imparted or contributed anything to your sense of manhood?
Of course. Be kind. Be funny. Treat everyone like family. Have both empathy and sympathy. Be loyal. Have conviction.
You see, I don't tally up psychological points and keep score among my family and friends based on their physiological differences. I celebrate the traits I've adopted and of which I have made good use. I don't need to compete with anyone, especially using sex as a basis, because essentially my society at large, my world revolves around my family and friends, and we do our best to try to do right by ourselves and each other--male or female.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bella3sp
I have seen countless men have their strengths as deception. You state that men have control, is that really their strength? I'm more than positively sure that most reported sexual assaults are because of men. Is that really control?
Well, it's definitely NOT deception.
Created:
-->
@AleutianTexan
Classic liberal thought, from what I understand, is that a government is only legitimate if it does its job in protecting liberty/property,
A government cannot protect property or liberty if it presumes to sustain priority over another's property or liberty.
and a tyrannical government would, therefore, be ethically able to be brought down.
Any government that subjects moral disputes to referendum is tyrannical.
The counter, however, would be the argument that the government knows what is best
An often repeated platitude. How does the government know better as it concerns you and yours better than you? The platitude merely acts as a pretext in justifying the subordination of non-government interests.
or that reforming institutions
Reforming institutions make little to no difference when the objection is with the institution itself.
So then,
What is the duty of a citizen when government fails to live up to its standards?
End the association. Unfortunately this cannot be done without threat of penalty which certainly includes the prospect of deadly force.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The real taboo in last of us is that an older man and younger female become like stepdad and daughter and endup intimate in the game to my knowledge. By intimate I do mean full on physical, to my knowledge though they don't undress them fully in the game or there'd have been more talk about it when the game was still hot.
I meant to respond to this earlier. What are you talking about? What leads you to believe that Joel and Ellie become "physically" intimate?
There's definitely sexual/romantic innuendo namely in his not wanting to explain Bill's magazine to Ellie, not to mention the discussion over "pulling the trigger like you love it," as well as the ballad by Pearl Jam he sings to her (this is the second time I referenced Pearl Jam in an exchange with you,) which is foreshadowed in episode six. But as far as I remember their relationship remained strictly platonic and familial.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
I've played both of the games. As long as they don't adapt anything from Part 2 the show will be great. Part 2 was shit
They most likely will. I wasn't much impressed with part two either, but I think where it fails is not in the concept, but its execution. Without spoiling too much, I understand what they were trying to do with Joel, Ellie, and eventually Abby. They just went about it terribly. Also, I do not particularly like Dina, who I suspect, is the girl Ellie yells at when they're eating in Jackson in Episode Six. I understand the backlash the second part of the game received especially when considering that the emotional investment cultivated in first part was in Joel and Ellie. I can easily understand how many would feel "shafted" by the beginning and ending of part two.
Created:
Posted in:
So, now that I've watched up to episode six, which I think is a decent sample, I must say that I do like how the show approaches the prospect of a zombie outbreak better than its competitors (*cough* The Walking Dead *cough* World War Z (2013) *cough*.) Let me start with episode three. Episode three was fine. I can't help the suspicion that the adulation the episode has received from the mainstream media is primarily based on the fact that it focused on the intimacy of two homosexual men. The stereotypes took much away from it--i.e. they're gay, therefore they must be "cultured" men who enjoy wine, fine dining, concert piano, and Linda Rondstadt. Not to mention how preposterous it is that one would find someone randomly in one's trap to whom one is attracted who shares one's proclivities. That aside however, it generally is a nice episode, despite the logical and practical inconsistencies--e.g. Bill being able to maintain his gated community by himself. I did like the letter at the end, which was so consistent with Nick Offerman.
As for Joel and Ellie, I like how things are progressing so far, though I do have some criticism for the execution of their, for lack of a better term, iconic clash in episode six. It's not that Oberyn and Lyanna didn't act the hell out of that scene; it's just some of the word choices could've been reconsidered. It gives too much away too early, especially considering that the primary plot point of "Last of Us" is Joel and Ellie's growing relationship. For those wondering what I'm talking about, I'm specifically referring to the part where Ellie states this:
"Do you give a shit about me or not?"
And Joel responds:
"Of course, I do."
Throughout the first part of Last of Us, one is supposed to question Joel's attachment to Ellie--is she's just cargo, or is she more? And this all leads to the culmination of his response to a difficult choice. I'm not saying it has to be a carbon copy of the scene from the game, but if it were I who was writing that scene, I would for the most part keep it the same, except I would construct it this way:
Joel: I made this decision for your own good.
Ellie: Don't act like you give a shit about me.
Joel: You'll be way better off with Tommy. He knows the area better than I do.
Ellie: Stop with the bullshit! What are you afraid of?
Joel: ...
Ellie: I'm not her, you know?
And then proceed with the rest of the scene. I'm nitpicking, I know. Nonetheless, the scene was well-acted as I mentioned before. Given the pace of the series, I don't know how it lasts beyond three seasons at best. With that said though, I am enjoying this series thus far.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If someone gets denied a job for any of the characteristics you support the right to fire someone for, you have to pay for their welfare.
You don't choose how your taxes are doled out anyway.
We should make it as easy as possible for people to get jobs to minimize the welfare state.
If it's at the expense of the company's prerogative, isn't that a form of welfare?
If a company wants to force their unvaccinated employees to test or wear masks, that’s fine. But don’t fire them.
Employment like anything else is an association. And both parties are free to associate or disassociate as they please. And I always use this analogy to demonstrate the inconsistency in the reasoning of those who claim that the right to freely associate should be modified or qualified by sex, so-called race, sexuality, religion etc. Here it is:
If I had made an earlier decision to hire a babysitter for my children, and I then decided to fire said babysitter because he/she was unvaccinated, should the State interfere with my decision and compel me to associate with and pay a person with whom I no longer intend to associate? If the answer is no, then what is the difference between a company and me? Would the logic change if this were about so-called race, sex, sexuality, religion etc.?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"Wokeness" or being "woke," besides its grammatically incorrect application, is nothing more than advancement toward and ingratiation with socialism through self-victimization under the umbrella of a meme.
Created:
I've seen most of the films you've listed. I, too, am a huge consumer of the horror film genre, though I favor the paranormal/supernatural sub-genres more. Gore/Slasher films are okay, but they've never really scared me. That's not to say, they can't be enjoyable even if the "horror" aspect is somewhat exaggerated. I for the most part like your picks, especially "Smile (2022, I presume?)" which legitimately creeped me out when first watching it. (I'd recommend watching the short, "Laura Hasn't Slept," as a supplement to the film.) Although the "Scream" franchise was part of a litany of redundant 90's slasher films, I did enjoy most of the movies because Ghostface was a great combination of sinister and comical. The Conjuring/Annabelle/Nun franchises are quite excellent, too. I'll just give a mention to both "It" films, which I think did a great job in combining the horror genre with the coming of age genre (two of my overall favorite genres.)
All in all, the found footage paranormal/supernatural horror films are in a tier of their own for me. That includes "The Blair Witch Project (1999,)" the ardent promotion for which I still remember to this day. I give it a lot of credit for popularizing the found footage genre. There's of course the "Paranormal Activity" franchise, though I didn't enjoy Ghost Dimension much, and much less, Next of Kin. "Rec (2007)" was amazing, and probably my favorite amongst the found-footage sub-genre. "As Above, So Below" is really good, combining the notions of alchemy and horror. The name in and of itself is a giveaway especially if one is familiar with Luciferianism. "Grave Encounters" is great, too. It's difficult for me to think of a horror film I dislike, so I can spend the whole day listing and describing horror films I've enjoyed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
A company has the prerogative, and should maintain its capacity without retaliation from the State to fire anyone it wants for any reason it deems fit. As much as I oppose "vaccine mandates"--more to the point, the gross exaggeration of the necessity of vaccines--should a company decide, collectively or by proxy, that it does not want to associate with anyone who's unvaccinated, then said company may proceed with its decision regardless of the opinions of unsolicited--hell, irrelevant--third parties. The same goes even if the subject is about so-called "race," sexuality, sex, religion, citizenship, etc.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Yes. I have him as #2 on my all time ranking. No matter what, LeBron is 40% in NBA finals.
I wouldn't put him that high. I think LeBron's being #2 is mostly narrative driven. It often elides the accomplishments of other all-time greats like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Russel, Magic Johnson, etc.
Jordan is still #1. To never lose a final, be the main undisputed #1 guy, better statistical averages in the playoffs, and facing defense that were 100% tougher with less restrictions and where defense thrived, and the average player was a good-->great defender in today's game
I place Jordan as #1 because he lived up to the hype. He was one of the few players to win a regular season MVP, and a defensive player of the year award in the same year (I think Hakeem Olajuwon and Giannis Antetokounmpo are the only other players to do it.) As you stated, Jordan has never lost in the finals, and was able to excel in a championship system. I've watched Michael Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Duncan, Shaq, Steph, LeBron, Byrd, Olajuwon, etc. play, and Jordan was it. In all honesty, I don't think I'll witness anytime soon a player supplanting Jordan as #1.
Created:
-->
@Mharman
Accurate. I think there is reason to put Jordan, Bryant, and Abdul-Jabbar ahead of James.
I wouldn't put Kobe ahead of him. It's my opinion that LeBron James is the better all-time player. His numbers are better than Kobe, and he was more efficient than Kobe. Kobe also on a few occasions cost his team a playoff series. Now you can ask: well, what about LeBron in the 2011 Finals? Yeah, he melted down, but nothing indicated that was intentional. Kobe intentionally sabotaged his team's efforts in the 2004 Finals against the Detroit Pistons, and the 2006 Playoff series against the Suns.
Created:
I watched the first episode of NETFLIX's sequel to "That 70's Show" with the intention of just watching the first episode since Topher Grace, Laura Prepon, Ashton Kutcher, and Mila Kunis were slated to make cameo appearances in just the first episode. I loved the first episode not as a kick-start to "That 90's Show" but as a bit of closure and homage to the events of "That 70's Show." Eric naming his daughter "Leia [Tatooine] Forman" was absolutely hilarious. I also loved that Eric maintained his quick and dry wit, as well as his nerdy demeanor. I loved the running joke of having Donna carry all the luggage, and Eric's obliviousness to his lack of manliness. One of the best parts was in Eric's "foot-in-ass" threat to his daughter while his father Red stands witness, exclaiming "I have never been prouder." I also liked Kelso's and Jackie's cameos, especially that they've been married and divorced several times--alluding to their on-and-off relationship during "That 70's Show." Overall, a really well done episode. But I don't have any intention to watch the rest of the season.
Thoughts?
Created:
So on Tuesday/Wednesday (depending on which coast you live) LeBron James reached a milestone in his career: He broke Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's 38 year record of 38,387 cumulative points scored in an NBA career. In a span of 20 years, LeBron has amassed championships, all-star appearances, regular season MVPs and Finals MVPs. And now he adds the all-time scoring to what has already been an illustrious career. Congratulations LeBron James, you're almost the greatest of all time.
Thoughts?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
The Grammys: Satanism, Queers, and "Uplifting Black People!" - 2023 Award Show Analysis By Mark DiceBrought to you by....Pfizer...of course...
It's unfortunate that the masses who indulge these "award show" rituals have little to no knowledge of how they originated, much less the blatant satanist and pagan imagery from which Hollywood is no longer dissociating itself. I'm glad my father and aunt put me on game to this stuff.
Created:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well Hollywood is/ and has always been a cult. Now it's just showing itself in the open.
Very much so. Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@badger
@Ragnar
I'm not going to lie: in my observations of polytheist-witch's two most recent bans, I can't help but think that Ragnar/Barney has a sense of humor about this:
Added 11.30.22 12:03PM--> @Polytheist-WitchIf you're interested in doing some kind of moderation do it if not don't fucking bother me.As you wish.
Which, if I remember correctly, was a sixty-day ban at first, and then:
Ban informationFrom
02.07.23 04:35PMUntil
06.25.50 04:35PMIn spite of several interventions, an unending pattern of criminal accusations with no shown basis in reality.
A 27-year ban (I presume this is the maximum) which is absolutely hilarious--I sincerely laughed. At the end of the day, DebateArt.com (Mike) is the head honcho, and Whiteflame, Ragnar/Barney, SupaDudz have his proxy. They can regulate the interactions of this site per the rules they've delineated. My only objection would be in the lack of spelling out quantifiable rules, as 3RU7AL pointed out a couple years ago. And while there's no love lost between Polytheist-Witch and myself--and on somewhat a personal level, I can understand not wanting to deal with his (yes HIS) frequent barbs and diatribes--members will always be concerned over the lack of a distinction and consistency in the insults one's allowed to state, and the ones one is not. For those citing "Free Speech," one does not have free speech on a platform one does not own.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Well, it looks like you really don't wanna participate, so just forget it
I know where this is headed, and I ain't the type for begging.
You're trying to curry favor without wearing the number 30
My respect has always been there, but all these years you haven't heard me.
Filled with worry, thinking, "I hope he... doesn't see me... as unworthy."
While the audience wonders, "how on Earth-3, did he come up with that rhyme scheme."
My flow went from AC to DC--get it?--without going through any crises.
No matter how many times we, come at odds G, reconciliation is always timely.
I'm supposed to be dissing you, but I'm simple and unoriginal
At first glance, my lyrics always get accused of being supraliminal.
Given the circumstance, I've written them down so they can be visible
I've got the gift of gab, but why is it that no one ever listens though?
Do I take a chance at becoming formidable without being visceral.
It's inexplicable, but I guess it's up to the individual.
Not about winning all, little victories are less fictional.
After all we have the wherewithal to close the gap on what's unbridgeable.
But I know you're not really wit it though, so I'm about to dash and hit the store.
Hate to leave while you want some more, but remember, "patience is a virtue," bro.
Our interactions are digital, but the words we state here are really pivotal.
So until next time my n**ga, I probably won't be here for a minute, yo.
REMIX! (2pac, "Hit 'Em Up)
East Side!
Start at 00:00:10
You aint rational madman, you're more like Spongebob Squarepants
crossed with Gary Cole-man,
I got the sharpie right on my left hand
I'll write "Fuck Madman" on Wylted's armband.
I got a spray-can waiting on my right hand,
Tag your block with the same while riding in the trans-am.
Stop acting like you wanna dead this beef
Steer and Heifers fill your home, lying through your teeth.
You just looking down the road, wanting me to pledge my allegiance
Don't let your wives read what I say, they wont wanna see this
Or maybe I sneak around back, show them my penis, and have them scream, "Oh Jesus!"
[In case you're wondering, the Remix is mostly for levity.]
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
I understand the actions requested here may be a waste of your time, but if you have ample free time, I request that you simply do a single-direction diss/roast verse/verses of me. Given the number of posts that you have expressed the idea that "I don't know what I am talking about", I believe roasting material is sufficient.
For whom is this statement intended? Do I naturally assume me since it was posted in a thread I created, or did you intend it for RationalMadman or Ramshutu?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
There's like 2 things to diss and I don't want to go into either.The first is your approach to age of consent, the second is that you backed the loser year 1 and that can backfire on me.I don't have ammo to win the battle even if I ignore that I don't want to dig into you. I also don't know what you want to do really, if you want permission to insult me and make it rhyme you clearly have baggage about me which could be better dealt with either privately or with you stating your issues with me.
You're overthinking it. I've challenged you to a rap battle because to my knowledge at least, you're the only member here who consistently participates in them. However, you expressed worry over the prospect of your losing the battle, and not intending to play against the odds. So I thought I'd remove that as a factor by proposing a rap battle in the forum. I'm not using the notion of a rap battle to vent my issues with you. I meant what I stated the last time: I had fun in our last rap battle, despite my losing. I've been wanting to do another one for a while now, and that's the reason I was quick to challenge the winner of your rap battle with Wylted. We can have a rap battle just for the sake of a rap battle. But I won't press the issue further if I'm just beating a dead horse.
I have wanted to clear things up with you and brutal for some time anyway, your 2 votes would have tied that election for instance.
I wouldn't have voted for you. I meant what I stated the last two elections. I wouldn't have voted for Wylted either, and hence, I joined David and Lemming in votes to abstain.
You don't do enough here to diss, what do you want me to exactly rap about against you? We don't really have a severe rivalry.
I figured. I was trying to be provocative, but I didn't want to feign any attempts at insulting you, either. As far as what to rap about, you can rap about anything that comes to mind. It can be my philosophical, political, and/or economic stances. It can be my demeanor on this forum; my diction; past and present interactions. In all honesty, my intention was to focus on clever rhyme schemes rather than any valid bases for an insult. As far as I'm concerned, anything is fair game, however superficial.
Created:
Posted in:
This is because Democracy is objectively a flagrant system of a "might makes right" form of government that has only the constitution to keep the tyranny against the minority in check.
Does the constitution really keep tyranny against the minority in check? Or does it keep the prospect of revolt in check, staving off any possible uprisings as long as the masses believe they have at least basic rights? When the government can regulate your rights--even your "inalienable" rights--in accordance to their whims, why would they need to take them away?
Created:
Since you're preoccupied with your ranking, I thought I'd challenge you to an informal rap battle, here, where you can operate in a "safe space." I understand that you're not ready for all that smoke, and it takes a grown man to admit that. And since you've already admitted that I would win in spite of my "simple flow"--knowing full well that you "won" our last contest because armoredcat was in his feelings about the subject we argued the night before--this venue should suit you perfectly, since there are little to no consequences once you lose to me. Or will you continue to hide behind the delusion of your underappreciated esoteric lyrics?
How's that for conjuring up your hatred? If you agree, simply post a response confirming your participation. We can also select a group of informal judges if you'd like.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@K_Michael
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Because it struck me as odd, I've never seen a commercial for the biggest religion on earth (a claim many Christians make).
The biggest religion on Earth is Catholicism, and Catholicism isn't Christian, as well as the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations, despite its definition. You should checkout Public-Choice's thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
My question to Christians, why, in your view, do people spend ad dollars to advertise for Jesus? Simple question.
Because the global Luciferian agenda has for centuries been attempting to and successfully dissociate the masses from Jesus, and associate the masses with pagan worship, especially with their festivals like Easter, Halloween, Christmas, New Years, and the upcoming Lupercalia (i.e. "Valentines Day".)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The people of the United States of America, are supposed to run the government. We have the constitutional right, to run the government, and our country. Yet as of right now, it seems like the government is running us.
As of right now? This has been happening since this nation's inception. And that's because they can use "democracy" as a facilitator to undermine individual liberties; hence, "running us."
The people are supposed to know everything about the government, and the government is supposed to know nothing about the people.The media is supposed to produce the facts, and we are supposed to make our own opinions off of it.Yet this has been switched up so much, to where we don't know if the media is misinforming us, or how much the government knows about our lives.Still, we do nothing about it though.
Interesting how they conceal their true agendas by claiming discretion in the name of "public security" or "national defense."
This misinformation and corruption, comes from both sides of the political isle (more or less the democratic) but still, it comes from both sides.We shouldn't put labels on ourselves like republican, democrat, conservatives, liberal.
Because "Democrat" and "Republican" are merely two factors in a dialectic that provides the illusion of choice.
We should put the only label that we constitutionally have, and that is the American label.Thoughts?
You don't need a constitution to know who or what you are. Just a rational conscience.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Wow jacking my logic while not accrediting (or was that a coincidence)
Gangsta.
Created:
One only has the right to "free-speech" on one's own property. And compelling others to listen to what one has to say is not an entitlement one can exercise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
He teaches that men should be strong, both physically and mentally strong (which I agree with). But he also teaches that while men should have the capacity to protect and hurt others, that they should also be gentle with women, and respectful to them.
You know who should be teaching you this? Your father. Example is a always a better teacher than speech.
Created:
Posted in:
Who may or may not enter a restroom is contingent on the proprietor's wishes. I agree that transgenderism is inconsistent with Feminism, but that is merely the tip of the iceberg of Left-Wing contradictions. Feminism is premised on an alleged unilateral victimized female experience, and transgenderism calls into question what it means to be male or female, namely through stereotypical physical expression.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Why is polyamory of a consensual kind, no cheating, all in on it, all regularly communicating and fulfilled looked down upon?
The children. I would presume that this is based on the assumption that a man is less likely to devote his resources to children that aren't his, which is a risk when his female partner is "polyamorous." And while polygamy is condemned in Judeo-Christian, Western Cultures, men having concubines has slipped through the cracks. While I would never do it personally (having experienced it before) I'm with you: as long as the participating members consent, to each his own.
Created:
Posted in:
No surprise. Hollywood has been pushing it hard for decades. Even the term, "Hollywood," is an allusion to witchcraft (i.e. the Holly King and the wood from which his wand was created.) The most predominant religion on Earth is Luciferianism, which includes Wicca.
Created:
Posted in:
Here some of my rambling thoughts.An introduction. The austrian business cycle theory, besides what the name might suggest, is a theory related to all business cycles and not those particular only to Austria. Its name originates from Austrian School of Economics. The pioneers of the school were F.A. Hayek, Mises and Rothbard. The ideas pushed by the Austrian School of economics are mutually exclusive with Keynesians economics and differ with Milton Friedman. That's a brief history and more can be found on the internet.The theory explains the boom of a business cycle is the result of the expansion of bank credit, which is created by the federal reserve through quantitative easing. Artificially low interest rates cause entrepreneurs to malinvest. These malinvestments realize later as unprofitable because there was never enough savings to sustain them. Malinvestments also cause inflation in prices of physical capital, capital machines, intermediate goods and final consumer goods. Eventually, the inflation from the malinvestments runs high enough that the federal reserve raises interest rates. That is the end of boom period. Then the bust occurs. Easy money in the boom elevated asset prices and incomes. This comes crashing down with the rise in interest rates. An increase in interest rates lowers the prices for many assets types and it also makes business ventures unaffordable and unprofitable. The bust ends after the malinvestments emerge as bankruptcies and prices of various asset types bottom out.End of Part 1)Part 1) Background informationI might add more later of my thoughts while I thought through the theory, instead of merely background.
Pretty much explains what governments do, and their asinine reasons in goading the public into accepting policy that would see the intervention of the Federal Reserve expanded, and increases in the money supply.
Created:
Posted in:
It's a shame that this farce will have a produced a Wylted victory, but so be it. Like David and Lemming, I abstain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The OP is basically asking us to consider whether those who are in support of the second amendment are racist because the conclusion, "guns don't kill people; only bad people with guns kill people" is codified with your arbitrary division of the statistics along the lines of race. It would be akin to inferring that those who were against the "Yes means yes" campaign, especially in their conclusions that "only bad people rape women," and claiming that they're racists because of an incidental so-called "racial disparity." If I state "only bad people are serial killers or only bad people shoot up schools," am I being racist toward so-called "whites"? Again, you're attempting to disqualify a position with which you disagree by introducing the subject of so-called "race" as a platitude.
So I'll state it in no uncertain terms: merely stating that "only bad people with guns kill people" does not make one racist, and it doesn't make their support of "gun rights" racist. It's a moral/ethical conclusion based on the action. It does not transmute in response to the so-called "race" of the referent.
Created:
Same nonsense as last year. Well... godspeed, sir.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Everyone is racist.
Depends on one's description of "racist."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Great, so we agree that the conclusion is valid.So let me know if you have an actual challenge to the premises.
My contention isn't against whether or not your conclusion logically extends your premises. My contention questions the reason you introduced the premise in the first place.
if you are unwilling to provide a rational basis for your suspicions
I have. Go back and look.
then I don't give a rats ass what you suspect.
Your call.
Address the argument or don't.
I did.
And if you won't then you are free to have a nice day.
Hey, don't take my shit. "Have a nice day" is the way I end things, okay? Get your own. If you continue to employ my trademarked phrases, I'll be forced to thrash you with my vicious rhetoric.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fun fact: Lincoln's Corwin Amendment can technically be ratified today, making slavery constitutionally legal in America...
Nice read. All the more reason I don't engage those who prioritize criticizing the source rather than the argument/fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You've been warned. Have a nice day, sir.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
When government is historically and objectively incompetent, getting nothing done is a major benefit to society on the whole.
Nice. Only thing to do is to provide a logical response to this habitual incompetence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Tell us again how the Congress ratifies constitutional amendments. Do they actually relocate to each state for the vote to ratify?
Sure, as soon as you tells us how it was Lincoln who was responsible for freeing the slaves. But take it to the appropriate thread. You seek me out in other threads, and I will not respond. Consider this a courtesy.
Created: