Total posts: 19,931
-->
@Yassine
Can you give me actual examples of these accusations?
Created:
-->
@Yassine
What the actual fuck are you talking about?
The cultures you just stated are among the single most open to immigrants maintaining their culture and religious outlooks, as well as developing a more secular approach within their own nation in the first place.
Are you talking about something 1920s and before?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@Yassine
in which year and place?
Created:
Posted in:
saddest part of this thread is nobody can answer it, nobody knows why.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
You literally defended cops beating the shit out of a man for posting something.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
chat shit get hit
China's new national motto
Created:
Posted in:
In the search for hyper-truth, ensure to avoid hyper-fallacy.
Always remain hyper-vigilant.
Disclaimer: This may lead to chronic anxiety.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
I made a mistake with which thread I posted that to ^
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
scratch your chin and think about it, the answer will come to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
@Intelligence_06
Created:
-->
@oromagi
That is, lineages with a history of large families may have adapted to produce extra males with traits making them less likely to reproduce as a way of increasing the adult to child ratio and supporting the fertile females.
This makes absolutely 0 sense and isn't how evolution works DNA-wise... think for a second how this would be working scientifically, the only thing supporting this theory is actually a point against it; that the more previous male babies born in the womb, the more 'powerful' the womb of the mother becomes at pumping oestrogen to the next fertile offspring.
In other words, younger male siblings are always less prone to being very masculine than their older male sibling counterparts due to womb mechanics that occur after each baby.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
would you like a massive source dump where I waste time copying and pasting? How much of each did you read?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
People who are conspiracy theorists are consistently skeptical of the government and institutions. They could be either republicans (who are also skeptic of the government) or democrats (skeptical of institutions like big business).
If you include more than just 'conspiracy theorists' into this split, I think you got it quite accurate with who each side is more skeptical of and most willing to give power to the other (government or corporation) in order to tame the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@airmax1227
okay I mean I hope that it can not be super high pressure as in at least between debates there can be a break but either way I'd like to sign up.
The default round is 2 days per on this website but I will appreciate 3 days per instead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@airmax1227
And is it to be open-debate or unrated with preset judges?
The former is high risk high reward for those of us that care about the leaderboard or alternatively a more 'fun' version for those who don't care about the leaderboard but wanna knock someone down on it, whereas the latter allows a much tougher crowd to engage who'd otherwise be weary.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
The actual ending of Fight Club
SPOILER ALERT
Is that the war has just begun, nobody's won yet. There was supposed to be a Fight Club 2, based on the ending.
Created:
You may think I am kidding and that this is satire...
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Easier than what? Wikipedia already exists.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Benjamin, if you're arguing that there needs to be science that's officially published in articles and textbooks, that happens already.
If you're saying you want to completely silence conspiracy theorists, that's the bullshit I won't stand for.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
I don't agree with Wylted blindly on things at all, in fact we have clashed on certain things significantly but he is spot on here.
Created:
Why would it be hateful to correctly analyze them?
If you are correct on everything you said in point 1 and point 2, especially point 2, you would be intentionally triggering and hurting the feelings of people that you know full well are on the verge of self-loathing suicide by intentionally mocking, demeaning and using terms in the post beforehand like 'trannies' and talking about them like they're just riding out a fetish.
What reason other than hate and sadism would drive this? Anger is linked to both, so don't say that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Solaris1
I think this thread will be intriguing to you.
Created:
Posted in:
On a separate note, the travel firm, his parents and anybody at all who was involved with not talking him out of this trip is an absolute morally corrupt piece of crap.
If they tried to talk him out of it and failed, I respect them much more than if they went 'oh wow, you're so brave' and let him end up this way.
Never set foot in North Korea, it is tyranny on absolute steroids.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@whiteflame
Wylted is derailing the thread.
Created:
Are you aware that FtM transgenders also exist? How do you hatefully explain them? I'm just curious.
Created:
That is not a correct analysis of the feminist side of the battle.
In fact, you have not explained the transgender side at all and are using a transphobic term 'trannies'.
Created:
Posted in:
You are violating cross-thread contamination rule.
Created:
Posted in:
I already knew this before I got my first vaccination but thanks.
As for why you're blocked, it's to do with what you posted elsewhere that I will not discuss here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I will give you one more chance to clarify to me which drugs you'd make illegal or legal before ceasing to entertain you by explaining my side. You do not deserve my explanation if you're all offense and zero defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
You mean that if you overdose on it, it can damage your body severely? I'd say all drugs do that to differing degrees, some more to the mind/brain but many to the body itself and indeed many fatal at their extremes.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
What limitations will occur on their communicative tools?None. You are imagining malintention where there is none. Nobody will be censored, the idea is to promote correct information and present it as such.
That is impossible. You are lying.
You said this:
My point that you ignored was that unqualified people and dubious stories should not have access to the same communicative tools as the factual truth.
I asked you what limitations you will have in place in order to inhibit this access.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
The answer is simple: Because they are not qualified and opinion is different from fact and their oppinion just so happens to contradict all scientific evidence.
How is opinion different to fact when you are saying that the opinion of the qualified is to be taken as true without questioning it and the opinion of the unqualified is to be taken as untrue without considering it?
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Wy are unqualified people not allowed to write their own unscientific opinion in the world's collection of knowledge as if it were a fact?
You keep only referring to science, I hope you understand that there's more than science that truth matters with.
In fact, science is one of the only areas where everything is a theory, the 'facts' are meaningless without the current working theory and that's open to debate if people have alternative explanations for the correlations occurring.
Anybody should have the right to write their unqualified opinion, so long as they are not purely using it to harm others' wellbeing. If you are unqualified in science, your opinion can be scientific, if you are qualified in science your opinion can be unscientific.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Just because I want the truth to be heard loudest doesn't mean I support any kind of censorship or silencing of others. You may be tempted to assume I am arrogant and want all opposition thrown out the window, but that is far from the truth. Just in this year many of the views I have been exposed to on this site have convinced me to change my mind. What makes you think I am sneakily a dogmatic thinker irking for media censorship?
Yes it does. Instead of 'silencing' you adopt a cunning term 'quietening' instead. You do want all opposition thrown out of the window, yes that is precisely what you want. You want a singular source of information where that's deemed true and unbiased and any who oppose any of its conclusions are deemed unworthy of consideration as they are unequal to it in their ability to communicate and inform people.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Nobody will be allowed to controll the flow of information to their liking. Correct means free for error; in accordance with fact or truth. The hypothetical source of correct information won't filter things through biased lenses or make up things --- it will simply report whatever information the sum of research shows to be correct.
Okay and who is it that determines the information of being free of what they conclude is error and to be in accordance with what they deem fact or truth? Who determines what the sum of research is?
Created:
Posted in:
Why are all the companies except AstraZeneca having absolutely 0 liability? Government sworn to secrecy and paying full lawyer bills, Argentina has military bases as collateral to Pfizer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
because nobody knows how to tell science from bullshit. Politicians should cite specific facts instead.
That is the saddest part of people not just today but in general; they are taught from a young age, due to how education works, to just down what they're told and literally never learning to question it. If everything runs on hierarchy and they take in only their highest-ranked media as gospel, people are going to end up very incapable of proving it wrong or realising they're being duped if the authorities pull the wool over their eyes at some point.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
My point that you ignored was that unqualified people and dubious stories should not have access to the same communicative tools as the factual truth.
I did not ignore this. Why are people lacking superficial qualifications not allowed to speak their mind? Why are people whose stories you deem 'dubious' not entitled to tell their stories? What limitations will occur on their communicative tools?
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
You read what I said. Charlatans can spout on, this is not a case for censorship. The idea presented was a source that only contains accurate information.
And how do we censor this source? Who decides what's 'correct'?
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Don't put words in my mouth. I never spoke a word about disallowing certain viewpoints or cancelling others to create an echo chamber.
Yes, you did, you are just being cunning as hell about your wording.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
The sexist, racist, toxic and bigoted things you've said here are too far gone for me to genuinely respect you anymore as somebody who will genuinely debate as opposed to just say your troll stuff to hurt people's feelings and enjoy it.
Somebody at 19 isn't wrong for having a certain approach to sex nor is it your business to tell him what his libido and approach to sex should be. Almost everything you posted in this thread is just plain wrong on so many levels.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
The following ideas I don't like because of a reason you can figure out and nobody has a plan for how they will do it:1) "Lets reform education." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you reform education?2) "Lets end single motherhood." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you end single motherhood.3) "Lets reform the immigration process." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you reform immigration?4) "Lets make it harder to get a gun." My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How would you make it tougher to get a gun?5) "Lets increase taxes on the rich. My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How much are you going to raise taxes on the rich and what would be the point of it?6) "Lets cut taxes (in general)" My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How much are you going to cut taxes and what government programs are you willing to cut to make it a reality? Will we go deeper into debt. If you or a parent is a federal employee, are you willing to but their salary to make your tax cuts a reality?7) "Lets reform/fix up the foster system". My concern with this idea: All the people I met that advocate this idea have no idea how they would do it. How, specifically, are you willing to reform the foster system?
I will elaborate on these, however to make it worth my time suggest how you would do it first before calling me lazy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Women are recorded as being less happy overall now than in the 1950s, and all of the reasons for this, is the false notion of egalitarianism.
The entire series of bullshit you wrote before this line is a separate issue of you not believing that non-sub women exist and that variations within 'sub' exist too where some are not sub much at all in the ways you imply and are not submitting to his 'manliness' but more to other elements of his personality or style of dominance (there are lesbian and pansexual subs that submit to women).
However, this line in particular is bullcrap. People are happier now than ever before in nations that have increased mental health awareness and embraced letting people be freer and less repressed. Women in the past were scared shit to admit how unhappy they were, that's what's changed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Also if you don't clarify which drugs you want to make illegal or legal, I'll just stop asking or respecting your bullshit opinion, which is based on absolutely nothing than your arbitrary picking and choosing of when to be a poser anarchist and when to be a tyrant.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah, Tylenol? Panadol? You want to outlaw paracetemol/acetaminophen painkillers?
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Those that reject expert consensus are not concerned with what is factually true.
Yes they are. Otherwise, nobody could ever have disagree with the originals that the Earth was not flat and is round or now disagree with the current authoritative consensus and assert that the Earth is flat and not round.
People can oftentimes disagree with consensus and be concerned with truth, because flat earth, evolution, germ theory and so many other things involved rebels to consensus in the origins.
Created: