Total posts: 19,931
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
For your knowledge, no part of my initial points was my own oppinion, so don't pretend it is. Furthermore, your non-argument against Putin lacks factual support on top of failing to adress HIS arguments.
You said you agreed with it and that he has a point, making it your own opinion that he's 'got a point'.
I needn't address the points made by a scumbag out to demonise the US when his very own nation is under his own tyrannical thumb. Putin is a gangster secret agent who hit the fucking lottery and exploited a weak spot in politics. He uses chemical weapons in other nations like UK to get rid of agents he deems an issue, he severely oppresses his own people glorifying homophobic violence and demonising anything towards the other end of the spectrum. He is not slightly a kind or noble person and what he fails to tell you in all of those points in your original posts is what Russia does just as bad and/or worse than the US, which is plentiful.
As I said, very clearly, you won't know how full of shit he is until you go and live in Russia or do some proper research into what life is like there. You're a mouthpiece for a psychopath right now, I'd recommend you to pause and research. It's not at all my responsibility to post all of Putin's corruption and thuggery here, you are free to live in your fantasy where the US is the devil and Russia is a pretty little angel.
Created:
Posted in:
Ignoring issues may have been the bread and butter of a limousine Democrat, but that's becoming a passing fad.
There's one side that never ignores issues and one side that always gaslights and undercuts what the former side does to address those issues.
The ignorer is Republicans, the doer is Democrats.
The bread and butter of Republican propaganda is to criticise what Democrats do and say, rarely ever is their strategy to make clear what they will do.
When they say they run on a jingoist platform and promise to build a wall costing billions and make Mexico pay for it, it's sometimes a wonder why they stick to avoiding promising what they'll do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
HAHAHAHA you think Russia did right by Afghanistan? Russia is part of the reason why Taliban lasted so long, the only place helping them more after the US ditched them (and that was quite a while ago now) is China.
Russia is also the only international reason, yes only, why Bashar al-Assad got away with the tyrannical genocide and brutality he was dealing to his people.
What Russia does is spot anywhere and anything it can turn into a reason to profit from conflict and sides with the worst side of it, always, so that it can play underdog permanently when/if the media attacks it.
Now, I will repeat, first investigate how Russia treats its own people, not even outsiders. Then investigate how it treats nations it fancies colonising.
Russia is like the US if we mean willingness to engage in external influence via conflict, except its agenda is much more about playing permanent underdog whereas the US admits what it is; powerful and ready to engage.
China plays a different kind of ballgame, in some ways worse than both. China owns almost all of Africa now through crippling debt and forced contracts, it's also got more of a hand than Russia does in the new Afghanistan.
Created:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Ruling like a tyrant and blackmailing Catholics to become Protestant or treating them like subhumans with less rights is also a dick move, which is what the Parliament Fawkes plotted against was doing to their people.
He's called a traitor to the King only in official terms, his targets were Members of Parliament.
Nobody argues that he was what he was, we know he was not at all a nice pacifist but don't twist his motives or skew what his target was. That removes the ability to accurately judge him.
Created:
Posted in:
You think Putin is such a wise and righteous man, understanding the deep hypocrisy and treachery of US on Middle East, eh?
Go and live in his nation, see how he runs things. Don't think you'll be able to inform us on what you find though, there's absolutely no freedom of speech.
Or, better yet, live in Crimea, ask around about Putin and how he's better than the US in how he treats other nations.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Anarchy is no future utopia. Anarchy happened already, it was full of barbaric acts of varying degrees of brutality.
Deep down we're all partly anarchic monsters some passive some active, what tames us is belief in a better world for the current and future generation vs what was there before.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
your intentions here are now 100% confirmed to be to provoke, insult and gaslight when I refuse to take the bait.
blocked, far-right sociopaths have no place in my unblocked list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
“Racist parents are a negative influence on their children” is a facile statement and loaded.To be honest, I didn’t think you were intending a serious response with it…
Facile means simple in the context you're using it.
It is not meant to be a complex statement, you're right. It's not a loaded statement at all though, no part of that statement assumes more than what the statement itself inherently claims.
Created:
Posted in:
It's a matter of historical, political, sociological and even scientific record that Hitler was a deep racist deadset on proving (even at the cost of scientific theory) that a racial mix he happened to dub the elite aryan race was superior to all others.
If you are suggesting he indoctrinated people against racism, you're making an asinine show of your integrity, let alone knowledge. You wanna stoop that low, go ahead.
Teaching children anything can be warped to be 'indoctrination' the term should only be used if what's being taught is inherently toxic for them to take as true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I let you define 'anti-racism' which was different to what I thought it was and I still don't see how you have explained why you disagree that racist parents are negative influences on their children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
cool, now I'll repeat what I said? is this just to spam?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
cute. I'm not engaging in your bullshit. Anyone can 'define' something, if the rest of society doesn't agree with their bullshit definition that's where it comes to matter.
language is formed literally by groupthink, nothing defines anything other than the masses.
If the Oxford Dictionary says something means something but over 80% of people use it another way colloquially, that secondary way is actually superior.
So...
Also, please don't use the term 'anti-racist' if you don't even know what 'racist' or 'racism' mean, it just leaves you in a snake-eats-tail chase here as I'm simply gonna deflect your terrible attempts at trying to drive me insane answering an unanswerable question since nobody has the 'right to define a term' if everyone else disagrees with them, definitions need to be agreed on.
Created:
Posted in:
It doesn't exist pal, I got over it very early on in life. At first, I kinda hoped it existed but I began to realise it can't exist because how can we have unlimited pleasure when almost every way to get pleasure is partly physical and sinful?
It's like saying 'live a life where you resist immediate pleasure and do your duty, no matter the cost' just to give you an afterlife where those that did that get constant short-term pleasure and zero duty or long-term goals while those that did the opposite go to hell where there is also no long-term goal, just pain.
God/s isn't/aren't that much of a hypocritical idiot/s, he/she/they'd have something more consistent in mind.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
GP's trolling has really got pathetic, I genuinely cringe at it.
As for you, Cristo, I already answered all of it. It's ironic of you to use a term 'anti-racism' and deem it genuine if you don't know what it's anti.
Created:
Posted in:
Hopefully I can watch it live.
Yeah, yeah, you'll see jack shit just CGI.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@cristo71
I frankly don't think that racist parents are a good influence on their children.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
no paranoia at all, nobody here, including the OP, had anything to do with guy fawkes. your post was 100% to me
Created:
Posted in:
‘Abdullah b. Buraida reported on the authority of his father that Ma'iz b. Malik al-Aslami came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have wronged myself ; I have committed adultery and I earnestly desire that you should purify me. He turned him away. On the following day, he (Ma'iz) again came to him and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery. Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) turned him away for the second time, and sent him to his people saying: Do you know if there is anything wrong with his mind. They denied of any such thing in him and said: We do not know him but as a wise good man among us, so far as we can judge. He (Ma'iz) came for the third time, and he (the Holy Prophet) sent him as he had done before. He asked about him and they informed him that there was nothing wrong with him or with his mind. When it was the fourth time, a ditch was dug for him and he (the Holy Prophet) pronounced judgment about him. He (the narrator) said: There came to him (the Holy Prophet) a woman from Ghamid and said: Allah’s Messenger, I have committed adultery, so purify me. He (the Holy Prophet) turned her away. On the following day she said: Allah’s Messenger, Why do you turn me away? Perhaps, you turn me away as you turned away Ma'iz. By Allah, I have become pregnant. He said: Well, if you insist upon it, then go away until you give birth to (the child). When she was delivered she came with the child (wrapped) in a rag and said: Here is the child whom I have given birth to. He said: Go away and suckle him until you wean him. When she had weaned him, she came to him (the Holy Prophet) with the child who was holding a piece of bread in his hand. She said: Allah’s Apostle, here is he as I have weaned him and he eats food. He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid and so he abused her. Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) heard his (Khalid’s) curse that he had hurried upon her. Thereupon he (the Holy Prophet) said: Khalid, be gentle. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, she has made such a repentance that even if a wrongful tax-collector were to repent, he would have been forgiven. Then giving command regarding her, he prayed over her and she was buried.
Muhammad saw this as gentle so long as no 'abuse' took place.
Created:
Posted in:
To say though that nobody should be allowed to have a religion because some people with it are jerks is like saying no one should own a gun because people use them to kill other people.
I support the latter for general civilians so I'm not sure of the issue with that but as for the former, that is precisely the issue.
I don't want to say that, I want to say the religion is the problem not the followers but the actual religion and that is taboo to dare say. The fundamental teachings in the Qur'an and Hadith are things I don't want to even mention here but when you say your holiest man cheated on his wives with a minor so young it would make you puke to think and impregnate dear Aisha, you begin to wonder what the fuck this guy really is if he's the chosen one to speak the perfect word of a god who says the following:
And do not say about those who are killed in the way of Allah , "They are dead." Rather, they are alive, but you perceive [it] not.
what does this imply? is this or is this not the infallible word of Allah? yes or no, concrete answer. I dare not challenge it in person of course, I keep my head down and appreciate that most Muslims are sane enough to ignore such bullshit.
Created:
Charlie Brown wasn't a hero either, how fucking dare you have a profile pic I don't like. Maybe I'll call Charlie Brown a poster boy for Trump becasue it makes me feel good on my Wikipedia worshipping ass that I don't just sit on but talk out of.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
All rights in Ancient Egypt were held by an elite group of Royal householders who derived their authority by claiming descendancy from Gods.
Very little difference to any right-wing empire that formed since then, just took it to the extreme.
Extreme social conservatism, brutal inequality, status of untouchability by those that were wealthy and supreme over the poor who had to work solely for the gain of those who ran the place and a hierarchy within it that rewarded those driven by greed and punished those driven by genuine willingness to be humble and hardworking.
It's the epitome of right-wing politics.
I'm done with you trolling me though, fuck off with this shit. You got an issue with me having a guy fawkes pic, research what Hong Kong protesters wore against China's Tyranny, research what women's rights defenders wear in protest in South America. You can fuck off with this utter bullshit calling me a poster boy for Trump or trying to troll me into feeling I can't have my beautiful profile pic, you have not had a good-looking avatar since you joined the website, get some taste.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Also, it's highly disrespectful to think people who are secular atheists or agnostics who aren't leaning to Theism are de facto religious and in denial, I wrote this in fact on another thread less than 24 hours before you posted that I think:
Originally, atheists and pagans were one and the same, atheists were merely considered to be a subset of Pagans who worship a god that they don't talk about.Nobody was thought to genuinely not believe in a deity, just that they secretly worshipped one that opposed the god of the chosen religion of the time.
It's just projection and assumptions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You might like to see religion as an idea you believe in. Many people including me - don't see it as an idea. For me religion - if that is the correct word - is about a relationship with the maker of the universe and reality. It goes far beyond an idea. It actually is about truth.Secularism can't divorce itself from religion because it is religious. It might lie and try to deceive itself that it is not religious. Yet - religion really is a different word for worldview.
Firstly, if you believed religion was worldview, you would support the clashing of ideas within it.
You contradict that by saying only one truth matters, that of your own religion, which implies you don't respect anyone else's worldview.
Another thing that you totally ignored is how many elements of religion aren't worldview at the moment, which was maybe what you agreed with me on but I'm not sure. It's not a worldview for you to tell me that I am not allowed to ask about your religion or challenge it because it's important to you and none of my business. If it's none of my business then how can god or you blame me for being ignorant of the real god and real moral code I should have been following?
How can I ascertain if Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Jainism, Sikhism, Wicca (and other forms of Paganism) or just flat out atheism is the right outlook to have if you don't allow me to scrutinise the specifics, not just overview, of the sacred religion of the real god? Also, which sect is the correct sect and how are we to ever ascertain that if we must equally allow all to remain without a single clash or debate as that's considered taboo and disrespectful?
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Absolutely - if you assume decisions made in a fictional book are free will - then free will exists.You're in my territory, now - writing fiction. Look up the implication of "suspension of disbelief." My particular style of fiction, recognized by some readers, is that in my arena of historic fiction, I weave the history and fiction so closely together, readers are not certain, with detailed study, where the history ends and fiction begins.
How can this be written in good faith?
Created:
Posted in:
Good Friday means absolutely nothing to me. And I'm not sure why you feel every single human being on the planet should have to stop what they're doing that day so it can be sacred for you.
This comes under traditions linked to the culture that happens to have the religion, as opposed to the religion itself, which is a distinction few bother to make.
The traditions are just that, if some find it sacred then that's the part that's linked to them finding a certain religion's teachings to be true. That's where discussion should be had but which is taboo to have. Either they are correct and we are all disobeying their god or they are wrong and are obeying an imaginary entity, which is only considered a problem once someone thinks that god or the supreme entities want them to harm others and/or themselves.
What we have is people like yourself saying that what is sacred to some can just be left alone by others and I agree, I will leave alone the halloween and good friday but actually there comes to be a problem when a nation that has a lot of expats, like UAE, blackmails everyone in the nation to (at least in public) adhere to Ramadan fasting. Even for the Muslims, there are problems. It is known to have caused severe accidents on the road due to already-malnourished taxi drivers living on barely any wages having to not drink even water from sunrise to sunset (and that's extremely long there). When circumcision is forcefully done to a baby/toddler we say it's okay because we are being rude bigots to say no, except that there are sects based on African Islam (Sudanese in particular but others too) that practise(d) female circumcision and there were Muslim residing in nations it was outlawed abusively taking their 14 year old daughter or whatever to undergo female genital mutilation and played the 'bigot' or 'prejudiced' card when and if any investigation took place from the nation they flew back to reside in after having mutilated their daughter off-shore. Obviously it's worse on the females for physical reasons but where and when can we challenge anything? What is or isn't the real Islam? Who decides and how do we challenge that without attacking an ethnicity and instead only their religious ideology?
There is also a severe amount of subtle blackmail (or overt) involved with many religions but undeniably Islam. If you leave Islam, especially as a female, you are treated so badly you probably won't believe it unless you've directly come across it in documentaries or from people you know. I am talking about a family arranging to murder their own daughter, niece etc simply because she wants to pursue further education and didn't want to marry some older, probably abusive, guy when she was barely legal (often underage). They call this 'honor killings' and we are told we're bigots and assholes if we question if such a religion and ethos with all the things aforementioned and more to worry about, should be truly introduced to Western cultures.
What they tend to do is say 'Christians have been just as bad' which is why as someone who sees the flaws of both Christianity and Islam, I don't quite understand that argument. It's so taboo to even dare challenge people on the darker side of their religion and its practises, let alone concrete teachings.
I could type more, a lot more, however I'll leave it at that because honestly I am fed up of the left-wing pandering to such far-right ideologies and don't want to be seen as some far-right bigot myself because of cancel culture.
To be clear, I'm not only having an issue with Islam, I just find it full of many overt, severe issues. I am saying if your religion is correct, if your god is the real god and if your moral code is what you believe is right, why is it I can't get a concrete answer on certain things? I am not saying I judge one adherent based on what another does, I'm saying I'd like discussions to take place on what is and is not that religion without it being taboo to dare say a word about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
you just admitted to being proud of arguing in bad faith and fusing falsehood with genuine historical fact...
Created:
Posted in:
The filthy rich generally don't really give a shit who wins an election, so long as they can bend them to not hamper their relative profits too much. Some may care, of course, however they're a minority.
Anyone who thinks Biden is close to genuine left-wing is ignorant. Biden was the single least left-wing candidate on the whole fucking Democratic Party candidate board and somehow won primaries anyway just because people hoped some centrists that lean slightly right may rethink voting for Trump if someone like Biden was there instead (or may not vote).
Created:
Boris Johnson is not Liberal btw and Prince Charles is not at all Progressive.
I don't even know what these things mean. Ex-Prince Harry was progressive and left the Royal family due to the peer pressure of them to conform. I have no doubt they pushed hard on him to avoid marrying a woman that wasn't Caucasian.
Boris Johnson may be somewhat liberal-ish but I'd just call him a centrist overall, he doesn't even have any agenda other than staying in power and blabbering nonsense to appease just enough simpletons to vote him the next time around. He was 100% anti-brexit just 2 years prior to being ardently pro-brexit and then reverted to being for a 'soft brexit' after being one of the poster boys for brexit. It's just ridiculous really, he simply takes whatever stance he finds a gap in the political market to take.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
There are people who think religion is just some fancy club you choose to join and even ought to join if those around you believe(d) in it while you grew up. These people don't for one second genuinely adhere to their religion and while they are not fundamentalists, they're a different kind of problem and you can't address that problem without getting cancelled these days because, you're potentially called racist but at least called prejudiced.
For instance, if I point out the sexism and severe homophobia present in Islamic culture and religion, all it takes is the Muslim individual I'm debating with to say 'but I am not sexist or a homophobe' to then put me in a position where they can play the prejudice card if I push further. Similarly, all religions can do this as almost all religions are considered to be things you're born into that are a part of your identity, rather than things you believe genuinely and can defend against critique.
Therefore, the answer to your question is no, I wouldn't join it. I gain nothing from pretending to and am too intelligent to join a religion I don't believe in for any reason other than superficial gain (I can't fool myself into thinking I believe in it just because my family and/or friends do, I am too smart to fall for my own self-deceit).
Religion should be based on ideas clashing, instead it's very much based on nonsense traditions as opposed to genuine outlooks on reality and morality. It then becomes very precarious as you can't attack the religion without being seen as a (racist) bigoted prick who is prejudiced against the culture and particular hymns, dances and dresses they have.
Even in today's more secular world people haven't yet separated religion from their own racial, national and/or cultural identity. I want to see religion as an idea you believe in, not some set of traditions you and your friends and family carry out and sing about once a week (or even five times a day) because that has zero bearing on whether your god is real and whether your moral code is the one to follow.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
You seem to be incapable of grasping abstract concepts at this point. It's like you literally think there was no left-wing or right-wing to politics before the phrases to describe the sides of politics were invented.
It's like saying until we had the word 'lemur' there was no lemur, it's just ridiculous but I'll let you play around with this nonsense.
There's always been left-wing vs right-wing dynamics in politics. Always has been and always will be. Ancient Egypt was the epitome of right-wing politics and is one of the oldest civilisations in existence.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Property rights.
Not necessarily, before official property rights it just came down to survival of the fittest to defend what they owned, that was right wing of a different variety. The left-wing would be the strong in an area pooling together to defend the weak, not just of their own tribe but against invaders and working alongside tribes they hold as mortal rivals.
The innate status of politics is right-wing, left-wing politics is progressed into when outside threats are seen as worse than anything within. It's why Hitler failed pathetically to maintain his Right-Wing empire but USSR far outlasted it.
Even when corrupt and evil, a group that share and have each other's backs are far superior to a group that are ultimately rooting against the people they need the most (Germany, Italy, Japan for instance).
Created:
Posted in:
Originally, atheists and pagans were one and the same, atheists were merely considered to be a subset of Pagans who worship a god that they don't talk about.
Nobody was thought to genuinely not believe in a deity, just that they secretly worshipped one that opposed the god of the chosen religion of the time.
That is why I pooled Pagans and atheists together and explained that if misogyny has been on the side of theism or atheism throughout history, it is undeniably more on the side of Theism, especially with Abrahamic religions.
I am not an atheist but I don't mind the label if that's the only term someone can come up with for me, who themselves is Theistic. I'm a Pagan with a lot in common with Taoism in my overall outlook.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
But determinists see Hamlet himself as incapable of defying his brain structure and bodily chemistry as a star. His outcome in decisions is determined according to his particular brain, energy levels and hormones (including emotions) at the time.
Nobody denies he had the other choice presented to him, what the determinists assert is that he'd always have chosen the choice that he chose, given his brain structure and bodily variables at the time (for this argument to work, you need to consider memories to be included in brain structure, otherwise add on 'memories' to it).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
IF your freedoms impinge upon mine THEN I am not free.
You could be free in many other ways, just not specifically free from the said impingement.
IF my freedoms impinge upon yours THEN you are not free.
You just said the same statement twice and swapped the nouns.
THEREFORE your freedom to move your hand can and does end at the tip of my nose.
Metaphorical rhetoric with no way to argue for or against it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What good is freedom from handcuffs without the freedom to use your hands?
I'm confused, since if your hands are paralysed, I guess the only benefit is to have better, more fluid balance due to arms that are either side of you.
What good is freedom from imprisonment without the freedom to move about freely?
I am confused, if you can't move freely then you are imprisoned. I am assuming this means you are less imprisoned in the latter scenario and therin lies the answer.
What good is freedom from tyranny without the freedom to excercise your will?
Freedom from the tyranny is the good, you just wrote it.
What good is freedom from forced labor if you are not free to define the terms under which you are willing to labor?
Freedom from forced labour is the benefit, you just wrote it.
There is no freedom to without freedom from but there is no true freedom without the freedom to.
You need to learn 'too' vs 'to', I corrected you in my quotes.
If the freedom from is the necessary step towards the freedom to, therein lies the benefit. You are asking questions that all have blatant answers.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I don't know how anyone could apply left/right dichotomies to societies before liberty, equality, fraternity took root.
Liberty and equality are not always the same thing, it's why I don't agree with crossing over 'progressive' with 'liberal'.
Left-wing is the wing that is pro-sharing wealth and pro-balancing things out in more ways than one.
Right-wing is the wing that is pro-keeping what one has (whether rightly earned or not) and pro de-balancing things in favour of whichever tribe/clan/lineage/corporation (yes, corporation even) one associates with.
Guy Fawkes certainly was right-wing in ways but one cannot simply dub him as that, he had left-wing and sheer wingless liberalism as motives.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I have yet to see a single other person who believes Eminem has used the N-word, despite everyone in this thread until I posted somehow thinking he did (they all clearly assumed, which is weird as BPD knows rap).
Anyway, I looked up Hunter Biden's use of it. He used it sarcastically to a white lawyer of his and only to that white lawyer on texts between them, he used it without the hard R as a joke that clearly had absolutely nothing to do with race but I would not at all say there was no issue with him using it, there certainly was.
I haven't come across the 'lack of issue', poeple aren't happy about it but this was a private text between him and his non-black lawyer both seemed fine with it but where it became somewhat problematic and indeed one could say racist is he referred to Obama jokingly, in a text to his lawyer, as it but again without the hard R.
I am not really sure what you mean with that there's nobody having an issue with Johnson's use of the term. There's issue with it, even Lincoln himself was a devout racist. Can you give me an example of it coming up in conversation or in an article and it being called okay?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
By definition, the entire world was right-wing before the Declaration of Independence.
Sure, semantics.
I'm talking relative right-wing to the time.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
People who stand for Liberty don't murder people for the wrong religious belief.
The agenda was to eliminate oppressors of a religion from the perspective of Fawkes.
You are saying in your perspective the ruthless way they treated Catholics and tried to eradicate Catholicism weren't the real focus, you believe that the Prostestantism itself was the focus.
Your outlook isn't what people who use the mask as a profile picture generally believe, they see the tyranny as the focus. You can throw a hissy fit all you want, I'm free to use the image and couldn't give a shit if you think it's an icon of Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I didn't say it was. According to determinists, if the Abrahamic god is real, it is part and parcel (all the evil decisions we make) of the creation.
Created:
Posted in:
Regarding the an-com thing, ask yourself how your system will work. For a second do not attack the things you see as corrupt or evil, ask yourself what your own system is and how it avoids being corrupt and evil... You will then see it's impossible to totally eliminate, one can only mitigate and if you realise that not just economically but socially too, you'll then realise we do need government.
I want you to for a second imagine what life would be like if nobody was there to protect you when someone smashes down your door, robs your home and abuses their strength, not money. Then, the community that is ancom rather than other variant of anarchic, forgive and forget this sin, love the sinner and share with you whatever they can to help you rebuild you home.
So, the robber laughs, does it again.
This time they are less forgiving, they kill him because prison doesn't exist and he refuses to be exiled.
Eventually, they do the same thing later on but it turns out the guy was misunderstood and was himself desperate because in fact all this sharing has made the entire nation poor rather than equally prosperous you are all equally suffering.
So... What happens?
It never happened in this order of events on record because approaches like this, in this order of evolving into and out of ancom happened in very ancient tribes that tried it out and didn't amount to much.
The problem starts to snowball, people being lynching anyone they see fit to call a problem to the society and unfair gainer. They see Lil Pump getting people to give him resources for his music and seethe with rage, even without money artists can exist who try less and get lucky... They are angry, they want more conscious rap and stuff that actually takes effort to make... They throw Lil Pump off a cliff and his body becomes the straw that broke the camel's back.
Suddenly a group of libertarians who are starting to loathe this mob mentality of pure unadultered democracy where if you dare challenge the masses or live life in a way they don't approve of as deserving to prosper in their communist system of governmentless chaos, they'll 'eliminate' you. These group secretly plot, start turning factions against each other and rise to the top.
Whether they win or lose, you start to see how and why there ended up being a government everywhere that a sophisticated society evolved.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Actually, the king at the time and England at the time were far from Democratic, Fascistic is far closer to what they were, persecuting Catholics left, right and centre.
If you are so triggered by a Guy Fawkes mask, I couldn't care less. He stood for wingless liberty in general but at the time was more allied to those on the Right Wing.
I am not pro-Trump and simply read the website that 949havoc posted and took part in what the thread asked you to take part in. You chose to mock him and get trolled back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
Obviously, if we our actions were always determined in advance, God would cease to be God.
If you mean the Abrahamic God, this is in fact a curious contradiction in his design.
He is said to control everything and know everything, incapable of being overruled or blindsided, yet he is also said to be capable of granting 'will' that is free of his foreknowledge and control.
This entity is also said, by followers, to be not responsible for what we do due to this:
There are other forces at play, here; usually ourselves and our choices, right or wrong.
However, if this is true, it implies either he doesn't have unlimited power, control and presents (omnipotence and omnipresence) and furthermore that there must be limitations to his omniscience. If he were omniscient, he'd be incapable of not knowing what we'd do while designing us even if he was capable of turning down the attention paid to the predetermination later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@949havoc
I' don't even think its a global warming issue because my torches are a natural expression of Earth's element
I have 0 interest in this bullshit thread but since you sidetracked, I'll bite.
If something is natural, can it not harm the ecosystem... Naturally?
Created:
-->
@Bones
The word 'necessity' never appears once in the resolution.
Should vs need are not identical.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
@SholosCarlok
bot
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think it's obvious. Eminem said a word that soudned a lot like the N word.
Please clean your ears.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I thought he said the N word here and if I thought he said it, there are many others that thought he did.No outrage from the radical left.The other people that I have accused of saying the N word you haven't addressed.
Which other people?
You are quite delusional to be honest, a lot of what you say very few others think so no I don't really think you thinking 'millions' sounds like the n-word has any bearing whatsoever on Eminem actually saying the word.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Supa has to tell which he thought red and green were.
Created: