Total posts: 1,080
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I certainly wouldn't have described you as an imbecile. You are too hard on yourself
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
What a stunning argument. "WRONG". I was almost left speechless at that display of complex high level thought. I suppose I can only reply with
LOL NO U
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
>I require sources for absolute truths
~Dr.Franklin - 2019
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
I agree. We should approach this problem with aggressive and excessive hedonism to determine how much is too much
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
>Pingu is the most magnificent specimen of an animated penguin I have ever seen and is most definitely not fat
~Dr.Franklin - 2019
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
>The random rubbish I say is right, because I am right
~Dr.Franklin - 2019
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The right to get squished out of your mum's vagina is not synonymous with the right to life
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
>This article agrees with me. It is factual and unbiased which is clearly right
>This article doesn't agree with me. It is unfactual and a biased rag which is clearly wrong
~Dr.Franklin - 2019
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Nor is getting squished out of your mum's vagina yet here we are
Created:
Posted in:
Aren't republicans generally for free speech as guaranteed in the constitution?
I mean at least it's not as bad as right-wing violence
Created:
Posted in:
Are you pro-womens rights or pro women-as-property?
I am a logical human being, so pro womens rights
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I think that women who don't wish to be pregnant would rather an abortion than being pregnant at all. You are offering these women absolutely nothing
If billionaires are taxed a lot, it would increases the quality of life for middle class and lower class citizens. You would have healthier and happier workers. You would have more well educated people able to contribute to the economy. Crime would go down creating a safer and more free society.
There are definitely arguments for having higher taxes and plus, you would have funding into getting Canada assimilated
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
"Woulds" aren't good enough. Compromises are built upon solid exchanges of value. In your compromise, women give up bodily autonomy and their rights. In exchange they get a promise that they may not be able to take advantage of. In the short time, it means they get absolutely nothing.
As for a tax compromise, I envision the top marginal tax bracket to be raised to %90 at the absolute highest income brackets. We know that high income taxes will not "destroy the American economy" as evidenced by successful nordic tax models and American historical models. Why wouldn't you want this compromise? It gets you something that you want. And I assume you aren't an ultra billionaire so it won't affect you all that much
Created:
Posted in:
Would you rather fight 1 horse-sized duck or 10 duck-sized horses?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
So essentially this compromise violates women's rights in exchange for the possibility that there will be an alternative to abortion in the future but without any guarantee. In otherwords the woman isn't actually getting anything so there is no compromise.
For example, would you agree to having the marginal income tax be sharply increased for wealthy individuals and corporations, if 100 million dollars per year were set aside in an attempt to assimilate Canada and increase America's GDP?
Just FYI, in terms of abortion in New Zealand, while the law as written is restrictive of abortions, in actual practice abortion is de facto on demand. The general public is generally supportive of abortion rights, and it is likely that the law will be changed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Try thinking it through from the perspective of a typical pro-choice pregnant woman who did her due diligence in terms of contraception.
Under your compromise, what is she gaining and what is she losing?
Well she's being all but forced to carry a physical burden for 9 months, with a further prospective financial burden for 18 years. Her personal and professional development will be heavily impacted.
In return she gets the knowledge that somewhere, a new technology will be developed that she won't be able to take advantage of, as well as jobs that she also most likely can't take advantage of?
Do you think this is a fair compromise?
Under your compromise, what is she gaining and what is she losing?
Well she's being all but forced to carry a physical burden for 9 months, with a further prospective financial burden for 18 years. Her personal and professional development will be heavily impacted.
In return she gets the knowledge that somewhere, a new technology will be developed that she won't be able to take advantage of, as well as jobs that she also most likely can't take advantage of?
Do you think this is a fair compromise?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Believe it or not, there is at least one other guy that supports the invasion. Want me to tell you the pros to invasion?
ಠ_ಠ
Someone on here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Well as I said, facts do not care about your feelings
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think "God's days" are a convenient and arbitrary made up term to smear the word of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Facts don't care about your feelings <3
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Yom can mean several things, but most commonly refers to a 24-hour period known as a day. You're being irrational when you infer things from the bible that just aren't there in order to fit a false world creation narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The bible is unambiguous in all respects. If our world were created over a duration that was longer than what we know to be a day, the bible would state so. However it doesn't and unambiguously uses the word day. Moreover God would not need billions of years to form our world so why would he? Frankly you're just being illogical
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Where in the bible does it state that God waited 4.5 billion years? Oh right, it doesn't. Nice cherry picking btw
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
So the ~6000 years is drawn from the timeline of events as depicted in the bible. Since the timeline is necessarily true by being described in the bible, the logical conclusion is that the earth must be ~6000 years old.
Created:
Posted in:
Not really. The bible is the ultimate arbiter of truth, given to man by divine revelation. Unlike science which, while useful at times, is also often wrong, the bible is never incorrect as evidenced by the thousands of fufilled prophecies. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from this is that the earth is indeed ~6000 years old.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
The kick was intended for the camera, not the person. Hence the person was accidentally kicked even if the property wasn't. Not a stellar display in eithercase but on the otherhand, it doesn't really compare to murder, arson and kidnapping.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Accidentally kicking someone is on a rather different scale to murder, arson, intentional assault and kidnapping. I'm not sure why you are trying to equate the two
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
That is the leftist solution since pro lifers get punished way more for being pro life then the other way around.
What? How?
Created:
Posted in:
Lmao I know right?
They even want to damage America's economy by restricting carbon emissions in order to appease corporate bought and paid for climate "scientist" shills, but they are all for cars and eating meat which are all heavy contributors to carbon emissions. What fucking hypocrites.
I swear libcucks just want to burn America to the ground
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Thank you for pointing this out. I was unaware of such a strong point against evolution until you brought it up. Indeed, the absence of a crocodile duck hybrid perfectly exemplifies why the theory of evolution is so ludicrous.
Clearly by evolutionary models and timelines, all manner of bizarre hybrid species should exist. And yet there is a complete absence of such species. The only explanation can be that God in his infinite wisdom created each individual animal as they are.
I am glad you are taking the path towards truth and salvation instead of listening to the whispers of the demon inside of you
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
I understand the theory of evolution better than most others do. And it is quite clear that it is complete tripe. Take bananas for example. Evolutionists will claim that the current Cavendish variety is due to a long history of artificially cultivating desirable traits from select wild banana species. When it is obviously clear God made them in their current form for the express purpose of feeding man, as evidenced by their tastiness and convenient form factor.
You are obviously also possessed by some malignant demon. I shall pray for your soul as well
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@mustardness
@zedvictor4
You two have obviously been possessed by demons of the most hedonistic and reprobate nature. I implore you two to visit a priest, pray upon the bible and cease your repudiation of the Lord so that the demons may be excised. I shall pray for your souls in the meantime
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Everyone has seen God. Not everyone has the ability to comprehend Him which is the divide between true believers and dirty atheists and other false religions
Created:
Posted in:
Evolution is a vile lie concocted by satan worshipping hippies. And it's sad how many people believe in it, because it can be disproven so easily.
For example, have you ever seen an insect turn into a dog or a deer into a fish? Of course you haven't, because evolution is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The SCOTUS has always been a battle over conservative and democratic ideology certainly. But from my understanding it's never blatantly favoured a specific party as such, only the values which each party represents. And this allow for non-partisan rulings. It's rather sad on your part that you seem gleeful over the possibility of a partisan hack wrecking the impartiality of your judicial system.
Created:
Posted in:
The bible is God's everlasting and unchanging word. It is not for you to interpret in such a whimsical manner, heretic
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
There shouldn't be "voting for dems" or "voting for repubs" on the supreme court. It should only be "This is my fair and impartial ruling, based upon my interpretation of the constitution and existing laws".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Club
Essentially that author is saying that simply by raising the prices of junk food won't change eating habits.
However I would argue that a properly implemented junk food tax that is focused on citizen health instead of additional revenue. And this can be seen in the various soda taxes that do just that
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mharman
In reality an education centres reputation is rather important. If a centre were to, for example, allow students with blatantly nazi ideology, from an outsider perspective one might reasonable conclude that such a centre tacitly approves of such ideals and is a poor option for education
Created:
Posted in:
There are certainly similarities between the detention camps and concentration camps but I wouldn't equate them together.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I agree. They are also satan worshipping baby eaters
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
If I save the lives of 100 kids, does this make me immune from criticism if I were to go on a tirade about racial purity and uncleanliness of other races? Not really right? You can praise someone for one aspect of themselves while condemning them for another.
In this case, this has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism. It has everything to do with Harvard's admittance policies and the kid's past behaviour. You seem to think he should receive special treatment and Harvard apparently disagrees.
Finally, at the risk of sounding like an old record, you have no evidence that Harvard specifically targets conservatives and gives preferential treatment to liberals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
The story has nothing to do with the kid being conservative or Harvard being liberal. It's about a university booting a morally questionable person. A university like Harvard has a conga-line of equally capable candidates who have not said abhorrently racist things in their past
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The polls of the last election were rather reliable actually
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
This story has nothing to do with liberals
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Club
Poor implementation comes with taxes such as these. Most of the places that experimented with this idea implemented it wrong.
If that's the case you haven't demonstrated it as such. It's hard to describe the danish fat tax as being applicable and you haven't mentioned any other food taxes that have failed.
On the other hand there are multiple examples of implementations of a soda tax, a subset of a junk food tax which have shown to be effective
And also what about the true problem? The junk food advertisement. I mentioned that
Junk food advertisements are related to overall population health but they are not an argument against junk food taxes in and of themselves. This relates back to the nirvana fallacy that I mentioned before. You seem to think that because food taxes aren't a perfect solution to health and obesity they should be ignored
Created: