The death penalty is fabulous. There is really no reason for a brutal murderer (and whatever else) to stay alive.
And there's even less reason to kill them. What kind of example are you setting? That's not a valid reason to kill someone.
The flaw in the system is that it takes about 20 years for them to die- my world: Trial, 1 appeal, firing squad- all within 3 weeks of being arrested.
Great, so then you get about half the people sent to death very possibly being innocent.
The appeals are there for a reason.
The difference between this and abortion is that for the former is killing an evil piece of scum and the latter is MURDREING an innocent baby who hasn’t even gotten to see the world!
What a ridiculous viewpoint.
I'm not a surpported of abortion(except in the obvious circumstances) but it's not the same thing. Conservatives LOVE their strawmen.
In one case, you are killing a human being. That human being has friends, family, dependancies, and probably, despite the fact that they turned out to be a killer, some kind of aim in life or things they wish to do.
A fetus knows nothing and feels very little. It literally doesn't much care whether it lives or dies.
[quote]The minute you tell me about it however, you are subject to MY opinion on the subject. I think that being gay is unbiblical (see: Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. http://www.biblegate..earch=Leviticus%2018
[/quote]
Leviticus also tells you can't wear clothing of two materials. Leviticus 19:19 " Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind. Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed. Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee."
Don't be a moron. "The Bible says so" isn't on an equal standing with someone's entire lifestyle.
And yes, we do know what you believe about gays. And "conservative" is rather broad. How on earth can you think "conservative" is a positive thing, though? It's all about denying people their true nature, forcing people into boxes purely because that's the way it's done.
Conservatism is responsible for most of lifes misery, and most depression. Being forced to "grow up" rather than gaining maturity has no real purpose other than to make us feel like crap.
At the end of the day, conservatism is anti-thesis to individual expression, something most of us need to be truly happy. I'll be fucked if you tell me my bright red hair anything but my goddamn right as a human being with dyable hair. So under no circumstances is social conservatism a positive thing.
Whenever someone makes a generalization, whether it be that blacks steal, asians are smart, white people can't dance, or liberals kill babies, I expect them to prove how, exactly.
Nearly all the neo-cons on this board use those kind of methods. Feigning ignorance just so people have to "prove" something that's happening and is perfectly observable is nonsensical.
More bullshit conjecture from you, Penal. I suppose just spewing shit is all you can do when you're not a logical thinker.
Would you care to demonstrate how I'm not a logical thinker?
The only reason you're saying that is because I constantly make reference to logic, so you're trying to aggrivate me(and cover up your own lack of logic) by making it seem like I'm illogical.
Most neo-cons are vicious little trolls at heart.
That's hilarious. In China 1 out of 10 soldiers get a gun. Making up bullshit is fun, eh Penal?
Even the Pentagon seems to believe they could be a threat - http://www.weeklysta..ent/Public/Articles/
Though a lot of that is to justify their current programs.
Not to mention how densely populated China is, so even with their current lower level of technology(which is rapidly rising) their military is certainly going to be sizable.
Anyway, most of the world(apart from the US in China) are moving towards a state where "Oh boy I can kill more people than you with my big army" isn't seen as a positive thing. Try again.
[quote]For one, I didn't blame socialism. I blame psuedo-socialist programs that don't help anyone and keep people enslaved to the government's whim. As to the US failing the most economical: I think you're full of shit and so does this website. (I did something you never do, provide a source for my points.) :)[/quote]
Interestingly, an American website.
Here's a better source for you -
http://mwhodges.home..at-debt/debt-nat.htm
"Last year debt increased $3.5 Trillion, 5 times more than GDP.
Household debt soared 12%."
Nice economy you have there. Maybe if you'd put people before numbers it wouldn't have happened.
What is living proof? All socialism can do is steal from the rich and middle class and suck crack-addict's dick.
How is it "stealing", exactly? Unless you can somehow demonstrate how some people deserve to be earning thousands of times more than others for doing around the same amount of work, I'd like to hear this. Sweden has a good balance between the benefits of capitalism and socialism, and hopefully will one day be a true socialist state for the most part.
You do realsie that using ridiculous emotionally weighting terms makes you lok as ridiculous as the worst "anti-piracy" people?
More capitalism means more financial freedoms for everyone.
For the people that have a specific set of skills others might not be naturally disposed to, the lucky, and the inheritors. And those willing to entirely screw over others. Most people do not benefit from capitalism.
So? Some human life is worth less than others. While some human lives are worthless altogether.
Congratulations for invalidating your argument by admitting you DO care more about ideals than people. Ideals should be built on people, not the other way aroudn.
Since when is reason and logic barbaric? The only reason you advocate socialism is because of your own emotions.
How is putting ideals ebfore people reason and logic, exactly?
The only reason I advocate socialism is because it's the only way anythign can really move forward. Communism is pretty much impossible and capitalism will NEVER solve poverty or the concept of dead end jobs since it relies on them to exist.
Also - you just caught yourself out there. Emotions and logic do not contradict, this is somewhat of a "Vulcan" fallacy. To determine what's best for humans, you have to take into account their emotions since they define whether they're in a positive or negative state. Once again, you fail.
You still fail to tell me how our influence is dwindling. We still have a say in the UN, and our policies effect the world so our voice does not fall on deaf ears. We have not gained or lost any influence.
Of course you've lost influence. How many countries, for example, would back you up in any decision regarding foreign policy these days?
What the US does effects the world, as I already stated. So our actions taken very seriously. Are you nothing but a bunch of conjecture?
Currently most of the world thinks the US is a bunch of morons. The only reason we take you seriously on occasion is your ability to make an almighty mess of things, as I said earlier.
Petroleum isn't the only resource.
But it's certainly one, and you missed the joke I was making.
There are better positioned countries than the US.
I truly wish you'd give a link or evidence for once in your life.
Most of the time I'm the only one that does so in an argument. In fact, in most gay marriage arguments, I'm probably the ONLY one that does so. And look here, I provided some in this post! Some of your statements are just so inherently illogical it's hard to find a resource that you'll even accept.
Can't say I'm homophobic, but I am a tough guy.
I said bornerline homophobic, because it's pretty obvious you're not too secure in your sexuality.
I think that I speak for most of the world when I say:
FUCK THE ENVIROMENT. FUCK SEALS, FUCK TREES, FUCK CLOUDS, FUCK THE TEMPERATURE, FUCK THE ICE CAPS, FUCK BIRDS, FUCK STUPID HIPPIE BITCHES WHO WOULD RATHER SEE PEOPLE DIE THAN HAVE A FUCKING PLANT GO EXTINCT.
No, I believe you only speak for the stupidest, most arrogance, vile pieces of trash the US has to offer.
I'm sure a lot of people would rather see you die before a plant does. At least plants don't fill people's head with bullshit.
We don't want to make our lives uncomfortable so that the earth doesn't get one degree hotter.
Do you have ANY idea what the world being one degree hotter can cause? Katrina started out as a Class 1 hurricane. When it passed over the Gulf of Mexico, it was raised to a Class 5 thanks to the heat. If it wasn't for global warming, it wold not have exploded to that magnitude.
Don't make arguments about shit you have no idea about.
And we just in general don't give a fuck over some stupid, unproven, miniscule temperature change. And why should we?
It's only unproven because your oil obsessed administration has been trying it's best to cover it up. To the rest of the world, it's proven.
Why is it that all the people "against" recognition of global warming all have the OH BOY I'M A BADASS WITH LOTS OF CARS AND GUNS attitude going on? I think that's enough to safely ignore them by.
Shut up
It's true. While not the right wing as a whole is like that, it still harbours some of the most out of touch individuals this side of Iran.
At 6/23/06 05:56 PM, Cartman678 wrote: Did I ever say that we should not use Nuclear Energy? While it does have the nasty little side effect of nuclear waste, it is really our only viable alternative to fossil fuels. Other renewable resources should be developed, but if we run out of fossil fuel, nuclear energy would probably have to be used. One problem, though. Our vehicles run on fossil fuels, not nuclear energy, so we would have to find some other way to make our vehicles run. I don't know anything at all about engineering, but it seems to me that since we use batteries in almost everything, we might be able to use one to fuel a car. Not the battery that already comes with a car, but maybe a heavy duty battery, to propel the car after it turns on...
There is no one solution to the dilemna, however, using ALL of the possible alternatives may be the way forward. Building many solar, wind, and water(waterfall/tidal) powered plants altogether may be enough to replace coal or oil.
But Nuclear Fusion is the way forward. It's already been developed for a good while - it's just getting it to work efficently.
At 6/23/06 04:07 PM, Jayemare wrote: I mean, it all comes down to whether you want to:
Have big, fast cars, eat meat, watch tv, have the internet, wear clothes made out of cotton, have walmarts, have cheetos and processed foods, etc.
OR
Live in a dirt hut, eat grass,smell like shit, walk everywhere, and give handjobs to endagered walruses
I'll give you a visual aid. On the left is option one, on the right is option two
Yay for proponents of the black-and-white fallacy! Oh boy I'm a complete piece of shit with stupid ideas I only hold to piss off other people I AM SO FUCKING SMART. Man I turn myself on.
God, just shut the fuck up. That's neither amusing nor realistic and is just downright scary as it demosntrates the kind of attitudes that lead to people completely ignore something which will ultimately screw you, and the rest of the world over.
We don't care if you want to all die in a horrible flood, we do care that you're partially forcing that decision on the rest of the world.
There are some things we just can't have right now until we have to technology to make them cleaner. Though you oppose that too since the transitionary stage doesn't have as much "Vroom". It's ridiculous.
In all honesty, most of the rest of the world probably doesn't affect global warming that much. It's probably mostly the US. If Texas was a country of it's own it would be the fifth most polluting in the world. The US is by far the most polluting in the world, no wonder they deny global warming - it's their bloody fault.
Because the American Right Wing are the only ones delusional enough to believe it's not real.
At 6/17/06 11:41 PM, JadedSoB wrote:At 6/17/06 11:22 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote:No. I mean fighting prowess. We kick everyone's ass overall.Our military,Poking their nose where it doesn't belong?
OH BOY WE'RE THE TOUGH GUYS!!!
Your army is muchly filled with incompetent teenagers that signed up because your wonderful system that works oh so well left them with few options at a chance in life.
China's is probably much superior.
I just blame FDR and pseudo-socialistic programs for that. If we were more capitalistic we would be wealthier and not so heavily saturated with a trade deficit.economy,7+ trillion in debt?
Then why is it that Europe, which is far more socialist in nature, especially Sweden, has no such issues? It should be noted that out of Canada, Europe, the U.S., the U.S. is by far the most capitalist of the three - and is also failing the most.
The truth is that being so very capitalist is a short term solution. It does not ultimately work and this is living proof.
Pure capitalism burns itself out.
More capitalistic means more people ultimately slip past the poverty line, and even die. You're putting your ideals of THEY SHOULD BE WORKING HARDER before human life, which is the main problem I have with your barbaric way of thinking.
How so? Something tells me you're just speaking out of your ass with no fact or reason.influence,Rapidly declining?
This is proof that AMERICAN IS AWESOME people really don't have a fucking clue what's going on in the world around them.
Honestly, how can you NOT see it? These boards are evidence enough that nobody much outside of the US takes the US seriously except for what it can do to further fuck the world up.
No, I mean resource wise. Fuck the canadians.locationWell, you're just below Canada, so I guess you have a point there.
Resource-wise would be countries like Iraq, for their rich oil supply.
Hmm, I guess you have a point there too.
Sweden's still full of faggots. To hell with it.sheer awesomeness.But Sweden has sheer SWEDENESS. That's so much cooler than awesomeness since it's a play on the term "Sweetness", and thus is quite humorous.
Your argument against of the best working countries in the world, if not the best, is that it's fully of faggots?
You're quite right. Being a shallow, incompetent, borderline homophobic tough guy half wit is so much more important than improving the standard of living.
At 6/21/06 08:51 PM, Fenrus1989 wrote: Guns are a right.
Outlawing guns isn't going to stop gun violence all it will stop is decent people from getting guns.
Planned criminals will still get guns.
Plus the fact that it is almost impossible to take away every persons weapon in the country.
This argument is entirely learned off by heart. You wouldn't come to that conclusion on your own.
The fact is that having less guns WILL mean less criminals will have them. You've seen too many gangster movies. Most "criminals" aren't connected to orgnaised crime at all, and if you're not connected, it's going to be difficult to get weapons illegally.
Not to mention that Police know to go after someone that DOES have a gun. If only the appropriate people have guns then if someone messes up and reveals their "piece", they can be reported. Might not be a common occurance, but it could save lives.
The biggest issue however is simply that Americans are simply not responsible enough to have guns. Guns cause accidental death. People argue you can kill someone with a pencil if you want to - but is all murder pursued by crazed madmen? No. A lot of murder happens due to causalities in roberries, Things perpetrated by criminals that may not have the resources to obtain illegal weaponry.
And what did I say about illegal weaponry, anyway? Washington is irrelevant. Let's say guns cause the murder rate to go up 1.5x, and some other factor causes it to go up by 2.0x. Some countries have much higher murder rates, so it's a reasonable assumption. If Washington has factor B, then removal of factor A will still leave it with a very high crime rate.
Also, factor A is lessened due to the fact that it's piss easy to go into the next state and legally obtain a firearm.
And why carry a lethal weapon, anyway? Why not get trained in martial arts, buy a couple of tasers, a stun gun, or if you have a chance to run, a tranq gun? There are other options. They're not the most efficent, but there ARE more efficent options being developed. And I guarantee people will still go with guns because they shoot stuff good.
I do believe strongly in the right to own a gun when forming a Militia, however, which is what the second ammendment was intending for. It's a blurry line though; what constitutes a militia? Obviously carrying a handgun with you for no real reason doesn't. "During times of uprising" is probably more appropriate.
At 6/21/06 08:36 AM, PaulKent wrote:At 6/21/06 06:28 AM, SmilingAssasin wrote: So... I'm guessing that article was written by an american. What a suprise, another american saying "you envy our wealth, you envy our freedom, you envy our lifestyle" That whole article sounded like a complete pile of BS to me, and why?You didn't read it, asshole. You would have realized that the author is a British historian.
To be honest, I found his first point weaker than all of his other points, and that's the only one you seem to have read. Going into European ignorance about American culture and values was probably the best point he made: Europeans have generally seen us as a sub-culture since our inception, like an Englishman gone askew. I don't know if "racism" is the best word, since a lot of us are all whites, but think about the stereotypes you hear from Europeans. They think George Bush and Jerry Falwell are representative of everyone in the country, when in fact, most people don't care for either.
We're not ignorant about your culture and values. We have them pressed on them every fucking day everywhere we look. Think we don't get Fox and CNN over here? Think again. Even if we didn't, America's cultural intrusion in Europe is vast.
No "modern" European ideas really penetrate the U.S. So we know how you guys work, you don't know how we work.
And this is another problem. Compared to Europe, the U.S. is vastly Xenophobic. It's unified culture leaves it with a lack of understand for other values and instead of logically reasoning which set of values is an objective right that works for everyone - they stick to illogical and unfounded ideas, sometimes using subjective relativism(by majority of course) to defend them.
And this "Englishman" is clearly a moron. There are actually some people, even europeans, who get suckered into the "American Dream". It happens.
At 6/21/06 05:52 AM, hired_goon wrote: http://www.forbes.co..l/2003/0721/017.html
First, an unadmitted contempt for democracy. The U.S. is the world's most successful democracy. The right of voters to elect more than 80,000 public officials, the length and thoroughness of electoral campaigns, the pervasiveness of the media and the almost daily reports by opinion polls ensure that government and electorate do not diverge for long and that Washington generally reflects the majority opinion in its actions.
It is this feature that intellectuals--especially in Europe--find embittering. They know they must genuflect to democracy as a system. They cannot openly admit that an entire people--especially one comprising nearly 300 million, who enjoy all the freedoms--can be mistaken. But in their hearts these intellectuals do not accept the prin....
LOL SILLY BILLY
This is the biggest reason there is so much anti-americanism.
When they act like they're so much better and we're jealous than them, it pisses us off because of all the hard work we've done creating a much more stable social climate than the US will have for a long time to come, despite the fact that we're made up of several different countries and varying cultures, not states with somewhat differing customs.
There's a lot of things people dislike about the current state America is in. And when people act like we're JEALOUS of that, that kind of seals it.
At 6/21/06 02:49 PM, Proteas wrote:At 6/21/06 02:43 PM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: "If you're going to blame murders on guns, you might as well blame misspellings on your pencil."Best. Quote. EVER.
Except it's entirely logically flawed.
A gun is designed for killing people. It is not a general use implement. A pencil is designed for writing; misuse of it results in spelling.
The equivillent of misspelling in a gun is Missing.
Guns are cool; for video games and shooting ranges. Carrying around a semi-automatic purely because it's your "right" to do so is not so cool.
There's a reason the U.S. has 3 times the murder rate of Europe. And don't even bother using Washington as an example, like "Smuggling" guns from across the state border an hour away is going to be that difficult. It's not quite the same as obtaining them illegally altogether.
Also, did you know most "illegal" guns are bought in "Legal" gunstores, originally? They then have the numbers filed off them and are sold in the "Underground" for a bumped up price.
Our military,
Poking their nose where it doesn't belong?
economy,
7+ trillion in debt?
influence,
Rapidly declining?
location
Well, you're just below Canada, so I guess you have a point there.
sheer awesomeness.
But Sweden has sheer SWEDENESS. That's so much cooler than awesomeness since it's a play on the term "Sweetness", and thus is quite humorous.
At 6/17/06 07:42 PM, JadedSoB wrote:At 6/17/06 06:51 PM, Penal_Disturbance wrote: With real logical debates, most people aren't very good at them, but conservatives especially.This is certainly why liberal is a dirty word nowadays. Penal makes this too easy.
But I can pass the buck and say THIS is why "neo-con" is a dirty words nowadays(over here, it is to a massive degree).
It's pointless; you're just being a dick and you know it. I bet you'd be the same person that claims SEXISM when someone ignores the fact that men and women don't have all the same capabilities. Yet for even suggesting, based on overwhelming evidence on this forum, that conservatives aren't as good as debating, I become the negative face for liberalism.
Actually, come to think of it, this IS why neo-con is a dirty word. It's nearly impossible to relate to you as a human being, rather some sneaky, slimey reactionary mechanism.
Conservatives can be damn good debaters. Ronald Regan was one of the best re-framers and spinners of all our presidents.
Um, you do realise what a proper "debate" is meant to be, right? If you've to rely on Spinning as your main tactic, then you're not debating right, at all. You're putting a spin on the issues, quite blatantly, instead of getting your point across in an honest and logical way. With real logical debates, most people aren't very good at them, but conservatives especially.
Wait, if you had to follow EVERY rule the Bible states, then why bother with the 10 commandments?
At 6/17/06 04:15 PM, JadedSoB wrote: Two reasons why people hate the US. One I think because they see overly-patriotic people like me, and two, they'yre jealous.
Um, what are we jealous of, exactly? This theory always bemuses me, but it does offer an insight as to just how delusional some americans are. And is in turn the biggest reason why most of the world hates America - they've taken a step backwards yet still think most of the world is jealous of them.
At 6/16/06 04:35 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: More important, teach them to realize: Gee, planned economies are doomed to failure and are not condusive to innovation.
Except that's an argument in itself.
The problem with it is mainly that most businessmen and economists are inherently going to be capitalists to want to pursue those careers/areas of studies. I'm sure there are some socialists out there who have an idea about economics, and capitalists who have an idea about sociology. It would be interesting to see a real debate on this stuff.
Fine. You are telling me on average everyone in the rest of the world is so much more well read and smarter than the average American?
They're better on making judgements on social issues. As much as Americans bitch about Europe, it's a far wider range of cultures that's been brought together and has a somewhat, if only slightly superior sense of unity. Because of the sheer diversity factors, with different cultures and different practices, Europe has to be open to adapt.
I'd say the Average european is better at making judgements on social issues, anyway. I don't know if the "rest of the world" as a whole since so many live in poverty.
As you like to say.
Red herring.
It's not a Red Herring. You claimed there was "Demonisation" across the globe, however you failed to show how that demonisation has no truth in it, and it currently has quite a hold over most the world.
Personally, I would never consider myself "anti-american". I'd consider the majority of people I argue with on these boards "anti-american" for the values they hold.
What strawman? You called conservatives morons, stupid, illogical, people who dont think about their stances, are less educated, less reasonable, you called Bush an idiot because you disagree with him. What exactly did I misrepresent?
But you didn't take down any of it. All you did was say how I was calling all conservative idiots, among other things, which I never did. That's a strawman. I said that they were less competent at debating, and it's quite possible they're less intelligent on average, but that doesn't make them "idiots", though it should be noted that people in general can often be classed as "idiots".
Tal-con is annoying but I'll give him a chance anyway:
That's your opinion, not fact. When you claim liberals are on the side of truth and justice and all that good crap, you claim you know this as a fact, but for this to be so, I would need some evidence.
But how am I meant to prove that exactly? In general, most arguments here do demonstrate that trend. I can't dissect every bloody thread, though you will find me pointing out illogic in a lot of them, which you'll just ignore anyway.
Liberals base their claims in logic more often. Obviously, a lot are just follow the crowd, but the shephards rather than the sheep base their opinions in more logical idealogies than the conservative equivillents, who essentially inherently based them in tradition or religion.
That's because there are some things that are clearly morally wrong. Morals cannot be proven.
So you ask me to prove something pretty damn hard to prove, but now Morals can't be proven, and it's acceptable to make decisions based on them? Bullshit. Morals can be "proven" by examining them and seeing who they affect. If someonething doesn't hurt people, then it's not wrong. Of course that's a rather basic level of moral logic, but it's not difficult to apply that basic principle.
On a side note, I can understand why everyone on this hates you being that you're a dipshit to anyone who disagrees with you.
Not everyone on this hates me(it's hardly the greatest crowd to begin with) and I'm not a dipshit to anyone who disagrees with me. If I was, I'd be in EVERY topic slamming people for their beliefs. As it is, I usually stick to a certain pattern, which I'm not even going to bother pointing out since nobody ever listens anyway. Just look for yourself.
you do my job for me, Penile_Disturbance. Why don't you just marginalize yourself even more and just change your name to cock_tease?
You know, when my name is a joke to begin with, making the penis reference more blatant just seems kind of outright stupid.
I'd also like to point out that I'm not "for" abortion. But at the same time, the liberal/con split is shockingly accurate for the majority of people.
How do you base this then, "In general," if its not from meeting the average conservative and you thinking they are smarter than them.
Being able to debate and being smart aren't necessarily the same thing. Though if I were to pick one, I'd go for the one with the majority of scientists, etc. on their side. Your constant enforcement of this strawman isn't uncommon among conservatives and is exactly WHY you're terrible at debating.
:I lived in San Francisco for 3 years. Everyone was liberal. Everyone. Most hated Bush. Most had no idea why. I heard people say, in class, it would be good if he was assasinated. Most voted for John Kerry not even knowing any of the positions he stood for, he simply wasnt Bush so they voted for him. I saw protests at least 3 times a week, 2 seperate protests every friday that happened in the same place, same time, all the time. I talked to the protestors one day.
They said Bush was an idiot. I asked why. They said because of the way he talked. I said you dont talk so hot either. So one of them called me an idiot.
Well, that was a pretty fucking stupid statement. Not to mention how does this prove they're an idiot? And how do you know they don't know why they hated Bush?
So I came back when I was blazed and squirtgunned them with this other kid in a car. Let me tell you, that really pissed them off. So we mooned them.
God you're a moron.
Anyway, believe or dont believe it. I dont care.
Someone who squirts their gun and shows their ass to people, or people who are jsut expressing a political point of view. HMMMMM.
That is not MOST LIBERALS.
But MOST LIBERALS would be more scientific in nature than conservatives, as many conservatives base their decisions on either religion or tradition. How many conservatives, in all honesty, do you get "laying down the science" in these topics? Really, conservatism in many ways defeats itself.
The average person who is a liberal is an idiot. Just like the average conservative is an idiot. Why? Like I said, MOST PEOPLE DONT CARE ABOUT POLITICS, CURRENT EVENTS, AND HISTORY.
This is probably true, to an extent. Most people are pretty stupid. It doesn't assume you can presume both sides are equally bad, though, or that one is worse just because they protest a lot.
You outdebating the average conservative and then thinking the lot of them are idiots means nothing. You CANNOT characterize an entire ideology because you are smarter than most of the people you meet that are opposite of your views.
But the majority of liberals, online anyway, simply ARE much better at logical debate.
You said calling most liberals stupid has no credence whatsoever and you then called conservatives morons in the next sentence.
No, I said they couldn't debate. Which is true, since they base their views in religion or tradition. Neither has any place in logical debate unless it partains directly to those issues.
I can same the same thing about any ideology that is on this board. Especially socialists and communists. God, It makes me wonder if the so called "Marxists" oon here know what immseration is or Dictatorship of the Proletariat is.
I'd say most socialists, and indeed most capitalists, and certainly communists really don't know the ins and outs of the system they support. But that's mainly because economic system isn't a day to day thing, it's not so upfront an in your face; it's not a "current event". People tend to draw most of their knowledge from knowing about current event. In all honesty, a lot socialists probably aren't that great at economics, but a lot of capitalists are pretty terrible at sociology.
As you said, nice job of refuting what I said.
It wasn't on topic. It was basically you saying Condeleeza Rice could kick my ass in debate. It depends whether it's a REAL debate, or an OH BOY I SOUND THE FANCIEST AND MOST INFORMED BUT I'M TALKING SHIT REALLY kind of debate that 99% of politics revolves around. If it's a real debate, then I may be able to catch her out on her logic. But the point is that it doesn't prove anything either way.
People are not idiots for having different beliefs.
They aren't. The problem is that the "beliefs" I speak out against are founded more in arrogance than belief.
If it aint broke, dont fix it.
Except it IS broke. And this leads me to believe you are indeed a social conservative.
FAB:What fuckin arrogance. You characterized every conservative as a religious, unreasoning, loony idiot.
:Penal:And rather beautifully, you couldn't refute it.
What exactly did you say then?
You're a moron. I never said that, the first post you quote there is YOU saying it. I NEVER did. I said you couldn't refute it because as I said I was excusing your moron and presuming that you'd recognise as much and that I was commenting on you being unable to refute what I ACTUALLY said.. Even after me telling you, you STILL don't recognised.
How the hell am I socially conservative? If its socially conservative to not support government welfare and government social security and over government regulation of business, guilty as charged. Other than that, I am in no way conservative.
Those are conservative principles, yet. I imagine you're in many ways a centrist, probably the kind of centrist who thinks he's somehow more intelligent and capable for not getting quite as mixed up in "all that rubbish", failing to realise that it has no bearing on the issues at hand if there are Arguments on the Internets.
First, you dont meet those conservatives so it wouldnt be personal experience then.
Why would I need to meet them to gauge their logic?
Second, conservatives have only had all the power for a short time now.
Incorrect. 6 years is plenty time and they've had power at other points in the pass. Not to mention that conservative interests are pretty much ruling the U.S. and much of the rest of the world right now.
Third, there is nothing conservative about Bush and most Republicans. Nothing.
Yes they are, they're socially conservative, and while not fiscally conservative, do hold a few economically conservative policies.
We already have a thread on this.
In all honesty, these kind of threads won't bring idiots around to their senses. People refuse to be affect by anything online, so you'll have to wait until something happens in their social lives that gives them a major kick in the pants. Some people are beyond saving though.
At 6/15/06 07:27 PM, JadedSoB wrote: Yep, we can all agree(People who actually understand economics and social science) that socialism isn't possible to achieve on a large scale. Socialism is too easily hijacked, it gives people that aren't deserving wealth and discourages business. Among other things socialism is a facet of Lysenkoism philosophy.
I love these assertiments, people who actually understand economics and social science. Yet it's rare that the same person does make a convincing argument based on economics and social science, and when they do, it's nearly always against communism, or from the point of view that Capitalism is an acceptable and stable state to be in.
Really, you got any proof for that?
Yes, just about any topic here is an example. The problem is that people don't have to accept reality if they don't want to, and since there are two sides a very objective thing becomes subjective. But if you WERE to go and weigh up who's the most logical (don't forget the fallacy files!) and who's presenting the most facts, then it would be the "lefties".
Gay Marriage is an example I'll use - most right wingers will either say how it's morally wrong, or post long drawn out faux-intelligence trash heavily rooted in the slippery slope fallacy. Those in favour will actually present reasonable arguments that don't trip up on so many fallacies, reference real world instances of gay marriage, and back their arguments with facts and logic.
Of course, you have ignore this in favour of illogical subjectivism, so there's not really much I can do.
Moral Libertarian said this -
It's the obvious conclusion for morons. I love it when liberals pretend they are on the side of fact and reason. The reason no conservative actually debates you intelligently is because they couldn't do it with a straight face.
After I said, a few hours a go, this -
Cons, especially US Repblicans, have a tendancy to put bad spins on this so they don't even have to do any arguing - it would be ridiculous to have to engage in debate with a "filthy hippie"
That has to be one of the most hilarious examples of being predictable, reading selectively and generally stupid I've seen.
Also, you've done nothing to demonstrate that liberals are NOT on the side of fact and reason, since they are the ones who certainly PRESENT fact and reason more often in a debate, certainly reason, and your last comment is entirely laughable.
What do you want me to rebut? Your opinion? There is nothing to argue. You think you are smarter than conservatives because you are smarter than the average conservative you meet on the streets.
Actually, I never said that. I said that conservatives, in general, are not as good at debating as liberals.
The fact that you're make exagerrated assumptions does fuel my "Negative spin" theory. Both sides do it; but it's mainly with the Righties that it stinks so marvellously.
Let me also say, 90% of the liberals I come across are idiots who only are liberals because there parents were or its what all their friends are.
I have no reason to take your shoddy interpretation as anything reasonable. I can't get into your life and meet all the "Liberals" you know. Not to mention that considering the sciencey types and general intellectuals would tend towards liberalism, calling most liberals stupid certainly has no credence whatsoever. Why would they side with morons?
However, the difference is with what I'm saying is that it's happening all around, and can be seen in many different topics in this forum. Most conservatives here can't debate. There are of course, a few that can, quite well, but there's still a certain about of fallicious material at the centre of most of them.
Also, let me say, people like pretending they care about politics. Often, people wont know what their party is doing in their name. They will vote for people who are doing things that are hurting them and they dont know it. They barely know current events. The average person or even the average Newgrounder is by no means the representation for why you think you should be smarter than an entire group.
You think you are so damned smart, go win a debate against Condoleza Rice. I promise you wont win. She may represent a lot of things I do not like, but I do know she would wipe my ass across the floor in any kind of debate. I am not arrogant enough to think just because someone doesnt have the same viewpoint as me that they are lower than me intellectually. And I know for sure Noam Chomsky, a man I agree on with almost nothing, would destroy me in a debate. These are smart people and know a LOT of shit.
Meaningless rambling.
So if I disagree with the way, lets say, a John Kerry would run the country, I hate the right to call him an idiot?
Yes. As long as you have a decent reason for it, and not just OMG HE'S A SLIMEBALL like most people did around election time.
Those are positional differences. Not evidence that GW is an idiot.
But from his presidential decisions, he does appear to be very much incompetent and incapable and what he does.
What exactly would be evidence that GW is an idiot, then? Stumbling in his speeches? Making completely inadvised foreign policy decisions? Basing his decisions on religious superstition or appealing to tradition instead of taking the most logical path?
Prove it first of all. Second of all, why would you buy yourself a C average if you are going to buy your grades?
More believable? Anyway, this is a Red Herring argument. Proving that GW got a C Average doesn't prove he's fit to rule a country, nor does it mean that conservatives, in general, are smarter than liberals.
I am not religious, I am not loony, I dont call everyone who disagrees with me an idiot, I think Iraq has been bungled amazingly, Bush is in no way fiscally conservative. I consider myself conservative. And you want to call me loony?
Except I didn't say you were religious or loony, nor did I say you supported Iraq. I excused your strawman the last time, and now you come back and throw it in my face like I was the one who created it?
Fiscal conservatism doesn't have the same glaring logical holes as social conservatism does; and it seems you subscribe to that too. You're conservative in the general sense that you oppose liberalism too; both are more or less anti-thesis in the social department. The whole idealogy of conservatism is pretty flawed since it relies on "Appeal to Tradition" for many of it's cornerstones.
"You have become so SMUG you like smelling your own farts!"
Actually, most of the "smug" people I've met have been conservative. Personal experience of course doesn't count for much; but it does seem only logical since conservatives are the one with the most power, and with the ability to make decisions based on illogic without them being blasted aside like they should be.
And please show me these studies. I am sure they are done by the most unbiased, fair people ever with absolutely no point to prove /endsarcasm.
There was one posted about 2 days ago. They should still be on the first page.
Because everyone from the rest of the world is smarter than every American? Honestly, what the hell.
Why would they have to be smarter than EVERY American, exactly? You create completely fallicious IF THEN ELSE scenarios.
Oh and of course there is no irrational demonization of America across the globe. I mean, its not like I havent seen the idiots from acros the globe come on here and call America fascist, compare Bush to Hitler, say they hate us all, call us all fat, lazy, greedy, idiots.
That doesn't explain how 90% of the CIVILISED world (i.e. not backwater places like Iran) dislikes America.
Fab 1, Penal 0
You're kidding, right? All he did was take apart the strawmen he created. I have a strong dislike for online "scorekeepers" since they're in no way qualified to either be unbiased or to tell what the hell is going on.
Republicans won the fight because they appealed to a lack of intellect; whereas it takes thought to see what's so bad about conservatism, which most of us have been raised to respect in some form or another.
At 6/15/06 04:19 PM, mofomojo wrote: You idiots, socialism IS authoritarianism. Who else will equal everything out but an brash and brutal authority?!
Huh? Who will be there to take away the fortunes of the middle class and give them to the lazy? The god damn socialists! That's who!
Hahaha. This post is funny. So man bad assumptions in such a short space. That's that McCarthyism did for the world, I suppose.
Don't you ever stop to think that if so many people have rose from the dust as socialists, champions of the working man, that they would have eventually started, say, a real socialist nation? Furthermore if they hadn't what's wrong with the system then?
Because Socialism has only been a major subject of debate for the last 130 years of so and has only become a major consideration in the last 80. While it sounds like a lot of time, the whole point is that the capitalist world is so corrupt it's nearly impossible to get ideals like that across.
However, aside from maybe the U.S. and a few more extremist states, most of the civilised world is working towards the left, this much is undeniable. The idea of socialism was never to declare "right then, let's be socialist". It's meant to be a natural evolution, nobody really knwos when it will happen if it does. That's also one of the big reasons communism failed, besides it being stalinism as opposed to true marxist communism anyway.
I'll debate the real issue right now, Socialism doesn't work, it's a utopian dream, it banks on the idea that greedy people will be destroyed when there is only one really big elite rather than a ton of small ones. You want people to stop being assholes so you intend to force them. Socialism is a joke, once they invent brainchips go ahead take over the world. Oh, no facism... well fuck.
I don't think you get the point at all. Socialism doesnt' "force" people not to be assholes, it just redistributes wealth and power into a forum that's somewhat less corruptable. It's a sytem that plays off human greed better than capitalism as it rewards people for their work as capitalism does, but also gives the general working public better prospects of moving forward.
Select between 5 monster racers, upgrade your monster skill and win the competition!
4.23 / 5.00 3,881 Views
Build most powerful forces, unleash hordes of monster and control your soldiers!
3.93 / 5.00 4,634 Views
© Copyright 1995-2014 Newgrounds, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.
