Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav i refuse to pay my taxes imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
There is nothing rebellious about wanting to keep the second amendment intact. Its in fact just a representation of conservatism and the willingness to keep the status co alive and well and not create deep change int the society.
People might riot indeed. But that won't be because of a rebellious mindset, it will be because of the desire to keep their priviledges intact.
"The rebels" if there really needs to be such a faction, are those who opposes the established system and institution. Its those who understand that the constitution must be changed.
Rebels are those who are laughed at or casted out by society, its those who are considered the real danger by institutions compared to the far right.
You are comparing salads and steaks, its completely fallacious.The first part of your sentence should make you understand that the situation of gun in the US is not normal.
Of course it is.
That's again a fallacious rethoric that implies basically that because someone screams too loudly, then its their fault if people don't listen to them. This is a common sexist rethoric that feminist women face. The reality is that climatosceptiscism and gun's advocatism are in a all time high and people just don't want to listen AT ALL at those who are screaming "danger" to them because they are lead to believe the opposite BY conservative NEWS medias
Usually people who are for gun control don't explain that the subject is "overrated" because they understand how abnormal the number of shootings in the US is.
Nop
Annnnnd that's what I explained here:
This is the common liberal/conservative myth that "people are responsible for their action therefore we shouldn't deresponsibize them by changing the system too much"
Mixed with the common gun lobbyist vision that "people will find a way anyway".
When in reality both those assertion are fallacious and in denial of reality. Responsibilizing people only negate the impact society has on people and people (here we are talking about kids who goes on shooting spree) will most likely won't try another way if we prevent them from getting a gun in the first place. This would be the point of this dissuasion barrier.
This doesn't fix all the problems, but it will prevent a lot.
Its fallacious because the number of victim are not the F*cking same. Is that so hard to understand ?
As long as it is EXTREMMELY WELL REGULATED I don't see the problem with that.
Coming from a conspirationnist background, I spend a lot of time trying to understand how radicalization works.
(I'm talking here about a radicalization that leads to terrorist attacks)
People don't radicalize because they are monsters or because they want to do evil (those become liberal politicians) people radicalize because they are angry, because they want to make a difference, sometimes (in case of far right terrorism) because they are not seeing their victim as humans anymore or because they came to the conclusion that taking lives is a price to pay.
In all cases, they think they are doing the right thing.
There is no lie when I'm talking about liberals and their love for the status co.
Are guns as necessary as cars ?
People might riot indeed. But that won't be because of a rebellious mindset, it will be because of the desire to keep their priviledges intact.
"The rebels" if there really needs to be such a faction, are those who opposes the established system and institution. Its those who understand that the constitution must be changed.
Rebels are those who are laughed at or casted out by society, its those who are considered the real danger by institutions compared to the far right.
You are comparing salads and steaks, its completely fallacious.The first part of your sentence should make you understand that the situation of gun in the US is not normal.
Of course it is.
That's again a fallacious rethoric that implies basically that because someone screams too loudly, then its their fault if people don't listen to them. This is a common sexist rethoric that feminist women face. The reality is that climatosceptiscism and gun's advocatism are in a all time high and people just don't want to listen AT ALL at those who are screaming "danger" to them because they are lead to believe the opposite BY conservative NEWS medias
Usually people who are for gun control don't explain that the subject is "overrated" because they understand how abnormal the number of shootings in the US is.
Nop
Annnnnd that's what I explained here:
This is the common liberal/conservative myth that "people are responsible for their action therefore we shouldn't deresponsibize them by changing the system too much"
Mixed with the common gun lobbyist vision that "people will find a way anyway".
When in reality both those assertion are fallacious and in denial of reality. Responsibilizing people only negate the impact society has on people and people (here we are talking about kids who goes on shooting spree) will most likely won't try another way if we prevent them from getting a gun in the first place. This would be the point of this dissuasion barrier.
This doesn't fix all the problems, but it will prevent a lot.
Its fallacious because the number of victim are not the F*cking same. Is that so hard to understand ?
As long as it is EXTREMMELY WELL REGULATED I don't see the problem with that.
Coming from a conspirationnist background, I spend a lot of time trying to understand how radicalization works.
(I'm talking here about a radicalization that leads to terrorist attacks)
People don't radicalize because they are monsters or because they want to do evil (those become liberal politicians) people radicalize because they are angry, because they want to make a difference, sometimes (in case of far right terrorism) because they are not seeing their victim as humans anymore or because they came to the conclusion that taking lives is a price to pay.
In all cases, they think they are doing the right thing.
There is no lie when I'm talking about liberals and their love for the status co.
Are guns as necessary as cars ?
Last edited:
No surprised I will say hehe
There is a lot of fallacious rethoric going on in this thread.
There is no reason to add multiple words when a simple one already describes perfectly what you guys are constantly saying mate
The fact that you need to attack my language skills to keep making points is a proof of that.
:cheers:
There is a lot of fallacious rethoric going on in this thread.
You can tell when he adds a word to its limited and fallacious vocabulary because he spams it.
Fallacious.
Fallacious.
The fact that you need to attack my language skills to keep making points is a proof of that.
:cheers:
worst gen is a random forum dude, it aint the status quo
if you went on cnn or bbc, you probably would be pretty well liked
besides if you wanna argue on behalf of this place and say look it's far right they dislike me
well you call me far right and they also dislike me carrot so tell me, Are they far right for hating another far right dude???
we both are pretty disliked here, you cause you say far left shit that disagrees with even some of the liberal people here and im disliked cause of my takes on woman
it's not cause this is a far left haven or a far right one, it's just that me and you have certain takes these people dont like/
think the only thing, we have stated dislike on is rich people,anti trans and abortionists
im pro freedom which might piss off some hardcore right wingers
Oh really ??
You think they would allow me to say that there coverage of the Isralian-Palestinian war is completely biased ? You think they would let me say that Biden is complicit in a genocide ? You think that they would let me say that liberal and confusionnist and scoop angry media like them are the reason for the rise of the far right and the late election of Trump the insurectionnist ?
You think they would let me say that ??
Sure, people are disliking you so much that all they do is read your message. I had to demonstrated how people here were silent in front of your rethoric to finally see a rise of criticism against your incel like argumentation.
Dude.. the worst ennemy of the far right is the far right.
Why do you think white christian supremacist are hating so much on muslim foundamentalist ?
Both are far right, yet they hate each others.
No, it just that it is a place where toxic people are allowed to talk and their behavior enabled. That's all.
You think they would allow me to say that there coverage of the Isralian-Palestinian war is completely biased ? You think they would let me say that Biden is complicit in a genocide ? You think that they would let me say that liberal and confusionnist and scoop angry media like them are the reason for the rise of the far right and the late election of Trump the insurectionnist ?
You think they would let me say that ??
Sure, people are disliking you so much that all they do is read your message. I had to demonstrated how people here were silent in front of your rethoric to finally see a rise of criticism against your incel like argumentation.
Dude.. the worst ennemy of the far right is the far right.
Why do you think white christian supremacist are hating so much on muslim foundamentalist ?
Both are far right, yet they hate each others.
No, it just that it is a place where toxic people are allowed to talk and their behavior enabled. That's all.
probably not
cause your not on twitter where you arent required to appease sponsors
but on most points other then that probably would be more respected then you would here afterall their more left wing then most here
because every reglion fights with each other cause each is a conflicting belief system
all with the same amount of validity supporting them none
people these days dislike reading stuff so they dont wanna read detailed comments explaining any given subject
incel by it's literal meaning, ie a involuntary celibate man who wants sex but cant get a woman to agree
i think like 27 percent of men are literal incels
https://datepsychology.com/are-27-of-young-men-really-virgins-and-why/
Not in my knowledge as the representative seems to be mostly foundamentalists and identitarists.
That said, it doesn't mean that some fighters can't be leftists as Hamas, even if it did a massive and horrible war crime on october 7th is still one of the strongest movement of resistance of the liberation of Palestine. Still.. There are leftist and even far left militantist in Palestine fighting for the liberation of the country, but they voices are shut down by the strenght of hamas and invisibilized by the Israelian gov's actions.
I wouldn't trust much more that guy named "vaush" if I were you.
THe reality is that they wouldn't let me talk. They wouldn't even invite someone like me. Not saying that they won't in the future as media in the US seems to be a little bit more progressive leaning than in Europe, but there is still a long way to go.
When in reality, their values system is the same :
- Identitarism
- Fondamentalism
- Xenophobic radicalism
- Sexism
- Anti LGBTQ+
Etc..
Beside the fact that they share different religions, they have the same core values.
Oh boy...
That said, it doesn't mean that some fighters can't be leftists as Hamas, even if it did a massive and horrible war crime on october 7th is still one of the strongest movement of resistance of the liberation of Palestine. Still.. There are leftist and even far left militantist in Palestine fighting for the liberation of the country, but they voices are shut down by the strenght of hamas and invisibilized by the Israelian gov's actions.
I wouldn't trust much more that guy named "vaush" if I were you.
THe reality is that they wouldn't let me talk. They wouldn't even invite someone like me. Not saying that they won't in the future as media in the US seems to be a little bit more progressive leaning than in Europe, but there is still a long way to go.
When in reality, their values system is the same :
- Identitarism
- Fondamentalism
- Xenophobic radicalism
- Sexism
- Anti LGBTQ+
Etc..
Beside the fact that they share different religions, they have the same core values.
Oh boy...
the think men and women should ideally have one partner
and stay with them for life or for a extended period of time.
that way each man has one woman and each woman one man, it allows everyone to find somebody.
and the extended period of time thing just exists so there's not constant monkey branching between different guys for reasons like stds no and again the one man for every woman thing.
think if you disregard the one man and one woman system then you just get harems as the person selecting the mates ultimately will favor one sorta archetype of person
and have it so that people with multiple failed relationships stay single are frowned on, meaning that abusive people who cant keep things stable arent allowed to abuse anymore.
also both parties should pay equally that one both sides contribute and arent getting used for resources
also parents chose who you date in my ideal dating system cause average person just gonna chose the best option, so only muscled giga chads get laid or only the super hot chicks with big butts do depending on who's given mate selection
having parents chose also stops this dating game shit where everything is about trying to compete to get laid by having game,money or whatever. it makes talking to a girl from a normal interaction into a super serious chess game and that just aint fair for ether party
men cause it rewards only a small amount and chicks cause it prevents them from forming any normal relationship with a dude
so my ideal dating system includes
-parents chose dating partners for kids so kinda subpar guys can still live a happy life with kids and what not
-both parties contribute income, no man supporting women bs
-gotta stay with the partner forever or at least a long period
ideally general society would enforce the norms as goes with right now and ig law enforcement too
and stay with them for life or for a extended period of time.
that way each man has one woman and each woman one man, it allows everyone to find somebody.
and the extended period of time thing just exists so there's not constant monkey branching between different guys for reasons like stds no and again the one man for every woman thing.
think if you disregard the one man and one woman system then you just get harems as the person selecting the mates ultimately will favor one sorta archetype of person
and have it so that people with multiple failed relationships stay single are frowned on, meaning that abusive people who cant keep things stable arent allowed to abuse anymore.
also both parties should pay equally that one both sides contribute and arent getting used for resources
also parents chose who you date in my ideal dating system cause average person just gonna chose the best option, so only muscled giga chads get laid or only the super hot chicks with big butts do depending on who's given mate selection
having parents chose also stops this dating game shit where everything is about trying to compete to get laid by having game,money or whatever. it makes talking to a girl from a normal interaction into a super serious chess game and that just aint fair for ether party
men cause it rewards only a small amount and chicks cause it prevents them from forming any normal relationship with a dude
so my ideal dating system includes
-parents chose dating partners for kids so kinda subpar guys can still live a happy life with kids and what not
-both parties contribute income, no man supporting women bs
-gotta stay with the partner forever or at least a long period
ideally general society would enforce the norms as goes with right now and ig law enforcement too
the govrment should enforce equal sentencing instead of giving men longer sentences for the same crime
the goverment should offer better support for people in poverty or low income brackets as it stands people are living in the streets and nobody does jack shit to help.
reduce the cost of housing and vechicles, if it pisses off rich people who cares fuck em
and make all job requirements lower so poor people can better escape poverty, the goverment should force companies to comply or arrest the all ceos and major stock holders
like seriously im not needing 20 years experience to use a deep fryer, mcdonalds and besides it's impossible to get 20 years experince if your young anyway
also be more loose on gun control, it's the best tool agasint violence. nukes work as a deterant to war for a good reason so assume guns are the same way cause nobody wanna get shot
and make abortion legal and if you dislike that proposal then help finance mothers to afford the kid. you cant have it both ways where it's legal but no finnical help is given cause then the kid starves cause you forced her to have a baby she cant afford.
cops have far too many examples of shoot first ask questions later on both white and black people so punish such offenders far harsher then what's currently being done.
also have a death penalty nothing deters crime like literally dying if you do bad actions.
ig these are just polcies, i would just want implented in law
the goverment should offer better support for people in poverty or low income brackets as it stands people are living in the streets and nobody does jack shit to help.
reduce the cost of housing and vechicles, if it pisses off rich people who cares fuck em
and make all job requirements lower so poor people can better escape poverty, the goverment should force companies to comply or arrest the all ceos and major stock holders
like seriously im not needing 20 years experience to use a deep fryer, mcdonalds and besides it's impossible to get 20 years experince if your young anyway
also be more loose on gun control, it's the best tool agasint violence. nukes work as a deterant to war for a good reason so assume guns are the same way cause nobody wanna get shot
and make abortion legal and if you dislike that proposal then help finance mothers to afford the kid. you cant have it both ways where it's legal but no finnical help is given cause then the kid starves cause you forced her to have a baby she cant afford.
cops have far too many examples of shoot first ask questions later on both white and black people so punish such offenders far harsher then what's currently being done.
also have a death penalty nothing deters crime like literally dying if you do bad actions.
ig these are just polcies, i would just want implented in law