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
Yeah.. and I can't find those posts. So quote them to me please. Maybe I'm wrong.. Go on. 
No that's not how it works😒
Post automatically merged:
Bruh you cant be serious. You making it about eugenics(!) was your attack of his character that didnt have anything to do with what i quoted from him.
This is getting more ridiculous with each post
Post automatically merged:
I can take sides on a case by case basis, which is what im doing.
Doesnt mean i have to identify as part of any single ideology though.
Sorry, you are beyond wrong
Post automatically merged:
No he isnt. Nor is any other of the so called new atheists
Post automatically merged:
Nah, you didnt get the point then apparently. Try reading it again, do some reflecting
Post automatically merged:
Nah
Post automatically merged:
Not identifying with one specific ideology =/= not caring or acting against oppression
Once again you are making it clear that you hate logic
Post automatically merged:
He should rename himself to Antilogiko tbh
Last edited:
There is nothing more logic than the impact of neutrality.
Explanations shouldn't be required.
Indeed. My first argument was the critic of Dawkins as a commentator. Following that we debated on Eugenism, what it is or is not and why Dawkins words were problematic and now we are back on Dawkins.
Simple. I don't know what you don't understand here
Meaning that you would use your own ideology and you would therefore not be neutral. Which would contradict your previous point.
Yes he is. First paragraph :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
Well, that precisely why I debated with you on the notion of gender and the fact that you prefered to stick to academic definition instead of following the scientific definition. Ergo : yes.
No one is talking about identifying to an ideology but you here. Neutrality is not about identity, it's about the fact of not caring enough to take a side.
Not caring = Subscribing to no ethical ideologies.
An ideology is not a political party. And ideology is a set of value. Not subscribing to any ethical ideologies means that you don't have any ethical values.
Even children can understand this logic.
But what you must understand more is that in term of political convictions, those who don't take sides are opposed to leftism (that is precisely the side of the political spectrum that is always taking sides historically).
And since there are only two sides in the political spectrum (because there are only two major value systems), not taking side puts you on the opposite side of the left: some, like me, call it the right side. (some call this the extrem centrism, but centrism is just the name for apolitical rightism)
Also important point : When you start to take a side, you can't just take anything that pleases you on the right and the left or just pick the fight that you want... unless you are prepared to face great paradoxes in your own mind. For example you can't say "I believe in merit" and say " I believe in equality for all". Those two affirmations are simply not compatible. Meritocracy overrides equality everywhere. So you will be facing a paradoxe the moment you will be looking rationnaly at the real face of the capitalist issue. And there are plenty of example like that.
Not taking side = taking the side of the oppressor. And the oppressors in our societies right now are:
- Ultra Capitalist and liberals
- Conservatist
- Far rightist
- Cryptofascist
- Authoritarians
- And the three major oppressive systems that are patriarchy, systemic racism and capitalism.
If you don't accept this, you will be on their side.
There is no middle ground.
Explanations shouldn't be required.
Indeed. My first argument was the critic of Dawkins as a commentator. Following that we debated on Eugenism, what it is or is not and why Dawkins words were problematic and now we are back on Dawkins.
Simple. I don't know what you don't understand here
Meaning that you would use your own ideology and you would therefore not be neutral. Which would contradict your previous point.
Yes he is. First paragraph :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
Well, that precisely why I debated with you on the notion of gender and the fact that you prefered to stick to academic definition instead of following the scientific definition. Ergo : yes.
No one is talking about identifying to an ideology but you here. Neutrality is not about identity, it's about the fact of not caring enough to take a side.
Not caring = Subscribing to no ethical ideologies.
An ideology is not a political party. And ideology is a set of value. Not subscribing to any ethical ideologies means that you don't have any ethical values.
Even children can understand this logic.
But what you must understand more is that in term of political convictions, those who don't take sides are opposed to leftism (that is precisely the side of the political spectrum that is always taking sides historically).
And since there are only two sides in the political spectrum (because there are only two major value systems), not taking side puts you on the opposite side of the left: some, like me, call it the right side. (some call this the extrem centrism, but centrism is just the name for apolitical rightism)
Also important point : When you start to take a side, you can't just take anything that pleases you on the right and the left or just pick the fight that you want... unless you are prepared to face great paradoxes in your own mind. For example you can't say "I believe in merit" and say " I believe in equality for all". Those two affirmations are simply not compatible. Meritocracy overrides equality everywhere. So you will be facing a paradoxe the moment you will be looking rationnaly at the real face of the capitalist issue. And there are plenty of example like that.
Not taking side = taking the side of the oppressor. And the oppressors in our societies right now are:
- Ultra Capitalist and liberals
- Conservatist
- Far rightist
- Cryptofascist
- Authoritarians
- And the three major oppressive systems that are patriarchy, systemic racism and capitalism.
If you don't accept this, you will be on their side.
There is no middle ground.
Cmon AL it only takes about 2 minutes lol
https://worstgen.alwaysdata.net/for...w-members-and-the-grand-fleet.79/post-2607295
https://worstgen.alwaysdata.net/for...w-members-and-the-grand-fleet.79/post-2607295
. I don't know what you don't understand here
Post automatically merged:
it wouldnt at all. if you had proper reading comprehension that is. . . . or cared about logic.
Post automatically merged:
yep you cant read. no surprise there
Post automatically merged:
ironically enough i use gender as meaning gender identity. so you didnt get anything from our discussion on that one either. . .
congrats!
Post automatically merged:
yeah idk but thats just not what im saying. so either you suck at reading, love strawmanning me, or i dont even know.
thats what i initially posted. i literally say i agree with various ideologies. and then i clarified later on that i judge shit on a case by case basis. i just dont submit to any ideological category, because i dont care to put myself into any of these categories. doenst mean i am neutral or apolitical. and i vote centre/left/environmental political parties. so yeah im not right wing, you are just a disinguous (or retarded) nutjob.
Post automatically merged:
and where the fuck did i say im not caring?!?
seriously, stop making shit up.
Post automatically merged:
great idea, i'll do the same in public transportation vehicles
Last edited: