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
And what are those posts supposed to prove exactly ?
I asked for quote where I call AL sexist and you guys are giving me posts where I talk about the fact that AL don't see sexism...
Do you see the problem or do I have to draw it for you here ?
Desinformation as always:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...did-not-found-kkk-start-civil-war/3253803001/
Also, democrats are not leftist.
Use your brain for once. If it is being "pushed", how can it be the status co ?
Also you are still ignoring to answer to this question:
If feminists are the status co. Why are feminists trying to change the system to give more equal right sand more priviledges for women ?
I think you are doing everything to avoid admitting that you are wrong.
Again, you are just saying "you are wrong" without even explaining why. In reality you know I'm not and you simply can't answer. >>
You said that you are not subscribing to any ideologies (which means that you don't subscribe to any values or value system)
Then
You said that you can occasionnaly take a side sometimes (which means that you would actually use real value and ideologies sometimes)
You therefore contradicted yourself. And its ok I don't really care about that as long as you understand that being neutral is just favorizing the oppressors.
Since you have reading problem...
I said : New atheism is aiming to extend the concept of science to a form of reorganization of society (that can be made for example by acting on the different faith in society through the push of science and rationnal reasonning) and I said that its also a criticized and problematic movement.
You basically said : No
Here is what is written on wiki:
"New Atheism advocates the view that superstition, religion, and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated. Instead, they advocate the antitheist view that the various forms of theism should be criticised, countered, examined, and challenged by rational argument, especially when they exert strong influence on the broader society, such as in government, education, and politics"
I will now let everyone judge who is right and who is wrong here.
No. When I say "gender", I mean "Gender". Its you who understand "gender identity". Learn to read.
Its you who talked about identifying to an ideology, not me.
"I don't subscribe to any one ideology myself". Thus contradicting this precise sentence. You said two opposite thing in the same sentence.
Maybe you meant "I don't subscribe to a single ideology" but that not what you wrote. Sorry. I interprate only what you write, not what you are meaning to write.
Also, the problem doesn't come when you subscribe to multiple ideologies, for example I do. The problem comes when you subscribe to contradicting ideologies. For example : Someone being anti woke while saying that they are defending people under oppression would be contradicting themselves.
Some values are not compatible. And the reality is : Rightist values overall are not compatible with leftist values.
A value IS an ideological category, not subscribing to any ideological categories means that you don't have any values. And since its impossible to have any values you will necessaraly subscribe to some ideological categories.
Nothing surprising here. Center-left-environmental parties are usually socioliberal parties/straight up liberals parties. Those parties are not really leftist, they are mainly liberals and often antiscientific (but hey, maybe its different where you live, I hope for you sake anyway)
I don't remember saying you are not caring...
>>>>>
I asked for quote where I call AL sexist and you guys are giving me posts where I talk about the fact that AL don't see sexism...
Do you see the problem or do I have to draw it for you here ?
Desinformation as always:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...did-not-found-kkk-start-civil-war/3253803001/
Also, democrats are not leftist.
Use your brain for once. If it is being "pushed", how can it be the status co ?
Also you are still ignoring to answer to this question:
If feminists are the status co. Why are feminists trying to change the system to give more equal right sand more priviledges for women ?
I think you are doing everything to avoid admitting that you are wrong.
Again, you are just saying "you are wrong" without even explaining why. In reality you know I'm not and you simply can't answer. >>
You said that you are not subscribing to any ideologies (which means that you don't subscribe to any values or value system)
Then
You said that you can occasionnaly take a side sometimes (which means that you would actually use real value and ideologies sometimes)
You therefore contradicted yourself. And its ok I don't really care about that as long as you understand that being neutral is just favorizing the oppressors.
Since you have reading problem...
I said : New atheism is aiming to extend the concept of science to a form of reorganization of society (that can be made for example by acting on the different faith in society through the push of science and rationnal reasonning) and I said that its also a criticized and problematic movement.
You basically said : No
Here is what is written on wiki:
"New Atheism advocates the view that superstition, religion, and irrationalism should not simply be tolerated. Instead, they advocate the antitheist view that the various forms of theism should be criticised, countered, examined, and challenged by rational argument, especially when they exert strong influence on the broader society, such as in government, education, and politics"
I will now let everyone judge who is right and who is wrong here.
No. When I say "gender", I mean "Gender". Its you who understand "gender identity". Learn to read.
Its you who talked about identifying to an ideology, not me.
"I don't subscribe to any one ideology myself". Thus contradicting this precise sentence. You said two opposite thing in the same sentence.
Maybe you meant "I don't subscribe to a single ideology" but that not what you wrote. Sorry. I interprate only what you write, not what you are meaning to write.
Also, the problem doesn't come when you subscribe to multiple ideologies, for example I do. The problem comes when you subscribe to contradicting ideologies. For example : Someone being anti woke while saying that they are defending people under oppression would be contradicting themselves.
Some values are not compatible. And the reality is : Rightist values overall are not compatible with leftist values.
A value IS an ideological category, not subscribing to any ideological categories means that you don't have any values. And since its impossible to have any values you will necessaraly subscribe to some ideological categories.
Nothing surprising here. Center-left-environmental parties are usually socioliberal parties/straight up liberals parties. Those parties are not really leftist, they are mainly liberals and often antiscientific (but hey, maybe its different where you live, I hope for you sake anyway)
I don't remember saying you are not caring...
>>>>>
me not subscribing to a single ideology(!) is nowhere close to me not subscribing to values?!
seriously, antilogical drivel all the way with you.
yes, i take sides on a case by case basis, so not "sometimes" either.
you really suck at reading. maybe this is a language barrier thing. or maybe this has something to do with you not using words according to their actual definitions.
either way, you are wrong.
i also mean gender. but the definition based on gender identity as opposed to gender roles. or how do you define "gender"?
apparently none of the multiple dictionary definitions? lmfao
lmfao. the first paragraph says new atheism is about criticising religion if it exerts influence on society, such as government and politics. that doesnt mean new atheism is about reorganizing society based on science.
yes, let everyone judge lmfao
how is "any one ideology" or "a single ideology" any different?
its really the same thing lmfao.
and well i did in the course of our discussion use that phrasing here for example
IDEOLOGY Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
*yawn*
Not gonna lie, this disturbing level of dishonesty is low-key worse than @Bob74h saying we need to force every woman to be married off.
emphasis on "parties" in my last post. we dont necessarily vote a single party here in germany.
so i didnt say that the party i vote is centre-left-environmental. thats just the range of parties that i consider voting. from center to left to environmental.
Version 2:
Version 3
Version 4:
Version 5:
Final Version:
all accurate as fuck
seriously, antilogical drivel all the way with you.
yes, i take sides on a case by case basis, so not "sometimes" either.
you really suck at reading. maybe this is a language barrier thing. or maybe this has something to do with you not using words according to their actual definitions.
either way, you are wrong.
Post automatically merged:
i also mean gender. but the definition based on gender identity as opposed to gender roles. or how do you define "gender"?
apparently none of the multiple dictionary definitions? lmfao
Post automatically merged:
lmfao. the first paragraph says new atheism is about criticising religion if it exerts influence on society, such as government and politics. that doesnt mean new atheism is about reorganizing society based on science.
yes, let everyone judge lmfao
Post automatically merged:
how is "any one ideology" or "a single ideology" any different?
its really the same thing lmfao.
and well i did in the course of our discussion use that phrasing here for example
Post automatically merged:
IDEOLOGY Definition & Usage Examples | Dictionary.com
*yawn*
Post automatically merged:
I don't remember saying you are not caring...
>>>>>
>>>>>
Post automatically merged:
emphasis on "parties" in my last post. we dont necessarily vote a single party here in germany.
so i didnt say that the party i vote is centre-left-environmental. thats just the range of parties that i consider voting. from center to left to environmental.
Post automatically merged:
Version 2:
Last edited:
Then, tell me where I'm wrong instead of saying "you can't read".
If you say so. People can see and judge for themselves.
I'm the one having the most pleasure here. :cheers:
Not what I said. Again, you didn't read.
What I said is:
Not subscribing to ANY ideology means not subscribing to ANY values. And it was not specifically aimed at you mate.
What you understoodis:
You are not subscribing to a single a single ideology therefore you are not subscribing to any values.
> Not the same sentence, not the same meaning, not at all what I said.
For once. Please. Read.
"Case by case" is "sometimes" for me but ok. If you prefer.
And again, you are not saying why.
I define gender as science define it. You prefer to use dictionnaries. Not the same process.
That's literally what a reorganization of society is and could look like mate, and since the majority of societies are based on religions or faith or beliefs systems, this uncompass the entire world.
For real.. you are tiring. You know full well that you don't master the subject, but you keep going....
I WAS a follower of the new atheism movement and a FAN of Dawkins a few years back !! And in the groups I followed we were literally talking about reorganizing societies through a rationnal lens following discourse of the "thinking leaders" like Dawkins. When I say that this movement is problematic, its not just because I read about it on reddit, its because the biases that came with following this movement directly impacted my vision of society and religion and created a lot of biases and illegitimate hate.
No, but if you want.
Same phrasing problem lol...
Not really contradicting me here mate... :/
But again you will try to sort your way out of the argument with the help of dictionnaries definitions (that are not really helping you really.. ) instead of actually trying to debunk the subject of my argumentation.. being that when you hold no ideology/doctrine/beliefs (call it however you want), you hold no values and therefore being neutral is just the fact of not holding values. Which is simply impossible and just plainly unethical.
Again, you are proving nothing here, you just said "you said something wrong" (I did not) without even explaining why and how its wrong...
This is your entire argumentation : Wind.
Ok, did not say you did either.
Well, this means that you don't understand either why not taking side is always taking a side
If you say so. People can see and judge for themselves.
I'm the one having the most pleasure here. :cheers:
Not what I said. Again, you didn't read.
What I said is:
Not subscribing to ANY ideology means not subscribing to ANY values. And it was not specifically aimed at you mate.
What you understoodis:
You are not subscribing to a single a single ideology therefore you are not subscribing to any values.
> Not the same sentence, not the same meaning, not at all what I said.
For once. Please. Read.
"Case by case" is "sometimes" for me but ok. If you prefer.
And again, you are not saying why.
I define gender as science define it. You prefer to use dictionnaries. Not the same process.
That's literally what a reorganization of society is and could look like mate, and since the majority of societies are based on religions or faith or beliefs systems, this uncompass the entire world.
For real.. you are tiring. You know full well that you don't master the subject, but you keep going....
I WAS a follower of the new atheism movement and a FAN of Dawkins a few years back !! And in the groups I followed we were literally talking about reorganizing societies through a rationnal lens following discourse of the "thinking leaders" like Dawkins. When I say that this movement is problematic, its not just because I read about it on reddit, its because the biases that came with following this movement directly impacted my vision of society and religion and created a lot of biases and illegitimate hate.
No, but if you want.
Same phrasing problem lol...
Not really contradicting me here mate... :/
But again you will try to sort your way out of the argument with the help of dictionnaries definitions (that are not really helping you really.. ) instead of actually trying to debunk the subject of my argumentation.. being that when you hold no ideology/doctrine/beliefs (call it however you want), you hold no values and therefore being neutral is just the fact of not holding values. Which is simply impossible and just plainly unethical.
Again, you are proving nothing here, you just said "you said something wrong" (I did not) without even explaining why and how its wrong...
This is your entire argumentation : Wind.
Ok, did not say you did either.
Well, this means that you don't understand either why not taking side is always taking a side
