The News Thread

What the fuck are you going on about?
His right as a business owner to do so.

That.

Nah a triggered person is what you sounded like yesterday and the day before. And Ive seen plenty of them. And plenty of beheadings also. Have you ever seen someone strapped down to a chair and fried? Or someone who is injected with poison and starts foaming at the mouth and convulsing to death? Much better than a swift chop to the neck, amirirte? :rolleyes:

I'm opposed to the death penalty and always have been. So...

You dont think people here believe in the death penalty? Try to comprehend what you read more properly.

Of course there are, the question is what % do and don't and compare that to Muslim majority countries. Also, the chasm here is what the different cultures believe the death penalty should be used to punish.

Probably not, his name isn't Sean the Responder.

15759933.gif

You're simplistic pleb outlook on what the US Libertarianism stands for is hilarious tbh. DECRIMINALIZE EVERYTHAAANGGGGG Lmao. You are fucking clueless.

Contemporary U.S. libertarianism is pretty terrible anyway.

Im honestly not surprised that you cant even see how communism and socialism are like brother and sister. Again, not surprised at all.

He is living, breathing proof of how frankrurt has ingrained its ideas into this nation.

You do this often, rather than explaining yourself you either a) insult the person who asked for the explanation or b) act as if it is just self-evident and doesn't require explanation.

And are you really asking me to give you proof that christians have killed far more people than any other religion on this planet? What in the fuck. Again, are you serious?

Case in point.
 

That what? Your comment was in response(why am i not surprised) to me laughing at what happened in that video. HENCE THE LAUGHING EMOJI. Dont respond(doubt thats going to happen) next time if you cant even figure out the most simple of gestures




You do this often, rather than explaining yourself you either a) insult the person who asked for the explanation or b) act as if it is just self-evident and doesn't require explanation.

Dude, you asked me why i think hes a communist, and then basically said he was a socialist. Are you okay? What was insulting to me was you trying to tell me what i think. What was insulting was you saying "you win just because of your constant responses" .. after responding to every.single.one.of.my.posts. Oh the irony in that statement :lol:



Case in point.
Case in point? All you are doing there is displaying a ignorant trait that is not respectable in the least. Everyone on this planet knows that christians have killed more people than any other religion, and its not even close. Every stats from every war combined will tell you that(how many people did christan kill in WW2 .. end of story/checkmate, and that's only one fucking war). Its like asking you "PROVE TO ME THAT WE BREATHE AIR". And you laugh at me for asking something so ridiculously retarded and responding with "case in point"
 
That what? Your comment was in response(why am i not surprised) to me laughing at what happened in that video. HENCE THE LAUGHING EMOJI. Dont respond(doubt thats going to happen) next time if you cant even figure out the most simple of gestures

Due to your combative nature you assumed that my comment to your link was a disagreement with you in some way, it was simply my thoughts on the link itself.

Dude, you asked me why i think hes a communist, and then basically said he was a socialist. Are you okay? What was insulting to me was you trying to tell me what i think. What was insulting was you saying "you win just because of your constant responses" .. after responding to every.single.one.of.my.posts. Oh the irony in that statement :lol:

Social liberal =/= socialist.

It means he's in favour of liberal democracy and social programs.

Edit: this could be off-base in terms of describing @Einherjar86's politics though. I'm just saying I haven't seen anything to suggest he is a communist.

Case in point? All you are doing there is displaying a ignorant trait that is not respectable in the least. Everyone on this planet knows that christians have killed more people than any other religion, and its not even close. Every stats from every war combined will tell you that(how many people did christan kill in WW2 .. end of story/checkmate, and that's only one fucking war). Its like asking you "PROVE TO ME THAT WE BREATHE AIR". And you laugh at me for asking something so ridiculously retarded and responding with "case in point"

Being a Christian and killing someone =/= killing someone in the name of Christianity.
 
My mistake, does "christians have killed and slaughtered faaaaaarr more people(including other christians) sound better do you? That's what i meant anyway. OH NO LOOK HE SAID HE MADE A MISTAKE :lol:

Due to your combative nature you assumed that my comment to your link was a disagreement with you in some way, it was simply my thoughts on the link itself.
No, clearly i assumed you were in some disagreement because i laughed at that video and you responded to me with "BUT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO AS THEY PLEASE". You don't see it?
 
I didn't even see the laughing emoticon, the page was still loading. :rolleyes:

You really turn into Sherlock Holmes in order to be offended sometimes. Like a jealous girlfriend hacking her boyfriend's email account just to plunge herself into drama.
 
Social liberal =/= socialist.

It means he's in favour of liberal democracy and social programs.

Sad, you truly cannot have this conversation with me when you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how communism and socialism work. Do you not see that this country has slowly been pushed towards socialism by the exact same groups of people both of us have mentioned in these posts? Why am i even asking you, an australian trevor noah, about our politics anyway? Please don't respond.
 
... haha. Then come punch me. And i dont mean the type of punch that HBB would ask for(in the butt).

oh and btw 3:00am is when i got to sleep almost every day. Sometimes 2ish, never earlier.

edit: Lol, motherfucker at least let me respond first. Didn't catch this stealthy edit ...


sw-gif-dont-forget-your-promise.gif
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
Back to that one video of the raging faggot who wanted to fuck jesus in the ass.

I don't think you can kick someone out of your place just because they don't like gays, the same way you cant kick someone out just because they're gay. Discrimination or whatnot. I could be wrong though.

That being said what was in that guys hand? Was that some awesome painting with "blood on the hands of gays" or something?

edit: so technically, you might be wrong(again) about the "his right" part.
 
Last edited:
Iranian president defends nuclear deal, says Trump can not undermine it.
“Even if 10 other Trumps are created in the world, these are not reversible.”


edit: so technically, you might be wrong(again) about the "his right" part.

Could be. I just watched the video (earlier I only read the article) and that faggot seemed extremely unreasonable.
Still, not sure if it's illegal to ask someone to leave your privately owned establishment, though I suppose this falls under religious discrimination?

Personally I think if the citizen has the right to boycott a company, that company should also be allowed to refuse service to anybody they want to.


go-away.gif
 
jcknck.gif


... lol, see what i mean. It's not that hard to admit you're wrong.

I'm somewhat on the same page, but even more extreme. If its is your establishment, you can ask anyone you want to leave no questions asked. But sadly, no that's not how it works out here. I don't think he can say "leave because you dont like gays". But that paper/drawing that was in his hand is probably the main factor there. Also i think restaurants, bars, coffee shops etc are considered "public places"
 
Who is saying we shouldn't? Inventing the concept of "zero" doesn't mean we should go through another hundred years of grovelling at the feet (or under the sword) of a regressive religion and culture. We've already been through that.



There is extensive polling data on British Muslims on these subjects.

After all, the subject should be Islam in the west.
Of course majority Muslim countries are going to be regressive as fuck.



It would be interesting to see what American or British Christians think should happen to adulterers, or whether they think homosexuality should be illegal.

In the end it wouldn't prove the point you'd hope it would, this is just more of you being unprincipled and thinking two wrongs make a right. If polling shows that Christians are even nearly as regressive as Muslims are in their views on homosexuality, women's liberation etc then that is just more reason to oppose regressive religious culture.

I'm confused as to why any of this makes me "unprincipled."

I explained my difference in attitude toward Charlottesville and Boston as being one of practically telling the difference between an event defined by its violence and one that cannot be defined by violence. I also admitted that I wouldn't call a Trump rally a violent event, whether you believe me or not. In other words, there's a demonstrative difference between the Charlottesville protest and a Trump rally.

I also have never said we can't criticize Islamic culture. I'd fear to live in a country where that was prohibited. So I'm not sure what right you think I'm deriving from two wrongs.

My comment about Christianity wasn't intended to absolve Islam of its criticisms. It was intended to show that we give Christians the benefit of the doubt when it comes to opinions on adultery and feminism, whereas we don't think twice about polling Muslims. That is what I would call "unprincipled."

And no, I'm not a communist. Although I don't think people should feel shame for admitting they are communist, I wouldn't call myself one: http://borrowingfromthefuture.blogspot.com/2014/09/dr-freelove-or-how-i-learned-to-stop.html
 
Although I don't think people should feel shame for admitting they are communist, I wouldn't call myself one

I think they should probably feel some shame, if only because of how roundly defeated it is as an ideology, as well as the history of human atrocities attached to it. I'm not concerned about shame, I just don't like self-censorship. It needs to be out in the open so we can debate it, same goes for fascism and any other ridiculous belief system or political ideology.
 
I'm confused as to why any of this makes me "unprincipled."

Because incessantly bringing up Christianity is simply a diversion. Leave it to history discussions, a few abortion clinic bombings doesn't stack up in importance to the subject of contemporary Islam.

I also have never said we can't criticize Islamic culture. I'd fear to live in a country where that was prohibited. So I'm not sure what right you think I'm deriving from two wrongs.

Are you saying "prohibited" as in, via government law? Because that's an easy position, most people don't want that, even the most hysterical progressive-stack obsessed social justice warrior doesn't want criticism of Islam to be illegal.

My comment about Christianity wasn't intended to absolve Islam of its criticisms. It was intended to show that we give Christians the benefit of the doubt when it comes to opinions on adultery and feminism, whereas we don't think twice about polling Muslims. That is what I would call "unprincipled."

That's false, there is extensive polling on the general Christian position on these subjects, you can simply look them up.

Views about homosexuality by religious group.png

The reason the polling data on Muslims comes up is because a) it's a fast growing demographic in the west, especially in Europe b) the religion has a problem with radicalization right now and c) Muslim majority countries are distinct in just how illiberal they are, even in so-called moderate shining examples of Islamic civility like Indonesia.
 
"We need to be a more diverse society until it starts jeopardizing our interests"

it actually makes logical sense and i've been waiting for this to show up for quite some time.

africans who immigrate here are usually wealthy and educated and are on another privilege level than indigenous blacks here. it's interesting seeing a plethora of black film stars coming from england and i've been hilariously waiting until they all start getting shit on because they aren't american blacks, the truest of the ill privileged
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
Because incessantly bringing up Christianity is simply a diversion. Leave it to history discussions, a few abortion clinic bombings doesn't stack up in importance to the subject of contemporary Islam.

It's not a diversion, it's a reminder. I'm sorry if you find it annoying, but I'm not trying to foreclose discussion of Islamic radicalism. I'm trying to dissuade the fear-mongering that has already infected so many Americans who recoil when they see a woman wearing a burqa. It's important to balance our critique, and reminders are an effective way to do that.

Are you saying "prohibited" as in, via government law? Because that's an easy position, most people don't want that, even the most hysterical progressive-stack obsessed social justice warrior doesn't want criticism of Islam to be illegal.

I'm talking about legal and social prohibition. I'm not saying you can't criticize Islam; but I do believe it's the role of discourse at large to balance your criticism with skepticism. This isn't relativism, but an attempt to situate the discussion within a larger context, which I believe is absolutely necessary for having a legitimate discussion.

A related example--there are plenty of Palestinian families who will never consider bombing Israeli communities; but when we read about Palestinian opinions of such attacks, we're horrified to learn that they often support them. It's much easier to understand that position when you consider Israeli-Palestinian relations since WWII.

Does that mean that Palestinian attacks on Jewish families are justified? No, absolutely not, and it would be absurd to say that I'm proposing such a position. All I would be saying is that we can separate anti-terrorist efforts from our perception of individual Palestinians who happen to not care that much about dead Israelis.

That's false, there is extensive polling on the general Christian position on these subjects, you can simply look them up.

Thank you--I figured there had to be something, but I didn't find any handy graphs at a quick search.

And as you say, that graph reveals that organized does need to be criticized, especially all the Evangelical Protestant bullshit.

The reason the polling data on Muslims comes up is because a) it's a fast growing demographic in the west, especially in Europe b) the religion has a problem with radicalization right now and c) Muslim majority countries are distinct in just how illiberal they are, even in so-called moderate shining examples of Islamic civility like Indonesia.

That all makes sense; but many American Christians are hypocrites when they condemn Islam but forgive their own homophobic or anti-feminist attitudes. So in that respect, that's a helpful graph. It's too bad America is predominantly made up of the descendants of Puritans and Calvinists.