Upload
Login or register
Newest
Realtime Comments: On
Online User List [+] Online: (4): akkere, pebar, sunsetshimmer, theism, anonymous(5).
asd
#113986 - anon id: 0008804a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Reminder the Nazis were run and funded by Jews.
#113992 to #113986 - asotil
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
User avatar #113988 to #113986 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Did you also know that jews were run and funded by Jews?
#113989 to #113988 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
GIF
#113987 to #113986 - anon id: 0008804a
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
User avatar #113966 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
**canyou rolled user autosubmit **

This guy has both a "Coexist" and a Darwin fish bumper sticker.
User avatar #113967 to #113966 - canyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
/autism/11618713

Fucking confirmed.
#113961 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
John Stossel has lung cancer
User avatar #114066 to #113961 - undeadwill
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
Lets just hope he makes it.
User avatar #113973 to #113961 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
It's caught early so he'll be k.
User avatar #113965 to #113961 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/04/20/stossel-have-lung-cancer-my-medical-care-is-excellent-but-customer-service-stinks.html

"My doctors tell me my growth was caught early and I'll be fine. Soon I will barely notice that a fifth of my lung is gone. I believe them. After all, I'm at New York-Presbyterian Hospital. U.S. News & World Report ranked it No. 1 in New York. I get excellent medical care here."
User avatar #113962 to #113961 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Damn, that sucks. He was a cool dood.
User avatar #113944 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
What's the consensus on Ronald Reagan? If you like him why? If you don't why not?
User avatar #113980 to #113944 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Tripled the national debt, expanded the drug wars, supported the brady bill, and promoted reckless foreign policy. He's definitely not the small government president as conservatives make him out to be and i'm definitely not a fan of him.
User avatar #113981 to #113980 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
^^^^^^^
User avatar #113957 to #113944 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
JFK was dope.
User avatar #113958 to #113957 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
What was dope about him?
User avatar #113953 to #113944 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
He's overrated
it's impossible for someone who's treated like a god to not be overrated
User avatar #113954 to #113953 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
But what's your overall opinion of him?
User avatar #113955 to #113954 - pebar
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
I don't know much about him so it'd be irresponsible to have an opinion
User avatar #113956 to #113955 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Fair point.
User avatar #113946 to #113944 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
I want to say I like him but I honestly don't know that much about him in particular. He's one of the topics I have lined up to read about.
User avatar #113947 to #113946 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
It's interesting how he's almost deified in American media, and not just by conservatives. Personally I think Reagan made many terrible decisions, and honestly should have been impeached over Iran Contra.
User avatar #113948 to #113947 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
I've heard from both sides how he was either the grestest or the worst. Like I said, I'm trying to stray away from identity politics and I'll make my own opinions as I read up on it. But generally our dealings with Iran especially before Reagan and Afghanistan have historically been extremely controversial and pretty shitty decisions in hindsight.
User avatar #113949 to #113948 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
The thing about IC was it was actually illegal, I said it was treasonous earlier but that's controversial. He certainly circumvented the law to arm a state with an embargo against it to secure funds for Latin American terrorists (Contras).
User avatar #113952 to #113949 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
I'll read up on it soon.
User avatar #113932 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36094575

I'm surprised nobody else has posted this.

I don't know what to think about it. He hasn't shown any remorse but how can you rehabilitate someone in solitary confinement?
Should they even try to rehabilitate him though?
User avatar #113941 to #113932 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
"Another survivor, Bjorn Ihler, tweeted that the judgement in Breivik's favour showed Norway had a "working court system, respecting human rights even under extreme conditions"."

Pretty much this
User avatar #113963 to #113941 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
that guy that got gay raped by a drugged up somalian for several hours, and felt bad for his rapist when they wanted to kick him out of the country, was also Norwegian.

Strange folks
User avatar #113938 to #113932 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Should they try and rehabilitate him? Absolutely not. Some people are beyond it. Killing 67 people isn't something that can be rehabilitated.

But he should still be afforded basic human rights while in prison. I don't think I'd ever support inhumane punishment regardless of the crime.
User avatar #113979 to #113938 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Didn't you support Trump though? How can you square his views on torture with your support for him?
User avatar #113994 to #113979 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
I've never outright been 100% behind Trump. I'll vote for him if he's the nominee,but that's not to say I support everything he advocates for.

For instance he supports single payer healthcare and restrictions on free trade. The values on torture and how to treat a prisoner is a complicated moral issue. The reason I don't personally advocate for mistreatment of prisoners (usually) is because I believe we need to hold ourselves at a higher standard. I say usually, because there may be instances where torturing an individual for information may very well turn the tide of a war, or prevent an attack that will save many lives. In that case, is one person's pain worth how many others lives? It's a moral issue that is very hard to deal with in absolutes.
User avatar #113935 to #113932 - seniorawesomesauce
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
>Mass murderer winning a human right's case

He has like, the best lawyer of all time.
User avatar #113942 to #113935 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Norway's just very "open" lets say when it comes to its judicial system.
User avatar #113898 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
It has been 0 days since a school shooting

Thankfully nobody died this time
User avatar #113905 to #113898 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I can't find it
but such an insignificant event will still be cited in massacre statistics to inflate the need for gun control
User avatar #113937 to #113905 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
it was in Wash U of St Louis
User avatar #113940 to #113937 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Just looked it up. Was one person who was wounded and it wasn't directly on campus.
User avatar #113939 to #113937 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
What? I have friends that go there. Link?
#113860 - alimais
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Kurds are suddenly attacking Assad forces
User avatar #113862 to #113860 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
wat, i thought Kurds where neutral over Assad and mainly resisted ISIS.
User avatar #113866 to #113862 - alimais
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Kurds are a wildcard/joker since their ideology is creating their own little Israel.

They might not be crazy religious zealots but crazy nationalistic.
User avatar #113868 to #113866 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Interesting, since Rojava seems more anarchistic and leftist than nationalist from what i've seen.
User avatar #113870 to #113868 - alimais
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
What I hear all the time is that they are commies
User avatar #113896 to #113870 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Problem is they hate Erdogan more than ISIS
User avatar #113897 to #113896 - alimais
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
And Erdogan hates them more than ISIS
User avatar #113902 to #113897 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I really dont see what theyre trying to gain here by attacking Assad's forces

If they want their own land, they have a much better shot at getting it thorugh Assad than ISIS
User avatar #113899 to #113897 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Yup
#113856 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I'm most likely going to college/university at some point in the near/medium future. Are there any good ways to use that as an opportunity to represent national socialism in local politics? What's the best way for me to go about getting involved in politics as a Canadian student?
User avatar #113964 to #113856 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Personally I find it appalling that people in this thread tell you not to do it. Although I strongly disagree with national socialism it's your right to fight for it without being threatened with being expelled or worse.
Now to your question, you should first try to find like-minded people before engaging in local politics. Perhaps set up fliers where you can get in touch anonymously, so people won't be scared off.
User avatar #113993 to #113964 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Legally speaking, can they do that?
User avatar #114046 to #113993 - thumbfortrump
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Keegstra

I'm afraid so. But it's all about deliverance. You have to wrap it up in a way that they can't get to you, all the while fighting for the right to say what you want.
User avatar #114013 to #113993 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
If there's a code of student conduct you'll almost certainly find yourself facing some disciplinary action which could be expulsion.
User avatar #113925 to #113856 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Just get yourself a flag and some boots and march up and down. I'm sure you'll get exactly what you deserve.
#113906 to #113856 - pebar
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
you will destroy your future
User avatar #113861 to #113856 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
If you don't want to get your ass expelled or even arrested i suggest moderating your stances and work with conservatives.
User avatar #113863 to #113861 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I'm thinking of forming a National Association, just a general group of nationalists and conservatives.
User avatar #113859 to #113856 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Are you fucking retarded? You aren't going to find any way to represent National Socialism at university or in Canada. Put that dream to bed before someone puts you to bed.
User avatar #113825 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I've noticed a lot of hatred towards Jews from the British left-wing recently. Like the Labour Party and the National Union of Students really seem to have elements of intense anti-semitism.

All "le happy merchant, good goy, oy vey shut it down, JIDF" aside it just seems really escalated and out of place.

Like it's one thing to be opposed to the practices of Israel, but it's another thing when campaigns working with the NUS say Jews caused 9/11, or when Labour members actively praised Hitler.
User avatar #113959 to #113825 - mixednuts
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Isn't this the kind of shit that they expelled George Galloway over?
User avatar #113927 to #113825 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I think it's because they have become more authoritarian and the common sympathy for the Palestinians has hardened into opposition against Israel. More extreme people are jumping on the back of that.
#113837 to #113825 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
It's just jealousy. Whites are subhumans compared to Ashkenazi Jews. Enjoy being ruled by us forever you fucking apes.
User avatar #113845 to #113837 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Oy Vey you're not supposed to leak the plans of the ZOG to the goyims.
User avatar #113846 to #113845 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Immediately thumb me up now or I will instruct my elders at Zion to wipe your bank account from existence.
User avatar #113838 to #113837 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
ehhh
I dont have much respect for the Polish Jews
Czech, Hungarian, and Russian I do
User avatar #113839 to #113838 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
That's just retarded. Polish Jews are basically Germanic Jews which are ashkenazi and bare little difference to other white Jews. Not to mention
User avatar #113841 to #113839 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
there were no shtetls in Germany where the Jews just rolled over and accepted death without lifting a finger like they did in Poland
User avatar #113842 to #113841 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
...what
User avatar #113843 to #113842 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
there was little to no resistance in Poland by the Jews when the Germans came in

which is why I dont have respect for them
User avatar #113844 to #113843 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
So because Polish Jews were genocided easiest of us all, you have the least respect for them? Is that really your argument?
User avatar #113848 to #113844 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Also just out of curiosity

Where is your family from
#113849 to #113848 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
User avatar #113852 to #113849 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
nice

my dads side is almost entirely from Prague and my moms side is split around between Hungary, Romania, and Russia
User avatar #113847 to #113844 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
All of them were going to get killed
But to die with zero dignity simply makes me lose my respect for them
To accept being lined up in front of a barn and shot without saying a word or lifting a finger
User avatar #113850 to #113847 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Weren't most Jews lined up and killed with little resistance? Am I missing some important history lesson because I don't know where you got this from?
User avatar #113851 to #113850 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
way more in Poland and Belarus than elsewhere
User avatar #113853 to #113851 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Where did you hear this from? Also what was the exact difference between Poland and Jews in other countries?
User avatar #113855 to #113853 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Belarus is such a shitty country

between that and then all the radiation from Chernobyl
User avatar #113854 to #113853 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
altho

I guess its a fair point that the Nazis used this method way more often in Poland and Belarus
User avatar #113840 to #113839 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I don't know why I wrote "Not to mention" and kept it. My bad.
User avatar #113822 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.
User avatar #113857 to #113822 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Heat does cause increased aggression. That's why Canadians/Nords are so happy.
User avatar #113835 to #113822 - kanadetenshi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
ISIS saw videos on youtube of polar bears on thin ice and that's why they're so angry all the time.
User avatar #113831 to #113822 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
im assuming youre being sarcastic

but to some extent it probably is
User avatar #113833 to #113831 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Bernie Sanders is.
User avatar #113836 to #113833 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
i mean
desertification is drastically happening around the world
and people get pissed off when they run out of recources


granted we still need to kill every single ISIS member
#113832 to #113831 - feelythefeel
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #113816 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Harriet Tubman to replace Jackson on the $20
User avatar #113960 to #113816 - mixednuts
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
I mean considering Jackson's opposition to a central bank, it's really pretty fitting.
User avatar #114006 to #113960 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Jackson's opposition to central banking is why he's on the twenty. It's one of the longest running digs in history.
User avatar #113998 to #113960 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
That's such a cop out from the real problem.
#114029 to #113998 - mixednuts
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
>Problem
User avatar #114030 to #114029 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
It's just another small step to the SJW utopia, a place where diversity will always be above merit, and I say this as a Democrat.
User avatar #114033 to #114031 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
Thank you Mr. Ten Hours Late to the Party.

Merit > Diversity, not the other way.
User avatar #114037 to #114033 - mixednuts
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
And how does Harriet Tubman lack in merit?
User avatar #114038 to #114037 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
I can't explain what I've already said numerous times, you'd have to read the arguments I've made below.
User avatar #114040 to #114038 - mixednuts
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
" who a good number of Americans probably know nothing about anyhow. "

Any American who's taken a history class knows who Harriet Tubman is. You're not an American, so it's understandable that you'd think that. She's a popular folk hero. There are already numerous statues in her honor and places named after her. I think it's reflective of American heritage. It'd be like if Canada put Terry Fox on a bill.
User avatar #113834 to #113816 - kanadetenshi
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Like i'm glad that her achievements are recognized but this really is just using her for "brave wymyn can be on currency too!!!"
User avatar #113829 to #113816 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
She got on the currency just because she's a woman rather than her accomplishments. Seems really counter productive.
User avatar #113969 to #113829 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36099791

Her accomplishments were pretty great. What's your evidence?
User avatar #113971 to #113969 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
She was literally chosen as part of a campaign to get women on the bill. If she was chosen out of a group of male and female heroes it would seem more like she was chosen out of merit rather than because they just needed a woman.
User avatar #113978 to #113971 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
She's replacing Jackson who, in my opinion, should never have been on there. What was his merit?

She was chosen out of a group of potential female historical figures. I don't see the problem with this.
User avatar #113982 to #113978 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
It's ironic too since Jackson hated fiat currency and central banking.

The problem is that they focused on the female part, they don't give a shit about her accomplishments as long as she's a woman.
User avatar #113983 to #113982 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
I don't see why she shouldn't be on there. I don't agree with the process of selecting from a single gender but you can't tell me that whatever the process was which selected Jackson made any sense.
So I'm happy he's gone and she's on there.
User avatar #113984 to #113983 - kanadetenshi
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
I don't really give a shit since i'm pretty confident fiat currency will be replaced with crypto currency in a few decades.
User avatar #113997 to #113984 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
I think I gave a good enough argument below for why she shouldn't be put. The "picking out of a single-gender" argument is not enough, Tubman literally does not deserve the position compared to others. She isn't merited enough.
User avatar #113823 to #113816 - feelythefeel
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Maybe he'll come back on the million dollar note.
User avatar #113821 to #113816 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
why did they pick Tubman of all people

as opposed to like JFK

I see Tubman beat out Hamilton who also wouldve been a fine choice
User avatar #113970 to #113821 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
JFK is on a coin.
User avatar #113975 to #113970 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
plus Tubman and others are now gonna be on the back of the $10 as well as the $20
User avatar #113977 to #113975 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
So?
User avatar #113974 to #113970 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
people only use quarters
User avatar #113871 to #113821 - asotil
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Black
Woman

Do I need to goysplain more
User avatar #113824 to #113821 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Hamilton is already on the $10 bill
User avatar #113827 to #113824 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
holy fuck im out of it right now

i hardcore misread some source that i thought said tubman beat out a surprisingly popular hamilton
User avatar #113828 to #113827 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
she almost replaced him but that caused a controversy because Hamilton was a reasonable person, despite his many flaws
User avatar #113830 to #113828 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
yea i agree
#113820 to #113816 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
......................................................why

Like seriously why.
User avatar #113929 to #113820 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Why not?
User avatar #113933 to #113929 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Good question. The dollar bills have had a history of having very important people on them, and by that I mean either a founder or a President. I see absolutely no reason why this is happening aside from filling diversity quotas like pebar said. Is it any coincidence the newest bill has a black-women on it? Her story is not nearly as important as one of another founder or President.

Why did we not put Ronald Reagan on there, or JFK, or FDR? Why did we choose not to have some iconic President who forever changed the course of history? It's because of diversity quotas. Hell I won't mind if they put Barack Obama on the $10 40 years from now, but why the fuck is it some ugly looking black women who a good number of Americans probably know nothing about anyhow. The fact that this is purposefully done is what robs it of meaning for me. To be on the bill you need to be some legendary figure, not just a regular citizen who did a lot of good.
User avatar #113934 to #113933 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
JFK and FDR are both already on coins. I don't know about Reagan, maybe it's too soon. Is he quite a divisive figure in the US, I don't know?

I don't really see the problem though.

User avatar #113936 to #113934 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I just explained the problem. Its a diversity quota, its not based on actual merit. That pisses me off.
User avatar #113968 to #113936 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
It seems pretty well merited:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36099791
User avatar #113972 to #113968 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
I don't need a history lesson, I know who she is. There are plenty of heroes out there in American history, doesn't mean they deserve a place on the most commonly used bills. She certainly does not.
User avatar #113976 to #113972 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Compared to Jackson who opposed a Central bank and was complicit in genocide?

Is there any female candidate you would have supported?
User avatar #113985 to #113976 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
>Compared to Jackson who opposed a Central bank and was complicit in genocide?

Jackson served two terms, he is far more influential regardless of whether he was a scumbag or not.

>Is there any female candidate you would have supported?

This is actually a good question you asked, before I explain why. Let me say the answer is no. The answer is no because no women has been influential enough to be put on the bill as far as I can tell. In Canada for example we have a motherfucking Queen, we put her on the bill. America has had no such figure that is worthy of such an honor. But by asking that question you pretty much prove my main idea, why the hell do we need to have a women? Why can we not pick the most influential person, why must we actively try to pick a women (which is what they did). Why must it be diversity quota before merit? This is what pisses me off about the left, they'll actively try to pick a women for the bill instead of a person worthy of such merit, and then label you a "sexist" for asking why the hell they're doing that. Prime Minister Trudeau in Canada, after election assembled a cabinet with exactly 50% women and men, and when asked why he said "because its 2015". Do you seriously support something like this? If you don't then you shouldn't support the bill. Because though I have changed greatly over the past month, I cannot respect anyone who believes in what Trudeau did.
User avatar #113995 to #113985 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
I don't agree with Trudeau but I don't think that's relevant here.

I think we're looking at this from a different perspective. I'm considering the merit of what a person has done and you're considering their influence. I agree Jackson changed America but I don't think that equates to merit.
User avatar #113996 to #113995 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
>I don't agree with Trudeau but I don't think that's relevant here.
It's completely relevant because its the exact same idea, with the exact same principle behind it. Diversity BEFORE merit

> I'm considering the merit of what a person has done and you're considering their influence. I agree Jackson changed America but I don't think that equates to merit

I'm not arguing purely for influence, but good influence is directly tied to merit. There are many people in American history like Tubman who are very good people, that doesn't equal merit. There are few people in American history who were good founding fathers or presidents, those deserve the position. Tubman does not merit being put on the $20 when you compare her to other people again, she may be as good, but she was hardly as known or influential, and thus is NOT merited . The $20 position should be given to someone like FDR, are you really going to argue she deserves it more than him?

Again, diversity over merit just like Trudeau, a principled person would object to this
User avatar #113999 to #113996 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
No, Trudeau made a 50% gender split regardless of merit. I'm arguing that the inclusion of Tubman is merited regardless of gender.

I'm not sure how you're defending the inclusion of Jackson when he didn't merit it and would even have opposed the issuing of the bill he was on.

FDR, by the way, is already on the Dime, I still think she merits it.
User avatar #114001 to #113999 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
>Trudeau made a 50% gender split regardless of merit. I'm arguing that the inclusion of Tubman is merited regardless of gender.

I think I can break this down into two arguments. Now you've already admitted in your talk with kanade above that picking from a group of females purely to get a female on the bill is wrong. "I don't agree with the process of selecting from a single gender". However you say regardless of that, she still merits the position. Like I said above, I disagree. I already gave you the reasons in my previous comment.

>I'm not sure how you're defending the inclusion of Jackson when he didn't merit it and would even have opposed the issuing of the bill he was on.

I'm not defending the inclusion of Jackson, you made that up. I'm all for changing it to someone less evil, but lets pick a person who merits the position. Tubman does not.

>I still think she merits it.
She doesn't. Even imagining it from a hierarchy perspective. There is the highest of possible merit and the lowest of possible merit. She was a good person, but she does not have the highest of possible merit. To argue she is the MOST merited person is absolute lunacy, you'd literally be saying out of all the Americans in history, her resume is the best for the job. That's just silly talk.
User avatar #114002 to #114001 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
Your argument that she doesn't deserve it is entirely subjective and I simply disagree with you.

You did defend the inclusion of Jackson based on his influence previously:

"Jackson served two terms, he is far more influential regardless of whether he was a scumbag or not."

So, I didn't 'make it up'.
User avatar #114004 to #114002 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
>Your argument that she doesn't deserve it is entirely subjective and I simply disagree with you.

You have given me absolutely no argument to defend your position. Obviously its subjective, but so is almost all of politics so that's such a cop out argument I've been seeing a lot lately. I'm only left to assume you're just playing the politics game, because the left wants it, you defend it.

>"Jackson served two terms, he is far more influential regardless of whether he was a scumbag or not."
"I'm not sure how you're defending the inclusion of Jackson"

I clearly did not defend putting Jackson on the bill, I'm only defending him over Tubman. So yes you did "make it up".
User avatar #114008 to #114004 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/21/2016) [-]
The argument I am giving you is:

Given what she did in her life I believe she merits being put on the bill. You disagree and that's fine.

I clearly didn't make it up, you defended Jackson's inclusion - relative to Tubman or not it doesn't matter - you were arguing he was more deserving.
User avatar #114028 to #114008 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
>I clearly didn't make it up, you defended Jackson's inclusion - relative to Tubman or not it doesn't matter - you were arguing he was more deserving.

Look, if you're going to argue about quotes. At least directly show it in the quote. Let me bring it up for you once again... sigh

"Jackson served two terms, he is far more influential regardless of whether he was a scumbag or not."
"I'm not sure how you're defending the inclusion of Jackson"

Again, in the first quote. I did not defend the "inclusion" of Jackson, no where did I say that. I simple defended having him OVER her, there are people who merit the position more than him, since he seems to be a mixed bag. You're literally making things up, if you want to argue language, please show the quote directly.

>Given what she did in her life I believe she merits being put on the bill. You disagree and that's fine.
Is she the MOST merited person? Out of all American's in history, she merits it most?

Also if you disagree with intentionally picking a women instead of a person with the highest merit, just like the Treasury department did. Does that not inherently prove my point, they had to weed out the men in the beginning because they knew if it was purely based on merit then a man would have been on the bill? How exactly are you going to get around that fact?
User avatar #114050 to #114028 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
I'm not 'literally making things up'. I said above you defended him relative to Tubman, meaning OVER her.

Regardless, Jackson will still be on the bill just on the other side.

You're presenting your opinion as fact if you think that only men would be on the bills if it were based upon merit - I think it's because you're still factoring influence in as merit. Again, we disagree on what is meritorious which is fine but don't present your opinion as fact.
User avatar #114056 to #114050 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
>I'm not 'literally making things up'. I said above you defended him relative to Tubman, meaning OVER her.

You know you've lost the argument, when you change the goal-post.
"You did defend the inclusion of Jackson based on his influence previously: "
" clearly didn't make it up, you defended Jackson's inclusion - relative to Tubman or not it doesn't matter - you were arguing he was more deserving."

Thought I wouldn't notice you changed the accusation in your second reply? You almost got me.
User avatar #114055 to #114050 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/22/2016) [-]
You've failed to answer my questions. I would like an answer

"Is she the MOST merited person? Out of all American's in history, she merits it most?"

"Also if you disagree with intentionally picking a women instead of a person with the highest merit, just like the Treasury department did. Does that not inherently prove my point, they had to weed out the men in the beginning because they knew if it was purely based on merit then a man would have been on the bill? How exactly are you going to get around that fact?"

Please I'd love to hear your counter-argument.
User avatar #113826 to #113820 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
diversity quotas
User avatar #113858 to #113826 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
People also don't like having Andrew Jackson on money on account of the genocide.
#113788 - anon id: ecddfc24
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
User avatar #113815 to #113788 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
say ur not gei
#113789 to #113788 - anon id: ecddfc24
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
#113786 - anon id: ee1a2b67
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
#113784 - youregaylol
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Amazing news, Jill Stein is reaching out to Bernie for a third party run and the bernie cultists are loving it.

www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4fl0so/dr_jill_stein_on_twitter_yes_i_want_to_talk_w/

I have my reservations, but if Cuckie is actually stupid enough to run as a third party we will win handily.
#113785 to #113784 - anon id: ee1a2b67
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Well there are Republicans considering voting for Gary Johnson should Trump win the nomination.

There's also a lot of Bernie supporters who likely would have been apathetic if it weren't for his campaign. I can't imagine she's stealing votes from too many Democrats or Democrat leaners.
#113780 to #113779 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I have said it once and im gonna say it again.
Utah is my go-to state when Europe kills itself
User avatar #113810 to #113780 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Utah's got a lot of Mormon's, and Mormon's can get pretty strange.
User avatar #113811 to #113810 - lotengo
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
i dont care
#113787 to #113780 - anon id: ecddfc24
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Hope you aren't a big drinker...
#113777 - shekelnator
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
ITT: Tribute for Emperor Adolf Hitler Today it is his Birthday
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
- A. Hitler
#113748 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
So Bernie is finished.

And Trump is still winning. All you anti establishment niggas better jump aboard the Trump train.
#113766 to #113748 - pebar
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
#113769 to #113766 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Hey at least Trump is super entertaining. Enjoy.
#113745 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Im Just a Bill Transgender Schoolhouse Rock Parody One of those issues I don't understand how liberals have any argument for. Like seriously can someone explain to me why this is such a big deal, and what argument the left has?
User avatar #113916 to #113745 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Why is it unequal then? Are they less important? Is it a numerical issue? Is it the nature of the discomfort? I'd appreciate an answer this time.

Either case creates discomfort, it comes down to which discomfort is more important. Integration also caused discomfort, was that wrong? And again, your example relies on something involving issues beyond JUST DISCOMFORT. Fix up your argument by thinking for more than 2 seconds.

When I asked about segregated bathrooms you brought it back to discomfort so who exactly is the one arguing in circles here?
User avatar #113917 to #113916 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
>Why is it unequal then? Are they less important? Is it a numerical issue? Is it the nature of the discomfort? I'd appreciate an answer this time.

Yes yes yes yes. Transgender people are 0.20.3% of the population, a good amount of those can probably pull off the look. The rest who feel "discomfort" by not being allowed to enter the bathroom of the gender they are pretending to be is out-weighed by the discomfort of the many. I will repeat, those who can pull off the look aren't causing the discomfort. Its those who look disgusting and obviously masculine and manly.

>Either case creates discomfort, it comes down to which discomfort is more important.

The answer is extremely obvious, I'm not going to repeat what I already said above just fyi.

>Integration also caused discomfort, was that wrong?

Forced integration is wrong. If you polled Europeans, most probably don't want multiculturalism, they shouldn't be forced to go through it.

>And again, your example relies on something involving issues beyond JUST DISCOMFORT.

That's irrelevant to the point, its an exaggeration. But its good at showing how one level of discomfort is more important than the other. Rapists feel the discomfort of not raping, should those be as equal as the discomfort of being raped? No. Stop pretending like they are the same.

>When I asked about segregated bathrooms you brought it back to discomfort so who exactly is the one arguing in circles here?

I'm answering your questions, you're going in circles since you're directing the conversation. I will not repeat what I have already said.
User avatar #113918 to #113917 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
So then you feel that the minority's feelings are inherently less valuable?

I'm not talking about multiculturalism, I'm talking about saying "black people are allowed in the same buildings as white people".

Actually it's completely fucking relevant because the issue goes beyond discomfort. Are you too stupid to figure it out or are you deliberately trying to dance around that point?

So then both rely on arguing about discomfort? So your entire argument is about discomfort?
User avatar #113919 to #113918 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
>So then both rely on arguing about discomfort?

The main argument is it destroys the idea of segregated bathrooms. If we want a law passed giving one bathroom then we should focus on that. This kind of law is counter-productive. It's principle. People want the social order maintained, this allows it to be erased.

>So your entire argument is about discomfort?
Kinda, sure. Your point exactly?
User avatar #113920 to #113919 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
So both sides are quibbling about nebulous concepts and feelings. It comes down to which ideas you lend weight to.
User avatar #113921 to #113920 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
You can easily summarize many things like that, the "so what" argument you're seemingly implying is counter-productive and edgy. Your edge level is beyond the chart readings.
User avatar #113922 to #113921 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Jesus fucking christ, that's beyond strawman. Who they fuck are you supposed to be arguing against because that has nothing to do with anything I said?
User avatar #113923 to #113922 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
You're making non-arguments. All I'm hearing is "so what". Do you have any arguments left on the matter?
User avatar #113924 to #113923 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
That's not even fucking close to what I said. Are you retarded or is this your new tactic? I'm saying, both arguments rely equally on emotional appeal and appeals to intangible concepts. It comes down to which you value.
User avatar #113926 to #113924 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
>That's not even fucking close to what I said. Are you retarded or is this your new tactic?
I'm just summarizing this entire discussion in the way i think you were taking it.


>both arguments rely equally on emotional appeal and appeals to intangible concepts. It comes down to which you value
So you're arguing subjective morality. Ok that's a topic for another time. I gtg. Nice chat.
User avatar #113928 to #113926 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Then you're really not getting it man.

Yes, morality is inherently subjective.
User avatar #113930 to #113928 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Would you have any issue with using the disabled toilets provided for the purpose as they're already genderless?
User avatar #113931 to #113930 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Given the current social climate yeah that's the best compromise. Strikes me as close to "separate but equal" but it's the best option.
User avatar #113889 to #113745 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
That's what I'm responding to you stupid motherfucker.
User avatar #113890 to #113889 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
You seem to keep mis-understanding the argument somehow, I have no idea how. Usually I wouldn't even bother but I'll give you a chance.

Let me rephrase the rephrase of the original argument. I'll put it very simply.

This. law. eliminates. the. need. for. two. washrooms. It destroys the concept, throws it right out the window. It makes no sense.
User avatar #113891 to #113890 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
FUCKING EXACTLY MOTHERFUCKER. This is not a necessary concept. Your argument is just as emotional as their's.
User avatar #113892 to #113891 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
You completely fail to show how. My argument is the absence of emotion, its the argument of pure deductive logic. The law destroys the concept of two, gender washrooms. That's not an emotional argumewnt
User avatar #113893 to #113892 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Two gender restrooms aren't a concept based in logic.
User avatar #113894 to #113893 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Yes they are. Are you inferring we should have a gender-neutral bathroom? If so, that's a whole different argument that I do not agree with anyhow.
User avatar #113895 to #113894 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
What is the logical argument for gender segregated restrooms?
User avatar #113900 to #113895 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Women and men are different, its a civilized concept that promotes social order.
User avatar #113901 to #113900 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
How does it promote social order?
User avatar #113903 to #113901 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
People feel discomfort having to use the same bathroom of the opposite sex.
User avatar #113904 to #113903 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Discomfort is an emotional issue.
User avatar #113907 to #113904 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
...I don't think you understand what an argument of emotional appeal is. Rape is a discomfort, doesn't make it ok.

I'm gonna give you one more shot and if you say something unbelievably retarded I'm going to assume your baiting and end the conversation.
User avatar #113908 to #113907 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
The argument against rape goes beyond the discomfort it causes. Rape causes tangible damage. If the only appeal you can come up with relies on people's emotions it's an emotional argument. You don't want to acknowledge this because you feel it weakens your argument.
User avatar #113909 to #113908 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
So...you're literally arguing that it doesn't matter if women feel discomfort in being in the same washroom as men? You're just gonna tell them "yeah well your argument is emotional". "That's retarded sir" to quote Trayvon's girlfriend.

I don't think you understand, there exists more than just physical discomfort (mind blown). If you stripped me naked in front of thousands, I would feel discomfort. That is not physical discomfort, yet it is a good reason not to do it none the less. Stop playing super-edge.
User avatar #113910 to #113909 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I'm just letting you know you're being hypocritical. Do you back off on the point that the liberal argument is emotional or are you trying to dodge around that point?

So your case is that the discomfort some IS enough to control the behavior of others?
User avatar #113911 to #113910 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
>I'm just letting you know you're being hypocritical. Do you back off on the point that the liberal argument is emotional or are you trying to dodge around that point?

Did you forget everything I said in the last conversation? You may need to RE-READ what I wrote about the whole liberal-emotional thing.

>So your case is that the discomfort some IS enough to control the behavior of others?

Yes, just like the discomfort of me whipping my penis out to a crowd of women is enough to control my behavior. Yep, 100% buddy. You got it.

I don't know how you're going to argue that gender-neutral washrooms are ok even though plenty of women would find that discomforting, and plenty of men too. Your only argument is to ignore their discomfort because it isnt physical.
User avatar #113912 to #113911 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
So then you are trying to dodge around it. Great, on par with expectations. So then your argument is emotional, the liberal argument is emotional. Why does yours hold weight?
User avatar #113913 to #113912 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
>So then your argument is emotional, the liberal argument is emotional. Why does yours hold weight?

If your definition of an emotional argument is not of feeling physical harm, then yes I freely admit to using an emotional argument. Again, I implore you to RE-READ our discussion on the liberal thing and see what I said. You have consistently failed to present any argument against what I said, crying "emotion, emotion!" is not an argument. Human beings can feel non-physical discomfort too.

If I hang you upside down, naked in a concert hall from the ceiling. You wouldn't be bitching about using your "emotional" argument. Try again.
User avatar #113914 to #113913 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
My point is that your entire argument is hypocritical. What about the discomfort transgender people may feel because of this restriction? What about the discomfort of people forced to share a bathroom with people looking and acting like the opposite sex (transgender people if you're too thick to figure it out)? Again, you're lashing out because you don't feel confident in your own positions. Stop being a dick for no reason and people will actually feel like talking to you.
User avatar #113915 to #113914 - unforgivensoul
0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
The discomfort caused by "transgender" people having to use their assigned washrooms underlying assumption that it is only transgender people, which is stupid. Plenty of weirdos and cross-dressers have the ability to abuse this is not equal to the discomfort of others felt by them.

You want to create more discomfort to stop discomfort. It's stupid. It makes no sense. That would be like saying you should end my discomfort of not raping by allowing me to rape many, no.

Plus that hasn't even been my main argument this entire time, my main argument has been that this law erases the point of having segregated bathrooms. If you're going to keep going in circles, I'm gonna end this conversation.
User avatar #113864 to #113745 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I have to wonder how enforcement would work on that. Will they have genital/chromosome inspection or just go off guesses?
User avatar #113865 to #113864 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Off guesses, basically the way we do it now.
User avatar #113867 to #113865 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
There's currently no legislation about transgender people and bathrooms. So if a man looks feminine/woman looks masculine how can they prove they're allowed in the bathroom?
User avatar #113869 to #113867 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I'm pretty sure you aren't allowed to enter the women's changeroom as a man that's how it was at least , I want to keep it that way. We use our best guesses and we should continue to do so.
User avatar #113872 to #113869 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I don't think there's specific laws when it comes to transgender people and bathrooms, and many people think the concerns about this are silly. What exactly is the main fear about not policing who goes in what bathroom.
User avatar #113873 to #113872 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I've laid down my arguments while talking to the imbecile below.
User avatar #113874 to #113873 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
So you're main argument seems to be about discomfort. Is the discomfort of one person enough to control the behavior of another?
User avatar #113875 to #113874 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I'm gonna ignore that till you finish reading.
User avatar #113877 to #113875 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Any safety concern you would have is already covered by the law.
User avatar #113878 to #113877 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I guess I'm going to continue to ignore you then, you either haven't read enough or can't read.
User avatar #113879 to #113878 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Thanks for reminding why I don't like talking to you. I don't see a single argument presented below.
User avatar #113880 to #113879 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Did you read everything, everything?
User avatar #113881 to #113880 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
The closest thing I saw was you arguing over building separate bathrooms and saying to watch the video. Is your argument in the video?
User avatar #113882 to #113881 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
/politics/113767
"Your first argument is to just allow men who feel like they are women to go to female washrooms, this however sets a dangerous precedent of allowing any guy who "feels" like a women to go to the washroom. Its a matter of principle, a law like this eliminates the idea of two washrooms because now anyone can go anywhere. I don't even need to mention the fact that women are likely to feel uncomfortable by this or that this gives a lot of free-rain for pedos and creeps. "

/politics/113818#113818
"Let me rephrase the argument so you can process it better: This law eliminates the necessity for two washrooms. It entirely destroys that concept because now literally anyone can go anywhere. "

How did this slide through your eyes?
User avatar #113883 to #113882 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
There you go. Well the point is, the new law is the one placing restrictions not removing them. But really both arguments are purely emotional.
User avatar #113884 to #113883 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
uh ok, nice refute.
User avatar #113885 to #113884 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
You seem to take issue with how the liberal argument is purely emotional, you should understand your argument is emotional as well.
User avatar #113886 to #113885 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Again, nice refute.

Clarify and write more if you want me to take you seriously. When addressing an argument, you need to actually...well you know...address it. I'll be waiting.
User avatar #113887 to #113886 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Do you try to be a dick or is it just your default setting? You're appealing to some nebulous concepts here. The discomfort of some is important, but is discomfort a valid excuse or is it just emotion? You also appeal to the idea of segregated bathrooms as being necessary, are they really necessary?
User avatar #113888 to #113887 - unforgivensoul
0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
/politics/113882 Are you legitimately retarded?
User avatar #113876 to #113875 - theism
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
You didn't present any other arguments.
User avatar #113756 to #113745 - marinepenguin
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
The left is really keen on accepting people as they are and tolerating others lifestyles and cultures.

That alone isn't really a bad thing, but they tend to take it too far, and seem to be willing to shit on other people's rights to get these people forcibly accepted into society.

User avatar #113757 to #113756 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I'm curious if there is any logical argument for this.

shiny mixednuts redandgreen
User avatar #113817 to #113757 - redandgreen
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I'm probably not the best person for this as I think transgender people are probably suffering from some form of disorder.

In principle though, I think the problem is about sexual preference and gender not just gender. The argument against having men in the ladies or vice versa is based upon common sexual preference and the social discomfort from that.

However most places over here have a disabled toilet which isn't gender specific. It seems to me that they could just use that one.
User avatar #113819 to #113817 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I like your compromise, the problem is most liberals advocating for this would likely find your proposition insulting to say the least. So that won't work.
User avatar #113751 to #113745 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
the argument is that normal people are going to have a problem / be umcomfortable with a guy in a dress walking in to the mens room

and vice versa with a guy with a vagina walking into a womens room

transgender bathrooms would make it a lot all easier to avoid all that

User avatar #113752 to #113751 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Thanks for giving me the argument of the right, I was asking for the argument of the left...

>transgender bathrooms would make it a lot all easier to avoid all that
Making a bathroom for like 2% of the population is retarded.
User avatar #113754 to #113752 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
youre still avoiding potential conflict

that most definitely will eventually happen
#113755 to #113754 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
You're argument is completely asinine. As marinepenguin said, I was being super conservative with that 2% number. I looked it up and it's closer to 0.2-0.3%.

I hereby declare myself a ZENUU, and demand bathrooms for ZENUU people. Pay up Jew.
User avatar #113758 to #113755 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I personally believe theres only 2 genders

But transgenders should have a place because while theyre still either a guy or a girl, theres no reason to force them to use the bathroom of their former gender

If you dont want to make separate bathrooms then fine, but you at least have to let them use the bathroom of their choice, which is the opposite of the NC governor wants, which would mean a transgender boy born a female now a guy with a dick is still using the girls room
User avatar #113759 to #113758 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Did you even watch the video? It addresses your arguments.
User avatar #113761 to #113759 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
as a side note

genderfluid is probably a serious illness
User avatar #113760 to #113759 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
so what then

only full transition transgender people should be able to use the bathroom of their choice?

if youre worried about perverts
that problem will easily sort itself out
User avatar #113762 to #113760 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
>only full transition transgender people should be able to use the bathroom of their choice?
Yep

>that problem will easily sort itself out
Oh I know, NC got it covered. You still have literally no argument but pure emotion.
User avatar #113763 to #113762 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
what do you think of the religious freedom bill
User avatar #113764 to #113763 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Before I answer that, do you admit you have no argument against it?
User avatar #113765 to #113764 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
you claim to support the individual

how is choosing a bathroom not included in that
User avatar #113767 to #113765 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Do you at all realize the precedent you set when you use that argument?

"you claim to support the individual" You do realize there is a legitimate and reasonable limitation of this idea. You claim to support the individual, why not individual, private health care? You claim to support the individual, why not washrooms for ZENUU people? You claim to support the individual, please build a ramp for your house or I will sue you. You claim to support the individual, please grant me the right to rape women for my religion. What an abstract idea to draw an argument from. There is limitation on an idea like this just like there is limitation on everything, including even the laws of the land. Section one of the Charter of Rights and Freedom in Canada says not a single right is guaranteed.

Your first argument is to just allow men who feel like they are women to go to female washrooms, this however sets a dangerous precedent of allowing any guy who "feels" like a women to go to the washroom. Its a matter of principle, a law like this eliminates the idea of two washrooms because now anyone can go anywhere. I don't even need to mention the fact that women are likely to feel uncomfortable by this or that this gives a lot of free-rain for pedos and creeps.

Your bathroom proposal destroys the idea of being reasonable, it is fucking retarded to believe that every place should now build a 3rd washroom for fucking 0.2-0.3% of the population. You're a fucking political major for christ sake, how could you even bring up such a ridicolous, economically absurd idea. Come on dood. Grow the fuck up.
User avatar #113768 to #113767 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
i never said they should build new bathrooms

you just asked someone to present the liberal argument, which isnt my specific argument


so now,
what do you think of the religious freedom bill
User avatar #113770 to #113768 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
>you just asked someone to present the liberal argument, which isnt my specific argument

"I personally believe theres only 2 genders. But transgenders should have a place because while theyre still either a guy or a girl, theres no reason to force them to use the bathroom of their former gender." Sure sounds like yours but ok.

>what do you think of the religious freedom bill

I stand by the idea and principle that business should have the fundamental right to serve or deny service to whoever it wants under any reason, including being one tone too dark, or being atheist, or for waking up on the wrong side of the bed and feeling cunty. I don't think the government should force any private business to serve someone they do not want.
User avatar #113771 to #113770 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
"I personally believe theres only 2 genders. But transgenders should have a place because while theyre still either a guy or a girl, theres no reason to force them to use the bathroom of their former gender."

right
meaning they should use the bathroom of their current gender

and ok about the freedom bill - thats just your stance
I do think that that could lead to problems
especially with businesses like tow truck services
User avatar #113772 to #113771 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
>meaning they should use the bathroom of their current gender
So you have just clarified you want "transgender" people to use the bathroom of their "current" gender. I just went over that in the above rant, did you not read it? Please offer some counter-argument, I'm waiting in dying breath for a real fucking argument for this idea you have. Stop playing the identity politics or the muh feelings game, give me an argument.

>I do think that that could lead to problems
especially with businesses like tow truck services

There may need to be some exceptions made to this rule, but even if a black guy doesn't get help for his vehicle in some hick state. I wouldn't give up such an important idea for such a small thing.
User avatar #113774 to #113772 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
how is letting people who firmly believe theyre guys use the guys bathroom a bad argument

if business owners can refuse to service people because they firmly believe thats what their made up god says
then people should be able to choose which of the 2 bathrooms they use because they firmly believe they are some made up gender

just cause you dont agree with my argument
doesnt mean its a bad argument

i have to go finish homework now
User avatar #113775 to #113774 - unforgivensoul
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
>how is letting people who firmly believe theyre guys use the guys bathroom a bad argument

are you legitimately fucking kidding me? I fucking went over it in the above rant. wtf is wrong with you? /politics/113767 READ MOTHERFUCKER, READ. Also your assumption is that only "guys" who legitimately believe they are guys are going to do this, NO THAT'S RETARDED. The law allows anyone who identifies as a gender, to use that gender's washroom. So it can be literally anyone.

"if business owners can refuse to service people because they firmly believe thats what their made up god says
then people should be able to choose which of the 2 bathrooms they use because they firmly believe they are some made up gender "

...wut...like seriously wut. I don't understand the logic here at all. One is for a freer market, the other is for the destruction of gender bathrooms by undermining the idea of gender. The two do not share the same equivalency in terms of freedom.
User avatar #113813 to #113775 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
youre one and only argument against it is "you dont know who is going into the bathroom"

if theres a perfect that goes in, then hes gonna get yelled at for being a pervert and kicked out

to me
that is better and easier than forcing girls to use the boys bathroom and vice versa
#113818 to #113813 - unforgivensoul
0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
I honestly want to not insult you and call you a dumbass because you're a nice guy. But talking to you is absolutely infuriating, how stupid can you possible be? Does your brain process information or does it just go through you?

First off, I didn't present one argument. Second of all you didn't even address my main argument. This is literally me asking you for the THIRD time now to read the post.

/politics/113767

"Your first argument is to just allow men who feel like they are women to go to female washrooms, this however sets a dangerous precedent of allowing any guy who "feels" like a women to go to the washroom. Its a matter of principle, a law like this eliminates the idea of two washrooms because now anyone can go anywhere."

Let me rephrase the argument so you can process it better: This law eliminates the necessity for two washrooms. It entirely destroys that concept because now literally anyone can go anywhere.

"if theres a perfect that goes in, then hes gonna get yelled at for being a pervert and kicked out

to me
that is better and easier than forcing girls to use the boys bathroom and vice versa"

First off can you write in lines please? Not like a fucking retard. Second, that is such a load of shit. Making people feel uncomfortable in a washroom just for your own self-interest should not be promoted by society. Your precedent is so dangerous "yeah just let them do what they want, whatever", NO, not whatever. People shouldn't have to put up with this shit. I shouldn't have to see an obvious crossdresser man in a females washroom if I'm a women, just to feed his delusion. You harp on bible thumpers for ignoring reality right? How about you don't too, people who literally look like men have no place in the women's washroom. Third, I love how you said "forcing girls to use the boys" literally admitting that you actually believe in this SJW non-sense. Yeah so I'm an 18 year old guy. I got hair growing out my ass, and out my balls and out my face. I got a male physique, short hair, hairy knuckles and a 12 and a half inch sausage between my legs but if I put on makeup and a dress I should be able to go to the female's bathroom? Better yet what if I don't put on anything and just say "I'm genderfluid and I identify today as a female", its forcing boys to use the boys you fucking retard.

Please, when you reply to me, address my individual arguments in an organized manner. Don't skip the ones you cant answer. Either address them or admit to them holding weight.
User avatar #113814 to #113813 - PopcornViking
0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
your*
User avatar #113776 to #113775 - PopcornViking
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
finished my homework

so let me ask you this
if you were a girl, would you want to use the girls bathroom?
User avatar #113812 to #113776 - unforgivensoul
0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
>if you were a girl, would you want to use the girls bathroom?

It doesn't matter what bathroom I want to use, I use the bathroom that assigned to me, its called life. But to answer your question, yes. Although if you're pushing the emotional argument again, let it be known we already went over how that's stupid.
User avatar #113753 to #113752 - marinepenguin
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
Gay's make up 4% of the US population. Transgenders are a minority even in that community. Try maybe .1-.01% of the population.
User avatar #113743 - PopcornViking
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
lol cruz is behind kasich
User avatar #113746 to #113743 - unforgivensoul
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
As if this is surprising.
User avatar #113747 to #113746 - PopcornViking
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
well it was a higher IQ state voting

so yea
User avatar #113742 - Sunset
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(04/20/2016) [-]
PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD PAINT IT RED DONALD