Click to expand
Latest users (3): lulzforalpsplane, marinepenguin, radiserne, anonymous(29).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#78691 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
Where do religious niggers go to eat on Sunday?

Church's Chicken

User avatar #78690 - schnizel (02/26/2015) [-]
Assyrian statues and artifacts destroyed by kebab.
User avatar #78743 to #78690 - takamori (02/27/2015) [-]
I wonder what kind of school trips they have in Mosul.
User avatar #78725 to #78690 - AreyouSerious (02/26/2015) [-]
I remember when the Iraq war happened and most of the museums in Iraq were destroyed. But at least Iraqis had the decency to steal it and sell it.
User avatar #78712 to #78690 - radiserne (02/26/2015) [-]
Stop being intolerant, remember it is the evil West's fault, the middle East would be peace, love and real democracy if we hadn't invaded Iraq.
User avatar #78695 to #78690 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
What is it with reactionaries and statues? You can almost instantly discern the slant of a political blog if they have these ancient statues of people featured somewhere on the front page. It's really creepy.
User avatar #78698 to #78697 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
Uh, yes. And?
User avatar #78699 to #78698 - schnizel (02/26/2015) [-]
We like to keep the memories of the past.
User avatar #78700 to #78699 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
Emotionally appealing artwork is not "the past".
User avatar #78702 to #78700 - schnizel (02/26/2015) [-]
But I forget that I'm talking to a person that supports a regime that cuts through culture like a hot knife through butter.
User avatar #78704 to #78702 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
"supports a regime"

I get the feeling that you've decided all of my opinions for me before I've even opened my proverbial mouth. Since otherwise I might be right about at least one thing.
User avatar #78751 to #78704 - schnizel (02/27/2015) [-]
You talk when I say you can talk.
#78701 to #78700 - schnizel (02/26/2015) [-]
User avatar #78703 to #78701 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
So murdering people is glorious but breaking pretty rocks and metal hunks that look like people is an unthinkable crime?
User avatar #78749 to #78703 - schnizel (02/27/2015) [-]
>So murdering people is glorious
>From a communist
User avatar #78761 to #78749 - Shiny (02/27/2015) [-]
You do know that I've never once shared what I am on this board aside from that dumb compass test pic, right?
User avatar #78822 to #78761 - Shiny (02/28/2015) [-]
Okay, so link to when I said I supported a far left revolution or even said "means of production".
#78817 to #78761 - fefe (02/27/2015) [-]
actions speak louder than words

or in this case your words speak louder than what you label yourself as
User avatar #78710 to #78703 - radiserne (02/26/2015) [-]
Killing some people, like ISIS, is glorious, and "breaking pretty rocks and metal hunks that look like people" is in some cases, such as this, an unthinkable crime. We're talking historic and cultural treasures here, it is what defines societies.
User avatar #78711 to #78710 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
Culture is not defined by pretty objects.
User avatar #78715 to #78711 - klowserpok (02/26/2015) [-]
>Not part of culture

I'm almost convinced you're just "trolling", now...
User avatar #78717 to #78715 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
Culture makes pieces of art, and makes new ones when the old ones tear and crumble. Not the reverse.
User avatar #78748 to #78717 - kanadetenshi (02/27/2015) [-]
Your spaghetti is showing again.
User avatar #78757 to #78748 - Shiny (02/27/2015) [-]
I stand by what I said. Effects are not causes.
User avatar #78732 to #78717 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/27/2015) [-]
Actually the two are totally interchangeable. Art creates culture, culture creates art.
User avatar #78713 to #78711 - radiserne (02/26/2015) [-]
There's no word in English for how incredibly stupid you manage to sound at times.
User avatar #78714 to #78713 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
I'd be willing to post a lot less if you just admitted that a board where everyone agrees with what you think is more fun.
#78753 to #78714 - fefe (02/27/2015) [-]
Maybe people aren't shitting on you because of a circlejerk, maybe you're just retarded.

Nah, couldn't be.
User avatar #78765 to #78753 - Shiny (02/27/2015) [-]
Expressing your disproportionally strong hatred of my posts is an awful way to deter them.
User avatar #78733 to #78714 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/27/2015) [-]
No don't, it really wouldn't be. If I wanted nazi circlejerks I'd go on /pol/.
User avatar #78719 to #78714 - radiserne (02/26/2015) [-]
Fun perhaps, but not interesting, and I'm not here for a circle-jerk, but to get opinions that you are not likely to hear in public, because everyone is too damn afraid of what others think of them. I'd go on Facebook if wanted to see the popular opinions, but I find them incredibly dull.
User avatar #78720 to #78719 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
It's a little mean to assume me leaning left means I'm a California college liberal stereotype.
User avatar #78734 to #78720 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/27/2015) [-]
But... you are though right?
User avatar #78724 to #78720 - radiserne (02/26/2015) [-]
I wouldn't assume that, since I'm quite aware you're not stupid. Which is why I'm baffled that you consider thousands of years old historical artifacts to be nothing but pretty rocks. We wouldn't know anything about ancient civilizations if it wasn't the preservation of artifacts like these. To consider the destruction of these as misdemeanors would be to say that history is pointless. This is no better than the nazi book burnings.
#78752 to #78724 - fefe (02/27/2015) [-]
"since I'm quite aware you're not stupid."

if you haven't realized how dumb he is by now you might be as retarded as him, if not worse
User avatar #78726 to #78724 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
I didn't say they were just pretty rocks. All I'm implying is that they aren't as important as those obsessed with the past make them out to be. History is important, but so is letting go of it instead of holding grudges over it.
User avatar #78750 to #78726 - schnizel (02/27/2015) [-]
How about I fuck you and your whole family in the ass and nail you to a cross, and please don't hold a grudge over it.
User avatar #78857 to #78850 - schnizel (02/28/2015) [-]
Not Autismus Maximus but Brutus Extraordinarii.
User avatar #78759 to #78758 - schnizel (02/27/2015) [-]
I see you take it in the ass like a champ.
User avatar #78769 to #78759 - Shiny (02/27/2015) [-]
You think about gay sex a lot, don't you?
User avatar #78770 to #78769 - schnizel (02/27/2015) [-]
Only with you.
#78685 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
Is it a violation of the NAP to pressure my child to work in the coal mines to bring in another source of income for this family?
User avatar #78694 to #78685 - pebar (02/26/2015) [-]
the existence of children really fucks up ethics like that

However, there is an assumption that parents will try to do what is best for their children. If their country is at such a low stage of economic development that children work, I'd say no.
#78684 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
Welcome to OBAMAnet people!!!11!
#78686 to #78684 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
It's not obamanet until you have to pay more money for less service and get penalized for not using approved ISPs.
User avatar #78696 to #78686 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
Net neutrality is only necessary to compensate for the countless regional monopolies held by only a few nationwide ISPs.
#78705 to #78696 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]

have you been affected by the past policies?
do you know anyone who has said "omg i my internet is shit because the FCC isnt regulating the internet"?

this was a solution to a problem that didn't exist, and now the solution could have really shitty repercussions down the line.
User avatar #78721 to #78705 - akkere ONLINE (02/26/2015) [-]
The source documents make it pretty clear.
There's no forced rate regulation, no additional taxes or fees to burden the corporations, no exaggerated bureaucratic slowdown that's commonly associated with other poorer examples of regulation.
It's merely the prohibition of key problems regarding the failure to provide service consumers paid for with their networks, such as phone companies throttling customers who are taking full advantage of the promised "unlimited data" they had signed up and purchased for (something I have personally had happen to me, among other things, if that answers your belief that no one has ever been affected by poor business practices of the companies).

This of course doesn't mean we shouldn't be watchful of other regulations the FCC may put in place as tiny notes, such as outright commanding the traffic that is directed in the place of guaranteeing it being free and open. But while we should be watchful of tedious regulation, we should also address problems that do consistently happen with the networking companies, both phone and internet.
#78856 to #78721 - fefe (02/28/2015) [-]
4 page propaganda piece= 300 pages of unknown regulation

so far those are pretty shitty reasons to allow the FCC full regulatory powers over the internet.

definitely not worth it.
User avatar #78876 to #78856 - akkere ONLINE (02/28/2015) [-]
They're not unknown, the amendments have been posted through edits of the current FCC code.
The FCC's regulatory power can be challenged in Congress, as it is currently being done now in any case.
It was necessary to expand a review of client's cases in the poor business practices of the networking companies and it took time to address an issue that went on for decades. It will take an even sorter amount of time to minimize the FCC's regulation through proper trial of Congress, until we have preferable solutions to both issues at hand.
User avatar #78706 to #78705 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
"do you know anyone who has said..."

No, in fact, I don't give two flying fucks about the opinions of the willfully uninformed. The Internet already falls under the first C in FCC, net neutrality is solely a matter of consumer protection.

Shit eating little weasels like Cruz are more than happy to give antisocial companies like Comcast unfair advantages to "protect the job creators" or some other nonsense, but god forbid the principle of fair competition apply to them, too.
#78707 to #78706 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
nice liberal whining, but why dont you answer the question

have you, or anyone that you know of, been adversely affected by the past policy?

do you have any evidence that any consumer experienced meaningful suffering from the past policy, besides anecdotes?

it begs the question if it's not broke why "fix" it?

this sounds like yet another case of shit headed libs like yourself charging forth for another moral crusade against a non issue, which somehow always ends up with the government with more power.

when your entire argument is based on "muh ebil coporasins" you dont have an argument.
User avatar #78709 to #78707 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
"have you, or anyone that you know of, been adversely affected by the past policy?"

Yes, in fact, many people have. Comcast has a long track record of a fuck-you attitude toward its own customers simply because nobody can legally incentivize them to offer better service. www.cracked.com/article_21756_5-reasons-working-comcast-worse-than-you-think.html is a great example of the kind of BS that affects my family, my mom regularly goes nearly broke from Comcast randomly hiking up her cable and internet costs and applying bullshit fees that she doesn't have the time or lawyer backing to fight much of the time, and she can't drop them outright because she needs their cable Internet access. Random services and channels randomly get dropped and her connection speed is usually very unreliable because Comcast blatantly lies about the actual bandwidth she gets.

And you know why they get away with this? Because most people don't know the fine details of how computers and networking, and thus the Internet, work. This includes the state and local politicians that eagerly give in to demands for state monopolization. The digital age advances faster than people can catch up with it, so the common consumer will invariably need a little extra protection.

So get fucked with your "liberal" straw men. I have literally never once described myself as a "liberal" on this site, so excuse me if I get a little pissed when I get brushed off with the usual "bawww cry more poor loser" rhetoric.
#78716 to #78709 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
lol, you realize that these new FCC regs will do nothing about that right?
User avatar #78718 to #78716 - Shiny (02/26/2015) [-]
The new FCC regs will prevent ISPs from arbitrary throttling data based on what they think is profitable. Because they do not survive based on consumer preference, it can thus be inferred that their impact on other industries related to their own, like media streaming, is detrimental to the basic principles of a capitalist economy.
#78747 to #78718 - fefe (02/27/2015) [-]
" prevent ISPs from arbitrary throttling data based on what they think is profitable."

that still wont do anything to prevent comcast from being your only choice in the area you dolt, everything you bitched about would still be happeneing

and when have you ever felt the effect of them arbitrary throttling data?

oh thats right, you haven't, you just think they will at some point, but the gov is so much more trustworthy so why not just give them the internet.

its fools like you that allow govs to buttfuck citizens.
User avatar #78766 to #78747 - Shiny (02/27/2015) [-]
You still have done nothing to refute my core reasoning.
#78816 to #78766 - fefe (02/27/2015) [-]
so far you've complained about issues that have nothing to do with the FCC regs, proving that you have no idea what these regs mean.

you refuted your own reasoning.
User avatar #78821 to #78816 - Shiny (02/28/2015) [-]
You moved the goal posts to "lol why u even curr", I played along and now you're pretending I did so.

The new FCC regs will prevent ISPs from arbitrary throttling data based on what they think is profitable. Because they do not survive based on consumer preference, it can thus be inferred that their impact on other industries related to their own, like media streaming, is detrimental to the basic principles of a capitalist economy.
#78855 to #78821 - fefe (02/28/2015) [-]
ill take anecdotal evidence for 500

because why base power grabbing decisions on silly things like "facts" when you have scary "what ifs?"
User avatar #78864 to #78855 - Shiny (02/28/2015) [-]

The new FCC regs will prevent ISPs from arbitrary throttling data based on what they think is profitable. Because they do not survive based on consumer preference, it can thus be inferred that their impact on other industries related to their own, like media streaming, is detrimental to the basic principles of a capitalist economy.
#78919 to #78864 - fefe (03/01/2015) [-]
ill take anecdotal evidence for 500

because why base power grabbing decisions on silly things like "facts" when you have scary "what ifs?"
#78680 - schnizel (02/26/2015) [-]
This man is your friend, he fights the jews.
This man is your friend, he fights the jews.
User avatar #78735 to #78680 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/27/2015) [-]
Okay. Try not to shitpost though.
#78683 to #78680 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
This man is a Jew. He fights your friends and tries to convince you he is your real friend.
User avatar #78687 to #78679 - marinepenguin ONLINE (02/26/2015) [-]
They're basically just saying that they won't include race in descriptions of suspects until they're 100% sure the person is that color. You'd think that someone's race would be one of the first things you'd be sure of.
User avatar #78674 - kanadetenshi (02/26/2015) [-]
Either the wage gap is because of discrimination meaning that Clinton has actively discriminated against women or the wage gap is due to different work hours, experiences, ect which means that Clinton has committed statistical fraud and misinformation. Wonder how feminists will worm themselves out of this one.

User avatar #78676 to #78674 - radiserne (02/26/2015) [-]
That would require them to start caring about facts instead of feelings.
#78681 to #78676 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
Feelings and facts are one and the same to these people.
User avatar #78671 - radiserne (02/26/2015) [-]

Basically about a UFO religion in Chicago called the Seekers that believed in an imminent Apocalypse and its coping mechanisms after the event did not occur.

"The group of believers, headed by Keech, had taken strong actions to indicate their degree of commitment to the belief. They had left jobs, college, and spouses, and had given away money and possessions to prepare for their departure on a flying saucer which was to rescue the group of true believers. She claimed to have received a message from a fictional planet named Clarion. These messages revealed that the world would end in a great flood before dawn on December 21, 1954."

Flash foward to the happening on december 21st:
Before December 20. The group shuns publicity. Interviews are given only grudgingly. Access to Keech's house is only provided to those who can convince the group that they are true believers. The group evolves a belief system—provided by the automatic writing from the planet Clarion—to explain the details of the cataclysm, the reason for its occurrence, and the manner in which the group would be saved from the disaster.
December 20. The group expects a visitor from outer space to call upon them at midnight and to escort them to a waiting spacecraft. As instructed, the group goes to great lengths to remove all metallic items from their persons. As midnight approaches, zippers, bra straps, and other objects are discarded. The group waits.
12:05 am, December 21. No visitor. Someone in the group notices that another clock in the room shows 11:55. The group agrees that it is not yet midnight.
12:10 am. The second clock strikes midnight. Still no visitor. The group sits in stunned silence. The cataclysm itself is no more than seven hours away.
4:00 am. The group has been sitting in stunned silence. A few attempts at finding explanations have failed. Keech begins to cry.
4:45 am. Another message by automatic writing is sent to Keech. It states, in effect, that the God of Earth has decided to spare the planet from destruction. The cataclysm has been called off: "The little group, sitting all night long, had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction."

No matter how much the truth is right in front of them, religious people will always find an explanation to why stuff they thought should happen, didn't.

#78692 to #78671 - cabbagemayhem (02/26/2015) [-]
You're not generalizing enough. Atheists will also always find an explanation to why stuff they thought should happen didn't. It's a people problem, not an ideological problem.
User avatar #78693 to #78692 - radiserne (02/26/2015) [-]
I'm not defending atheists, I'm saying that religious people will always come up with an argument to why their ideas don't hold water, even when everything is speaking them. It's definitely an idealogical problem, otherwise science wouldn't be a thing.
#78728 to #78693 - cabbagemayhem (02/27/2015) [-]
I know what you're saying, but I'm telling you it's wrong. Commitment to current beliefs is purely psychological. What you described is called coping with cognitive dissonance. It's innate to everyone, regardless of their particular ideology. So, when you say, "religious people do this," you're not generalizing enough. You do it, too.
User avatar #78739 to #78728 - radiserne (02/27/2015) [-]
Yes true, but I'm saying that cognitive dissonance is more present in religious people than others. I remember reading about in "Moonwalking with Einstein" and it's possible to cope with as long as you're willing to admit you're wrong, which is a very rare trade in religious people.
#78815 to #78739 - cabbagemayhem (02/27/2015) [-]
That's just because of your point of view. It's always the other guy who won't accept your reality that has the problem admitting he's wrong. The Nye-Ham debate was a great example of it working the other way. Ham objectively won the debate, but the majority of observers (both religious and nonreligious but all evolutionist) spuriously declared it as an evolutionist victory, and then let discussions die to avoid the points. Obviously, none of them can be aware that confirmation bias affected their own perception.
User avatar #78673 to #78671 - kanadetenshi (02/26/2015) [-]
I always want to see the faces of cult members when their dooms day turns out not happening.
#78668 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
User avatar #78678 to #78668 - AreyouSerious (02/26/2015) [-]
please tell me this isn't real
User avatar #78689 to #78678 - akkere ONLINE (02/26/2015) [-]
It's legit
tl;dr She's one of those "all white (male) people are evil" and legitimately thinks you can change people by removing an emoticon choice based on a mostly irrelevant study.
If only she knew the true way to change people for the better is to remove ALL emojis.
User avatar #78722 to #78689 - AreyouSerious (02/26/2015) [-]
or maybe understand the fact that this is the most useless way to use her time on this earth!
User avatar #78727 to #78722 - akkere ONLINE (02/27/2015) [-]
Or to understand that the only oppression here is that Skrillex cut. Jesus.
User avatar #78677 to #78668 - akkere ONLINE (02/26/2015) [-]
I agree, we should remove all white emojis.
And all smiley emojis.
And all inanimate object emojis.
All emojis.

Emojis are a mistake.
#78675 to #78668 - radiserne (02/26/2015) [-]
She is very welcome to make her own programme with multicultural emojis. Oh right, she's too dumb and lazy to do that. She brings her last name dishonor.
User avatar #78672 to #78668 - kanadetenshi (02/26/2015) [-]
Emoji's are srs business.
User avatar #78667 to #78665 - marinepenguin ONLINE (02/26/2015) [-]
I can maybe understand experimenting once while drunk or something. But if you do it and you really enjoyed it to where you can't stop thinking about it. You probably aren't straight.
#78669 to #78667 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
>If you suck a cock, you aren't straight

Fixed that for you. Everything else you said was politically correct horse shit.
#78666 to #78665 - byposted (02/26/2015) [-]
"Through dick, unity."
#78659 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
Why aren't you buying gold?!
#78682 to #78659 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
because it's only going to be confiscated by the government when shit hits the fan
User avatar #78663 to #78659 - ribocoon (02/26/2015) [-]
Because you can't eat gold and there are less expensive thing to stick up my butt
#78654 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
Is the Vice President essentially the President's hype-man?
User avatar #78658 to #78654 - akkere ONLINE (02/26/2015) [-]
Could be the opposite actually; Vice-President has his name more well known to everyone in his own political party as well as the nation (for better or for worse) so he has an easier time campaigning for presidency when the original POTUS' term(s) expire. Lyndon B. Johnson caught the momentum John F. Kennedy left behind; same with George H. W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Other than building political notoriety, there's really not much else to being VP.
It's good for guaranteeing the political party gets at least another term, but only if the initial presidency was able to make a strong drive to propel the VP in the first place.
User avatar #78657 to #78654 - pebar (02/26/2015) [-]
The VP isn't even that...
#78637 - victorytoaster ONLINE (02/25/2015) [-]
do you think that the conflict in Ukraine will get worse, maybe lead to a full scale Russian invasion or will they piss off.
User avatar #78653 to #78637 - radiserne (02/25/2015) [-]
I see no reason to why Russia would openly invade Ukraine. They are just fine with having a frozen conflict. Invading Ukraine would only isolate them further, and force them to spend money they can't afford to lose. Ukraine managed to shell Russian territory in the early months of the conflict, and even back then Russia didn't respond. The time where nations declare war upok each other is over, only money talks now.
User avatar #78640 to #78637 - kanadetenshi (02/25/2015) [-]
Depends on the rate Russia's economy will collapse.
#78596 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
Reminder that this is what liberals in fact believe.
User avatar #78615 to #78596 - Shiny (02/25/2015) [-]
What does radical centrism have to do with transgenderism?
#78616 to #78615 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
what does liberal have to do with " radical centrism ", whatever the fuck that is
User avatar #78617 to #78616 - Shiny (02/25/2015) [-]
That's one of the most common objective definitions of liberalism.
User avatar #78648 to #78617 - kanadetenshi (02/25/2015) [-]
Centrism is a spectrum while liberalism is a political ideology. Liberalism is definitely not centrist. Especially not the fake liberalism you US people love to spout.

Centrism rather than being a political philosophy is rather a political strategy for parties. In Europe for example some parties take a compromising stance between social democratic parties and liberal parties allowing them to form a coalition with both of them, their moderate stances on certain social democratic views and certain liberal views makes them centrist.

Another example in the US would be the Modern Whig Party who takes some political elements from the Democrat party and also from the Republican party.
User avatar #78649 to #78648 - Shiny (02/25/2015) [-]
They're moderates that care more about political change than ideological agendas. Hence, radical centrists.
User avatar #78650 to #78649 - kanadetenshi (02/25/2015) [-]
Well they're definitely not liberal then.
User avatar #78651 to #78650 - Shiny (02/25/2015) [-]
Like I said, one of the definitions. I wouldn't personally subscribe to any of 'em though.
#78670 to #78651 - fefe (02/26/2015) [-]
*one of the definitions that nobody has ever heard of except you and you can't find a source for
#78619 to #78617 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
Then post your common and objective source, because I;ve never heard liberalism be defined as anything like that and coincidentally the dictionary hasn't either.

Do you enjoy making up words and redefining terms to bolster up your fragile intellect?
User avatar #78620 to #78619 - Shiny (02/25/2015) [-]
"Do you enjoy making up words and redefining terms to bolster up your fragile intellect?"

No, which is why in my mind, "liberal" isn't a snarl word for every kind of person that pisses me off.
#78621 to #78620 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
Wow I can't believe you didn't post your source which is so common and so objective that it isn't in the definitions of liberalism or radical centrism. Just an FYI the tea party has been called a radical centrist party so maybe your definition isn't as common as you think.

Now before you dodge the question again let me remind you that I asked for your objective and common source.
User avatar #78630 to #78621 - Shiny (02/25/2015) [-]
What is contended without evidence can be refuted without evidence. Please start with an objective citation that says transgenderism is a fundamental tenant of liberalism.
#78634 to #78630 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
I just want to add that isn't it crazy how after all these replies you still haven't posted a single source for a definition that is so common and objective.

Very strange :^)
User avatar #78635 to #78634 - Shiny (02/25/2015) [-]
What is contended without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
#78641 to #78635 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
lol, what did I contend?

A contention isn't a question.
A contention is something like "the sky is blue" or "That's one of the most common objective definitions of liberalism.".

What evidence do you want from me, would you like a quote of me asking you to provide a common source for your BS? Okay.

"Then post your common and objective source, because I;ve never heard liberalism be defined as anything like that and coincidentally the dictionary hasn't either. "

Would you like to make yourself out to be more of a moronic asshat or do you want to keep purposely changing and dodging the argument to maintain your sense of self worth?

An intellectually honest person would just say "look, I don't actually have a source, I don't know why I said that", but of course you have to change the argument and ignore the obvious. Everyone here with a brain cell can see how thickheaded you're being right now.
User avatar #78642 to #78641 - Shiny (02/25/2015) [-]
What is said without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
#78645 to #78642 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
I dont really expect you to respond or admit when you're obviously wrong, but at the very least we can use this thread as an example of Shinyism

1. Make false statement confidently
2. Dodge question
3. Misuse fallacy
4. Attempt to change subject.
5. Pretend you won
6. Run away
#78644 to #78642 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
What did I say without evidence then. Come one, lets see how long you can play this game before we get down to brass tax.
User avatar #78632 to #78630 - schnizel (02/25/2015) [-]
I would feel sorry for you, but I don't like you.
#78631 to #78630 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
Man you're stupid, allow me to explain how dumb you are.

1. I'm not the anon who created the thread
2. Even if I was I never made the statement that " transgenderism is a fundamental tenant of liberalism"
3. I asked what liberalism had to do with radical centrism, which is a completely different subject than transgenderism
4. You acknowledged this new conversation by falsely stating that liberalism is commonly and objectively defined as radical centrism.
5. Being that I never contended anything and am simply asking you to provide a source for your idiotic claim you can't just weasel your way out of your pseudo intellectual babble by misusing fallacies that aren't applicable to this situation.

To put it simply I noticed that you were using a term incorrectly, you said that it is commonly and objectively defined as something it wasn't, I asked you to provide a source for this finding,you dodged the question, I asked again, and then you dismissed my question again on the assumption that I was linking transgenderism to liberalism, which has absolutely zero to do with liberalism and radical centrism. Even if I did state that transgenderism is the equivalent to liberalism you completely misused the contention fallacy (once again showing you idiotic you are).

If I contended that transgenderism is related to liberalism without evidence that doesnt allow you to logically state that another word means something that it doesn't without evidence, that's just idiotic.

You just suck at arguing. Also still waiting for that definition.

You're just proving you dumb leftists are.
#78633 to #78631 - Shiny (02/25/2015) [-]

"Reminder that this is what liberals in fact believe."

I contended this statement and received no counter argument.

keep cryin bitch nigga
#78646 to #78633 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
sorry final thing, i just noticed that you were quoting the creator of this thread

as i said im not the anon who created this thread, so i didn't contend anything obviously

although it doesn't make your argument anymore sound

anyway, dont cry too hard into your obama plushie
#78638 to #78633 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
"Oh shit I can't find a source for my bullshit claim and I can't come up with a bullshit fallacy to use for a bullshit excuse for why I'm not delivering my bullshit source that doesn't exist, better run away."

"That's one of the most common objective definitions of liberalism."- Shiny

You should feel ashamed about how retarded you're being right now.
User avatar #78639 to #78638 - Shiny (02/25/2015) [-]
What is contended without evidence can be refuted without evidence.
#78643 to #78639 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
What did I contend, answer the question for once.
#78604 to #78596 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
psychology is difficult, I'm just gonna call everyone a degenerate faggot.
#78618 to #78604 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
hi Shiny
User avatar #78636 to #78618 - mixednuts (02/25/2015) [-]
lol no
#78599 to #78596 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
I'm a tetra-gendered dragonkin.

So it's a tetra-gendered dragon's penis.
User avatar #78593 - byposted (02/25/2015) [-]
Yatsenyuk: Putin doesn't only want to take over Ukraine, he wants to conquer the world!
#78592 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
One day, Schnizel had a Magic 8-ball.

He asked it, "Will the world ever fascism?"

The 8-ball said, "Nigger"
User avatar #78595 to #78592 - lulzformalaysiaair (02/25/2015) [-]
Schnizel looked at the magic 8-ball. Holding it with his skinny 70 year old hands. He watched the fall of the EU, the 2nd crusades against Islam, the 2nd communist Russian revolution, the annexation of Canada by the U.S, his own children grow up and their children too. But schnizel never got see fascism rise again, with this realization a tear ran down his old, wrinkly face.

Schnizel left his home that day with a Zestava M72, one passed down to him from his father. He opened the doors to a mosque soon later. Taking out his machine gun, schnizel opened fire on every single mudslime in the building until he was shot back to death.

Gunning down as much filth as he could, before the final bullet that would kill him struck schnizel, he shouted "For my country! For my people!". A courageous death soon followed. RIP
User avatar #78581 - syrianassassin (02/25/2015) [-]
What is the best basic form of government?

>Power structure
>Power source


This will help en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Basic_forms_of_government
User avatar #78601 to #78581 - kanadetenshi (02/25/2015) [-]
Night Watchman State or a Panarchist system.
User avatar #78597 to #78581 - drastronomy (02/25/2015) [-]
a combination of facism, technocracy and democracy

a democratically elected group of people will have 50% of the votes in a parliament/congress
these will elect people with education backgrounds for different sectors, who will stay until at least 75% vote against them. People with different education will get different ministerial jobs: (education=teacher background, religion minister=theologist, etc)
The state would then be granted more or less unlimited power

and since it is democratically elected, the citizens cant say shit.
#78591 to #78581 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
Constitutional Monarchy.
User avatar #78586 to #78581 - nanako ONLINE (02/25/2015) [-]
An omnipotent computer at the head, whose primary purpose is to make humanity as strong as possible.

The structure would be a moderately regulated capitalist economy. The computer would understand that conflict creates strength, and would encourage competition and natural development as much as possible. Staying hands-off except where growing monopolies threaten humanity's best interests.

The scientific method becomes the new world religion
User avatar #78582 to #78581 - syrianassassin (02/25/2015) [-]

>Absolute Monarchy
User avatar #78580 - syrianassassin (02/25/2015) [-]
Do you think that the Government should do what they desire or what the people desire?

I think in here its mixed and it depends what worth more worth.

Example: There is a piece of land 5Km x 5Km. The government want to build a farm here while the people want a casino instead.

I think the government here have the better choice than the people since the farm will help to reduce food shortage chance.
User avatar #78623 to #78580 - pebar (02/25/2015) [-]
you fucking commie

go wait in line for 8 hours for some bread
User avatar #78625 to #78623 - syrianassassin (02/25/2015) [-]
but i am not a commie
User avatar #78627 to #78625 - pebar (02/25/2015) [-]
you sound like one
User avatar #78583 to #78580 - nanako ONLINE (02/25/2015) [-]
hello syrianassasin, i thought you died. Nice to see otherwise

Personally i think most people are idiots and have no clue what they need, or what the country needs. A wise statesman ignores the people as much as he can possibly get away with, because their judgement is poor, driven by self interest, and they have zero accountability

Give people what they need, not what they think they want. They will be happier in the long run.
User avatar #78579 - syrianassassin (02/25/2015) [-]
Do you support to FORCE take amount of money from rich people who Dont want to give money and have millions in their bank accounts not being used??

for me Yes
User avatar #78622 to #78579 - pebar (02/25/2015) [-]
Thomas Sowell - Tax Cuts For The Rich What makes you think they'll pay the tax?
User avatar #78624 to #78622 - syrianassassin (02/25/2015) [-]
i dont think this is considered tax since it is taken by force.

or maybe???
User avatar #78628 to #78626 - syrianassassin (02/25/2015) [-]
User avatar #78602 to #78579 - kanadetenshi (02/25/2015) [-]
No, theft is bad.
User avatar #78598 to #78579 - drastronomy (02/25/2015) [-]

its neccesary
#78576 - fefe (02/25/2015) [-]
Give me one good reason we shouldn't privatize the military.
User avatar #78584 to #78576 - nanako ONLINE (02/25/2015) [-]
corporate control of countries is already overwhelming. Privatised militaries would just be another step in cementing jew power over everything, and shifting power more towards anyone with money.

Coups are always staged by those who control the military.
User avatar #78585 to #78584 - corporate ONLINE (02/25/2015) [-]
I didn't know I owned countries!
Fuck yeah I have power!
#78656 to #78585 - byposted (02/26/2015) [-]
Did you figure that I had forgotten about your foul dominion, corporate kike?

This play on ignorance, indicative of arrogance, shall be your final tainture. Be gone from this website, and travel long from this Earth! *douses corporate kike in particular potion, kept handy for the summons, which never materialized*
User avatar #78612 to #78585 - kanadetenshi (02/25/2015) [-]
Corporations get mod status. Funnyjunk as Corporatocracy confirmed.
User avatar #78664 to #78612 - byposted (02/26/2015) [-]
Attention-whores receive mod-status.

I could not bear idling in IRC, to seize the proper moment to suck dick, much less developing a Funnyjunk persona. Being a gaymurgurl helps, I suppose.
User avatar #78578 to #78576 - pebar (02/25/2015) [-]
You mean have gangs running around? We already have that.
 Friends (0)