x
Click to expand
Latest users (3): alimais, kanadetenshi, pebar, anonymous(19).
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#84036 - pumkinz ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
#84084 to #84036 - Ken M (04/28/2015) [-]
The future of western nations.
#84035 - pumkinz ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
#84033 - pumkinz ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
#84031 - pumkinz ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
#84029 - pumkinz ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
User avatar #84005 - jokeface ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
Police departments should start exclusively hiring black officers. It's a win-win. Police brutality will plummet, and if brutality is used on anyone the victim will be white, which sounds bad at first but when you think about it, at least there won't be any riots by white people.
User avatar #84022 to #84005 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
If white people are ever the target of ethnic intolerance (*cough*zimbabwe*cough*), why shouldn't they raise hell?
User avatar #84024 to #84022 - jokeface ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
I didn't say we shouldn't raise hell (although I do believe we shouldn't) I said we won't. Consider the overwhelming statistical predisposition of white people falling victim to black violence. How often do we wreak havoc in the streets over it? Extremely rarely, if ever. Sure white people have rioted but not for the same reasons black people riot nowadays. No, all we do is quietly develop prejudice against them, either consciously or subconsciously. Either way, we don't react in the extreme way they have.
User avatar #84030 to #84024 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
Are you implying that whites and blacks are homogenous hiveminds? The majority of people of any ethnicity are neither violent criminals, nor the victims of violent crime, which has been steadily decreasing for decades. Conflicts of identity are merely a tool to propagate conflicts of class, to give the restless and disenfranchised a scapegoat to attack; in this case, the race that just so happens to be the wealthiest on average.

The media only wants to keep you scared by making you think the world is evil and out to get you. The real world is plagued with straightforward problems that can be solved, so the masses need to be too jaded to try.
User avatar #84017 to #84005 - lulzforalpsplane (04/28/2015) [-]
...is this a joke?
User avatar #84020 to #84017 - jokeface ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
Partly. But in all honesty if someone could run like a computer simulation or something, I'd genuinely be interested in seeing the results. That'd be a neat experiment, I think.
User avatar #84021 to #84020 - lulzforalpsplane (04/28/2015) [-]
It's time to log off the computer Jimmy.
User avatar #84023 to #84021 - jokeface ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
Joke's on you, my name's not Jimmy.
User avatar #84025 to #84023 - youregaylol (04/28/2015) [-]
trolled again
User avatar #84009 to #84005 - pumkinz ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
or sent all black people back to africa
User avatar #84042 to #84009 - klowserpok ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
Like Lincoln would have wanted.
quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0014.204/--abraham-lincoln-and-the-politics-of-black-colonization?rgn=main;view=fulltext
"As a young politician in Illinois before the Civil War, Lincoln often voiced his belief that blacks and whites would live best if they lived separately. It was a belief he shared with the two American statesmen he revered most: Thomas Jefferson, an early advocate of gradual, voluntary emigration of blacks; and Henry Clay, a leader of the Whig party during the 1830s and 1840s and a founder of the American Colonization Society. The society, founded in 1816, sought to remove black Americans voluntarily to Africa. In 1821 the society purchased land in northwest Africa and set up the colony of Liberia, which remained a U.S. colony until it gained independence in 1846. The colonization movement foundered in the late 1840s but was resuscitated in the early 1850s as the American Colonization Society intensified its recruitment of black emigrants. [5]"
#84001 - candlejackismyhomi (04/27/2015) [-]
So, Baltimore is exploding, and people are throwing rocks at each other. Billions of years of evolution and technological advances just for fucking idiots to throw rocks.
"Baltimores Anti-Violence Movement"
You're doing a great job guys.
User avatar #84012 to #84001 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
Entire developing nations erupt into civil war and political instability: no one really cares
Groups of racist punks vandalize a city that's already a shithole: FUCKING ARMAGEDDON
User avatar #84018 to #84012 - lulzforalpsplane (04/28/2015) [-]
#BlackLivesMatter [American]
#84004 to #84001 - Ken M (04/28/2015) [-]
Comment Picture
User avatar #84013 to #83997 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
I live in a small Midwest Catholic town and I never tell people I'm an atheist. The few people outside of my circle of friends who know constantly buy me bibles and try to convert me.
User avatar #84076 to #84013 - redandgreen (04/28/2015) [-]
I'm Catholic, I get Witnesses coming to visit me

I don't proselytise, faith is personal for me.
User avatar #83998 to #83997 - msparta ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
Didn't expect to see sweden so red
#83988 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
These Baltimore riots are getting ridiculous. Cops are actually throwing rocks back at the rioters. Did they put a bunch of noobies on the front lines?

I'm glad I have a bay separating me from this shit.
User avatar #83973 - drastronomy (04/27/2015) [-]
I have recently been reading some Glubb and Montesqui, and it seems evident that these two, and me as well for that matter, share the belief that society exists in cycles, and in stages, and that the modern west is at the end of the cycle - called the age of decadence, in which degeneracy and materialism becomes more popular, as does indulgence in sexual acts and use of narcotics, alcohols, etc. above more noble goals, such as arts, philosophy, etc.

How is it that so few realise the modern west is most likely near its dying breaths?
User avatar #84014 to #83973 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
All history of society is of materialism, of conflict between those who control wealth and those who are controlled by it. Degenerate behavior (in the actual sense, not the "stop liking what I don't" sense) is the result of anomie and stress, escapes from a seemingly hopeless economic situation.

Idealist worldviews that aren't purely nihilistic are ultimately just the mental gymnastics of people who want to tell everyone else how to live.
User avatar #84123 to #84014 - drastronomy (04/28/2015) [-]
No. materialism is the idea that people with more objects are inherently better, and that objects are as valuable, if not more valuable, than an individuals ideas. Sure, society has been heavily affected by wealth and the conflicts therein, however in most successful society the artist, the musician, the author, the scientist, and the philosopher have been more respected than the aristocracy.

Degeneracy is activities that are detrimental to the advancement of society. It is due to the loss of values and the materialism stated above. People stop valuing the noble goals, and start valuing objects and banal hormonal influxes.

Your final assertion generalizes far too much to be taken seriously. Idealism derives from the fact that the human mind controls society, and not vice versa, and that, in order for society as a whole to change, one must first change peoples way of thinking. Furthermore, you do not know if i acknowledge nihilism, but i use the tools we are given to further noble causes, even if our existence is pointless.
User avatar #84128 to #84123 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
You are thinking of consumerism. Materialism is the belief that society can ultimately be boiled down to the constant, scientifically falsifiable nature of physical matter, that the composition of reality is finite, doesn't particularly care how you personally perceive it and influences how civilization begins, grows and changes. As such, societal conflicts are determined by physical resources, between those who control the means of our survival and those who do not.

Philosophical ideals are arbitrary because they are only possible when fueled with these means of survival. There are countless different directions people want to society to go.
User avatar #84131 to #84128 - drastronomy (04/28/2015) [-]
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialism
it involves both, buddy. First and foremost my definition in the given context.

Societal conflicts do not only depend on materials, but also on ideology and values. However, the decadence of a society relies only on the latter, as most societies tend to have relatively stable supply of resources if they had been sustainable enough to establish a notable society in the first place. Furthermore, i think we can agree that modern degeneracy has not risen as a result of the lack of material resources. In fact, it has risen because of the large access to materials, which in turn allows people to focus on the banalities of life: alcohol, sex, drugs, materialism (the non-philosophic version) etc.

Philosophical ideals are relevant, as societies tend to follow patterns with regards to the nature of their utopia. Equal rights, strong people, access to food and basic resources, academic advancement, and human rights are all characteristics sustainable societies seek to attain. Therefore, some, if not all philosophical ideals have merit.
User avatar #84134 to #84131 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
Pop culture terminology and academic terminology aren't really the same thing.

I also never said ideals didn't have merit, that would be crazy. Everyone has the same concept of utopia, but how they plan to achieve it varies to such profound degrees that people can think one another to be madmen.
User avatar #84135 to #84134 - drastronomy (04/28/2015) [-]
Yes. That brings up another interesting idea. Words tend to discredit the ideas they represent in some ways, and many words tend to distort our thinking my defining what is often undefinable, and my causing confusion due to the multiple definitions they hold...

Regardless, you know the point i am trying to make, regardless of the name you choose for it.

Everyone does not necessarily have the same concept of utopia, which is why different ideals arise in the first place. How they achieve it is, i agree, varied. However, culture works as a way to unify these ways of thinking and create a single goal for a society to work for.
User avatar #84138 to #84135 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
Language does indeed impact how we think, funny enough. I'm usually afraid to bring this point up because I suck at wording and it ends up sounding schizophrenic.

Culture, though, isn't the same thing as philosophy, because the latter is based on ideas that someone believes should be considered over others, while culture is pragmatic and evolves over time, melding and mixing as human populations slowly drift across the globe.
User avatar #84143 to #84138 - drastronomy (04/28/2015) [-]
Well, your wording seems ample enough for the topics we have discussed. Far better than certain others whom i dare not mention...

Culture and philosophy are distinct, yes, but one relies on the other. This is why i find myself agreeing with idealism to a large extent. I think our thoughts and the results thereof affect society far more than petty resource access, at least in sustainable societies (that would disclude most of Africa and the middle east)
User avatar #84215 to #84143 - Shiny (04/29/2015) [-]
I wouldn't say "rely", since politics are the result of people of the same culture having different opinions, creating the need for peaceful, diplomatic discourse instead of the old tradition of violence to solve all problems of governing.

The Middle East and Africa also have very stable and lasting cultures, which is why they are shitholes. They need some hell to be raised.
User avatar #84220 to #84215 - drastronomy (04/29/2015) [-]
Different political parties still tend to have similar morals and ethical fundamentals, but, as you say, different methods of solving them. The culture, however, remains as the basis of most premises.

The middle east and Africa do have stable and lasting cultures, so they have very stable and unchanging societies (in most regards). Resources prevent further change, in my opinion, but do not create any more. The lack of resources is a dam, but the water it traps is the force that usually feeds the rest of the river. This force is, in my opinion, our thoughts and our psyche.

On the topic of hellraising, i agree. In order to climb out of the trap they are stuck in, one needs external factors to come into play that are able to alter people's way of thinking. For example, if the population in every african country was halved, they may see that this change causes the increase of their own well being, hopefully contributing to lower birthrates in order to maintain the socioeconomic stability created. I think the overall population, hapenning as a result of their culture, and extreme religious fundamentalism are the two largest factors preventing growth.

Although, after further thought, i agree that complete idealism is not necessarily a good ways to look at things. Resource access tends to affect ones ideals, and therefore it creates the chicken and the egg dilemma. One cannot exist without the other, and none are more or less important than the other
User avatar #84137 to #84135 - drastronomy (04/28/2015) [-]
by*

jesus christ thanks phone
User avatar #84113 to #84014 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
>All history of society is of materialism, of conflict between those who control wealth and those who are controlled by it.
>marxist detected
>Degenerate behavior (in the actual sense, not the "stop liking what I don't" sense) is the result of anomie and stress, escapes from a seemingly hopeless economic situation.
That's how you justify grown men jerking off to little ponies?
User avatar #84117 to #84113 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
I would rather live in a society that lets the creepy and self-unaware roam freely than incredibly repressive and controlling kind needed to prevent them.
Besides, both the Third Reich and Soviet Union were chock full of decadent, self-serving hypocrites. The Italian film that is often considered to be the most brutally graphic and relentlessly offensive in history is about its fascist period.

People are gross and weird. That's just a fact of life. You are correct to have standards you wish to uphold, but that does not justify aggression and conflict.

If you want your people to be happy and your culture to continue to flourish and evolve, don't be a dictator. Arm their adults, educate their children and leave them to their own decisions.
User avatar #84119 to #84117 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
I see that you like little kids loosing their virginity to strangers.
>Besides, both the Third Reich and Soviet Union were chock full of decadent, self-serving hypocrites. The Italian film that is often considered to be the most brutally graphic and relentlessly offensive in history is about its fascist period.
Which one?
>People are gross and weird. That's just a fact of life. You are correct to have standards you wish to uphold, but that does not justify aggression and conflict.
Might is right.
>If you want your people to be happy and your culture to continue to flourish and evolve, don't be a dictator. Arm their adults, educate their children and leave them to their own decisions.
So if a person wants to be a good parent, he should let his children do what they want? They would all die from diabetes due to their impulsive and hedonistic nature.
User avatar #84120 to #84119 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
Repugnance is not wisdom, m8.

And people are not children. Society as a whole does not need to be parented. Parents need to be parents.
User avatar #84121 to #84120 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
m8, the ships has one captain and what does the average person know about politics and leadership. There will never be, never, an anarchist utopia because humans tend to be like hedonistic animals when they are set loose. Only through law, order and guidance can humanity evolve. You sound like the person that states that there should be no law.
User avatar #84122 to #84121 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
If an average idiot can't be trusted with his own life, how the fuck can he be trusted with the lives of millions?!
User avatar #84124 to #84122 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
Not every man is an average idiot.
User avatar #84126 to #84124 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
Only a fool sees himself worthy to be a king, as he cannot even comprehend his own limitations and flaws. A fool, or a psychopath.
#84127 to #84126 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
You know that what you said is only based on your subjective opinion.
You know that what you said is only based on your subjective opinion.
User avatar #84159 to #84127 - drastronomy (04/28/2015) [-]
However, it tends to be true. The humble man tends to be a stronger leader than the narcissistic one.

Does not mean autocracy does not have merits, but it means the leader has to be strong, but also aware of his/her own inherent flaws, and not view oneself as a deity, but as a person.
User avatar #84160 to #84159 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
Sometimes, but humble men want humble times.
Oh, yeah, I don't like kebab.
User avatar #84161 to #84160 - drastronomy (04/28/2015) [-]
Are not humble times better, as it allows for recognition of flaws rather than false, pointless hubris?

Viewing oneself as distinct or inherently better than the rest of nature, and other beings in general is the first step of decadence, as it causes the ignorance of the wrongdoings of previous peoples and the false belief that one is immune to the faults of the previous people.
User avatar #84164 to #84161 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
Good times bread weak people, weak people make bad times, bad times breed strong people, strong people make good times, etc.
It's not the power that attracts me, it's the comradery.
User avatar #84166 to #84164 - drastronomy (04/28/2015) [-]
Humble times are not necessarily good or bad, and the definition of good and bad vary from context to context. I have said the same thing in a previous argument regarding nationalism, but to a different target. I maintained then, and still do, that even the strongest leader needs to be humble in order to not go mad with power.

If it really is comradery you are looking for, the optimal society would have a proud people working for the improvement of their state, but aware of the flaws they may commit. Their leader should be the same, and view themselves not as a god, but as a person, thereby increasing comradery. I agree that nationalism does have good merits, however when the pride turns over to hubris the society stagnates.
User avatar #84167 to #84166 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
So and so, but it's true, men need to know their limits.
Don't worry about it, leave it to uncle Schnizel.
#84168 to #84167 - drastronomy (04/28/2015) [-]
B-but uncle schnizel sounds like a pedophile
#84169 to #84168 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
top kek
don't worry, your anus is safe because this evil goy has a gf
User avatar #84170 to #84169 - drastronomy (04/28/2015) [-]
Waifus dont count as real gfs

come on get with the times
User avatar #84171 to #84170 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
im not kidding
someone loves me more than I love myself
feels good man
User avatar #84129 to #84127 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
Yes, my subjective opinion. Which is no better than anyone else's.

A strong leader can only be objectively determined through rigorous testing and based upon the traits considered desirable by constituents. As such, all autocracy and dictatorship is immoral and needs to be resisted, by violence if necessary.
#84130 to #84129 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
>Yes, my subjective opinion. Which is no better than anyone else's.
We are not equal.
>A strong leader can only be objectively determined through rigorous testing and based upon the traits considered desirable by constituents.
Janjicars 2.0?
> As such, all autocracy and dictatorship is immoral and needs to be resisted, by violence if necessary.
NO BED TIME!!! NO MORE HEALTHY FOOD!!!11!! KILL ALL PARENTS!!
User avatar #84132 to #84130 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
\Nobody is literally equal, even identical twins. If you do not wish for people to be treated equally, then you'd better be ready to spend every waking moment of your life painstakingly organizing society into a ridiculously long hierarchy of individuals and hoping it doesn't devolve into a self-destructive nightmare.

Either that, or you have a heterodox concept of merit that has nothing to do with human qualities that most people consider relevant to their character and instead judge them arbitrarily.

You're also a retard if you think parenting is the same as ruling a nation.
User avatar #84133 to #84132 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
>Nobody is literally equal, even identical twins. If you do not wish for people to be treated equally, then you'd better be ready to spend every waking moment of your life painstakingly organizing society into a ridiculously long hierarchy of individuals and hoping it doesn't devolve into a self-destructive nightmare.
Thank you, I would rather have an organised society than a hellhole.
>Either that, or you have a heterodox concept of merit that has nothing to do with human qualities that most people consider relevant to their character and instead judge them arbitrarily.
Do you know what, a meritocracy stands for?
>You're also a retard if you think parenting is the same as ruling a nation.
No, but in both cases guidance and rules are necessary.
User avatar #84136 to #84133 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
lel, fair enough. If you acknowledge your criticism and its perceived consequences then by all means, go nuts.
"No, but in both cases guidance and rules are necessary."
Children don't need authoritative rearing because they're human, they need it because they're children. They are literally retarded and incapable of making even basic decisions on their own without help. The biological differences between age are exponentially more profound than any differences between races or creeds.
User avatar #84139 to #84136 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
Aryans gone wild 2?
The absolute ruler may be a Nero, but he is sometimes Titus or Marcus Aurelius; the people is often Nero, and never Marcus Aurelius.
Antoine de Rivarol, as quoted in Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1952), Liberty or Equality: The Challenge of Our Time, The Caxton Printers LTD, p. 150
User avatar #84140 to #84139 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
Liberty IS equality. Rule of authority must not only mandate special treatment for certain groups, it needs to prevent the advancement and livelihood of others. Its existence is itself a threat that can and should be responded to with force.
#84141 to #84140 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
>Liberty IS equality. Rule of authority must not only mandate special treatment for certain groups, it needs to prevent the advancement and livelihood of others. Its existence is itself a threat that can and should be responded to with force.
>So you see Pier, that's why we must chop of your head.
>But, I'm just a guard, I have served France my whole life!
>Now now, let's not keep the other waiting.
>I have a fam...
User avatar #83975 to #83973 - radiserne (04/27/2015) [-]
Because it's not.
User avatar #83976 to #83975 - drastronomy (04/27/2015) [-]
Elaborate?
Degeneracy, materialism, foreigner influx, apologetic people, etc. are all signs of a falling society. Why should the modern west be any different from ancient rome, assyria, greece, Ottoman Empire, Reneissance spain and italy, colonial britain, the mamluke empire, etc?

Look at sweden, for example. It is doomed to fall due to the aforementioned factors.
User avatar #83977 to #83976 - radiserne (04/27/2015) [-]
Materialism isn't necessarily bad, as long as cultural stuff is also appreciated. We have better human rights than ever, democracy is more present than ever. The use of narcotics and alcohol is not different from what it has been at any other time, in fact the bad sides of drugs, tobacco and alcohol is coming more and more in focus. The access to concerts, museums and other cultural things are better than ever. The only places where I see failing societies are everywhere BUT the West (except Sweden, but we all knew from the start that they were doomed to fail). Just look at Brazil, India, all of Africa and Russia. It's all shit. I'm quite sure if Montesqieu was alive today he'd agree that the only place that's going to experience real progress the next decade will in fact be the West.
User avatar #83982 to #83977 - drastronomy (04/27/2015) [-]
Materialism IS bad, as it promotes the value of ones materials above the value of ones character. Nor is culture appreciated. Quite the opposite actually, as it is dying in most places due to integration and secondary socialization. Human rights are still not fulfilled, in fact class differences have done nothing but increase since the industrialization. Human rights are more or less absent from all countries outside of the west, really.
Furthermore, drug use is increasing as Schnizel said, and the bad sides are still ignored due to the flock instinct and every persons desire to fit in, which seems to never falter.
Sure the access is alright, but the demand is not there.

You say everywhere but the west is falling, and i can in some ways agree to that. However, it seems that most non-western countries seem to be the fuel that drives our materialism, and many feel bad for this and accept immigrants. Sweden is only the most notable example, but they are in no way unique. The same thing is happening in my country, norway, as well as most of europe. Our society is crumbling, and there is little we can do to change that.

I am pretty sure if montesqui was alive today he would critique our establishment of an international hierarchy and our senseless materialism, which he stated was one of the greatest enemies of civilization (he used french royalty as an example)
Progress seems to be a rather loose term. The only progress i can predict would be the rise of nationalist movements, however they too are a part of the greater cycle which seems to be unable to stop.
User avatar #83984 to #83982 - radiserne (04/27/2015) [-]
You're painting the devil on the wall. Nothing is happening. Your idea of the downfall of the West is in no way unique or new. People have been saying the downfall of the West is just around the corner for decades, and the same people have been proved wrong over and over again. Things are better now than they were 10 years ago, and there are no indications that the tendency is about to change. To think that something as complex and diverse as a society always follow a certain pattern is stupid.
User avatar #83986 to #83984 - drastronomy (04/27/2015) [-]
Well, time is the only way to resolve the problem.

However, considering the degeneracy of our people, i think it is safe to assume the coming of our downfall. Previous assumptions have been as a result of war, not as a result of degeneracy. People predicted german/jap conqust in the 40s, then soviet nuclear bombings until the 1990s. Then people feared for terrorist attacks. However, no one has feared the sins we are comitting. The people are greedy and sloth, with a higher appreciation for banal entertainment than they have for arts, sciences, tech and culture.

If nothing is happening, i still fear for the world. There is too much inequity (not inequality, more on that should you request it) in the world. I will deviate from the boards apparent thoughts on Africa, and say that many people there actually are exploited by free market capitalism. They are fueling our materialism, and they are doing so rather happily. This system will fall one day, as all social hierarchies do.

Strongly admit reading this for a more educated position upon the matter: www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf

User avatar #83987 to #83986 - radiserne (04/27/2015) [-]
Well, I agree that inequity still is very much present in many parts of the world. But I think that is an issue more those particular places, than it is for the West.
User avatar #83989 to #83987 - drastronomy (04/27/2015) [-]
Well, it exists as a result of the west, does it not? And what is it that fuels this? Materialism, and materialism is fueled by degeneracy and laziness.
And i think we can agree, the relationship that currently exists between the two regions is not sustainable, nor is our resource usage. The system will fall if it refuses to change, and if it changes it has to change dramatically.
User avatar #83979 to #83977 - schnizel (04/27/2015) [-]
>Materialism isn't necessarily bad, as long as cultural stuff is also appreciated.
It's either one thing or the other.
>We have better human rights than ever
Code word for flooding Europe with immigrants.
>democracy is more present than ever.
Rule of the dumb majority.
>The use of narcotics and alcohol is not different from what it has been at any other time, in fact the bad sides of drugs, tobacco and alcohol is coming more and more in focus.
The use is only increasing, not decreasing.
>The access to concerts, museums and other cultural things are better than ever.
But people will still rather go on a shitty concert then they will go to an opera.
User avatar #84110 to #83979 - klowserpok ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
>Materialism isn't necessarily bad, as long as cultural stuff is also appreciated.
Implying materialism hasn't become the standby culture for the west
>We have better human rights than ever
Nah, governments have curtailing those in favor of a false sense of security for a while
>democracy is more present than ever.
Tyranny by majority or tyranny by one; Either system will only work well if you can depend upon the benevolence of one tyrant or your probably uneducated countrymen
>The use of narcotics and alcohol is not different from what it has been at any other time, in fact the bad sides of drugs, tobacco and alcohol is coming more and more in focus.
No shit its increasing.
>The access to concerts, museums and other cultural things are better than ever.
Who goes to see Wagnerian operas performed when Jay Z is in town?
Who goes to the museum when they can see the latest Hollywood remake?
Why go to an old battlefield to remember the sacrifice of your people when you could just be twerking there?
User avatar #84112 to #84110 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
I think who replied to the wrong goy.
User avatar #83985 to #83979 - radiserne (04/27/2015) [-]
>its not one thing or the other, they can co-exist.
>Code word for better human rights.
>Rule of the edgy nazi
>It's been on going down for several years in Western european countries, can't speak for the degenerate east.
>implying an opera is good because its an opera, and that you would go to an opera yourself, let alone understand the words they're singing.
User avatar #84095 to #83985 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
We can tame lions and co-exist, right?
Code word for white-genocide.
:^) I'm not a bad goy.
Drugs are bad.
There are subtitles above and operas are better than concerts in general.
User avatar #83971 - drastronomy (04/27/2015) [-]
I was writing about multiculturalism and all that shit today, and some african dudes in my class (norway yes!) went over and read my stuff, and they agreed completely... strange how even minorities understand the fault within multiculturalism and the importance of heritage, while whites tend to be so blindly apologetic they forget that they are actually hurting the minority as much as they are hurting themselves...
User avatar #83972 to #83971 - schnizel (04/27/2015) [-]
Cucks.
#83990 to #83972 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
Cuck-a-doodle-doo
#83969 - schnizel (04/27/2015) [-]
Daily reminder
Criminals are criminals not because they are poor but because they want to be criminals. I don't see any narc bosses giving the life of drug dealing to go to study in Oxford. Poverty is just another excuse for crime.
User avatar #84015 to #83969 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
The criminals that make society worse for everyone else are richer than any of us.
User avatar #84092 to #84015 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
So it was you all along. Stop smuggling rare Pepes across the border Shity.
User avatar #84093 to #84092 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
The return on investment of GBP was too good to resist.
User avatar #84099 to #84093 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
You are going downtown.
User avatar #84101 to #84099 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
I actually have been to the "bad places" of my region of McDonaldstan. I have yet to encounter these mythical roving packs of gargantuan man-apes brutally sodomizing anything that moves.
User avatar #84102 to #84101 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
You need to go deeper.
User avatar #84103 to #84102 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
I'm pretty sure that's trespassing.
User avatar #84104 to #84103 - schnizel (04/28/2015) [-]
Not if you're a nigger.
User avatar #83945 - syrianassassinsoul (04/27/2015) [-]
Cutting Throats and not Cutting Jobs

what do you think???
User avatar #83919 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
So it seems that a lot of people here are anti-welfare and food stamps, and I understand why. But why abolish it entirely? I've always held the idea that welfare should be "a hand up, not a handout". Bad shit happens to people and sometimes it's better to tide them over until they can stand on their own instead of letting them drown.

Keep in mind that I don't support the current state of our welfare AT ALL, too many people abuse it And it's only hurting us. But I don't think we should get rid of the system entirely, just heavily reform it.
User avatar #83949 to #83919 - Shiny (04/27/2015) [-]
Public assistance's political purpose isn't to alleviate poverty as much as it is to prevent violent uprising by the disenfranchised and disadvantaged. Which would be awesome, IMO, if Americans weren't too deeply embroiled in dumb made-up conflicts and tensions that distract from material realities; there are way too many retards that actually believe that mass murdering or giving special treatment to group X will magically fix all societal problems.
User avatar #83946 to #83919 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
Because you can't expect others to be forced to pay for someone else through means of government. There are plenty of alternative methods of helping the poor such as churches and non-profit charities (The government actually has a history of arresting people trying to help homeless people)
User avatar #83947 to #83946 - Shiny (04/27/2015) [-]
Then don't pay and leave? You don't move to Denmark and complain about the high income taxes.
User avatar #84000 to #83947 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
MLK did not like racial segregation. Guess according to you he should have just moved.
User avatar #84008 to #84000 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
Because an obligation to pay taxes is as oppressive as Jim Crow.
User avatar #84077 to #84008 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
I'm just exposing your retarded autistic "love it or leave it" argument. But yes a government forcing you to give away your money or else you get thrown in a cage is pretty oppressive.
User avatar #84078 to #84077 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
Name calling, that's real mature. I don't believe people should be forced into constituency, if that is what you were implying.
User avatar #84079 to #84078 - kanadetenshi ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
>Calls others sperglords
>Whines about namecalling

Maybe if you'd stop wanking it to porn of Bowser you might just be able of you know holding consistent views.
User avatar #84080 to #84079 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
No argument -> personal attack
User avatar #84026 to #84008 - youregaylol (04/28/2015) [-]
dont you hate it when your retarded statements are thrown back in your face
User avatar #84027 to #84026 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
b8 etc
User avatar #84028 to #84027 - youregaylol (04/28/2015) [-]
I'll take that as a yes
User avatar #84032 to #84028 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
I don't need to open my proverbial mouth, you don't hear what actually comes out of it.

It's also adorable how you stalk me around the site and vote down my posts so they remain at zero.
User avatar #84039 to #84032 - lulzforalpsplane (04/28/2015) [-]
It's not stalking if its fun to have you here to see what kind of stuff you say.
User avatar #84041 to #84039 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
I'm only accusing him of being a sperglord. I have no qualms with anyone else's criticism of my views.
User avatar #84034 to #84032 - youregaylol (04/28/2015) [-]
are we back to the stalking thing again, i thought you might've outgrew that

whining about others taking expressing their disapproval with some red pixels shaped like a thumbs down is sad
User avatar #84037 to #84034 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
Which doesn't explain why you continue to do so.
User avatar #84053 to #84037 - youregaylol (04/28/2015) [-]
i was expressing my disapproval with some red pixels like a thumbs down
User avatar #83967 to #83947 - radiserne (04/27/2015) [-]
Oh, you'd be surprised.
#83922 to #83919 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
It shouldn't be abolished entirely, but it should be reformed to be completely pragmatic and based specifically on each individual case. I can understand providing welfare to disabled individuals with no family who literally cannot work. Providing it to drug addicts or single mothers who choose not to get a job is obviously bullshit.

When I moved to the US, my family had to live on food stamps since none of us spoke English and my mom was the only one old enough to work. We got off them in a few months because my mom found a job and we assimilated. There are niggers who were born here who still get welfare and food stamps because they're lazy porch monkeys mooching off of the government.
User avatar #83923 to #83922 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
Exactly, I know a guy who specifically tells people to "get married, get on welfare, have a couple kids to get some extra cash, then coast your whole life". How the hell can you even call yourself a man or a fatherbwhen you don't even earn an honest living? Hes a 25 year old POS and I despise everyone who he represents.

But there should at the very least be a cap, no assistance after 6 months of supplemented income, special cases can have extensions, and if you cannot simply find a job you get volunteered for "shovel ready jobs". Public works projects or charity. If you can't contribute then you'll at least earn your welfare if you are able bodied.
User avatar #83950 to #83923 - titsmccracken (04/27/2015) [-]
That's how welfare is in my state. You at least have to apply for jobs and it gets taken away if you don't eventually get work. The only groups that get non work required welfare are children, the disabled, and the elderly. Even if a parent tried to live off the money for the child, its not enough to pay for subsidized rent. So, they wouldn't get a free ride, they would be homeless.
Also it should be noted I live in a blue state.
User avatar #83960 to #83950 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
Well I live in Illinois, which is a blue state, and they give welfare away to pretty much anyone.
User avatar #83968 to #83960 - titsmccracken (04/27/2015) [-]
Well Illinois needs to get it's shit together.
#83905 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
>Wears a shirt that says "Black Lives Matter"
>Is about to take the life of a white man for no reason whatsoever with the knife in his hand

Reminder that anyone who consistently defends blacks on the internet is a delusional libcuck living in a fantasy world.
User avatar #83948 to #83905 - Shiny (04/27/2015) [-]
The vast majority of people sharing this video have already decided how much they hate blacks. Any belief system that requires someone to be held accountable as a criminal for the actions of others is tantamount to mental illness.
User avatar #83994 to #83948 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
Maybe you should reply to anon below.
#83991 to #83948 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
>The vast majority of people sharing this video have already decided how much they hate blacks

No, the vast majority have gotten sick of the bullshit black Americans are doing to their country. I would have defended these people a year ago when I was a liberal too.

>Any belief system that requires someone to be held accountable as a criminal for the actions of others is tantamount to mental illness.

When did I say all black people are criminals? I really don't think you realize what you sound like right now. You're defending a man who's about to shank another man for no reason other than the other man being white. You're implying that people who share an image of a black racist are racist themselves simply for sharing the image since it doesn't paint the black community in a positive light. Please come out into reality and develop some self respect. Seriously, what is wrong with you
User avatar #84010 to #83991 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
"the vast majority have gotten sick of the bullshit black Americans are doing to their country"
"When did I say all black people are criminals?"

Am I getting rused right now?

It's also extremely obvious that you're projecting your own creepy obsession with blacks by accusing anyone who isn't your particular kind of asshole of being another particular kind of asshole, as though you can pick and choose criticism for your own arguments.
#84062 to #84010 - Ken M (04/28/2015) [-]
Nice job on still not admitting you're completely ignoring the fact that a black man is about to shank a white man for no other reason than the fact that he's white. Maybe if you just ignore hard questions, they'll vanish! Sweep all the horse shit that black America is doing under a rug and act as if it doesn't exist.

Crying out "b-but they're not all like that!!!" is a good tactic until statistics are brought up, my cuckold friend.
User avatar #84069 to #84062 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
I know what black America is doing, I just don't screech about it like a paranoid retard.
#84085 to #84069 - Ken M (04/28/2015) [-]
*I know what black america is doing but I'm too scared of losing my PC white liberal guilt card to talk about it
User avatar #84086 to #84085 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
I'm not a liberal. I wasn't aware that this obligates me to fantasize about lynching blacks all day. I will rectify this immediately.
#84091 to #84086 - Ken M (04/28/2015) [-]
And the millionth person who holds views consistent with almost all of the liberal viewpoints denies he's a liberal, what a shocker.

You and eight would get along famously, each of you seem to hold on to retarded views while being afraid of what those views represent.
User avatar #84100 to #84091 - Shiny (04/28/2015) [-]
By liberal I meant the objective definition, not your catch-all term for anyone that disagrees with you to any degree.

You'd (apparently) be surprised by how I feel about things like affirmative action. Rather, I'm attacking the notion that people should be judged by their appearance and not their actions as an individual.
#83954 to #83948 - schnizel (04/27/2015) [-]
Said the person that has never lived near a black majority area.
#83962 to #83954 - Shiny (04/27/2015) [-]
Those damn nigger lovers just don't understand. Ugh.
User avatar #83963 to #83962 - schnizel (04/27/2015) [-]
IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO RESPOND TO AN ARGUMENT POST A PICTURE OF AN EMO AND CLAIM THAT THE POSTER IS WRONG.
-LIBERAL TACTICS 174
User avatar #83964 to #83963 - Shiny (04/27/2015) [-]
I replied to straw man bullshit with more straw man bullshit, and because I am white, my individual actions mean nothing. :^)
User avatar #83965 to #83964 - schnizel (04/27/2015) [-]
Because you are nothing more than a race traitor who justifies acts of barbarian savages. What I said was not a strawman, but a fact.
User avatar #83926 to #83905 - radiserne (04/27/2015) [-]
>implying blacks are one, single person
User avatar #83961 to #83926 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
Blacks are now a huge mind.
User avatar #83970 to #83961 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
Hive mind*
#83944 to #83926 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
>Implying several riots across several cities caused by hundreds of black people is "one, single person"
>Implying the massive amounts of black people on social media who incite such events and support them are "one, single person"

User avatar #83966 to #83944 - radiserne (04/27/2015) [-]
Shut fefe
#83901 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
Tasked with progressing humankind as far as possible. Which of the four options do you believe will work best to your goal?

a) Eliminate any races or groups of people of your choosing (niggers, gooks, arabs, muslims, jews, ect)

b) Divide the population of the world by 4, countries decrease in population based on proportion

c) Give humans the technology to be able to start colonization of the moon (and the cost isn't so inexpensive that it isn't possible)

d) Increase the average life span of the world to 95, people will also age better in proportion
User avatar #83981 to #83901 - redandgreen (04/27/2015) [-]
C, I think.
User avatar #83974 to #83901 - drastronomy (04/27/2015) [-]
b)
no races are superior or inferior by themselves, they are only inferior should they exist in the incorrect environment. Evolution has made us how we are as a reaction to the environments we live in, which is why one should never deviate far from ones ancestral homelands should one wish for maximum survivability.

Should the alternative be based on proportion, i can only assume the most overpopulated areas would be most heavily afffected. If so, bring it on, as that encompasses countries that actually need it, mainly africa and asia, more than europe which is sorely in need of more people should they continue to fuel their materialistic needs.
User avatar #83993 to #83974 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
you should read the post below
User avatar #84125 to #83993 - drastronomy (04/28/2015) [-]
If proper measures are taken against it, i see no reason why it would not be feasible. Eliminating the weaker links in society is weak in itself, as the strong become stronger by helping the weak
User avatar #83918 to #83901 - marinepenguin ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
Well out of all those choices only A is a remotely good one.

B would be reversed within a few generations and we'd be overcrowded again unless there was some way to cap our population at a few billion.

C would be nice, but we have the technology to do it now, and now that we know that helium-3 is in massive quantities on the moon we'll probably have a privately owned and operated mining colony there by the end of our lifetimes.

D would only exacerbate our overpopulation issue. And assuming the increase in life stems from medical progression and not just magic, birth rates would also climb because of lower mortality rates.


So if given those choices I'd go with A, and then choose to empty the entire African continent of people. Massive untapped resources. Although a war would likely be fought over who has control, once the area has stabilized and is developed it'll be a net gain for mankind.
User avatar #83992 to #83918 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
Agree, except *Africa and the Middle East (get rid of Islam and those people while your at it)
#83906 to #83901 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
The only valid choice here is a).

Make spooks, mudslimes, and kikes vanish of the face of the earth. Asians can stay cause they're pretty cool.
User avatar #83888 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
Is it weird that I am a pro-gun liberal?
User avatar #83951 to #83888 - titsmccracken (04/27/2015) [-]
No, like 40% of American liberals own guns. In fact the group I go out shooting with is all liberal. Both sides have whack jobs, liberal whack jobs just happen to be anti gun. However they are not an accurate representation of the party.
#83925 to #83888 - pebar ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
that simply means you're not retarded
User avatar #83899 to #83888 - akkere ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
What do you define as liberal? Classical liberals commonly hold the believe in having individual rights to the extent of the owning of firearms, while Americanized liberalism has a swiss cheese'd reflection of the view (emphasized rights for minorities, prohibition of ownership of firearms, etc.)
User avatar #83902 to #83899 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
Classical I guess.
User avatar #83907 to #83902 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
eight man, maybe you need to stick to religion because you are talking out of your fucking ass. Anon says it well below.
User avatar #83911 to #83907 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
Claiming I am liberal is talking out of my ass? Nah, I'll stick to wherever I like and fuck anyone who wants to tell me what I am or am not. But honestly, I'm not sure I really care about labels. I just tend to identify with liberal ideas and notice many of my liberal oriented friends disagree with me entirely on the gun issue.
User avatar #83912 to #83911 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
What I mean is you are incredibly uneducated on the term liberal and are not the classical version.
User avatar #83915 to #83912 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
I answered the guys question with the examples he gave me.
#83904 to #83902 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
really?
do you believe in free markets?
do you believe in the rights of businesses to refuse services to gay couples?
do you believe in the abolition of welfare, affirmative action, and food stamps?
do you believe that less government=better government?
do you believe that socialism is bad?
do you believe in a flat tax?
do you believe in privatized healthcare?

you're not a classical liberal, shut the fuck up you progressive shit
User avatar #83909 to #83904 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
redandgreen
User avatar #83908 to #83904 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
You make the mistake of assuming someone has to agree or disagree with every item to fit the label. That's pretty unlikely to happen, unless you're the narrow type that doesn't think for themselves and instead just follows what's popular.

Anyways, better to be progressive than stunted. You don't get anywhere standing still.
User avatar #83932 to #83908 - youregaylol (04/27/2015) [-]
if you can be a progressive and a classical liberal i can be a communist and a fascist at the same time because words literally mean nothing anymore

tl;dr, you're full of shit
User avatar #83910 to #83908 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
So basically "of course I am progressive and a socialist but I'm still a classical liberal guys, trust me!" You probably don't even agree with 25% let alone one of things anon mentioned.
User avatar #83913 to #83910 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
I love how you're telling me what I do and do not agree with. FYI, if you're a mind reader, find a new hobby.
User avatar #83914 to #83913 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
I love how you ignored me and haven't actually told me you agree with any because we know you don't. So cut the BS eight, man to man. Do you agree with any of the things anon mentioned?
User avatar #83916 to #83914 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
"o you believe in free markets? Yes
do you believe in the rights of businesses to refuse services to gay couples? No
do you believe in the abolition of welfare, affirmative action, and food stamps? No
do you believe that less government=better government? Yes
do you believe that socialism is bad? Yes
do you believe in a flat tax? Yes
do you believe in privatized healthcare? " Indifferent, Both can work, but we need to pick one and stick with it!
User avatar #83995 to #83916 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
Well I'm quite surprised with your answers. Although I don't know if you actually know what a free market is because in a free market one is allowed to serve whoever he wants.
User avatar #83999 to #83995 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
A free market does not depend on the ability to personally select customers. It may or may not be associated with the term depending on who you ask.
User avatar #84002 to #83999 - lulzforalpsplane (04/28/2015) [-]
So let me get this straight, you are pro-"market" but you want the government to force and control who people do business with? Are you serious?
User avatar #84006 to #84002 - eight (04/28/2015) [-]
Discrimination laws are not exclusive to the market. It's not as if it's making a special case for businesses.

Wikipedia: Free Market - A free market is a market system in which the prices for goods and services are set freely by consent between sellers and consumers, in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority.

That says nothing about a businesses right to discriminate. It's talking about setting prices and choosing goods and that it's self regulated by the business owner rather than any other authority.

It's as if you hear the word 'free' and assume that it means a businesses owner can do whatever they want in the place of business. That is not the case and that is not what a free market is. Discrimination laws do not impact a sellers right to set a price or decide what products they want to sell.
User avatar #84007 to #84006 - lulzforalpsplane (04/28/2015) [-]
You completely ignored my question, why do you think the government should decide who I or a person do business with? Why are you forcing that on people?
User avatar #84011 to #84007 - eight (04/28/2015) [-]
Ignored your question? The question was nonsensical. I demonstrated that above.

If you want to talk about a sellers right to discriminate and refuse sale, then we can talk about it. But to try and lump that in under the 'free market' category is completely invalid.

So now that is cleared up, I will answer your question.

"You completely ignored my question, why do you think the government should decide who I or a person do business with? "

Because who you do business with is irrelevant. You're not in business to talk about your personal life. You're not there to make buddies.
You own a business because you want to make a living and you want to be your own boss.

A persons lifestyle should not have any bearing on that. You do not have to like your customers, but if your doors are opened to the public, and the customer is not acting inappropriately, there should be no reason why you don't serve them.

"Why are you forcing that on people?"

It's not being forced. If you own a business, selling a product or service is what you do, that isn't force. If you don't want to sell to customers you may not like, then you should not have started a business open to the public.
User avatar #84016 to #84011 - lulzforalpsplane (04/28/2015) [-]
That seems like a sense-able answer though I completely disagree.
User avatar #84118 to #84016 - eight (04/28/2015) [-]
Well, we can't agree on everything I guess. That's what makes things interesting and fun to discuss.
#83917 to #83916 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
How exactly is it possible to believe there should be less government, yet believe that welfare, affirmative action, and food stamps should exist, people should not be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple, and healthcare should or should not be privatized?

Guess who makes all that shit work. Yes, it's the government. That's a direct contradiction and not classical liberal in any sense.
User avatar #83920 to #83917 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
The government could stick their fingers into way more assholes than just aid and discrimination laws for businesses. I never said I was against any government control, I just said less government control the better. That means wherever necessary, I am fine with the government getting involved and where not, they can fuck off. It depends entirely on the issue and that's a pretty long list...There is no "1 size fits all" in politics.

Like I said, I am indifferent to health care. If they can make it work privately, then great. If it would work better with some government control, then that's great too. But this mix and mach bullshit is making things worse. And let's be honest, private healthcare wasn't too hot before UHC, something needed to change and that wasn't likely to happen without government intervention when the problem was caused by the people that run the shit. And now we have two shit systems competing to be the ultimate shit system, fucking over just about everyone below middle class.
#83921 to #83920 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
>The government could stick their fingers into way more assholes than just aid and discrimination laws for businesses.
You're trying to make the topics of welfare, affirmative action, welfare, and business owners' rights to serve who they please sound insignificant here. These are issues of contention that play a large role in shaping the face of a country. Trying to pass it off as "just aid and discrimination laws" is nonsensical. These all require strict government ruling to work.

Again, saying what basically amounts to "I think all these things that require government control should exist, but I also think less government is better" is a contradiction. Most modern day progressives would say the same when it comes to government only being involves when necessary, but the scope of 'necessary' tends to be huge with liberals. This isn't classical liberal thinking. It's modern day socialism.
User avatar #83928 to #83921 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
"Again, saying what basically amounts to "I think all these things that require government control should exist, but I also think less government is better" is a contradiction. "

I didn't say that in the slightest. That's how you're twisting it though. I will say once more, *if* it needs government intervention, I am fine with it. I do not generally want the government poking around unless necessary. I would prefer less government involvement overall, but this means that some issues will still need government intervention, it just so happens that for discrimination it's necessary and obviously for aid is necessary. That should be pretty clear now.

"These are issues of contention that play a large role in shaping the face of a country. "

Absolutely. But they aren't the only issues. And that seems to be the narrative you're painting here. It's cherry picking.

"Trying to pass it off as "just aid and discrimination laws" is nonsensical."

Discrimination is a big issue for the victims, I agree. But if you give the private business its way, it will continue and will not be solved, because apparently, we don't have enough decent people in the world. Morality is more important than the ego of a business owner as far as I'm concerned. But in terms of government intervention, not a big deal. The business owner will not be affected in any negative way other than getting a little butt hurt and he's still free to insult the living shit out of anybody that walks into his store.

Like it or not, Government aid is a single issue, a massive one, but still just one of many. There's plenty more issues out there. The government might have their hands completely tied up in aid, but that doesn't mean that overall, their prominence is the same among all issues relative to aid. It might be that overall there is less government prominence, it just happens that Aid is where much of their focus goes into. The point is, as long as it's less government meddling in our affairs, I'm happy. I can tolerate some issues where intervention is needed.

If you meant to specify less for each and every issue, which you failed to do, then that's a different matter and I'd say no, because I think that's a bit unreasonable, especially in a country this large and diverse among race and culture where it can be difficult to come to any agreement or compromise. Sometimes you need big brother to set you down a path, rather than leave you in the lobby, bickering for ages without ever moving forward or getting anything useful done.
User avatar #83903 to #83902 - akkere ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
You can always just forget the whole "every individual either fits in x or y" and take your own set of opinions in stride. Thinking of politics in terms of agendas like liberal or conservative and the many sometimes confusing sub-divisions only corrodes opinions and inflicts biases in my personal opinion.
Opinions on different issue-types can change and become circumstantial as you go from the textbook definition, to the news application, and sometimes to even when you find yourself being personally affected by the issue. Agendas kind of disconnect from this principle and force you to only see things in black 'n' white.
User avatar #83891 to #83888 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
"Is it weird that I have some sense in me though I am delusional?"
User avatar #83893 to #83891 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
My irrational bias senses are tingling.
#83889 to #83888 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
It's weird that you're a liberal

User avatar #83890 to #83889 - eight (04/27/2015) [-]
Good
#83887 - Ken M (04/26/2015) [-]
www.vox.com/2015/4/25/8494707/aspartame-dangerous

Pseudoscience is profitable

God bless the free market!
#83886 - Ken M (04/26/2015) [-]
1992 LA Riots - Defenseless Store Owner Confronts Rioters with Hammer

#83980 to #83886 - Ken M (04/27/2015) [-]
How sad for this man to have been through the civil rights movement just to watch the younger generation piss it all away.
User avatar #83930 to #83886 - schnizel (04/27/2015) [-]
poor nigger
User avatar #83881 - redandgreen (04/26/2015) [-]
I've always been very anti-gun. I've obviously seen all the news stories and how many people are hurt by them. I'm starting to realise that this is because of where I have lived and the law though.
My opinion has changed to the point where I think if I lived in the US I'd probably want to own a gun.
User avatar #83931 to #83881 - schnizel (04/27/2015) [-]
More people are killed by baseball bats.
User avatar #83936 to #83931 - redandgreen (04/27/2015) [-]
Wow. Source for that?
User avatar #83898 to #83881 - akkere ONLINE (04/27/2015) [-]
Anti-gun in what manner, exactly? I've known some people who are anti-gun in terms of being a special kind of conscientious objectors in mind, but would never want any kind of legislature restricting law-abiding citizens from owning firearms. Others are just simply uncomfortable with firearms more out of phobia than truly wanting to apply it to legal process.
User avatar #83937 to #83898 - redandgreen (04/27/2015) [-]
I think I'm a little phobic because I just haven't been exposed to them. I wouldn't want one in Ireland but I can understand why people might in some places.
User avatar #84019 to #83937 - akkere ONLINE (04/28/2015) [-]
Understandable. Works the same way with power tools; some people might come to be a little stand-offish in learning their use because of the risk and need of discipline, as well as the fact that other people can end up mis-using them and harming other people.
What are your thoughts on it legislation-wise?
User avatar #83892 to #83881 - lulzforalpsplane (04/27/2015) [-]
>Europe
>opinions on guns
Your opinion has been discarded into the trash.
User avatar #83935 to #83892 - redandgreen (04/27/2015) [-]
Why? Something is illegal where I live and I'm not allowed an opinion on that?
You're a Liberal?
#83884 to #83881 - Ken M (04/26/2015) [-]
>I've always been very anti-gun.

Why? I'm genuinely curious. People get hurt by weapons, that's what weapons are meant for. What about guns harming people made you anti-gun?

Also yes, you probably would want to own a gun in the US. Especially if you live in a city like Chicago.
User avatar #83938 to #83884 - redandgreen (04/27/2015) [-]
I think the problem is too many guns in a dysfunctional society. Not guns as such which is what I used to think.
 Friends (0)