Rank #4471 on CommentsLevel 313 Comments: Wizard
OfflineSend mail to marinepenguin Block marinepenguin Invite marinepenguin to be your friend
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||1/24/2011|
|FunnyJunk Career Stats|
|Highest Content Rank:||#647|
|Highest Comment Rank:||#862|
|Content Thumbs:||11852 total, 13142 , 1290|
|Comment Thumbs:||18113 total, 20835 , 2722|
|Content Level Progress:|| 74% (74/100) |
Level 206 Content: Comedic Genius → Level 207 Content: Comedic Genius
|Comment Level Progress:|| 32.3% (323/1000) |
Level 313 Comments: Wizard → Level 314 Comments: Wizard
|Times Content Favorited:||1126 times|
|Total Comments Made:||15510|
|Favorite Tags:||facebook (3) | shit (3) | dont (2) | Gay (2) | is (2) | You (2)|
latest user's comments
|#110372 - Yeah they were. The first one was pretty successful, but the r… [+] (1 new reply)||03/15/2016 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#110369 - I agree, I grew up in a small Catholic community. I've always …||03/15/2016 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#43729 - Tfw squatting has been **** for me here.||03/15/2016 on Fitness - muscle and...||0|
|#110366 - Every time I have a conversation with someone who hates Christ… [+] (8 new replies)||03/15/2016 on Politics - politics news,...||+4|
#110382 - theism (03/15/2016) [-]
I mean the medieval church was a horrible entity. Not the crusades specifically. That was garden variety imperialism. They were a totalitarian shadow government that made a lot of people's lives miserable with the threat of excommunication and the Spanish Inquisition, not to mention the forced conversion of European pagans. Fortunately the vast majority of the Christian world modernized. I would say the real issue isn't the religion in question but the social development of the countries in question.
#110378 - Shiny (03/15/2016) [-]
Christianity isn't oppressive per se, but like with most religions, rulers of Christian nations never thought twice about doing things decidedly against their churches, or exploiting the churches for political power. Christians didn't need to kill Muslims because Catholics and Protestants were perfectly happy to kill one another. The reason I live in the US is because my ancestors came here to escape anti-Catholic persecution.
It all boils down to politics. Religion is an opiate of the masses, and getting someone hooked on a drug is a powerful way to control them. Modern Islamic violence is a return to 13th century values when decades before, Muslim nations like Iran were beginning to secularize, and even today there are movements like Rojava full of secular, cosmopolitan Muslims. It's the political agenda of wealthy Middle Eastern monarchs that openly endorse and fund highly reactionary religious movements, and the West won't stop them because their economic influence makes them untouchable. The US and UK caused the destabilization of the Muslim world and will never own up to it.
Plus, debating which is "worse" is utterly pointless when people are not dictated by their faiths, even if it might feel intuitive to assume otherwise. It's not like modern Jews are all narcissists that commit usury. In fact I would argue that historically, the political connotations of Islam were just more honest about its actual purpose in society. It's not unfair to have to look before the Eastern Roman Empire for examples when people pretend that secular Muslims today literally do not exist because muh taqiyya.
#110372 - marinepenguin (03/15/2016) [-]
Yeah they were. The first one was pretty successful, but the rest were pretty disastrous and helped end Byzantium. But the Crusades also arguably helped end the dark ages and increased the flow of ideas from Europe to the outside world, sparking the renaissance.
#110367 - cpawsome (03/15/2016) [-]
I simply did not agree with hypocrites in the catholic church and I didn't think it took religion to have good morals.
Tho I'm not really one to have a point here. Just last week I offered up a trade to get revenge on about 50 people for whatever price the devil thought fair.
|#110365 - No, generally I can call anyone in the world without any extra…||03/15/2016 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#110226 - 2010 is when I got here I think. Didn't start using this board…||03/15/2016 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#110218 - I mean, kinda? It just doesn't fit well. The gas and taxes fit… [+] (2 new replies)||03/15/2016 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#110206 - Picture||03/14/2016 on Politics - politics news,...||0|
|#110205 - This is a terrible analogy any way you look at it. [+] (45 new replies)||03/14/2016 on Politics - politics news,...||+2|
#110311 - theism (03/15/2016) [-]
My point was more on the line of Reagan era tax cuts. The government, if it wants to do anything, requires some tax revenue. The Reagan administration felt that by cutting tax rates, taxable incomes would go up, raising revenue. The problem with this is you get diminishing returns and eventually this policy stops working. Just like cutting the amount of fuel carried to reduce the amount of fuel needed for a journey.
#110289 - undeadwill (03/15/2016) [-]
I don't know, guess? Have I heard of a public good before?
So tell me then if we are past the point of equilibrium, then why is cutting taxes a bad move? (I'm not going to argue about the fallacy because its getting us both no where and that is what you want, to get us nowhere.
Exactly. You aren't and you haven't even begun to research the issues you feel so entitled to have others respect.
#110304 - undeadwill (03/15/2016) [-]
Hey pebar have I ever heard of a public good before?
Can you prove that we aren't? (this isn't asking you to prove a negative only that even if I could take the time to show you we are, my dinner is on the stove and I don't want it to boil over and that if I did you wouldn't understand it, nor accept it as anything other than economic shillery)
No just don't expect to be treated with anything but ridicule.
#110309 - pebar (03/15/2016) [-]
a public good is something that is
non rival - if I consume it, then you can't consume it
non excludable - there is no realistic way to stop people from consuming it
the classic example is national defense. Whether you want to be or not, whether you support the military or not, you are being defended by it.
if you can exclude it, like barring someone from a building, or there is a finite supply, like any physical good, then it is not a public good.
So even socialized healthcare is not a public good in the economic sense
#110246 - undeadwill (03/15/2016) [-]
Do you fucking know who the fuck I am? Do you know what kind of shit talk like that a noob like you, will get you? I started and finished the funny junk political board cold war as a victor and a little fuck wit who can't even bother yourself with anything less than a metaphor that you think is just so fucking clever could be made with a monkey with a keyboard.
You are wrong, your metaphor doesn't even work and all for the sake of the logical fallacy of "appeal to moderation". (like anyone informed on the issue would fall for it)
So either try to state your case intelligently or fuck off.
#110253 - undeadwill (03/15/2016) [-]
Then go ahead and tell what is an acceptable tax rate seeing as how the answer clearly isn't to cut taxes.
And while you are at it explain to me the laffer curve?
Or what the government even does for the economy beyond stealing land for under market value, building a road they never repair except for the nice city streets that the politicians and their demographics drive around in?
#110265 - undeadwill (03/15/2016) [-]
Seems to be the only one here who is politically handicapped is you.
Rather than answer single one of my questions you'd rather focus on what I believe or don't and I'm not going down that road with you, I'm not going to play the game of "well you believe blank philosophy so you are wrong"
What I believe has no relevance to the questions I asked. Some of which were only asked to make you look stupid as you fail to defend your poor excuse for a point.
Also lol at "if you have allowed yourself to be-"
#110282 - undeadwill (03/15/2016) [-]
Yes, and how "for the greater good" allows people to do fucked up shit, because hey its for everyone else's or someone else's benefit.
So what is a laffer curve?
What is the proper tax rate?
I've made an argument, you just keep declaring yourself the winner, like a child.
#110284 - theism (03/15/2016) [-]
Not THE PUBLIC GOOD, A PUBLIC GOOD. Do you know what that term means? I'll give you a hint, there's two main factors to it.
A representation of the relationship between taxable income and tax rate. It's parabolic so it would actually support my initial argument.
Depends on the economic climate.
I never declared myself the winner I just called you an unreasonable person. My opinion hasn't changed.
#110225 - kanadetenshi (03/15/2016) [-]
That's only depending on the amount of spending the government does. For example if you put too little into a large truck it's obviously not going go last long because it just requires a lot of fuel, but it's also a fact that because it's so large and needs so much ful that it's just really inefficient and too expensive to have. On the other hand when you invest in a smaller car you need far less fuel.
Same goes to government. We can talk about a flat tax or a national consumption tax, but if the US keeps spending like it does it would just mean they'd grow a large deficit, the Bush tax cuts are a good example of this, so tax cuts need to be offset by spending cuts.
Of course the long term effects on tax cuts depend on how people spend their money, but generally giving people their own choice when it comes to purchasing power shows better results than the central planning of government.
|#43696 - The former||03/14/2016 on Fitness - muscle and...||0|