Upload
Login or register

thefallenlord

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 25
Date Signed Up:2/18/2012
Last Login:9/27/2016
Location:Shithole in future Kebabistan
Stats
Comment Ranking:#1894
Highest Content Rank:#810
Highest Comment Rank:#1178
Content Thumbs: 4738 total,  5181 ,  443
Comment Thumbs: 4672 total,  5370 ,  698
Content Level Progress: 19% (19/100)
Level 138 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 139 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
Comment Level Progress: 99% (99/100)
Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 238 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:0
Content Views:219297
Times Content Favorited:436 times
Total Comments Made:997
FJ Points:7353
Favorite Tags: swjs (2) | totalbiscuit (2)

  • Views: 43083
    Thumbs Up 1253 Thumbs Down 60 Total: +1193
    Comments: 116
    Favorites: 89
    Uploaded: 02/13/15
    TFW TFW
  • Views: 28755
    Thumbs Up 1034 Thumbs Down 81 Total: +953
    Comments: 145
    Favorites: 29
    Uploaded: 11/16/12
    Alien Hunters Alien Hunters
  • Views: 33356
    Thumbs Up 665 Thumbs Down 52 Total: +613
    Comments: 268
    Favorites: 53
    Uploaded: 04/25/15
    VALVE is not your friend anymore VALVE is not your friend anymore
  • Views: 25237
    Thumbs Up 518 Thumbs Down 85 Total: +433
    Comments: 191
    Favorites: 10
    Uploaded: 03/10/14
    PROBLEM? PROBLEM?
  • Views: 21665
    Thumbs Up 507 Thumbs Down 75 Total: +432
    Comments: 243
    Favorites: 20
    Uploaded: 11/15/15
    Can someone explain this to me? Can someone explain this to me?
  • Views: 3681
    Thumbs Up 42 Thumbs Down 8 Total: +34
    Comments: 5
    Favorites: 1
    Uploaded: 08/21/13
    Definition of Insanity Definition of Insanity
First2[ 10 ]
First2[ 10 ]

latest user's comments

#140 - Protecting rights of others is pure self interest. If nobody c…  [+] (1 reply) 09/26/2016 on Gasatl Budidiar Foplav 0
User avatar
#143 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
It always starts with good intentions. I had to watch people argue with me that the church was pro-science; you never know where the argument is going to come from.
#136 - "Individual happiness is not my concern, rather that indi…  [+] (3 replies) 09/26/2016 on Gasatl Budidiar Foplav 0
User avatar
#137 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I do too, but humans are by and large only concerned with themselves, or the people immediately adjacent to them. We're not designed to consider others as individuals, rather as a greater whole.

People are not inherently equal, but we as a species have advanced enough to level the playing field. (Equality of opportunity is the goal, never equality of outcome). If we have the power to make life fairer, then we should try and do so.

Well that's probably because the majority of migrants come from north africa, rather than that syria place everyone keeps on about. That does tend to happen when you don't check passports.
User avatar
#140 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
Protecting rights of others is pure self interest. If nobody can enslave your neighbor and his friends and family you don't care about, nobody can by the same rule enslave you and people you love and care about. Reason we tend to be more community-centric for the longest time it was tool of survival. Also we are pattern-seeking species. Neither of those prohibit us from actually care or consider about individuals, it's all about education as you yourself said.

As for equality, maybe I'm misunderstanding you but if you have equality of opportunity as you should, I agree it's the very essence of equality you'll never have equality of outcome due to various factors, some of which are beyond individual's control if you're untalented, stupid, boring and ugly chances are you'll never be rich and / or famous by no fault of your own thus creating perception of unfairness.

I'm still surprised I managed to have a civil and well thought out discussion of fucking FunnyJunk...
User avatar
#143 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
It always starts with good intentions. I had to watch people argue with me that the church was pro-science; you never know where the argument is going to come from.
#122 - Would you argue that starving to death while being riddled wit…  [+] (5 replies) 09/26/2016 on Gasatl Budidiar Foplav -1
User avatar
#132 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I wouldn't argue it per se, but I'd agree. If some starve then others may live better, and some may consider that to be worth the suffering. I don't think that, but I can see how someone might.
Slavery is actually a really good example of a subjective evil; from the slaves' perspectives it's terrible, from the slavers' perspectives it's pretty good.
Individual happiness is not my concern, rather that individuals be free to pursue happiness where possible. Presumably having a thousand goats bleed to death in the streets makes Muslims happy, but I doubt you'd consider that an appropriate way to behave. Islam is only evil if you disagree with its doctrines, if you believe in it then obviously it's good.

The mantra "life is not fair" is used by people who wish to maintain that imbalance. Life is as fair as we allow it to be.
Ignoring them isn't going to make them go away, what is is dealing with the root causes. That means education of the masses, not to our way of thinking, but to a critical way of thinking. I don't want the middle east to become a carbon copy of the west, I want the middle east to be as good as the west.

They can't fix what isn't broken; the majority of migrants out of the middle east just want to live in peace, free from war. The issue is that they bring with them a culture incompatible with our own. Forcing them into a warzone is not a good message to send, and will only make them hate us. Luckily there's a giant neighbouring country who wants to be on our good side. If we just sent all the migrants to Turkey we'd be fine, the Turks are more than capable of taking them.

The issue isn't that they need to change, everyone agrees on that, it's how to make them change. The answer is definitely not sending them back to a warzone.
User avatar
#136 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
"Individual happiness is not my concern, rather that individuals be free to pursue happiness where possible." I find it highly objectionable when said happiness comes at the expanse of the others.

Other than that I agree with basically everything you said except for maybe for "life is as fair as we allow it to be. People are not equal, they never were and never will be, thus inequality of outcome (the one that is most perceivable and one that is impossible to eliminate in free society) will be ever present.

Also the huge waves of unrest in whole of western Europe would suggest that majority of migrants don't want to live in peace, at least not in peace with us. Also majority of them are not from Syria but that's entire discussion entirely.
User avatar
#137 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I do too, but humans are by and large only concerned with themselves, or the people immediately adjacent to them. We're not designed to consider others as individuals, rather as a greater whole.

People are not inherently equal, but we as a species have advanced enough to level the playing field. (Equality of opportunity is the goal, never equality of outcome). If we have the power to make life fairer, then we should try and do so.

Well that's probably because the majority of migrants come from north africa, rather than that syria place everyone keeps on about. That does tend to happen when you don't check passports.
User avatar
#140 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
Protecting rights of others is pure self interest. If nobody can enslave your neighbor and his friends and family you don't care about, nobody can by the same rule enslave you and people you love and care about. Reason we tend to be more community-centric for the longest time it was tool of survival. Also we are pattern-seeking species. Neither of those prohibit us from actually care or consider about individuals, it's all about education as you yourself said.

As for equality, maybe I'm misunderstanding you but if you have equality of opportunity as you should, I agree it's the very essence of equality you'll never have equality of outcome due to various factors, some of which are beyond individual's control if you're untalented, stupid, boring and ugly chances are you'll never be rich and / or famous by no fault of your own thus creating perception of unfairness.

I'm still surprised I managed to have a civil and well thought out discussion of fucking FunnyJunk...
User avatar
#143 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
It always starts with good intentions. I had to watch people argue with me that the church was pro-science; you never know where the argument is going to come from.
#110 - Okay, as I said before, I'm not cultural relativist, I once ag…  [+] (7 replies) 09/26/2016 on Gasatl Budidiar Foplav 0
User avatar
#113 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I don't believe that such a comparison would be valid; it implies an inherent "ideal culture" which is simply not the case. I know which one I would prefer, but that's just my opinion.
It's inferior in your opinion; I imagine the muslims that uphold the system consider your ideal society to be inferior. This is not surprising, because their system caters to their ideas and our system caters to yours. Neither is inherently better from an objective standpoint. I understand that you don't agree with that concept, but that's just an impasse.

Christianity taught with the same dogmatic stance is just as harmful as Islam, so would the commonly named "scientism" were it to gain favour as a dogmatic way of thinking. The fact that they want to kill everyone but them is only window dressing to the more severe issue; that they won't compromise.

No, I'd actually argue that americans are dragging the west down quite a bit, but that's a whole different avalanche of red thumbs.
South Korea is pretty much a western nation, but I'd say it's a stretch to include japan; their culture is very different to the west's under the hood.

If you want the relationship between muslims and the west to improve then we're going to have to stop interfering with them. They're only tearing us down, and we gain nothing from it. If they're going to change, we have to let them do it on their own; because as history has shown you can't force people to accept you. Shouting "my culture is superior!" is what they're doing, and that's not all too convincing is it?
User avatar
#122 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
Would you argue that starving to death while being riddled with malaria is only subjectively worse than being fed and healthy?
My system (as you call it) caters to the well being of individual by promoting self-realization and individual freedom, while system Islam proposes is only based on forcing antiquated values on all of its subjects regardless of well being or happiness of the individual subjects. Once again, their ideas are bad, as is idea of slavery or feudalism. But if you don't consider maximizing individual happiness as an objective value than I can see where the core of the difference is.

Your idea that we have to stop interfering with them would be only feasable if we were in the 70s or 80s and majority of Middle-east were not radicalized bombed out dictatorships. But alas, they are and we need to act accordingly. We can't turn back time, nor can we undo the damage that has been done. Is it fair towards Muslims? No. But life is not fair. Their countries were fucked during the Cold-war and there's nothing we can do about that anymore. What we can do is to refuse to budge to their demands, no matter how many of them decide to come here and how many of them scream they want to turn our countries to giant Caliphate.

Europe survived two World Wars on top of over two millennia of power struggle and so I find it highly unlikely that those people can't fix their own countries and thus they have to come here and form new communities that will be isolated from the rest of us.

As for the semantics - you can argue about the core of the teachings all you want. The reality is that Christianity no longer holds violent world views in it's teachings, while Islam most definitely does and it wasn't isolation and non-interference that neutered them, it was rise of enlightenment and rationalism that broke the hold of Catholic Church, which led to apostasy and abandonment of dogmatism, if not the faith itself. To put it simply, just as we showed that we don't want to tear down churches and burn Bibles to Christians, we need to show Muslims that we don't want to take Allah away, we just can't allow them to oppress half of their population among other things if they want want to live in here. And if they can't agree to that they can jolly well fuck off back to their bombed out blastholes and make them into whatever the fuck they want them to be.
User avatar
#132 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I wouldn't argue it per se, but I'd agree. If some starve then others may live better, and some may consider that to be worth the suffering. I don't think that, but I can see how someone might.
Slavery is actually a really good example of a subjective evil; from the slaves' perspectives it's terrible, from the slavers' perspectives it's pretty good.
Individual happiness is not my concern, rather that individuals be free to pursue happiness where possible. Presumably having a thousand goats bleed to death in the streets makes Muslims happy, but I doubt you'd consider that an appropriate way to behave. Islam is only evil if you disagree with its doctrines, if you believe in it then obviously it's good.

The mantra "life is not fair" is used by people who wish to maintain that imbalance. Life is as fair as we allow it to be.
Ignoring them isn't going to make them go away, what is is dealing with the root causes. That means education of the masses, not to our way of thinking, but to a critical way of thinking. I don't want the middle east to become a carbon copy of the west, I want the middle east to be as good as the west.

They can't fix what isn't broken; the majority of migrants out of the middle east just want to live in peace, free from war. The issue is that they bring with them a culture incompatible with our own. Forcing them into a warzone is not a good message to send, and will only make them hate us. Luckily there's a giant neighbouring country who wants to be on our good side. If we just sent all the migrants to Turkey we'd be fine, the Turks are more than capable of taking them.

The issue isn't that they need to change, everyone agrees on that, it's how to make them change. The answer is definitely not sending them back to a warzone.
User avatar
#136 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
"Individual happiness is not my concern, rather that individuals be free to pursue happiness where possible." I find it highly objectionable when said happiness comes at the expanse of the others.

Other than that I agree with basically everything you said except for maybe for "life is as fair as we allow it to be. People are not equal, they never were and never will be, thus inequality of outcome (the one that is most perceivable and one that is impossible to eliminate in free society) will be ever present.

Also the huge waves of unrest in whole of western Europe would suggest that majority of migrants don't want to live in peace, at least not in peace with us. Also majority of them are not from Syria but that's entire discussion entirely.
User avatar
#137 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I do too, but humans are by and large only concerned with themselves, or the people immediately adjacent to them. We're not designed to consider others as individuals, rather as a greater whole.

People are not inherently equal, but we as a species have advanced enough to level the playing field. (Equality of opportunity is the goal, never equality of outcome). If we have the power to make life fairer, then we should try and do so.

Well that's probably because the majority of migrants come from north africa, rather than that syria place everyone keeps on about. That does tend to happen when you don't check passports.
User avatar
#140 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
Protecting rights of others is pure self interest. If nobody can enslave your neighbor and his friends and family you don't care about, nobody can by the same rule enslave you and people you love and care about. Reason we tend to be more community-centric for the longest time it was tool of survival. Also we are pattern-seeking species. Neither of those prohibit us from actually care or consider about individuals, it's all about education as you yourself said.

As for equality, maybe I'm misunderstanding you but if you have equality of opportunity as you should, I agree it's the very essence of equality you'll never have equality of outcome due to various factors, some of which are beyond individual's control if you're untalented, stupid, boring and ugly chances are you'll never be rich and / or famous by no fault of your own thus creating perception of unfairness.

I'm still surprised I managed to have a civil and well thought out discussion of fucking FunnyJunk...
User avatar
#143 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
It always starts with good intentions. I had to watch people argue with me that the church was pro-science; you never know where the argument is going to come from.
#89 - Well, I don't know about any Christian terror groups currently…  [+] (9 replies) 09/26/2016 on Gasatl Budidiar Foplav -1
User avatar
#94 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
That might be your opinion, but from their perspective you're the one with the dangerous ideology seeking to force everyone to live as you do. Subjectivity is the name of the game, you can only ever argue from your perspective, never from an objective position.
That being said I still don't like Islam.

Yeah but the problem isn't with what Islam teaches. If all Muslims were like most Christians they'd just make excuses when you ask why they don't go kill the gays. Dogmatic thought is the problem, it doesn't really matter what you're dogmatic about.
And of course you would never uphold an "us vs them" mentality... except in the next sentence.
We aren't on the receiving end, this is a war of two belligerents. The fact that you personally didn't do anything is of little consequence. All the people in the middle east know is what they're told; that the west is trying to destroy them. They don't have the luxury of an alternative viewpoint, because that kind of thing gets you beheaded. They think that you're coming to kill them in their beds, the same way you think that they are. It's not some noble battle of ideologies, it's two small groups of people with an agenda trying to have their way; the fundamentalist muslims who want a worldwide islamic caliphate, and the (as always) american government, who wants oil... for some reason.
User avatar
#110 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
Okay, as I said before, I'm not cultural relativist, I once again fail to see and what's more anyone is yet to tell me any way in which Islamic culture is in any way at least equal to the western values. Yes they do have different values and those values are shit for majority of their populace, weather it's women who are oppressed, gays and transsexuals that are persecuted, atheists and apostates who are hunted, to even ordinary "true" Muslims that live under constant fear of thought-crime for which they can be convicted by their creator or if they in any way act upon it, their neighbor.
You can argue for liberal or conservative values as the two sides of the same coin, where neither of them is right or wrong because they work in roughly the same framework, Islam does not. It's entire different value system based on entire different framework and as such is and should be recognized as inferior. Once again - ideology of Islam, not the people!

But let's move to another point. How can you argue that problem isn't what Islam teaches? Of course that is the problem. You conflated two things into one. Bible is full of bigoted and hateful messages, but teaching of Christianity excludes that or interprets it in a more or less positive way these days. In Islam, Qur'an is only the central text of Islamic ideology, not the only one like Bible is to Christianity, that's why you have so much Muslim infighting and that's why Muslims have no problem to kill other Muslims... to us they are all the game, to them they are "wrong" kind of Muslims and thus no better than infidels, even worse perhaps.

That being said, I agree wholeheartedly that dogmatism of any kind of is horrible and before you point out any perceived hypocrisy on my part, I'm not saying western culture is the best, I'm only pointing out that is superior to Islamic one . But I must ask, do you condiers only Americans to be the representation of western values? Because I don't. I'd include the whole of Europe (yes both Western and Eastern bloc), U.S., Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser extend Japan and South Korea and I probably forgot some others . All of those have different customs, policies, majority religions, opinions on basically all modern issues ranging from gun control, abortion, euthanasia, etc. while still having the same core set of values. Islam doesn't permit those kinds of deviations. The only way to achieve them is not through rational discourse but by abandoning parts of your faith or by interpreting it in a different way something which as was established can and will mark you as a target to more fundamentalist groups of Islamists , so once again I fail to see how the two can be even put in the same category. It's a specific ideology fighting against set of values.

And I'm not really afraid they are going to kill me in my sleep, I'm more afraid they are going to publicly throw me of the fucking roof for being an atheist along with all of my friends. Or maybe because they'll stone my mother or girlfriend because they'll refuse to wear hijab. I don't want them with their values because they are oppressive, socially regressive and lead to social, economic and technological downfall of the country all of which were and are observable and are objectively worse than what we, in the western world, have here.
User avatar
#113 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I don't believe that such a comparison would be valid; it implies an inherent "ideal culture" which is simply not the case. I know which one I would prefer, but that's just my opinion.
It's inferior in your opinion; I imagine the muslims that uphold the system consider your ideal society to be inferior. This is not surprising, because their system caters to their ideas and our system caters to yours. Neither is inherently better from an objective standpoint. I understand that you don't agree with that concept, but that's just an impasse.

Christianity taught with the same dogmatic stance is just as harmful as Islam, so would the commonly named "scientism" were it to gain favour as a dogmatic way of thinking. The fact that they want to kill everyone but them is only window dressing to the more severe issue; that they won't compromise.

No, I'd actually argue that americans are dragging the west down quite a bit, but that's a whole different avalanche of red thumbs.
South Korea is pretty much a western nation, but I'd say it's a stretch to include japan; their culture is very different to the west's under the hood.

If you want the relationship between muslims and the west to improve then we're going to have to stop interfering with them. They're only tearing us down, and we gain nothing from it. If they're going to change, we have to let them do it on their own; because as history has shown you can't force people to accept you. Shouting "my culture is superior!" is what they're doing, and that's not all too convincing is it?
User avatar
#122 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
Would you argue that starving to death while being riddled with malaria is only subjectively worse than being fed and healthy?
My system (as you call it) caters to the well being of individual by promoting self-realization and individual freedom, while system Islam proposes is only based on forcing antiquated values on all of its subjects regardless of well being or happiness of the individual subjects. Once again, their ideas are bad, as is idea of slavery or feudalism. But if you don't consider maximizing individual happiness as an objective value than I can see where the core of the difference is.

Your idea that we have to stop interfering with them would be only feasable if we were in the 70s or 80s and majority of Middle-east were not radicalized bombed out dictatorships. But alas, they are and we need to act accordingly. We can't turn back time, nor can we undo the damage that has been done. Is it fair towards Muslims? No. But life is not fair. Their countries were fucked during the Cold-war and there's nothing we can do about that anymore. What we can do is to refuse to budge to their demands, no matter how many of them decide to come here and how many of them scream they want to turn our countries to giant Caliphate.

Europe survived two World Wars on top of over two millennia of power struggle and so I find it highly unlikely that those people can't fix their own countries and thus they have to come here and form new communities that will be isolated from the rest of us.

As for the semantics - you can argue about the core of the teachings all you want. The reality is that Christianity no longer holds violent world views in it's teachings, while Islam most definitely does and it wasn't isolation and non-interference that neutered them, it was rise of enlightenment and rationalism that broke the hold of Catholic Church, which led to apostasy and abandonment of dogmatism, if not the faith itself. To put it simply, just as we showed that we don't want to tear down churches and burn Bibles to Christians, we need to show Muslims that we don't want to take Allah away, we just can't allow them to oppress half of their population among other things if they want want to live in here. And if they can't agree to that they can jolly well fuck off back to their bombed out blastholes and make them into whatever the fuck they want them to be.
User avatar
#132 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I wouldn't argue it per se, but I'd agree. If some starve then others may live better, and some may consider that to be worth the suffering. I don't think that, but I can see how someone might.
Slavery is actually a really good example of a subjective evil; from the slaves' perspectives it's terrible, from the slavers' perspectives it's pretty good.
Individual happiness is not my concern, rather that individuals be free to pursue happiness where possible. Presumably having a thousand goats bleed to death in the streets makes Muslims happy, but I doubt you'd consider that an appropriate way to behave. Islam is only evil if you disagree with its doctrines, if you believe in it then obviously it's good.

The mantra "life is not fair" is used by people who wish to maintain that imbalance. Life is as fair as we allow it to be.
Ignoring them isn't going to make them go away, what is is dealing with the root causes. That means education of the masses, not to our way of thinking, but to a critical way of thinking. I don't want the middle east to become a carbon copy of the west, I want the middle east to be as good as the west.

They can't fix what isn't broken; the majority of migrants out of the middle east just want to live in peace, free from war. The issue is that they bring with them a culture incompatible with our own. Forcing them into a warzone is not a good message to send, and will only make them hate us. Luckily there's a giant neighbouring country who wants to be on our good side. If we just sent all the migrants to Turkey we'd be fine, the Turks are more than capable of taking them.

The issue isn't that they need to change, everyone agrees on that, it's how to make them change. The answer is definitely not sending them back to a warzone.
User avatar
#136 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
"Individual happiness is not my concern, rather that individuals be free to pursue happiness where possible." I find it highly objectionable when said happiness comes at the expanse of the others.

Other than that I agree with basically everything you said except for maybe for "life is as fair as we allow it to be. People are not equal, they never were and never will be, thus inequality of outcome (the one that is most perceivable and one that is impossible to eliminate in free society) will be ever present.

Also the huge waves of unrest in whole of western Europe would suggest that majority of migrants don't want to live in peace, at least not in peace with us. Also majority of them are not from Syria but that's entire discussion entirely.
User avatar
#137 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I do too, but humans are by and large only concerned with themselves, or the people immediately adjacent to them. We're not designed to consider others as individuals, rather as a greater whole.

People are not inherently equal, but we as a species have advanced enough to level the playing field. (Equality of opportunity is the goal, never equality of outcome). If we have the power to make life fairer, then we should try and do so.

Well that's probably because the majority of migrants come from north africa, rather than that syria place everyone keeps on about. That does tend to happen when you don't check passports.
User avatar
#140 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
Protecting rights of others is pure self interest. If nobody can enslave your neighbor and his friends and family you don't care about, nobody can by the same rule enslave you and people you love and care about. Reason we tend to be more community-centric for the longest time it was tool of survival. Also we are pattern-seeking species. Neither of those prohibit us from actually care or consider about individuals, it's all about education as you yourself said.

As for equality, maybe I'm misunderstanding you but if you have equality of opportunity as you should, I agree it's the very essence of equality you'll never have equality of outcome due to various factors, some of which are beyond individual's control if you're untalented, stupid, boring and ugly chances are you'll never be rich and / or famous by no fault of your own thus creating perception of unfairness.

I'm still surprised I managed to have a civil and well thought out discussion of fucking FunnyJunk...
User avatar
#143 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
It always starts with good intentions. I had to watch people argue with me that the church was pro-science; you never know where the argument is going to come from.
#74 - How can lashing out and preforming acts of terrorism in other …  [+] (13 replies) 09/26/2016 on Gasatl Budidiar Foplav -3
User avatar
#76 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
They aren't attacking the country, they're attacking western culture, which they perceive correctly as a threat to their culture. I don't approve of their methods but that's not the point.

That's because most christians aren't fundamentalists in europe. However in america there are enough radical christians to generate small domestic terror groups, though nothing even close to the scale of the middle east, which is nearly all radicalised.

Their ideology is not hostile in a vacuum, it is only exposure to others that causes such behaviour.
Yes, and we think they are wrong and we are right. "Right" is subjective.
User avatar
#89 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
Well, I don't know about any Christian terror groups currently operating in the U.S. but then again I didn't do any research into that, so if you want to provide some examples I'd welcome that.

I am not cultural relativist, I consider some cultures objectively superior to others, in this case I consider western culture to be superior in almost (if not all) aspects to Islamic culture, so I find their perception of western culture as a threat to be misguided at best and highly deluded and thus mortally dangerous at worst, even if we take out the extremists out of the equation. For example a lot of Muslims don't support freedom of speech, they want to ban quite a lot of things (from items, through customs all the way to parts of ideologies), they want to criminalize any and all criticism of Islam etc. And we're not talking about some fringe minority, we're talking 40-70% depending on the issue, that's quite a lot I'd say.

When you have ideology that promises redemption and paradise through martyrdom, allows for capital punishment for apostasy, homosexuality, adultery, indecent exposure, marital disobedience, being raped and quite a few others, has comprehensive and extensive laws on how to treat and tax non-Muslims in Islam-controlled territories, it has disregard for local laws, subsidize and enforces them and in the end has no problem to "spread the faith by sword" I'd say that that kind of ideology is hostile the second any other ideology comes into the picture, regardless of what that other ideology is. Islam by its own tenets creates massive "us vs them" mentality in its believers and because so many of them are radicalized, they try to act upon it to the letter without any compromise on their part. Is it so hard to imagine why we, the ones on the receiving end, might be a little bit hostile towards that?
User avatar
#94 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
That might be your opinion, but from their perspective you're the one with the dangerous ideology seeking to force everyone to live as you do. Subjectivity is the name of the game, you can only ever argue from your perspective, never from an objective position.
That being said I still don't like Islam.

Yeah but the problem isn't with what Islam teaches. If all Muslims were like most Christians they'd just make excuses when you ask why they don't go kill the gays. Dogmatic thought is the problem, it doesn't really matter what you're dogmatic about.
And of course you would never uphold an "us vs them" mentality... except in the next sentence.
We aren't on the receiving end, this is a war of two belligerents. The fact that you personally didn't do anything is of little consequence. All the people in the middle east know is what they're told; that the west is trying to destroy them. They don't have the luxury of an alternative viewpoint, because that kind of thing gets you beheaded. They think that you're coming to kill them in their beds, the same way you think that they are. It's not some noble battle of ideologies, it's two small groups of people with an agenda trying to have their way; the fundamentalist muslims who want a worldwide islamic caliphate, and the (as always) american government, who wants oil... for some reason.
User avatar
#110 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
Okay, as I said before, I'm not cultural relativist, I once again fail to see and what's more anyone is yet to tell me any way in which Islamic culture is in any way at least equal to the western values. Yes they do have different values and those values are shit for majority of their populace, weather it's women who are oppressed, gays and transsexuals that are persecuted, atheists and apostates who are hunted, to even ordinary "true" Muslims that live under constant fear of thought-crime for which they can be convicted by their creator or if they in any way act upon it, their neighbor.
You can argue for liberal or conservative values as the two sides of the same coin, where neither of them is right or wrong because they work in roughly the same framework, Islam does not. It's entire different value system based on entire different framework and as such is and should be recognized as inferior. Once again - ideology of Islam, not the people!

But let's move to another point. How can you argue that problem isn't what Islam teaches? Of course that is the problem. You conflated two things into one. Bible is full of bigoted and hateful messages, but teaching of Christianity excludes that or interprets it in a more or less positive way these days. In Islam, Qur'an is only the central text of Islamic ideology, not the only one like Bible is to Christianity, that's why you have so much Muslim infighting and that's why Muslims have no problem to kill other Muslims... to us they are all the game, to them they are "wrong" kind of Muslims and thus no better than infidels, even worse perhaps.

That being said, I agree wholeheartedly that dogmatism of any kind of is horrible and before you point out any perceived hypocrisy on my part, I'm not saying western culture is the best, I'm only pointing out that is superior to Islamic one . But I must ask, do you condiers only Americans to be the representation of western values? Because I don't. I'd include the whole of Europe (yes both Western and Eastern bloc), U.S., Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser extend Japan and South Korea and I probably forgot some others . All of those have different customs, policies, majority religions, opinions on basically all modern issues ranging from gun control, abortion, euthanasia, etc. while still having the same core set of values. Islam doesn't permit those kinds of deviations. The only way to achieve them is not through rational discourse but by abandoning parts of your faith or by interpreting it in a different way something which as was established can and will mark you as a target to more fundamentalist groups of Islamists , so once again I fail to see how the two can be even put in the same category. It's a specific ideology fighting against set of values.

And I'm not really afraid they are going to kill me in my sleep, I'm more afraid they are going to publicly throw me of the fucking roof for being an atheist along with all of my friends. Or maybe because they'll stone my mother or girlfriend because they'll refuse to wear hijab. I don't want them with their values because they are oppressive, socially regressive and lead to social, economic and technological downfall of the country all of which were and are observable and are objectively worse than what we, in the western world, have here.
User avatar
#113 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I don't believe that such a comparison would be valid; it implies an inherent "ideal culture" which is simply not the case. I know which one I would prefer, but that's just my opinion.
It's inferior in your opinion; I imagine the muslims that uphold the system consider your ideal society to be inferior. This is not surprising, because their system caters to their ideas and our system caters to yours. Neither is inherently better from an objective standpoint. I understand that you don't agree with that concept, but that's just an impasse.

Christianity taught with the same dogmatic stance is just as harmful as Islam, so would the commonly named "scientism" were it to gain favour as a dogmatic way of thinking. The fact that they want to kill everyone but them is only window dressing to the more severe issue; that they won't compromise.

No, I'd actually argue that americans are dragging the west down quite a bit, but that's a whole different avalanche of red thumbs.
South Korea is pretty much a western nation, but I'd say it's a stretch to include japan; their culture is very different to the west's under the hood.

If you want the relationship between muslims and the west to improve then we're going to have to stop interfering with them. They're only tearing us down, and we gain nothing from it. If they're going to change, we have to let them do it on their own; because as history has shown you can't force people to accept you. Shouting "my culture is superior!" is what they're doing, and that's not all too convincing is it?
User avatar
#122 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
Would you argue that starving to death while being riddled with malaria is only subjectively worse than being fed and healthy?
My system (as you call it) caters to the well being of individual by promoting self-realization and individual freedom, while system Islam proposes is only based on forcing antiquated values on all of its subjects regardless of well being or happiness of the individual subjects. Once again, their ideas are bad, as is idea of slavery or feudalism. But if you don't consider maximizing individual happiness as an objective value than I can see where the core of the difference is.

Your idea that we have to stop interfering with them would be only feasable if we were in the 70s or 80s and majority of Middle-east were not radicalized bombed out dictatorships. But alas, they are and we need to act accordingly. We can't turn back time, nor can we undo the damage that has been done. Is it fair towards Muslims? No. But life is not fair. Their countries were fucked during the Cold-war and there's nothing we can do about that anymore. What we can do is to refuse to budge to their demands, no matter how many of them decide to come here and how many of them scream they want to turn our countries to giant Caliphate.

Europe survived two World Wars on top of over two millennia of power struggle and so I find it highly unlikely that those people can't fix their own countries and thus they have to come here and form new communities that will be isolated from the rest of us.

As for the semantics - you can argue about the core of the teachings all you want. The reality is that Christianity no longer holds violent world views in it's teachings, while Islam most definitely does and it wasn't isolation and non-interference that neutered them, it was rise of enlightenment and rationalism that broke the hold of Catholic Church, which led to apostasy and abandonment of dogmatism, if not the faith itself. To put it simply, just as we showed that we don't want to tear down churches and burn Bibles to Christians, we need to show Muslims that we don't want to take Allah away, we just can't allow them to oppress half of their population among other things if they want want to live in here. And if they can't agree to that they can jolly well fuck off back to their bombed out blastholes and make them into whatever the fuck they want them to be.
User avatar
#132 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I wouldn't argue it per se, but I'd agree. If some starve then others may live better, and some may consider that to be worth the suffering. I don't think that, but I can see how someone might.
Slavery is actually a really good example of a subjective evil; from the slaves' perspectives it's terrible, from the slavers' perspectives it's pretty good.
Individual happiness is not my concern, rather that individuals be free to pursue happiness where possible. Presumably having a thousand goats bleed to death in the streets makes Muslims happy, but I doubt you'd consider that an appropriate way to behave. Islam is only evil if you disagree with its doctrines, if you believe in it then obviously it's good.

The mantra "life is not fair" is used by people who wish to maintain that imbalance. Life is as fair as we allow it to be.
Ignoring them isn't going to make them go away, what is is dealing with the root causes. That means education of the masses, not to our way of thinking, but to a critical way of thinking. I don't want the middle east to become a carbon copy of the west, I want the middle east to be as good as the west.

They can't fix what isn't broken; the majority of migrants out of the middle east just want to live in peace, free from war. The issue is that they bring with them a culture incompatible with our own. Forcing them into a warzone is not a good message to send, and will only make them hate us. Luckily there's a giant neighbouring country who wants to be on our good side. If we just sent all the migrants to Turkey we'd be fine, the Turks are more than capable of taking them.

The issue isn't that they need to change, everyone agrees on that, it's how to make them change. The answer is definitely not sending them back to a warzone.
User avatar
#136 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
"Individual happiness is not my concern, rather that individuals be free to pursue happiness where possible." I find it highly objectionable when said happiness comes at the expanse of the others.

Other than that I agree with basically everything you said except for maybe for "life is as fair as we allow it to be. People are not equal, they never were and never will be, thus inequality of outcome (the one that is most perceivable and one that is impossible to eliminate in free society) will be ever present.

Also the huge waves of unrest in whole of western Europe would suggest that majority of migrants don't want to live in peace, at least not in peace with us. Also majority of them are not from Syria but that's entire discussion entirely.
User avatar
#137 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
I do too, but humans are by and large only concerned with themselves, or the people immediately adjacent to them. We're not designed to consider others as individuals, rather as a greater whole.

People are not inherently equal, but we as a species have advanced enough to level the playing field. (Equality of opportunity is the goal, never equality of outcome). If we have the power to make life fairer, then we should try and do so.

Well that's probably because the majority of migrants come from north africa, rather than that syria place everyone keeps on about. That does tend to happen when you don't check passports.
User avatar
#140 - thefallenlord (09/26/2016) [-]
Protecting rights of others is pure self interest. If nobody can enslave your neighbor and his friends and family you don't care about, nobody can by the same rule enslave you and people you love and care about. Reason we tend to be more community-centric for the longest time it was tool of survival. Also we are pattern-seeking species. Neither of those prohibit us from actually care or consider about individuals, it's all about education as you yourself said.

As for equality, maybe I'm misunderstanding you but if you have equality of opportunity as you should, I agree it's the very essence of equality you'll never have equality of outcome due to various factors, some of which are beyond individual's control if you're untalented, stupid, boring and ugly chances are you'll never be rich and / or famous by no fault of your own thus creating perception of unfairness.

I'm still surprised I managed to have a civil and well thought out discussion of fucking FunnyJunk...
User avatar
#143 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
It always starts with good intentions. I had to watch people argue with me that the church was pro-science; you never know where the argument is going to come from.
#87 - nigkle (09/26/2016) [-]
You lost me at this post, now you just sound retarded.
User avatar
#95 - platinumaltaria (09/26/2016) [-]
What about this indicates a learning disability?
#1 - And yet we have this cancer which is basically always online f…  [+] (13 replies) 09/21/2016 on Make it easy and affordable +16
User avatar
#21 - pentol (09/22/2016) [-]
I dislike denuvo as much as the next guy, but get your facts right.
Denuvo in itself is not DRM, it's anti-tamper software. What denuvo does is preventing changes to the code from running correctly. It is possible to put denuvo on a program that is otherwise Free open source, and it doesn't prevent others from copying and running it, but it does prevent others from modifying it.
Denuvo is not anti-copy, it is anti-cracking. It is usually paired with means of DRM to protect it from running if it is not verified.
When some games with denuvo protection were "cracked" it wasn't denuvo that was defeated, but weaknesses in their DRM, namely steamworks.
#31 - skebaba (09/22/2016) [-]
Except Denuvo has finally been cracked a month or so back. Now it's useless and thus should be made illegal.
User avatar
#32 - pentol (09/22/2016) [-]
didn't hear about any of that. i did however hear that they found a loophole, that let them play the game, because steam thought they were playing the demo, and handed out the authentication tokens. are you sure denuvo itself was cracked, instead of bypassed?

I really wish denuvo would go away, but making it illegal? get real, kid.
#33 - skebaba (09/22/2016) [-]
If something is harmful and obsolete, of course it should be illegal, like any other thing that's harmful and obsolete.
User avatar
#34 - pentol (09/22/2016) [-]
What damage is denuvo causing?
It's shitty, anti-consumer business practice, that hampers preservation of games for the future, but that is not harmful in a way that even warrants the consideration of a ban.
#35 - skebaba (09/22/2016) [-]
Yes it does. Since only the paying customers suffer from it. Pirates will just remove it, while paying customers can't.
User avatar
#36 - pentol (09/22/2016) [-]
as of right now, there is nothing indicating anybody is close to figuring out how to remove denuvo from any product it is used for. It has been bypassed for several games, but the instructions are still running. you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, it seems.
#27 - thefallenlord (09/22/2016) [-]
Dude... first of all don't take this as an attack on you personally, I get your point of view and I agree, you're technically correct... buuuuuut people don't care it if's DRM or anti-tamper software. People only care if the bloatware that comes with the game is directly affecting them in negative way, which denuvo fucking does because it needs online tickets (or was it tokens or whatever?) to verify your copy on regular basis. So if your internet goes to shit for a few days or you move and your new house doesn't have internet yet you're fucked. Also if they ever go under all the games that use that crap become unplayable after certain period (same as games that used GameSpy or GFWL for multiplayer became unplayable in multiplayer after servers went offline), the difference is, this time it won't just be multiplayer. And even if the company doesn't go under, I seriously doubt they going to keep the servers running 24/7 for 20 years. And I dunno about you but I plan to play some of denuvo protected games on later date as well MGS 5 anyone?
User avatar
#16 - thechosentroll (09/22/2016) [-]
The best part is it's only going to be a year before pirates absolutely destroy that thing, because every time a new "uncrackable" DRM comes out, people see it as a personal challenge.
#7 - dymondsword (09/22/2016) [-]
It's not uncrackable, and in fact CPY has even cracked DOOM
User avatar
#28 - elsanna (09/22/2016) [-]
And Rise of the Tomb Raider was cracked.
User avatar
#6 - lnyanchl (09/22/2016) [-]
Some of the earlier revisions have been cracked.
#5 - feedingwolves (09/22/2016) [-]
It's amusing that Newell has these opinions, yet if Denuvo is mentioned even passingly in the steam forums it turns into a shitfest where anyone with a legitimate point gets called a butthurt pirate, regardless of whether or not that person has the game in question in their library.