Didn’t you hear? There is a relatively new prison gang that is quickly becoming a force to be reckoned with. They call themselves the ARD (anne rice disciples) and will stab the fuck out of anybody that uses less than a thousand words to describe a tapestry.
2 Likes
It’s a game and who cares about the rules as long as My Guy gives me stuff that I like, and one of the most important things I want him to give me is…
…a referee that strictly interprets and enforces the rules that I say aren’t anything anyone should worry about (a conservative Supreme Court justice).
Briliant.
1 Like
Honestly, man, while I may have come in a little too hot for this particular landing zone, the allegation that my support for ostracizing, rather than entertaining, assholes makes me somehow unprincipled is insultingly, unequivocally, asinine… particularly when your claim of acting on principle about-faces to admissions of posting for entertainment, practice, and, yes, undercurrents of camaraderie just a few posts later.
Particularly, as well, when a gripe about self-indulgent behavior gets laughed off as racist, sewer-dwelling ‘sarcazm’ only to – again, just a few posts later – be self-described as “far, far more viscerally satisfying” than acting in ways that actually discourages / obviates the offensive poster’s inclination / ability to participate in this forum.
I would also gently posit that masking viscerally satisfying, entertaining, professionally advantageous, lightly convivial behavior as a principled stand to protect this “otherwise stellar place to test ideas against extraordinarily sharp conservative and libertarian minds” is a FAR better illustration of nihilistic behavior than, say, having the temerity to suggest that blocking / reporting mean comments might be a more practical, less disruptive strategy.
The biggest tragedy is that we can’t even agree on the contents of raj’s unconscious landscapes. I would bet that, when not tapping his foot in bathroom stalls or posting on this forum, he’s busy filling his hard drive with interracial and cuckoldry-based pornography. The raj doth protest too much, methinks.
You’ll notice a pattern that a lot of my haters are centrally focused on what I do with my cock, how long it is and where I stick it.
Hey @robstein
Before you leave this discussion you’ll notice no one has refuted my claim that muslims are exponentially more likely than non-muslims to commit acts of terror and for that reason they are different than other religions.
In fact a news outlet that a lot of anti-Trumpers think highly of pegs that at 5,000 percent more likely a muslim will commit an act of terror than a non-muslim.
Ask yourself, are you really being tolerant or just rationalizing your cowardice?
http://www.nationalreview.com/donald-trump-muslim-immigration
Smh = DBCooper
3 Likes
I agree never said otherwise
Holy shit.
I swear to god I would argue non stop with DB Cooper over baseball and he would write in the exact same way.
You literally read my mind wtf
I don’t think there is anything to refute statistically, so you’re declaring victory over imaginary enemies.
But, it’s also a fact that adherents of your ideology - right-wing ethnonationalism - also are exponentially more likely than adherents of other ideologies to commit acts of terror specifically on American soil.
Since you’re so worried about the potential acts of terror on my country, what are you proposing to do about the larger threat of terror from your ideological brethren?
3 Likes
Dude, are you serious? [quote=“thunderbolt23, post:2998, topic:223365”]
What if I told you a citizen is statistically (exponentially) more likely to commit an act of terror if that citizen has right-wing and white nationalist ideas - we should get rid of them too, right?
[/quote]
FAR more people have been killed in our own country, by our own citizens, right-wing gun toting nut jobs, than terrorists. If I’m in a movie theater and a crazy guy comes in with a gun, that’s terrorism. If I was a black person and a white supremacist burns down my church, that’s terrorism. If I was a muslim praying peacefully (AS MOST OF THEM DO) and a right-wing extremist burns down the mosque, that’s terrorism. These things have all happened in the recent past, all acts of terror, completed by american citizens.
You also didn’t answer any of my questions, you just deflect with more questions of your own. WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE between a white supremacist killing minorities, burning down a mosque, or an “act of terror” as you’d define it? The bible has equally as many, if not more, references to violence, death and destruction, and promotes child abuse, spousal abuse and massive destruction. Your ignorance is thicker than your skull.
Also, your boy trump and his republican buddies just decided to allow mentally ill to have guns. Looks like your president and your republican boys are SUPPORTING TERRORISM TO ME.
There’s no point in continuing conversing with you, because you’re a blind fool who can’t think for yourself, or past the nose on your troll robot face that probably hasn’t seen the light of day in years because you’re too busy being a keyboard warrior about politics on a health and fitness website. You’re the kind of guy that if you go outside, and it’s raining, you’d say, “well trump said it’s not going to rain today,” and if someone asks if it’s raining, you’d say no. Don’t you ever get tired of doing this shit all day?
[quote=“anonym, post:3115, topic:223365, full:true”]
Honestly, man, while I may have come in a little too hot for this particular landing zone, the allegation that my support for ostracizing, rather than entertaining, assholes makes me somehow unprincipled is insultingly, unequivocally, asinine… particularly when your claim of acting on principle about-faces to admissions of posting for entertainment, practice, and, yes, undercurrents of camaraderie just a few posts later.
Particularly, as well, when a gripe about self-indulgent behavior gets laughed off as racist, sewer-dwelling ‘sarcazm’ only to – again, just a few posts later – be self-described as “far, far more viscerally satisfying” than acting in ways that actually discourages / obviates the offensive poster’s inclination / ability to participate in this forum.
I would also gently posit that masking viscerally satisfying, entertaining, professionally advantageous, lightly convivial behavior as a principled stand to protect this “otherwise stellar place to test ideas against extraordinarily sharp conservative and libertarian minds” is a FAR better illustration of nihilistic behavior than, say, having the temerity to suggest that blocking / reporting mean comments might be a more practical, less disruptive strategy.[/quote]
You are overthinking this. In posts subsequent to your first one, you have added so much nuance to your position that it has fundamentally changed. We now know that you “support…ostracizing, rather than entertaining, assholes” – which is to say that you do take issue with raj’s bullshit, but you also take issue with the way in which I respond to it. That’s fine: we can and do disagree about the best way to react to people like him, but it doesn’t really bother me that we have what amounts to a set of divergent procedural philosophies.
But that wasn’t what you began with. You originally and without elaboration claimed your only issue with raj to be the negative reactions to him. I called this nihilism, because – in light of raj’s being an actual, real-life, white supremacist piece of shit – it was that. I knew you weren’t a white supremacist, so I saw this as a perfect illustration of a force that’s in operation at all levels of our society since Trump rose to power. It’s a renewal of an old National Review tic: they usually weren’t running material that was explicitly pro-apartheid, but they always seemed more interested in mocking/questioning/rolling eyes at the anti-apartheid line than anything else. It was simple nihilism, which is a word I use to describe disinterest in what is right vis-a-vis other, flashier questions of partisan politics, mannerism & style, and so on. For a more current example, see zeb1 and his new, relativistic political theory that nothing matters lol it’s just a dirty game.
You then imputed a bunch of auto-back-patting to me. I can – and do – use this place for entertainment, practice, and general shit-shooting while also desiring, for various reasons, to deride buffoons who use words like “dindus.” If you think I consider this some kind of moral accomplishment on my part, you’re sorely mistaken: it’s precisely the extent to which I consider this stance banal & universal that led me to take a shot at you for (apparently) finding it offensive. When I counsel my nephew, who is a toddler, not to eat worms, I do not do so with some kind of prideful admiration for my own ability to resist the urge to scoop dirt into my mouth.
That anology is supposed to demonstrate that not all criticism of others is accompanied by praise of self, not that you are like a worm-eating toddler. Anyway, as I said before, none of this applies to your position as it has emerged in the last few posts.
This is funny, and I agree.
As for whether or not I am @DBCooper: I go to a Yankee game every couple years, but idgaf about baseball, certainly not enough to argue about it online. NFL NBA & FC Barcelona yes, MLB nah.
It’s not that I’m disagreeing with you, as I really don’t know, but the link you posted and the text you pasted seem to support therajraj’s position. “Are the Quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable?” Madison seems to be using “sects” and “Religions” interchangeably. The link mentions:
“Over the next decade, Madison would be involved in various religious liberty battles in the Virginia legislature, from repealing penalties against dissenters to suspending taxpayer support for Anglican clergymen. Those struggles came to a head in 1784 when–religious conservatives take note–the General Assembly tried to pass a General Assessment bill to collect tax money for all Christian churches in the name of “public morality.” Madison and others saw the bill for what it was: an attempt to prop up the Protestant Episcopal (Anglican) church with taxpayers’ money. Prompted by Baptist leaders and others, Madison penned his now-famous Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments in July 1785.”
You also must remember that, at the time, it was legally permissible to privately discriminate on the basis of religion. A business(i.e., those running the business) is no longer permitted to do so.
I must’ve at least written a hundred posts going back and forth with usmccds423 over this topic. Plenty refute it even robstein is currently
Look I’m happy to discuss whatever you want, but I’m not going to move on to another topic until the current one is finished being discussed.
@thunderbolt23 If you don’t disagree about the figures on Islamic terrorism, then do you also agree that if islamic immigration continues in any meaningful amount it will eventually lead to negative effects on American quality of life ?
@robstein Do you know what per capita means, why it’s relevant and why raw totals are misleading?
[quote=“smh_23, post:3123, topic:223365, full:true”]
If I’m a white supremacist you’re a xenophile.
Based on the fact you can’t go 20 posts without referencing cock your backside is probably equally as lose as your desire for American borders to be.
So close, young Nazi. So, so close.
2 Likes
Nope, for a number of reasons. Even if Muslims are statistically more likely to commit an act of terror than other groups, the percentage is still miniscule on a per capita basis and not reflective of the vast majority of Muslims, who have no interest in committing acts of terror, and are the most likely to be the ones that want to immigrate to my country.
Logic ain’t your strong suit, and you overrely on a statistical propensity as a broader characterization of a larger culture (and really, subcultures - Muslim societies and countries are not monolithic) - a view not based on reason. (No surprise there.)
Moreover, you shift from the specific (unfounded) concern of national/domestic security to worries over the “negative effects on American life”, which are not the same thing. In any event, no, there’s nothing to worry about that on that front either - Muslims have been living here for years, and we still sing the national anthem at every sporting event. The population of Muslims in America could double tomorrow - making them a whopping 2% of the population - and the quality of life in the aggregate wouldn’t budge.
So no, even with the statistical difference, that isn’t ipso facto a reason to conclude importing Muslims into my country will lead to “negative effects in American life.”
Now, your turn to directly answer my question.
1 Like
I should also add that many Muslim immigrants (and wannabe immigrants) are fleeing some of these medieval shitholes in the same way Christians and secularists would. These aren’t latent terrorists - these are latent Fourth of July barbecuers. Non-pork, of course.
4 Likes
[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:3129, topic:223365, full:true”]
Nope, for a number of reasons. Even if Muslims are statistically more likely to commit an act of terror than other groups, the percentage is still miniscule on a per capita basis and not reflective of the vast majority of Muslims, who have no interest in committing acts of terror, and are the most likely to be the ones that want to immigrate to my country.[/quote]
The percentage of people living in inner city Chicago that want to commit violent crime is minuscule and violent criminality is no way reflective of the average inner city person. Would you want to live in the inner city?
[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:3129, topic:223365, full:true”]
Logic ain’t your strong suit, and you overrely on a statistical propensity as a broader characterization of a larger culture (and really, subcultures - Muslim societies and countries are not monolithic) - a view not based on reason. (No surprise there.)[/quote]
You spend decades innocently murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent muslims across the world it should come as no surprise that there are at least a couple Islamic terror attacks annually. Didn’t Omar Mateen yell “THIS IS FOR SYRIA!” ? How’s that for logic?
[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:3129, topic:223365, full:true”]
Moreover, you shift from the specific (unfounded) concern of national/domestic security to worries over the “negative effects on American life”, which are not the same thing. [/quote]
I mentioned American life because it’s a broader term to cover more than just terror. For instance we now live in a surveillance state. It’s not Christian or Buddhist immigrants we have to thank for that.
[quote=“thunderbolt23, post:3129, topic:223365, full:true”]
In any event, no, there’s nothing to worry about that on that front either - Muslims have been living here for years, and we still sing the national anthem at every sporting event. The population of Muslims in America could double tomorrow - making them a whopping 2% of the population - and the quality of life in the aggregate wouldn’t budge.
So no, even with the statistical difference, that isn’t ipso facto a reason to conclude importing Muslims into my country will lead to “negative effects in American life.”[/quote]
Here’s the difference between you and I. I honestly care about what type of place I’m going to leave behind for my descendants, not just immediate ones but even the ones 100+ years in the future. Immigration isn’t a one and done thing it’s a multi-generational nation transforming policy. With Islamic birth rates there is absolutely no reason to believe the muslim population will not grow substantially in the long term (Isn’t the most common baby name in England now Muhammed?) if things do not chance. Ask yourself, would you want The Muslim population to grow to 7.5% as it has in France? How has that worked out for the French?
not yet.
The most effective way to solve this problem is by creating safe zones in the Middle East and relocating them there. You can only help a small fraction by allowing them to immigrate to America