Why should "average Joes" be supported, anyway?
Why does the mere fact of one's existence entitle him to the means by which to continue that existence?
I am not a slave. I have no moral obligation whatsoever to provide for another. That you wish to impose such an obligation upon me anyway is indicative of your utterly vile and despicable nature.
Because if you don't give him the means by which to continue his existence, then he won't be able to buy anyone's products anymore, thus causing the entire economy to stagnate.
Furthermore, assuming you own a business, to claim that the property you have allocated to yourself was obtained by your effort and your effort alone is highly misleading. Without the education system, the public transportation system, the efforts others have contributed to your business, and so forth, you would not have been able to keep your business running. While it is certainly true that you may have recompensed others for their efforts, under the parameters of our system it is at a price determined entirely by yourself. Workers who are not fortunate enough to have enough property to start their own business thus have no choice but to choose from among the employers who will hire them, and each worker's bargaining power is comparatively insubstantial as a result. If you claim that each individual has an equal chance of coming into enough property to start or obtain his or her own business, I'd suggest you take a look at the wide disparity of incomes in the society around you and reëvaluate your perceptions. The greatest barrier to equal opportunity in our society is an unequal start, and from our public school systems, which are vastly shittier in poor urban areas, to the amount of funds funneled into public works projects, the areas with higher incomes get vastly preferable treatment. The result takes our society far away from the meritocracy it pretends to be and back into the days of aristocratic dynasties. Thus, the odds that people are recompensed proportionally to the amount of work they've done are slim, especially in the absence of government laws regulating such things. (The $5.15/hr minimum wage law is ludicrous, it's barely enough to scrape together an existence in the *cheapest* parts of the country, let alone someplace like New York City or Los Angeles).
However, I don't think all business owners owe substantial amounts of taxes to the governments; just large ones. Similarly, if you don't own a business, then as long as your income is under $100,000 a year, I actually don't think you should pay any taxes at all. If it's above $100,000, then likely you owe some debt to society along similar lines as those described for business owners.
Finally, if you don't give him enough for food and shelter, he will starve or freeze, and thus society as a whole is guilty of homicide via collective negligence, as there are more than enough resources to prevent his death.
His life is his responsibility. I possess no guilt if he dies from starvation. I have no obligation towards him. "Society" does not own resources--only individuals do.
"Because if you don't give him the means by which to continue his existence, then he won't be able to buy anyone's products anymore, thus causing the entire economy to stagnate."
This is absurd. Aside from the fact that keeping the economy going is not government's business in the first place, what is the difference between me just keeping my money versus giving it to some guy off the street so he can give it back to me when he buys stuff at my store?
The fact is, the individual is an end in himself. As the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand proved, no individual has an obligation to provide for or support another.
So it's his responsibility, and *only* his responsibility, if he can't get a job because no one is hiring? Give me a break. The ability to earn a living is entirely dependent upon having a job, which in turn is entirely dependent upon the economy, which in turn is entirely beyond his control. Capitalism has never functioned so that it employs everyone in a society capable of working, and it never will. In fact, Heinlein demonstrated this in his 1939 novel For Us, the Living, wherein he laid out a system of capitalism in its entirety and demonstrated precisely why it never amounts to a perfectly efficient system, and while I disagree with a number of policy recommendations he comes to as a result of his model, that particular aspect of his analysis is, as far as I can tell, beyond criticism.
Individuals "own" resources because they have the ability to back up their "ownership" with the threat of force. No consensual society of free-thinking rationalists would have a distribution of goods as uneven as that which exists in modern society; thus, private ownership in modern society is explicitly based on coercion. Only a society in which the state of ownership is voluntarily accepted by all participants without the threat of force can absolute freedom of the individual truly be said to exist.
The difference between the two scenarios you have outlined is that one creates a flow of goods and thus stimulates the economy. The other results in stagnation and will ultimately result in reduced profits for everyone in the society, for reasons that once again go back to
Finally, Ayn Rand was a crackpot. She has clearly not read her Proudhon, as virtually every argument she makes in favour of unrestricted private property is countered in his writings half a century before hers. She also ignores the fact that "individuals" aren't - every bit of personal property in modern society was acquired as a result of the functioning of that society. I notice you ignored all of my previous reply pertaining to that point. Could that be because you have no rebuttal to it? Interesting indeed.
>>87
Take Chomsky and Marx and shove them up your ass, I'm an Objectivist and I won't hear any of this rambling nonsense any longer.
So in other words, you have no rebuttal to my argument and you're going to stick your fingers in your ears and continue tonguing Ayn Rand. Good to hear. Objectivists are always such rational human beings. Hahahahahaha.
>>86
your whole life philosophy seems to be utterly selfish and sociopathic. that's a mental disorder shared by despots and serial killers. your parents must be proud.
oh, and ayn rand IS in fact a wingnut. objectivism is no more valid than communism.
>>90
You're the sociopath, wanting to take people's money just because you can't be botherred to work.
>>92
uh, retard, I'm at work RIGHT NOW. I'm the weekend manager for a delivery business, and also go to school full time. I'm in my fourth year studying biochemistry at a large american university (if I said more, I wouldn't be anon would I?).
fucking moron.
>>93
>>94
If you work then you're stupid and still wrong. If you're lying then you are the one who should be snacking on scat.
1. A fetus is not a true living being in its early stages, simple as that. The fetus' brain doesn't even START developing until around 7 or so weeks, and even then it's not fully functional until about 20 or so weeks.
Plus, consider your average person who aborts. Teenagers or dirt-poor people who couldn't afford to raise a child -- Would the child be better off starving or going to an orphanage, or being killed before it could even be considered a sentient being?
2. I don't hate Christianity -- I hate those that try to force their religion on others. That goes for Christians, Jehova's Witlesses, etc etc, that try to scare you into believing you're going to suffer eternally if you don't believe in their particular dogmatic belief. Otherwise, I'm fine with religion and I have some friends who happen to be Christians -- They're just not the asshole kind.
3. I agree it is using fear tactics. However, I consider global warming to be more of a real threat then terrorism. Yeah sure, it sucks when a maniac suicide bomber kills a bunch of innocent civilians, but the potential for global warming has a much greater threat on a larger scale.
4. Most people I know who own Macs are snobs. I call them "Apple Snobs", cause they think they're so uppity with their Macs and iPods and whatever else it is they have.
5. If you're talking about the American government, I don't. The American government is pretty shitty, when you have a government who's primary purpose is to make a profit (I know you gotta put bread on the table, but a TRUE government should only take this but so far...), then they're gonna put the people's needs in the back seat and you end up with the crap we have now.
Personally, I think America needs a second revolution, sure it might set us back a bit, but it would at least allow us to start a relatively clean slate.
>>90 Nice strawman. For most of the people who get benefits from our government, it's not that they "can't be bothered to work," it's that no one will hire them, or that they simply can't make enough money to cover all the costs of living in modern America. The minimum wage is $5.15 right now. That means a person working 40 hours a week makes $824 a month. That was enough to live on in the 1970s when that minium wage was set, but inflation since then has rendered that a trifle.
(it's worth pointing out here that inflation *always* hurts the poor more than it hurts the rich, because the poor generally can't afford to invest in assets that don't devalue with currency; thus, a strong case could be made that fiat money should simply be banned)
There are a large number of people doing essential service jobs that no one else wants to do for virtually no money. Without them, the economy would collapse. I think the least we can do is make sure they have decent health care and can put food on the table for all their children.
>>29
>>37
29 speaks the truth according to this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8
>>29 is either lying or too stupid to understand the basic science involved.
>>98
You're right in that no one will hire them, but think about that. If no one will hire them, they obviously have no useful skills, witch means that they didn't bother to take advantage of all the educational opportunities that america has to offer. And that, to me, makes them pretty stupid.
Oh, and just as a random fact, the earth hasn't seen any appreciable warming in ten years and has actually been cooling for the last three years. Check it.
>>101 What educational opportunities? You seem to miss the obvious fact that, for anyone born in a poor area, our public school system is shit.
Also, what >>102 said.
>>103
What is your problem?
GO TO FUCKING COMMUNITY COLLEGE, DO A FUCKING COURSE IN VEHICLE MECHANICS OR STOCK CONTROL AND YOU WILL EARN MORE THAN MINIMUM WAGE
>>102
>>103
random fact is, in fact, fact.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=720zmeq&s=1
>>105
oh god damn it. thought it was direct
http://i19.tinypic.com/720zmeq.jpg
>>99
>>105
>>106
Sorry I'm all wrong. Anybody who thinks CO2 doesn't take part in changeing the worlds climate should watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlbvJEZA_4
and all the parts!
>>104 Yeah, too bad I was talking about our primary and secondary school systems, which are shit.
Srsly? randroids? on MY 4chan?
ITT, everyone assumes that global warming is true.
>>104
Is there a naturally inexhaustible number of this kind of job? Aren't many people able to afford community college tuition only because the government subsidizes it, effectively paying them to go to school? Don't minimum-wage-paying jobs exist in the first place because they're necessary in order to provide services to others at a price those others are willing to pay? What would happen if some great percentage of minimum-wagers became educated and left their minimum-wage jobs? Wouldn't the minimum wage—and by extension, the cost for the services minimum-wagers provide which, again, they only provide in the first place because people who don't work minimum-wage jobs utilize the services—naturally increase as the available labor pool shrank?
>>84
What's interesting about this reasoning is that the door swings both ways.
Why should anyone give a fuck about YOU?
If you are confident in your independence, you should buy a patch of land and start growing you own food, making your own tools etc. Better learn medicine too, since you'll be your own doctor.
Hey, you don't need the help others right?
I don't know what a "Libfas" is, but I'll attempt to deal with some of these questions:
Why is it wrong to kill a violent criminal but okay to kill an innocent fetus? I'm not particularly opposed to abortions, but it makes no sense that you rail against capital punishment while endorsing abortion.
It can't be too difficult to consider the viewpoint that a violent criminal is still a thinking person seized of civil rights, and that a fetus is not yet a person (hence has no rights at all).
The person posting these questions obvious has a cognitive logjam or sorts, in that he assumed something was true and then was unable to see past the assumption in order to understand the viewpoints of others.
In other words, he was a Conservative. Conservatives don't CARE about the views of other people, and they do not try to empathize with others in order to understand other ways of living.
>>113
Why does a person get charged with double homicide if he kills a pregnant woman, then, Mr. Libfas?
>>114
If killing a fetus is murder than all abortions in the USA are murder. Since that is NOT true, then what you posted is a technical detail about potential life. We prosecute people for abusing and killing animals, too. Those animals don't have the rights of a Human, do they? Of course not.
What you did there is called "proving the rule". Your exception only demonstrated that my rule is correct.
The meta-point to be made here is that killing a fetus is perfectly OK if done by the carrier (or "mother"). THAT is the truth that the Conservatards refuse to admit. Why is it OK to kill a fetus? Because the carrier ALWAYS has that right. A potential mother always has a CHOICE. And that choice should be honored by the abortion industry (which we should allow since it makes it highly likely the carrier's life will be saved after such a procedure).
>>115
A rare exposure of sanity and intelligence by RedCream.
We should take pictures.
What I wonder is whether we have the right to judge anyone at all?
What gives us the right?
A murderer is still a thinking person and you wouldn't lock up a thinking person for the rest of their lives either.
Do I get my point across? Where do we draw the line?
Also, we have to remember that what is considered right or wrong differs greatly between cultures, and through time.
The vikings had no concept of murder - as long as you didn't strike from behind or in the sleep it was considered fair game.
I remember a old Roman Empire court record where a prostitute had been murdered by a client. The prostitute's mother was mainly concerned with the fact that the murderer had cut her source of income, rather than having lost her daughter.
Remember the following oxymoron:
A tolerant society can't tolerate intolerance, or they wouldn't be tolerant.
Hence we can't tolerate crime, but where do we draw the line?
Oh, and studies have actually shown differences in brain function in violent criminals. It can be cured just as soon as homosexuality. So is rehabilitation really possible?
>>115
On the contrary, you're point is the exception to my rule.
You know this to be true.
Why do you despise Christianity but tell everyone else that their religions are beautiful and are to be respected? I don't understand how you can extol the greatness of science and education while while telling everyone (other than Christians) that their baseless beliefs should be protected. I'm generally opposed to religion, so I say if you're going to hate one of them, hate all of them.
Because other religions are NOT trying to reform the USA into a fucking Theocracy. Christians are OK, except for the many Theocrats among their number in the USA. The Theocrats can just fuck off.
Naturally, since the OP is a Conservatard, he is UNABLE to see that his Christian majority's excesses form a severe problem for operating the US government as a true secular entity. Conservatards are completely blind to their own Fundamentalist shitheads. THAT'S WHY LIBERALS HATE YOU.
>>120
"Because other religions are NOT trying to reform the USA into a fucking Theocracy."
Ummmm, ever hear of radical Islam?
Sidenote: Are you heavily medicated or something? I mean really, you can't be this stupid.
1. Fetuses don't complain.
2. Because anglo saxons, whites, protestants and males did some bad things in the past so they must be punished for their collective crimes.
3. Because terrorism isn't real and global warming is.
4. Complicated things are hard to understand.
5. Because not everyone is willing to make sacrifice for the greater good, they must be forced to comply.
libfas? LIBFAS?? FUCKING LIBFAS FUCKING EVERYTHING
BUSH IS A LIBFAS
Bitches don't know 'bout my LIBFAS!
>>121
Ummmm, ever hear of radical Islam?
Yes, I hear about radical Islam running around the Middle East and Indonesia. However, there is no Islamic movement to take over the US. If there were, you could post a link to evidence of such, and of course you can't since there is no such movement and there are no Islamic riots in the US and there are no Sharia proclamations from the US, state and local governments and WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SO GODDAMNED BIASED AND STUPID!?!?
You must be confusing Islam's intent of kicking the West out of the Middle East, with some sort of attack on you (a dipshit Westerner).
The people who are the worst threat to the secular governance of the West ARE THE FUNDIE CHRISTIANS and their Armageddon mindset. THOSE FUCKERS have taken over the US government and THOSE FUCKERS are actively trying to start World War III in the Middle East.
Of course, you probably believe that invading Iraq TWICE was some sort of move to secure your borders (while Mexicans and Guatemalans pour north over your southern border, but I digress). This just means that you are deranged and your worldview is a pre-programmed thing created by Conservatards.
>>125
I should have known that you wouldn't be able to extract the meaning behind that. There is no threat of radical islam takeover in America because simply there aren't that much muslims. There is a christfag majority, and if anything like that is going to happen, it's going to be from them. However, in Turkey there is a muslimfag majority and they are likely to cause the same problem christfags do in the US, however I'm sure there people whine about WAY DO YOU HATE MUZLIMS, YOU CHRISTIAN LOVERS. Getting a bit in there now?
>>128
So you believe it is ok to collectively punish people if the context is right?
>>129
It appeals to you since you enjoy finding excuses to ignore logic.
>>117
It's not entirely true that Vikings could kill whomever. No one could go on a spree killing women and children. And if Thorgeir killed Eirik, Eirik's family would start a blood feud with Thorgeir and his family, effectively having eye for eye justice. If no peace could be made, the dispute would be settled at Tinget, which is sort of like a court, where the aggressors could settle things in a Holmgang (literally: going on a small island), which was a duel on a small island, usually ending in death, though one could yield, and be at the mercy of the opponent.
>>135
kurdish families still do that in the middle east
except the island part, of course
>>136
>>138
Thorgeir would of course have to have a "valid" reason for killing Eirik, he couldn't just kill him for the fun of it and expect no repercussions. But yeah, there are better legal systems.
I hear muslims and jews still ritually molest their son's foreskins. Barbaric.
Mmmmmmmmmm, foreskins...
Mullahs secretly drop the foreskins in a jar of brine during circumcisions and every year during Ramadan they take the "pickles" to their Imam whom proceeds to feast on them.
1: I personaly think a few criminals should fry, but that's just me. As far as fetuses go, men dont say eny thing becuase if the guy sugests abbortion and the woman has the baby and the kid finds out, he/she would hate said guys's guts for the rest of his natural life.
2: It's not Christianity that i hate, it's the ass hat hyporcits that use it for ther own personal gain or to be total tea bags that i hate.
3: It's not the message, it what it's used for that makes the difference. If the fear mongering wasnt used to pass every fucked up, unmangaged idea i wouldnt give a fuck about it.;
4: I perfer PCs. Macs are only for artst, and people who cant use Windows or Linex.
5: I think ther are some places that the goverment does belong, and some places that it doesnt belong. (like when im on the phone, trying order chines food for dinner.)
1. I support the Death Penalty. I don't really give a shit about abortion.
2. I don't. I despise fundamentalists. Also, I've personally found a lot more Athiests to be pricks as opposed to Christians.
3. While I do believe it, I don't take the issue all too seriously, at least not to the extent I've heard (all countries at sea level being flooded). However, Global Warming is a lot more believable than the notion that terrorists hate western civilization because of its liberalism.
4. I never liked Macs.
5. I don't. But I do believe it can handle social security and health insurance a hell lot better than the "free market" (it always amazed me that some libertarians still consider some GOVERNMENT regulation to businesses when it goes against the very definition of their beloved Laissez-faire capitalism).
Libfas
stopped reading there
>fetus
a fetus, albeit innocent, is not a person.
>>151
does a fetus have a "life" in the sense that it has anybody that cares deeply about it? as deeply as one can care about someone whom they've known for years and years and years? no. it is not a person. the main reason that killing is wrong is the untold pain it inflicts on those still living who were deeply attached to the person killed.
you could say that the mother already does care that deeply about her unborn child. if so, said mother can just NOT have an abortion. problem solved.
you could also argue that by way of slippery slope this gets into "dumpster baby" territory. but obviously innate squeamishness takes hold of too many of us so that "dumpster babies" will NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS be something that is kindly looked upon. so trust me, you DO NOT have to worry about that.
then there's the bridge between "a thing that looks kind of like a fish" and "miniature baby".
that line should also be drawn by squeamishness. and that's exactly what is happening right now in many developed countries' legal systems. i maintain though that the mother's health takes precedence because, as i've said before, she is a fully developed person, while the life growing inside her is not.
>>15
You did not answer my question, but perhaps that's my fault. More specifically what is the criteria necessary to justify abortion?
>>153
are you talking to me? >>152
i suspect that you are. i don't see how that's not an answer to your question.
people need abortion, this is enough to justify it. the question is why should they NOT continue to practice it? and i said that since fetuses are not persons there is no moral problem, and therefore no reason stop the practice.
abortion is wrong because without it there'd be more population and unemployment, reducing average real labor cost
death penalty is wrong because he could be utilized as slave labor
AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!!!
>>154
What a deluded sense of logic you have.
Because people need something is enough reason to justify it.
>>155
Didn't you mean to say "Abortion is RIGHT because without it ..."
Or are you mentally handicapped.
(I have a suspicion it's the latter and not the former.)
>>156
well what i mean is that anything which you cannot otherwise condemn is automatically justified. if you can't tell me why i shouldn't do it, why shouldn't i do it?
>>157
Uhh... the post wants more population, so I'm pretty sure it's trying to say abortion is wrong.
>>158
wat???
Scenario: I can't condemn you for murdering your pedophile neighbor, so why shouldn't you do it?
>>161
Just about anything a person does can be condemned by one group or another.
That's why your FAILURE is so immense.
FUCKING LIBFAS
>>154
>>153 here. I mean criteria such as that which would be used in a court of law. Most crucially is the point in which a fetus become a person and thus subject to all our ethics concerning how a person is treated.
When brain activity first occurs? When it can survive outside the womb? When it's head pops out?
We have no scientific definition for sapience but we know it at least requires an active human brain, significant brain activity first occurs when a fetus is 20 weeks old so this is the grey area, after that it is only a month before the brain of the fetus is little different from that of a newborn baby. If you are to abort 6 month fetuses by that logic you might aswell legalise killing newborn babies.
everything wrong with the world is a libfas conspiracy. I know it.
Also, jews.
this thread was made to inspire rage and trolling, get back to /b/ where you belong
whoever did post #85 is retarded and doesn't know shit about economics
1. I support both reproductive choice and capital punishment. But they are apples and oranges...I don't support personhood and the rights thereof to a nonviable fetus. So I don't favor abortion after viability...third trimester. Before that, it's part of the mother frankly and up to her what to do with her body. Also, I only support capital punishment if it can be shown without a doubt that someone is guilty of a capital crime. If you are a southern red state and all your blacks go to the chair and none of your whites do, you gots some 'splainin to do.
2. I'm not religious and support the right of others to believe as they see fit, up to the point where they want to take some sort of god mandate and run my life/run the country/rule the world. Christianity passes that point consistently so it pisses me off. You just don't see Buddhists trying to stack the courts, suppress rights, dominate political discourse, fight against science, butt into everyone's private lives while racking up sex scandals, I could go on... Basically, Christianity is the AIDS of spirituality. Has produced more harm than good for 2000 years and counting.
3. Because the GOP uses fear to get its way, while environmentalists are trying to save the fucking planet. Waterboarding never made us safe, but several major coastal cities probably will wind up underwater. Warning against a real threat we can act upon is not mongering...scaring people about made up terror to score political points is. Science is not a political party.
4. I don't like Mac. I'm a PC.
5. I don't believe the federal govt can fix all of society's ills, that's a GOP fantasy about liberals that they've repeated so much they believe it. I'm also fascinated to hear that conservatives are against corruption and abuse (*cough*TomDelay*cough*) and big government. The government and spending expanded exponentially under Bush, took the national debt from like 4 to 9 trillion dollars or something. Most of it to Halliburton.
Liberals just don't live in a fantasy where we can have all the programs people can't do without (libs and cons alike) while demanding to pay no taxes. Yes, I'm looking at you, teabaggers. The teabags they bought and the clothes they wore and the road they drove on to the rally and the law enforcement to keep the roads safe and the medicare and SS they will all be counting on in old age are because of big government. No taxes? Build your own fucking highways, it'll be fun. Here's a trowel and a bucket.
oh and on #2, Christianity pisses me off the most when they justify their jihad against everyone's freedom by saying this is a Christian nation. Fuck that.
I might note for the historically challenged that the earliest colonists fled to this country to escape from the King of England who wanted to use religion like a blunt object to tell them how they should live their lives. A fact that modern holy warriors either are either deliberately ignoring or never were taught in homeschooling.
We founded America to get away from the Dobsons of that day.
I recognize that Christianity at its best is a religion of uplifting love and deep faith. It is not represented well at all by the dingleberries who want to pervert it into a weapon for wealth and power. If there is a "moral majority" within Christianity they should take these idiots who make them all look like ignorant lunatics out to the shed and make them see the light.
>>175
Depending on what part of America you're talking about, you're right and wrong. The Puritans just wanted their own colony so that their religion could rule. Pennsylvania, Maryland, Rhode Island and a few other colonies were founded on religious "freedom" but America was built on Christian rejects from England.
America was founded by the Dobsons of that day.
>>174 "3. Because the GOP uses fear to get its way, while environmentalists are trying to save the fucking planet."
Projection much?
>>1
Explain my ethics to a murderer? A thief, a liar, a torturer, and a coward? It's all we do, yet you refuse to listen to us or the lessons of history.
It is simply the way of things. The liberals drag the conservatives, kicking and screaming, into the future.
>>178
So criticism and logical debate are absent in your perfect future.
>>179
Of course they are. He's a liberal. They hate logic and reason, hate it, hate it, hate it. They hate science, they hate objective truth, they hate the White race, and deep down, they hate themselves and they're all still angry at Daddy for not buying them a pony when they were nine.
"If you get caught at some crucial point and somebody tells you that your doctrine doesn't make sense - you're ready for him. You tell him there's something above sense. That here he must not try to think, he must feel. He must believe. Suspend reason and you can play it deuces wild." Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead
>>180
They hate the white race? The majority of those I've seen bashing the white race for the colonial era and so forth are white themselves, usually whilst sipping champagne or a frappuchino.
>>181
Yes. White liberals suffer from tremendous self-hatred, which they project onto their own race and their own civilization.
penis penis penis
penis penis penis
penis penis penis
p3nis
>>183
Hey, that's not very nice.
Dang, you've made me pretty depressed, I could do with a black dick in my mouth right about now.
1, Because a fetus is not a human being, nor is it innocent. In order to be innocent, something must possess the capability of guilt.
2. I don't, I protect christianty's right to be illogical and asinine as much as any other, and I don't want any religion at all entering my educational facilities.
3. Actions taken to counter-act global warming don't circumvent people's inalienable rights, and if someone proposed actions that did I would oppose them.
4. I use Linux.
5. I'm an anarchist.
I'm a libfag, but I'm not necessarily a democrat.
CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
>>190
1: So you think an 8 month "fetus" isn't conscious in any way. shape or form?
2: What if people want their religion to enter educational facilities? Do you enjoy denying people freedom?
3: The problem isn't global warming, the problem is that the atmosphere is public property and we should reach a consensus on deciding what to do with it. Turning global warming into a religion so can pretend to be chicken little is totally illogical, it's egotistical sensationalism which will only achieve a token level of reduction in greenhouse gases at great expense as you jet your celebrity sponsors back and forth across the country to collect more donations and lobby for more taxpayer money.
4: I use it sometimes, but I also use windows because I don't have a statement to make.
5: Good, in theory, but human nature etc.. Live in Somalia for a week.
>>192
I'm not >>190 , but I couldn't resist.
1: I think a fetal dog at 8 weeks is "conscious" in some "way, shape or form". You have a point?
2: The existence of any common endeavor restricts freedom. Government administered education in the United States is subject to it's laws, in this case the First Amendment. If you want your religion in a school, you are free to start your own school.
3: Global warming... The problem is the climate, our lack of understanding of how it really works, and our certainty that though we don't know exactly how it works, we do know that we are capable of having a profound effect on it that would compromise our ability to survive. The idea that "The atmosphere is public property" is the kind of foolish, greedy, and arrogant thinking encouraged by the current economic system that put us in these straits to begin with.
4: Oh, you seem to have many statements to make. You just don't seem to be interested in the free exchange of information. Pretty predictable in light of the positions you advocate in the rest of the post.
5: What the fuck do you know about living in Somalia, or any other underdeveloped, troubled nation? Please tell me you are speaking from experience; that you've actually been somewhere, and aren't just regurgitating the shit you've been fed by the media. You have been somewhere else, haven't you?
Dumbfucks have been brainwashed into thinking conservatism is evil or some shit. I am saying this right fucking now everyone your all dumb fucks. If you honestly think that you are a 'liberal' or a 'conservatist' etc you are stupid. I am sick of this shit, Conservatism (notice the capital fucking C, a great man once explained this) is not what fuckhead republicans like George Bush follow.... Truly, everyone has a mixed political ideology and if you think one is better than the other your a dumb fuck.... It is like economics not all theories are good for every society you must apply things differently to each topic...
tl;dr: this board is a piece of shit, i hope it stays an text based board and never becomes image, this way hopefully all you lonely fuckers who think you are all so logical and intelligent can just be ignored forever..
tl;dr "global warming" is a lie, has always been a lie, and its proponents have always known it was a lie, intended to terrify the people into giving them power.
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." --Steven Schneider, "climate scientist."
They LIE. Every word these people say is a lie, including "a," "an," and "the." The truth is not in them.
>>193
1: Saying babies magically come alive when they leave the womb is as retarded as saying they become alive when an egg is fertilized. If you want to legalise aborting 8 month fetuses you might aswell legalise going around shooting babies.
2: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I fail to see why you are so desperate to throw a hissy fit over a nativity scene for a school play or an after school christian charity thing anyway.
3: If the atmosphere were declared public property then the world can decide on it's content in a UN convention and charge those who use oxygen to pay to remove the carbon. But whatever.
4: Well since I use both linux and windows while you only use linux it follows that you are less interested in the free exchange of information.
5: And I suppose you can tell me about your experiences in anarchist catalonia and what a utopia it was.
i dont personally think any religions are beautiful and require respect because i find all of them absolutely ridiculous and also EXTREMELY destructive to all humans. I do believe in personal liberty, however, and i suppose, as much as i would like to see all religion wiped off the face of the earth in an effort to save humanity from its own insanity, that all people should be allowed to do what they want. If you want to believe in some gay faggot space alien story because it makes you feel better about how shitty life is, then by all means go ahead. JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP AND KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. The rest of us sane people dont want to hear your stupid little kid stories.
>>198
Ok so it's the dark ages and there is endemic warfare, it's so bad people can't even build permanent settlements because any concentration of wealth will get stolen by a group of thugs and eventually torn down in the chaos. Then a charlemagne figure carves his way through the barbarian tribes, starts building churches occupied by clergymen who are probably the only literate people in a 50 mile radius, these churches proceed to indoctrinate the thugs from infancy to be obedient to their feudal lords and the peasants to grow crops and take the produce to towns to support iron smiths, carpenters, shipbuilders, wool workers, masons and all manner of tradesmen who go about making their prince's fief more wealthy. Life expectancy rises from 25 to 40 and about 5% of the population now live in relative comfort for their entire lives instead of the 1% that were lucky enough to become the leader of a warband for a brief period before they were killed or assassinated. Why is this a bad thing? So what if there is more inequality? A rising tide floats all boats.
Cry more.
>>199
Well, I'm glad we're still living in the 7th century. No wait, you're just babbling.
>>197
I'm with Philip K. Dick. Abortion should be legal until children learn Algebra. Until then, they should be classified as "pre-persons."
>>200
So you admit religion was a good thing in the 7th century.
Aren't authoritarian governments supposed to be homophobic? This is gay.
>>202
And you admit we don't live in the 7th century any more. Super! Now we can be done with all that superstitious claptrap, finally allowing us to claim our intellectual superiority over the hajjis.
>>204
Maybe, but you're still excessively biased against religion. You can solve this problem by admitting that Constantine was an awesome emperor who re-unified the empire and exterminated the huns.
>>206
I'll admit all that, and still call you a soft-headed baby. Stop playing Rome:Total War quite so much, and start realizing that we live in the fucking 21st century.
itt: liberals and conservatives with no idea what liberalism & conservatism actually entail. ah, 4chan, you never fail to disappoint.
The Bible supports abortion. not directly, of course, but it does not find the harm of a pregnant woman that results in the loss of a pregnancy (in essence, an abortion) to be any more sinful than hurting a woman who isnt pregnant
"When men have a fight and hurt a pregnant woman, so that she suffers a miscarriage, but no further injury, the guilty one shall be fined as much as the woman's husband demands of hum and he shall pay in the presence of the judges. But if injury ensues, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooh, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Exodus 21: 22-25
I'm a liberal, not because I dont like conservative ideals, but because the conservatives cant even read the goddamn bible LITERALLY correctly, much less interpret it worth two shits. It takes depths of deliberate ignorance to not even get THAT much right.
To really understand the liberals you must get into the ideological root of the left and liberals.
The cultural and sociological side of the left is rooted in what we call "cultural-marxism", they believe that capitalism must be destroyed for the good of the future. But also believe that capitalism is rooted in western society and that therefore western civilization must be destroyed.
You might notice how they never complain about the sandniggers stance on abortion and capital punishment only the western one.
1. Criminals are bad for western society therefore they are good, meanwhile an increased population is good for western society and therefore bad. That's why it's AWWWW RITE to kill babies but not criminals.
2. Religion such as christianity creates an uniformity and altruism in the populace that is good for western society which means it's bad. However an increased muslim/whateverthefuck religion population creates cultural/ethnic conflicts which is bad therefore good.
3. They don't like the terrorism fearmongering because it shows us that foreign cultures/races are usually inferiour to us according to our present value system which actually is deeply rooted in christianity. Meanwhile Global warming fearmongering is good because it's proves the point that CAPITALISM/WESTERN SOCIETY = BAAAD.
4. Because they're gay, what can i say!
5. i honestly don't know.
This all might sound like conspiracy but it really isn't. Alot of the people who adhere to these sick degenerate values are not really aware of it but are intensively indoctrinated into it. However recently in time these things have started being used against the people who it really was meant to serve, for example the politically correct opposition to Israel. The jews have always been parasites on western society and therefore good, as a matter of fact one can argue whether the Politically correct movement is really a zionist movement seeing as how a free western society would be the biggest threat against the jews and their degenerate culture.
But now that the kikes have started massacring palestinians people have started shitting on them. One speculate it looks like the zionists are about to get eaten alive by their own frankenstein monster! However they are constantly trying to shove it in our throats that it's okay for the kikes to act this because they are parasites which makes them a victim.
oh yeah and another thing.
If you believe in "taking a life is wrong" and want to refuse to kill a criminal who is very likely going to kill people if he gets out won't you yourself be indirectly responsible for the lifes he takes when you refuse to kill him?
>>212
holy shit, you have no idea what half of those words mean do you?
you're just reciting shit you saw on tv or heard on the radio
"cultural-marxism" such bullshit I cant even believe someone could think it up
>>214
oh it exists all right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism (inb4 "wikipedia is unreliable"), google it or look it up in a library if you want.
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html also interesting.
I don't really have anything against the left in it's original conception.
Problem is that it was born in a time where some people lived in shacks out in the woods and ate their own shit while others lived in gigantic castles made entirely out of diamonds.
Nowadays the major difference between rich and poor people is that rich people live in slightly bigger houses.
>>214
I gotta be honest here, i have never ever heard KIKE, SANDNIGGERS or CULTURAL-MARXISM on tv or on the radio.
>>212
>>213
>>215
There is certainly a minority of people who enjoy the delusion they are living in some kind of dystopia and they are heroically trying to overturn everything and create a utopia. However the conditions do not exist for anyone like them to gain some sort of power, I say "anyone like them" since current marxists/socialists/anarchists in America are not the worldly thugs who have experienced and dealt brutality first hand, they are usually deluded social outcasts due to serious character flaws and have lived a largely sheltered existence.
>>214
>ur dumb
That's not a compelling counter-argument. Try again.
>>216
Pretty much, though there are still many people who enjoy ingesting faeces. I believe one such individual frequents this forum and goes by the name "RedCream" but I haven't seen him around very much recently.
>>217
I hear a lot about marxism and the occasional person calling everyone racist.
>>218
I am pretty fucking convinced we live in atleast a moral dystopia after reading this..
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/index.php
>>218
There is certainly a majority of people on this site who enjoy the delusion that their arrogance, unfounded assumptions, projections, and insults, are a rational foundation for argument.
>>218
Sadly the conditions exist for absolutely anyone to gain any amount of power as long as they are not open about their opinions.
Q4: Macs? I think you're thinking of English professors and homosexuals.
wow....all i can say is, objectivists are a bunch of retards,
it's so funny to see this losers rail against taxes....brrrrr damnation.
get the hint boys its over socialism has come to america, the birther movement has lost, and soon the co
Asking a libfag about his ethics is like asking a snake about his long slender legs.
>>224
I don't get it. You weren't talking about snipers and you didn't say candleja
>>221
Oh dear.
>>222
So? It's been like this since Sumeria was founded.
>>228
Those legs are however disgusting mutations, just like libfags ethics.
1.) I actually oppose both, except for the most violent criminals. Abortion isn't a good thing, it's a tragedy that shows the callousness of our culture and our failure to protect the most vulnerable parts of our society. No society has ever thrived by killing off the weak.
2.) Christianity is no better or worse than anything else. No religion should have power over the nonbeliever. I oppose ANY religion that would try to manipulate the political system to try to make "sin" a crime.
3.) Both are serious problems. Global warming is real, though I think the changes made should be balanced against what humans need in the here and now. I refuse to live like a caveman because someone decides electricity is a bad idea. Setting aside national parks and encouraging reasonable conservation is fine, just don't go nuts.
4.) I don't, I use windows.
5.) I don't blindly support big government. I'm more of a firm believer in using the right tool for the right job. There are a few cases in which government is better suited to handle a problem than business. The Interstate Highway system is a great example of this -- no private company had enough of an interest in building thousands of miles of roadway across the country, yet this IHS helped to produce great prosperity for the whole country. The other one is the Tennesee Valley Authority. There were small valleys in Tennessee that it was too costly to provide electricity for -- so the government built an electrical grid that could reach the small towns in those valleys. Other things like sewage treatment are too costly for a business to do, yet need to be done. Government IMO is best suited to building and preserving infrastructure. Social tampering usually causes more problems than it solves.
Partisan government is as Dispicable as "professional Politicians" it needs to be dealt with accordingly as do all religions that have fought over GOD. These stupid people have fought the "MY GOD IS BETTER THAN YOUR GOD WARS FOR OVER 2000 YEARS." Get a life you are fighting over the same god. and as for Professional Politicians get a life you greedy basturds and get out of my wallet
Marxist ideology as >>212 states is western negative.
He brings God into it, and although I am a devout atheist, I would believe that Christianity would be tackled as a western system for those reasons of unity and internal development.
Schooling is taught in a post-modern sense, it loses function and definitive answers, it becomes less important to search for the direct reasoning and multiple answers are right at once confusing the idea of learning.
Minority cultures are accentuated and majority cultures are stolen and made bland and ridiculed.
There are many ways in which they break down the system and these marxists openly express this until you tie it to being directly negative to westerners, when they will try to confuse it to some sort of more abstract definition of an enemy, and the utopian socialist environment.
>>1
Why is it wrong to kill a violent criminal but okay to kill an innocent fetus?
The nasciturus is ablank slate and don't vote commie-jew.
Hence it's a non-person.
LIBFAGS MY ANUS
So are liberals good or bad?
My Ayn Rand figurine fell in the toilet. That's OK, because floating about in a bowl of shit must surely be better than where she really is now, and that's BURNIN' IN HELL, folks. Demons are prodding her with hot forks as we speak. Every now and again, Jesus or Martin Luther King take pity on her and have a couple of beers sent down; something she wouldn't do for them because she hates hates hates hates altruists.
She deserves it as well, lame-ass adulterous child-hating misanthropic bitch-faced slag that she was. If I were a better man, I wouldn't say that, but I'm not, so what the hell. Looking back at her life, there was one sad miserable woman.
Objectivists are all sad miserable losers.
>>240
When OP meant libfags, he wasn't talking about libertarians or objectivists, or whatever the hell you're talking about in that drivel you just wrote. Also, way to bump a five year old thread.
Listen, cornholes, the OP is talking about LIBFAS. If you're not informed enough to comment on LIBFAS, pleasse don't.
A: I think you should be able to kill a baby if it's more than 3 weeks old. What is more cruel, putting a painless needle in the baby's brain or leaving it to a life of hardship, poverty, starvation and decease.
B: I oppose any theory where a wizard created the world. But I think you should have the freedom to practice what ever religion you want. They need to tax religion, it's just unfair to everyone else when you call your visage monopoly a religion and no have to pay taxes. I am more acceptable of Christians because I am western.
C: silly question
D: Wtf, never go near that shit.
E: I don't like big government. I think a country should be rules by the people. Some rulers may be great, but there will always be a tyrant waiting to succeed them. But a government if vital.
You fucked with me so now it's a must that I fuck with you.
>>243
Sounds like you're more of a "conservative" than a "liberal" (going by standard USA terms of course).
1) You're right. It doesn't make sense. If you think of them in terms of social justice, it makes more sense. Abortion is about women's rights and capitol punishment is about the rights of people who may be wrongly convicted. I'm not for abortion, and keep in mind that many people who are vegitarians due to moral concerns also support abortion.
2) I do hate all religions. I hate all religions equally, and don't believe that they shoould go around picking on each other. If one religion overpowers others, all religions are less likely to die out.
3) Terrorist fearmongering is about controlling people, while global warming fearmongering is about ensuring that the human race can "be fruitful and multiply". Not everyone believes the Christian Cult of Death: that armegeddon will occur before we have to worry about the environment.
4) Only faggots use Macs.
5) Why do people give tithes to the church? It has been proven throughout history that large organized religions lead to corruption and abuse. Why do people continue to support big religion? As an American, I have a stake in my government, and I'd like to see it do something more than administer itself. With the money that we use to sustain the largest army in the world, we could fix many of society's ills.
>>1
Long story short is that liberals hate anything white and western. So since respect for human life, Christianity, and development of the planet are specifically WESTERN WHITE ideas, they are hated by liberals. As for macs, well liberals are faggots, what can I say?
>>247
Wait, killing criminals constitutes respect for human life?
>>249
Yeah, why not? If some nutter rapes, kills, and eats the dismembered remains of some nice law abiding family, why should they be awarded a lifetime of free housing, food, clothing, recreational activities, electricity, running water, modern plumbing, cable television, and all the things that I as a law abiding free man have to labor and sweat for to EARN?
>>248
Yes, it does actually.
A society that respects life makes a law that says if you take a life, unjustly, we (the society) will take yours.
That's the highest form of respect for life.
>>130
I'm not 128, but the idea is to not let people get into such a powerful position that they can take you down. And the fact of the matter is that as the population of muslims in a nation increases so does the number of calls for Sharia. Ask Europeans. They know what Islam does when it becomes a large minority.
As to what to do about it -- I'd suggest limiting immigration. Not that it's possible with our PC government shilling for the muslims. Look at Germany or England and behold your fate.
1. Because I can.
2. I don't I hate all religions.
3. Because that what they get paid for.
4. Mac's are gay for gay people who can't use computer for real.
5. They can't and I don't care!
Bump!
>>80
So... How's every pregnant woman in the world feel like carrying around a parasite? Why don't we just jam a coat hanger up there since the word parasite implies something you would not want attached to your body?
There are once a doll a little girl had and she said goodnight to it. it was a sonic doll. when she woke up the sonic doll was on the end of her bed with a remote and he turned it to channel 666. on it there was a picture of a box. then the little girl sat up and looked at sonic. he had become tails. no one knows where the body was found.
>>258
America originally was a theocracy
When it was a collection of loosely-knit colonies, maybe. The US has never had theocratic government(except maybe at state level), and hopefully, it never will.
One of the biggest controversies today is abortion. Many non-Christian women think that it is perfectly fine, because they don't believe the Bible. As Christians, we need to be aware that God clearly does not approve. Psalm 139:13 says, "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb." Obviously, God created us special, and to "abort" one of God's children is murder (which God CLEARLY states is not okay either) When the babies are aborted, they are already distinct with fingers, toes, and they can suck their thumb. People try to say that abortion is not murder; that the baby is not a person. Anything that moves around and has a heartbeat is alive.
>>260
Many non-Christian women think that it is perfectly fine
A total myth. Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism and Islam all encourage abstinence and/or adherents of these religions preach against the utilization of abortion to some degree (if interpreting liberally), or completely (if interpreting conservatively).[1][2][3][4]
A liberal religious view on abortion does not imply that the individual or individuals in question are "perfectly fine" with it.
_____________________
References:
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/buddhistethics/abortion.shtml
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_abortion
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_and_abortion
[4] http://www.islamawareness.net/FamilyPlanning/Abortion/abortion3.html
>>261
IF IT STOPS NIGGER BABY'S, LET THEM ALL HAVE ABORTIONS, WE DON'T NEED MORE NIGGER BOMBERS.
>>84
Well, fuck you. Go socialism. Eugene Victor Debs is better then Ayn Rand.
1. I think it's wrong to kill in general, I don't support abortion, but it's not my place to be agaisnt it either. How can you stand to bring a life into this world that nobody wants?
2. I am Catholic, I don't despise Christianity. I despise those who claim to be Christian and then are intolerant of all religions. I also despise anybody like this.
3. We've tried and it isn't working. Especially with the masses being so easy to manipulate.
4. Lol Mac sucks.
5. I don't believe it can fix all of society's ills. I do, however, believe that it can have a helping hand in it. I don't think people should be given free rides like welfare. But I don't mind paying taxes for foodstamps for the people who don't abuse them. Yea so there are a lot of people who do abuse them, but there are a lot of hard working Americans who do need them just to get by.
As for healthcare I support both public and private. For the public let everyone get the minimum and anybody who wants more can just buy on top of that. I only think that citezins should get it and nobody here illegally
>>266
You must obviously not believe the Catholic Church is true with all of your faith if you think other religions have a possibility of being the true ones.
>>267
your argument makes absolutely no sense. I never said anything about all of my faith, nor did I say that the other ones have any possiblility to be true.
>>269
Don't persecute. Basically live and let live. Yea I probably should have used a different terminology now that I think about it but oh well.
we will live and let live. we christians live here and we'll let the muslims live in their own parts of the world.
1. Because a Fetus doesn't live or think.
2. Because just look at Christianity in comparison to other religions.
3. Because there's scientific evidence in Climate Change.
4. Because I don't. I double boot mac because it can be useful, but PC is overall more useful.
5. Because it's also proven that a small government is pretty fucked up (ex. Herbert Hoover).
By the way, you're making meaningless connections. You're substituting one thing for another. Just think.
Fetus ≠ Criminal
Christianity ≠ Buddhism
Terror ≠ Climate Change
Liberal ≠ Mac
Also, what's a "libfa?"
>>275
Also, what's a "libfa?"
It's suppose to be "libfags", but OP missed typing the "g".
1.Endorsing abortion is a strong claim. I'm pro-choice, not pro abortion. There is a level where it disgusts me that people use abortion as a form of birth control. Then again there would be those who would abuse drugs in order to try to miscarriage if we banned abortion. There would also be unregulated clinics that would pop up out of nowhere that would have questionable safety practices.
We still do have legal abortions, yet their have still been instances of children being left in dumpsters. What makes us think we can force Americans to become parents? Yes, I would rather see everyone become responsible & avoid unwanted pregnancy all together, but unfortunately that isn't going to happen.
2. Are you familiar with the bumper sticker that says "Jesus, please save me from your followers"? That is how I feel about the situation. I don't believe that conservative that fight against humane social values have any idea what Jesus was trying to teach his disciples. Yet they invoke his name in order to save the rich money & take away programs from those who need them.
3. The war on terror isn't going to solve the problem. We can do something to fix the environment. Yet all this war on terror has accomplished is bankrupting the nation. Yeah, the propaganda sounds similar I guess. But polluting the planet is effecting our health.People have died from the pollutants we put into the air and using up our resources. People have also died and resources have also been drained on this so is the war on terror. That's on the other side of the argument however.
4.lol, idk. Macs get less viruses so people claim they're better. Never owned one myself. If I did art or produced music I would have one, but I don't.
5. Again that comes down to a matter of spending. I've seen a town that was a crime filled abyss being rebuilt because of federal spending. Regrowth of such a community is obviously good for the economy both locally & nationally. Of coarse those programs were funded by earmarks which have been demonized & eliminated.
As I said previously, our country collects taxes & then we spend money. What we spend it on just depends on who's in office & what their agenda happens to be.
>>276
I know. I'm just rubbing it in with sweet, painful lemon juice.
Liberals do not have morals.
Liberal, athiest, moral absolutist checking in from the high ground.
Kill both. If it is a liability, and a economic drain, kill the fucker. Only contributing members of society should experience life.
>>281
That doesn't prove anything. That just suggests that different people have different moral reasoning, which was always the case throughout human history.
If a fetus isn't a human being, then neither is a negro.
Discuss.
>>281
>>287
281, that is a total misinterpretation. We live by our own morals, simply to live happier, longer lives. We declare that morals are relative but that doesn't mean we don't have any.
287, this is an example of illogical comparison. Arguments through comparison are invalid, as one thing is not another. A point proven through comparison is a point proven through ignorance of difference.
You are, actually, both guilty of illogical comparison.
281:
Relativism ≠ Immoral
287:
Fetus ≠ African American
And also:
Using the term "Negro" = Racist
>>288
A word can not be racist because it has no feelings and, furthermore, does not mean anyone harm. The context of the sentence in which the word is used, on the other hand, can be considered racist, which implicates that word with the same context, when in reality we should be shunning the speaker and not the sentence. So, calling "negro" a racist word is being doubly evasive, ignoring where the real blame should be placed.
Nigger.
>>285
Contributing to whom?
fetus > nigger
>>289
Sure, in the context of posting it on a bulletin board, it's not causing anyone any immediate harm, but you're being deliberately obtuse and using faulty reasoning as an excuse to mindlessly write the word out of some strange gratification you receive from the posting of it. It's like an alcoholic or drug addict saying "Hey! I'm not causing anyone any immediate harm to anyone else! So why bother ceasing?".
>>290
Just because you can do fancy BBCODE,#does not mean that you actually belong here on world4ch.
Go back to /b/, or /int/, as it's become a pseudo /new/ already.
>>291
http://boards.4chan.org/b/
>>292,293
Consider this: A pack of wild Niggers.
Savage, slavering Niggers nearing your white home. Trampling your white lawn. Raping your white daughter.
And you can't do shit since they're savages. The Nigger leader grabs your wife and fucks her with his shaman stick.
The primal Niggers finally dominate your household. They watch barbaric shows on TV and you are forced to be their slave.
Such is the downfall of White Man.
>>295
Substitute:
Nigers->israeli settlers
White->Palestinian
Shaman stick->Assault riffle
Barbaric shows->Family guy
Welcome to gaza...
re. OP point no. 2, other religions have never tried to shove it down my throat and tell me I'm going to burn for all eternity
300 GET
>>295
Sounds like you're projecting a sexual fantasy of yours. My advice: Seek professional help.
>>304
Is it a crime to enjoy gay bondage with muscular black men? Racist.
>>305
do they have to be black men? being bi, i'll go for a Nubian princess(bondage is a must)... but with men, yeah whites only...
I thought Liberals liked Christianity.
>>307
It's a paradox. Postmodern "Liberalism" and Classical Christianity are both anarchistic, pacifistic, nihilistic, antinomian creeds that declare the existing order corrupt and contemptible. Christians ignored the material world and sat back and did nothing as Rome fell; modern "Progressives" trip over their own feet running to open the gates for the barbarians. In the end both roads lead to the same place: dust and darkness.
>>309
And yet modern "liberals" hate Christianity, because it has become part of the tradition of Western Civilization, a tradition they loathe and want to expunge.
>>309
That's where everything ends, bro. Doesn't matter what you do, it all has to fall.
>>311
>>312
"Progressives" trip over their own feet running to open the gates for the barbarians.
Case in point.
I RED AYN AND AND I HAZ NO OBLIGATION TO DO ANYTHING K
Fair enough man. Go live on your own independent of any mutual relation and see how that works out for you.
>4. Why do you like Mac so much?
It's they gay computer of course.
1. Because a fetus is not a living being. It is a mass of cells with no thought. And yes, we can prove that. Get your fucking religious bullshit out of government, you conservatives have lower average IQs than liberals, and Atheists have higher average IQs than people of any religion. You are not intelligent enough to speak on this subject, please go back to binge drinking and beating your wife and be sure to attend church on Sunday so you can justify your actions by asking your imaginary friend for forgiveness.
2. Maybe it's because Christians were burning other religions and atheists at the stake for hundreds of years, and still discriminate against them today? Or maybe it's because Christians are still favored by the government charity-wise, their shitty dark-age morals still influence government (lololol no gays no sex until marriage no abortion), they generally won't shut the fuck up, and are immune to logic and reason?It's the affirmative action of religion.
3. Because we don't need to strip everyone of their rights in order to stop global warming, nor will taking steps to stop it result in government having the power to declare anyone they don't like a terrorist, stripping them of all rights and allowing them to be abused/silenced.
4. Only hipster faggots.
5. Yeah and historically democracies always descended to Tyranny in time. We'd be able to fix the inefficiency of the government if the Conservatives weren't so obsessed with providing 'jobs' to everyone, even when ridiculous job security backfires.
>>317
1 KILLING BABIES IS COOL! Atheists durr R smart!
Nice, a baby killer that hates Christains and who seems extra butthurt about it.
2 Religion is EVILLLLL!!!
Godless Communists killed more. LOL.
>3 global warming hate freedom or something
Lefties love liberty until they find out you can vote against them or you might disagree with them.
>4 Gays are coooool
>5 Conservatives bad cuz that want us to have jobs or something.
You lost me with this one. When have Conservatives stopped anyone from making things more efficient. Obama's 2000 page health care reform says you have a very warped idea of inefficiency.
>a fetus is not a living being. It is a mass of cells with no thought. And yes, we can prove that
You just described lieberals.
>>317
1. Because a fetus is not a living being. It is a mass of cells with no thought. And yes, we can prove that.
I wouldn't say it's not ``a living thing'', but certainly it is not entirely cognizant of its existence. The whole abortion issue was already declared decades ago; the incessant whining from agitators doesn't change anything.
>>318
Christianity has the most adherents of any other religion on the planet, naturally it would be the one that gets the most criticism.
>>319
Actually, conartistives. ( ≖‿≖)