Your stance in the political spectrum

[Teh_Ephy]

There's a large difference between communism and dictatorships that claim to be communism. I'm not sure what country you're from, but it sounds like a socialist dictatorship calling itself a communism.

 

[Arvedui]

Apparently Peru.

1st thing on Google about Sendero Luminoso

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

I'm in the "I think both sides are complete and total ****ing morons" side,

Ahahahaha! That's totally hilarious! I never expected anyone to say THAT!

 

[Teh_Ephy]

That stings even worse because someone already has said something almost exactly that.

 

[DrazharLn]

please put an "Idontgiveafuckist" option there.

but I couldn't care less about anarchy either, that's the thing. fuck'em all.

Seriously add the "Screw politics" option

All on the first page

256^th post!

 

[Hakeem]

If there weren't law, there would be anarchy.

See? This is what I mean when I say I'm defending anarchy. Sure, it'd be anarchy. What's so bad about that? And don't even try to answer this question without reading the rest of the thread.

 

[varsaigen]

I'm on the right. "Rightest" I know what the problems with the gas prices going up. And the war. I can easily tell you where our money for oil is going. The oil is being controlled by terrorists. And the US has already won the war. What you see today isn't war, it's a clean up. The US and UK have had less deaths of soldiers in the Middle East recently, and the terrorists have finally realized they lost, even though they talk big and say they are winning. Not to mention the Iraqi Military and police have taken back many cities from the terrorists. The US is just trying to stabilize the government in Iraq. Easy as that.

 

[Arvedui]

Though I agree with most of what you've said, it's not "easy as that." Terrorists are still terrorists and are always going to try to stop any progress we've made in the region. The Iraqi government needs to step up and take control over more regions. No one wants the military there, not even the most conservative people.

But, people seem to forget that the US still has military bases in Japan and Germany. So it's probable that there still will be some sort of military presence long after the majority of soldiers are done and the Iraqi government takes control.

 

[Hakeem]

You can't win when your enemy is fear itself.

"War on Terror"

Yeah, good luck winning that.

 

[Masiah]

But soldiers are still dying there... And worst of all, inocent people are dying too. Tha war won't be finished until people stop killing other people, and I don't think that will be quite soon.

 

[Steel_Stallion]

There are billions of people with billions of different views and ideas. Some WILL conflict.

World peace is a myth, there can be none. There will always be some kind of lethal conflict no matter how small. We should stop trying and getting out selves killed and worry about protecting ourselves (and possibly allies).

Oh and, i have absloutly no clue what the f**king hell all those positions mean so i'm just going to pick the only one i know.


Anarchy!

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

There are billions of people with billions of different views and ideas. Some WILL conflict.

The US constitution conflicts with my idea that everyone should be Christian. What's your point?

Law, governments, and power will always revolve around a certain person or group of people's views and ideas. Anarchy simply takes out the part asking "which one?"

 

[Arvedui]

Oh and, i have absloutly no clue what the f**king hell all those positions mean so i'm just going to pick the only one i know.


Anarchy!

Yay! Making choices without knowing the full meaning and implications of your actions! Woot!

 

[DrazharLn]

I thought we already had the discussion on Anarchy.

I disagree with you Steel_Stallion, we should not simply turn our backs on the world and only protect ourselves. That is selfishness of the highest degree [see one [two?] pages ago]. Especially with Global Warming coming for us and Peak Oil predicted for 2010.

 

[Masiah]

Politics is like history: It repeats itself.

 

[brad.dude03]

Hooray, let's say something that sounds good but really means nothing and carries no weight at all!

 

[Masiah]

Hooray, let's say something that sounds good but really means nothing and carries no weight at all!

2 things:

• Yes, that sentence sounds good.
• But it does have "weight". Maybe it's one of the things with more sense I said or I will say in the next few days. Whatever we do, say or eat () people will still believe in what they believed before reading this thread and few, very few, will change their minds, so we will return to the same points and ideas over and over again untill the end of humanity. One thing that is really in human nature is that we try to be original and say or do something new, but we always end up repeating something that someone has already said or done.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

For the record, global warming (which you capitalized, *snicker*) isn't nearly as bad as everyone says it is. It's a problem, yes, but it's not going to be the end of the world in five years.

 

[DrazharLn]

Peak oil is soon, global warming [happy?] is already happening. It will be a big problem. They expect that the North pole will be ice free during summer in a few years. While this in itself will not change sea levels, it shows how big the problem is getting. The more we learn about the systems underlying Greenland and Antarctica [I'm allowed to capitalize those, they're proper nouns], the graver the situation looks to be.

 

[brad.dude03]

Huh. Alberta still has enough oil to keep us going for a long time. China has enough coal to power the entire country for the next 300 years, etc.

Call me selfish, but I don't really give a damn. As long as the world doesn't collapse while i'm living on it, my descendants can figure their own desperate situations out.

And hey, even if we do fuck up and destroy humanity: so? It's folly to think that we can destroy the world, because life will find a way. Let cancer wipe out millions of people. Why? So that every person born on the Earth in the future will have immunity. Destruction forces change. Change on an evolutionary level is good.

 

[DrazharLn]

Sorry Masiah, I edited my post. I probably should have left the existing one there.

For reference: It was asking how world politics would change due to global warming and peak oil.

@Arvedui

Quote:Originally Posted by emperor_d3st
I

Quote:Originally Posted by emperor_d3st
rape kids and women

I think that sums you up.

Please read this [including the alt-text]

 

[Masiah]

Brad, Darwin would be proud of you. I wonder if you will think like that once you have children and you know you leave them a useless and dead world.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

• Yes, that sentence sounds good.

Not as good as you would think. Don't flatter yourself too much.

• But it does have "weight". Maybe it's one of the things with more sense I said or I will say in the next few days. Whatever we do, say or eat () people will still believe in what they believed before reading this thread and few, very few, will change their minds, so we will return to the same points and ideas over and over again untill the end of humanity. One thing that is really in human nature is that we try to be original and say or do something new, but we always end up repeating something that someone has already said or done.

Believe it or not, mentalities change. Racism is nowhere near the problem it was in the States, and slavery was outrageously common in ancient Egypt, Greece, and I believe even ancient Jerusalem. Or, take a look at the secular-progressive movement within the US. Within a generation, people have gone from the mentality of "stand on your own feet" to "oh, well we don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, everybody gets a ribbon just for participating". I can guarantee you that similar mentalities have never occurred, and I'll be glad when it's gone.

Peak oil is soon, global warming [happy?] is already happening. It will be a big problem. They expect that the North pole will be ice free during summer in a few years. While this in itself will not change sea levels, it shows how big the problem is getting. The more we learn about the systems underlying Greenland and Antarctica [I'm allowed to capitalize those, they're proper nouns], the graver the situation looks to be.

Yes it's already happening, but no, it isn't as much of a problem as everybody thinks. Global warming is not going to end the world, and it's going to take decades if not centuries for the world to be so hot the north pole completely melts. Do you have any idea how large a capacity for heat retention water has? It would take months and months of intense heat to melt that much ice.

Call me selfish, but I don't really give a damn. As long as the world doesn't collapse while i'm living on it, my descendants can figure their own desperate situations out.

And hey, even if we do fuck up and destroy humanity: so? It's folly to think that we can destroy the world, because life will find a way. Let cancer wipe out millions of people. Why? So that every person born on the Earth in the future will have immunity. Destruction forces change. Change on an evolutionary level is good.

Win. QFT. By the way, because of the way some cancers are instigated there's not really such a thing as immunity to all cancer.

Brad, Darwin would be proud of you. I wonder if you will think like that once you have children and you know you leave them a useless and dead world.

If he had children that he was leaving a dead and useless world, he would be proud that they were working to overcome such a massive problem. Stand on your own feet sort of mentality. Even better since they'd be effectively metaphorically shot in the kneecaps.

 

[brad.dude03]

I agree, to quote Anthony Keidis "Destruction is a very rough boat but it also breeds creation"

Think about it. I'm not saying that the civilization need be destroyed in order to force a change (Though maybe down the road it will be for the better) but the world right now, as I live on it, is just fine. So why bother trying to work toward contigency plans for events that may or may not occur when i'm dead. People will find a way. You doubt humanity now. You think that if the people on Earth don't solve the problems with global warming NOW, then we're all gonna die. WRONG. There will be more people, hundreds of years from now, STILL working on these problems. So what if we're not the people to solve the problems, it doesn't mean that everyone in the future will be retarded, I'm sure they can sort their own damned problems out.

 

[Masiah]

Not as good as you would think. Don't flatter yourself too much.

I won't, arrogance overcame me for a moment.

Believe it or not, mentalities change. Racism is nowhere near the problem it was in the States, and slavery was outrageously common in ancient Egypt, Greece, and I believe even ancient Jerusalem. Or, take a look at the secular-progressive movement within the US. Within a generation, people have gone from the mentality of "stand on your own feet" to "oh, well we don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, everybody gets a ribbon just for participating". I can guarantee you that similar mentalities have never occurred, and I'll be glad when it's gone.

I disagree. Greeks in Athens discriminated even other greeks from other cities. Christians discriminated Muslims. Now whites discriminate blacks. It is stupid, senseles and negative, but it still happens over and over again, with different intensities. And this is only about racism, other examples can be given.

If he had children that he was leaving a dead and useless world, he would be proud that they were working to overcome such a massive problem. Stand on your own feet sort of mentality. Even better since they'd be effectively metaphorically shot in the kneecaps.

I'm not sure if you criticise me or Brad...

 

[Teh_Ephy]

[HIGHLIGHT]This post has been edited since its initial posting[/code], I saw "Greeks in Athens, etc." and immediately just laughed at how bad of an example that was. I didn't bother to read the rest.

I disagree. Greeks in Athens discriminated even other greeks from other cities.

Yeah, and most of North America discriminates against Frenchmen. What's your point? There's a difference between discrimination based on race, and discrimination based upon origin.

Christians discriminated Muslims. Now whites discriminate blacks. It is stupid, senseles and negative, but it still happens over and over again. And this is only about racism, other examples can be given.

Christians and Muslims discriminate against each other because of a little something called the Crusades. It's generally agreed that there were something like seven of them, you can't expect that sort of conflict to disappear within even a few centuries. Whites don't discriminate against blacks anymore, it's racist of you against whites to think so.

I'm not sure if you criticise me or Brad...

That was me attempting to make your point moot.

 

[Masiah]

It is still discrimination, no matter the reason.

[Offtopic] What's "moot"?[/offtopic]

 

[Arvedui]

Believe it or not, mentalities change. Racism is nowhere near the problem it was in the States, and slavery was outrageously common in ancient Egypt, Greece, and I believe even ancient Jerusalem.

Forgot Rome, Byzantium, Mongolia, China, and just about every other civilization ... ever.

Yes it's already happening, but no, it isn't as much of a problem as everybody thinks. Global warming is not going to end the world, and it's going to take decades if not centuries for the world to be so hot the north pole completely melts. Do you have any idea how large a capacity for heat retention water has? It would take months and months of intense heat to melt that much ice.

Wasn't there a thread about that, and sane minded people won? Yeah about that..


Masiah, your view of history has proven to be extraordinarily limited. I know you don't live in the United States, but god damn that last statement:

I disagree. Greeks in Athens discriminated even other greeks from other cities. Christians discriminated Muslims. Now whites discriminate blacks. It is stupid, senseles and negative, but it still happens over and over again, with different intensities. And this is only about racism, other examples can be given.

Is insanely wrong. When I watch tv there are generally more Black people now than White. To say that NOW white people are discriminating against blacks is asinine. Get with current history. And don't spew out crap about the KKK to me because then I'll quote Farah Khan and the Black Panthers.

 

[brad.dude03]

There will always be discrimination. Always. It's like conflict. World peace is a lie, it will never happen. Sorry I'm not being optimistic, it's called REALITY.

 

[Masiah]

Are you telling me that whites NEVER discriminated blacks? And that now some still do it? I'm not saying that Black people are so poor and defenseless, it was just one part of the global idea. Of course there has been Black discrimination against whites...

And I'm not here to give history lessons, so I don't want to explain part by part what everyone said or did. I just generalised it a little. I've been reading history books all my life plus having it to study intensively at school, so I don't think so that my knowledge of human history is "extraordinarily limited". Slavery and discrimination nearly always come toghether.

No, I don't live in US, but I live in Spain. And here, Arvedui, racial discrimination is more than common. From ALL the parts. Muslims, blacks, whites, latins, etc. In some places, streets are like urban battlefields at night. I think I don't need to explain more.

 

[Arvedui]

Are you telling me that whites NEVER discriminated blacks? And that now some still do it? I'm not saying that Black people are so poor and defenseless, it was just one part of the global idea. Of course there has been Black discrimination against whites...

And I'm not here to give history lessons, so I don't want to explain part by part what everyone said or did. I just generalised it a little. I've been reading history books all my life plus having it to study intensively at school, so I don't think so that my knowledge of human history is "extraordinarily limited".

No, I don't live in US, but I live in Spain. And here, Arvedui, racial discrimination is more than common. From ALL the parts. Muslims, blacks, whites, latins, etc. In some places, streets are like urban battlefields at night.

No I'm not telling you that whites never discriminated against blacks. But it doesn't matter who discriminates against who because there will ALWAYS be discrimination.

For about 1700 years Jews were persecuted by christians, and by a whole hell of a lot more people before that.

Well maybe, just maybe it's your country that's fucked up because of it's history, JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY. I assume you know about Spain's history with the Moors and the Christians and the Jews. The Inquisition and every other fucking terrible thing that has happened.

Now look at Darfur or any other country. It's racial and religious descrimination. It is NEVER going to change completely. To think that it would is completely asinine.

There will always be discrimination. Always. It's like conflict. World peace is a lie, it will never happen. Sorry I'm not being optimistic, it's called REALITY.

QFT

 

[Masiah]

I agreed with most of that before... then why are we arguing?

 

[Arvedui]

lol I dunno, I just like yelling

Moot means null and void, or not valid.

moot1 Audio Help /mut/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[moot] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
–verb (used with object)
4. to present or introduce (any point, subject, project, etc.) for discussion.
5. to reduce or remove the practical significance of; make purely theoretical or academic.
6. Archaic. to argue (a case), esp. in a mock court.
–noun
7. an assembly of the people in early England exercising political, administrative, and judicial powers.
8. an argument or discussion, esp. of a hypothetical legal case.
9. Obsolete. a debate, argument, or discussion.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Are you telling me that whites NEVER discriminated blacks? And that now some still do it? I'm not saying that Black people are so poor and defenseless, it was just one part of the global idea. Of course there has been Black discrimination against whites...

No, whites used to discriminate against blacks, the most important part of that being used to. It's racist of you (lol irony <3) to think that the majority of whites are still racist against blacks.

And I'm not here to give history lessons, so I don't want to explain part by part what everyone said or did. I just generalised it a little. I've been reading history books all my life plus having it to study intensively at school, so I don't think so that my knowledge of human history is "extraordinarily limited".

History is not cyclic. However, human lust for power is constant, and so wars are rather frequent. However, the general global society is becoming a place that does not allow for wars. Unfortunately, it is not a place that does not allow for wars just yet. History is not cyclic.

No, I don't live in US, but I live in Spain. And here, Arvedui, racial discrimination is more than common. From ALL the parts. Muslims, blacks, whites, latins, etc. In some places, streets are like urban battlefields at night.

Congratulations, your corner of the world is full of violent racists. Since your corner of the world is the only part of it that matters, obviously things that are true there are true everywhere else.

 

[Masiah]

History is not cyclic. However, human lust for power is constant, and so wars are rather frequent. However, the general global society is becoming a place that does not allow for wars. Unfortunately, it is not a place that does not allow for wars just yet. History is not cyclic.

But YOU are cyclic ^^. And you are part of history. If a you are cyclic and you are a part of history, history is cyclic. You can ignore this comment, its pure sarcasm and irony. :3

Congratulations, your corner of the world is full of violent racists. Since your corner of the world is the only part of it that matters, obviously things that are true there are true everywhere else.

Ok, it seems that only one example does not seem enough for people in here to accept someone's point. Maybe Spain is " a corner of the world" (I am quite offended by the insinuation that I'm exagerantly egocentric, I used Spain as an example because I know it better than any other country and so my argument would be more solid) but RUSSIA (try calling that a "corner") is quite more racist than Spain, I assure you. There you go, 2 examples.
About other discriminations, France discriminates a zone so called "Northen Catalonia", just north of the Pyrenees, where people try to save their historical language (Catalonian) but are strongly opressed by the French Government. 3 examples. I could continue, but I'm too tired for now.

If this thread continues I'll post something else tomorrow. Goodnight.

 

[Arvedui]

This topic is cyclic. Everyone has made the same point and is somehow still arguing.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

But YOU are cyclic ^^. And you are part of history. If a you are cyclic and you are a part of history, history is cyclic. You can ignore this comment, its pure sarcasm and irony. :3

Everything about those first two sentences is flawed, sarcastic or not. Certainly, there's nothing ironic about what I said. First, let me show how the logic is flawed: the action of a single part of the whole is not equivalent of the whole itself. The chamber of a revolver rotates, therefore all guns have the primary purpose of rotation. WRONG. Not only am I only a part of the whole, but not all similar wholes have identical parts. Now, let me show how the evidence is flawed: I am not cyclic because I never changed in the first place. I made my point, provided evidence, and reiterated the initial point. That is not cycling through anything, it is how proper persuasive works are written.

Ok, it seems that only one example does not seem enough for people in here to accept someone's point. Maybe Spain is " a corner of the world" (I am quite offended by the insinuation that I'm exagerantly egocentric, I used Spain as an example because I know it better than any other country and so my argument would be more solid) but RUSSIA (try calling that a "corner") is quite more racist than Spain, I assure you. There you go, 2 examples.

Oh, well so long as you assure me that it is so, it must be so. I beseech your forgiveness for bothering you to ask how it is so, o fountain from which all knowledge floweth.

About other discriminations, France discriminates a zone so called "Northen Catalonia", just north of the Pyrenees, where people try to save their historical language (Catalonian) but are strongly opressed by the French Government. 3 examples. I could continue, but I'm too tired for now.

That isn't violent discrimination, or if it is you have yet to show how. Also, I'm not saying that discrimination has stopped, I'm saying that it's becoming more subtle and less influential.

 

[Hakeem]

World peace is a myth, there can be none. There will always be some kind of lethal conflict no matter how small. We should stop trying and getting out selves killed and worry about protecting ourselves (and possibly allies).

Peace is often called the absence of war, natural disasters do not mean a world peace is violated.

Anarchy!

Whatever we do, say or eat () people will still believe in what they believed before reading this thread and few, very few, will change their minds

Call me crazy, but I think there's a solution we can all accept, we just all need to fully understand it. That's where debate comes in.

One thing that is really in human nature is that we try to be original and say or do something new, but we always end up repeating something that someone has already said or done.

With 6 billions people, the odds increase that this small internet debate will cause someone to say something that nobody has ever said before, and for all we know, that might end up bringing us one step closer to the solution.

Let cancer wipe out millions of people. Why? So that every person born on the Earth in the future will have immunity. Destruction forces change. Change on an evolutionary level is good.

Having a body that's resistant to cancer is one thing, but giving it what it needs to fight that cancer is another entirely. We have mechanisms in our body to fight cancer, we just need to make sure they have what they need to do it. Granted, bad eating habits is something we should not be eager to breed.

I'm sure they can sort their own damned problems out.

Yeah, how about they don't have to solve the problems you were too lazy to fix as well?

There will always be discrimination. Always. It's like conflict. World peace is a lie, it will never happen. Sorry I'm not being optimistic, it's called REALITY.

You think so? You think everyone wants war? Well I've got news for you:
I don't want to go to war with you or anyone else. In fact, I'm declaring peace on you right now. Unfortunately, I don't have that authority, but you now know where I'll be standing. I'm willing to bet this is a very common ideology among humans. Evolution should support me on this one.
What causes and wages war is corrupt governments. If they actually listened to the people, then there would be no war.

Sure, there will always be conflicting ideas, but through those we still get along damn well. There will always be discrimination, but those people are few and far in between.

I think people like conflict more as a sport than anything else.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Unoriginal picture is unoriginal.

I think people like conflict more as a sport than anything else.

I think we should start a modern day war with both swords and guns just because it'd give a great boost to the entertainment industry.

 

[Arvedui]

Unoriginal picture is unoriginal.

Unoriginal picture is unoriginal, but still true.

I think we should start a modern day war with both swords and guns just because it'd give a great boost to the entertainment industry.

I've agreed with that since I was 6. Sadly no one else ever has.. well no one except George Lucas.

 

[DrazharLn]

I'll be with Hakeem in the peace camps for those who are terminally pacifist. I don't want to fight anyone.
Your picture is false. Arguing on a forum is no different from arguing anywhere else. Meaningful debate is not retarded.

 

[Masiah]

Everything about those first two sentences is flawed, sarcastic or not. Certainly, there's nothing ironic about what I said. First, let me show how the logic is flawed: the action of a single part of the whole is not equivalent of the whole itself. The chamber of a revolver rotates, therefore all guns have the primary purpose of rotation. WRONG. Not only am I only a part of the whole, but not all similar wholes have identical parts. Now, let me show how the evidence is flawed: I am not cyclic because I never changed in the first place. I made my point, provided evidence, and reiterated the initial point. That is not cycling through anything, it is how proper persuasive works are written.

First: I think I said to read my comment and then ignore it. I pretended to make an innocent joke about that, but you it looks like you want to continue arguing.
Second: Comparing history to a revolver makes no sense. In first place, I think histroy is slightly more complex than a gun (this IS sarcasm). Second, each part of a revolver doesn't have it's own opinions and ideas, just as people do, who are part of history, so if one human has been cyclic, history (human history, that is) has been cyclic at one point.

Oh, well so long as you assure me that it is so, it must be so. I beseech your forgiveness for bothering you to ask how it is so, o fountain from which all knowledge floweth.

You are really starting to bothering me. Have you ever studied how to argument correctly? There is a concept named "falacia" which means "incorrect argumentation". Concretaly, this is named "falacia ad hominem" which consists in attacking personally your oponent in an argument because you do not know how to answer to what is said. In a moderated argument, this nearly always ends in the discualification of the one using a "falacia". Please stop attacking me personally at stick to your ideas and opinions. I do not attempt show off or something, I know there is a lot more to learn in this world, and who knows, maybe in others.
Answering to your question: How? I must say personal experience. I have been there, I have seen it, I've been told, I have read, I have checked. Have you done the same with your ideas? I don't say that all the citizens of Spain , Russia or France discriminate their respective minorities, but a lot of them do.

That isn't violent discrimination, or if it is you have yet to show how. Also, I'm not saying that discrimination has stopped, I'm saying that it's becoming more subtle and less influential.

But it's still discrimination. It may be subtle, put it's present.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

First: I think I said to read my comment and then ignore it. I pretended to make an innocent joke about that, but you it looks like you want to continue arguing.

I was letting you know why your joke was bad, and it was a good place to tell you that history is not cyclic.

Second: Comparing history to a revolver makes no sense. In first place, I think histroy is slightly more complex than a gun (this IS sarcasm). Second, each part of a revolver doesn't have it's own opinions and ideas, just as people do, who are part of history, so if one human has been cyclic, history (human history, that is) has been cyclic at one point.

First off, I'm not comparing a revolver to history, I'm comparing all guns to your flawed logic. Secondly, no, each individual part of a gun does not have its own opinions and ideas, but so what? That doesn't matter at all for the comparison I was making. The function of one piece of the whole is not the same as the function of whole itself. Additionally, different wholes with identical functions do not all have the exact same parts. Those were the points of the gun metaphor, which you did a fantastic job of not understanding.

As a matter of fact, I'm going to use your own counter-argument against you. Humans do have their own opinions and ideas. Therefore, every human is not identical to every other human. Since humans are not all identical, if one human is cyclic, all humans are not necessarily cyclic. Also, human society (and therefore history) is not one single unit, but hundreds upon thousands of units with their own functions (as you said) working with and against each other. Picking one single human as the archetype for all human behaviour is outrageously inaccurate. You'd have better luck shooting a fly with a revolver and no gun training.

You are really starting to bothering me. Have you ever studied how to argument correctly? There is a concept named "falacia" which means "incorrect argumentation". Concretaly, this is named "falacia ad hominem" which consists in attacking personally your oponent in an argument because you do not know how to answer to what is said. In a moderated argument, this nearly always ends in the discualification of the one using a "falacia". Please stop attacking me personally at stick to your ideas and opinions. I do not attempt show off or something, I know there is a lot more to learn in this world, and who knows, maybe in others.

I'm not attacking you personally, I'm mocking your debate skills because of how incredibly flimsy your evidence is. If I merely assured you that I was a master of twenty two different martial arts, are you required to believe me? No you are not, and to do so would be completely idiotic. Ideally, we should be providing off-site links to valid websites such as .orgs (except for Wikipedia), .gov, etc. As it is, I'm satisfied with just you explaining why something is how it is, and if I'm being so lax, I expect examples for and of the "facts", and not just the bare minimum that "Russia is racist, believe me because I know more than you know". Also, if I were insulting you, this thread would have been reported and locked by now. Ask Hakeem.

Answering to your question: How? I must say personal experience. I have been there, I have seen it, I've been told, I have read, I have checked. Have you done the same with your ideas? I don't say that all the citizens of Spain , Russia or France discriminate their respective minorities, but a lot of them do.

I could just facepalm.jpg this, but I won't. Instead, I'll explain to you why I would be facepalm.jpg'ing this. You still aren't telling me your proof that Russia is racist, just that you do have proof. Tell you what, I have proof that I've mastered twenty two different martial arts, you're just never going to know what it is. Would you like me to start insulting you now? I could start insulting you now, because this is a great starting point. Or, I could have insulted you when you didn't understand my metaphor about guns. I'm the sort of person that tends to justify people who accuse me of insulting them. Are you sure you want me to insult you?

But it's still discrimination. It may be subtle, put it's present.

We seem to be arguing two subtly different things about this point. Agree to disagree?

WTF? Lol. No, there is no point as I said.

If you don't see the point, then why do you care? We're obviously far more opinionated than you are, there's no way you're going to get us to stop just because "wtf who cares?" If you enjoy sticking your nose in other peoples' business just to shut that business down, you'd better find a new, more productive hobby.

 

[Masiah]

Ephy, 3 things you can think about:

• Since when mocking on someone's skills hasn't been insulting someone? I think that somone can get easily offended.
• If you want to insult me, go ahead. I don't know you and I don't think that we will meet someday in real life, so I don't mind at all. Just so you know, in my humble opinion, anyone who insults someone not face to face is a coward.
• I recommend you to really facepalm you, maybe you get some clear ideas. If you don't want to listen to someone who offers some first-hand experience, go ahead and LIVE some time in Russia and have some friends and family there so they can tell you what they think, VISIT Northen Catalunya and try to make someone speak Catalonian without feeling ashamed of themselves because of the government's pressure, come to visit me in Spain if you want and see how some people take advantage of others who are desperate. Then, and only then, I will accept any comments, critics and other arguments from you.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

• Since when mocking on someone's skills hasn't been insulting someone? I think that somone can get easily offended.

Well, I could be calling you a useless dipshit that can't fucking read or speak consistent English, but instead I'm making fun of the way you simply tell me to believe you without giving any evidence at all and somehow manage to think that you're debating properly. Do you see the difference there? One is attacking you using your demonstration of your skills as evidence, and one is attacking your skills using your demonstration of those skills as evidence.

• If you want to insult me, go ahead. I don't know you and I don't think that we will meet someday in real life, so I don't mind at all. Just so you know, in my humble opinion, anyone who insults someone not face to face is a coward.

Well see, I don't want to insult you. Well okay, I would absolutely love to because you're kind of pissing me off by completely missing the point, but I want more to remain civil. Also, who seems to be insulting who now? Calling me a coward through the internet is cowardly.

• I recommend you to really facepalm you, maybe you get some clear ideas. If you don't want to listen to someone who offers some first-hand experience, go ahead and LIVE some time in Russia and have some friends and family there so they can tell you what they think, VISIT Northen Catalunya and try to make someone speak Catalonian without feeling ashamed of themselves because of the government's pressure, come to visit me in Spain if you want and see how some people take advantage of others who are desperate. Then, and only then, I will accept any comments, critics and other arguments from you.

I would love to hear about your firsthand experience, except you haven't told me shit about it. It's been three damn posts and you have yet to tell me specifically how people are racist in Russia, except that they are. You've told me how people are racist in France and Spain, but that's France and Spain. How are they racist in Russia? I tell you what, I have firsthand experience of being better than (some) other people, but I'm not going to tell you specifically how I am in fact better than (some) other people. You'll just have to settle for my unbacked claims. Am I good looking, am I physically strong, am I agile, am I intelligent? You'll never know except that in one way or another, I am better than (some) other people.

P.S: If it makes you feel any better, I'm going to report this post for flaming, because an example of actually insulting your person as opposed to your skills was necessary to draw that line.

 

[brad.dude03]

If you wanna settle this do so in PM's. This topic has been exhausted entirely.

~Thread Closed.