This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Tsirist
Pages: 1 ... 678 910 ... 17
211
« on: November 14, 2015, 08:45:33 PM »
>be unafraid of a distant enemy that RARELY hurts a FRACTION of the western population
>get called a pussy
rofl
212
« on: November 14, 2015, 08:42:33 PM »
I love how the only rebuttals are examples of violence hundreds and even thousands of years ago.
We're talking about the present, modern, relatively civilized age we live in now. Not when we couldn't even understand basic scientific facts.
hitler singled out the jews. maybe not as much religiously-motivated, but he targeted a specific religion. not to mention the terrorist events from other religions which i linked earlier.
213
« on: November 14, 2015, 08:39:49 PM »
I'm afraid? LOL
It's the muslims who are afraid. They know they're awakening a wrath they won't be able to take.
And you? You'll bend over for Mohammed while Ahmed fucks your mouth like the pathetic little bitch you are.
haha, if you aren't afraid, why do you feel the need to lash out? why do you need to feel like they need to be gone? if it isn't because they are a threat, what could the reason be? no, you are afraid. i have no reason to be afraid right now and i know that. when the time comes and i must be afraid, i will fight to my last and i will certainly die before they can have their way with me psychologically
214
« on: November 14, 2015, 08:34:04 PM »
Mother fuckers don't realize core values of Islam are simply not compatible with western societies.
Don't talk about the trillions of moderates like that you BIGOT
i mean
those people exist
you telling me they're all agents?
Peace be upon the quadrillions of moderates inshallah they rape my mother because I'm a white European coward
Allahu Akbar Laillahaelallah
you are weak
Weak from laughter when Muslims rape your family and steal your lands and you don't do a damn thing
hoo yeah because that'll be happening anytime soon. i feel bad for you. you're so afraid. the day they come here i will fight back
215
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:56:15 PM »
Mother fuckers don't realize core values of Islam are simply not compatible with western societies.
Don't talk about the trillions of moderates like that you BIGOT
i mean
those people exist
you telling me they're all agents?
Peace be upon the quadrillions of moderates inshallah they rape my mother because I'm a white European coward
Allahu Akbar Laillahaelallah
you are weak
216
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:46:04 PM »
Mother fuckers don't realize core values of Islam are simply not compatible with western societies.
Don't talk about the trillions of moderates like that you BIGOT
i mean those people exist you telling me they're all agents?
217
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:40:07 PM »
and then I wonder how the Republicans will
yeah, "i wonder"
218
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:35:22 PM »
"Just its time"
IT WAS ALWAYS FUCKING VIOLENT
This isn't some teenager going through a phase, this is fucking murder of innocent people because of that barbaric religion.
rofl it's ok man, just keep calm you telling me we have no peaceful relations with any muslims elsewhere? i would suggest you brush up on your foreign policy. islam is always violent like every other religion is
219
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:26:26 PM »
again, the fact that religions go from violent to secular serves ONLY as evidence that the religion is not the sole cause of the violence
this "it's not about then it's about now" meme is a good one for sure
Modern Christianity isn't the same as it was back then. So they aren't real Christians.
Islam however is the same old fucking shit it was back then.
Is this true also of the form of Islam that is integrated with first world countries? I know a lot of secular Muslims personally. I think they're perfectly fine people, not really out burning people at the stakes or anything. They often support various progressive rights too (probably because they're young and educated).
220
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:24:47 PM »
again, the fact that religions go from violent to secular Which religion has done that? They're all violent and cause violence. Islam more than all the others.
serves ONLY as evidence that the religion is not the sole cause of the violence It is the main cause of all the shit in the Middle East.
this "it's not about then it's about now" meme is a good one for sure Because I'm talking about now not the Crusades.
I don't disagree on the point regarding all religions causing problems. Somehow even Buddhism has some history there. Still, I think we can agree that Christianity and many others have been fairly well integrated with many secular societies. Islam, right now, causes a lot of violence in the middle east. I guess it's just its time.
221
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:21:45 PM »
Why don't any of the ethnic and religious minorities in the Middle East do these terroristic acts of its the region and not the religion?
If I had to guess I'd say it's because they're busy being slaughtered by ISIS and such. Lesser of two evils and whatnot. If ISIS can barely touch us and they're the major players in the region, imagine trying to coordinate something comparable with fewer resources and another enemy breathing down your back.
222
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:16:03 PM »
again, the fact that religions go from violent to secular serves ONLY as evidence that the religion is not the sole cause of the violence
this "it's not about then it's about now" meme is a good one for sure
223
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:13:29 PM »
I have a question for those who disagree.
What other group of religious people at this time attack other people this frequently and violently? Attacks on innocent civilians solely to scare people?
I'd point towards the UDF and IRA. It moved on from a fight about land to bombings based on whether you were Catholic or Protestant. Hell, many people in Belfast share that hostile sentiment and judge your religion just by your name.
AT THIS TIME
NOT TEN OR TWENTY YEARS AGO
Why does that make it irrelevant?
And FYI, UDF are still around, and the IRA is just replaced by some more thugs. Not on a scale of the troubles sure, but fresh in minds of the many victims and survivors there.
Setting a bullshit time-scale just because it doesn't suit your views is dishonest.
Because I'm talking about now. About yesterday.
Not decades ago. IRA doesn't do shit anymore. Any Christian terrorist groups are barely anything compared to the Muslims.
wow do you think they don't do that anymore because it maybe isn't the religion but the circumstances?
224
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:12:17 PM »
rofl
suddenly we're ignoring the history because we didn't wipe those religions out and things turned out just fine
225
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:10:30 PM »
I have a question for those who disagree.
What other group of religious people at this time attack other people this frequently and violently? Attacks on innocent civilians solely to scare people?
I'd point towards the UDF and IRA. It moved on from a fight about land to bombings based on whether you were Catholic or Protestant. Hell, many people in Belfast share that hostile sentiment and judge your religion just by your name.
AT THIS TIME
NOT TEN OR TWENTY YEARS AGO
wait so are you saying we had religious problems ten or twenty years ago that we solved by eradicating the religion in question? what conflict exactly was that and which religion was inherently so violent that eradicating it was deemed acceptable?
226
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:08:59 PM »
I have a question for those who disagree.
What other group of religious people at this time attack other people this frequently and violently? Attacks on innocent civilians solely to scare people?
LOL nobody answers, because they know what the answer is. Pussies are burying their heads in the dirt.
No one is answering because it's a loaded question, Issac Newton.
How is it a loaded question? Because you can't answer it? Because it's only Muslims? Because I'm right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terrorhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violencethe middle east is a mess and is producing a lot of terrorists. islam happens to be the major religion there. easy god damn question
227
« on: November 14, 2015, 07:01:53 PM »
Does it have elements in its doctrine that encourage violence?
i'm not sure but probably Is it predisposed to encourage oppression and conflict?
i'm not sure but probably not much moreso than other religions are Is it just a matter of the region of the world that extremism is predominant?
i'm inclined to say yes, without question, but i can't say for certain What makes Islamic terrorism more prominent than other forms of religious terrorism?
things are pretty fucked over there I'm trying to learn more about this question in light of the Paris attacks, and I don't want to be on the wrong side of the debate. I don't know exactly what to believe, but I can't ignore the amount of violence that seems to be done in the name of the Islamic religion. What exactly is going on here?
best thing to do imo is calm down and move on. we help people as best we can. we try not to hurt people. we only act defensively at and within our borders. my opinions
228
« on: November 14, 2015, 01:20:06 AM »
i think hijabs are pretty cool
i know some muslim folks, i'd be sad if they died, not to mention all the innocents
229
« on: November 12, 2015, 08:54:31 PM »
egg
230
« on: November 12, 2015, 05:34:38 PM »
idk, at the time i remember not fitting in particularly well (still applies tbh) but egg talked to me
231
« on: November 10, 2015, 01:55:37 PM »
holy shit i wasnt placing it
"Also I've taken more of an experience from MOBA's than Journey or Antichamber" sorry, i guess i misinterpreted this
232
« on: November 10, 2015, 01:51:36 PM »
Also I've taken more of an experience from MOBA's than Journey or Antichamber because it succeeds completely at being able to suck you into the competitive spirit, to make you feel proud of your mastery, to make you feel that flow with your favorite character, it's an artistic experience that the developers intentionally foster when they make the game.
I feel like saying MOBAs are more artful/putting them on a pedestal (for you, personally) because you put more time into them than Antichamber (which is a true statement for me too) is like saying Justin Bieber's music is in an equivalent position in the context of the human race, compared to whatever you think of as artful in music.
I mean if you want to say everything in life is an art, and the experience of artistic appreciation is what makes some art more valuable than the rest, then whatever you spend the most time on in your life/whatever the most people spend the most time appreciating is what is most artful by that standard. It's a thought I personally entertain a lot but I'm curious as to whether you really agree with it from that angle.
Because as much as I love DotA and the experience it creates . . . I dunno if I'd even try comparing it as an art to Antichamber.
Dota as an experience draws you in more than Antichamber does.
Yes? And Justin Bieber is hugely popular.
Art effects different people differently, boy.
I wasn't trying to say MOBA's are better arts, I was just illustrating that they can be just as much an art.
It affects people differently (similarly in our case), I'm just saying your reason for placing it above other art pieces is kind of a bad one. 
233
« on: November 10, 2015, 01:46:26 PM »
Also I've taken more of an experience from MOBA's than Journey or Antichamber because it succeeds completely at being able to suck you into the competitive spirit, to make you feel proud of your mastery, to make you feel that flow with your favorite character, it's an artistic experience that the developers intentionally foster when they make the game.
I feel like saying MOBAs are more artful/putting them on a pedestal (for you, personally) because you put more time into them than Antichamber (which is a true statement for me too) is like saying Justin Bieber's music is in an equivalent position in the context of the human race, compared to whatever you think of as artful in music.
I mean if you want to say everything in life is an art, and the experience of artistic appreciation is what makes some art more valuable than the rest, then whatever you spend the most time on in your life/whatever the most people spend the most time appreciating is what is most artful by that standard. It's a thought I personally entertain a lot but I'm curious as to whether you really agree with it from that angle.
Because as much as I love DotA and the experience it creates . . . I dunno if I'd even try comparing it as an art to Antichamber.
Dota as an experience draws you in more than Antichamber does.
Yes? And Justin Bieber is hugely popular.
234
« on: November 10, 2015, 01:41:54 PM »
Also I've taken more of an experience from MOBA's than Journey or Antichamber because it succeeds completely at being able to suck you into the competitive spirit, to make you feel proud of your mastery, to make you feel that flow with your favorite character, it's an artistic experience that the developers intentionally foster when they make the game.
I feel like saying MOBAs are more artful/putting them on a pedestal (for you, personally) because you put more time into them than Antichamber (which is a true statement for me too) is like saying Justin Bieber's music is in an equivalent position in the context of the human race, compared to whatever you think of as artful in music. I mean if you want to say everything in life is an art, and the experience of artistic appreciation is what makes some art more valuable than the rest, then whatever you spend the most time on in your life/whatever the most people spend the most time appreciating is what is most artful by that standard. It's a thought I personally entertain a lot but I'm curious as to whether you really agree with it from that angle. Because as much as I love DotA and the experience it creates . . . I dunno if I'd even try comparing it as an art to Antichamber.
235
« on: November 10, 2015, 11:11:31 AM »
depressed as hell, not collecting new music for weeks, cycling through the oldest of the old
236
« on: November 08, 2015, 07:04:04 PM »
There's nothing hotter than the risk of pregnancy imo
237
« on: November 07, 2015, 01:42:43 PM »
I kinda wonder how much more/less qualified many of these candidates are than the others are. I know there have been severe issues with that in the US with people getting offices because of their contributions to campaigns. Not sure if it's as severe if you go out of your way to get a 50/50 distribution but half the time people at that level seem pretty equally qualified to me.
238
« on: November 05, 2015, 07:17:08 PM »
What happens when societal reaction to violence is minimal? Statism. Again, strong objection to violence is a prerequisite for anarchy to exist in the first place. The society we live in reacts comparatively minimally to violence by my standards. If nobody sees a problem with "might makes right", we go back to where we started. Who enforces the idea that no one should be attacked if no one cares for owner A because of something arbitrary like his race, sexuality, religion, etc.
Nobody enforces anything. That's the point. owner A has a right to defend himself from assault, lethally if need be. If owner A is killed and his killer is not rejected and ostracized, society has failed to reject violence and a new state probably isn't far from being established.
A society doomed to collapse when presented reality.
What reality?
Don't give me that Rousseau bullshit.
Any reality in which resources are not equally distributed perfectly. Egg's example was meant to show that hierarchies arise naturally when any person has any sort of perceived advantage over another. People aren't even born with equal physiological properties in this world, much less equal access to resources like water.
And this is supposed to lead to statism how? Resources can never and will never be distributed completely equally.
If people see someone with more and team up to rob him, and they do not face consequences, anarchy was never really established because the people are not sufficiently rejecting violence. In a society with anarchist values, this new gang will be met with defensive force. First individual, and if that fails, organized.
Exactly. Anarchy was never really established because it cannot be established because there will always be some sort of hierarchy in terms of wealth, social status, etc. Hell, even your proposed ostracization from the society constitutes the establishment of a hierarchy. Organized defensive force for the sake of the COLLECTIVE anarchic society is completely contradictory to the individualistic values you are trying to prioritize.
239
« on: November 05, 2015, 04:42:08 PM »
What happens when societal reaction to violence is minimal? Statism. Again, strong objection to violence is a prerequisite for anarchy to exist in the first place. The society we live in reacts comparatively minimally to violence by my standards. If nobody sees a problem with "might makes right", we go back to where we started. Who enforces the idea that no one should be attacked if no one cares for owner A because of something arbitrary like his race, sexuality, religion, etc.
Nobody enforces anything. That's the point. owner A has a right to defend himself from assault, lethally if need be. If owner A is killed and his killer is not rejected and ostracized, society has failed to reject violence and a new state probably isn't far from being established.
A society doomed to collapse when presented reality.
What reality?
Don't give me that Rousseau bullshit.
Any reality in which resources are not equally distributed perfectly. Egg's example was meant to show that hierarchies arise naturally when any person has any sort of perceived advantage over another. People aren't even born with equal physiological properties in this world, much less equal access to resources like water.
240
« on: November 05, 2015, 03:07:41 PM »
You can't agree with me that there is no society that places the individual above the collective and then come around and say that this anarchic society you refer to has at least one rule that prevents individuals from pursuing certain courses of action. Which one is it?
What if I want, as an individual, to establish a violent society? Wouldn't you then have to compromise my right to say "no" to your anarchic society if you wanted the anarchy to survive? This is why it isn't possible.
Pages: 1 ... 678 910 ... 17
|
Show Posts