>staying in flats
>kaiokekx40

Just stay at home fam. Free food, heating and WiFi. The only benefits of staying in a flat is occasionally taking a girl home to rail after a night out.

GOT THEIR ARSES WHIPPED LIKE A NOVIGRAD WHORE

TL;DR

Has it fixed Skellige's Most Wanted quest?

Can you please just admit you're a degenerate fucking cuck.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on October 08, 2015, 08:21:15 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 08:19:38 AM

Quote from: Madman Mordo on October 08, 2015, 07:33:48 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 01:09:06 AM

Obviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriage

He spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him.

Point is though, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these kind of facile opinions don't exist. Nothing of intellectual value is gained from it, and all it's going to do is galvanize people into believing these types of titillating ideas.

The only way you can beat problematic ideals is within open discourse, rational arguments and mockery. Simply denying someone a platform, regardless of how retarded their beliefs might be, will only invigorate said opinion and give them a victim status to latch on to.

Which is why I said that the article should extend it's sympathy to everyone, not just marriage opponents if it claims to value those things. I think it tells stories about the author's actual priorities.

But gay marriage opponents are the ones that usually get shut down though, which is the whole point of the article.

Comfortable speech doesn't need protected. Uncomfortable speech does.

Everyone including neonazis, KKK rallies, WBC and etc in this context.

Something wrong with that?

Quote from: Madman Mordo on October 08, 2015, 08:07:42 AM

Bit flippant mentioning his race when it's kind of irrelevant tbh.

Don't see why anyone should be getting distraught about it though.

Carson's race is a big deal for this campaign, whether that's a good thing or not. There's no point in hopping around it. Obama's race won him the whitehouse, and it remains to be seen whether race will (or can) do the same for Carson.

Race really shouldn't be used to measure someone's capacity to do the job properly, though. It's partly why the whole identity politics fiasco has gotten so out of fucking hand in both the US and the UK.

Again, hardly something people should be wringing their in hands in disbelief over, but still a douchebag move regardless.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on October 08, 2015, 07:33:48 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on October 08, 2015, 01:09:06 AM

Obviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriage

He spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him.

Point is though, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these kind of facile opinions don't exist. Nothing of intellectual value is gained from it, and all it's going to do is galvanize people into believing these types of titillating ideas.

The only way you can beat problematic ideals is within open discourse, rational arguments and mockery. Simply denying someone a platform, regardless of how retarded their beliefs might be, will only invigorate said opinion and give them a victim status to latch on to.

Not if you kill them

gas the normies tbh

Obviously the real solution here is to give platform to anyone who's ideas can hold up to themselves, but this article seems to act under the premise that gay-marriage opponents aren't fueled by bigoted, or just plain retarded agendas like other retarded groups that aren't given platform are. Which is fucking stupid. Because they fail to present anything resembling an point that holds water, such as when I followed the first link in the article and found this gem of a truly airtight defense to sacred marriage

He spits the same substanceless trite all anti-marriage proponents do: circular reasoning that fails to uphold its own established values (marriage is specifically meant to foster procreation, yet marriage has never necessitated childbearing from the parties involved). Unless he starts saying old folks shouldn't marry, or you can't get your tubes tied unless you've got two kids already, he's just targetting homosexuals because he's a bigot. He's plain stupid, and nothing is learned from him.

Point is though, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and pretend these kind of facile opinions don't exist. Nothing of intellectual value is gained from it, and all it's going to do is galvanize people into believing these types of titillating ideas.

The only way you can beat problematic ideals is within open discourse, rational arguments and mockery. Simply denying someone a platform, regardless of how retarded their beliefs might be, will only invigorate said opinion and give them a victim status to latch on to.

What astounds me is how fucking middle class all these so called 'progressives' are.

I never see this kind of censorious behaviour within the working or upper classes. Weird.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-amazing-announcement-pluto-alan-stern-a6684981.html
Thoughts on what it could be?

lol, look at this fuckboy damage control his irreparable arguments.

The appeal to bigger problems is a fallacy, yeah, but I don't think I'm committing it.

I think Mordo's committing the inverse of that--the appeal to smaller problems.

Just because an issue is smaller than another doesn't make it insignificant, sure.
But just because the issue is smaller, doesn't make it more significant, either.

I'm going to continue caring more about the bigger issue. Sorry.

It would be positively fantastic if you would stop misrepresenting my arguments.

I'm not appealing to the dreadful plight of male domestic violence, like at all. I have already conceded that females constitute a significant majority of the victims within domestic violence. I am drawing attention to the superficiality of it all. The fact that a woman being beating a man is a laughing matter. That somehow just because a man can potentially inflict more damage on a woman renders the inverse irrelevant. That is my contention.

Domestic violence is horrific, regardless of who it is happening to, and regardless of what is being done to the victim, period. The day castrated cucks like you take notice of that is the day we start to see some real progress.

I dislike poor people tbh

Quote from: Madman Mordo on October 07, 2015, 10:37:33 AM

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110314171826/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors191.pdf

Quote

Of the 6.6 million incidents of IPV in 1995, 3.25 million involved male victims, with 1 million incidents resulting in injury.

But please, continue your magical insight into the extent of victimization within female on male domestic abuse.

3.25 male victims means there were 3.35 female victims.

Does it say how many of those resulted in injury? Probably, like, all of them.

I'm not sure why you think I'm positing the notion that women don't have it worse off.

Yes, women are more likely to sustain injury, marginally, and yes, they account for the majority of domestic abuse victims, again marginally.

But they're taken seriously because the culture is set up like that. Male domestic abuse is not. It's considered a joke. Just like you consider it a joke, a blatant testament to the trivialization surrounding it.

You are the problem, not me.

Quote from: Madman Mordo on October 07, 2015, 10:20:06 AM

Are you trying to imply that women don't have the capacity to "break someone's jaw?"

Or inflict serious bodily mutilation on a man?

I'm saying it doesn't happen. It doesn't happen nearly enough to warrant this dumbass attitude that male domestic violence is as much of an issue as female domestic violence.

But I mean, then again, I'm not the one gendering the issue--personally, I just prefer to call it domestic violence.
Gender is irrelevant.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence