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 - Mordo
Pages: 1 ... 120121122 123124 ... 243
3631
« on: September 18, 2015, 10:53:17 AM »
what the fuck, when did i post that?
Lay off the opioids m8
 LAY AFF THE FUKIN SKAG SONNY BOI
3632
« on: September 18, 2015, 10:49:20 AM »
what the fuck, when did i post that?
3633
« on: September 18, 2015, 10:48:12 AM »
If you're for women's rights, you support feminism and are a feminist. Whether you like it or not. End of story.
le hivemind mentality meme
More like knowing the definition of a simple fucking word.
le definition meme It's all very well referring to the dictionary definition of a word in order to circumvent criticism but it's a bit more complex than that unfortunately.
3634
« on: September 18, 2015, 09:49:52 AM »
If you're for women's rights, you support feminism and are a feminist. Whether you like it or not. End of story.
le hivemind mentality meme
3635
« on: September 18, 2015, 09:03:32 AM »
edit: so i guess either i was hacked or my account sperged out
3636
« on: September 17, 2015, 06:57:26 AM »
lel, prepare for the 3fail3 IDF.
'but muh narrative'
'but muh planned trilogy'
'but muh bionicle tier looking enemies'
3637
« on: September 17, 2015, 06:33:17 AM »
Fucking hell, is burgerland really this boring?
3638
« on: September 16, 2015, 01:03:35 PM »
I think we have a heroin problem but I don't know
yeah that's a problem for us as well
I FUCKING TOLD YOU TO BRING EM YOU DOSS CUNT
begbie didnae dae drugs. he just did people.
3639
« on: September 16, 2015, 11:57:37 AM »
I think we have a heroin problem but I don't know
yeah that's a problem for us as well
3640
« on: September 16, 2015, 11:48:48 AM »
Rockstar North, the dev team that created the GTA games and RDR, live right up the road from me.
Sean Connery was born here.
Author of Sherlock Holmes was born here.
Author of Treasure Island was born here.
First animal was to be cloned here.
3641
« on: September 16, 2015, 06:58:53 AM »
Don't see the point in killing characters if they don't have the integrity to make them stay dead.
It's no better than the ending to Twilight.
Except it serves a purpose in the plot. If Jon is the true warrior of the light, then his death is good. As a member of the Night's Watch, he vowed to father no children, swear no allegiance and never abandon his watch from now until his death. He has died, and, if R+L=J is true, that once again makes him eligible for control of the the Iron Throne, and thus overall the saviour of the realm.
GRRM plans things out, he doesn't kill off characters without reason.
Kinda contradicts Martin's themes of realism to have everything wrapped up in a nice little bow like a fairytale though.
Not saying that the resurrection of Jon is implausible, but the theory of him swooping in and saving the day just comes off as too sickly sweet to be believable. Remember how we all thought Ned was going to be the protagonist of the series, then subsequently Robb? Yeah.
The thing is, he still has a story to tell. It's also a fantasy series, it just has some more edge and darkness to it. I'd probably think of it as the "Watchmen" of fantasy books, describing the realism and horrors of war, the politics, etc.
I know, I never said he would never come back. I just think the whole "Jon becomes king and kills all the White Walkers" doesn't seem like something that would coincide with Martin's themes.
3642
« on: September 15, 2015, 03:45:21 PM »
Don't see the point in killing characters if they don't have the integrity to make them stay dead.
It's no better than the ending to Twilight.
Except it serves a purpose in the plot. If Jon is the true warrior of the light, then his death is good. As a member of the Night's Watch, he vowed to father no children, swear no allegiance and never abandon his watch from now until his death. He has died, and, if R+L=J is true, that once again makes him eligible for control of the the Iron Throne, and thus overall the saviour of the realm.
GRRM plans things out, he doesn't kill off characters without reason.
Kinda contradicts Martin's themes of realism to have everything wrapped up in a nice little bow like a fairytale though. Not saying that the resurrection of Jon is implausible, but the theory of him swooping in and saving the day just comes off as too sickly sweet to be believable. Remember how we all thought Ned was going to be the protagonist of the series, then subsequently Robb? Yeah.
3644
« on: September 15, 2015, 11:47:14 AM »
Found this comment on an Independent article. Interesting read. Care to rebuke Meta Kun? The Conservatives released a silly video on Monday, titled "Labour: a threat to our national security". In this video, it is alleged that the new, democratically elected (with over 250,000 votes) leader of the Labour Party has four dangerous beliefs that make him a "threat to British national security". First, that "Bin Laden's death was a 'tragedy'". Second, "terrorists are 'friends'". Third, "wants to surrender our nuclear weapons". And lastly, "wants to dismantle our Armed Forces". The video calls these "The Facts". Here are the real facts.
Thinks Osama Bin Laden's death was a tragedy: The clip showing this cuts off at the right time, and is otherwise self-explanatory. Corbyn says that Bin Laden's death was a tragedy, in comparison to putting him on trial. This was also noted by many other leaders at the time, including the former leader of the Liberal Democrats Paddy Ashdown. Also, as a democracy operating under the rule of law, and certainly by international law standards, we should always strive to uphold the right to a fair trial - for everyone. This serves two purposes: First, useful information and evidence comes to light from important sources. Second, we practice the Enlightenment values that we preach.
Feels Hezbollah and Hamas are "friends": Again, context. Corbyn has subsequently repeatedly clarified that his terminology of "friends" was simply in diplomatic reference to the peace process parties. He has adamantly stated that he does not agree with the actions of Hamas nor Hezbollah. Tony Blair has already met with Hamas to negotiate peace deals twice. The former head of British intelligence MI5, Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller, has also said that talks with these organisations are "necessary". It is not odd to want to bridge gaps between both sides of a conflict in order to instil peace, without further conflict. Step one is diplomatic terminology.
Wants to give up nuclear weapons: Britain has signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and is legally bound under international law to take steps to give up our nuclear weapons. Following international law, as a member of the Security Council, would set precedent and pressure for an eventual global nuclear disarmament. This obviously takes time, but is unanimously agreed to be a positive development. Hence, an international treaty to that effect. Furthermore, the modern threat of terrorism that Britain faces has no solution, nor deterrent, in nuclear weaponry - because it is a worldwide phenomenon with no realistically tangible target.
Wants to "dismantle our Armed Forces": This is inaccurate. It is no secret that Corbyn sincerely believes in alternative resolutions to war and death. And a more constructive global role for Britain than bombing campaigns. He certainly does want to alter NATO's 2% defence spending commitment. However, to imply he wants to completely demilitarise Britain is nonsensical. It is in fact the Conservative Party that have inflicted some of the most substantial cuts on our security budgets. The police force is set to lose 22,000 jobs under new spending cuts. Thousands of army officials have already been made redundant, and according to the Telegraph, more cuts are set to take place. This accusation in particular is purely hypocritical, hyperbolic, and misleading.
In conclusion, I am sure that even within these clarifications there is plenty for Conservative Party members and supporters to disagree with. And by all means, disagree. In a democracy, that is how ideas thrive and develop. However, misrepresenting, decontextualising, and misquoting Corbyn and the Labour Party as Bin Laden-sympathising, terrorist-loving, army-hating creatures of sort, is counterproductive and dishonest. It only serves to damage political discourse and poison the public mood. This is ultimately not good for the country, or anyone in it.
3645
« on: September 15, 2015, 02:30:17 AM »
So when the FUCK are you bongs going to bring back the Liberal party? It's like the only British party that wasn't complete trash and you fags let it die decades ago.
"If there be any party which is more pledged than another to resist a policy of restrictive legislation, having for its object social coercion, that party is the Liberal party. (Cheers.) But liberty does not consist in making others do what you think right, (Hear, hear.) The difference between a free Government and a Government which is not free is principally this—that a Government which is not free interferes with everything it can, and a free Government interferes with nothing except what it must. A despotic Government tries to make everybody do what it wishes; a Liberal Government tries, as far as the safety of society will permit, to allow everybody to do as he wishes. It has been the tradition of the Liberal party consistently to maintain the doctrine of individual liberty. It is because they have done so that England is the place where people can do more what they please than in any other country in the world...It is this practice of allowing one set of people to dictate to another set of people what they shall do, what they shall think, what they shall drink, when they shall go to bed, what they shall buy, and where they shall buy it, what wages they shall get and how they shall spend them, against which the Liberal party have always protested."
We've developed too much of a state reliant culture for that to happen. Any party that shows a slight inkling towards libertarian tendencies is automatically considered 'far right' and thus gets shut down without anyone actually examining their party platform. Hell, the fucking Conservatives are basically the British equivalent of the Democrat party, and they're essentially the political punching bag of the hypersensitive leftist media throughout the UK, particularly up north.
3646
« on: September 14, 2015, 09:25:44 PM »
I would say subconsciously no, as we use a lot of sexually titillating imagery in the media to sell just about anything.
It is peculiar however, that when it's explicitly brought up a lot of people find it uncomfortable to talk about, despite it being inadvertently plastered in just about every aspect of society.
I guess it has to be subtle in order for it to be acceptable for some odd reason.
3647
« on: September 14, 2015, 09:18:41 PM »
Unions have become corporatist fucking behemoths that care more about farming money from employees than actually improving their work conditions nowadays.
Credit where credits due and all, but there's a point where rights become privileges.
3648
« on: September 14, 2015, 08:12:58 PM »
>thinking we care what happens on legbeard central
3649
« on: September 14, 2015, 08:11:04 PM »
3650
« on: September 14, 2015, 07:34:15 PM »
3651
« on: September 14, 2015, 03:58:31 PM »
I don't "resort" to it. It's the root of my entire life philosophy. So yeah, you resort to it then. Sometimes it helps to dissociate or examine your most closely held beliefs from a different perspective for the sake of discussion. Not that I'd ever expect you to do that though, but everyone that's normal eventually goes through an intellectual kick up the arse at some point in their lives, so to speak. I really hope you go through that transitional period someday, then we can actually have a rational discussion were you don't end up acting like a tempestuous child, and I don't end up intellectually drained from the vapid points you used to make. So you can't answer the question. Okay. I've answered this question innumerable times in innumerable discussions with you. You just refuse to listen to me. That's the question that needs answering. Already been answered. All that needs to be done is for you to think rationally.
3652
« on: September 14, 2015, 03:46:45 PM »
You brought it up first. "He's just saying this because of his insipid philosophy." I brought it up because it's always the one thing you resort to in a debate, especially regarding the topic at hand. I'd really love for you to explain why I shouldn't hate sexuality and why everyone else shouldn't hate sexuality. If I go down this route all you ever end up doing is, as was aforementioned, employing the anti natalist card that has nothing to do with a discussion centred around sexism in videogames. So yeah, it would certainly help if you stop using it as a defense mechanism.
3653
« on: September 14, 2015, 03:38:57 PM »
"I have no displeasure for the thing I literally just said I had displeasure for" Sex and sexuality are two different things.
One is an action. The other is a proclivity towards such an action.
A malignant proclivity that is responsible for, well, everything wrong with society. Because it created society.
There is no reason anyone shouldn't hate it, unless you're not an anti-natalist.
But if you're not an anti-natalist, you're an idiot, so...
I'd really love for you to posit a logical argument without injecting your irrelevant philosophy into discussions that have literally nothing to do with it.
3654
« on: September 14, 2015, 03:31:06 PM »
In all seriousness, if you follow his 'argument' to its logical conclusion you'll eventually discover that all this bemoaning essentially boils down to is his disdain for sex. As I have stated numerous times, I have no disdain for sex. I have disdain for sexuality. And so should everybody else.
"I have no displeasure for the thing I literally just said I had displeasure for"
3655
« on: September 14, 2015, 03:10:34 PM »
You people keep saying we can't function without government interference even after being given dozens of examples and ways that people can live without it. This meme is almost as gay as the "capitalism is a form of government" meme.
Fuck this discussion.
Point to anywhere in this thread where literally anyone said that before you pussy out of the discussion. Nobody is saying we can't live without state interference. The point we are trying to make is that basic governance has always been imperative for a functioning society.
3656
« on: September 14, 2015, 02:46:23 PM »
ask kernal kraut, he's like a non autistic version of kinder
No he's pretty much the same.
"NELSON MANDELA WAS NOTHING BUT A TERRORIST"
being the lesser of two evils does not make one any less a terrorist
I'm glad his side won out in the end but let's not whitewash history for the sake of a warm fuzzy feeling
Aren't you a proponent of fighting government tyranny with the use of firearms?
Because that's pretty much exactly what Mandela tried to do during the late 50s/early 60s.
Along with founding an organization that killed innocent fucking people with bombs.
MK was a knee jerk response to the Sharpeville massacre in which they placed emphasis on sabotage to draw attention to government oppression as opposed to wanton killing.
But yes, they did unfortunately kill people too, I don't think anyone really denies that. Fighting for freedom is not without its collateral damage though. I thought you of all people would know this.
My definition of fighting for freedom may not exactly mesh with anyone else here.
A revolutionary movement replacing an oppressive government is not much better than an oppressive government. We're still talking about organizations legitimized exclusively by their ability to threaten force.
There is no such thing as a moral government, no matter how much this upsets utilitaricucks.
A freedom fighter will fight to prevent illegitimate force being used on himself or others- he does not follow this up by using his position to seize political power.
Freedom fighter= Mujihadeen who fucked up Commie shitlords then went back to his tribe to live a normal life.
Freedom fighter=/= Some revolutionary faggot with grievances (however legitimate) replacing an oppressive system with one he somewhat prefers.
Are you still parroting this voluntaryist no government meme?
It's a nice fuzzy little concept m8 but it doesn't work like that irl. Deposing an oppressive government and then magically expecting no one to fill the power gap because they all universally agree in the concept of freedom is a pipe dream of all pipe dreams.
I don't ever expect to see a voluntarist society within my lifetime, no. We may never see one before our species meets it's end.
The problem, of course, is that there's a percieved power gap to fill. People today have so much trouble picturing a life without a central authority dictating what they can and cannot do. It's been beaten into us through thousands of years of what is essentially people-farming.
I can picture voluntarism propping up unintentionally or naturally, though. I imagine, in a future where we colonize other planets, the potential for a free society somewhere on the frontier, at least for a while. Some interplanetary imperialist fuckers could come in and demand tribute from the locals, unless they were smart enough to arm themselves.
Voluntarism could exist on a man-made island, as well, if development goes that way.
Ultimately the problem isn't that voluntarists are wrong, the problem is that everyone else is an asshole.
But we've gone WAY offtopic.
Edit: Did Mandela denounce MK before or after he attained political power? If it was before, he's not as bad as I thought. If it was after then LOL.
But voluntaryists are wrong. The monopolization of force has always been paramount, if not necessary in facilitating a society, especially as one as interconnected and interpersonal as the one we inhabit today. That doesn't mean to say I don't advocate for as little government intervention as humanly impossible, but to posit the idea that we could function without a semblance of government, I'm sorry, but that's just fucking childish, no matter how morally just you may think it is. The only way we can achieve what you want us to achieve is if we dissociate ourselves from the human condition, which is biologically and pathologically impossible.
3657
« on: September 14, 2015, 02:25:46 PM »
And fighting for freedom CAN be done without collateral damage. Those civilian deaths at MK's hands were not accidental as far as I know. Bombs are not a defensive weapon. When you set one off in a populated area you are wholly responsible for the lives lost to it.
They were intended for government targets IIRC. I can't think for the life of me one solitary successful revolution that relied solely on the will of the people and a couple of rifles. This is irrelevant anyway. We're talking about Mandela, not MK, who has since dissociated himself with them. If everyone were still held to their previous beliefs then half this forum, including me and you, would be ebin fedora communists.
3658
« on: September 14, 2015, 02:22:59 PM »
ask kernal kraut, he's like a non autistic version of kinder
No he's pretty much the same.
"NELSON MANDELA WAS NOTHING BUT A TERRORIST"
being the lesser of two evils does not make one any less a terrorist
I'm glad his side won out in the end but let's not whitewash history for the sake of a warm fuzzy feeling
Aren't you a proponent of fighting government tyranny with the use of firearms?
Because that's pretty much exactly what Mandela tried to do during the late 50s/early 60s.
Along with founding an organization that killed innocent fucking people with bombs.
MK was a knee jerk response to the Sharpeville massacre in which they placed emphasis on sabotage to draw attention to government oppression as opposed to wanton killing.
But yes, they did unfortunately kill people too, I don't think anyone really denies that. Fighting for freedom is not without its collateral damage though. I thought you of all people would know this.
My definition of fighting for freedom may not exactly mesh with anyone else here.
A revolutionary movement replacing an oppressive government is not much better than an oppressive government. We're still talking about organizations legitimized exclusively by their ability to threaten force.
There is no such thing as a moral government, no matter how much this upsets utilitaricucks.
A freedom fighter will fight to prevent illegitimate force being used on himself or others- he does not follow this up by using his position to seize political power.
Freedom fighter= Mujihadeen who fucked up Commie shitlords then went back to his tribe to live a normal life.
Freedom fighter=/= Some revolutionary faggot with grievances (however legitimate) replacing an oppressive system with one he somewhat prefers.
Are you still parroting this voluntaryist no government meme? It's a nice fuzzy little concept m8 but it doesn't work like that irl. Deposing an oppressive government and then magically expecting no one to fill the power gap because they all universally agree in the concept of freedom is a pipe dream of all pipe dreams.
3659
« on: September 14, 2015, 01:52:43 PM »
ask kernal kraut, he's like a non autistic version of kinder
No he's pretty much the same.
"NELSON MANDELA WAS NOTHING BUT A TERRORIST"
being the lesser of two evils does not make one any less a terrorist
I'm glad his side won out in the end but let's not whitewash history for the sake of a warm fuzzy feeling
Aren't you a proponent of fighting government tyranny with the use of firearms?
Because that's pretty much exactly what Mandela tried to do during the late 50s/early 60s.
Along with founding an organization that killed innocent fucking people with bombs.
MK was a knee jerk response to the Sharpeville massacre in which they placed emphasis on sabotage to draw attention to government oppression as opposed to wanton killing. But yes, they did unfortunately kill people too, I don't think anyone really denies that. Fighting for freedom is not without its collateral damage though. I thought you of all people would know this.
3660
« on: September 14, 2015, 01:40:08 PM »
Pages: 1 ... 120121122 123124 ... 243
|
Show Posts
