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 ... 172173174 175176 ... 243
5191
« on: April 08, 2015, 07:43:25 AM »
I'm not a chubby chaser per se[/quote{LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
quote failure lmao
5192
« on: April 08, 2015, 06:28:15 AM »
Normalfags go die
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
5193
« on: April 08, 2015, 06:27:29 AM »
 >"Fortunate Son" starts playing
5194
« on: April 08, 2015, 06:22:18 AM »
im pretty nervy
I would be too if I talked like this.
mad cause i get a steady stream of healthy poon and u dont
5195
« on: April 08, 2015, 03:30:03 AM »
Is she fat?
surprisingly not actually
a bit rotund but not fat
Define 'rotund'.
couple pounds above average? Idk, she's not slim but she's not overweight by any means.
5196
« on: April 08, 2015, 03:25:52 AM »
Is she fat?
surprisingly not actually a bit rotund but not fat
5197
« on: April 08, 2015, 03:22:07 AM »
Show her your Sep7agon account and these forums
"...so you're telling me you spend your time posting on an anonymous backwater spin off of a video game forum?" "y-yeah"
5198
« on: April 08, 2015, 03:18:57 AM »
 recently landed a date with an 8/10 qt. 80-90% sure she's interested. its been two years since my last relationship so im pretty nervy tell me what to say/do sep7
5199
« on: April 08, 2015, 02:14:25 AM »
Yoga pants aren't really meant to be worn in a professional environment anyway. If the school never clarified this, then maybe I'd see where she's coming from, but somehow I suspect that it did.
5200
« on: April 07, 2015, 02:58:07 PM »
You know damn well I meant extremists Muslims as a whole. I've been referring to the protesters in your OP since this discussion began, but if you'd like to talk about someone else I'd be more than happy to. Then why the fuck are more and more Imams banning hate speech in their mosques? Because that's perfectly within the Imam's right, seeing as how Mosques are private religious entities. It's not the state's right, however, which you seem to be advocating for. How did Hitler rally a nation behind his back based on hate speeches? He didn't just rally a nation through "speeches" though. His rhetoric played a part sure, but it wasn't the primary component as to how he rose to power. National Socialism helped Germany to recover (albeit temporarily) from the post WWI era and the Treaty Of Versailles, which struck a cord with a lot of disillusioned Germans. In 1938, unemployment was practically extinct. The way you belittle speech as if it has no effect and can't radicalize and convert people is laughable. I don't deny its effects. I'm probably the only one in this discussion to absolutely revere the impact it has on people, which is why I'm so opposed to your pro censorship argument. All censorship does is galvanize and titillate people into reading up, and becoming a proponent of hate speech. It's human nature to explore something that goes against the grain. If you really want to tackle toxic ideologies, then open discussion is your best weapon. Just like you. Yeah because mass censorship is gonna solve terrorism right enough. K. Nice loaded question. What's loaded about it? All I'm asking you to do is provide examples to the argument your positing. They can think whatever they like. They just shouldn't be allowed to speak publicly and call for people to join their cause of killing people who don't want a worldwide caliphate. "I'm challenger and I'm the arbiter of what people can and cannot say in public" Nice misinterpretation. Except it's not. Any religious institution is welcome to say whatever they like so long as they do not enact it in real life. It's why the US tolerates the WBC. Any self respecting mosque would agree, and quite a few are starting to do this. Again, that's perfectly within their right, but not the state's. People radicalizing young children should not be given attention. They should not be able to publicly speak to children. What's more dangerous? Giving the state the power to enforce morality at gunpoint, or a couple of religious zealots who get to occasionally spout their vacuous propaganda? You think you're for freedom, but what you're doing is allowing people to destroy freedom through terrorism by forcing a whole country to be so politically correct that atrocities are allowed to be committed. Pretty ironic, coming from someone who's positing a pro censorship argument. I love how you jump to straight to passive aggressive insults when you have nothing to say. Which is usually all the time. Pot, meet kettle. Yes. People saying "death to America" are enemies of the state. In other news water is wet. Last I recall, WBC aren't enemies of the state. Racist knuckle heads aren't valid critics. EDL aren't racist. They'd actually resonate really well with you, what with being opposed to radicalized Islam. The only reason you think they're racist is because they're working class white guys, and working class white guys are the typical punching bag for the media to perpetuate the stereotype of racist advocates.
5201
« on: April 07, 2015, 02:26:10 PM »
I support a minimum wage because I don't trust companies to pay their employees a reasonable wage. It's in their best interests to pay employees as little as possible.
No it's not. It's in their best interest to satisfy consumers. A workforce that can barely support itself directly affects customer satisfaction, especially if the workforce is engaging with the customer upfront.
Well, their best interest is maximizing profits. That comes from paying employees as little as possible while still providing an acceptable amount of service to customers.
Maximizing profits is one of their interests, it's not their main priority however. Without customer satisfaction, there are no profits, and if low wages impact employee productivity, which in turn impacts consumer satisfaction then there is absolutely no reason to maintain employees on that level of pay. Besides, all minimum wage does is incentivize businesses to reduce hours and the amount of people employed. If anything, it hurts employees more than it hurts businesses.
5202
« on: April 07, 2015, 12:34:50 PM »
Frankie Boyle ma nigga
5203
« on: April 07, 2015, 11:39:55 AM »
They do both. So these guys you witnessed in the street were actually committing terrorist acts and protesting at the same time? I wish you had clarified this earlier. Except it is. These people recruit through hate speech. They're recruited through culture and upbringing. Any rational thinking person that examines Jihadist rhetoric know it's absolute hogwash. To suggest that terrorists are recruited via speeches is pretty laughable, like, no offense. PC culture endemic in politics and law enforcement which allows terrorists to recruit others to destroy Britain. It's pretty prevalent with street criminals, yeah sure, what with Rotherham and Rochdale etc, but terrorism? We're pretty strict on that. Unfortunately, our counter intelligence agencies tend to address the symptoms of the problem, instead of tackling the roots. It is the answer. Show me one instance where policing thought has proven beneficial to society. These people shouldn't be allowed to talk in mosques either. What is religious freedom Other respectable Imams should not allow them to spread their hatred. I don't think you should be allowed to spread your inane, vapid bullshit either, but I don't call for you to be censored. Tell me, then, how you allow people that are sworn enemies of your country to parade around in your capital? These guys were sworn enemies of the state? Strange how seem to know a lot about terrorists. Brits are so afraid to criticize Islam, to jail Muslims, to fight back, that they do nothing. How isn't that a safe haven? People criticize Islam all the time in Britain (EDL, SDL Britain First etc). It's something called open discourse, which is not interchangeable with censorship.
5204
« on: April 07, 2015, 11:24:34 AM »
I support a minimum wage because I don't trust companies to pay their employees a reasonable wage. It's in their best interests to pay employees as little as possible.
No it's not. It's in their best interest to satisfy consumers. A workforce that can barely support itself directly affects customer satisfaction, especially if the workforce is engaging with the customer upfront.
5205
« on: April 07, 2015, 07:57:33 AM »
Yeah, I know it's kind of beating a dead horse at this point, but I don't think I've ever seen an actual thread dedicated to this discussion on sep7. In short, I'm against the minimum wage for various reasons that I could examine in deluge. Small businesses bearing the brunt of the damage, high costs of living, job losses etc etc. The main reason that I'm a big detractor of the minimum wage however, is that it takes away employee's bargaining power. By artificially elevating the minimum wage, the labour market loses its ability to negotiate wages based on their skills and qualifications. For example, the fast food industry is notorious for compensating their workforce poorly, but there's a reason for that. On average it doesn't take a whole lot of skill to lay meat patties on the grill, but by introducing the minimum wage, businesses are unable to discern between potential employees who have had previous experience in that field (and would be compensated more) than a person who has never worked in the fast food industry in their life. In other words, it would render people who are adept in the fast food industry unable to land a job with a wage correlated at market value, or make it significantly more difficult, based on their skill level. Indeed, the Nordic countries are always used as the poster child for socialism and how successful socialist policies have become in Europe, but in reality, none of them have adopted a minimum wage system, and have instead, relied on the market to fix wage rates. The Scandinavian countries are in fact, some of the most capitalistic countries on Earth. ThatGuyT does a great video on minimum wage and he posits his argument much more eloquently than mine.
5206
« on: April 06, 2015, 02:46:33 PM »
ITT: Statist shills.
5207
« on: April 06, 2015, 08:56:10 AM »
THANK YOU BASED PATHOGENS
5208
« on: April 06, 2015, 03:09:19 AM »
I think they're approaching this a bit haphazardly, as steak is kind of a broad term that encompasses all types of meats. Not to mention seafood is at least one of the primary components of our diet. But I do get the sentiment behind it. All welfare and food stamps do is incentivize people to remain on them. There is no evidence to suggest that it helps or alleviate people from poverty. In fact, it's shown to be the opposite.
5209
« on: April 05, 2015, 07:25:54 PM »
>pizza place wont cater gay weddings
"Well just go somewhere else!"
>people go somewhere else
"What a bunch of butthurt liberals!"
Can't fuckin' win, dude.
Yeah, no. I've yet to hear anybody say this.
5210
« on: April 05, 2015, 04:21:00 PM »
When Camnator ripped Charlie a new arsehole.
5211
« on: April 05, 2015, 01:54:15 PM »
tell me what to say sep7
5212
« on: April 05, 2015, 08:11:55 AM »
Aight', who's been stalking my posts?
5213
« on: April 05, 2015, 07:57:57 AM »
 >watching capeshit >ever
5214
« on: April 04, 2015, 09:52:41 PM »
Memories Pizza do not discriminate against gay people as individuals, which is what the left would like to you believe.
...unless those individuals are getting married.
And at the end of the day, that's the business' loss, not theirs. There are plenty of other wedding caterers out there that serve gay marriages. It's kind of what we call a free market.
Right, which is great. But to say that Memories doesn't/wouldn't discriminate against gays is disingenuous, given that they've publicly stated they would not cater a gay wedding.
If catering a wedding wasn't something they did - fine. But if they would cater a straight wedding but not a gay wedding, that's different.
Well if you want to take the pedant route, sure, they discriminate on the types of weddings they cater to. But as I've been saying, that does not equate to the discrimination of gay people as individual consumers. It's really not any different to how other caterers handle their business. There are businesses out there that serve white weddings, but not Gothic weddings. Jewish weddings, but not Christian weddings. Military weddings, but not civil partnerships etc etc. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a business that specifically catered to gay weddings, but not straight. The point is there are myriad different types of wedding caterers that accommodate marriages based on either what the market dictates, or personal belief. It's a prime example of how the market is perfectly able regulate itself without damaging consumer sovereignty, and at the same time, avoiding government intervention. The only reason everyone is up in arms is because homosexual people are involved, and anything involving the exclusion of homosexuals is seen as an affront to society for some reason.
5215
« on: April 04, 2015, 09:32:07 PM »
Memories Pizza do not discriminate against gay people as individuals, which is what the left would like to you believe.
...unless those individuals are getting married.
And at the end of the day, that's the business' loss, not theirs. There are plenty of other wedding caterers out there that serve gay marriages. It's kind of what we call a free market.
5216
« on: April 04, 2015, 09:28:42 PM »
Memories Pizza has never discriminated against homosexual people as individuals. They just don't cater to gay weddings.
You don't see the conflict between these two sentences? Who do you think attends gay weddings?
Not at all. I'm against Weaboo culture, but that doesn't mean I'm against Weaboos as individuals. Refusing to serve someone because you disagree with what they're doing is not the same as refusing to serve someone because of who they are. I don't think either should be criminally penalized by the state, but Memories Pizza do not discriminate against gay people as individuals, which is what the left would like to you believe.
5217
« on: April 04, 2015, 09:20:25 PM »
What's the bigger problem here, Max? Giving the government the power to enforce behavior and conduct, at the point of a gun, within people's own private property, or a tiny tiny percentage of gays not being served in restaurants?
The fact of the matter is this entire situation has been completely mischaracterized amongst the deluge of vitriol and indignation. Memories Pizza has never discriminated against homosexual people as individuals. They just don't cater to gay weddings. So fucking what? There are businesses out there that don't cater to skinheads, as is their right. I don't see a rallying call for the rights of skinheads to be upheld.
And yeah, just to add a little addendum, people were threatening to burn down the business simply for having the gall not to cater to a specific wedding. Just thought I should throw that in there.
5218
« on: April 04, 2015, 08:52:43 PM »
5219
« on: April 04, 2015, 08:22:56 PM »
A peaceful demonstration against what? They were calling for the destruction of America. Calling for and actually enacting are two very different things. It's both. No, not really. You guys do nothing about immigration Yeah I know. You can thank our endemic politically correct culture for that. you do nothing about child rape gangs, you do nothing about Brits going join ISIS in Syria, you do nothing to discourage extremism and violence. Which I'm completely aware of. Clamping down on speech however, isn't the answer. It's a safe haven for Muslim terrorists here because you guys don't have the balls to actually do anything or force them to assimilate. Safe haven? Nah man, that's Saudi Arabia. Say what you will about our PC culture in Britain, but Islamic terrorism we do not tolerate. We killed an innocent guy back in 05' simply based on suspicion. Islam and its doctrines however, is another story.
5220
« on: April 04, 2015, 04:04:58 PM »
That's my point. These people are allowed to freely run around the streets and call their psycho brethren to destroy Western culture. I think you're gravely over exaggerating a peaceful demonstration. Distasteful I'm more than happy to admit, but going by the description you gave, it seemed relatively civil. Everyone is entitled to an organised, civil protest regardless of what they have to say. The point is they don't assimilate so they're out in the streets fresh off the plane from Shitholeistan running amok. And that's why it's an immigration and cultural issue, not a speech issue. And Brits do absolutely nothing. I agree, but not for the reason your positing.
Pages: 1 ... 172173174 175176 ... 243
|
Show Posts