Absolutely not before we ban b1rd. Dawnsday is ok in my bookKisses wrote:
Can we like, ban Dawnsday from posting here?
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,699
HOW am i copying blitzfrog i was shitposting before this clown had even contemplated coming into existence
Everything has got to do with you as of lateBlitzfrog wrote:
What's that got to do with me...abraker wrote:
I'm pressing charges for a memeing offence, violating the fair use of OT material, and impersonating Blitzfrog. See you in court.
so i have a doctor's appointment and a list of stuff i'm going to complain about
for example, why do i get cancer everyday????
for example, why do i get cancer everyday????
Because you're not married to Blitzfrog.Hika wrote:
so i have a doctor's appointment and a list of stuff i'm going to complain about
for example, why do i get cancer everyday????
no homo
nah that's ok... that would give me more cancer
Why is people having diseases that are hard to personally detect the biggest issue you see with the lack of welfare, wouldn't people suffering from diseases and not being able to pay for treatment be a bigger concern for you? Regardless of your grammatical errors, I'd have an easier time understanding your position if it made logical sense to me.abraker wrote:
In the simplest terms I can possible spell out for you:
SUPPOSE THE POOR DONT HAVE WELFARE AND NEED TO PAY FOR A HEALTH CHECK
THEN THE POOR DOES NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO CHECK THEIR OWN HEALTH STATUS
UNCHECKED HEALTH STATUS OF POPULATION = RISK OF SPREAD OF CONTAGIOUS DISEASE
I don't need to name this "unspecified" disease. Make the name up your self. I don't need to supply real world evidence to back this claim. It's just plain logic and common sense.. If you don't get neither of that, then nothing can be explained to you unless it aligns with your own opinions.
But anyway, I'm not gonna waste my time trying to respond to your arguments if you're gonna constantly throw insults and not take the time to make your posts readable.
Diseases that are hard to detect can be an issue, but a more common issue is that it may be that they don't get treatment for it, and as a result, spread detectable diseases further to others. If the severity of the detectable diseases is high, then you get an epidemic and a sick population consisting of not just the poor. Also depending on the severity of the diseases, deaths can occur in not just the poor population because of this.B1rd wrote:
Why is people having diseases that are hard to personally detect the biggest issue you see with the lack of welfare, wouldn't people suffering from diseases and not being able to pay for treatment be a bigger concern for you?
It's in my best interest to supply the poor with welfare because of this and my well-being. If someone poor at public transport caught some disease they never got treatment for, then I am likely to get it too because I ride public transport every weekday. I don't need a sick week because someone is developing a 40c fever on the train.
The act of people suffering from diseases is a topic going from moral standpoint and not from an objective standpoint. Why I should care about their suffering should be a topic to discuss separate from why welfare should not exist because it's then a question about why I think it should exist and not why it should exist.
funny, coming from someone who's been in a permanent state of "fallen"Blitzfrog wrote:
Abraker has fallen
firstofallBlitzfrog wrote:
Abraker has fallen
hehe xdRaspberriel wrote:
funny, coming from someone who's been in a permanent state of "fallen"Blitzfrog wrote:
Abraker has fallen
What do you mean, he's literally one of only two good posters here.Blitzfrog wrote:
Abraker has fallen
I don't really get what you're saying about morality vs objectivism. Isn't one of the primary roles of systems of governance, which is what we're talking about, to reduce human suffering? If not, I don't understand by what standards the best type of government is judged. It seems you're talking about your own personal interests being the most important factor. If that's the case, then the best type of government would be a dictatorship with you at the top, if we're not considering other people.abraker wrote:
Diseases that are hard to detect can be an issue, but a more common issue is that it may be that they don't get treatment for it, and as a result, spread detectable diseases further to others. If the severity of the detectable diseases is high, then you get an epidemic and a sick population consisting of not just the poor. Also depending on the severity of the diseases, deaths can occur in not just the poor population because of this.
It's in my best interest to supply the poor with welfare because of this and my well-being. If someone poor at public transport caught some disease they never got treatment for, then I am likely to get it too because I ride public transport every weekday. I don't need a sick week because someone is developing a 40c fever on the train.
The act of people suffering from diseases is a topic going from moral standpoint and not from an objective standpoint. Why I should care about their suffering should be a topic to discuss separate from why welfare should not exist because it's then a question about why I think it should exist and not why it should exist.
Now about welfare. Note, that I never actually said that welfare should be abolished, although I am warm to that idea. Now, the primary error in your logic is assuming that without welfare, the people who are dependent on welfare with income would suddenly have no income without it. As I have already shown, the majority of welfare recipients are capable of working, and if they didn't get welfare, they could do so. Of course, as I've mentioned, reducing barriers to employment should go along with this to ensure that people can be employed. So then, these people would be able to afford health insurance.
What about the people who can't work because of a disability, temporary life circumstances, et cetera? Private charities can fill this role, and are much better and more efficient that government programs in general, for the same free-market principles in which private organisations usually can do things better than the government. For example, 70% of government welfare spending goes towards administration spending, compared with 10% for private charity. And of course, private charities are much better at helping people with the specific help they need, and much better at administering help to people who genuinely need it, compared with government bureaucracy.
And another point: in a welfare state, what is stopping every person from a poorer country immigrating to your country for free welfare? We've seen many examples of these economic migrants in Europe and America. Simply, the welfare state necessitates strong border control. And since liberals do not want the latter, well, that is a recipe for disaster. As we have seen in Sweden. http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/05/sweden ... migration/
And the final point that I'd like to make, is that welfare creates a welfare dependent population within a nation. It allows people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford kids, to have kids, which then grow up in low-income areas, destined to the same fate as their parent(s). Well, you might tell me, people would just have kids regardless and then their kids would starve. Well, I'll play the same logic card as you did; to say that people's actions are not affected by their economic circumstances and opportunities is ridiculous. No doubt it would happen, but I doubt as many teens would have a baby without a guaranteed welfare check from the government. The reduction of welfare would encourage only economically stable married couples to have kids, which is a better thing for society.
Stefan has all the power to lock every OT thread, but he is not using it to invade Russia in the wintertime.
good 4 him
good 4 him
My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because B1rd's posts gave me cancer anyway.
ftfyKappa FrankerZ wrote:
My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, becauseB1rdBlitzfrog's posts gave me cancer anyway.
Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.
I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.
I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.
I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
How can cancer get cancer? This is the next philosophical question we must engage on.
By getting B1rd, the cancer of cancerB1rd wrote:
How can cancer get cancer? This is the next philosophical question we must engage on.
I am saying that I am approaching this argument purely with an objective view point. This is to put morality out of the question since morality is subjective, and therefore, cannot be proven. Objectively, my survival comes first before others. That doesn't mean I will enjoy an all powerful leader in a system.B1rd wrote:
I don't really get what you're saying about morality vs objectivism. Isn't one of the primary roles of systems of governance, which is what we're talking about, to reduce human suffering? If not, I don't understand by what standards the best type of government is judged. It seems you're talking about your own personal interests being the most important factor. If that's the case, then the best type of government would be a dictatorship with you at the top, if we're not considering other people.
I agree. People who have an established income can have welfare. For people that do not, let's see the next point.B1rd wrote:
Now, the primary error in your logic is assuming that without welfare, the people who are dependent on welfare with income would suddenly have no income without it. As I have already shown, the majority of welfare recipients are capable of working, and if they didn't get welfare, they could do so. Of course, as I've mentioned, reducing barriers to employment should go along with this to ensure that people can be employed. So then, these people would be able to afford health insurance.
Ok I have to agree with this too. It does look like a viable solution. However, it is not a better option during an economic depression. Since it's privatized, it depends on philanthropy which in turn depends on the economy. Not saying that it's a bad option altogether, but offering the flexibility for government social programs to make up what private charities cannot during time of crisis might be better than staying with just privatized charities.B1rd wrote:
What about the people who can't work because of a disability, temporary life circumstances, et cetera? Private charities can fill this role, and are much better and more efficient that government programs in general, for the same free-market principles in which private organisations usually can do things better than the government. For example, 70% of government welfare spending goes towards administration spending, compared with 10% for private charity. And of course, private charities are much better at helping people with the specific help they need, and much better at administering help to people who genuinely need it, compared with government bureaucracy.
Ok, I agree with point too.B1rd wrote:
And another point: in a welfare state, what is stopping every person from a poorer country immigrating to your country for free welfare? We've seen many examples of these economic migrants in Europe and America. Simply, the welfare state necessitates strong border control. And since liberals do not want the latter, well, that is a recipe for disaster. As we have seen in Sweden. http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/05/sweden ... migration/
While this point applies to couples that think things through, this doesn't prevents couples from having children in unfavorable economic conditions. How do you apply this point for those cases where children were born due couples carelessly having unprotected sex?B1rd wrote:
And the final point that I'd like to make, is that welfare creates a welfare dependent population within a nation. It allows people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford kids, to have kids, which then grow up in low-income areas, destined to the same fate as their parent(s). Well, you might tell me, people would just have kids regardless and then their kids would starve. Well, I'll play the same logic card as you did; to say that people's actions are not affected by their economic circumstances is ridiculous. No doubt it would happen, but I doubt as many teens would have a baby without a guaranteed welfare check from the government. The reduction of welfare would encourage only economically stable married couples to have kids, which is a better thing for society.
Kappa FrankerZ wrote:
My Grandfather smoked his whole life. I was about 10 years old when my mother said to him, 'If you ever want to see your grandchildren graduate, you have to stop immediately.'. Tears welled up in his eyes when he realized what exactly was at stake. He gave it up immediately. Three years later he died of lung cancer. It was really sad and destroyed me. My mother said to me- 'Don't ever smoke. Please don't put your family through what your Grandfather put us through." I agreed. At 28, I have never touched a cigarette. I must say, I feel a very slight sense of regret for never having done it, because B1rd's posts gave me cancer anyway.
Im dedicating a post to how dreadful mental health support is in England.
Seriously it's actually appalling. Carry on.
Seriously it's actually appalling. Carry on.
Please don't make this into a meme.ryyushi wrote:
Stop trying to share your sick addiction on OT. Share it with me instead. I'm boring because I smoke reds thoughYuudachi-kun wrote:
Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.
I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.
I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
2017 and people smoke cigs over joints
enjoy ur cancer and smelling like a walking tumour
enjoy ur cancer and smelling like a walking tumour
I stopped smoking almost 2 years ago.. I'm soooo proud.
Yeah you'd smell like a tumor except that deodorants nd showers are a thinglol wrote:
2017 and people smoke cigs over joints
enjoy ur cancer and smelling like a walking tumour
Foxtrot wrote:
Stop trying to share your sick addiction on OT. Share it with me instead. I'm boring because I smoke reds thoughYuudachi-kun wrote:
Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.
I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.
I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
You dont like menthol
Angry faic
Awww I thought you tried it once half year ago and hated it. Rip lungs I guess :\Yuudachi-kun wrote:
Smoking feels like you fc'd a chart and got a top 10 in your pp and a huge rank boost.
I like the taste and the smell and the feeling and I reccomend it.
I'll eat enough fast food to die from a heart attack first.
Then I had an orgasm in my mouth
And I'm done
Cyka blyat
Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
because if you smoke the good stuff it tastes good and you get a highB1rd wrote:
Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
lollol wrote:
because if you smoke the good stuff it tastes good and you get a highB1rd wrote:
Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
>whiskyB1rd wrote:
Why would you smoke when whisky tastes better, and doesn't give you cancer.
>good taste
lol the pretentiousness. Whiskey tastes like nothing. Literal shit brewed distilled bottled and sold for absurd prices. This wannabe drink that only caters for c00l guy adults should be banned/
You're pretentious for making a post about pretentious people
i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
You're just butthurt alcohol in haram in your country :^)Erlkonig wrote:
>whisky
>good taste
lol the pretentiousness. Whiskey tastes like nothing. Literal shit brewed distilled bottled and sold for absurd prices. This wannabe drink that only caters for c00l guy adults should be banned/
Though, I can forgive people for not liking stuff like Jack Daniels, which is pretty disgusting. But good single malt whiskys taste amazing.
I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/
Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.silmarilen wrote:
i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
I appreciate your memes, Mahogany xMahogany wrote:
I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/
Sil is like one of those virtue signaling libtards on reddit. He could just as easily say I hope everyone who drinks dies in a DUI carcrash or that everyone who eats fast food should get a heart attack but he wont because hes probably a hyppocrite about that.B1rd wrote:
Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.silmarilen wrote:
i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
Not sure if I should be glad or disappointed for not being a part of your memeMahogany wrote:
I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/
Idc if people smoke or not, as long as they keep a fair distance from me or anyone that doesn't want to get their lungs exploded from smoke exposuresilmarilen wrote:
i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
Oh I only tried Jack Daniels because it's popular and shit. Couldn't finish 50cl bottle it's been lying there for months.B1rd wrote:
Though, I can forgive people for not liking stuff like Jack Daniels, which is pretty disgusting. But good single malt whiskys taste amazing.
On another note I've been trying to spark some discussions or reactions but it always comes to insulting my nationality. Turkey is not a third world shitfest place like middle earth what the hell.
Lord of the Rings is a third world shitfest ITT
I like the frame you used for my avatar.Mahogany wrote:
I feel like my meme was underappreciated :/
they do this for, like, every Turkish, Indonesian or FilipinoErlkonig wrote:
Oh I only tried Jack Daniels because it's popular and shit. Couldn't finish 50cl bottle it's been lying there for months.B1rd wrote:
Though, I can forgive people for not liking stuff like Jack Daniels, which is pretty disgusting. But good single malt whiskys taste amazing.
On another note I've been trying to spark some discussions or reactions but it always comes to insulting my nationality. Turkey is not a third world shitfest place like middle earth what the hell.
Says the person who supports fascistsB1rd wrote:
Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.silmarilen wrote:
i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
I'd be interested in seeing what would happen if you two met in-person.
I'd leave immediately probably
it would be interesting though, considering b1rd couldnt just pretend im not there
it would be interesting though, considering b1rd couldnt just pretend im not there
Says the guy who thinks calling people out on their bullshit is indicative of facism because those people are the media
No, I fully support calling people out on their lies, regardless of who they are
:thonkang:
I can support this meme
you should try league of legendssilmarilen wrote:
i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
This post proves that you're just trolling. Man you've been fooling us good so far. Before this i wasn't sure yet, but nobody can be this stupid.B1rd wrote:
Indeed, wishing death upon hundreds of millions of people for their personal choices that don't affect others is a perfectly reasonable opinion.silmarilen wrote:
i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
Enlighten me to your reasoning, because I have no idea.
don't affect othersmeh smoking anything near anyone affects them
Pretty sure that people who overreact and start a fake coughing fits because they got a tiny whiff of smoke are just being retards. Smoking causes caner yes, but even people people who inhale high concentrations into their lungs often live to a ripe old age. I doubt just breathing in a little bit would present a high risk, especially compared to car exhaust and random pollution we're exposed to regularly.
Regardless, being a smoker doesn't necessitate you ever smoke near other people in the first place.
Regardless, being a smoker doesn't necessitate you ever smoke near other people in the first place.
Especially near your children.Dawnsday wrote:
don't affect othersmeh smoking anything near anyone affects them
Parents smoking near their baby should be quarantined. Passive smoking is so harmful yet so common..
Even if you think second-hand smoke is not particularly dangerous, it still smells bad, is annoying, and if you're not used to it, makes you cough and wheeze. People who cough and wheeze are not just faking it.
It's called asthma.
My current boyfriend literally pukes after being exposed to huge amounts of smoke
My current boyfriend literally pukes after being exposed to huge amounts of smoke
Oh what, you're gay??Hika wrote:
It's called asthma.
My current boyfriend literally pukes after being exposed to huge amounts of smoke
Nice, can I be your side chick?
My mom's an avid cannabis smoker (despite her schizophrenia being aggravated by it), I can tell you from experience that passive/second hand smoking is a serious issue, You can cause serious issues by smoking that shit in the presence of people who do not wish to be exposed to it. Obviously this is wildly different to cigarettes but I'm just applying principles here
Ah, even so, I'd really appreciate it if those who smoke would just avoid doing it in public. Designated smoking places are there for a reason. It does affect health if it happens regularly, and if you happen to live in a country like mine which is congested, you're bound to get a whiff of smoke regularly. I don't really fake a cough when I'm around people who smoke, I just give them a really unpleasant look, although I might actually try faking a cough soon, just to imply them that people around them aren't exactly appreciative of the activity in public.
I wish Duterte would just sign the EO that prohibits public smoking. That'd be really nice. I expect him to do so in the next few months, and I'm excited.
I wish Duterte would just sign the EO that prohibits public smoking. That'd be really nice. I expect him to do so in the next few months, and I'm excited.
HahahahahahaBlitzfrog wrote:
Oh what, you're gay??Hika wrote:
It's called asthma.
My current boyfriend literally pukes after being exposed to huge amounts of smoke
Nice, can I be your side chick?
silmarilen wrote:
This post proves that you're just trolling. Man you've been fooling us good so far. Before this i wasn't sure yet, but nobody can be this stupid.
Sil is just pulling the whole "I have no reason so I'm going to say you're trolling in order to deflect my non existant reasons"B1rd wrote:
Enlighten me to your reasoning, because I have no idea.
Instead of fake coughing just walk away or tell them directly, don't take the bitch route.Madvillain wrote:
Ah, even so, I'd really appreciate it if those who smoke would just avoid doing it in public. Designated smoking places are there for a reason. It does affect health if it happens regularly, and if you happen to live in a country like mine which is congested, you're bound to get a whiff of smoke regularly. I don't really fake a cough when I'm around people who smoke, I just give them a really unpleasant look, although I might actually try faking a cough soon, just to imply them that people around them aren't exactly appreciative of the activity in public.
honestly slimfast, to call B1rd a troll and yet writing stuff like this just makes you look a retard. And besides, to say something like that after a friend posts about smoking makes me honestly think that yes, you're retarded.silmarilen wrote:
i hope everybody that smokes gets cancer and dies at a young age
Oh, walking away is easy.
Unless you happen to be in a jeepney (just look it up) where in that's not a choice anymore. A lot of people here look menacing or do not take such words lightly even if you ask them politely. I'd do the "right" thing all the time if it were practical.
Unless you happen to be in a jeepney (just look it up) where in that's not a choice anymore. A lot of people here look menacing or do not take such words lightly even if you ask them politely. I'd do the "right" thing all the time if it were practical.
Then what makes you think that fake coughing would help with those kind of people? Even I keep smoking when I hear it but then again I mostly smoke on my balcony so the chances are low
Are you even a real girl though
Nah, he probably just thinks he knows better than the scientists, same reason he's skeptical about vaccination.silmarilen wrote:
This post proves that you're just trolling. Man you've been fooling us good so far. Before this i wasn't sure yet, but nobody can be this stupid.
It does because I've tried it. But of course, it depends on the person involved. I prefer to just cover or make an unpleasant face though.
Idk when someone smokes in front of my man, I gotta lay my pipe down and let them know I don't appreciate that shit 8^)
Get a better oneHika wrote:
Idk when someone smokes in front of my man, I gotta lay my pipe down and let them know I don't appreciate that shit 8^)
When I was younger, I had a militant anti-smoker attitude. Probably partly because I had to endure long drives in a van filled with old women who would smoke most of the way, which is not okay by the way. But while I think that smoking near other people is incredibly rude, it also makes my eyes role to the degree in which smoking has become the cool thing to hate these days. I'm sure all these people going on a moral crusade against smoking, constantly lobbying for more sin-taxes, higher age barrier, more disturbing imagery on smokes packages et cetera, could better spend their time on a thousand other issues in our society, rather than trying to stop people making their own choices about what they put into their bodies.
Although, I guess controlling people's lifestyle choices is a priority for liberals, since the consequences of bad decisions are to the cost of the state in a socialised healthcare scheme, rather than to the individual making the bad decisions in the form of higher health insurance premiums.
Although, I guess controlling people's lifestyle choices is a priority for liberals, since the consequences of bad decisions are to the cost of the state in a socialised healthcare scheme, rather than to the individual making the bad decisions in the form of higher health insurance premiums.
ITT: We attack Bird because of repressed feelings from our own childhood and because he doesn't respond back with insults we remain safe
I don't understand all the hate for B1rd/smoking here. I really don't like smoking, myself, but I think B1rd's right in the "people choosing what to do with their bodies" thing so long as they're not actually affecting other people. Smoking outside isn't a big deal, but smoking indoors outside of smoking areas is a problem, I think most people can agree with that.
I generally don't agree with most of what B1rd says, but you guys are overreacting and making a lot of sweeping statements about smokers that can't really be justified.
I generally don't agree with most of what B1rd says, but you guys are overreacting and making a lot of sweeping statements about smokers that can't really be justified.
It's true anyway. There's nothing bad with smokers that keep their business out of public places and stick to smoking in designated places. There's really nothing bad with that.
It only becomes a huge problem to me if it's being done in a jam-packed venue, which is incredibly common here.
It only becomes a huge problem to me if it's being done in a jam-packed venue, which is incredibly common here.
Why smoke when you can vap.... oh wait
People on an anti smoking crusade in this generation have just been indoctrinated to be so since elementary school.
Exactly. People doing it where they're affecting other people who don't really choose to be there are shitters, and shouldn't be allowed to do that.Madvillain wrote:
It's true anyway. There's nothing bad with smokers that keep their business out of public places and stick to smoking in designated places. There's really nothing bad with that.
It only becomes a huge problem to me if it's being done in a jam-packed venue, which is incredibly common here.
^^^^Madvillain wrote:
It's true anyway. There's nothing bad with smokers that keep their business out of public places and stick to smoking in designated places. There's really nothing bad with that.
It only becomes a huge problem to me if it's being done in a jam-packed venue, which is incredibly common here.
I don't mind if people smoke, just don't smoke where it says NO SMOKING.
You know, I'd have a higher regard for your opinions and reasoning if you'd agree on such a fairly moderate thing such as the necessity for free speech, rather than what you advocated for, which was a police state outlawing people espousing particular political points of view.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I generally don't agree with most of what B1rd says, but you guys are overreacting and making a lot of sweeping statements about smokers that can't really be justified.
I believe quite strongly about free speech and personal rights, actually. I'm happy to make exceptions when the cost to society is demonstrably too great for it to be worth it, though. Most of the world seems to agree, since practicing Nazism is generally banned.B1rd wrote:
You know, I'd have a higher regard for your opinions and reasoning if you'd agree on such a fairly moderate thing such as the necessity for free speech, rather than what you advocated for, which was a police state outlawing people espousing particular political points of view.
Saying that the cost is too great is silly, that implies that if you allow free speech then Nazism will suddenly spread like wildfire and everyone will like it. Obviously that's not gonna happen, and all you will do is drive people that hold those beliefs underground, and validate them by oppressing them for their political beliefs.
You're also been hypocritical, signalling out Nazism in particular to be banned. Then when I mentioned communism, you went on defending communism, and when pressed, you finally said that "Stalinist" or whichever it was type of communism should be banned. Well as far as I know, all communism is dependent on the takeover of all private property, which cannot be achieved without violence. Therefore, communism should be banned as well. What about socialism? That's basically a lesser form of communism, in which the means of production, i.e. people's businesses are violently seized. And in the same way any form of ethno-nationalism, should be banned, since it's linked to nazism.
Frankly, your attitude just highlights why we need free-speech, so we can actually have rational discussions with Nazis and find out why they think what they do, rather than contributing to this climate of speech repression. This is partly the reason we have kids going out on the streets and attacking "Nazis", because of this conditioning of hating Nazism, and anything vaguely associated with it. There are good points to National Socialism, of course it is too extreme in some areas, but as it is, the pendulum will swing much too far in the other direction and a lot of damage will be done before we can come to a compromise on extreme multiculturalism vs extreme race supremacy.
And also, you seem completely unaware of the way the government can abuse it's power. You say "free speech with this exception". Soon it will be "free speech with this and this exception", and then "free speech with this and this and this exception". Actually, I don't know why I'm even saying this because we don't even have free speech anymore. People have been arrested in many places in Europe simply for having anti-immigrant/muslims etc. opinions on Facebook. 1984, here we come.
You're also been hypocritical, signalling out Nazism in particular to be banned. Then when I mentioned communism, you went on defending communism, and when pressed, you finally said that "Stalinist" or whichever it was type of communism should be banned. Well as far as I know, all communism is dependent on the takeover of all private property, which cannot be achieved without violence. Therefore, communism should be banned as well. What about socialism? That's basically a lesser form of communism, in which the means of production, i.e. people's businesses are violently seized. And in the same way any form of ethno-nationalism, should be banned, since it's linked to nazism.
Frankly, your attitude just highlights why we need free-speech, so we can actually have rational discussions with Nazis and find out why they think what they do, rather than contributing to this climate of speech repression. This is partly the reason we have kids going out on the streets and attacking "Nazis", because of this conditioning of hating Nazism, and anything vaguely associated with it. There are good points to National Socialism, of course it is too extreme in some areas, but as it is, the pendulum will swing much too far in the other direction and a lot of damage will be done before we can come to a compromise on extreme multiculturalism vs extreme race supremacy.
And also, you seem completely unaware of the way the government can abuse it's power. You say "free speech with this exception". Soon it will be "free speech with this and this exception", and then "free speech with this and this and this exception". Actually, I don't know why I'm even saying this because we don't even have free speech anymore. People have been arrested in many places in Europe simply for having anti-immigrant/muslims etc. opinions on Facebook. 1984, here we come.
But nazism is already spreading like wildfire precisely because nobody's doing anything about it, hence your entire argument is invalid
You're citing RightWingNews, which itself sources Breitbart. Doesn't it ever bother you that the only stuff supporting your views tends to be dogshit tabloid "sources" instead of reputable organisations?
Anyway, onto your post. I don't believe Nazism would "spread like wildfire" or become a problem for society as a whole, but Nazi and other white-nationalist extremist groups commit violent attacks fairly often all over the world. Denying these people a chance to congregate and circlejerk their ideas into reality seems like a decent step for preventing people from turning into violent criminals like that.
I'm not against research into how or why people become Nazis, by the way. If anyone wants to do any decent investigative journalism, psychiatric studies, etc of people who end up in those situations, I'm all for it. I think it's not particularly hard to guess what leads those people into such circumstances, but I can't speak for everybody as if my guesses are facts there. Communism, on the other hand, doesn't see nearly the same level of violence associated with it. The only thing I tend to see from them is discussion. Maybe I'm wrong there, but they just don't seem as bad as people who directly call for violence against people for being who they are- Communism seems to be more about changing the ideology of society itself, which is more to do with personal choices than "Let's take these peoples' property because they're not the right colour of skin". Socialism again uses the same argument, but even more disassociated from violence.
As a society, we've decided to condemn Nazism wherever we can, because Nazis have consistently gone against the good of humanity in general. They've earned a place outside of society as a whole, basically.
I understand the government can abuse its power, but some element is faith is needed when dealing with other people- this is a sad fact of life, and I don't think you can propose any system that removes this fundamental flaw of people managing other people. I do indeed have to trust that the govt won't randomly decide "We suddenly hate X", and I'm happy to try and prevent it using arguments whenever I can if I see people going too far to the extreme left. I debate my leftist friends fairly often about this kind of thing.
edit: looked further into that "RightWingNews" website, and holy hell is that some cancer. Do you seriously read that stuff? I don't understand why alt-righters decry any media if they're immediately going to believe any godawful source that agrees with them.
Anyway, onto your post. I don't believe Nazism would "spread like wildfire" or become a problem for society as a whole, but Nazi and other white-nationalist extremist groups commit violent attacks fairly often all over the world. Denying these people a chance to congregate and circlejerk their ideas into reality seems like a decent step for preventing people from turning into violent criminals like that.
I'm not against research into how or why people become Nazis, by the way. If anyone wants to do any decent investigative journalism, psychiatric studies, etc of people who end up in those situations, I'm all for it. I think it's not particularly hard to guess what leads those people into such circumstances, but I can't speak for everybody as if my guesses are facts there. Communism, on the other hand, doesn't see nearly the same level of violence associated with it. The only thing I tend to see from them is discussion. Maybe I'm wrong there, but they just don't seem as bad as people who directly call for violence against people for being who they are- Communism seems to be more about changing the ideology of society itself, which is more to do with personal choices than "Let's take these peoples' property because they're not the right colour of skin". Socialism again uses the same argument, but even more disassociated from violence.
As a society, we've decided to condemn Nazism wherever we can, because Nazis have consistently gone against the good of humanity in general. They've earned a place outside of society as a whole, basically.
I understand the government can abuse its power, but some element is faith is needed when dealing with other people- this is a sad fact of life, and I don't think you can propose any system that removes this fundamental flaw of people managing other people. I do indeed have to trust that the govt won't randomly decide "We suddenly hate X", and I'm happy to try and prevent it using arguments whenever I can if I see people going too far to the extreme left. I debate my leftist friends fairly often about this kind of thing.
edit: looked further into that "RightWingNews" website, and holy hell is that some cancer. Do you seriously read that stuff? I don't understand why alt-righters decry any media if they're immediately going to believe any godawful source that agrees with them.
I just got the source from a Google search. Why are you so intent on hating sources like Breitbart? Of course only right-wing news sites would publish anything like this, it's not like left-wing sites would publish things that go against their agenda like that. You always demand super-high standards of evidence for anything that supports right-wing ideas.
Your claim that Nazi groups constantly commit terrorism is completely unfounded, and remember, we are talking about speech here, nothing else. Compare Muslim terror attacks vs right-wing terror attacks, you have to admit your bias when you will always defend Muslims when they commit acts of violence, but a tiny amount of right-wingers do any you claim they are committing violence everywhere. Since Islam is so much more violent, shouldn't we ban Islam? Or at least restrict immigration from Muslim countries? Would you be in favour in unlimited immigration from a full-on Nazi country?
Also, saying that communism isn't associated with violence is nothing but ignorance, even regardless of the millions it has killed in the past, there are lots and lots of examples of modern-day communists and left-wingers calling for the same thing, who want to kill nazis and want a violent revolution etc. I see it in 8ch.net/leftypol, on Youtube, and we've seen it recently on the streets like at Berkley. We even have evidence of organised terrorism, granted it's mostly anarchists, but they are still similar in that they're left-winger terrorists.
Basically, your view are just a result of indoctrination, since the Soviet Union infiltrated Western academia there has always been lots of sympathisers of communism, so even though it's an objectively worse ideology than nation socialism, people hate it much more. No, no faith should be given to the government, when it has shown time and time again that it so untrustworthy. You have completely failed to give a convincing argument about why we should not have free speech, besides vague arguments like "we can't let them organise". No. Here's the thing, your right to free speech should not be restricted based on the consensus of the majority at the time. The entire idea behind free speech is to stop minorities being persecuted by the government and the majority, because we have seen many times in the past that the majority has been wrong. If you don't defend the minority, you do not have free speech, and when you exclude any group from the right to free speech, you invalidate it entirely.
Your claim that Nazi groups constantly commit terrorism is completely unfounded, and remember, we are talking about speech here, nothing else. Compare Muslim terror attacks vs right-wing terror attacks, you have to admit your bias when you will always defend Muslims when they commit acts of violence, but a tiny amount of right-wingers do any you claim they are committing violence everywhere. Since Islam is so much more violent, shouldn't we ban Islam? Or at least restrict immigration from Muslim countries? Would you be in favour in unlimited immigration from a full-on Nazi country?
Also, saying that communism isn't associated with violence is nothing but ignorance, even regardless of the millions it has killed in the past, there are lots and lots of examples of modern-day communists and left-wingers calling for the same thing, who want to kill nazis and want a violent revolution etc. I see it in 8ch.net/leftypol, on Youtube, and we've seen it recently on the streets like at Berkley. We even have evidence of organised terrorism, granted it's mostly anarchists, but they are still similar in that they're left-winger terrorists.
Basically, your view are just a result of indoctrination, since the Soviet Union infiltrated Western academia there has always been lots of sympathisers of communism, so even though it's an objectively worse ideology than nation socialism, people hate it much more. No, no faith should be given to the government, when it has shown time and time again that it so untrustworthy. You have completely failed to give a convincing argument about why we should not have free speech, besides vague arguments like "we can't let them organise". No. Here's the thing, your right to free speech should not be restricted based on the consensus of the majority at the time. The entire idea behind free speech is to stop minorities being persecuted by the government and the majority, because we have seen many times in the past that the majority has been wrong. If you don't defend the minority, you do not have free speech, and when you exclude any group from the right to free speech, you invalidate it entirely.