this shit used to be my jamkai99 wrote:
Comfy Slippers wrote:
...finna
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,186
Hika's a hood nigger, what do you expect? :pComfy Slippers wrote:
...finna
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
nah
fookmep
imagine calling them second rate memes :khinting:
stefan lock again
ill pay
ill pay
I wonder how many people need to be run over with trucks before people realise that immigrants in Europe pose some issues.
You don't even live in Europe, pal.
Not that I'm against your point of view, but you got it easy there you isolated fuck. :V
Not that I'm against your point of view, but you got it easy there you isolated fuck. :V
Did I just read... TRUCKS?!
remember how they wanted to ban Quake it could be used as training engine for potential school shooters?
Truck simulator ban incoming.
Truck simulator ban incoming.
Mara on his way to train some Finnish kebabs in the ways of mowing down people with trucks, black and white filter, circa 2015.
I need to drive some more so I can buy another garage.
hello people; tuuba drama was an interesting read
for a second I thought ITT 2 was locked due to the presence of ITT 3 and I almost had a heart attack. Now I'm just angery
for a second I thought ITT 2 was locked due to the presence of ITT 3 and I almost had a heart attack. Now I'm just angery
Statistically speaking, things are going really well. So no, there'd need to be a ridiculous upturn in violence before you could even begin to make that point.B1rd wrote:
I wonder how many people need to be run over with trucks before people realise that immigrants in Europe pose some issues.
Why would you stop immigrants when you can wait for them to get enslaved in north africa or dumped into the Mediterranean Sea?
It's actually pretty sad that there is so many of them waiting on the border between Hungary and Serbia, yet we can't fill them with lead. It's like we're willingly letting the cancer that is modern Islam spread through our lands. :V
['90s accordion music intensifies]
['90s accordion music intensifies]
Hi I'm B1rd and I use people's deaths to push my political agendaB1rd wrote:
I wonder how many people need to be run over with trucks before people realise that immigrants in Europe pose some issues.
While I don't agree with what he's saying, it's not much different from someone who complains about starving kids in Africa and how people don't think about the problem. Would you tell them that they're using deaths to push their political agenda? Not really, they're just concerned in their own ways. The difference is that blaming immigrants in general for truck accidents is just another correlation versus causation problem.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Hi I'm B1rd and I use people's deaths to push my political agendaB1rd wrote:
I wonder how many people need to be run over with trucks before people realise that immigrants in Europe pose some issues.
Yeah, perhaps I should've clarified a bit more. I wasn't exactly looking to make a compelling argument in my post, though, it was just frustrating to see that kind of thing being done- especially in a non-anonymous environment (well, less anonymous than 4chan, anyway), which I believe are better suited to such, uh, non-standard "arguments" being made.Foxtrot wrote:
While I don't agree with what he's saying, it's not much different from someone who complains about starving kids in Africa and how people don't think about the problem. Would you tell them that they're using deaths to push their political agenda? Not really, they're just concerned in their own ways. The difference is that blaming immigrants in general for truck accidents is just another correlation versus causation problem.
To elaborate then- I really hate it whenever anyone takes a single event, ESPECIALLY a tragedy, and uses it for their own politics. I think it's a pathetic thing to do that speaks a lot more to the person's ridiculous confirmation bias than anything else- they see one thing, it appeals to their emotions, and they use that to further their political agenda by trying to appeal to other people's same emotions. How about we step back from shit like that and actually try to use more meaningful facts and statistics if we want to make big, generalising arguments, instead of: "LOOK AT THIS ONE AWFUL THING, PEOPLE DIED, THIS MEANS I'M RIGHT!"
You know? I just think that kind of thing is bullshit, and I'm sick of seeing anybody using it. Don't be so disrespectful.
edit: Worth mentioning is that this isn't necessarily a simple frustration at "correlation=causation", it's deeper than that.
vipper you'd probably make a similar argument if it was about something you supported.
How many more civilians have to die in airstrikes before the US realizes that it is leading a pointless war?
How many people have to die in the war on drugs before the US comes to its senses and legalizes drugs?
How many people have to die before X?
are you telling me you've never made that sort of argument before?
How many more civilians have to die in airstrikes before the US realizes that it is leading a pointless war?
How many people have to die in the war on drugs before the US comes to its senses and legalizes drugs?
How many people have to die before X?
are you telling me you've never made that sort of argument before?
No, I don't make those arguments. I think they're incredibly stupid.Railey2 wrote:
vipper you'd probably make a similar argument if it was about something you supported.
How many more civilians have to die in airstrikes before the US realizes that it is leading a pointless war?
How many people have to die in the war on drugs before the US comes to its senses and legalizes drugs?
How many people have to die before X?
Thinking of going outside and buy some cola at midnight.
What I really don't like about your post, Viper, is that it's extremely shallow when you look at it from a neutral standpoint. You are immediately basing the entire point around the opinion that someone is being emotionally charged up and thus basing their point of view on that.
In a way, it's pretty ironic that you're branding him while you made your own biased and skewed commentary to counter his.
In a way, it's pretty ironic that you're branding him while you made your own biased and skewed commentary to counter his.
i can see how they could be distasteful but how are they incredibly stupid?DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
No, I don't make those arguments. I think they're incredibly stupid.Railey2 wrote:
vipper you'd probably make a similar argument if it was about something you supported.
How many more civilians have to die in airstrikes before the US realizes that it is leading a pointless war?
How many people have to die in the war on drugs before the US comes to its senses and legalizes drugs?
How many people have to die before X?
Peoples lives are a VERY important variable for large scale decisions, some people would even argue that they are the most important variable.
''How many people have to die before X'' is just another way of saying: ''hey there are people dying and i feel you should prioritize preventing that, plus i'm also going to try and make you feel a bit bad about it''
it's not a complete argument on its own, but it is a very valid and common sentiment that can easily be extended to be part of a proper argument.
i certainly wouldn't call it incredibly stupid.
Simply put, I dislike emotional appeal as the -main- way of trying to push an agenda, for the most part. I do see your point that it can be used as a proper argument though, as well as the fact that there are almost definitely a few exceptions that can be made when it comes to morality- i.e. "It's messed up if we allow this dictator to kill people with no repercussions", or something, but clearly I must see a difference in this case- probably because of how loosely connected the event and the conclusion are. I was thinking of many similar things when I wrote my post; I've seen that style of argument used a lot of times over the years, first from the left (This one thing happened to a black person somewhere, therefore all police are racist!!, things like that), while the right-wing have been using these emotional appeals as justification for anti-immigrant policy for as long as I can remember. Look at Tommy Robinson/the EDL's main points for further context if you'd like to see examples from my own country that I have experience with. I suppose I should learn to state my points in a more isolated manner from things like this, though, for the reason that Aurani gives- I'm clearly involving my own emotions here.Railey2 wrote:
i can see how they could be distasteful but how are they incredibly stupid?
Peoples lives are a VERY important variable for large scale decisions, some people would even argue that they are the most important variable.
''How many people have to die before X'' is just another way of saying: ''hey there are people dying and i feel you should prioritize preventing that, plus i'm also going to try and make you feel a bit bad about it''
it's not a complete argument on its own, but it is a very valid and common sentiment that can easily be extended to be part of a proper argument.
i certainly wouldn't call it incredibly stupid.
But yeah, in general terms, I don't like it when emotion is the main reason for pushing any particular policy. This applies to every argument that I've actually seen being made in a serious manner over the past, I don't know, 10 years- I haven't been following politics for that much of my life, but from what I've seen, this argument is generally BS used to further an agenda without real facts/data supporting them in an attempt to get people to blindly follow their worldview, which is very stupid indeed.
Sorry if this is hard to understand/rambly, not really in the mood to make a well-constructed post on this subject I guess
\o/
kai99 wrote:
\o/
well now you just completely changed your point from ''i don't like people using the deaths of others for an argument'' to
''i don't like emotionally charged reasoning''
Nothing is left of the original discussion
''i don't like emotionally charged reasoning''
Nothing is left of the original discussion
To be completely honest here, even a disjointed "rambly" discussion is better than whatever the fuck usually goes on in ITT. I do enjoy it when people try to reason with each other, as Viper is doing with you. Don't bash it in just yet.
i too don't like it when emotion interferes with decision-making, especially when it matters - like it does in politics.
i'm on vippers side 100 percent here
i'm on vippers side 100 percent here
Emotions are a powerful tool in decision-making. After all, they are one of our primal instincts - something that helped us survive and get to where we are now. Pure logical thinking can be as toxic to your being as being overly emotional; there are always extremes that must be avoided, which includes being utterly devoid of emotions.
That being said, there is also blind fanaticism and it's just the other side of the same coin - something to be avoided at all costs.
That being said, there is also blind fanaticism and it's just the other side of the same coin - something to be avoided at all costs.
That's pretty much what I meant, using the deaths of others (as an isolated event, not part of broader statistics used in a non-dishonest manner) was just one example of it. Sorry if that wasn't very clear, like I said, I haven't been in a mood to make big clear arguments right now!Railey2 wrote:
well now you just completely changed your point from ''i don't like people using the deaths of others for an argument'' to
''i don't like emotionally charged reasoning''
Nothing is left of the original discussion
Also yeah I love ITT when it turns into politics or other serious discussion, it's fun and lets people talk to each other on a more meaningful level than the usual spam. God bless
For me it is not the emotional part nor the part of using deaths but actively using such events to bloat them so that other important things are covered.
I mean it is not like the situation in Africa was ever good but we only broadcast it when they suddenly want to get a prosperous life or get massacred.
It is a welcome opportunity to say some strong words without negative repercussions and working on your image as a politician.
I mean it is not like the situation in Africa was ever good but we only broadcast it when they suddenly want to get a prosperous life or get massacred.
It is a welcome opportunity to say some strong words without negative repercussions and working on your image as a politician.
As long as we can agree bird doesnt know shit then I'm game
hiya
Tbh in its current "murricanized" state, Africa is completely lost. There is no reason what-so-ever to sink money into something that's so socially backwards that you'd need to either wipe the land and destroy entire cultures or spend hundreds of trillions to slowly, over the next couple hundred years "force-advance" the culture and traditions those people are influenced by, at which point we're still going to destroy most of the old culture and traditions there, because we see what even slow Westernization (Globalization) does to the rest of the world.Endaris wrote:
For me it is not the emotional part nor the part of using deaths but actively using such events to bloat them so that other important things are covered.
I mean it is not like the situation in Africa was ever good but we only broadcast it when they suddenly want to get a prosperous life or get massacred.
It is a welcome opportunity to say some strong words without negative repercussions and working on your image as a politician.
Speaking of which, I now feel like rewatching "The gods must be crazy"... the only movie I've watched so far that makes me feel happy at my very core. Such a lighthearted thing.
Africa has actually been going through a shitload of improvement in the last 20-30 years, hasn't it? I thought there were huge technological/cultural advances there.Aurani wrote:
Tbh in its current "murricanized" state, Africa is completely lost. There is no reason what-so-ever to sink money into something that's so socially backwards that you'd need to either wipe the land and destroy entire cultures or spend hundreds of trillions to slowly, over the next couple hundred years "force-advance" the culture and traditions those people are influenced by, at which point we're still going to destroy most of the old culture and traditions there, because we see what even slow Westernization (Globalization) does to the rest of the world.Endaris wrote:
For me it is not the emotional part nor the part of using deaths but actively using such events to bloat them so that other important things are covered.
I mean it is not like the situation in Africa was ever good but we only broadcast it when they suddenly want to get a prosperous life or get massacred.
It is a welcome opportunity to say some strong words without negative repercussions and working on your image as a politician.
Speaking of which, I now feel like rewatching "The gods must be crazy"... the only movie I've watched so far that makes me feel happy at my very core. Such a lighthearted thing.
Only in specific (read: westernized) regions. Mostly Southern and Western Africa. Central and Eastern parts are still on the same technological and cultural level as they were back in late 1920s...
It also doesn't help that most regions can't be controlled and are completely anarchic in nature. The situation is far, far worse there than it is in the Middle East, but media don't give a shit, as it brings no money to talk about it.
It also doesn't help that most regions can't be controlled and are completely anarchic in nature. The situation is far, far worse there than it is in the Middle East, but media don't give a shit, as it brings no money to talk about it.