Search:

[QUOTE=Unknown1234;895381]Why is this topic still going?[/QUOTE]

Because you posted in it SmugPepe

Originally Posted by Unknown1234

Why is this topic still going?

Because you posted in it

[QUOTE=Oberon;891453]No, that isn’t it lol. [COLOR="#FF0000"]The international community is going to fuck China over.[/COLOR] [COLOR="#800080"]Especially if it turns out the virus was released on purpose by them (not saying that it was), in which case there may even be a war.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[COLOR="#800080"]Hard to prove, easy to contest and to discredit. And probably just not true, too: the most populous country should not launch a virus in the very middle of its own soil. Maybe not 100 % excluded, but I'm pretty sure that won't happen.[/COLOR]
By the way, sorry to bring that guy in the thread again but... Trump is pretty much the only one going full "IT'S CHINA!", and his weight in the international community is uh, debatable when it comes to making people hate China more than they did before.

[COLOR="#FF0000"]China is very strong, both military-wise and economy-wise. Not many people want to [I]actually[/I] annoy China. It'd take a really good opportunity to create an united anti-Chinese front for this to happen.[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Oberon

No, that isn’t it lol. The international community is going to fuck China over. Especially if it turns out the virus was released on purpose by them (not saying that it was), in which case there may even be a war.

Hard to prove, easy to contest and to discredit. And probably just not true, too: the most populous country should not launch a virus in the very middle of its own soil. Maybe not 100 % excluded, but I'm pretty sure that won't happen.
By the way, sorry to bring that guy in the thread again but... Trump is pretty much the only one going full "IT'S CHINA!", and his weight in the international community is uh, debatable when it comes to making people hate China more than they did before.

China is very strong, both military-wise and economy-wise. Not many people want to actually annoy China. It'd take a really good opportunity to create an united anti-Chinese front for this to happen.

[QUOTE=Oberon;891427]China is going to be fucked after covid :)[/QUOTE]

Nope: authoritarians have the upper hand when managing a pandemic, since they can just lock everyone up and jail them/shoot them if they don't obey.

Originally Posted by Oberon

China is going to be fucked after covid

Nope: authoritarians have the upper hand when managing a pandemic, since they can just lock everyone up and jail them/shoot them if they don't obey.

[QUOTE=yzb25;891423]You have a more optimistic view of the world than me. I expect the Chinese model to be the next big thing. I don't know if the Chinese model will replace the current model per se, but I think as the US superpower continues to decline, countries (especially less stable countries) will start to feel the pressure to flip to a Chinese model, in exactly the same way communist countries felt crushing pressure to flip to capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union. They understand how to use technology to enforce rigid social unity in a way the extremists of yesterday could only dream of. Though China doesn't share the USA's fervour for spreading their ideology, they will nevertheless have an incentive to export their political model to secure more reliable allies and trading partners.[/QUOTE]

I (sadly) think this is 100 % accurate. If the United States fall apart or even simply decline, the Western bloc loses influence and power, and what appears to be the new Chinese bloc will become dominant. I feel like Putin's Russia could benefit from a partnership with China, too, forming an actual Eastern bloc, but this time with Asia instead of Eastern Europe.

Originally Posted by yzb25

You have a more optimistic view of the world than me. I expect the Chinese model to be the next big thing. I don't know if the Chinese model will replace the current model per se, but I think as the US superpower continues to decline, countries (especially less stable countries) will start to feel the pressure to flip to a Chinese model, in exactly the same way communist countries felt crushing pressure to flip to capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union. They understand how to use technology to enforce rigid social unity in a way the extremists of yesterday could only dream of. Though China doesn't share the USA's fervour for spreading their ideology, they will nevertheless have an incentive to export their political model to secure more reliable allies and trading partners.

I (sadly) think this is 100 % accurate. If the United States fall apart or even simply decline, the Western bloc loses influence and power, and what appears to be the new Chinese bloc will become dominant. I feel like Putin's Russia could benefit from a partnership with China, too, forming an actual Eastern bloc, but this time with Asia instead of Eastern Europe.

[QUOTE=rumox;891037]Poor people can't afford insurance lol. this is why the two method approach is good. Private for those who can and public for those who cannot.[/QUOTE]

T h i s .

~~

While the government does suck at managing the economy and welfare, private companies do, too! This is especially true about welfare, since the only thing stopping private companies from giving a shit service is the fear of scandals and of being dominated by other companies... which implies they don't also give a shit service. As shows the really horrible situation about insurance in the US, no national insurance system doesn't work so well, because private companies don't work so well when they have by far the biggest share of the population's needs. As for economy, there [I]is[/I] necessary ingerence from the state in economy: pure economic liberalism led to the Great Depression for a reason. Plus, it's not like creating a national insurance system stops private companies from existing and from trying to offer a better service to those who can afford it. The way you say things makes it look like having a national insurance system is a direct road to a communist-style planified economy, which is absolutely false.

Originally Posted by rumox

Poor people can't afford insurance lol. this is why the two method approach is good. Private for those who can and public for those who cannot.

T h i s .

~~

While the government does suck at managing the economy and welfare, private companies do, too! This is especially true about welfare, since the only thing stopping private companies from giving a shit service is the fear of scandals and of being dominated by other companies... which implies they don't also give a shit service. As shows the really horrible situation about insurance in the US, no national insurance system doesn't work so well, because private companies don't work so well when they have by far the biggest share of the population's needs. As for economy, there is necessary ingerence from the state in economy: pure economic liberalism led to the Great Depression for a reason. Plus, it's not like creating a national insurance system stops private companies from existing and from trying to offer a better service to those who can afford it. The way you say things makes it look like having a national insurance system is a direct road to a communist-style planified economy, which is absolutely false.

[QUOTE=Oberon;890972]Disagree, socialism should not be universal because socialists have to realize not everyone wants to participate in a socialist society, and won’t be productive (and very probably deeply unhappy) with one. On the one hand, when you have a socialist society that everyone wants to be a part of, those tend to be quite productive because the members of it willingly joined it. I mean, look at Jewish kibbutzim. Many of them are quite rich and some even work in the military field.[/QUOTE]

Then put all the non-socialists in a semi-autonomous gulag run by them and let them get into bad positions and not be able to get out of these! Or more realistically and more seriously, have a referendum about it if it's that much of an issue for a large portion of the population, or just elect a party that will abolish socialist measures. Socialist measures cannot be half-assed: either you apply them fully or you just don't because you're throwing government's money and time down the sink due to lack of efficiency.

Originally Posted by Oberon

Disagree, socialism should not be universal because socialists have to realize not everyone wants to participate in a socialist society, and won’t be productive (and very probably deeply unhappy) with one. On the one hand, when you have a socialist society that everyone wants to be a part of, those tend to be quite productive because the members of it willingly joined it. I mean, look at Jewish kibbutzim. Many of them are quite rich and some even work in the military field.

Then put all the non-socialists in a semi-autonomous gulag run by them and let them get into bad positions and not be able to get out of these! Or more realistically and more seriously, have a referendum about it if it's that much of an issue for a large portion of the population, or just elect a party that will abolish socialist measures. Socialist measures cannot be half-assed: either you apply them fully or you just don't because you're throwing government's money and time down the sink due to lack of efficiency.

This is such a chaotic thread :D

[QUOTE=Oberon;890915]About economic systems. One question I’ve always asked myself I s - what comes next after capitalism? It’s almosy certainly an economic system we’ve never heard of... maybe 3D printing and increasing automation will bring it about. If everyone can produce, maybe companies will become sort of obsolete and everyone will just be self-employed. Perhaps the new economy will be based around the ownership of natural resources or of land or artificially intelligent systems (and AI research, ofc).

This is a very basic and probably naive assumption, but it’s nteresting to think about.[/QUOTE]
I strongly doubt the next economic system involves obsolecence of companies: they have too much power. The only way I see this happening (and even then, it's highly unlikely) is if there is a massive worldwide uprising against them.
[QUOTE=Oberon;890917]About socialism. I actually (personally) have no issues with socialism as long as I myself don’t have to participate in it. For instance I have absolutely no problem with Jewish kibbutzim because they’re free associations; the people in them *want* to be in them. And they don’t want to extend it to anyone else. I would never do that myself, but hey if it works for you, go for it, man. Live and let live.[/QUOTE]

The idea of socialism is literally to extend it to everyone, though. Else, it becomes the principle of "capitalist insurance". If everyone were to say "oh, I don't have any disabilities! Why should I pay for people who do?", then the point of having a disability insurance would disappear.
[I]Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all...[/I]

This is such a chaotic thread

Originally Posted by Oberon

About economic systems. One question I’ve always asked myself I s - what comes next after capitalism? It’s almosy certainly an economic system we’ve never heard of... maybe 3D printing and increasing automation will bring it about. If everyone can produce, maybe companies will become sort of obsolete and everyone will just be self-employed. Perhaps the new economy will be based around the ownership of natural resources or of land or artificially intelligent systems (and AI research, ofc).

This is a very basic and probably naive assumption, but it’s nteresting to think about.

I strongly doubt the next economic system involves obsolecence of companies: they have too much power. The only way I see this happening (and even then, it's highly unlikely) is if there is a massive worldwide uprising against them.

Originally Posted by Oberon

About socialism. I actually (personally) have no issues with socialism as long as I myself don’t have to participate in it. For instance I have absolutely no problem with Jewish kibbutzim because they’re free associations; the people in them *want* to be in them. And they don’t want to extend it to anyone else. I would never do that myself, but hey if it works for you, go for it, man. Live and let live.

The idea of socialism is literally to extend it to everyone, though. Else, it becomes the principle of "capitalist insurance". If everyone were to say "oh, I don't have any disabilities! Why should I pay for people who do?", then the point of having a disability insurance would disappear.
Freedom is merely privilege extended, unless enjoyed by one and all...

[QUOTE=BananaCucho;890889]Far right

Extreme right

Right wing

Semantics dude[/QUOTE]

Booo. [I]Extreme [/I]is extreme (farthest), [I]far [/I]is far not but as far as [I]extreme[/I]. "Semantics" (or rather [I]exact vocabulary[/I]) matters... but I guess you could call that "semantics" too xD.

Originally Posted by BananaCucho

Far right

Extreme right

Right wing

Semantics dude

Booo. Extreme is extreme (farthest), far is far not but as far as extreme. "Semantics" (or rather exact vocabulary) matters... but I guess you could call that "semantics" too xD.

Btw banana, do you disagree with my point that nazis are extreme right (not [I]far[/I], [I]extreme[/I] right) socially, but not economically because it doesn't apply? If so, why? Because you kinda just said "they're far right" after I posted :p

Btw banana, do you disagree with my point that nazis are extreme right (not far, extreme right) socially, but not economically because it doesn't apply? If so, why? Because you kinda just said "they're far right" after I posted

[QUOTE=BananaCucho;890047]They are far right.[/QUOTE]

I beg to differ. They're extreme authoritarians. They want (and got) extreme control over the country, and private organizations were so close to the state that they were half-nationalized. Economic "left" and "right" don't matter (or actually don't exist imo) anymore when you're that high up in the authoritarian axis.

But if you are including the social aspect of the left-right spectrum in your definition of "far right", you'd be correct to say that they are [I]extreme[/I] (not just far) right on the social plan: they certainly were the exact opposite of [I]progressist[/I]. That being said, the social and economic aspects, while not completely independant from eachother, are not the same and shouldn't just be combined in a single axis, unless you're taking the at the very least partially flawed marxist theory and applying it as it if were gospel; in this thread, the left-right axis seemed to be considered exclusively under the economic perspective.

Originally Posted by BananaCucho

They are far right.

I beg to differ. They're extreme authoritarians. They want (and got) extreme control over the country, and private organizations were so close to the state that they were half-nationalized. Economic "left" and "right" don't matter (or actually don't exist imo) anymore when you're that high up in the authoritarian axis.

But if you are including the social aspect of the left-right spectrum in your definition of "far right", you'd be correct to say that they are extreme (not just far) right on the social plan: they certainly were the exact opposite of progressist. That being said, the social and economic aspects, while not completely independant from eachother, are not the same and shouldn't just be combined in a single axis, unless you're taking the at the very least partially flawed marxist theory and applying it as it if were gospel; in this thread, the left-right axis seemed to be considered exclusively under the economic perspective.

[QUOTE=Oberon;889871]I love you[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Oberon;889872]I said the Nazis are hard to classify, you then state they are extreme authoritarians. Where is the disagreement?[/QUOTE]

Oh, I thought you said they were left-wing. No disagreement then lol

Originally Posted by Oberon

I love you

Originally Posted by Oberon

I said the Nazis are hard to classify, you then state they are extreme authoritarians. Where is the disagreement?

Oh, I thought you said they were left-wing. No disagreement then lol

I'll just forewarn because the last streak of replies in political threads was pretty heated: keep it reasonably nice or face deletions or infractions. Not aiming at anyone btw, just saying it

[QUOTE=Voss;889818]Unite the Right rally. People waving nazi flags attended. Trump said that there were good people on both sides.

I can recommend an excellent podcast series on David Duke and his rise in the Louisiana Republican party.[/QUOTE]

^
good people don't march with people waving nazi flags and do as if everything was alright
at best, Trump expressed himself terribly stupidly, and at worst, he supports or at least... strongly tolerate nazis
But that's past the point

~~

Didn't the NSDAP gain very considerable power over the "private companies", though? If I'm not mistaken, that made them [I]de facto[/I] puppets of the State. Extreme authoritarianism makes "left" and "right" join up. So actually, I think neither Mag nor you all is right, because the Nazis were just [I]extreme authoritarians[/I].

I'll just forewarn because the last streak of replies in political threads was pretty heated: keep it reasonably nice or face deletions or infractions. Not aiming at anyone btw, just saying it

Originally Posted by Voss

Unite the Right rally. People waving nazi flags attended. Trump said that there were good people on both sides.

I can recommend an excellent podcast series on David Duke and his rise in the Louisiana Republican party.

^
good people don't march with people waving nazi flags and do as if everything was alright
at best, Trump expressed himself terribly stupidly, and at worst, he supports or at least... strongly tolerate nazis
But that's past the point

~~

Didn't the NSDAP gain very considerable power over the "private companies", though? If I'm not mistaken, that made them de facto puppets of the State. Extreme authoritarianism makes "left" and "right" join up. So actually, I think neither Mag nor you all is right, because the Nazis were just extreme authoritarians.

[QUOTE=aamirus;889094]You’re giving the test WAY too much credit. It’s clickbait crap...


In mafia terms, y’all are assuming some intended WIFOM here and you’re right. But the WIFOM is there to get clicks, not to actually analyze jack shit[/QUOTE]

Nah, it's still has more thought put into it than the crappy "left-right" axis, even if you stick the "authoritarian-liberal" axis to it. At least, none of the presented axises "joins up" at its extremities (like far left and far right "joining up" in the traditional "compass"). The questions may not be perfect, but reducing all of this to clickbait is wrong imo.

Originally Posted by aamirus

You’re giving the test WAY too much credit. It’s clickbait crap...


In mafia terms, y’all are assuming some intended WIFOM here and you’re right. But the WIFOM is there to get clicks, not to actually analyze jack shit

Nah, it's still has more thought put into it than the crappy "left-right" axis, even if you stick the "authoritarian-liberal" axis to it. At least, none of the presented axises "joins up" at its extremities (like far left and far right "joining up" in the traditional "compass"). The questions may not be perfect, but reducing all of this to clickbait is wrong imo.

I'll stop the "quote the post" trend and just say I'm addressing Lysergic lol.

The test isn't [I]perfect[/I], obviously, but I think we're meant to assume the questions are not traps and use common sense considered from the point of view of a democratic country's citizen. For example, "more power" in the situational meaning of "more autonomy" is to be assumed if we're talking about local vs federal/unitary governments, and not "freedom to establish gulags in a specific area".

Your answer to "Laws should be completely consistent within all regions of a nation" is simply "disagree". The question clearly states "[B]completely[/B] consistent", which means you're being asked if you think ALL laws should be the same everywhere in a nation. I have the same stance, by the way (maybe not on guns (people can still be shot on the Gulf Coast), but that's another story), so I just "disagreed".

Skynet is obviously not a good technology... people having suffered for a technology [I]that would benefit the country[/I] may be a better wording though, so I'll give you that.

The UN has a military (more or less), yes, and you're free to agree or disagree with that reality :P


In the end, I agree with yzb's conclusion: putting every single question in a purely absolute context to give a purely absolute answer will make you "neutral" on many topics on paper while you could be not neutral at all in reality; that seems to be what happened to you here.

I'll stop the "quote the post" trend and just say I'm addressing Lysergic lol.

The test isn't perfect, obviously, but I think we're meant to assume the questions are not traps and use common sense considered from the point of view of a democratic country's citizen. For example, "more power" in the situational meaning of "more autonomy" is to be assumed if we're talking about local vs federal/unitary governments, and not "freedom to establish gulags in a specific area".

Your answer to "Laws should be completely consistent within all regions of a nation" is simply "disagree". The question clearly states "completely consistent", which means you're being asked if you think ALL laws should be the same everywhere in a nation. I have the same stance, by the way (maybe not on guns (people can still be shot on the Gulf Coast), but that's another story), so I just "disagreed".

Skynet is obviously not a good technology... people having suffered for a technology that would benefit the country may be a better wording though, so I'll give you that.

The UN has a military (more or less), yes, and you're free to agree or disagree with that reality :P


In the end, I agree with yzb's conclusion: putting every single question in a purely absolute context to give a purely absolute answer will make you "neutral" on many topics on paper while you could be not neutral at all in reality; that seems to be what happened to you here.

[QUOTE=Plotato;886956]holy crap y'all are commies or some shit?

Bruh I'm so patriotic, I piss red, white, and blue. My doctor said it may be pancreatic cancer. I told him to shut his COMMIE mouth[/QUOTE]

Yes, [B]we [/B]are. LONG LIVE THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIATE!

Originally Posted by Plotato

holy crap y'all are commies or some shit?

Bruh I'm so patriotic, I piss red, white, and blue. My doctor said it may be pancreatic cancer. I told him to shut his COMMIE mouth

Yes, we are. LONG LIVE THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIATE!

[QUOTE=Ganelon;869297]Anyways humans are just doing what all other predatory species would be doing. We’re btw the only species with Animal Cruelty movements and who care for other species.
We certainly don’t exterminate everything we get our hands on.
Unlike cats, say.[/QUOTE]

Known species*

We don't know about aliens, or "higher beings" you can call "gods" if you want, or whatever else there could be in the universe. All I said is that believing nothing [I]could be[/I] better than us is being pretty proud lol

Originally Posted by Ganelon

Anyways humans are just doing what all other predatory species would be doing. We’re btw the only species with Animal Cruelty movements and who care for other species.
We certainly don’t exterminate everything we get our hands on.
Unlike cats, say.

Known species*

We don't know about aliens, or "higher beings" you can call "gods" if you want, or whatever else there could be in the universe. All I said is that believing nothing could be better than us is being pretty proud lol

[QUOTE=BananaCucho;869283]Hey now. I wouldn't rule out intelligent life out there that is more advanced than us. Just not "god" like lol[/QUOTE]

I did not quote you ;)

Originally Posted by BananaCucho

Hey now. I wouldn't rule out intelligent life out there that is more advanced than us. Just not "god" like lol

I did not quote you ;)

[QUOTE=oops_ur_dead;869227]I think believing in god is cringe because you're literally admitting that there is someone better than you and that you'll never reach that level, which is beta as FUCK.[/QUOTE]

I think believing humans are the best thing existing in the world and not being ready to accept anything stronger, personified or not, is symptomatic of overly developed pride :]

Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead

I think believing in god is cringe because you're literally admitting that there is someone better than you and that you'll never reach that level, which is beta as FUCK.

I think believing humans are the best thing existing in the world and not being ready to accept anything stronger, personified or not, is symptomatic of overly developed pride :]

[QUOTE=BananaCucho;869208]You're right. He don't float in the sky. He lives on the planet Kolob. And one day you'll make planets like him. If you're baptized mormon, get your endowment, and marry in the temple that is.[/QUOTE]

^ that's the exact part that sucks with religion taken literally. It turns the search for the most important answers (what's the purpose of life, what must we do, must we do anything, etc.) into a way to control people so that they don't think by themselves, or literally don't think at all and only regurgitate beliefs they don't understand and call it "faith".
Now, this sounds rather antitheist lol, but my point is that religion is not limited to this. Those who do limit it to this do something horrible: they extinguish people's minds and destroy their individuality to better control them (or simply because their own mind has been extinguished by people who seek control). However, those who genuinely try to allow people to find answers by themselves are performing a very important and noble task, and they must not be put in the same basket as the first group of people.

Originally Posted by BananaCucho

You're right. He don't float in the sky. He lives on the planet Kolob. And one day you'll make planets like him. If you're baptized mormon, get your endowment, and marry in the temple that is.

^ that's the exact part that sucks with religion taken literally. It turns the search for the most important answers (what's the purpose of life, what must we do, must we do anything, etc.) into a way to control people so that they don't think by themselves, or literally don't think at all and only regurgitate beliefs they don't understand and call it "faith".
Now, this sounds rather antitheist lol, but my point is that religion is not limited to this. Those who do limit it to this do something horrible: they extinguish people's minds and destroy their individuality to better control them (or simply because their own mind has been extinguished by people who seek control). However, those who genuinely try to allow people to find answers by themselves are performing a very important and noble task, and they must not be put in the same basket as the first group of people.

[QUOTE=aamirus;869201]Why are those religions more likely than the flying spaghetti god? Seriously I would like to know what is the difference beyond simply spending more time in your life talking about them[/QUOTE]
They are not more likely to be the exact truth because that makes as little sense as pastafarianism considered as a legit belief lol, and that's part of my point. I said I agreed with [I]principles[/I] that are more likely to be right, not dogmas. It means I think parts of those religions are morally and logically right, such as tolerance and theological search, for example.
[QUOTE=aamirus;869202]why is guy who floats in the sky somehow more believable than dragons,fairies,etc.? Because 1 was presented to you as the truth and the other was presented as fiction? I mean, what actual reasons in your own experience do you have to believe one over the other?[/QUOTE]

I don't believe "the guy floats in the sky" lol. You're basically painting me as someone who believes in everything that's in X sacred book, which I am not, and then you ask me to explain the point of view I don't have...


Also banana, if you give me some rep, you'll be able to give some to Aamirus again at some point! Problem fixed. :p

Originally Posted by aamirus

Why are those religions more likely than the flying spaghetti god? Seriously I would like to know what is the difference beyond simply spending more time in your life talking about them

They are not more likely to be the exact truth because that makes as little sense as pastafarianism considered as a legit belief lol, and that's part of my point. I said I agreed with principles that are more likely to be right, not dogmas. It means I think parts of those religions are morally and logically right, such as tolerance and theological search, for example.

Originally Posted by aamirus

why is guy who floats in the sky somehow more believable than dragons,fairies,etc.? Because 1 was presented to you as the truth and the other was presented as fiction? I mean, what actual reasons in your own experience do you have to believe one over the other?

I don't believe "the guy floats in the sky" lol. You're basically painting me as someone who believes in everything that's in X sacred book, which I am not, and then you ask me to explain the point of view I don't have...


Also banana, if you give me some rep, you'll be able to give some to Aamirus again at some point! Problem fixed.

[QUOTE=aamirus;869168]Okay but I would challenge agnosticism with this:

Are you then also unwilling to say for sure whether Dragons, [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster"]A Spaghetti God,[/URL] Fairies, Gnomes, Vampires, Werewolves, Blah Blah Blah insert fantasy thing here exist?

If so, do you even believe anything?


What ARE you sure about the existence of? Do YOU even really exist? Can you say for sure?[/QUOTE]

Well, yes and no, but mostly no. The things you named (dragons, flying spaghetti monster, etc.) are [I]extremely unlikely[/I] to exist, so I can say I believe beyond a [I]reasonable[/I] doubt that those things do not exist, a bit like how I can say I believe beyond a [I]reasonable[/I] doubt that existing religions do not have the pure and exact truth, although some principles of sikhism and what it implies about Hinduism, Islam and Christianism make sense to me. However, I cannot purely and simply prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist beyond [I]any[/I] doubt; it doesn't mean I have to believe in it. It's about probabilities, at that point.

As for the last line "do you really exist", I'll just give you a quote :)

[I][FONT=Book Antiqua]Je pense, donc je suis.
- René Descartes, Discourse on the Method, 1637[/FONT][/I]

Still true in 2020.

Originally Posted by aamirus

Okay but I would challenge agnosticism with this:

Are you then also unwilling to say for sure whether Dragons, A Spaghetti God, Fairies, Gnomes, Vampires, Werewolves, Blah Blah Blah insert fantasy thing here exist?

If so, do you even believe anything?


What ARE you sure about the existence of? Do YOU even really exist? Can you say for sure?

Well, yes and no, but mostly no. The things you named (dragons, flying spaghetti monster, etc.) are extremely unlikely to exist, so I can say I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that those things do not exist, a bit like how I can say I believe beyond a reasonable doubt that existing religions do not have the pure and exact truth, although some principles of sikhism and what it implies about Hinduism, Islam and Christianism make sense to me. However, I cannot purely and simply prove that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist beyond any doubt; it doesn't mean I have to believe in it. It's about probabilities, at that point.

As for the last line "do you really exist", I'll just give you a quote

Je pense, donc je suis.
- René Descartes, Discourse on the Method, 1637

Still true in 2020.

[QUOTE=rumox;869138]God is GAY and PISSES and SHITS all over the place[/QUOTE]
God is a goofy loser.
[I]- Renegade, 2020[/I]
[QUOTE=rumox;869140]Agnostic gang rise up[/QUOTE]

URAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Originally Posted by rumox

God is GAY and PISSES and SHITS all over the place

God is a goofy loser.
- Renegade, 2020

Originally Posted by rumox

Agnostic gang rise up

URAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[QUOTE=BananaCucho;869098]If you think atheism is a religion you don't really understand atheism[/QUOTE]

The difference lies between atheism and antitheism. If you're saying that anyone who worships their "flying sky daddy" (lol) should go to jail, well, you're making atheism your own dogma, therefore committing the exact fault intolerant religious people commit. Atheism is not a religion. Antitheism is. I'm not sure it's perfectly accurate to define antitheism as extreme atheism, but it could be seen like that.

Originally Posted by BananaCucho

If you think atheism is a religion you don't really understand atheism

The difference lies between atheism and antitheism. If you're saying that anyone who worships their "flying sky daddy" (lol) should go to jail, well, you're making atheism your own dogma, therefore committing the exact fault intolerant religious people commit. Atheism is not a religion. Antitheism is. I'm not sure it's perfectly accurate to define antitheism as extreme atheism, but it could be seen like that.

[QUOTE=BananaCucho;869054]You'd like plzleaveduckk and TDL. Duck is perma banned tho[/QUOTE]

Isn't plzleaveduck just an alt tho lol?

Originally Posted by BananaCucho

You'd like plzleaveduckk and TDL. Duck is perma banned tho

Isn't plzleaveduck just an alt tho lol?

[QUOTE=Ganelon;869052]So; I’m the only right winger on this website? Lol[/QUOTE]

SLAV'SYA OTECHESTVO, NASHE SVOBODNOYE

But uh... yes. And you should have guessed I'd be left wing from our talks lol. I admit it's quite surprising to see that everyone [I]appears[/I] to be left-wing on this site, though.

Originally Posted by Ganelon

So; I’m the only right winger on this website? Lol

SLAV'SYA OTECHESTVO, NASHE SVOBODNOYE

But uh... yes. And you should have guessed I'd be left wing from our talks lol. I admit it's quite surprising to see that everyone appears to be left-wing on this site, though.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27156[/ATTACH]

Full version. Quite accurate, tbh. I think the least accurate parts are globalism-isolationism and assimilation-multiculturalism, since they don't really allow for deep views: it's either "ban 'em all, they're monsters" or "everyone is welcome, flowers, rainbows and unicorns everywhere". And saying alliances are good = globalism lololol.

Full version. Quite accurate, tbh. I think the least accurate parts are globalism-isolationism and assimilation-multiculturalism, since they don't really allow for deep views: it's either "ban 'em all, they're monsters" or "everyone is welcome, flowers, rainbows and unicorns everywhere". And saying alliances are good = globalism lololol.

[QUOTE=rumox;868984][spoiler=Rumox's test][img]https://i.imgur.com/qt3S4EB.png[/img][/spoiler][/QUOTE]

Neutrals are not town, so they have to die. [vote]Rumox[/vote]

Originally Posted by rumox

Spoiler : Rumox's test :

Neutrals are not town, so they have to die.

-vote Rumox