Topic: Poor countries are poor because of ideology
Anonymous A started this discussion 5 months ago #128,138
Not because of anything else because that’s woke!
https://youtu.be/snj6W9c8VIo
https://youtu.be/snj6W9c8VIo
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 7 minutes later[^] [v] #1,381,764
Cannibals in Africa help keep their country poor.Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 5 months ago, 3 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,765
@previous (B)
50% of the crime is committed by 13% of the population. Incidentally, 13 is also your IQ if you believe this statistic.
50% of the crime is committed by 13% of the population. Incidentally, 13 is also your IQ if you believe this statistic.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,774
op you're probably the one only user here and perhaps on any of these chan sites that posted a link with valuable information on a real problem. Its just a nice a break from the whole "keke nigger this nigger that, eugenics enugencs eVeRytHiNG is WoKE!!"
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 4 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,813
@previous (C)
At some point, you’ve gotta start wondering why someone who’s actually superior wouldn’t be able to find a solution to defeat people they think are absolutely inferior and instead would resort to spewing hate for years.
At some point, you’ve gotta start wondering why someone who’s actually superior wouldn’t be able to find a solution to defeat people they think are absolutely inferior and instead would resort to spewing hate for years.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 10 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,815
Ideology is one reason poor countries are poor, but it's not the only reason.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 9 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,816
@previous (E)
In the case of communist countries maybe, but Africa is the poorest continent and every single country in Africa is capitalist.
In the case of communist countries maybe, but Africa is the poorest continent and every single country in Africa is capitalist.
Anonymous F double-posted this 5 months ago, 43 seconds later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,817
Except China I guess… they’re the number 2 economy.
Anonymous F triple-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,818
Like the problem with using ideology as an explanation is you have to cherry pick a lot. You could say, "America turned out so much better than the USSR, capitalism and democracy are better." But you could use India and China to say the opposite.
Anonymous F quadruple-posted this 5 months ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,819
Then technology seems like it could be an explanation, but then India is poor, and yet they have hydrogen bombs, supersonic missiles that can dive into the water and turn into torpedoes, and the capability to send probes to Mars.
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 11 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,821
@1,381,813 (D)
Ive wondered that for years actually. I couldnt get to the bottom because the history is pretty convoluted. I was told a starting point is look into Mesopotamia. Something about the origin of power or something like that.
Ive wondered that for years actually. I couldnt get to the bottom because the history is pretty convoluted. I was told a starting point is look into Mesopotamia. Something about the origin of power or something like that.
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 29 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,381,824
@previous (G)
The first civilizations and the first empires formed around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
The first civilizations and the first empires formed around the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
(Edited 37 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 4 days later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,876
@1,381,816 (F)
Ideology extends to much more than what economic system they officially hold.
Many don't make it easy for businesses to operate, there are aspects to the culture that affect how people treat work, and there are different goals across those countries on how to spend the money they taxed from the market.
Ideology extends to much more than what economic system they officially hold.
Many don't make it easy for businesses to operate, there are aspects to the culture that affect how people treat work, and there are different goals across those countries on how to spend the money they taxed from the market.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,905
@previous (E)
Africa is so diverse in terms of ethnicities, languages, religions, and cultures that it’s not a very convincing argument you’re making.
Africa is so diverse in terms of ethnicities, languages, religions, and cultures that it’s not a very convincing argument you’re making.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 6 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,911
Anonymous I replied with this 5 months ago, 58 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,956
@previous (E)
They don’t have the same culture so how would they all have the same outcome if they all have different cultures and different governments? Governments in Africa can range from western style liberal democracies like South Africa to completely authoritarian military dictatorships like Eritrea.
They don’t have the same culture so how would they all have the same outcome if they all have different cultures and different governments? Governments in Africa can range from western style liberal democracies like South Africa to completely authoritarian military dictatorships like Eritrea.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,982
@previous (I)
They do have different outcomes, but those outcomes are less obvious because of how long they've had the ideologies.
A country that has had debate and liberal parliamentarianism for hundreds of years will have more to show for it than a country that officially adopted it less than a century ago.
They do have different outcomes, but those outcomes are less obvious because of how long they've had the ideologies.
A country that has had debate and liberal parliamentarianism for hundreds of years will have more to show for it than a country that officially adopted it less than a century ago.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,984
@previous (E)
India was wealthier before it was colonized and introduced to western ideas than it has been since it was colonized. It used to be one of the largest economies.
India was wealthier before it was colonized and introduced to western ideas than it has been since it was colonized. It used to be one of the largest economies.
Anonymous J double-posted this 5 months ago, 54 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,986
China also used to be one of the wealthiest civilizations, but became poorer than Africa when imperial powers disrupted their society.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 6 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,993
@1,382,984 (J)
India was on older civilization, with more arable land, more people, and access to the sea.
Why didn't India colonize Britain instead? Or at least defend their coast with a suitable Navy of their own?
Ideology.
India was on older civilization, with more arable land, more people, and access to the sea.
Why didn't India colonize Britain instead? Or at least defend their coast with a suitable Navy of their own?
Ideology.
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,995
@1,382,986 (J)
Why did a few countries from a smaller, less resource-rich land get the lead on the Chinese? Why didn't it happen the other way around?
Do you think both times it was a coincidence? Pure luck?
Why did a few countries from a smaller, less resource-rich land get the lead on the Chinese? Why didn't it happen the other way around?
Do you think both times it was a coincidence? Pure luck?
Anonymous J replied with this 5 months ago, 14 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,996
@1,382,993 (E)
I don’t think invading other countries to steal their resources is something to be proud of.
I don’t think invading other countries to steal their resources is something to be proud of.
Anonymous J double-posted this 5 months ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,382,999
@1,382,995 (E)
If I break into your house a steal everything you own, does that mean I have a superior way of thinking to you?
If I break into your house a steal everything you own, does that mean I have a superior way of thinking to you?
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 40 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,000
@1,382,996 (J)
And you're changing the subject. This isn't about whether it was something to be proud of, or whether it was nice or mean.
Why did smaller countries with fewer resources defeat large countries with abundant resources? What's your answer?
And you're changing the subject. This isn't about whether it was something to be proud of, or whether it was nice or mean.
Why did smaller countries with fewer resources defeat large countries with abundant resources? What's your answer?
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,001
@1,382,999 (J)
If a few people are able to take most of the wealth of a group that is 10x larger than them, then yes, it signifies something.
It raises the question: why couldn't the larger group defend itself, and why did we never see them wage a war to get the wealthy back and win? In both cases, a clear difference in the abilities of those two groups.
If a few people are able to take most of the wealth of a group that is 10x larger than them, then yes, it signifies something.
It raises the question: why couldn't the larger group defend itself, and why did we never see them wage a war to get the wealthy back and win? In both cases, a clear difference in the abilities of those two groups.
Anonymous J replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,002
But if you want a real answer: in the 1800s, Europe had a population that was about twice as large as Africa. They also had gunpowder which was an innovation spread to Europe but originally invented in Asia. This made it much easier for Europeans to colonize Africa because Africans didn’t have gunpowder and they had half as many men to actually fight. Neither of these two things have anything to do with the intelligence or ideology of Europeans. And actually today, Africa has twice the population of Europe. Colonizing Africa gave Europeans far more resources than the Chinese had access to. The Chinese could have colonized Africa, the Chinese did have contact with east Africa, but they didn’t have a need to colonize Africa so they just didn’t do it even though they had the means to.
Anonymous J double-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,003
@1,383,001 (E)
> In both cases, a clear difference in the abilities of those two groups.
Borderline Nazi argument there.
> In both cases, a clear difference in the abilities of those two groups.
Borderline Nazi argument there.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,004
@1,383,002 (J)
> But if you want a real answer: in the 1800s, Europe had a population that was about twice as large as Africa.
This doesn't explain India or China. Or the fact that Europe took on both, plus most of the continent of Africa.
> They also had gunpowder which was an innovation spread to Europe but originally invented in Asia.
Why were Europeans able to use it to conquer the world, but not the Chinese when they both had it?
With enough people you'll stumble on a lot by accident, but that doesn't mean they have the society to do anything practical with that knowledge.
> But if you want a real answer: in the 1800s, Europe had a population that was about twice as large as Africa.
This doesn't explain India or China. Or the fact that Europe took on both, plus most of the continent of Africa.
> They also had gunpowder which was an innovation spread to Europe but originally invented in Asia.
Why were Europeans able to use it to conquer the world, but not the Chinese when they both had it?
With enough people you'll stumble on a lot by accident, but that doesn't mean they have the society to do anything practical with that knowledge.
Anonymous J replied with this 5 months ago, 5 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,005
In the case of the Americas, since Europe had a higher population, Europeans lived in crowded cities more than Native Americans did. This meant that diseases were much more common in Europe than in the Americas, so Europeans developed a higher resistance to diseases than Native Americans, so when the Europeans arrived, about 90% of Native Americans died from disease. That has nothing to do with superior intelligence or ideology, that was just luck. If the Americas had had a higher population density, the opposite would have happened.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,006
@1,383,003 (J)
Leftists never seem to know the actual definition of racism/naziism. Attributing something to culture is not the same thing as attributing it to genetics, race, color or physical appearance.
Yet that mistake is commonly made on the left, and no one ever seems capable of learning the distinction.
Leftists never seem to know the actual definition of racism/naziism. Attributing something to culture is not the same thing as attributing it to genetics, race, color or physical appearance.
Yet that mistake is commonly made on the left, and no one ever seems capable of learning the distinction.
Anonymous J replied with this 5 months ago, 1 second later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,007
@1,383,004 (E)
Europe used to be poor so they had more incentive to be greedy than the Chinese or the Indians.
Europe used to be poor so they had more incentive to be greedy than the Chinese or the Indians.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,008
@1,383,005 (J)
Europeans lived in cities due to agriculture, and it's not a coincidence "culture" is in the word.
If Native Americans had agriculture, they would have fared much better.
Europeans lived in cities due to agriculture, and it's not a coincidence "culture" is in the word.
If Native Americans had agriculture, they would have fared much better.
Anonymous J replied with this 5 months ago, 18 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,009
@1,383,006 (E)
Well, I am black, so it’s kinda hard for me to accept arguments that Europeans are superior because you enslaved my ancestors. Especially when there’s so much racism against black people, Indians, and Chinese people. I don’t believe in this whole psychopathic might makes right sort of worldview, it’s completely amoral.
Well, I am black, so it’s kinda hard for me to accept arguments that Europeans are superior because you enslaved my ancestors. Especially when there’s so much racism against black people, Indians, and Chinese people. I don’t believe in this whole psychopathic might makes right sort of worldview, it’s completely amoral.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 29 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,010
@1,383,007 (J)
The Noble Savage argument? Europeans won because they were more cruel by choice, and these other countries (with histories of fighting bloody wars) just choose not to be greedy, lol.
The Noble Savage argument? Europeans won because they were more cruel by choice, and these other countries (with histories of fighting bloody wars) just choose not to be greedy, lol.
Anonymous J replied with this 5 months ago, 48 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,011
@previous (E)
I never said anything about savages, I’m just saying Europe used to be poorer than India and China.
I never said anything about savages, I’m just saying Europe used to be poorer than India and China.
Anonymous J double-posted this 5 months ago, 28 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,013
I’m not attributing anything to culture or ideology, just different circumstances.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,014
@1,383,009 (J)
> Well, I am black, so it’s kinda hard for me to accept arguments that Europeans are superior because you enslaved my ancestors.
Doing slavery doesn't change whether Europeans had a culture that gave them more capability as a society. If anything, one group enslaving another is how that type of thing is usually tested for most of human history.
> Especially when there’s so much racism against black people, Indians, and Chinese people. I don’t believe in this whole psychopathic might makes right sort of worldview, it’s completely amoral.
So again, you aren't capable of telling the difference between culture and race. Even after having it explained, you continue to confuse the two without even responding to the distinction I just laid out.
> Well, I am black, so it’s kinda hard for me to accept arguments that Europeans are superior because you enslaved my ancestors.
Doing slavery doesn't change whether Europeans had a culture that gave them more capability as a society. If anything, one group enslaving another is how that type of thing is usually tested for most of human history.
> Especially when there’s so much racism against black people, Indians, and Chinese people. I don’t believe in this whole psychopathic might makes right sort of worldview, it’s completely amoral.
So again, you aren't capable of telling the difference between culture and race. Even after having it explained, you continue to confuse the two without even responding to the distinction I just laid out.
Anonymous J replied with this 5 months ago, 17 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,015
If China had the same conditions as Europe they would have done the same thing, but China isn’t Europe. I’m just pointing out that the Chinese did have the technology to each east Africa, the Chinese invented gunpowder and guns, but China doesn’t really have a history of imperial conquest outside of China because China has so many resources that they never really needed to do that.
Anonymous J double-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,016
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,017
@1,383,011 (J)
You said those places weren't as greedy, which is a naive answer. The phrase "Nobel Savage" refers to an idea leftists have that the primitive societies were great, until mean Europeans came and destroyed it.
@1,383,013 (J)
> I’m not attributing anything to culture or ideology
Right, I am.
You're now pretending I said you did, when I clearly didn't.
You said those places weren't as greedy, which is a naive answer. The phrase "Nobel Savage" refers to an idea leftists have that the primitive societies were great, until mean Europeans came and destroyed it.
@1,383,013 (J)
> I’m not attributing anything to culture or ideology
Right, I am.
You're now pretending I said you did, when I clearly didn't.
Anonymous J replied with this 5 months ago, 4 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,018
How do you expect people who aren’t white Europeans to listen to you talk about how the worst thing that ever happened to their people is evidence that your way of life is better than their way of life? That’s not going to make people like you.
Anonymous J double-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,019
Like I don’t even get what the appeal of being that arrogant is in the first place. What’s wrong with you that you need to tell yourself this story that Europeans are better than everybody?
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 17 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,020
@1,383,015 (J)
> If China had the same conditions as Europe they would have done the same thing, but China isn’t Europe.
They had better conditions, and still failed.
> I’m just pointing out that the Chinese did have the technology to each east Africa, the Chinese invented gunpowder and guns, but China doesn’t really have a history of imperial conquest outside of China because China has so many resources that they never really needed to do that.
The knowledge of how to set up an imperial system is part of culture. They didn't have the culture necessary to do what the European did. It had nothing to do with resources.
> If China had the same conditions as Europe they would have done the same thing, but China isn’t Europe.
They had better conditions, and still failed.
> I’m just pointing out that the Chinese did have the technology to each east Africa, the Chinese invented gunpowder and guns, but China doesn’t really have a history of imperial conquest outside of China because China has so many resources that they never really needed to do that.
The knowledge of how to set up an imperial system is part of culture. They didn't have the culture necessary to do what the European did. It had nothing to do with resources.
Anonymous J replied with this 5 months ago, 42 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,021
Anonymous J double-posted this 5 months ago, 29 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,022
I feel like I’m talking to a psychopath or something.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 12 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,023
@1,383,018 (J)
> How do you expect people who aren’t white Europeans to listen to you talk about how the worst thing that ever happened to their people is evidence that your way of life is better than their way of life? That’s not going to make people like you.
Not everyone looks to say whatever will get them liked. Some people try to say things that are true, and adjust their words overtime to be more true based on new information.
It doesn't matter if it feels good, when two countries fought and one won, that's evidence of which was more able to make their will happen.
> How do you expect people who aren’t white Europeans to listen to you talk about how the worst thing that ever happened to their people is evidence that your way of life is better than their way of life? That’s not going to make people like you.
Not everyone looks to say whatever will get them liked. Some people try to say things that are true, and adjust their words overtime to be more true based on new information.
It doesn't matter if it feels good, when two countries fought and one won, that's evidence of which was more able to make their will happen.
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 months ago, 40 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,024
@1,383,019 (J)
> Like I don’t even get what the appeal of being that arrogant is in the first place. What’s wrong with you that you need to tell yourself this story that Europeans are better than everybody?
The point is to speak the truth, not signal arrogance or humility.
> Like I don’t even get what the appeal of being that arrogant is in the first place. What’s wrong with you that you need to tell yourself this story that Europeans are better than everybody?
The point is to speak the truth, not signal arrogance or humility.
Anonymous J replied with this 5 months ago, 1 second later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,025
Like what do you want me to say? Do you want me to say I think European culture is superior to African culture?
You can’t be so stupid that you can’t understand why that isn’t going to happen.
You can’t be so stupid that you can’t understand why that isn’t going to happen.
Anonymous J double-posted this 5 months ago, 33 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,026
Anonymous J triple-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,027
Like you have to understand that both of us are human, and just the same way you act in your own rational self interest, so do I. I have to protect my own interests and this whole idea that you have that Europeans are superior to Africans is something that I can’t accept. Just on fundamental principles. On a certain level, it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or false.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 5 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,028
@1,383,021 (J)
China could have built an imperial state and commanded countries respect national boundaries, ban opium, and prevent exploiting colonies.
Why didn't they? Because they didn't know how. Instead the European empires came, China couldn't defend itself, and the result is clearly not something you see as good either.
It's not that China allowed it to happen because they're nice, it's that they were unable to stop Europeans because they were so much less advanced.
China could have built an imperial state and commanded countries respect national boundaries, ban opium, and prevent exploiting colonies.
Why didn't they? Because they didn't know how. Instead the European empires came, China couldn't defend itself, and the result is clearly not something you see as good either.
It's not that China allowed it to happen because they're nice, it's that they were unable to stop Europeans because they were so much less advanced.
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 months ago, 54 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,029
@1,383,025 (J)
> Like what do you want me to say? Do you want me to say I think European culture is superior to African culture?
You should defend your stance instead of posting multiple comments expressing your indignance.
> You can’t be so stupid that you can’t understand why that isn’t going to happen.
You made up a strawman, and then called me stupid for the thing you just made up.
> Like what do you want me to say? Do you want me to say I think European culture is superior to African culture?
You should defend your stance instead of posting multiple comments expressing your indignance.
> You can’t be so stupid that you can’t understand why that isn’t going to happen.
You made up a strawman, and then called me stupid for the thing you just made up.
Anonymous J replied with this 5 months ago, 37 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,030
Like, let’s just say for a second, white people really are superior in some way to black people, but I’m a black person, and I can press one of two buttons, one kills all black people, the other kills all white people. If I’m a black person, it doesn’t matter what the truth is, I’ll kill all white people in order to save myself and my own race. It is not possible for the world to accept your ideology and you will make an enemy out of a lot of people by talking this way.
Anonymous J double-posted this 5 months ago, 51 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,031
Either you get it or you don’t, I said what I said.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 45 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,032
@1,383,026 (J)
> you’re just a guy who thinks you know everything.
Can you explain what I think I know specifically?
Did I say something that wasn't true? One specific thing you can point to that is inaccurate?
> you’re just a guy who thinks you know everything.
Can you explain what I think I know specifically?
Did I say something that wasn't true? One specific thing you can point to that is inaccurate?
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,033
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 9 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,034
@1,383,030 (J)
> Like, let’s just say for a second, white people really are superior in some way to black people
See? After explaining it twice, you still continue to pretend I attributed it to race, when I didn't.
Each time, you ignored that I made the distinction, and now you're at it again.
I'm going to stop the conversation until you can explain the difference between culture and race, and tell me which one I said was responsible. If I keep going, you'll just ignore this a third time and keep repeating the strawman.
> Like, let’s just say for a second, white people really are superior in some way to black people
See? After explaining it twice, you still continue to pretend I attributed it to race, when I didn't.
Each time, you ignored that I made the distinction, and now you're at it again.
I'm going to stop the conversation until you can explain the difference between culture and race, and tell me which one I said was responsible. If I keep going, you'll just ignore this a third time and keep repeating the strawman.
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 months ago, 29 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,035
@1,383,033 (K)
> You think you’re smart for some reason. You’re not smart you’re just stubborn.
So no, you can't name one single thing I've said that's inaccurate. Instead you'll ignore the question, and call me names.
> You think you’re smart for some reason. You’re not smart you’re just stubborn.
So no, you can't name one single thing I've said that's inaccurate. Instead you'll ignore the question, and call me names.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 34 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,036
@1,383,034 (E)
I don’t care if you attribute it to race or not. I’m not willing to accept that Europeans are superior in any way.
I don’t care if you attribute it to race or not. I’m not willing to accept that Europeans are superior in any way.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 28 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,037
@1,383,035 (E)
I think everything you’ve said is inaccurate but I didn’t say that because I was trying to be polite.
I think everything you’ve said is inaccurate but I didn’t say that because I was trying to be polite.
Anonymous K triple-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,038
I just find it amazing how much you don’t understand anything from my perspective.
Anonymous K quadruple-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,039
I can tell that you’re very impressed with yourself but I don’t know if you realize this, but there isn’t a single thing you’ve ever said to me that changed my mind about anything. You’ve never made an argument I thought was a good argument and you’ve never said anything that I agree with.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,040
@1,383,037 (K)
> I think everything you’ve said is inaccurate but I didn’t say that because I was trying to be polite.
So no, you can't name one single thing still.
You can make post after post saying something is inaccurate, but will never give a solid example.
> I think everything you’ve said is inaccurate but I didn’t say that because I was trying to be polite.
So no, you can't name one single thing still.
You can make post after post saying something is inaccurate, but will never give a solid example.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 52 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,041
And I’ve said this before but I’ll say it again, if I’m not European I can’t accept that Europeans are superior to me somehow, because that’s an existential threat to my existence. I don’t know how you can’t get that through your thick skull. You can only convince a white person of this. If someone isn’t white, they’ll never agree with you.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 14 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,042
@1,383,039 (K)
So you still can't think of one single example of something I said that was inaccurate.
Just another post saying there are some, but you just can't tell me.
So you still can't think of one single example of something I said that was inaccurate.
Just another post saying there are some, but you just can't tell me.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 15 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,043
@1,383,040 (E)
The only thing I’ve ever done is tell you how you’re wrong over and over and over again.
The only thing I’ve ever done is tell you how you’re wrong over and over and over again.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 43 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,044
@1,383,042 (E)
This isn’t a debate. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m trying to make you understand my perspective, but I’m starting to think you’re a psychopath.
This isn’t a debate. I’m not trying to change your mind. I’m trying to make you understand my perspective, but I’m starting to think you’re a psychopath.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 7 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,045
@1,383,041 (K)
You're just admitting that you can't refute the points, and are sticking to your point because of you're own bias.
You're just admitting that you can't refute the points, and are sticking to your point because of you're own bias.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 41 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,046
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 11 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,047
@1,383,044 (K)
> This isn’t a debate. I’m not trying to change your mind.
Great, but if you want to say I'm wrong, I'll point out that you are unable to give an example.
> I’m trying to make you understand my perspective, but I’m starting to think you’re a psychopath.
I understand your perspective, and being biased in favor of a position doesn't make it right.
> This isn’t a debate. I’m not trying to change your mind.
Great, but if you want to say I'm wrong, I'll point out that you are unable to give an example.
> I’m trying to make you understand my perspective, but I’m starting to think you’re a psychopath.
I understand your perspective, and being biased in favor of a position doesn't make it right.
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 months ago, 16 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,048
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 47 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,049
@1,383,047 (E)
I don’t care if I’m right or I’m wrong. I’m saying that if I’m black, I can’t accept that whites are superior to me.
I don’t care if I’m right or I’m wrong. I’m saying that if I’m black, I can’t accept that whites are superior to me.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 42 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,050
This isn’t a subject that we can debate and you can change my mind. You can’t just debate whether or not my existence as a human is valid.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 8 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,051
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 55 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,052
@previous (E)
On some level, truth doesn’t matter. Our interests are fundamental. And my interests as a human person fundamentally contradict the argument that you’re making.
On some level, truth doesn’t matter. Our interests are fundamental. And my interests as a human person fundamentally contradict the argument that you’re making.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,054
Whether or not your argument is true or false is of no concern to me. On some level, it is simple, which culture is better or worse is a question of value and value is subjective, therefore you technically can never be objectively correct or incorrect. So I know that the argument you’re making isn’t true in a strict sense. That doesn’t mean it’s false either. But what I do know is that it contradicts my interests, and the fact that you like something that contradicts my existence on earth makes you a threat to me.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 21 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,055
@1,383,052 (K)
> On some level, truth doesn’t matter.
This is the core of why many societies fail, because they actually believe that reality doesn't matter, but it does.
> Our interests are fundamental. And my interests as a human person fundamentally contradict the argument that you’re making.
No, accepting that european culture was more advanced doesn't contradict that interest, it's necessary to actually improve.
"It makes me uncomfortable, so I won't believe it" is the escapist sentiment that causes the people that think this way to become delusional. That delusion causes problems for the individual and entire nation.
> On some level, truth doesn’t matter.
This is the core of why many societies fail, because they actually believe that reality doesn't matter, but it does.
> Our interests are fundamental. And my interests as a human person fundamentally contradict the argument that you’re making.
No, accepting that european culture was more advanced doesn't contradict that interest, it's necessary to actually improve.
"It makes me uncomfortable, so I won't believe it" is the escapist sentiment that causes the people that think this way to become delusional. That delusion causes problems for the individual and entire nation.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,056
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 27 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,057
It doesn’t make me uncomfortable.
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous K triple-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,058
I don’t think you understand and I don’t know why you don’t understand. What you’re proposing is you or me. Essentially. If you are superior to me, then there’s no room left for me. So I need to get rid of you. That’s what your argument is to me essentially. I’m not uncomfortable about it, it’s just that it leaves me with one option.
(Edited 8 seconds later.)
Anonymous K quadruple-posted this 5 months ago, 32 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,059
And if you don’t want me to get rid of you, then you should stop making that argument.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 31 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,060
@1,383,054 (K)
> Whether or not your argument is true or false is of no concern to me.
That's why many countries adopted ideologies that didn't work, because they never cared if the ideology fit the truth.
> On some level, it is simple, which culture is better or worse is a question of value and value is subjective, therefore you technically can never be objectively correct or incorrect.
No, because you can take an American, Indian, Chinese, African, and others and ask them. They all like to have enough food, community, and security of their body.
Any of those countries would have preferred to have the capability to defend themselves, it wasn't a unique part of their culture to be submissive and poor.
> So I know that the argument you’re making isn’t true in a strict sense. That doesn’t mean it’s false either.
It's true that some cultures are better able to produce wealth, and stay safe. That isn't subjective, even if technically anyone could value anything.
> But what I do know is that it contradicts my interests, and the fact that you like something that contradicts my existence on earth makes you a threat to me.
No, learning the truth is how you advance your interests, and you'll be unable to do that if you just decide it's your truth that socialism works. Every time someone does, they suffer materially for that mistaken belief.
> Whether or not your argument is true or false is of no concern to me.
That's why many countries adopted ideologies that didn't work, because they never cared if the ideology fit the truth.
> On some level, it is simple, which culture is better or worse is a question of value and value is subjective, therefore you technically can never be objectively correct or incorrect.
No, because you can take an American, Indian, Chinese, African, and others and ask them. They all like to have enough food, community, and security of their body.
Any of those countries would have preferred to have the capability to defend themselves, it wasn't a unique part of their culture to be submissive and poor.
> So I know that the argument you’re making isn’t true in a strict sense. That doesn’t mean it’s false either.
It's true that some cultures are better able to produce wealth, and stay safe. That isn't subjective, even if technically anyone could value anything.
> But what I do know is that it contradicts my interests, and the fact that you like something that contradicts my existence on earth makes you a threat to me.
No, learning the truth is how you advance your interests, and you'll be unable to do that if you just decide it's your truth that socialism works. Every time someone does, they suffer materially for that mistaken belief.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 17 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,061
The fact that I have to explain this to you honestly means you can’t possibly be very smart.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 45 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,062
How are you not understanding what I’m saying?
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 40 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,063
@1,383,058 (K)
> What you’re proposing is you or me. Essentially. If you are superior to me, then there’s no room left for me. So I need to get rid of you. That’s what your argument is to me essentially.
No, I didn't say that, but I did say that if two are fighting and one is able to win despite having fewer resources that does show which is better at using what they have.
The rest of it: the need to eliminate others, is a strawman you made up to avoid addressing what I really said.
> What you’re proposing is you or me. Essentially. If you are superior to me, then there’s no room left for me. So I need to get rid of you. That’s what your argument is to me essentially.
No, I didn't say that, but I did say that if two are fighting and one is able to win despite having fewer resources that does show which is better at using what they have.
The rest of it: the need to eliminate others, is a strawman you made up to avoid addressing what I really said.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 3 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,064
If you’re arguing that you’re superior to me, that means we can’t coexist and I need to kill you in order to ensure my existence. How do you not understand how making this argument is a bad idea?
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 43 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,065
It doesn’t matter whether this is how you’re interpreting what you’re saying it’s how I’m interpreting what you’re saying.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 17 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,066
@1,383,062 (K)
I understand what you're saying, because if I got it wrong you'd simply point out my error.
You think that because an idea says your ancestors had an inferior culture, you will reject it because you think it somehow advances your interests.
Did I get that wrong?
I understand what you're saying, because if I got it wrong you'd simply point out my error.
You think that because an idea says your ancestors had an inferior culture, you will reject it because you think it somehow advances your interests.
Did I get that wrong?
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 29 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,067
It doesn’t matter if you are superior or not, either way, the fact that you feel the need to argue it means you’re an existential threat to my existence.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,069
@1,383,066 (E)
I think that if an idea says that my ancestors had an inferior culture, in order to prevent myself from becoming victims like them I need to kill the people who did that to my ancestors so that they no longer exist and I can live in peace.
I think that if an idea says that my ancestors had an inferior culture, in order to prevent myself from becoming victims like them I need to kill the people who did that to my ancestors so that they no longer exist and I can live in peace.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 29 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,070
@1,383,064 (K)
> If you’re arguing that you’re superior to me, that means we can’t coexist and I need to kill you in order to ensure my existence.
Why would that be? You made a big from premise to conclusion, and didn't explain it.
Do you feel the need to eliminate anything less than you? If not, why would you attribute that motivation to me?
> How do you not understand how making this argument is a bad idea?
I don't, which is why I never said that. You made this up as a strawman, and I invite you to quote me exactly where I said people need to kill those inferior to them.
> If you’re arguing that you’re superior to me, that means we can’t coexist and I need to kill you in order to ensure my existence.
Why would that be? You made a big from premise to conclusion, and didn't explain it.
Do you feel the need to eliminate anything less than you? If not, why would you attribute that motivation to me?
> How do you not understand how making this argument is a bad idea?
I don't, which is why I never said that. You made this up as a strawman, and I invite you to quote me exactly where I said people need to kill those inferior to them.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 17 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,071
I already know what happened when Europeans conquered the world the first time. What I need to do is make sure it can never happen again. So if someone starts justifying it or saying that Europeans are superior, I need to end that persons existence on Earth.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 25 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,072
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 9 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,073
@1,383,067 (K)
> It doesn’t matter if you are superior or not, either way, the fact that you feel the need to argue it means you’re an existential threat to my existence.
It really doesn't, you never explain this jump in reasoning.
> It doesn’t matter if you are superior or not, either way, the fact that you feel the need to argue it means you’re an existential threat to my existence.
It really doesn't, you never explain this jump in reasoning.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 30 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,074
@previous (E)
You don’t understand that I’m a human is why you can’t understand it because you’re a psychopath.
You don’t understand that I’m a human is why you can’t understand it because you’re a psychopath.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 54 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,075
The problem is that I’m equal to you. You would kill me if I tried to get rid of you. I would kill you if you tried to get rid of me. But you’re incapable of understanding that.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 2 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,076
@1,383,071 (K)
The colonized felt the same way, but it didn't work, because reality doesn't care if you accept it.
@1,383,072 (K)
No, I'm pointing out that you are making up strawman arguments. If you pretend I said something I didn't, I'll point out I never said it.
The colonized felt the same way, but it didn't work, because reality doesn't care if you accept it.
@1,383,072 (K)
No, I'm pointing out that you are making up strawman arguments. If you pretend I said something I didn't, I'll point out I never said it.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 30 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,077
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 5 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,078
@1,383,074 (K)
> You don’t understand that I’m a human is why you can’t understand it because you’re a psychopath.
Again, a strawman. Why do you need to make up things to respond to, instead of responding to what I actually said?
Because you can't find anything untrue about what I said.
> You don’t understand that I’m a human is why you can’t understand it because you’re a psychopath.
Again, a strawman. Why do you need to make up things to respond to, instead of responding to what I actually said?
Because you can't find anything untrue about what I said.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 40 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,079
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 20 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,080
@1,383,075 (K)
People try to defend themselves, I understand that.
@1,383,077 (K)
What did I do that was evil?
People try to defend themselves, I understand that.
@1,383,077 (K)
What did I do that was evil?
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 10 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,081
I’ve talked to a lot of people on the internet, you’re the worst one.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 15 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,082
Anonymous K triple-posted this 5 months ago, 27 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,083
Evil isn’t a thing it’s the lack of a thing. Ask yourself what I have that you don’t. You’ll never be able to answer that question.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 28 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,084
@1,383,079 (K)
> I’m not making an argument.
Correct, you're making multiple statements expressing anger, but refusing to clarify what I did that was wrong.
> You still think this is a debate.
It's not a debate, but I'll point out when you make something up, and I'll defend what I actually said.
> I’m not making an argument.
Correct, you're making multiple statements expressing anger, but refusing to clarify what I did that was wrong.
> You still think this is a debate.
It's not a debate, but I'll point out when you make something up, and I'll defend what I actually said.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 10 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,085
You just completely lack empathy.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 16 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,086
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,087
@1,383,085 (K)
Speaking the truth, and being empathetic are not mutually exclusive.
It's not "empathetic" to lie because it feels good.
Empathy is understanding another person's perspective, and I do understand yours, because I rephrased it and you never pointed out an issue. It's a simple point to understand, though it is flawed.
Speaking the truth, and being empathetic are not mutually exclusive.
It's not "empathetic" to lie because it feels good.
Empathy is understanding another person's perspective, and I do understand yours, because I rephrased it and you never pointed out an issue. It's a simple point to understand, though it is flawed.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 6 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,088
@1,383,086 (E)
You’re arguing that Europeans are superior to Africans to an African and you don’t understand why I think you’re evil? I wish I could make you understand.
You’re arguing that Europeans are superior to Africans to an African and you don’t understand why I think you’re evil? I wish I could make you understand.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 18 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,089
Anonymous K triple-posted this 5 months ago, 28 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,090
I hate the way you pretend to be objective like you think you’re God or something.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,091
@previous (K)
> I hate the way you pretend to be objective like you think you’re God or something.
Everyone should try to be objective, you don't need to be a god to work towards the truth.
> I hate the way you pretend to be objective like you think you’re God or something.
Everyone should try to be objective, you don't need to be a god to work towards the truth.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 57 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,092
@previous (E)
You’re not though. But you pretend to be. You have this affect like you’re pretending to be a robot that can only understand truth but you keep saying so much stupid shit.
You’re not though. But you pretend to be. You have this affect like you’re pretending to be a robot that can only understand truth but you keep saying so much stupid shit.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 4 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,093
@1,383,089 (K)
> You’re not telling the truth though. I’m not inferior to you.
Again, that's a strawman you made up to avoid responding to anything I actually said.
Each time you lie about something I said, I will point it out, and that doesn't mean I'm debating.
> You’re not telling the truth though. I’m not inferior to you.
Again, that's a strawman you made up to avoid responding to anything I actually said.
Each time you lie about something I said, I will point it out, and that doesn't mean I'm debating.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 21 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,094
I just want to know who told you that you were smart so I can punch them in the face.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,095
@1,383,093 (E)
See what I mean? You keep repeating these statements "straw man" "I’ll keep pointing out your lies" like you think you’re some objective bearer of truth instead of just some fucking asshole guy on the internet with stupid opinions almost nobody in the real world agrees with.
See what I mean? You keep repeating these statements "straw man" "I’ll keep pointing out your lies" like you think you’re some objective bearer of truth instead of just some fucking asshole guy on the internet with stupid opinions almost nobody in the real world agrees with.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 27 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,096
@1,383,092 (K)
> You’re not though. But you pretend to be. You have this affect like you’re pretending to be a robot that can only understand truth
You can be human and choose to speak the truth.
> but you keep saying so much stupid shit.
Yet you still can't name a single thing I've said that's inaccurate. You just keep saying there are things, and avoiding giving a solid example. When you do, it's always responding to a point you made up instead (strawman), instead of anything I actually said.
> You’re not though. But you pretend to be. You have this affect like you’re pretending to be a robot that can only understand truth
You can be human and choose to speak the truth.
> but you keep saying so much stupid shit.
Yet you still can't name a single thing I've said that's inaccurate. You just keep saying there are things, and avoiding giving a solid example. When you do, it's always responding to a point you made up instead (strawman), instead of anything I actually said.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 34 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,097
Like who the fuck told you that you’re some super smart debate bro that doesn’t have feelings and is purely logical and only believes the truth? Who the fuck told you that?
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,098
Do you actually think that just because you say you speak the truth that means you speak the truth? Anyone can say they speak the truth and then make up any crazy lie they want, that doesn’t make it true. It just makes you look like a retard.
Anonymous K triple-posted this 5 months ago, 36 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,099
Like who raised you to be this way? Where’d you grow up that people let you talk like this and nobody punched you in the stomach?
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 2 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,100
@1,383,095 (K)
> See what I mean? You keep repeating these statements "straw man" "I’ll keep pointing out your lies" like you think you’re some objective bearer of truth
So if I point it out when you lie, and misrepresent my argument then I'm "acting smart".
So I shouldn't point out when you do that, so I can look less arrogant.
That's convenient, because then you can keep making things up when you don't know how to respond!
> instead of just some fucking asshole guy on the internet with stupid opinions almost nobody in the real world agrees with.
It's not an opinion that European powers won those conflicts, or that they had fewer resources.
I've met a lot of people that agree with me in the real world.
> See what I mean? You keep repeating these statements "straw man" "I’ll keep pointing out your lies" like you think you’re some objective bearer of truth
So if I point it out when you lie, and misrepresent my argument then I'm "acting smart".
So I shouldn't point out when you do that, so I can look less arrogant.
That's convenient, because then you can keep making things up when you don't know how to respond!
> instead of just some fucking asshole guy on the internet with stupid opinions almost nobody in the real world agrees with.
It's not an opinion that European powers won those conflicts, or that they had fewer resources.
I've met a lot of people that agree with me in the real world.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 29 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,101
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 20 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,102
Are you even a real person? I feel like I’m not talking to a human.
Anonymous K triple-posted this 5 months ago, 30 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,103
Do you not have the ability to just talk and have a conversation like every other normal human being on the planet?
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 47 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,104
@1,383,097 (K)
Then point out my error if you see it, but try to use something I actually said. Quote me.
@1,383,098 (K)
> Do you actually think that just because you say you speak the truth that means you speak the truth?
No, it's when no one can find an error that I start believing it's the truth.
Once the only responses are emotional attacks, name calling, and rhetorical questions I know I've got a solid argument.
> Anyone can say they speak the truth and then make up any crazy lie they want, that doesn’t make it true.
In that situation you could quote them and then point out the crazy lie! That would reveal them to be incorrect.
Then point out my error if you see it, but try to use something I actually said. Quote me.
@1,383,098 (K)
> Do you actually think that just because you say you speak the truth that means you speak the truth?
No, it's when no one can find an error that I start believing it's the truth.
Once the only responses are emotional attacks, name calling, and rhetorical questions I know I've got a solid argument.
> Anyone can say they speak the truth and then make up any crazy lie they want, that doesn’t make it true.
In that situation you could quote them and then point out the crazy lie! That would reveal them to be incorrect.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 39 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,105
Like fucking saying that Europeans are superior because they raped and murdered and enslaved my ancestors isn’t some cute little intellectual debate bro "haha facts and logic don’t care about your feelings" shit. If you talk like this in real life, how the fuck do you have friends? What kind of person would ever put up with your personality?
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 19 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,106
You’re such a fucking weirdo.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 13 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,107
@1,383,101 (K)
Caring about the truth isn't mental illness.
@1,383,102 (K)
Calling someone a bot is a common way to get out of the part where you show the error.
@1,383,103 (K)
Hi, nice to meet you, can you explain what I've said that is incorrect?
Caring about the truth isn't mental illness.
@1,383,102 (K)
Calling someone a bot is a common way to get out of the part where you show the error.
@1,383,103 (K)
Hi, nice to meet you, can you explain what I've said that is incorrect?
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 42 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,108
@1,383,104 (E)
I don’t have to do anything you tell me to do. I can do whatever I want. I don’t have to prove shit to you. You’ve already proven to me you probably couldn’t understand a rock if it hit you in the face because "the rock can’t explain to me why it’s harder than my skull is."
I don’t have to do anything you tell me to do. I can do whatever I want. I don’t have to prove shit to you. You’ve already proven to me you probably couldn’t understand a rock if it hit you in the face because "the rock can’t explain to me why it’s harder than my skull is."
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 42 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,109
@1,383,107 (E)
What’s incorrect? How about your shitty personality let’s start with that. Why do you talk like an autistic retard that doesn’t understand how to interact with people?
What’s incorrect? How about your shitty personality let’s start with that. Why do you talk like an autistic retard that doesn’t understand how to interact with people?
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 28 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,110
@1,383,105 (K)
> Like fucking saying that Europeans are superior because they raped and murdered and enslaved my ancestors isn’t some cute little intellectual debate bro "haha facts and logic don’t care about your feelings" shit.
It's also not the argument I made, it's a strawman you made up because you were unable to respond to an actual quote from me.
> If you talk like this in real life, how the fuck do you have friends? What kind of person would ever put up with your personality?
Depends. I understand that people get emotional and make things up to preserve their pride, so I don't bother because it will devolve into them making threats and name-calling. So I don't talk like that with those people.
If someone can control their emotions, and likes to talk, I will in person because saying something true but uncomfortable won't get an unstable reaction.
> Like fucking saying that Europeans are superior because they raped and murdered and enslaved my ancestors isn’t some cute little intellectual debate bro "haha facts and logic don’t care about your feelings" shit.
It's also not the argument I made, it's a strawman you made up because you were unable to respond to an actual quote from me.
> If you talk like this in real life, how the fuck do you have friends? What kind of person would ever put up with your personality?
Depends. I understand that people get emotional and make things up to preserve their pride, so I don't bother because it will devolve into them making threats and name-calling. So I don't talk like that with those people.
If someone can control their emotions, and likes to talk, I will in person because saying something true but uncomfortable won't get an unstable reaction.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 54 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,111
@previous (E)
Yeah right. The only reason why you don’t have emotions is because you’re autistic as fuck. It’s not because you’re smart. You’re not smart. You’re socially retarded.
Yeah right. The only reason why you don’t have emotions is because you’re autistic as fuck. It’s not because you’re smart. You’re not smart. You’re socially retarded.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 second later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,112
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 23 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,113
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 43 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,114
You can’t just go around having debates that some people are inferior to other people. You’re lucky this is on the internet. In real life people will beat your ass over that.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 21 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,115
@1,383,111 (K)
My view here is that I can keep my emotions in check, and you can't, I never made any claims about my intelligence.
My view here is that I can keep my emotions in check, and you can't, I never made any claims about my intelligence.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 25 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,116
@previous (E)
You don’t have emotions because you’re a mental retard. It’s not because something is better about you.
You don’t have emotions because you’re a mental retard. It’s not because something is better about you.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 56 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,117
@1,383,114 (K)
> You can’t just go around having debates that some people are inferior to other people.
I can, but it makes people mad they can't silence true statements that make them feel uncomfortable.
> You’re lucky this is on the internet. In real life people will beat your ass over that.
Not lucky, as I said I pick who I'll talk to in real life. Some people will lose control and pretend someone said something they didn't to save face, so I avoid those people altogether.
> You can’t just go around having debates that some people are inferior to other people.
I can, but it makes people mad they can't silence true statements that make them feel uncomfortable.
> You’re lucky this is on the internet. In real life people will beat your ass over that.
Not lucky, as I said I pick who I'll talk to in real life. Some people will lose control and pretend someone said something they didn't to save face, so I avoid those people altogether.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 4 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,118
@1,383,115 (E)
> My view here is that I can keep my emotions in check, and you can't
Oh, so you don’t want me to insult you. You want me to be nice to you and let you lecture me on how you think you’re better than me. That’s what you want right? Right?
Why don’t you go fuck yourself.
> My view here is that I can keep my emotions in check, and you can't
Oh, so you don’t want me to insult you. You want me to be nice to you and let you lecture me on how you think you’re better than me. That’s what you want right? Right?
Why don’t you go fuck yourself.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 35 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,119
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 23 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,120
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 22 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,121
You never answered my question about who told you that you were smart? Was it your parents? Who was it?
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 7 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,122
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 34 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,123
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 4 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,124
@1,383,121 (K)
> You never answered my question about who told you that you were smart?
I didn't make any claims about my intelligence.
> You never answered my question about who told you that you were smart?
I didn't make any claims about my intelligence.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 12 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,125
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 19 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,126
Who told you that you were smart?
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 32 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,127
@1,383,123 (K)
I've noticed that most people who can't control their emotions try to make emotional regulation seem like a bad thing.
I've noticed that most people who can't control their emotions try to make emotional regulation seem like a bad thing.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 15 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,128
Either it was somebody or it was nobody. If it was nobody, well maybe you should have listened.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 38 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,129
@1,383,127 (E)
Emotions exist for a reason. Do you think we evolved for 4 billion years and we just have a part of our brain that serves no purpose?
Emotions exist for a reason. Do you think we evolved for 4 billion years and we just have a part of our brain that serves no purpose?
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 14 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,130
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 17 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,131
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 46 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,132
@1,383,130 (E)
> You want me to explain something I didn't say?
This right here is dishonesty. The question, "who told you that you were smart?" That question has an answer no matter what you said. You’re not honest, you’re a liar.
> You want me to explain something I didn't say?
This right here is dishonesty. The question, "who told you that you were smart?" That question has an answer no matter what you said. You’re not honest, you’re a liar.
Anonymous K triple-posted this 5 months ago, 41 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,133
And the fact that you won’t answer the simple question makes me think the answer is that nobody ever told you that you were smart.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 22 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,134
@1,383,129 (K)
I think there's a reason humans stand out, and it's in our superior ability to reason.
Emotions are simple reactions that work better than nothing. Reason is a higher form of thought that allows everything nice in modern civilization.
I think there's a reason humans stand out, and it's in our superior ability to reason.
Emotions are simple reactions that work better than nothing. Reason is a higher form of thought that allows everything nice in modern civilization.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 8 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,135
Maybe you should have listened when nobody told you that you were smart.
And if you don’t think that sentence makes sense, well maybe that’s a part of it.
And if you don’t think that sentence makes sense, well maybe that’s a part of it.
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 49 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,136
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 21 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,137
@1,383,132 (K)
Refusing to go on a tangent that is irrelevant to the conversation so you can have a build-up for a personal attack isn't lying.
Lying is when you knowingly say something untrue.
@1,383,133 (K)
That's fine, I never made any claims about my intelligence.
Refusing to go on a tangent that is irrelevant to the conversation so you can have a build-up for a personal attack isn't lying.
Lying is when you knowingly say something untrue.
@1,383,133 (K)
That's fine, I never made any claims about my intelligence.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 25 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,138
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 23 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,139
@1,383,136 (K)
Spock's view that reason should take precedent over emotion is a wise one, everyone should try to act civilized.
Spock's view that reason should take precedent over emotion is a wise one, everyone should try to act civilized.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 13 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,140
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 4 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,141
@1,383,138 (K)
If you ever feel like backing that up by showing a factual error I made, then please do.
If you ever feel like backing that up by showing a factual error I made, then please do.
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 months ago, 19 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,142
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 19 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,143
@1,383,139 (E)
Eh, so you’re a Star Trek fan. What is your logical reason with no emotions for watching Star Trek?
Eh, so you’re a Star Trek fan. What is your logical reason with no emotions for watching Star Trek?
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 22 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,144
Actually screw that, I don’t want to know what retarded shit you’re going to say in response to that question.
Anonymous K triple-posted this 5 months ago, 39 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,145
Is this whole thing just an autistic role play you do where you think you’re Spock?
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 13 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,146
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 38 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,147
@previous (E)
Jesus I thought you were going to say something stupid but I didn’t think it was going to be that pretentious.
Jesus I thought you were going to say something stupid but I didn’t think it was going to be that pretentious.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 5 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,148
@1,383,145 (K)
> Is this whole thing just an autistic role play you do where you think you’re Spock?
Acting out virtues is intentional, but not a role play. If you disagree, identify a fallacy.
> Is this whole thing just an autistic role play you do where you think you’re Spock?
Acting out virtues is intentional, but not a role play. If you disagree, identify a fallacy.
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 28 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,149
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 10 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,150
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 15 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,151
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 16 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,152
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 20 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,153
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 25 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,154
Anonymous K replied with this 5 months ago, 17 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,155
Anonymous K double-posted this 5 months ago, 28 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,156
This means I win. 😎
Anonymous K triple-posted this 5 months ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,157
Anonymous K quadruple-posted this 5 months ago, 3 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,158
You know what? Now that I think about it, psychopaths are bad because psychopaths are evil. Autistic people can be really nice people but they just don’t understand emotions sometimes. You’re not just autistic, you’re not just a psychopath, you were an autistic psychopath. But I defeated you so I win. P_P
Anonymous K quintuple-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,159
Alright, now that I’ve defeated the final boss I’ve gotta buy a new game.
🫡 joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 15 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,160
And now nobody will ever read this entire thread again except yandexbot and bings web crawler, and maybe google.
WHOOOO!
WHOOOO!
🫡 double-posted this 5 months ago, 58 seconds later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,161
You know what? I’ve defeated the Ender Dragon, how about the wither? Never done that. I’m gonna do that next.
🫡 triple-posted this 5 months ago, 2 minutes later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,162
I’ve already found a nether fortress actually. And I have soul sand. How many withers do I need to kill to get three wither skulls? Hmm… the probability of dropping a wither skull is lower than the Harvard acceptance rate.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 1 hour later, 5 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,183
Western supremacy is the dumbest shit ever
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 1 day later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,507
Anonymous N double-posted this 5 months ago, 22 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,510
@1,383,154 (E)
> Too juvenile, I'm going to go now, goodbye.
I would have ended the argument much sooner, after this:
@1,383,027 (J)
> On a certain level, it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or false.
There is absolutely no point in debating somebody who doesn't care about truth and is satisfied with making up, believing in, and asserting their own version of history.
The fundamental concept, value, virtue and extreme importance placed on Veritas is almost uniquely European, and is one of the main reasons culture became more advanced there and ended up taking over the world.
> Too juvenile, I'm going to go now, goodbye.
I would have ended the argument much sooner, after this:
@1,383,027 (J)
> On a certain level, it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or false.
There is absolutely no point in debating somebody who doesn't care about truth and is satisfied with making up, believing in, and asserting their own version of history.
The fundamental concept, value, virtue and extreme importance placed on Veritas is almost uniquely European, and is one of the main reasons culture became more advanced there and ended up taking over the world.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 11 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,511
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 months ago, 3 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,512
@1,383,510 (N)
> I would have ended the argument much sooner, after this:
> > On a certain level, it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or false.
> There is absolutely no point in debating somebody who doesn't care about truth and is satisfied with making up, believing in, and asserting their own version of history.
> The fundamental concept, value, virtue and extreme importance placed on Veritas is almost uniquely European, and is one of the main reasons culture became more advanced there and ended up taking over the world.
I agree, but at a certain point it's just an exercise in rhetoric personally.
It's also being lost as a virtue in the west, mostly from the feminine side who are open about their disdain for truth and reason. Do you think there's a reason it spawned in Europe, and any idea what maintained it? My guess is that it's a byproduct of Christianity, but not certain.
> I would have ended the argument much sooner, after this:
> > On a certain level, it doesn’t matter whether it’s true or false.
> There is absolutely no point in debating somebody who doesn't care about truth and is satisfied with making up, believing in, and asserting their own version of history.
> The fundamental concept, value, virtue and extreme importance placed on Veritas is almost uniquely European, and is one of the main reasons culture became more advanced there and ended up taking over the world.
I agree, but at a certain point it's just an exercise in rhetoric personally.
It's also being lost as a virtue in the west, mostly from the feminine side who are open about their disdain for truth and reason. Do you think there's a reason it spawned in Europe, and any idea what maintained it? My guess is that it's a byproduct of Christianity, but not certain.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 2 hours later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,529
I’m going to be honest, I actually don’t like European culture.
Anonymous O double-posted this 5 months ago, 4 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,530
@1,383,512 (E)
It blows my mind that you think you’re being objective and you’re spewing nonsense like "femininity has a distain for truth and reason" and attributing the success of European empires to religion.
You’re just a weirdo religious fanatic pretending to be objective. It definitely explains your fanaticism.
It blows my mind that you think you’re being objective and you’re spewing nonsense like "femininity has a distain for truth and reason" and attributing the success of European empires to religion.
You’re just a weirdo religious fanatic pretending to be objective. It definitely explains your fanaticism.
Anonymous O triple-posted this 5 months ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,531
But hey, I guess if you think women are feminine and femininity is opposed to logic and reasoning, and you think that you’re all about logic and reasoning, then I guess that means you don’t like women since you don’t like femininity. I’m sure that’s just sooooooo compatible with your Christian nationalist ideals. (Yes I’m calling you gay).
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 6 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,532
The idea that the west is superior for oppressing other parts of the world doesn’t seem very Christian actually. Jesus was pretty clear about wealth in the Bible.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
The idea that being wealthier makes you superior is some Protestant bullshit that contradicts what Jesus said.
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
The idea that being wealthier makes you superior is some Protestant bullshit that contradicts what Jesus said.
Anonymous P double-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,533
Pride is a sin. If you can’t shut up about how you think you’re better than others, that’s not Christian.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 46 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,546
@1,383,530 (O)
> It blows my mind that you think you’re being objective
How would you distinguish between someone being objective and not?
> you’re spewing nonsense like "femininity has a distain for truth and reason"
I've personally heard many women say that they don't believe in it. The many more that don't explicitly state it will make emotional appeals, and rarely make an appeal to logic.
> attributing the success of European empires to religion.
That's was a guess, not an assertion.
> You’re just a weirdo religious fanatic pretending to be objective. It definitely explains your fanaticism.
I'm not Christian, if you got the impression.
@1,383,531 (O)
> But hey, I guess if you think women are feminine and femininity is opposed to logic and reasoning, and you think that you’re all about logic and reasoning, then I guess that means you don’t like women since you don’t like femininity.
That's a jump, because whether you like someone or not isn't necessarily the same thing as whether you think they are rational.
Any mention of differences between men and women, or even appealing toward the ideal of equality between men and women when it's not beneficial to women is called misogyny by the left. It's the go-to accusation: you either believe men and women are the same, or you must hate them. Meanwhile feminists will constantly say they've identified many patterns among men that they dislike, but this doesn't mean they are gender essentialists, sexists, or misandrists for some reason.
> Yes I’m calling you gay.
It's always the leftists calling the people they don't like gay, which is ironic.
@1,383,532 (P)
> The idea that the west is superior for oppressing other parts of the world doesn’t seem very Christian actually. Jesus was pretty clear about wealth in the Bible.
>
> "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
>
> The idea that being wealthier makes you superior is some Protestant bullshit that contradicts what Jesus said.
I'm talking about the Christian traditions generally, not about what any given verse appears to say. There are many parts of Christian culture that don't have any apparent root in the bible, but they still have an effect on society.
Again, I'm not defending the idea that Christianity is the cause, it's just a guess.
@previous (P)
> Pride is a sin. If you can’t shut up about how you think you’re better than others, that’s not Christian.
I'm not trying to be a Christian, I'm aiming to get to the truth.
Pride is a problem when people refuse to do the right thing to protect their ego, like ignoring truth because it contradicts what they said in the past.
> It blows my mind that you think you’re being objective
How would you distinguish between someone being objective and not?
> you’re spewing nonsense like "femininity has a distain for truth and reason"
I've personally heard many women say that they don't believe in it. The many more that don't explicitly state it will make emotional appeals, and rarely make an appeal to logic.
> attributing the success of European empires to religion.
That's was a guess, not an assertion.
> You’re just a weirdo religious fanatic pretending to be objective. It definitely explains your fanaticism.
I'm not Christian, if you got the impression.
@1,383,531 (O)
> But hey, I guess if you think women are feminine and femininity is opposed to logic and reasoning, and you think that you’re all about logic and reasoning, then I guess that means you don’t like women since you don’t like femininity.
That's a jump, because whether you like someone or not isn't necessarily the same thing as whether you think they are rational.
Any mention of differences between men and women, or even appealing toward the ideal of equality between men and women when it's not beneficial to women is called misogyny by the left. It's the go-to accusation: you either believe men and women are the same, or you must hate them. Meanwhile feminists will constantly say they've identified many patterns among men that they dislike, but this doesn't mean they are gender essentialists, sexists, or misandrists for some reason.
> Yes I’m calling you gay.
It's always the leftists calling the people they don't like gay, which is ironic.
@1,383,532 (P)
> The idea that the west is superior for oppressing other parts of the world doesn’t seem very Christian actually. Jesus was pretty clear about wealth in the Bible.
>
> "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God."
>
> The idea that being wealthier makes you superior is some Protestant bullshit that contradicts what Jesus said.
I'm talking about the Christian traditions generally, not about what any given verse appears to say. There are many parts of Christian culture that don't have any apparent root in the bible, but they still have an effect on society.
Again, I'm not defending the idea that Christianity is the cause, it's just a guess.
@previous (P)
> Pride is a sin. If you can’t shut up about how you think you’re better than others, that’s not Christian.
I'm not trying to be a Christian, I'm aiming to get to the truth.
Pride is a problem when people refuse to do the right thing to protect their ego, like ignoring truth because it contradicts what they said in the past.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous Q joined in and replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,548
@previous (E)
I’m Catholic, don’t attribute my religion to any of your beliefs. My religion has absolutely nothing to do with your worldview.
I’m Catholic, don’t attribute my religion to any of your beliefs. My religion has absolutely nothing to do with your worldview.
Anonymous Q double-posted this 5 months ago, 5 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,550
The fact of the matter is that the Bible is very clear that wealth is not virtuous in the eyes of God and pride is not virtuous in the eyes of God. Just because you say your white supremacist ideas are Christian doesn’t make them Christian. You can’t just make up your own definition of Christianity that has nothing to do with the word of Christ.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,552
@1,383,548 (Q)
Tom Holland makes a good case for how Catholic epistemology led to science, but as I've said I'm not making that case, it's the only explanation I've really heard for it.
It is amusing that you think that Catholicism is opposed to ideas of European supremacy, the church doesn't come off the way you make it.
Tom Holland makes a good case for how Catholic epistemology led to science, but as I've said I'm not making that case, it's the only explanation I've really heard for it.
It is amusing that you think that Catholicism is opposed to ideas of European supremacy, the church doesn't come off the way you make it.
Anonymous Q replied with this 5 months ago, 56 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,554
@previous (E)
There are 1.4 billion Catholics, but there are only 750 million Europeans. Most Catholics aren’t European.
There are 1.4 billion Catholics, but there are only 750 million Europeans. Most Catholics aren’t European.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,555
@1,383,550 (Q)
> The fact of the matter is that the Bible is very clear that wealth is not virtuous in the eyes of God and pride is not virtuous in the eyes of God.
Irrelevant to anything I've said, because I'm not rooting my ideas in Christianity.
> Just because you say your white supremacist ideas
Once again, there is a difference between culture and race, which has been explained many times in this thread. If you're continuing to use this strawman disingenuously, then there's no point in continuing.
As I said previously many posts back, if you can actually explain the difference between the two and tell me which position I've taken, I'd be willing to return to the conversation. Otherwise, bye.
> The fact of the matter is that the Bible is very clear that wealth is not virtuous in the eyes of God and pride is not virtuous in the eyes of God.
Irrelevant to anything I've said, because I'm not rooting my ideas in Christianity.
> Just because you say your white supremacist ideas
Once again, there is a difference between culture and race, which has been explained many times in this thread. If you're continuing to use this strawman disingenuously, then there's no point in continuing.
As I said previously many posts back, if you can actually explain the difference between the two and tell me which position I've taken, I'd be willing to return to the conversation. Otherwise, bye.
Anonymous Q replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,556
@previous (E)
You said bye before, I didn’t believe you last time and I don’t believe you this time either.
You said bye before, I didn’t believe you last time and I don’t believe you this time either.
Anonymous Q double-posted this 5 months ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,558
Cultural supremacy can’t be a real thing because what makes a culture good and what makes a culture bad are subjective. You’re pretending to be objective when you’re arguing for something that’s inherently not objective. You’re saying western culture is superior because the west conquered the world. I think conquering the world is bad because it’s immoral and we shouldn’t aspire to it. We both accept the same fact but came to two different conclusions because you’re arguing about a matter of opinion that can’t be objectively proven true or false.
Anonymous Q triple-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,559
It’s also not unreasonable given that for me to not accept a worldview that would obviously be to my detriment and it doesn’t take a genius to understand why.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,561
@1,383,556 (Q)
I continued because right after I said it, you said:
@1,383,036 (K)
> I don’t care if you attribute it to race or not. I’m not willing to accept that Europeans are superior in any way.
It looked like you were able to acknowledge the difference.
But since you continue to use that strawman, I'm done until you can actually put the distinction into words and tell me which position I took.
I continued because right after I said it, you said:
@1,383,036 (K)
> I don’t care if you attribute it to race or not. I’m not willing to accept that Europeans are superior in any way.
It looked like you were able to acknowledge the difference.
But since you continue to use that strawman, I'm done until you can actually put the distinction into words and tell me which position I took.
Anonymous Q replied with this 5 months ago, 47 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,562
@previous (E)
That’s a true statement. I don’t care if you attribute it to race or not. I’m not willing to accept that Europeans are superior in any way. That’s a statement I made about myself.
That’s a true statement. I don’t care if you attribute it to race or not. I’m not willing to accept that Europeans are superior in any way. That’s a statement I made about myself.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 2 minutes later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,563
@previous (Q)
A statement I thought showed you knew what I was saying, but then you went back to the old strawman.
A statement I thought showed you knew what I was saying, but then you went back to the old strawman.
Anonymous Q replied with this 5 months ago, 48 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,564
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 54 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,565
@previous (Q)
I never thought you agreed, but I thought you knew what you were disagreeing with.
Apparently not, because you're arguing against a strawman.
I never thought you agreed, but I thought you knew what you were disagreeing with.
Apparently not, because you're arguing against a strawman.
Anonymous Q replied with this 5 months ago, 16 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,566
I literally told you that I’ll never agree with you and I told you why.
Anonymous Q double-posted this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,567
@1,383,565 (E)
I already said the specifics of your argument doesn’t matter to me. I’m fundamentally opposed to arguing that one group of people is superior to another. That’s just part of my constitution as a person, I think people who feel the need to do that are immoral.
I already said the specifics of your argument doesn’t matter to me. I’m fundamentally opposed to arguing that one group of people is superior to another. That’s just part of my constitution as a person, I think people who feel the need to do that are immoral.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 5 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,568
@1,383,566 (Q)
Yes, and now if you can explain what you're disagreeing with, and what the strawman is, that would show you can follow the conversation.
Yes, and now if you can explain what you're disagreeing with, and what the strawman is, that would show you can follow the conversation.
Anonymous Q replied with this 5 months ago, 55 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,569
@previous (E)
I refer you to this:
@1,383,558 (Q)
> Cultural supremacy can’t be a real thing because what makes a culture good and what makes a culture bad are subjective. You’re pretending to be objective when you’re arguing for something that’s inherently not objective. You’re saying western culture is superior because the west conquered the world. I think conquering the world is bad because it’s immoral and we shouldn’t aspire to it. We both accept the same fact but came to two different conclusions because you’re arguing about a matter of opinion that can’t be objectively proven true or false.
I refer you to this:
@1,383,558 (Q)
> Cultural supremacy can’t be a real thing because what makes a culture good and what makes a culture bad are subjective. You’re pretending to be objective when you’re arguing for something that’s inherently not objective. You’re saying western culture is superior because the west conquered the world. I think conquering the world is bad because it’s immoral and we shouldn’t aspire to it. We both accept the same fact but came to two different conclusions because you’re arguing about a matter of opinion that can’t be objectively proven true or false.
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 5 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,570
@1,383,567 (Q)
> I already said the specifics of your argument doesn’t matter to me.
It matters whether you're saying irrelevant things, or refuting something I actually said.
If you can't understand the position I'm taking, why would I bother typing it all out?
> I already said the specifics of your argument doesn’t matter to me.
It matters whether you're saying irrelevant things, or refuting something I actually said.
If you can't understand the position I'm taking, why would I bother typing it all out?
Anonymous E double-posted this 5 months ago, 31 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,571
@1,383,569 (Q)
I'd be happy to respond to that post when you can identify the position I've taken, as well as the strawman that you kept responding to.
I'd be happy to respond to that post when you can identify the position I've taken, as well as the strawman that you kept responding to.
Anonymous Q replied with this 5 months ago, 14 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,572
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,573
Anonymous Q replied with this 5 months ago, 14 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,574
Anonymous Q double-posted this 5 months ago, 16 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,575
Anonymous E replied with this 5 months ago, 14 seconds later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,576
Anonymous Q replied with this 5 months ago, 1 minute later, 6 days after the original post[^] [v] #1,383,577
@previous (E)
You aren’t as emotionless as you say you are. This is the third time you’ve said goodbye. Clearly you know you’re not winning and you should stop talking to me but you can accept defeat due to an emotional need.
You aren’t as emotionless as you say you are. This is the third time you’ve said goodbye. Clearly you know you’re not winning and you should stop talking to me but you can accept defeat due to an emotional need.
