< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 116 OF 116 ·
|May-13-18|| ||SugarDom: <Big Pawn>, before the election. Christians are already dreaming that Trump won. Years before some people prophesied that he will be a new "Cyrus" to Israel.|
There was an Indian prophet (Sadhu) who said Trump will win (when Trump was behind the polls).
Now, I found Kim Clement, RIP.
|May-14-18|| ||diceman: Sensible gun laws allow mom to take out
a piece of garbage:
Fortunately he died.
|May-14-18|| ||Big Pawn: Awesome video, <Dice>! I watched it over and over and it was beautiful. That's what it's all about. |
Well, that's not what it's <all> about. Lethal defense against criminals is common sense, but the real threat is a perpetual one from the government.
The libs have tricked some of the good folks into thinking "sensible" gun laws are okay. After all, they're sensible. Who can be against anything labeled sensible?
But we really need to be as armed and dangerous as the gov't as that is the primary reason for the second amendment. "Sensible" gun laws would allow only the gov't to have the serious guns, which takes the spirit right out of the second amendment.
This will not do.
The people shall be armed and extremely dangerous at all times - a dangerous liberty indeed, and the gov't shall shake in its boots when thinking about oppressing the people.
Anyone who comes to me talking about "sensible" gun laws gets put in the CUCK ZONE. They are brainwashed and don't even realize it.
|May-15-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: Spent time with family this weekend. My sister is a hardcore Liberal and Feminist.|
We had a chance to talk politics, namely, immigration policy for Muslims.
She had nothing but the typical hard-Left talking points.
It's "racist", "on the wrong side of history" (how is that even an argument? it's nothing more than an idle boast!), and "immoral".
But we were busy with a family function, so I didn't get enough time to deconstruct her "immoral" claim. But since she is agnostic, it wouldn't be difficult to deconstruct it. Just as it is so easy to do when <GSM> passes judgement.
As for the "racist" claim, I asked here why? She said because Muslims are brown people!
This is how the Left oppresses free speech. Now, we can't do anything to anyone, as long as we first can label those people as "brown". Then they are allowed free reign to do anything and everything, because any restraint, even when it has nothing to do with skin color, is *still* consider racism!
|May-15-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
What does this mean? It is supposed to be an attack and a boast at the same time.
The intent is to say "You don't have a viewpoint that is permissible in the debate. You are just wrong. On top of that, you will lose too!"
That's what is meant by this phrase WSOH
You know who else was on the WSOH? Native Americans when European settlers arrived in the New World.
They were practically wiped out, and the survivors were resettled on reservations.
So next time a Lib says I am on the "WSOH", I may ask them if they intend to treat White Theists the same way Europeans treated Native Americans?
|May-15-18|| ||diceman: Wrong side of history
|May-15-18|| ||Big Pawn: <tga: As for the "racist" claim, I asked here why? She said because Muslims are brown people!>|
There's your "proof" that racism exists.
It's just a political tool and nothing more. All the libs have is, "you have to do x because if you don't then racism"
My suggestion would be to put your argument, to your sister, in deductive form with true premises. Once you do that, any statement she makes that does not refute or attempt to refute a premise is by definition irrelevant. That will take all her bullets away, take her into the deep waters.
But it takes a sharp philosophically trained mind to condense your argument into two premises and put them in deductive form like the Moral Argument.
|May-15-18|| ||diceman: <She said because Muslims are brown people!>|
Id walk her through Democrat's proud
traditions with "brown people!"
|May-15-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: <My suggestion would be to put your argument, to your sister, in deductive form with true premises. >|
Actually, that was on my agenda. But it was a busy weekend - not much time to get past stating our respective arguments.
Mine is of course that Islam exports terrorism.
She didn't really have anything beyond "it's wrong" both erroneously and morally.
Her point to bolster the "erroneous" part is that a court struck down Trump's travel ban.
But really, I suspect all that needs to be done is for Congress to pass legislation empowering the president to ban Muslims.
I also polled everyone on theism. Mom's an agnostic, my brother is a theist. My sister asked about agnosticism/atheism, which one is which, and identified as agnostic.
I was ready to make the moral argument, but again, no time for it.
|May-15-18|| ||Big Pawn: <Mine is of course that Islam exports terrorism. >|
I argue that Islam is not compatible with western values and the constitution. I argue also that Islam is primarily a political ideology and then a religion.
|May-16-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: <I argue that Islam is not compatible with western values>|
The irony is that no feminist would agree with and support the culture that Islam maintains in countries where it is the official religion.
Just think how risible it would be, to claim that Western Feminists are, or should be, flocking to Saudi Arabia, Syria, etc. because those countries are feminist havens. :)
|May-17-18|| ||Big Pawn: Philosophical Thought of the Week:
Atheism is the proposition, "God does not exit".
There are no good reasons to think that atheism is true.
|May-18-18|| ||Big Pawn: Quite possibly the most interesting story I’ve read in 10 years!|
“I Killed Them All.” The Life Of One Of America’s Bloodiest Hitmen - BuzzFeed News
|May-18-18|| ||TheFocus: <Absolutely riveting.>|
True. Thanks for posting.
|May-20-18|| ||Big Pawn: <
Tom Wolfe, RIP
Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, May 18, 2018
Celebrated author was clearly a race realist.
Jared Taylor and Paul Kersey remember the remarkable life and work of Tom Wolfe, who wrote novels to “document contemporary society” and saw through the sham and futility of “diversity.” They also discuss the astonishing contrast between the hostility to “whiteness” on college campuses and the alleged trauma of being a black college student. They examine the latest fashion of criticizing whites who call the police on suspicious blacks, and discuss Heather Mac Donald’s latest master work, Canadian residential schools, and Spike Lee’s latest movie, BlacKKKlansman.>
|May-21-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: <Big Pawn: <Mine is of course that Islam exports terrorism. >|
I argue that Islam is not compatible with western values>
You're right - it isn't. Islam produces @#$%hole countries and inhibits man's progress in various areas of learning.
The problem with your argument, though, is that "trouble assimilating" has been used before. And people think that, because America is in a great position right now, then the incompatibility argument is specious.
Exporting terrorism, however, is stark and pointing out this truism highlights the mortal danger that Muslims pose (intentionally) to Westerners.
Also, I think you are talking up to your audience. But in most cases, we are arguing with clueless idiots, and so your argument is too subtle for them, I fear.
Look at <Bureaucrat>. He lives in terror of making a rational argument. He thinks racism is a matter of his opinion! People like this are unbelievably stupid, and won't grasp the "incompatibility" argument until it is too late for their culture and country.
|May-22-18|| ||Big Pawn: <tga: The problem with your argument, though, is that "trouble assimilating" has been used before. And people think that, because America is in a great position right now, then the incompatibility argument is specious.>|
Yes, but I'm not talking about trouble assimilating. I'm talking about Islam and Western values + the constitution. As a document with a stated political ideology, on paper, Islam is not compatible with the constitution. It transcends assimilation. Assimilation relates to how people act whereas Islam vs the constitution relates to the incongruence of the values themselves, apart from people.
<Also, I think you are talking up to your audience. But in most cases, we are arguing with clueless idiots, and so your argument is too subtle for them, I fear.>
Perhaps, but none the less I think its an easy and powerful argument to make. It puts Islam where it ought to be, in politics, rather than the off limits space of religious tolerance.
<Look at <Bureaucrat>. He lives in terror of making a rational argument. He thinks racism is a matter of his opinion! People like this are unbelievably stupid, and won't grasp the "incompatibility" argument until it is too late for their culture and country.>
He can't help it. That's where his limit is and that's that. And everyone is using racism the way he is, because it doesn't exist. It's an intentionally vague political barb and that's how it's supposed it be.
|May-22-18|| ||Big Pawn: Pope 'says it is ok to be gay'
The Catholic Church is not good.
|May-22-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: <BP: As a document with a stated political ideology, on paper, Islam is not compatible with the constitution. >|
What document has this "stated political ideology"? Is it the Qur'an?
What is the stated ideology?
|May-22-18|| ||Big Pawn: Yes, the Koran and the most widely accepted Hadiths.|
|May-22-18|| ||Big Pawn: <What is the stated ideology?>|
Here is a link to a post where I made this argument. There are a few comprehensive posts where I’ve made this argument, but I’m short on time at the moment so I’ll just share this one.
Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #248679)
|May-22-18|| ||thegoodanarchist: Thanks for the link. I read 3 pages, actually, starting one page before and going to the page after.|
What surprised me was that <AI>, your interlocutor, had nothing but a website supporting his assertions that Muslims would obey the law of the land.
When you asked him to quote Qur'an or Hadith, all he had was an injunction to obey the commandments.
Yet one of the commandments is to kill those who turn away from Islam!
You cleaned his clock, and he tried to cover that up by smugly proclaiming you had no argument.
And a few short months later, he cracked and fell apart. Had to leave altogether.
Probably best, for his mental health.
|May-22-18|| ||tpstar: <Atheism is the proposition, "God does not exit">|
Spot the Typo!
|May-23-18|| ||Big Pawn: <Tpstar>, thank you. I fixed it.|
|May-23-18|| ||Big Pawn: Atheism is the proposition, "God does not exist".|
There are no good reasons to think that atheism is true.
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 116 OF 116 ·