ITT we learn wufwugy's true feeling about roaches.
Printable View
ITT we learn wufwugy's true feeling about roaches.
What's everybody's new favorite thing? For me it's a combination of good weather finally hitting Austin and SXSW
And sorry with the word "new". Let's change that to current. SXSW or good weather is not new to me but it is my current favorites.
I get pretty jealous when Bigred talks about Austin. Little does he know that I may be invading it soon. Very soon. Be warned.
i have austin invasion plans too, mainly 'cause my best friend may be going there for grad school. i was in texas for the first time over the holidays though, houston and baytown (the bf hailing from the latter)... not exactly like Austin, i'm guessing. oddly enough, aside from some local flavor and differences in landscape, it felt fairly indistinguishable from the boring suburbs of long island that i grew up in.
there was an insane wind storm though, i really felt like i was about to have my first tornado experience. is that more common in texas?
It's odd how common it is for New Yorkers to gtfo and go to Austin for cheaper rent. I know about a dozen people, including Bigred, who made the migration from NYC to Austin.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79KzZ0YqLvo
Houston is more like the Louisiana (not the good parts aka New Orleans) of Texas with good food with life ruining humidity and heat in the summer. Dallas is like if NYC made love to a Cowboy and the baby inherited mostly bad traits from each parent (imo) and it snows there in the winter occasionally.
Austin is like if New York, San Fran, and San Diego had a fun threesome that resulted in a baby and inherited like 80% of the good traits but inherited it's intellect and approach to life from it's SoCal parent. It's a really easy going place (titled the hippy oasis by the rest of Texas) with good weather (and mostly dry heat). The one thing it really lacks is any culture outside of music. Living in NYC, if I felt I needed to feel smart I'd go to the Met or the MOMA or the Museum of Natural History. Here I say fuck it and go drink beers on a porch somewhere cause food and alcohol in an outdoor setting is all Austin seems to offer. Don't get me wrong, I have mainly positive feelings about Austin but it's starting to feel a little one dimensional after living here for 2.5 years. Great fucking place to visit for a week and spoil yourself on food and drink though.
yeah, when I say invade I mean, invade for a few weeks of egregious self-spoiling. I'm wedded to NYC and its abusive monetary demands:(
This is the first negative thing I've read a New Yorker write about Austin. I'm glad you mentioned this. Do you see yourself being an Austin lifer? If not, where would you go? Seriously, the rent is too damn high. I'm looking to move on up and move to Jackson Heights. Yes, moving UP to Jackson Heights. FML.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
The topic of location is quite tough to figure out. I would look at some places not quite talked about. For example: Nashville. It's cheap, more cultured than the stereotype, and has the southern hospitality, which is something that NY lacks big time. Reno. Word around town is the suburbs of Reno are incredibly cheap but rapidly growing. That's a dynamite mix. Or Boise. It's got its own unique blend of Pacific Northwest social progressiveness and relaxed demeanor combined with old timey standards and considerate demeanor. It's also growing rapidly and very cheap.
Chicago is pretty awesome. Not the cheapest, but when compared to New York, you're pretty much living for free. And while it's a huge city, it's fairly vertical with solid public transit, so you can live in affordable neighborhoods and work elsewhere, without your commute being absolutely killer.
Yeah but you live in the midwest and O'hare is your main airport. That's two major red flags right there.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
i fucking hate this dumb stereotype. No, let me correct myself. I hate when people actually believe this bullshit. Wuf, have you ever been to NY? We're helpful as fuck and are dying for tourists to enjoy our city. Just don't be a cunt and walk at a snail's pace during rush hour. That's selfish. Also. Be ready to get your balls busted. That's not rude, it's just how we communicate to each other. Now fuck off with the no hospitality bullshit in NY.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Yeah. NYC are pretty friendly when you're not in their way.
Def not an Austin lifer. Next spots (2-4 years from now) include Denver, Seattle, and Portland.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
I agree that NYers have a hospitality that's hard to understand when you're not from here...Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
But, and this is obviously purely anecdotal from my limited experience, I did experience a type of hospitality in Utah that I never have in NY. My boyfriend's father was sick, and the level of hospitality we received at that hospital actually blindsided me. I've never had hospital staff in NY go to the extent that these people did to make us comfortable. They went a huge extra mile. I know Utah isn't exactly the south, but this is what pops into my head when I hear "Southern hospitality." I imagine this to be the kind of distinction they mean.
But I agree (obviously, NYer for life here), people have this conception that NYers are constantly cold and abrasive, but ask one NYer for directions and you'll likely find yourself standing on the street for 5 minutes huddled over your google maps app with a completely transformed human who's brimming with earnestness, just as invested in finding the right cross streets as you are.
I'm looking at all the times I just typed NYer and suddenly feel really doofy.
oh I have to add, the biggest "don't be a cunt" warning for NY is: wait for people to leave a subway car before waltzing your ass in there. :x
From what I understand London is far less hospitable than new York. And just as expensive.
The English are more cynical (read: realistic) about life and the world around them. English and New York humor is quite compatible. I found I "get on" (Britishisms up in here) with the English quite well. The Scottish, on the other hand, are pretty miserable and dark with an inferiority complex. I would compare them to people from New Jersey.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
Wanna know how to make a New Yorker uncomfortable? Be overly nice. I'm pretty sure the English feel similarly.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
Don't you foreign folk use the expression "get on with"?
unctuous smarmy kindness is uncomfortable. genuine human to human warmth, not so much.
we'd say "get on with it"
i guess you might also hear "i get on well with her" or "he gets on with her well" or any variation but it's not super common, now that i think about it. i think sometimes people just say things if they've heard it recently, either in person or tv or whatever, and so it's hard to tell what's really a common phrase in a certain location and what's latched into someone's head via osmosis. or maybe it's just me that consciously juggles different idioms based on what my brain has been absorbing lately...
I think it's becoming increasingly popular but I still think it stems from the Brits.Quote:
Originally Posted by rong
ITT Boog tries to pass himself off as classy with little success
*glass breaks*
awesomeQuote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
i put it at 12% you were joking around in your previous post, but it's funny that you would say this since i kinda makes my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
i never said ny isnt full of nice people. there is something in broad strokes called "southern hospitality" that is lost in every big city. the hospitality has more to do with rural life and it isn't exactly southern. the fly-over states are where people know their neighbors, wave as they drive by, chat as they walk by, stop and talk with the store clerk, go out of their way to help people who ask for some pretty huge favors ("like i need help with my car").
utah is a little extra since it's a bunch of mormons and they're nice as shit.
it isn't that people in certain areas are inherently nicer people, but that certain areas provide different incentives for behavior. in cities, things are more rushed and you dont get punished for not being friends with everybody you see. but out in the country, there is no need for rushing and you do get punished for not being friends with everybody you see.
take pride in the openness and directness of ny. it could be fucking seattle, where people are far more subtle about their opinions. seattle is probably the worst place in the whole country when it comes to the type of people you meet because passive aggressive is the name of the game. the seattle freeze is real.
Again, have you been to NYC yet? Your opinion is dogshit if you haven't.
Who the fuck wants to go to that shithole?
You're from North Carolina. Shut it.
For the record, I'm just being an asshole. I'm sure NC is nice.
I still think Wuf likes to argue so much that he'll argue about things he knows nothing about.
Bumping up the probability that you're satirizing to 25%.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4137846.html
I'd like to see far more with this type of thing. I bet we could find some really unique regional culture differences.
Arguing for the sake of arguing is some bottom barrel bullshit.Quote:
I still think Wuf likes to argue so much that he'll argue about things he knows nothing about.
The Seattle Freeze is real. It's one example of a unique regional personality.
This isn't a point I want to argue because then I would end up over-arguing my point. People are different all over the place. Regional determinism would be dumb, and nobody wants to be said to fit a stereotype.
I do not think people are nicer anywhere than anywhere else. I do think that mannerisms and conventions differ.
Don't change your argument. You said NY lacks hospitality big time. You said nothing of mannerisms and conventions. You're shifting your argument which makes for bad debates.
I'm getting bored of this debate as well, though. Come to NYC. Make a goddamn educated opinion instead of citing some study that is based off Facebook. I'll even buy you a beer and call you an asshole, NY style.
I didn't. I said the "southern hospitality". I would never have said that people from NY are not hospitable. Aubrey is one of the kindest people I know and she's NY native.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
"Southern hospitality" is a sweeping generalization of certain hospitable characteristics of the society that you get in low density, relaxed, conventional places. The contrast isn't just NYC, but any dense region. The densest areas of Seattle are shitty in comparison to the rural areas of Washington. It isn't because the people choose to be that way, but because of how interactions are structured. Why would the phrase "southern hospitality" even been invented if it wasn't something?
I do see how what I said could come off the wrong way though.
Telling people they're not hospitable is insulting and untrue and I didn't mean it like that at all.
Do we need to make fun of Jersey instead? Of course I haven't been to Jersey so I don't know anything other than the stereotypes and things in the news or pop culture. We could make fun of Portland instead. A bigger bunch of doofuses I never knew. Those numbnuts can't even pump their own gas.
eh I think wug is pretty much right. I get what he's saying.
you should come to our shithole anyway though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhzFh_hs5Oc
awww lookie how cuteeee
Heh. Funnily enough, neither can the entire state of Jersey.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Wuf is right about regions being different. I was never arguing that. He just somehow shifted the argument that way. Shrug.
There's an eclipse happening in the next hour or so. Sadly we're just outside the line of totality here in UK, we'll have to make do with partial. It's looking 50-50 as to cloud cover so I might not even bother heading out. We might notice it get a little darker but it won't be spectacular here.
For the 99.99999% of the world population not in Faroe Islands or Svalbard, here's a live webcam...
http://live.slooh.com/stadium/live/t...clipse-of-2015
We should get 85% in Cornwall. Clouds seem ok at the minute but you never know with our changeable weather. I've got a conference call at 9.30 I intend to be late for.
Looking good so far. I've got clear skies and sunshine directly into my room, so I'm watching the stream from the Faroes while tracking the progress by means of pinhole projection. Well past 50% now.
Conditions are perfect in Svalbard, where the eclipse has started and will reach totality in just under an hour. There will be spectacular footage from there. Apparoaching around 90% here in the Midlands, it does seem a little darker than it should be for such a bright sunny morning.
Pin hole projection sucks. I did it, but it's hardly mesmerising. I found the whole thing quite underwhelming.
Pinhole projection works, and to have a tiny little eclipse in my bedroom is cool. It's nothing like 1999, but I never expected it to be.
I'm not really one to be squeamish but stuff like parasitic worms is a no go.Quote:
Originally Posted by aubreymcfate
People are nicer in the south because we aren't a bunch of dipshit Yankee assholes.
You're all Yanks as far as we're concerned.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yeah and that's why we don't listen to your nanny state bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I was in Seattle last weekend. Aside from what appeared to be a large crime problem, the people were generally great. I got help from a stranger who saw me looking at bus routes, there were fairly happy employees across many types of jobs, and welcome advice on the best attractions from random people on the lightrail thing. They were nicer than what I remember of ppl from NJ, NY, PA, and way better than us pretentious fucks in AZ.
But all the buildings were close together so car exhaust was noticable. That's common, but I'm not used to it anymore. They're also pretty liberal, got tons of homeless, and its super hilly. Like super steep hills every where. Idk,I wouldn't want to live there
The two things in bold go hand-in-hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
The crime problem is fucking huge in homeless areas. Many of the burbs outside of Seattle have almost zero crime.Quote:
But all the buildings were close together so car exhaust was noticable. That's common, but I'm not used to it anymore. They're also pretty liberal, got tons of homeless, and its super hilly. Like super steep hills every where. Idk,I wouldn't want to live there
If I had to describe the unique blend of nice/not-nice characteristics of Seattle (more like all of Washington), it's that we're very friendly in superficial circumstances, but when you dig deeper, we're cliquey and flaky. We're judgmental without wanting anybody to know we're judgmental, and the main target of this is usually ourselves. Unreliability is huge here. Oftentimes you can think you have some close friends only to find that the friendships all but vanish for no apparent reason. Washingtonians are in constant identity crisis. I would argue that Seattle is the most liberal place on the planet (Portland is trying to beat it but hasn't due to incompetence). It has a weird mix of the artistic celebration of rebellion of the individual and the socialist collective mindset. This is where I think the hyper flakiness comes from. Everybody is pulled from both ends trying to create their own unique identity along side a uniform identity.
I used to think it was impossible to make new friends that would become great close friends long term, but then I realized it was just Washington. Our obsession with recycling applies to friendships as well. You can hardly find a person here who is good friends with somebody they met five years ago, because at some point one of those in the friendship decided they needed to recycle their identity.
I wanted to chime in, but I couldn't figure out how to say it. Damn this is concise.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
So much this.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, I got stolen from as a parting gift from a bunch of people.
One guy stole one my ashtrays (from a set) just because it was glass, and not plastic. One guy stayed with me for a couple of months for reduced rent when he needed a quick save. He took all my power cords when he moved out (wtf?).
People are weird. People in Seattle moreso.
The Reza Aslan Effect
What's the deal? A lot of liberals see this guy talking and think that they are supposed to agree and then just swallow every last drop of nonsensical drivel he spews.
But while that's frustrating, what I can't figure out is what his motivations are. Is he just looking to sell books? He can't actually believe the false representations of reality he puts forth, and he's certainly knowledgeable enough to know that's just what they are. So what's the deal?
I'm unaware of the the controversy you're talking about.
I think boost is pissed that RZA is Asian now.
This is the latest video of him being an ostensibly charming, disingenuous, fact obscuring, talking head, but it's not his first rodeo. And to be clear, I think Maher is often just as bad, but he's a comedian and at least succeeds in being funny often enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzusSqcotDw
I guess I don't see what the problem is. From my perspective he seems mostly reasonable.
Saying Islam promotes violence by pointing at ISIS is like saying Christianity promotes violence by pointing at stuff the Catholic Church once did. Mormons are Christian too and are just one of the many sects that do not promote violence. AFAIK Islam has lots of various sects too.
Right, so if that is his point, and it is a supportable point, why does he misrepresent reality to prop up his position?
Turkey for example is not a Muslim country, it is a secular country that has forcibly and dramatically curtailed the influence of religion on its politics and the daily lives of its citizens. Indonesia is far from a bastion for women's rights, and in fact Sharia courts are on par with secular courts in some parts of the country. As for female heads of state, the countries are either secular or only technically Muslim, or the politics in these countries are run by powerful ruling families which makes the elections unrepresentative of popular sentiment-- yet despite these families' power, at least one of those female heads of state was assassinated simply because she was an outspoken woman in power in a Muslim country.
So, sure, Maher could be wrong in his characterization of Islam, but why does a Muslim theologian need to resort to what he must know to be distortions of the truth to rebuff Maher?
This is nonsense. This sort of pretend tit for tat, every religion has done bad things nonsense completely ignores context. The Catholic church had the crusades, which was at worst mildly offensive in those times, and I think that's a stretch.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
People are so afraid of being called a bigot that they give all these concessions and carve outs for Islam. It is either an easily corrupted set of ideas, an inherently corrupt set of ideas, or simply the current set of ideas that is being most corrupted, or at least so far as the group of sets of ideas that fall into the category of major world religions. But which ever is the case, nothing will get fixed by pretending that all things are equal and some people are just bad.
I mean, are you really under the impression that there is no correlation between Islam and what ISIS is doing? You don't think that the concept of Jihad and the prescriptions of stoning and beheading are ideas that may need to be put into question?
Brag: I got a ~$1,700 desk on Craigslist for $40 the day before yesterday.
Beat: The thing is so huge that we (me + my dad) could only get it into the living room where it basically overshadows everything else as this big hulking thing that takes up more than half of one wall.
Variance: My dad will openly say fuck, motherfucker, shit, damn, ass, nigger, chink, spic, faggot, etc. openly in front of my girlfriend, but he'll mouth the word "Yankee" instead of actually saying it because he doesn't want to offend her. Her family's from Boston.
Lol at using that bullshit Catholic Church argument. Talk about the present. Radical Islam is a growing fucking problem. Muslims aren't doing enough to fight it. Fuck that entire religion.
Also, I'm done trying to reason with people on the subject. Everyone is so fucking scared of being tough against an obvious problem that they almost turn a cheek at the problem and pretend that it's not rooted in Islam. I consider myself quite liberal, in general, but I can't stand the fucking liberal view on Islam/ISIS.
Roughly 23% of people in the world are Islamic.
A vast majority of all terrorist attacks are based on ethnic and nationalistic reasons, and not religion.
I think blaming 23% of all the people for a problem perpetuated by less than 1% (of even the blamed people), is lazy at best.
Yes, there are terrible people in this world. Trying to catch them all with one net cast at a specific religious, ethnic or political group has proven folly repeatedly throughout history.
I'm not blaming the people; I'm blaming the religion. Some blame lies in the people who aren't doing much to curb this problem from within.
Variation of the Variance: When in good spirits, my dad will sing chorus from the old "I'm a Pepper" Dr. Pepper commercial song, with all the same gusto and merriment, replacing the word "Pepper" with... *mouths silently* the n-word. (Whatever, I'm delicate.)Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It's pretty hilarious. Like your dad, he's vulgar but sensitive about it. He has a twisted sense of humor but doesn't have the balls to have it outside of the privacy of his own home, and would be mortified if anyone knew the vile words he plays around with and got the wrong impression. It's probably a good thing he doesn't do this particular sketch in public though.
All Muslim people I know are not terrorists. Nor do they eat Terror-o's for breakfast to grow up to be strong terrorist radicals. There's always going to be bad apples and blaming the whole for a part is straight ignant dawg. Besides, recent reports have suggested the ISIS militants to not be very religious and it's more of a poverty/disgruntled movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
I see where you're headed with the religion as a platform argument and blah blah blah but there's not enough time in the day and your efforts are better spent finding cute kittens. I call it the Bigred Tao. Go forth and may the kitten be with you. Remember, Caturday is a day of reflection and giggles.
This is probably all true. His response may have been different if the distinction between a Muslim state and a state with tons of Muslims was made. I have no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
The correlation is real. That doesn't mean it's causation.Quote:
I mean, are you really under the impression that there is no correlation between Islam and what ISIS is doing?
I don't know that much about Islam. I do know there are a handful of different sects with different beliefs. I know that ISIS and al Qaeda do not represent what Islam means to all Muslims. If we don't acknowledge this then we're doing the same sort of thing we say others should not do to us.
I like what you bring to the table in debate because I've noticed you sometimes call me on things that others don't. I have noticed there is certainly quite a bit of room to attack my arguments. Just saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
The Catholic Church analogy is fine because it is meant to provide perspective and understand the logic used abstractly. Beyond that, I'm not terribly interested in it since it would be better to work in the present.
Who's talking about Radical Islam? I am right there with you. As far as I could tell, so is Aslan. Radial Islam and Islam are two entirely different things.Quote:
Radical Islam is a growing fucking problem.
I suspect this has little to do with the religion. Lots of Muslims have died fighting against Islamic extremists. Perhaps now it appears that isn't the case because the Obama administration's behavior has created a surprise vacuum. For several decades, the friendly nations in the region followed the US leadership. It's only in the last few years that they've been hung out to dry and needing to scramble.Quote:
Muslims aren't doing enough to fight it. Fuck that entire religion.
There's almost no question that this religion predisposes people to barbarism more so than christianity, so can we unplug the CNN false equivalency generator already please? This whole liberal movement to be an Islam apologist kind of blows my mind.
Yeah it's wrong to blame all muslims for the isolated terrorist acts which occur, especially those perpetrated by ISIS which has proceeded to alienate the majority of muslim nations with their actions. Yeah it's wrong to be bigoted toward people without cause. But it is NOT wrong to be deeply critical of the base, childish and barbaric shit that people believe. These people need to be shamed, ridiculed, and generally excluded from intelligent discourse until they come back to reality with the rest of us. And that includes Christians as well as Muslims, but Muslims ARE at least slightly worse..
This is true, but I'm reluctant to say it's because of the religion. It's more about the culture. The short of it: Catholicism was always more violent than Protestantism even though they use the same books. They just had different interpretations and different cultural ideals. But today, Catholicism is not violent like it used to be. Little changed in its orthodoxy, just the culture of its adherents and the emphasis of the teaching.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renton
Do we know that the same isn't true of Islam?
For the record, I am not an apologist. I am one of the first people to say left-wing institutions crush discussion on this topic with an iron fist. It's disgusting and its own sort of radicalism.
Also I'm pretty sure the poverty case for ISIS doesn't hold water. ISIS' motivations are very religious and very nationalistic.
Wuf, re: Catholic Church, are you citing the Crusades? I hope you're not citing something that happened hundreds of years ago. Civilization has grown by leaps and bounds since then. The fact that we're even comparing it to hundreds of years ago is telling enough.
Anyway, I'm done debating this. I'm gonna go practice Bigredbuddhism.
Not just the Crusades. The Catholic Church has a very violent history. For most of its history, it was more like an authoritarian imperial state that ruled its constituents by dictate and crushed dissent with force. Millions died at the hands of the Church through numerous religious wars, executions, and various slaughters.
The behavior of the Church today is nothing like it used to be. In a lot of ways I would say it has become a respectable institution, but it most certainly was not back when it was a shadow government that kept its constituents in line through coercion and ignorance.
Western civilization has grown leaps and bounds. Just because they can get their hands on automatic weapons now doesn't mean their culture has matured to equal that of all others.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
Besides, Atheism is by far the most destructive religion. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot...
Just be thankful these savages have a God.
:shh:Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Dude.
I mean, come on.
You're blowing our cover here.
YOU GUYS
http://i.imgur.com/0qdNjWa.png
Renton and I vs wufwugy? Dafuq?
You have no idea? He is the theologian, it is for him to make the distinction. He chose not to, and in doing so he grossly mislead viewers. He has been called on this repeatedly, but he goes on because it's an effective, if dishonest tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
My apologies, I intended to write causation.Quote:
The correlation is real. That doesn't mean it's causation.
The belief that blasphemy, homosexuality, adultry, etc, should be punishable by death is far more common in the Muslim world than anywhere else. This idea that there is a tiny minority of evil Muslims in a vast sea of good Muslims is facile and naive.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
This defeatist attitude in the face of complex and nuanced issues is a primary force in halting progress. I understand not wanting to invest your own personal time, but then why do you feel compelled to weigh in with a superficial accounting? There are always going to be bad apples, but that doesn't mean we can't make strides to minimize their numbers and impact.Quote:
There's always going to be bad apples and blaming the whole for a part is straight ignant dawg. Besides, recent reports have suggested the ISIS militants to not be very religious and it's more of a poverty/disgruntled movement.
Again, I see where you're coming from, and this time I don't have anything to argue with. I hate myself every time I let sleep deprivation lower my guard against getting into these debates...Quote:
I see where you're headed with the religion as a platform argument and blah blah blah but there's not enough time in the day and your efforts are better spent finding cute kittens. I call it the Bigred Tao. Go forth and may the kitten be with you. Remember, Caturday is a day of reflection and giggles.
The sick thing about this whole thing is that Bigred is right in saying that, in fact, efforts ARE better spent finding cute kittens. Bigred is the new Dalai Lama, imo.
I'm barely joking. It's really, really sad but I'm at a point where all this bullshit (I think people call it "growing up") where I'm basically like, fuck this social justice, politics and economics. It's easier for me to just look at cute kitties knowing that I won't make a difference.
It's sad but, ignorance really is bliss.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5y68ErffgM
Well, I think the take away from bigredism can be far less depressing. You don't need to be the hero, you don't need to save the world. Just find something you enjoy, and, so long as it doesn't hurt others, do the fuck out of it. In doing so, you'll have a positive impact on the world by way of being a happy person making a quality contribution.
It's not about finding kittens. It's about picking your battles. It's about putting your effort where it can be both helpful and fulfilling.
@All the peeps
Why would you ever argue with this guy:
That guy is not open to new information or willing to change his mind. He is willing to vilify 23% of all the peoples.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
He thinks your information is stupid, and by extension, that you are inferior to him (facile and naive) for believing it.
My advice is to let that guy be. You don't have to be a part of every conversation.
Get the fuck over yourself, MMM. Boost has obviously thought this through before and made up his mind. There's a reason why he won't change his mind: he's heard every kind of argument. You think you can belittle boost and make it seem like he's somehow ignorant for having his mind made up? Fuck that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You jump to the assumption that boost sees others arguing against him as inferior which I highly doubt. Don't put fucking words in his mouth. Don't tell us what he thinks. Boost can tell us himself.
You obviously refuse to see anything wrong with Islam and look to be covering your ears of any new information. You're exactly the liberal shit that makes having this debate impossible.
I just realized why I find this post irritating. Stop talking about people in the third person. You want to tell boost that he's being ignorant, fucking tell him. Don't "that guy" him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
:) Rage a bit, there,BooG? :h:
I was talking about Boost in the third person to illustrate the point that I was not talking about him specifically.
I was talking about recognizing a futile conversation when you're in one and stepping away.
I'm talking about picking your battles.
Also, I really don't think I put words in his mouth, because A) I wasn't talking about him specifically, and B) I quoted him in the exact context he wrote it.
I don't judge him or begrudge him his beliefs.
I assume that he's secure enough in both his sense of self and in his beliefs to tell them apart, and to tell that any discord between what he believes and what I believe is nothing personal. (If he's not, then that's fine, too, but I'm not gonna walk on eggshells around that, either.)
Also, this is rich:
MMMmmmmm.... You can really taste the hypocrisy. Delicious.Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
The only belief I've imposed into this conversation is some numbers, and I think they can be questioned, but that they're on the correct order to illustrate the point.
I hardly think adding a bit of data to the conversation is any impediment. The fact that it's a debate is why it's not a worthy topic or a conversation. In debate, people say what they think. No party changes their mind. The purpose of debate is to inform, not persuade.
I'm all about spreading information. So lay me some data. Drop me some facts. Spread some knowledge sauce on that bitter dish of judgement you're serving up.
Otherwise. You're just a jabbering tool.
Make me smarter. Make me laugh. Fill me up with feelz.
But don't stand there talking ill-conceived, evidence-free nonsense, which simple math open up as the lie it is, and expect me to stand there.
There are kitties in the world, man!
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
My understanding of the stages of jihad through reading the Quran and studying history is that it relies on the minority of so-called extremists blending in and being hidden by the larger majority of "inactives" (for lack of a better term) so that an attack on Islam as a whole is not feasible. How Muhammed prepared before he over Mecca and how he started an offensive afterwards is a good example of this strategy at work.
Jihad is the idea of the religious duty of a Muslim to share/spread the religion, and it's what primarily drives you in the religion as a whole. It's also primarily militarized whether people want to accept that or not (according to the vast majority of scholars who are experts in Islam). There are two main parts to jihad: internal and external. The internal jihad is preparing yourself and improving your position so that you're better prepared to support yourself and fellow Muslims. This is also the preparation for external jihad.
The external jihad is the actual concrete fight against people who are not Muslim, and it can only come after you have gained enough ground through the internal jihad that you aren't just going to be wiped the fuck out. When your numbers are weak, you aren't allowed an external jihad because that wouldn't allow for expansion since you'd just get plowed over and your group of people would be done. Once you have sufficient numbers through internal jihad, you can begin into the defensive portion of external jihad which means you're allowed to fight to defend yourself.
So external jihad has two parts: defensive and offensive. During internal jihad, you're expected to run from a fight to preserve numbers and resources so that you can continue to build up the strength of your group. Defensive jihad happens when your numbers and resources are sufficient that you can fight with people who attack you directly as long as it's not going to hurt your group in the long run. However, there are also two parts to defensive jihad:
Passive defensive jihad: Only fighting when you are directly challenged while you are building your numbers.
Active defensive jihad: Provoking attack by attempting to occupy land, government, resources, etc. as part of a take-over to prepare for offensive jihad.
The use of active defensive jihad allows the group to take over government positions and gain influence through other ways where you essentially ease the enemy into giving you more and more power. Once that's performed to a sufficient level, you have the strength for offensive jihad. This is when you actively fight against non-believers with the attitude that either they convert to Islam and join in the fight or they die.
It's important to notice two things. First, this strategy inherent in jihad very closely resembles how Muhammed took over Mecca (for people who like history) and used it as the center of a unified fight against all non-Muslims. Second, these stages of jihad are localized and not global. What I mean by this is that not all Muslims will be at the same stage of jihad in every place all over the world. For a few examples:
- ISIS (aka Islamic State aka they have government control that they established through active defensive jihad) is currently in the offensive jihad stage.
- The United States is currently in the passive defensive jihad stage.
- The United Kingdom is currently in the active defensive jihad stage.
It's also important to note that not all Muslims are called upon to be militant, and the strategy actually relies on the majority of Muslims not being militant. Offensive jihad cannot take place without the numbers and established state to back it up, so even during this offensive stage, the majority of Muslims are not militant. The "non-extremist" believers in Islam, whether they like it or not and whether they want this to be the case or not, heavily contribute to the perception that we should allow things like Sharia courts.
Don't think that'll ever happen? Guess what? We already have Sharia courts in the United States. We already have tons of people with good intentions telling us that we should allow Muslims to have more and more influence in government and the allocation of resources, and this is happening in the United States and all throughout Europe. In our era, it's the fear of being seen as politically incorrect that's allowing a very rapid defensive jihad stage.
This is already too long, but for a good example of how afraid public officials are of seeming like "Islamophobes," check out this from the Daily Mail:
Quote:
A criminal investigation has been launched today after a damning new report found Rotherham Council is 'not fit for purpose' and still 'in denial' about the 1,400 young girls who were abused in the town over 16 years.
Investigators concluded girls as young as 11 were left to be abused by mainly [Pakistani Muslim] men between 1997 and 2013 because the council's staff and politicians feared being labelled racist.
It's really to quell you all into a virtual dependency while I prep my minions to take over the world. Adorable, adorable feline minions...Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
This human concept of jihad amuses us ducks.
This is me multiple times a day:
http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-conten...antum_leap.gif
Don't pretend like you shits are better than us in this game called life.Quote:
Originally Posted by duck
http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsci...exual-battles/
tldr female ducks evolved maze like vaginas to prevent rape babies, men simply evolved rape corkscrews.
Some mosquitoes have scoops on the end of their penis.
When they rape, they scoop out the last rapers rape so they can be the only raper.
A duck cannot rape another duck. Rape is a legal term. Ducks are not bound by human law.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
You're subject to some of them. Like the law of supply and demand.
http://i.imgur.com/aYvpvDy.jpg
duck is outraged.
ong is salivating.
This is my quote of the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by duck
ive always thought the concept of privilege is dogshit. here's a great article providing perspective on why that would be. granted the latter part of the article is a call to arms to support marriage.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ee-habeeb-mike
it's isn't exactly that privilege doesn't exist, but that trying to counter it by arbitration doesn't work. there isnt a subsidy or a regulation that can make unmarried people married and keep it effective. this is analogous to why things like affirmative action don't work. the mechanism that raises the unprivileged out of that status is a culture that supports the kinds of values that create privilege. just like how society doesn't create healthy marriages by arbitration, it doesn't provide employment skills by arbitration. the people themselves have to value those things to get their privilege.
I really failed to flesh out my point, but if you read the preceding sentence, you'll see that I was getting at the fact that there is a whole spectrum of Muslims. A small minority commits heinous atrocities, but at least a significant minority passively or actively supports this violent minority's quest for eternal paradise via jihad. I am not vilifying all Muslims, not even close.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
As for calling people facile and/or naive, I did not do so. I think it's a distinction people fail to make all too often, but I was critiquing an idea, not a person or persons.
I do find your accusation of closed mindedness rather amusing. Your first post on the topic does not make any claims on its own, but instead it misrepresents ones I've made, all but cries "bigot" in an effort to dismiss me, and encourages others to close themselves off from honest debate.
What gives, dude?
When logic fails, attack the other person. That's the liberal social justice white guilt white knight way.
In the name of feminism and fighting bigotry!
Man we are equal as fuck up in this motherfucker.
;)Quote:
“I am a Liberal Fuck,” Krupp wrote in one post. “A Liberal Fuck is not a Democrat, but rather someone who combines political data and theory, extreme leftist views and sarcasm to win any argument while make the opponents feel terrible about themselves. I won every argument but one.” Krupp then detailed the only political argument he claimed her ever lost, a drunken encounter he had with a “conservative gay prick.”
I'm not interested in any debate, as I've said. In debate, two parties choose their opinion, then construct arguments to support that opinion. They stand before an audience and exchange their ideas, under the agreement that at no time will either part change their mind. It is primarily a medium for disseminating information about complicated issues.
Which is why I'm not interested in debating.
***
When I hear someone describe a human population in a way that lacks simple humanity, I feel they are being bigoted.
Let's throw a definition at this point: Judging the many based on any subset of the population's actions is bigotry.
You might as well be saying that racism in Missouri is my fault. I live in Missouri, don't I? It's my acceptance of this racism that perpetuates it, right? Clearly the racism would be over if only we Missourians would step up and condemn this bullshit, right?
What about school shootings? I live in the U.S. We have had a lot of tragic massacres of innocent children in our country. Is it my failure to condemn killing innocent school children that is at fault? Is it us as a collective society that have failed to condemn killing children?
BUT if we're going that route, then why do we get to stop early? Why don't we land in a place like:
Look at all these terrible problems in the world. This is all my fault for not doing more.
Why do you get to draw an imaginary line around any groups at the end?
Doesn't the line go around the planet?
***
Whatever. You seem to be interested in defending your hatred, so I'm sure you have an answer to all of this.
And I honestly couldn't care less about your answer.
There is nothing you can say that will make me change my mind and embrace a philosophy which holds hatred as an ideal.
I am just as firmly entrenched in my viewpoint as you are.
There is nothing to be gained from talking to each other on this subject.
So here:
http://www.drodd.com/images8/funny-gif/funny-gif7.gif