Am literally only here to read, laugh, and say that I love @Volenvradica, @Cynder, and @AdobeFlash. That is all.

Meanwhile, in politics:

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

Fixed.

He's definitely still a brain surgeon so I have no idea why you felt the need to make that change.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

He's definitely still a brain surgeon so I have no idea why you felt the need to make that change.

In that context he was trying to make a statement on how intelligent he is, brain surgeon or rocket scientist, being a creationist gives you minus points in intelligence.

<Snipped quote by j8cob>

In that context he was trying to make a statement on how intelligent he is, brain surgeon or rocket scientist, being a creationist gives you minus points in intelligence.

I imagine not nearly enough to seriously impact the whole brain surgeon thing. A bit of a meme that brain surgeons and rocket scientists are the smartest ones.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

I imagine not nearly enough to seriously impact the whole brain surgeon thing. A bit of a meme that brain surgeons and rocket scientists are the smartest ones.

Never said they were 'the smartest ones' if you can find where I said that then I'll concede the meme but, it seems like that was just a construct of your imagination.

And yes it is seriously enough to impact the brain surgeon thing, understanding a medical practice, however complex isnt a demonstration of reason, logic, and healthy skepticism. Especially in the context of being a presidential candidate you sort of need those things, and his creationism confirms his lack of those qualites.

<Snipped quote by j8cob>

Never said they were 'the smartest ones' if you can find where I said that then I'll concede the meme but, it seems like that was just a construct of your imagination.

And yes it is seriously enough to impact the brain surgeon thing, understanding a medical practice, however complex isnt a demonstration of reason, logic, and healthy skepticism. Especially in the context of being a presidential candidate you sort of need those things, and his creationism confirms his lack of those qualites.

He's not a very good creationist then, considering he doesn't believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. Just that it was created in six days. Sleepy Ben over here ain't the most awake but his eyes are still open.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Probably not live. I've got company at that time, but I'll try to catch it after.

You?

So The Donald just sort of lost that debate, what are your thoughts on that?

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

So The Donald just sort of lost that debate, what are your thoughts on that?

If you ask me he held his ground well in the beginning, but eventually he just completely lost it. At times it seemed like Hillary was about to just drop to the floor in laughter.

I have simple views on the matter of politics.

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

So The Donald just sort of lost that debate, what are your thoughts on that?

Really? Looks like almost every poll says that he won.

Personally, I thought it was a wash. They both came out looking horrible. He had her in the beginning on trade, and she was stuttering over herself trying to think of a comeback, but then the moderator started outright arguing with Trump closer to the end, and he had to completely go on the defensive. Hillary really just through out accusations faster than Trump could dispute them, but he seemed actually more solid on specific policies.

What's your take?

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Really? Looks like almost every poll says that he won.

Personally, I thought it was a wash. They both came out looking horrible. He had her in the beginning on trade, and she was stuttering over herself trying to think of a comeback, but then the moderator started outright arguing with Trump closer to the end, and he had to completely go on the defensive. Hillary really just through out accusations faster than Trump could dispute them, but he seemed actually more solid on specific policies.

What's your take?

Well the internet polls are sort of dominated by the young male demographic, a good portion of hilary's supporters are old women who dont use the internet like that, so I'll wait for the official polls before I make a judgement.

Just to add I have no bias here, while you and @j8cob are actual Trump supporters (nothing wrong with that) I dont actually care who wins, not my country and either way not much is going to happen in 4 years whoever wins.

But as far as the debate, Trump was good with some funny one liners and clearly had more passion but in every other aspect he was floundering, he couldnt make the email jab stick, his trade policy seemed to be non-existent beyond "Dont give our jobs to China" with zero followup. His bit on the police was okay, I'd say he and hilary sort of tied there. But over all he was definately losing his cool, I know a lot of people point to the moderator being biased but he only kept interrupting Donald because he couldnt keep his mouth shut while hilary was talking AND kept going over his own time, you get treated based on your behaviour.

As far as personals go, Trump had the upper-hand, he is funnier and quicker with his jabs and arguably had more to work with. Hilary's attempt at wit is tepid at best and cringey at worst, she cant hang with Donald when it comes to insults.

But the fact of it is, that its a presidential debate and not a comedy roast, and the oppurtunites for attacks were so far and few between it left Donald floundering a lot, because he is just a little to simplistic when it comes to polices, being a 'straight talker' made him look dumb when trying to explain how the economy would work.

So I'd give it to Hilary by fair margian, not a total knockout but a solid win. We will see how the next 3 rounds go.

<Snipped quote by j8cob>

In that context he was trying to make a statement on how intelligent he is, brain surgeon or rocket scientist, being a creationist gives you minus points in intelligence.

I don't really want to add to the shitshow here because I don't really care for the politics at the moment (the thread is cool, wanted to fill it in but forgot.)

But a lot of the most capable minds in history were religious, in fact many of them were creationist. Also, how does being creationist gives you minus point? Citation needed. There's a lot of really stupid atheists out there, but I wouldn't say they're stupid because they're atheist.

Men's Rights Activist (MRA): Not in association.

Although my ideas and principles align with that of the MRA's, I don't really feel the need to associate with a bunch of men that feel slighted so badly they need to organize themselves for it. I find 90% of MRA's are just bitter men that seek unison with other men for (perceived) slights, bad experiences with women, or victimhood. The other 10% are naive and gullible people that think that MRA organizations will get anything done at all.

Some of the issues that they pose are issues I agree with. Such as the 'male privilege' of dying in combat, doing heavy-duty low-brow work that women wouldn't touch with a stick, the irregular high amount of male suicides compared to women, the lack of seriousness when it comes to male victims of sexual violence, (domestic) abuse and other issues that men face that women have no idea about for the most part.



They're like the MGTOW movement to me - some of the ideas are bretty gud, but as with any organization that focuses on civil issues, it quickly devolves into a useless group of people, bitter with anger and not providing any logical discourse on how to fix their issues. 'Lets talk about male suicides!' 'Okay, what is your solution?' 'LOOK, I DONT KNOW, BUT IT HAS TO GO DOWN.'

In essence I guess I am sort of an MRA in the sense that my ideas largely align with theirs. But that's a paradox, because in that sense I could also theoretically be a feminist. So I just absolve myself of both of these retarded titles and just call myself a person.

Anaracho Capatalist: fuck no.

I'm authoritarian. I don't think the government is an evil presence, I don't believe taxes are unlawful, and I think anarcho capitalism would just lead to moral degeneracy. I've had discussions with some fellow that likes the NAP and other stuff like that. It's deplorable. This fucker thought that it'd be OK if poor people sold themselves into slavery with a contract because 'it's a free choice'. He also believed that rich people were objectively better.

I've had enough of these people.

SJW (Social Justice Warrior): haha.

Between my outspoken criticism of any and all groups that align with SJW's and my lack of tactfulness and rude manners, I think this is an easy answer. Fuck your made up gender, and fuck your made up pronouns.

Social justice is a societal cancer that does nothing good for either the primary majority group (they have to make concessions on the basis of perceived slights that may/may not even be true. Not to speak of the equally cringeworthy 'white guilt' or 'conquerors guilt'.) and doesn't do any good for the minority that they speak for either. Any concessions granted to you on the basis of social justice are a mockery.

Feminist: not in association.

1st wave feminism was awesome bruv. Men had to work less because women could work then, so it was all good, right. Then 2nd wave feminism was there and it made me go like 'hm, well, I guess you can have sex with people whenever you want' but it got kinda queasy already. But the fact that people in the sex industry were more protected made me happy, so I saw the queasy shit through the fingers. Now we have the third modern wave and it's absolute aids.

I think feminism is directly responsible for controlling their own ideological members and therefore, anyone saying these new feminazi's are not feminists should look up the definition of the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy.

So I agree with first wave feminism, agree that there's some good to 2nd wave feminism, and I hate everything third wave feminism stands for. Fuck your queer theory.

Brexiter: Yes.

Fuck the EU. Living here I can see precisely how this stupid union is fucking up the rich members. European offices are filled with money grabbing idiots that can't do their job properly. I am in favor of some uniform union that organizes trade and such, but it has to be just that - a trade union. Like how it started.

For reference; Brexit is bad for my country, because Britain leaving = Netherlands having to pay more = more taxes. It's still the plausible option for me because fuck the EU. Seriously.

Motherfuckers move office for 1 month a year to another building in another area and every single year it costs us multiple millions to pay trucks to drive paperwork back and forth. Meanwhile our budgets for military, health and other departments are cut every single year. You do the math.

Gamergater/Pro Gamergate: eh. Maybe.

Gamergate started as a movement to out the corruption of games journalism such as Kotaku and other platforms. Being a gamer I was sort of involved - as in, I read these media platforms. Some woman that produced a very fucking shitty game had sex with a couple journalists to give her a positive review.

That's how it started.

It quickly devolved into what it was now because this woman claimed they were being sexist.

I played her game. It was fucking godawful shit. Waste of my time. So yes, I agree with the premise of Gamergate.

Race Realist: lol. Not really.

I mean phenotypes are a scientific truth at this point I believe, but besides that I don't believe in race realism. Races do not exist. Our 'race' is human. In the same way that a dog has different breeds, and lets say humans are huskies. You have black huskies, white huskies, mixtures of the two.

Those with different color patterns aren't suddenly a 'new' race. It doesn't work like that. So biologically races are not a thing.

In sociology and other such 'sciences' (they're mostly wet-finger sciences, but useful) they are very real because in sociology, society forms the theories and facts. So, if a large amount of people believe in race, then yes, race is 'real' in the sense of sociology.

I don't know enough more about race realism to speak on it - I think saying that blacks are disproportionately involved in crime is not a bad statement depending on how you explain it. If you look at socio-economic reasonings and criminological theories to explain this phenomena, that doesn't make me a racist I think, because I'm actively thinking about and working towards a solution.

Libertarian: not really.

In our current society we have a lot of rights and such and I appreciate that. However I do not hold the belief that everyone should be free to do as they please. In fact I don't even think 'rights' should be called that. They're privileges.

So no. I am authoritarian and I believe a state should have the power to retract a individuals freedoms and rights within reason as they see fit.

@Dynamo Frokane@Jotunn Draugr

I'd say that Donald Trump did exactly as I predicted and the debate went where he needed it to go. Clinton was looking like Mitt Romney out there, making the same mistakes he did. She blew her load and used everything she had against Trump and it's only the first debate. Her focus on attacking him was obvious, people will see that. But she attacked him in such a way that she can't sustain that offense for the next two debates. She has nothing new to throw at him and people are going to see that her arsenal is dry. Furthermore it was painfully obvious that Lester Holt was siding with Clinton. All the undecided people could see how he shushed the crowd every time they laughed or cheered for Trump but did nothing when the crowd sided with Clinton.

Not to mention the actual substance of what the two were saying. While Trump didn't put up hardly any offense at all, which is a good thing, being on the defense most of the time allowed him to clear up some lies and misconceptions about him at the cost of being on the defensive. A small price to pay for a big reward, considering the mainstream media outlets have been painting false pictures of him for over a year and now it's on the grind to swing undecided voters. Getting his policies and his truths out there was worth the hit he had to take. Clinton, on the other hand, spent most of her talking time lying through her teeth. People already have a massive distrust towards her and they're going to either easily detect her lies or they are going to check it out for themselves. She had put herself in a bad spot by making herself the bad guy this election so she had to go on the offensive. Problem she had was there wasn't much ammo against Trump and what little there was she used it all. She is going to be on the defensive now and she's going to be on the defensive until November.

This debate went exactly as it needed to go. Trump didn't look the best after the first thirty minutes but the desperation from Clinton was palpable. She shot herself in the foot on this debate just to make Trump look a little bit foolish. Just like with Romney in 2012, this is going to come back to bite her in the ass. Trump's demonstrated in the past how aggressive he is at these debates and he clearly and intentionally held that back last night. It's a cake walk from here. Remember: he doesn't have to fight just Clinton out there but also the moderators, as all the moderators are being provided by Clinton donors and have heavy biases. In spite of that he is in the better position between the two. The goal of these debates is to swing undecided voters and Clinton didn't play to that endgame. Now she's completely at Trump's mercy and if he wants those voters he isn't going to give her any mercy.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Really? Looks like almost every poll says that he won.

Personally, I thought it was a wash. They both came out looking horrible. He had her in the beginning on trade, and she was stuttering over herself trying to think of a comeback, but then the moderator started outright arguing with Trump closer to the end, and he had to completely go on the defensive. Hillary really just through out accusations faster than Trump could dispute them, but he seemed actually more solid on specific policies.

What's your take?

Online polls were regularly declaring, like, 90% for Bernie back in the spring. Of course, the Media isn't exactly a better judge, but they seem to know that, and most media personalities I have seen have been tossing in grains of salt with their reports. You know, always talking about how bizarre this election is and how they ultimately can't figure out what is going on, before they go on with their opinion. I think the real indicator will be how the professional polls look, and we got at least a week if not two before those come out in large enough numbers to tell a story.

My own opinion, I expected him to do well, but I don't think he did well at all. I was surprised by it actually. He is good on the offensive but petulant and weak in the defensive, so I assumed he'd take the offensive. But instead he played his weakest hand and came off like he was way out of his league.

Hillary came off as robotic (The way she awkwardly felt her way up to that "I call it trumped up Reaganomics" line was like watching a blind man having sex for the first time). She always has seemed robotic. This is especially true when she is answering a moderator question. Clinton's debating style always comes off to me like a college freshman who practiced a few choice lines in a mirror and sort of ad-libbed the rest, because it always feels like she is setting herself up to deliver the line she had practiced. It's awkward and unimpressive. She did better when rebutting Trump's ideas, especially that one time where she did that aside to America's allies, I felt that made him look like a little boy getting apologized for by his mother.

But Trump comes off exactly like a cartoon villain in an old saturday morning cartoon. He starts off cocky, then slowly looses his cool, spouts generically evil lines, and starts falling apart near the end. It sorta felt like Batman should jump up any minute, kick him into the lava, say some corny line, and then credits role. He also has this thing for petulance. Like, let your supporters bitch about the media, don't do it yourself. A presidential candidate whining about the media... i mean, here you have a bunch of spineless milquetoast upper-middle class reporters and you're going to say they are being mean? How the fuck you gonna lead the free world if those people are enough of a challenge for you to call time-out? A billionaire whining about how the election is too hard... that doesn't inspire anything but disgust in me, guy. Man the fuck up.

The biggest danger for Trump in these debates I think will be himself. Clinton is not charismatic enough to do him in, he has to do it himself. He said Trumpy things in August and had bad polls. He toned it down in September and had really good polls. But if that is how he is going to act in a debate, he really is in danger of saying Trumpy things again, and he can't afford to do that in October. This is the home stretch. What happens in this next month will actually stay with the voters. He did really well with the TPP line, actually managed to choke her up, so whatever he did there he'll have to learn how to hold if he is going to win this thing. But if he plays it, like, basically the rest of that debate, he's going to have to hope for outside forces to get him the swing votes. Pray for an economic collapse (again), or something like that.

Meanwhile, I can say that the debate only really reinforced my resolve to vote third party this year. The next president is going to be some sort of disaster or another, so fuck it.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

There's a lot of really stupid atheists out there, but I wouldn't say they're stupid because they're atheist.

Atheism VS Theism is a different thing, you dont get plus or minus points for either as you cant really prove if there is or isnt a god either way, its sort of just what reasoning you use to presume which is more logical.

Creationism DOES make you stupid, as creationism isnt a simple as I believe in a higher power, its anti-scientific biblical literalism. Its believing things that have been proven false. The correct correlation would be creationism vs rationalism or scientific method. Any one running for president who thinks god 'magicked' the world in 6 days is a moron, period.

@Dynamo Frokane you do realize that there's more than 1 form of creationism?

@Dynamo Frokane you do realize that there's more than 1 form of creationism?

Yes and they are all different shades of stupid, some are more ridiculous than others but they are all ultimately undermining science in one way or another.

But I was speaking specifically about Ben Carson's creationism. He CLAIMS not to think the world is 6000 years old but he more just dodges the question when it comes up, but as mentioned above he thinks the world was created in 6 days, not very logical, brain surgeon or not.

@Dynamo Frokane and science is your only method of measuring levels of 'smartness'? You don't think a creationist can be clever, genius in their own way, for example philosophies, spiritual guidance to troubled people, maths, literature, history, etcetera.

I think you're thinking too much about this on the religious side. Religion has nothing to do with ones capabilities to be smart or not. History has proven that time and time again. You claim that these people go against science but you yourself are going against history, which in my eyes is a far more clear sign of stupidity.

There are many benefits to religion that have nothing to do with religion. Social ties. Helping troubled people. Providing guidance for those that need. Providing hope for those that can't find it elsewhere. Creationism doesn't mean you're stupid. It just means you have a different idea on the world.

Your lack of being able to process that, that too signals to me that you're not yet mature enough to even consider entering a discussion with these people.

It reminds me of what Trump said when he used Mussolini (the father of fascism) his quote 'better to live one day as a lion than a hundred as a sheep' or something among those lines.

'It's a great quote,' and with that I want to say; even dumb people can say genius things, even geniuses make mistakes and/or say stupid things, even evil people have a shred of good, and even good people have evil hidden deep inside of them.

Discrediting people based on their religious views - well, let me say, it already puts you in the same department as you put them in. Listen to what people say and not to who you think they are.

It might work wonders for you.