Keyguyperson

OwO [Notices horde]

>you will never conquer the majority of Eurasia

So guys...

Whoops, I didn't get the memo. Will Soros still be paying me for this? That's the only reason I hold political opinions opposite those of the right, you know, it's that sweet Soros paycheck.

Pitbulls aren't dangerous and here's why

I can and will have the other volunteer at the Orange County Animal Chelter sic her fifteen pitbulls on you if you continue to badmouth them.

They are strong lads.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

To everyone picking apart what I said, I should really clarify. I wasn't saying that we shouldn't ever judge anyone because morality is relative, I was saying that basing an entire argument upon your own personal morals (free speech is good so if you punch white supremacists then you're bad) shouldn't be done because morality is relative. It's not an effective argument, since it's similar to arguing as a Christian to an Athiest that they should sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor because that's what Jesus told the rich man to do. That might be a good thing for them to do, but that doesn't mean the other person will agree to do so because the son of a God they don't believe in said so.

If you absolutely have to use morality in an argument, common ground should be established first. Saying "Well, the second amendment says..." won't work unless both of you personally agree with the second amendment and what it states. If both of you agree that free speech is inherently a good thing, using it as a point of argument is useless. If you don't, then you should argue using different appeals rather than continuing to just say that your morals say you're right. If you can't manage to get anywhere with different appeals, then maybe your opinion isn't as strong as you thought.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with trying to change someone's mind on the moral issue in the first place. I'm making an argument that morality is relative and has no inherent basis beyond common human instincts. Laws against, say, murder make sense because humanity as a whole can agree that just flat out killing someone is bad. I don't think that every aspect of action pertaining to what you could consider morality is relative, because as a species we do share some inherent instincts that we consider morality. We aren't hunter gatherers anymore, though, and in our complex societies and cultures morals can be heavily divergent. Attempting to change someone else's morals, either through a one-on-one conversation or massive cultural movement that could end with the spilling of blood, is a natural thing and I'm not saying it should never be done. On the contrary, I think it should be done more often.

Pence/Christ 2020

Anarcho-capitalism would be a good stir-up as well. Selling guns to your neighbor so they can shoot you in your sleep; fantastic and efficient.

@GodOfWar

>Anarcho-Capitalism
>Corporate feudalism

w h a t ' s t h e d i f f e r e n c e ?

Pence/Christ 2020

Something something obligatory call for large-scale communist uprising.

Honestly I'd be fine with any big shake-up at this point. Sure, fuck it, give me corporate feudalism. That'll be exciting I guess.

Frokane's Mildly Politcal Hangout Thread

Friendly reminder that free speech isn't something that is naturally and eternally good, it's just something part of the world decided was a good idea and now people act like the universe itself demands that it be upheld. Nobody has to tolerate anybody else's viewpoint because "free speech", because free speech isn't some kind of moral be all end all. People are obsessed with the idea that western liberal values are somehow universal truths, when they're just as universally true as the social values of the Roman Empire. Morality is entirely relative, and the only reason so much of us have settled on the moral ideas proposed by modern western liberalism is because modern western liberalism happens to have the most power in the world. If it had been China and other Asian nations that rose to power rather than European ones, the values considered "true" by most of us would be significantly different.

Would you worship the god you do or do not had you been born in India? Would you believe that violence is inherently bad and that all views must be respected if you were a slave in the American South? No, you probably wouldn't. You hold the values you do because of what culture you were born into, what ideology is in power where that culture exists, and the other socioeconomic conditions you were born into. If I was born to some well-off family in the suburbs of California I'd probably be making the exact opposite argument that I am now.

The American constitution is not the tablets brought down by Moses.

U L T R A - L E F T

The only true leftist tendency

I found a can of olives in my pantry

What the hell kinda expensive ass health insurance makes a hospital trip no big deal? Are you just all Canadians?

"Hey, Congress...

Democracy can't work, you edgy little slave. Remember what happened to Athens? Democracy is not, and never will be a viable system. Do you even know how many people died in Athens because of the plague? That'll happen here in Sparta if we became a democracy.