Crooked Hillary!

[Eos]

Flonne; Did you really just advocate a combination of Eugenics and Darwinism to return us to caveman levels of survival of the fittest?

PS. You do realize that under this standard you shouldn't be allowed to live either?

Yes, yes he did. And now you understand what you're trying to rationalize with.

[Flonne]

Flonne; Did you really just advocate a combination of Eugenics and Darwinism to return us to caveman levels of survival of the fittest?



PS. You do realize that under this standard you shouldn't be allowed to live either?

Survival of the fittest was never really a thing, it's more a 50:50 combination of survival of the fittest and survival of who is lucky, and a combination of eugenics and darwinism doesn't even make sense, I said right in my post that all of those things are positive but still manage to have a negative effect on us because of the way we are wired, I know I'm wordy as pineapple at times but please at least read it all if you want to respond properly. What I said was, all of those positive effects on our quality of life should remain which effectively removes darwinism from the equation, but in order for that to work correctly certain parts of the human psyche need to be removed from our gene pool. I also said that eugenics failed precisely because it was not implemented or even proposed in anything close to an acceptable manner, it was designed to cull racial traits, not psychological ones.

And yes, I know that, what of it? My one life is not that important, I don't contribute anything to society, I and people like me are not worth anything in the structure of a better society. I don't understand why someone would be angry when I say that I want genetic research to remove mental illness and negative behavioral inclination from humans, I would give up almost anything currently in my life to experience peace of mind. Just because mental illness is a part of being human doesn't mean it should be left alone if a method exists to remove it entirely, accommodating for crippling mental illness is precisely the SJW mentality, there is now fat acceptance, the current push toward allowing people who were not born trans to transition (thinking you are not the gender you were born as is a mental illness through and through), and in some even more extreme circles, it is being proposed that the mother of a child should be allowed to do whatever drugs she wants while pregnant because autism or other birth defects makes the child even more marginalized and "special". Maybe it's an extreme viewpoint that I am expressing here, but I don't think people like that latter group should be allowed to live any more than I think I would exist in a society without mental illnesses, unless you are saying I am worse than those people, which, you are entitled to your opinion.

[cronnoponno]

While I do actually agree with some of the stuff you are saying, to a point....I have never heard even the craziest ''SJW'' types to advocate excessive use of drugs while pregnant. I highly doubt even the most self-destructive ones would honestly wish to impose the consequences onto their kids.



While I do agree with a lot of the stuff you are saying I don't think it applies very well to the original situation you quoted. It does look like they are using this one incident as a card to press their agenda from what I've read, but is it really that hard to believe that a group of people could attack another group by surprise? I personally don't find it hard to believe a bunch of uber-patriotic people would go and beat up a bunch of people, and it isn't like every protester is just waiting for a fight to happen so they can whup some ass. It seems to me like you are skeptical of it happening at all, and if it did happen...well it wouldn't have happened if we only upped our game in genetic research, too bad -shrugs-. No matter how obnoxious or ''weak'' these people were, an attack on them is still an attack on them and that shouldn't really be defended.

[xparasite9]

While I do actually agree with some of the stuff you are saying, to a point....I have never heard even the craziest ''SJW'' types to advocate excessive use of drugs while pregnant. I highly doubt even the most self-destructive ones would honestly wish to impose the consequences onto their kids.

man I wish I could find that facebook screenshot

[Flonne]

While I do actually agree with some of the stuff you are saying, to a point....I have never heard even the craziest ''SJW'' types to advocate excessive use of drugs while pregnant. I highly doubt even the most self-destructive ones would honestly wish to impose the consequences onto their kids.

Consequences? They don't view being marginalized and oppressed as a consequence, it's a positive. For many of them, getting a child with autism or a chronic illness would be a dream come true, something they could lord over all of their friends and say how unique and special their child is. Never underestimate the depths to which a truly mentally ill person will sink, and if you really don't, go poke around on google for "poz communities", though a lot of the results have since been removed because of how pineappleing atrocious they are. They are people that go around intentionally infecting unwilling people with AIDS/HIV, generally first infecting themselves purposely in order to become a human petri dish for the virus. Most of the major forums that they coordinated attacks on have since been taken down, but that pomegranate is real, people are actually, legitimately pineappleed up in this world, not everyone is friendly, or even sane. All you have to do is look at terrorists to see that; logically you would think that people blowing themselves up to kill others for perceived rewards in the afterlife would be an absurd fairy tale as well. Hey everyone look, Flonne just compared SJWs with terrorists, look how crazy he is, we should ignore the rest of the content of the post and focus on that!

While I do agree with a lot of the stuff you are saying I don't think it applies very well to the original situation you quoted. It does look like they are using this one incident as a card to press their agenda from what I've read, but is it really that hard to believe that a group of people could attack another group by surprise? I personally don't find it hard to believe a bunch of uber-patriotic people would go and beat up a bunch of people, and it isn't like every protester is just waiting for a fight to happen so they can whup some ass.

No matter how obnoxious or ''weak'' these people were, an attack on them is still an attack on them and that shouldn't really be defended.

I neither denied the possibility that it was real nor advocated for it, it was just funny to me that they talk pomegranate and say they are going to "kill all white males" all the time, then are taken down in an actual fight 5 to 1.

[Eos]

blah blah crazy

My problem with you at this moment is you seem to think those are a norm, or even a 1%, when the number of people who think like this, ironically much like yourself, fall into about 0.002% of the population and therefore really aren't statistically one of the areas most people should be devoting their concerns towards.

Sort of like how gays make up less than 1% of all human theoretical "sin" but are disproportionately the concern of the self titled Righteous.

it was just funny to me that they talk pomegranate and say they are going to "kill all white males" all the time, then are taken down in an actual fight 5 to 1.

And speaking of statistics, you're grossly conflating unrelated things here. Why do you assume the ones who got jumped fall into the "kill all white males" camp, when again, you're talking a subset of a subset of a subset who represent less than 1% of the population, and as best I can tell represent less than 1% of even that population.

You seem to divide everything into extremes with limited comprehension for the vast gulfs between.

[Flonne]

And speaking of statistics, you're grossly conflating unrelated things here. Why do you assume the ones who got jumped fall into the "kill all white males" camp, when again, you're talking a subset of a subset of a subset who represent less than 1% of the population, and as best I can tell represent less than 1% of even that population.

My posts are already being skimmed because they are so long, do you really want me to write up a hundred page disertation on every single opinion I have with all of the things I have ever observed that back them up in every single post? I can totally do this, I have absolutely no life and nothing but time and desire to argue on the internet. When I state something, I use an example, or even a few examples, but never all of the examples, because that would be ridiculously wordy and even more likely to be ignored, I already have trouble with walls of text now and have to delete a ton of content out of every single post, what you are see the edited down versions of what I have to say. So when you say that I think some people are part of a certain subset because of one thing they have said, know that I am not just basing it on that one event, I am contextually comparing it with every other event that I have seen that they and people within their circles have taken part in, it is not a one-off statement.

The very fact that these people may be 1% of 1% of society and yet dominate the social media sphere should conflate into something as well, you know. Pepe the frog was on pineappleing Time magazine as the biggest new symbol of hate speech in the world (now recognized officially as hate speech by the NDA, lmao), and had a potential president of the United States pomegranateting her pants at shadows for months, when that guy yelled pepe from the rafters when she mentioned the alt-right at one of her rallies she was visibly shaken. Unfortunately, I believe you are wrong, and it is not just 1% of 1%, because higher academia has been co-opted for a long time at this point and spouts the rhetoric to everyone that passes through, releasing wave upon wave of newly brainwashed young people onto the world with vastly out of touch ideology, particularly academia from the western US and New England, as well as some Ivy League schools, Harvard being the worst about it or at least the one who seems to be in the news the most because of it. It may have been a very small portion at the first generation level, but we are currently at the end of the third/beginning of the fourth wave of the social justice movement, and because in their first generation with first wave feminists they took over zones of society that made it easy for them to indoctrinate others, the movement has been exponentiating further with every new wave. You can't argue it both ways, if it is "1% of 1%" then they should not be dominating the news and everything the way they are, it is suspicious at best that they can do so, and if they aren't "1% of 1%" then your argument holds no water.

Finally, devolving the bulk of your argument into direct character insult isn't the way to talk to people effectively, if a "crazy neonazi sociopath literallyhitler" can recognize that then maybe you should think about it a bit, too. By and large, I -usually- remain civil even when most of the forum disagrees with what I say quite vocally, only breaking from that when I am directly insulted enough times in a short period of time. I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong, as I have done a few times in this very thread.

[Eos]

Unfortunately, I believe you are wrong, and it is not just 1% of 1%, because higher academia has been co-opted for a long time at this point and spouts the rhetoric to everyone that passes through,

1% of 1% is about 740,000 people. The U.S. presently has about 324,118,787 people. 1% of 1% of that is about 32,411 people. Yep. Still too many. Approximately 136,129,891 in the U.S. have college degrees. 1% of 1% of those would be 13,613 people. Even that feels high, although you conflated bug chasers with SJWs and those have entirely unrelated mindsets and MOs for the most part, since bug chasers as a demo graphic tend to be profiled as lonely people in search of a culture and SJWs are people who want to feel righteous about a cause. Your educational correlation is non existent for the bug chasers and questionable for the SJWs, although your usage of SJW is somewhat broken too since that concept encompasses a pretty wide spectrum and again, you're being an extremophile and trying to normalize that extreme.

Finally, devolving the bulk of your argument into direct character insult isn't the way to talk to people effectively, if a "crazy neonazi sociopath literallyhitler" can recognize that then maybe you should think about it a bit, too. By and large, I -usually- remain civil even when most of the forum disagrees with what I say quite vocally, only breaking from that when I am directly insulted enough times in a short period of time. I'm also willing to admit when I'm wrong, as I have done a few times in this very thread.

I made nothing but observations regarding your behavior and your math. Your character I let that speak for itself for the most part. Your behaviors and statements aren't exactly ambiguous and hard to draw conclusions regarding.

[xparasite9]

since bug chasers as a demo graphic tend to be profiled as lonely people in search of a culture and SJWs are people who want to feel righteous about a cause.

lol, they often are lonely people in search of a culture though. the "cause" is just an added benefit.

I don't need to bother to type up my own explanation, others have done it many times, here's a sample.

[Flonne]

Your behaviors and statements aren't exactly ambiguous and hard to draw conclusions regarding.

Insults through condescension are still insults. If you somehow don't see that you are being condescending at this point, then that makes it worse, because under that thought process it means that you would feel that your thought process and character are so superior to mine that it is fine to talk down to me without even thinking about it; the entire body of what you have said to me for the past few weeks in this thread has become increasingly of the tone of looking down one's nose while speaking. Either you don't even acknowledge that you are doing it or think I am too stupid to realize that you are doing it, either way it is as uncivil as it is blatant. I don't get hurt feelings over conversations on the internet except when a very small number of things are said to me, but that doesn't have to mean that I am unaware that it is happening, I just feel that the best way to deal with it in most cases is just to gloss over it unless it becomes so prevalent that it is no longer possible to do so, if only because eventually the other side becomes uncomfortable with themselves and ashamed of their behavior. I see that that is not happening. Oh well.

This thread should technically be over already anyway, Hillary lost spectacularly and will never be relevant again, and everything past November's election results or December 19th at the very latest is moot, there will be no new breaking news on the subject, even if Trump is somehow assassinated it is no longer a possibility that she will set foot in the White House.

[Eos]

If you somehow don't see that you are being condescending at this point, then that makes it worse, because under that thought process it means that you would feel that your thought process and character are so superior to mine that it is fine to talk down to me without even thinking about it

Or your persecution complex just makes anything said to you filter through whatever contortions of logic and rationale it takes to make you a victim.

I only engage you when it suits me to see how you respond to actual facts being introduced into your tirades and theories; I'm largely indifferent to you. You're too varelse to bother psychologically placing myself in relation to you. That's not condescension, that's dismissive of the relative value of trying to understand you as you see you.

[Sardines]

Arguing with Flonne in 2016.

[MetaSeraphim]

Arguing with Flonne in 2016.

Sardines in 2016

[PirateIzzy]

Arguing with Flonne in 2016.

It's the current year guys