Do you think Europe's problems with Muslims will be America's one day?

[techne]

What I argued was pretty simple. You claimed terrorists are really evil (lol @ slave morality). I said they're relatively trite if that metric of evil were applied in a more universal less racist way. You still can't grasp this trivial argument, electing instead to name-drop people that have nothing to do with this.

This is indeed a trivial argument...

Notice that the repertoire of this guy is not very elastic... He is still trying to characterize anyone who does not approve the killing of civilians, including women and children, as a racist.

I have demonstrated yet how stupid this is a few posts ago and there's no need to repeat myself. However, he insists in the same point. Why?

It's easy to figure out why. He is fulfilling his agenda. He is trying to morally immobilize anyone who could possibly reject terrorist acts by calling them "racists".

I've mentioned multiple times that you & peers

Notice the need to characterize me as "one among his peers". LOL... That's because he knows there's something very different here...

are the same lowest common denominator of their respective societies as the ISIS types. Ie. simpletons only capable of seeing the world in terms of good/evil,and therefore easy manipulated by what they're prompted to feel (mostly simple anger). The main difference is the ISIS types at least have more legitimate grievances than their first world counterparts.

Now he is trying to seem subtle, but to no avail. ISIS types are simpletons, he says; this common sense statement almost seems to be a moral condemnation; but he immediately says that those simpletons "at least have more legitimate grievances than their first world counterparts".

In a nutshell, he is always trying to make us believe that terrorists have the moral right to put civilians to pieces; but we do not have the moral right to stand against them.

Also in a nutshell: Why this guy is always intellectually dishonest? Because he always (systematically) practice double standards.

For instance, he says that I'm not academically prepared; but from the moment I quote an author... he says (and repeats ad nauseam) that I'm doing "name dropping".

He says that if we dare to condemn terrorist acts, we are racists; but when the terrorists are practicing genocide (for instance, the Yazidis), well, that's because they have "legitimate grievances".

He says that "good and evil" is a simpleton way of see things (and this is a very sensitive argument for anyone who have studied Nietzsche), but at the same time he divides the world in "good and evil" all the same: for him, "white racists" are evil, and poor terrorists so full of "legitimate grievances" are good.

Can you finally see why I said that this guy is an intellectual fraud and a moral abomination?

 

[agent00f]

This is indeed a trivial argument...

Notice that the repertoire of this guy is not very elastic... He is still trying to characterize anyone who does not approve the killing of civilians, including women and children, as a racist.

I have demonstrated yet how stupid this is a few posts ago and there's no need to repeat myself. However, he insists in the same point. Why?

It's easy to figure out why. He is fulfilling his agenda. He is trying to morally immobilize anyone who could possibly reject terrorist acts by calling them "racists".


Notice the need to characterize me as "one among his peers". LOL... That's because he knows there's something very different here...

Nevermind numeric illiteracy, your level of basic reading comprehension is simply inadequate for any coherent conversation. That's not even a sentence with big words in it; it clearly refers to your peers, not mine. How on earth could anyone think we're peers, nevermind that I would believe so.

Now he is trying to seem subtle, but to no avail. ISIS types are simpletons, he says; this common sense statement seems to be a moral condemnation; but he immediately says that those simpletons "at least have more legitimate grievances than their first world counterparts".

In a nutshell, he is always trying to make us believe that terrorists have the moral right to put civilians to pieces; but we do not have the moral right to stand against them.

Also in a nutshell: Why this guy is always intellectually dishonest? Because he always (systematically) practice double standards.

For instance, he says that I'm not academically prepared; but from the moment I quote an author... he says (and repeats ad nauseam) that I'm doing "name dropping".

He says that if we dare to condemn terrorist acts, we are racists; but when the terrorists are practicing genocide (for instance, the Yazidis), well, that's because they have "legitimate grievances".

He says that "good and evil" is a simpleton way of see things (and this is a very sensitive argument for anyone who have studied Nietzsche), but at the same time he divides the world in "good and evil" all the same: for him, "white racists" are evil, and poor terrorists so full of "legitimate grievances" are good.

Can you finally see why I said that this guy is an intellectual fraud and a moral abomination?

When someone proclaims these simpletons are predictably led by jingoist agit-prop and can't understand anything else no matter how simple, proving their point makes for a pretty terrible rebuttal.

 

[techne]

What I argued was pretty simple. You claimed terrorists are really evil... I said they're relatively trite if that metric of evil were applied in a more universal less racist way.

He's denying what he said a few posts ago... No surprises here. What is left for him?

(1) To accuse me of being "right-wing".
(2) To accuse me of being a mindless "puppet" of some right-wing ideologue.

But why he insists in these two points? Let's summarize.

(1) English is not my primary language. I'm not American, European or Australian. So, at least according to Samuel Huntington's classification, I don't even belong to the Western Civilization.
(2) I'm not Christian, but atheist.
(3) I'm not leftist but, nevertheless, I support minorities rights in general.

So why I explicitly support American and European right wing against the islamic extremism? Precisely because I think by myself. It's not rocket science:

(1) The western right wing is not fond of atheists, but at least they recognize all our basic rights. The islamic right-wing kill atheists (and polytheists) at sight.
(2) The western right wing try to forbid gay marriage, but that's all. The islamic right wing kill gay people at sight.
(3) The western right wing may be sexist, but the islamic right wing is incomparably more sexist.
(4) The western right wing will not kill you if you abandon their side. The islamic right-wing will kill you by apostasy.
(5) And so on...

It's absolutely necessary for islamic extremism to try to characterize anyone who stands in their way as "right-wing", "xenophobe", "racist" and so on; and that's why they have invented the word "islamophobia". Inversely, it's absolutely necessary for them to gain the support of the leftists. They count on the leftists to open the doors for them.

And that's why I'm a nightmare for this guy. Because I'm not part of the western right wing, I'm in an exceptional position to reverse his argument and show that there's nothing more "right-wing" ("xenophobe", "racist") than the islamic right-wing.

I pick the lesser of two evils. It's an easy choice and I'll never repent for that.

Now the funny part. When this guy says I'm a mindless "puppet", he is (again!) accusing me of what he does... Actually, he is the mindless puppet of some right-wing islamic ideologue.

 

[justoh]

And that's why I'm a nightmare for this guy. Because I'm not part of the western right wing, I'm in an exceptional position to reverse his argument and show that there's nothing more "right-wing" ("xenophobe", "racist") than the islamic right-wing.

...

Now the funny part. When this guy says I'm a mindless "puppet", he is (again!) accusing me of what he does... Actually, he is the mindless puppet of some right-wing islamic ideologue.

Nightmare? Try dream. You're exchanging words with an obvious troll - a bit like a mindless puppet.

 

[techne]

Nightmare? Try dream. You're exchanging words with an obvious troll - a bit like a mindless puppet.

You haven't noticed that I'm not talking with him anymore...

 

[SSSnail]

It's exposed that agent is an agent of the extremists long ago, and he's a hypocritical troll, albeit a very good troll. Ignore his posts as I do, the best thing you can do.

 

[techne]

It's exposed that agent is an agent of the extremists long ago, and he's a hypocritical troll, albeit a very good troll. Ignore his posts as I do, the best thing you can do.

I had a bit of spare time, and any "agent" like this must be denounced and exposed prior to be ignored. It's nice to do some unpaid volunteer work from time to time.

 

[agent00f]

He's denying what he said a few posts ago... No surprises here. What is left for him?

(1) To accuse me of being "right-wing".
(2) To accuse me of being a mindless "puppet" of some right-wing ideologue.

I don't need to accuse you of anything, only point out that you parrot the same talking points.

But why he insists in these two points? Let's summarize.

(1) English is not my primary language. I'm not American, European or Australian. So, at least according to Samuel Huntington's classification, I don't even belong to the Western Civilization.
(2) I'm not Christian, but atheist.
(3) I'm not leftist but, nevertheless, I support minorities rights in general.

So why I explicitly support American and European right wing against the islamic extremism? Precisely because I think by myself. It's not rocket science:

(1) The western right wing is not fond of atheists, but at least they recognize all our basic rights. The islamic right-wing kill atheists (and polytheists) at sight.
(2) The western right wing try to forbid gay marriage, but that's all. The islamic right wing kill gay people at sight.
(3) The western right wing may be sexist, but the islamic right wing is incomparably more sexist.
(4) The western right wing will not kill you if you abandon their side. The islamic right-wing will kill you by apostasy.
(5) And so on...

The only reason the western right wing has to play nice now is because they kept losing wars like those over slavery and nazism.

Of course it was entirely possible they won those wars, though I suppose you might be white/aryan so that's no big deal.

It's absolutely necessary for islamic extremism to try to characterize anyone who stands in their way as "right-wing", "xenophobe", "racist" and so on; and that's why they have invented the word "islamophobia". Inversely, it's absolutely necessary for them to gain the support of the leftists. They count on the leftists to open the doors for them.

And that's why I'm a nightmare for this guy. Because I'm not part of the western right wing, I'm in an exceptional position to reverse his argument and show that there's nothing more "right-wing" ("xenophobe", "racist") than the islamic right-wing.

I pick the lesser of two evils. It's an easy choice and I'll never repent for that.

Now the funny part. When this guy says I'm a mindless "puppet", he is (again!) accusing me of what he does... Actually, he is the mindless puppet of some right-wing islamic ideologue.

Not coincidentally, the right is on their new campaign to exterminate muslims, which will likely be on the wrong side of history yet again. I'll be charitable and assume you only support them due to complete ignorance of basically everything.

It's exposed that agent is an agent of the extremists long ago, and he's a hypocritical troll, albeit a very good troll. Ignore his posts as I do, the best thing you can do.

Nightmare? Try dream. You're exchanging words with an obvious troll - a bit like a mindless puppet.

Guys, just a tip for the future: collective tard strength doesn't work in competition involving the mind.

 

[SSSnail]

dunkin-goober

 

[techne]

The only reason the western right wing has to play nice now is because they kept losing wars like those over slavery and nazism.

Four hundred years of western slavery against a millennium of slavery in Islam...

Nazism? Really? Is there anything more nazi nowadays than radical Islam?

Not coincidentally, the right is on their new campaign to exterminate muslims

This is a pitiful lie. They only don't want to have barbarians inside their borders.

Guys, just a tip for the future: collective tard strength doesn't work in competition involving the mind.

LOL, he really seems to imagine he have a mind...

 

[agent00f]

You mean, four hundred years of western slavery against a millennium of slavery in Islam?

I mean not only slavery which was forcibly banned by leftists, but the next best thing of segregation which was forcibly banned within living memory, then redlining and so on. But I suppose you're not black or any such affected minority so don't give a shit, which abundantly demonstrates how much this "morality" you keep bragging about is worth.

Nazism? Really? Is there anything more nazi nowadays than radical Islam?

Yes, as in the neo-nazis and such these days who're invariably right wingers. Notice that the right wing in general have less beef with them than with islam, which if you were capably of a little critical thinking would reveal what they really care about. Regrettably that's not the case, so you'll continue mouthing off on subjects you don't know anything about.

This is a pitiful lie. They only don't want to have barbarians inside their borders.

When Ted Cruz who was only runner up to Trump talks about discovering if sand glows in the dark to much applause, he's not suggesting dropping nukes or such inside western borders.

Generally speaking, just because you're ignorant of something doesn't mean it's not true. This is particularly the case for terribly ignorant folks. Unfortunately the dummies also tend to be most resistant to the idea that much happens outside their head.

LOL, he really seems to imagine he have a mind...

Another tip: don't call people who're schooling you stupid, that only means you get schooled by the stupid. Also, don't deny when you're getting schooled, it only makes you look delusional.

 

[SSSnail]

"schooled" only exists in the perspective of a dunkin-goober mind...

 

[agent00f]

"schooled" only exists in the perspective of a dunkin-goober mind...

"Also, don't deny when you're getting schooled, it only makes you look delusional." This is how dumb the right wing are these days. Right after getting tipped off that certain behavior makes them look dumb, they feel the need to remove any doubt. QED. I suppose it only makes sense they keep picking the wrong side of history; stupidity has consequences.

 

[techne]

I mean not only slavery which was forcibly banned by leftists

This is totally demented... At least in Latin America, abolitionism was a conservative movement (for instance, Joaquim Nabuco). This nazi troll is really ignorant!

Yes, as in the neo-nazis and such these days who're invariably right wingers.

And the worst neo-nazis are the radical islamists... Fact...

When Ted Cruz

I don't give a damn to Ted Cruz... You're a white (trash) American and he is your problem...

Another tip: don't call people who're schooling you stupid

As a good extremist, this guy doesn't have a single drop of sense of humor.

But his involuntary humor is insuperable!

 

[agent00f]

This is totally demented... At least in Latin America, abolitionism was a conservative movement (for instance, Joaquim Nabuco). This nazi troll is really ignorant!

O rly: "Born in Brazil, Joaquim was the son of a major political figure in the Brazilian Empire, Jose Thomas Nabuco (1813–1878), a lifetime senator, counselor of state, and wealthy landowner. Jose made his move from conservativism to liberalism in the 1860s, establishing the Liberal Party in 1868 and supporting the reforms that would lead to the abolition of slavery in 1888."

Usually this is where I'd suggest that the first thing to pop in google about someone's references shouldn't completely refute them, but give your skill level with figuring these thing out this is a moot point.

And the worst neo-nazis are the radical islamists... Fact...

The neonazi parties these days are mostly white trash europeans. This won't be something you can claim ignorance on since your share views with these friends.

I don't give a damn to Ted Cruz... You're a white (trash) American and he is your problem...

The american cruz types matter because they might well have the power to drop said bombs, unlike your & friends overseas who mostly flap their gums about foreign brown people.

Also, if the largely leftist american intelligentsia educated by the best academic system in the world are trash, when any one of them can readily school you in just about anything, what does that make you? At this point it's tiresome to keep pointing out thing you don't know, this conversation would be orders of magnitude shorter if it's limited to things you do know.

As a good extremist, this guy doesn't have a single drop of sense of humor.

But his involuntary humor is insuperable!

The stupid but still dangerous right wing isn't really funny per se, and their members would be the last people I'd expect to find the humor in their condition.

 

[techne]

O rly: "Born in Brazil, Joaquim was the son of a major political figure in the Brazilian Empire, Jose Thomas Nabuco (1813–1878), a lifetime senator, counselor of state, and wealthy landowner. Jose made his move from conservativism to liberalism in the 1860s, establishing the Liberal Party in 1868 and supporting the reforms that would lead to the abolition of slavery in 1888."

Usually this is where I'd suggest that the first thing to pop in google about someone's references shouldn't completely refute them, but give your skill level with figuring these thing out this is a moot point.

He never read books... It's amazing... Poop in Google is really his thing...

He doesn't even know what "liberalism" means in Latin America... He is obviously thinking that Joaquim Nabuco was a "liberal" in the north-american sense...

Also, if the largely leftist american intelligentsia educated by the best academic system in the world are trash, when any one of them can readily school you in just about anything, what does that make you?

Maybe it makes me a man that, despite all the difficulties, has got an education outside the "best academic system" of the universe and is capable to discuss with a complete idiot in his own language.

He is so racist that he believes that only in America or Europe someone can really learn something.

And this member of the "intelligentsia" seems to be eager to "teach" me that Joaquim Nabuco was a leftist because he does not know that the word "liberal" has a completely different meaning in the USA and in South America. What a complete fraud...

The stupid but still dangerous right wing isn't really funny per se, and their members would be the last people I'd expect to find the humor in their condition.

That's what I said... This nazi troll is not funny per se, and he does not have a single drop of sense of humor (remember, he is a man of resentment). But I'm laughing at him all the time...

 

[agent00f]

He never read books... It's amazing... Poop in Google is really his thing...

He doesn't even know what "liberalism" means in Latin America... He is obviously thinking that Joaquim Nabuco was a "liberal" in the north-american sense...

The sentence makes it rather clear he's certainly not conservative nor right wing, your reading skill notwithstanding. Your friends are all about the slavery & such as you're aware of, given how hard you're trying to distance yourself from it.

Maybe it makes me a man that, despite all the difficulties, has got an education outside the "best academic system" of the universe and is capable to discuss with a complete idiot in his own language.

He is so racist that he believes that only in America or Europe someone can really learn something.

And this member of the "intelligentsia" seems to be eager to "teach" me that Joaquim Nabuco was a leftist because he does not know that the word liberal" has a completely different meaning in the USA and in South America. What a complete fraud...

I'm sure you believe you got a great education, like most of these dunning kruger types do. Unfortunately that's not reflected in anything you do:

"At least in Latin America, abolitionism was a conservative movement "
"Jose made his move from conservativism to liberalism in the 1860s, establishing the Liberal Party in 1868 and supporting the reforms that would lead to the abolition of slavery in 1888."

It really can't be any more clear, no matter how much you keep weaseling around.

That's what I said... This nazi troll is not funny per se, and he does not have a single drop of sense of humor (remember, he is a man of resentment). But I'm laughing at him all the time...

The "haha, I'm laughing at you" only works when you actually find something funny. For example, it's amusing that you think you're educated, yet don't know any facts. Or that you're principled, yet only mouth off and weasel when shown to be trivially wrong. Or that you're moral, yet support racists unrelentingly. These would be more funny if not a sad reflection of a large portion of the population.

 

[techne]

The sentence makes it rather clear he's certainly not conservative nor right wing, your reading skill notwithstanding.

In Latin America, the right-wing is represented (mainly) by conservatives and liberals.

I'm sure you believe you got a great education, like most of these dunning kruger types do. Unfortunately that's not reflected in anything you do:
"At least in Latin America, abolitionism was a conservative movement "
"Jose made his move from conservativism (sic) to liberalism in the 1860s, establishing the Liberal Party in 1868 and supporting the reforms that would lead to the abolition of slavery in 1888."
It really can't be any more clear, no matter how much you keep weaseling around.

Yes, it really can't be any more clear. Based on a paragraph of text found on "Google", this guy who does not know what he is talking about is trying to "teach" me...

Yes, it can't be more clear. In the USA, "liberal" means "leftist". In Latin America, a "liberal" means "a laissez-faire supporter" and, therefore, someone pertaining to the right wing.

Ask anyone in the "best academic system of the world" and you'll receive the same bloody answer.

What a complete fraud...
This guy is unable to learn and wants to teach!
He is an entirely dishonest troll.

He think he is educated, yet he is utterly ignorant and don't know any facts.
Or that he is principled, yet only mouth off and weasel when shown to be trivially wrong.
Or that he is moral, yet support islamic racists unrelentingly.

"These would be more funny if not a sad reflection of a large portion of the population." Hey, he's elite, folks!

Hahahahaha! I'm laughing at him!

 

[agent00f]

In Latin America, the right-wing is represented (mainly) by conservatives and liberals.

Yes, it really can't be any more clear. Based on a paragraph of text found on "Google", this guy who does not know what he is talking about is trying to "teach" me...

Yes, it can't be more clear. In the USA, "liberal" means "leftist". In Latin America, a "liberal" means "a laissez-faire supporter" and, therefore, someone pertaining to the right wing.

Ask anyone in the "best academic system of the world" and you'll receive the same bloody answer.

What a complete fraud...
This guy is unable to learn and wants to teach!
He is an entirely dishonest troll.

He think he is educated, yet he is utterly ignorant and don't know any facts.
Or that he is principled, yet only mouth off and weasel when shown to be trivially wrong.
Or that he is moral, yet support islamic racists unrelentingly.

"These would be more funny if not a sad reflection of a large portion of the population." Hey, he's elite, folks!

Hahahahaha! I'm laughing at him!

It's pretty obvious just how far right on the spectrum your neonazi friends mentioned are.

It's also pretty obvious where Nabuco stood in relation to them. It's so obvious that even you can figure it out, so this sorry attempt at weaseling sadly won't be going anywhere.

The only comedy here is someone like you actually believes they can teach someone like me anything.

 

[justoh]

You haven't noticed that I'm not talking with him anymore...

Well, you say that...

Also, since he's trolling, it's problematic to accuse him of anything else. We know nothing about what he really thinks about any subject, because all he does is provoke and contradict. He never states anything he means. He does this in quite a creative and clever way, so he probably isn't stupid or unintelligent (just a little psychologically disturbed).

 

[agent00f]

Well, you say that...

Also, since he's trolling, it's problematic to accuse him of anything else. We know nothing about what he really thinks about any subject, because all he does is provoke and contradict. He never states anything he means. He does this in quite a creative and clever way, so he probably isn't stupid or unintelligent (just a little psychologically disturbed).

I've probably been more clear & explicit with arguments & explanations in these threads than anyone else. While to some degree it's my responsibility to ensure the audience understands them, it's yours to point out which parts you're still having trouble with. For example, simply calling someone racist might be trolling, but notice I laid out a rather concise but solid explanation of why techne is hella racist in the other thread. Of course he claims otherwise, but his counterargument of simply proclaiming he's not isn't convincing.

Also, thanks for reminding us techne was proclaiming he's not going to argue with me any more. Real trustworthy guy that one.

 

[bshole]

I've probably been more clear & explicit with arguments & explanations in these threads than anyone else. While to some degree it's my responsibility to ensure the audience understands them, it's yours to point out which parts you're still having trouble with. For example, simply calling someone racist might be trolling, but notice I laid out a rather concise but solid explanation of why techne is hella racist in the other thread. Of course he claims otherwise, but his counterargument of simply proclaiming he's not isn't convincing.

Also, thanks for reminding us techne was proclaiming he's not going to argue with me any more. Real trustworthy guy that one.

Would you rather live in a Western secular country like Sweden or an Islamic theocracy like Iran? If you choose one, you have made a moral decision about which type of society you think is better. We need a baseline from you. This is a binary choice, there are no other choices available to you. Given the free option, which would you choose and WHY?

 

[agent00f]

Would you rather live in a Western secular country like Sweden or an Islamic theocracy like Iran? If you choose one, you have made a moral decision about which type of society you think is better. We need a baseline from you. This is a binary choice, there are no other choices available to you. Given the free option, which would you choose and WHY?

I've mentioned in the past that much of the ME is relatively backwards. However there's a substantial difference to considering the people there subhuman, which is what is necessary to refuse them any sympathy for moral consideration.

 

[bshole]

I've mentioned in the past that much of the ME is relatively backwards. However there's a substantial difference to considering the people there subhuman, which is what is necessary to refuse them any sympathy for moral consideration.

And that is not an answer and that is why justoh accused you of being a troll. If you are interested in an honest exchange of ideas, please answer the question.

Would you rather live in a Western secular country like Sweden or an Islamic theocracy like Iran? If you choose one, you have made a moral decision about which type of society you think is better. We need a baseline from you. This is a binary choice, there are no other choices available to you. Given the free option, which would you choose and WHY?

 

[agent00f]

I answered your question, just not in a way that's to your satisfaction. In general it's not my job here to satisfy you.