/baw/ - General Discussion

You didn’t really think he was going to stack his entire cabinet with people smarter than him, did you?

Global warming can't be solved with government funded windmills and carbon tax.

And it doesn't need to be tackled until like 2400, by which time we should have a bazillion alternatives to fossil fuels.

>>411779

Human-created global climate change can’t be reversed; it can only be slowed to a pace where it won’t make the world unlivable for anything other than plant life by 2100. Pushes both toward renewable energy and away from fossil fuels can help make that a reality. And yes, that means “government-funded windmills and carbon tax” can definitely help — anything that reduces our dependency on fossil fuels is a good thing, even if major corporations want to whine about paying taxes they can afford to pay.

Granted, none of this will matter when the supervolcano explodes and becomes an extinction-level event, but hey, do what we can while we can, y’know?

>>411777
I don't know if it's possible not to.

>>411780
>Human-created global climate change
That doesn't exist, the present warming started before we began using fossil fuels. We can't start processes that take millions of years to change, we can barely affect them.

Since the last 10 million years the temperature has dropped by some 4 degrees fairly steadily. The trend was stable for the past 1 million years or so, and the little ice age seems to be the straw that broke the camels back.

The argument right now is whether and/or how much are humans accelerating the natural boundback after the little ice age.

>make the world unlivable for anything other than plant life by 2100
Where are you getting this? Why would plants survive but not animals?

>>411780
>Human-created global climate change can’t be reversed
I have no evidence but I call bullshit. Why wouldn't it be, as opposed to other climate change?

>>411782
>That doesn't exist
It's clear he is referring to the human-created acceleration of the warming, which is clearly real.

>>411779
>by which time we should have a bazillion alternatives to fossil fuels.
only if we bother finding them.

>>411782
You should look at evidence-based sources, rather than just believing anyone who tells you what you hear.

>>411781
T b h

>>411784

>Why wouldn't it be, as opposed to other climate change?

I believe I’ve heard climate scientists say that given the rates we’ve been polluting, a complete stop of all such pollution right now would only slow things down. We would need an actual miracle — or technology sufficiently advanced enough that we could call it a miracle — to cool the planet down at this point.

>>411789
This is what my biology professor says as well, that at this point it's a matter of when, not if.

>>411790
later is better than sooner

>>411791

Too bad Trump and his goons appear ready to push us there sooner rather than later.

>>411794

It's not that we can stop it, it's that we can't slow it down fast enough — or reverse the damage we've already done — to avoid changing the climate into something downright hostile towards the long-term survival of humanity (and plenty of other animal species).

>>411795
Whoever said this to you was an idiot, or has a very gen-y definition of "long term".

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/12/15/north_carolina_legislative_coup_public_barred_from_chambers_reporter_arrested.html

>>411794
>Alternatives to fossil fuels always existed, the problem is that fossil fuel is cheaper and more convenient. Meaning the country which chooses to go with an alternative would basically collapse overnight as their neighbors outcompeted them.

First of all, that's patently false--many nations get a lot of their energy from alternatives and not only haven't collapsed, but are economically very strong--for example Germany.

Second of all, technology gets cheaper when it's developed. The reason any of these are "more expensive" is because we don't 1.) grant them anywhere near the amount of subsidies we give to dirty energy and 2.) don't give them the research grants we give for advances in dirty energy.

And the main reason for that is because once they're fully developed, they're so inexpensive that they're harder to monetize. Solar power, for example, threatens the earnings potential of dirty energy producers because solar energy suffers from zero scarcity, and therefore competition naturally drives the prices down. Which means the dirty business practices that keep oil and coal barons rich aren't as lucrative.

It's the same reason the electric car wasn't able to really happen until Tesla even though the technology has been around for years, and the reason the research showing that lead in gasoline was killing everyone was hushed up by the gasoline companies--fucking over the consumer takes less energy and makes more money than doing right by them, and it's easy to convince useful idiots to take your side for the sake of political expediency. There will always be people who will happily campaign in favor of billionaires fucking them in the ass as long as they get to look down on liberals when they do it.

c.f. the 2016 election.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/12/16/resurgent-church-exerts-conservative-influence-arts-abortion-russia/

Do NOT read the comment section. But do read the story itself. Russia is getting fucked over by Putin & Co.

>>411802
>But do read the story itself.
If there's a story, post the coverage on a news organization.

>>411802

>Russia is getting fucked over by Putin & Co.

We don’t need Breitbart to tell us that, anon.

>>411798
Oh yes, Germany.

Germany gets only 16% of their electricity from solar and wind, despite massive subsidies. Their electricity. The portion of economy that actually relies on hydrocarbons, such as oil in transportation, is completely untouched. Germany is ninth in world by oil consumption at 2.3 million barrels per day.

This is the country that replaced nuclear power with coal power, which is more radioactive and releases more carbon. Which is why they're sixth in the world by carbon production.

This is the country that brought back WOOD FIRED electric power plants, called it "biomass", and claimed it was green despite clearcutting entire forests in the third world for it.

The way they avoid collapsing is by using EU to suppress businesses of other European countries and promote German businesses... the country that literally invented neoimperialism.

This is your hero?

>we don't 1.) grant them anywhere near the amount of subsidies
Of course we don't grant renewables near the same amount of subsidies. We grant renewables many times more subsidies!

In the latest US budget renewables get $12.1 billion, hydrocarbons get $3.2 billion, nuclear gets $1.1 billion. Meanwhile hydrocarbons make up 3275 TWh, nuclear makes up 498 TWh, and renewables are 373TWh. Meaning:
1. Renewables generate 30kWh per dollar subsidy
2. Nuclear generates 420kWh per dollar subsidy
3. Hydrocarbons generate 1MWh per dollar subsidy.
These are different orders of magnitude...

>they're so inexpensive that they're harder to monetize. Solar power
A solar panel takes six years to pay for itself, and that's with Federal and SC solar tax credits.

The fuck are you talking about, the only people who have solar panels are people who expect outages and wanting a backup, survivalists, and people who want to brag about being green.

North Carolina has really reached deep into its past and enjoyed itself a good old-fashioned coup.

>>411806
With all the scare about Russian Hackers again, maybe I should consider majoring in cybersecurity instead of regular compsci.

>If Russian Hackers is a scapegoat, it means corrupt US government
>If Russian Hackers are real, it means US government sucks at cybersecurity

>>411805

In 2014, clean energy made up 48% or so of Germany's electricity, including biomass, hydro, wind, solar, and nuclear. Coal and gas make up the rest.

>>411809
>claiming that burning wood is "clean"
Good job son, are you going to argue next that coal and oil is biomass since its made of dead animals, and that oil and coal are "clean energy"?

>including nuclear in a list of renewables
>hydro being in any green list
smh

Besides his point is that that oil, coal, and such use isn't decreasing.

>>411811
>>including nuclear in a list of renewables
The list was of "clean" energy, not renewables. Wood burning is renewable.

Apart from thermal pollution and mining/deposit of fuel, nuclear power plants cause no pollution to the environment.

>>411812
>Wood burning is renewable.
No, it's not.

Also it's not clean either, which you're ignoring for some reason? Despite bitching at me for using renewable instead of "clean", you do the same fucking thin in the next sentence.

>>411815
That was a mass deforestation intended for export.

(different anon)

>>411816
Regardless, a tree takes time to grow, and soil can only take so many trees growing on it before it becomes fallow.

Burning wood is neither renewable nor clean.

>>411814
>No, it's not.

It is.

Russian hackers faked Obamas birth certificate.

//youtube.com/watch?v=jk3KRxTfkLM

>>411818
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

>>411822
Do you? Wood comes from trees, trees can be grown in human lifespans. That's renewable.

inb4 you lay some tortured (and incorrect) alt-right-exclusive definition of "renewable" on us.

>>411823
See >>411817
It literally depletes the land and turns it into a desert, you turd.

People who can't be bothered to read are the second worst.

People who never had a garden are the actual worst.

>>411824
You are seriously suggesting that planting trees turns the land they're planted on into a desert. Wow. You did not disappoint in terms of sharing completely batshit crazy alt-right nonsense in response to the statement "trees can be planted and grown."

I do actually have a garden, and I have planted trees in it. Somehow my yard is not yet a desert.

>>411827

>You are seriously suggesting that planting trees turns the land they're planted on into a desert.

Under the correct conditions, the soil in which trees, crops, or any sort of plant life grow can lose nutrients faster than it can restore those nutrients, which gives you weak or dead soil. Dead soil can't grow anything until something restores those nutrients.

Are we suggesting that knowledge of soil fertility is a Nazi conspiracy now

Sheesh

>>411829
I think this puppy is some underageb& living in a gated community. After figuring that out, what he says doesn't surprise me anymore.

>>411828
Yes of course it can fucking lose nutrients, if one has a completely irresponsible system of planting and harvesting. This is not an inherent concern.

For those who actually care to know more:
>As a source of domestic heat from waste products, wood pellets thus made home wood-fired stoves both convenient and sustainable. But other EU countries, such as the UK and the Netherlands, began co-firing wood pellets in coal plants. Demand rose, and countries from Canada to the US, Brazil, and Russia began making pellets from fresh timber at lower prices. Now, the EU imports biomass from forests around the planet. The carbon savings are attributed to the coal plants, while the emissions from shipping are not attributed to the country consuming the pellets (carbon leakage). Critics argue that it would be better to simply burn the oil used to ship the pellets instead.

>>411775
Climate change is not up for debate.

The cause of climate change is up for debate. Whether we affect it is up for debate. The measures we should take, if any, is up for debate. The long term effects of climate change are up for debate.

The so called 'deniers' in this thread are merely pushing back against the hysteria of the people who push their overblown scare-tactics in everyone's faces.

Gore predicted the world would end in January 2016, and most his apocalyptic video is still played in schools to brainwash kids.

>>411833
>The so called 'deniers' in this thread
are accurately labeled

I'll be surprised if the Republican-controlled congress get the stones to challenge any of these awful nominees, but it's somewhat hilarious to see just how incredibly corrupt these nominees are:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/18/leak-rex-tillerson-director-bahamas-based-us-russian-oil-company?CMP=share_btn_tw

>>411835
You mean how the Democratic party had the stones to challenge Obama on his fucking tsars?

>>411836
You know this response is interesting. Not only does it not really have an basis in reality, but it also pointedly doesn't challenge the notion that Tillerson et al are terrible choices.

>>411828
"Under the correct conditions" being operative phrase here. Pahrump trees does not make deserts under normal circumstances.

Especially seeing as a desert is defined by rainfall, not soil fertility. Rain forests have some of the worst soil fertility in the world, but they're not deserts.

>>411838
Because both you and I know that I think Obamas choices are shit, and you think Trumps choices are shit.

It's pointless to argue about that, which means your highhanded demand that the Republican party oppose Trump on this is so fucking stupid, when we both know the Democrat party allowed a bunch of radicals and tax evaders to be selected by Obama.

I know you know this deep inside, even if you won't admit it to yourself.

>>411839
>a desert is defined by rainfall, not soil fertility
https://lmgtfy.com/?q=desertification

Rainfall is determined by (among other things) presence of plants. Presence of plants is determined by soil fertility. So yes, deserts are determined by soil fertility.

>Rain forests have some of the worst soil fertility in the world, but they're not deserts.
Do you know why? Because the trees in rainforests have deep roots, which reach soil which is deep.

If a rainforest tree is cut, you can't simply grow a replacement. The new tree doesn't have roots deep enough to reach the nutrients.

This is why using forests as fuel doesn't work, it's not renewable, forests aren't farmland.

>>411841
>Because both you and I know that I think Obamas choices are shit
Well yeah, but you're an idiot, so what do I care what you think?
>It's pointless to argue about that
God but do you do it so often anyway.
>we both know the Democrat party allowed a bunch of radicals and tax evaders to be selected by Obama.
An interesting and multifaceted assertion for which you have, I suspect, no credible backing for any part of.

And you still do not engage the fact that Trump has generally pointed to the least qualified person possible for each position.

>>411842
Rainforests aren't regular forests. You can, in fact, plant trees in deciduous and temperate forests where you cut them down, because leaf litter and other detritus in those forests returns nutrients to the soil.

This argument is utterly retarded, and I don't believe for a moment you're making it in good faith.

>>411844
And Germany gets their wood from rainforests that are stripped forever, and clear cut deciduous forests which don't have saplings planted again. Even when done properly the "renewal" time is hundreds of years. By that logic gas is a renewable resource.

Oh right, I should probably put this video on how moving away from fossil fuels can actually save money even if we ignore environmental issues here instead of just using it in a dumb crossfade meme video: //youtube.com/watch?v=ZHOyfyGwpes

As for trees: Sure, it's renewable as long as you only use as much of it as can be renewed: Renewable as a word specifically doesn't mean unlimited, only "You're able to renew this if you don't mishandle it." On a per land area basis, though, I'm pretty sure algaculture uses less land area per amount of fuel produced than growing wood.

IN NEWS NOT INVOLVING PLANT LIFE:

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_charlotte_city_council_votes_to_repeal_lgbt_nondiscrimination_law_if_state_repeals_hb2

The city council of Charlotte had my respect when, earlier this year, it refused to repeal its LGBT-inclusive non-discrimination ordinance as part of a deal to repeal HB2. It has now lost that respect. Cowards, the whole lot of them.

>>411846
>As for trees: Sure, it's renewable as long as you only use as much of it as can be renewed: Renewable as a word specifically doesn't mean unlimited, only "You're able to renew this if you don't mishandle it." On a per land area basis, though, I'm pretty sure algaculture uses less land area per amount of fuel produced than growing wood.
This is true for methane gas as well then.

It could be argued to be true for oil and coal on the same principle.

The Electors have voted. Donald Trump has won.

So! Who wants to gear up for World War III?

Can Youtube please fucking stop recommending me alt right thinkpieces just because I like watching videos about anime and videogames?

>>411851

Calling them "thinkpieces" is probably giving them more credit than they deserve.

Dear god the Schadenfap I'll have if Trump spends trillions on a war with Iran and keeps the TPP under a new name.

After the thousands of hairy dudes on the net telling me Killary wants WWIII with Russia and is an evil globalist, I actually want Trump to hurt their interests as much as he possibly can. Sure, minorities will get killed even more often by police and have their voting taken away, and women and gays will be subjugated more and more socially and legally, but at least I can hope the White men that betrayed their fellow Americans get treated like Vincent Cassels girlfriend in Irreversible.

Meh, it's really embarrassing for Turkey and some comeuppance for Russia, but it won't spark anything more.

The guy driving a truck into a crowd probably wants nothing more than more xenophobia and hate against all Muslims in Europe since that will help with recruitment and more hatred against the West among Muslims worldwide.

I don't really care. I'm trying to find a difference between the islamists' ideal society and the ideal society of people like Orban and the angry virgins with Macklemore haircuts who like Breitbart and Trump.

There is none. There will soon be no free, democratic West to fight for. Let the ululating bastards and their constantly pregnant women come for all I care.

If the US and friends pulled out of the Middle East, do you think the number of terrorist attacks would drop significantly or remain?

>>411862
That doesn't mean they aren't entirely corr to try and sway electors.

There is no way Trump will make life better for more than a tenth of his voters. Worse for the rest. The slant of his tax proposals is too extreme.

Also, Sanders would have lost too because of Bloomberg.

Oh the South

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/south-carolina-will-debate-bill-to-block-porn-on-new-computers/

Speaking of local stuff, it seems that school board members where I live are elected every four years, except it took forever to get any information on what years those elections are held. Appparently, the last one was held in 2015, so if you care about how things like schools are run, make sure to look into elections every year rather than just the presidential and mid-terms.

> Turns out electors don't like being harassed and threatened by a bunch of dyed-hair whackjobs with glasses that have no lenses in them.

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/13/report-donald-trumps-campaign-is-threatening-political-reprisal-for-defecting-republican-electors/

What's the weather like up your own ass, anon?

Weren't the people who defecting form voting for Hillary doing so becuase they thought in an effort to promote "anyone but Trump"? That doesn't sound like a reaction against being told to oppose Trum, but support for it.

>>411857
>Just because the Koran commands to kill all infidels
The Bible also supports killing infidels, Christians just like to pretend those parts don't exist when they bring up muslims. It's not like any Christian has actually read the bible to begin with.

>>411878
>It's not like any Christian has actually read the bible to begin with.
This tbh

dont eat shellfish :o

>>411879
Mark 7, lad.

>>411865
>Also, Sanders would have lost too because of Bloomberg.
Excuse me if I don't trust your predictive powers considering how fucking WRONG you were on Trump winning.

>>411878
Post a passage from the new testament that talks about killing infidels.

Post one ordering the stoning of a woman, or condoning slavery, or jesus raping an 8 year old girl.

Fucking idiot.

Not all things in live are morally equivalent, like your sick fuck professor brainwashed you into thinking.

Some philosophies are objectively more moral than others. Buddhism is objectively more moral than Christianity (new testament), which is objectively more moral than Judaism (old testament), which is objectively more moral than............... etc................... Kali worship, which is objectively more moral than Islam. [end of list]

Relativism is brain cancer.

>>411882
>objectively more moral

This is an inherently nonsensical phrase, especially involving comparative religions. Buddhism, for example, has very little concern for morality at all, while Christianity and Islam both view all morality as coming from their god. By definition, from a Christian point of view all religions are less moral than their own, and likewise Islam, because they take for granted that virtue comes from god.

Buddhism on the other hand is about finding enlightenment, not about being a good person. It does just so happen that the path to enlightenment does generally mean causing no harm to others, which many modern secular people would consider to be a moral stance, but the reason not to cause harm to others in Buddhism is based on the damage it does to one's own psyche rather than on the "good" or "evil" involved in the act--Buddhism barely even acknowledges the existence of good and evil, much less takes a side.

Interesting that you say "in the New Testament," though. It implies that you are fully aware that the stuff telling you to kill infidels is in the Bible and you've just chosen to ignore that part....meanwhile still expecting people to respect the ten commandments or the parts in the old testament that talk about homosexuality which the New Testament never addresses. Because, once again, you cherry pick which parts of the bible you want to treat as actually relevant to life, because when white people practice a middle eastern religion that preaches the death of nonbelievers, it's fine, and when brown people do it, it's a culture of violence.

And then you accuse other people of relativism.

>>411882
>Post a passage from the new testament that talks about killing infidels.

Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

inb4 some lame-ass justification for why "They didn't mean that literally!" and whenever the guy white people worship says to kill the people that won't submit, it's different.

>>411881

If we're going by the new testament, then women should always have their heads covered and should always submit to their husbands. 1st Corinthians, yo. Thanks Paul.

The only reason western Christians aren't as misogynist, homophobic and violent as the people in Saudi or Pakistan is because they aren't poor enough yet. When Trump and congress and the coming recession is done with them they'll have to become even more puritanical to feel something in their rotten lives.

>>411887
>western Christians aren't as misogynist, homophobic and violent as the people in Saudi or Pakistan
[citation needed]

I think the only reason you don't see as severe violence isn't because the people are any less violence, it's because secular society has had them convinced they would be shunned for doing it up till now. Of course now that the white supremacists believe they are in control, you're going to see them getting bolder.

>>411886
Thought women were only supposed to have their heads covered in prayer?
But yeah, Paul sure did say a whole lot of stuff that literally only Paul ever said in the NT. My personal favorite author in the NT is James, that guy was hard-hitting and kind of called Paul out, imo.

>>411892
>Paul sure did say a whole lot of stuff that literally only Paul ever said in the NT
Paul's writings are as canonical as anything else in the Bible.

>>411892

Yes, their head must be covered in prayer, but furthermore, "If a woman does not cover her head, let her hair be cut off."

So get yer clippers ready and rush down to your local church.

>>411894
Yeah he sure did make the final draft cut.

>>411895
>The difference between Christianity and Muslims is that Christians are, more often than not, absolute shit at following the Bible.
The only actual difference between them is that one group is predominantly thought of as members of the majority in the US and the other group is thought of as "dangerous minorities" in the US.

>>411899
>The only actual difference between them
are you high?

are you aware that both these religions exist outside of your country? moreso than they exist inside your country?

>>411900
Yes. I am also aware that people are people wherever you go, and only complete idiots think that location or race or what the name of your religion is has much effect on how the human psyche works. 99% of people are exactly as the same as everyone else on earth. The people who aren't, aren't special snowflakes--they're mentally ill.

>>411902
Notice that I accounted for people with your opinion when I mentioned "complete idiots."

>>411884
>This is an inherently nonsensical phrase
Only if you actually believe in moral relativism. But if you're dumb enough to believe that, then you also have to believe my argument is relatively the same value as yours, thus in your head neither of us wins. Ever.

>>411885
>Luke 19:27
Luke chapter 19 is Jesus telling a parable to the people of Jerusalem. The thing you posted is a quote from one of the bad guys in the story Jesus was telling...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents_or_minas

You are an idiot.

>he guy white people worship
Congratulations on taking a big steaming dump on two billion Asians, Hispanics and Africans who outnumber European worshipers of Christianity.

Very Hitlerite of you.

>>411904
The old testament is the Jewish holy book, the Torah. You to shit on Jews AND all the non-European Christians.

You also shit on European Muslims such as Bosnians or Chechens.... but lets face it, you care less for them because race is your primary way of judging people and you're brainwashed to think white people are teh evulz. Only people free of the taint of European blood are virtuous, regardless of what they believe!

FYI the new testament is the one relevant to Christianity, because it overrides the old in all things. On that note, I've yet to see proof of Christianity preaching the death of unbelievers.

>>411905
>The old testament is the Jewish holy book, the Torah.
And the first half of the Christian holy book, the Bible.

Jesus C said every jot and tittle of the Old was legit and important though.

>>411907
>>411909
The problem you seem not to understand is that in the Jewish traditions, they rejected all of the teachings of god and kept all of the random traditional teachings that don't matter.

The entire point of Jesus even existing is to fix what had become a serious problem with the old testament.

The teachings of Jesus make it clear that Christians are not to follow Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, animal sacrifices, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc. The only parts of the old testament that matter are some of the related stories, genealogies and so forth.

Now I ask you my very simple question again:
>Post a passage from the new testament that talks about killing infidels.
>Post one ordering the stoning of a woman, or condoning slavery, or jesus raping an 8 year old girl.
And I'll make it easier for you as well, if you post citations proving Jesus was a warlord who genocided entire peoples, (just that single point!) I'll concede that Christianity is as bad as Islam.

Just that single point.

Daily reminder that I can support equivalent statements by Islam on all of these points, not just one.

>>411904
>Congratulations on taking a big steaming dump on two billion Asians, Hispanics and Africans who outnumber European worshipers of Christianity.

Someone doesn't understand how set theory works but still thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

>411910

>Only the actions of Mohammed and Jesus dictate which religions is baddest.

Nope. Wrong.

>>411910
>The teachings of Jesus make it clear that Christians are not to follow Old Testament rules about crimes and punishments, warfare, slavery, diet, circumcision, animal sacrifices, feast days, Sabbath observance, ritual cleanness, etc. The only parts of the old testament that matter are some of the related stories, genealogies and so forth.
In that case, the Ten Commandments are not Christian values, and homosexuality is not a sin.

...in YOUR heretical version of Christianity, I mean. In the Christianity practiced by millions of Americans, your arbitrary edicts about canonicity are not relevant.

>>411913
Jesus independently reinforces most of the commandments, and Paul hates the gays too (see what i said earlier about Paul).
You don't seem to know much about Christianity, since this isn't really "arbitrary," it's like, how the religion works.

>>411914
>You don't seem to know much about Christianity, since this isn't really "arbitrary," it's like, how the religion works.

Yeah, people pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to follow. Like every other religion. Including Islam. We just give Christians a pass for having a book full of atrocities but "not following that part" because the Christians we're looking to protect are white people.

>>411914
Also, for the record, I was brought up Baptist in the Bible Belt. I guarantee I know more about how Christianity actually functions in the real world than you do, you condescending prick.

>>411915
It's literally part of the religion that the old stuff doesn't really matter aside from documentation. Again, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

It's actually part of Islam too, there's a bit that says if something new seems to contradict something old, the new is the relevant. Same with Christianity. The old stuff was laws to keep people spiritually clean, to oversimplify. When Jesus came around, it was to be such a precious sacrifice that nothing could soil anyone ever again. That was the entire point. It's literally the purpose of the religion, not cherrypicking.

>>411917
lol, tell me more about the culture I've been indoctrinated in since birth professor slowpoke.

>>411918
Seems to me you wouldn't be getting so much wrong if you knew as much as you think, but hey, maybe that's just me.

>>411919
That's because you're incapable of admitting your own ignorance.

>>411911
Sounds like you incorrectly interpret mathematical theories to explain why you're a racist.

>>411913
Last I checked Christians in America as a group are pro-marriage equality, and Muslims as a group are not.

>>411920
Do you have a single point or are you just going to keep attacking people in this thread?

>>411921
>Last I checked Christians in America as a group are pro-marriage equality
Said someone who's never checked.

>>411924
Trump voters have learned that if they say something, even if it's untrue, they can get people to treat it as true. At least for long enough to win elections. There's no point in actually arguing nuance and empirical stuff with them. Conversations with Trump supporters are all about magic. Frequent and loud invocation is more important than logic or fact. That is the world we live in now thanks to them.

>>411925
My post had absolutely zero (0) relevance to Trump voters. Did you mean to reply to >>411923 ?

>>411926
You were responding to a Trump supporter and trying to point out nuance to them.

>>411927
That has nothing to do with Trump supporters. That's media and politics 101.
>"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."
And I hope you aren't oblivious enough to assume that only Trump supporters did this in this US election.

Are you Stone?

>>411928
>That has nothing to do with Trump supporters.
Lol.

>>411917

Slowpoke you literally advocated not following what Paul said in the New Testament. Furthermore, any differing opinions between Paul and James is with faith vs. works argument didn't revolve around the main point of that particular passage, that in Christianity as written women are inherently subservient to men, Men having been made in the image of God and women being made in the image of men, and thus bound to serve and please their husbands and cover their head while praying to the Lord. That's in the New Testament, stated by an apostle, and the word of God in Christianity (2nd Timothy).

>>411931
>Slowpoke you literally advocated not following what Paul said in the New Testament
Nah. I don't think he's very reliable, but i mean, I wasn't there, I'm not gonna pretend that I KNOW he was wrong and shouldn't be listened to, and I'm certainly not going to pretend I know Yeshua of Nazareth's will enough to outrank NT authors.

Anyway I'm not arguing the whole "Christianity is super progressive and Islam sucks" thing, just pointing out inaccuracies and correcting ignorance where I sees em.

>>411932
>Anyway I'm not arguing the whole "Christianity is super progressive and Islam sucks" thing, just pointing out inaccuracies and correcting ignorance where I sees em.

And that's why you're known throughout the land as the anthropomorphic personification of mansplaining.

>>411933
That's not even what that word means, but OK?

>>411933

Okay, we need to clear some shit up because I was arguing with Slowpoke about the bible shit but I am not getting dragged into some Mansplaning bullshit.

>>411933
>mansplaining
And now Anonymous is know throughout the land as a fucking retard. Thanks.

>>411933
>mansplaining
Whoa what the fuck kind of sexist bullshit is this? Are you womansplaining?

The difference between Christian terrorists and Muslim terrorists is that Christian terrorists are just laughably incompetent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/03/man-bombed-wal-mart-because-it-stopped-selling-confederate-flags-police-say/

>>411939
>The device made a loud noise but did no real damage to the store.
More like the difference between Christian terrorists and Muslim terrorists is that Christian terrorist numbers have to be padded by people playing with firecrackers because MSM can't handle the real stats.

Non-Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 in America: 24 with 53 dead

Islamic terror attacks since 9/11 in America: 25 with 120 dead

Muslims are 1% of the population

>>411940
So you're saying that in 15 years, terrorism has only killed 173 Americans? Guess it's not that big a deal.

>>411941
Are you aware some 3000 people died in 9/11 though? Those 15 years are during a massive crackdown on Islamic terror. He's taking it easy on you.

And you're ignoring the 1% stat.... 99% of the rest of the country which isn't muslim is more peaceful than the 1% that is muslim.

I shudder to think what its like in countries with 2% or more muslims.

>>411943
>Those 15 years are during a massive crackdown on Islamic terror.
Okay so let's see your numbers prior to.

>>411943
>September 11 attacks: ~3000 deaths
>War on Terror: estimated over 1 million deaths (http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf)

>99% of the rest of the country which isn't muslim is more peaceful than the 1% that is muslim.
what are ghetto gang wars?

>I shudder to think what its like in countries with 2% or more muslims.
Australia here, it's much more peaceful than America.

>>411949
>Australia here, it's much more peaceful than America.
And much better gun control, too, despite the fact that people like /pol/-kun try to convince everyone that gun control increases violence.

So in other news, Trump thinks the Hawley-Smoot Tariff (which some economists believe all but caused the Great Depression) was a good idea and is thinking of bringing it back, with a flat 10% tax on all imported goods. Which will of course mean at least a flat 10% tax on all exported American goods by our trade partners, and a 30-60% increase on the cost of all products sold by companies that import (which is to say, all of them) with the new tariff as justification.

Thanks, Trump.

Also, now Trump is tweeting about a hefty nuke buildup.

I think Trump could do every single thing the Trumpkins swore Clinton would do and Obama has done and they would still support him. Their brains don't work like ours.

They (the 'alt-right' and the other objects) were born into a world where they aren't guaranteed a vocation, education, relation or home worth the name so they're just going to walk through society like infected, human-shaped wounds, casually sending death and rape threats towards anyone that displeases them and voting for the most destructive politicians they can find to take revenge on all of us for the crime of letting them live.

>>411952
None of us are guaranteed any of those though. Those of us working toward socialism are doing so because we consider that to be a detriment to society--they're actively working against having guaranteed education, relations, and homes. Not guaranteed vocations because, honestly, it's going to be very unlikely that more than, say, 20% of the human population has a "job" in 100 years (other than jobs in creative fields where the individual's voice means that even once machines can do the job just as well as any human, they won't be able to do it the same as any individual human), but once you have guaranteed shelter, food, and water, finding a vocation isn't hard. Most people already know what they would want to do with their lives if money weren't an issue (and very few people have "nothing" as the answer, even if some of them might think they want to do nothing--most people would get depressed almost to the point of suicide if they spent too long doing "nothing."), the barrier has always been opportunity and economic freedom.

>>411952
Your unwarranted sense of superiority makes you seem more ignorant than a Trump supporter.

>>411955
I'm not a moral relativist. Voting for a genuine racist sex criminal for president and a homophobe for VP means you are inferior and should die. Please tell me how I lost because I don't want to talk about "economic anxiety" with a bunch of pus-colored, selfish moral nullities that think the fifties were the best decade.

>>411950
>>411949
>Australia here
Gun control increased violent crime in Australia. Since the Australian gun control measure and during the greatest rise in American gun ownership, America has decreased its homicide stat by 6% while Australia has decreased theirs by only 4%.

I posted stats from Australian government and FBI a few threads ago, and I know both of you assholes were there so don't pretend like you didn't see them.

>>411954
>once you have guaranteed shelter, food, and water, finding a vocation isn't necessary
Fixed.

If people have those three things, all they'd need are casual jobs for luxury goods.

>Most people already know what they would want to do with their lives if money weren't an issue (and very few people have "nothing" as the answer
>do with their lives
Everyone has nothing as an answer. The only thing people want to do with their lives is entertainment. If you give people shelter, food and water, they'll just work for video games or sports tickets.

Star Wars socialists are the worst socialists.

>>411956
>>411952
And this hillarymissile sounds like a limp-wristed Emo version of Hitler.

Hates a lot of people with the purity of a bigot, but is too vaginal to actually kill the people he hates.

>Waaah they should die!
>Should.
>I won't do it though, I hate guns.
>If you don't want to kill them for me, you're a horrible person!

I didn't think it was possible to make me vomit, and then make particles in my vomit spew even tinier streams of vomit.

>>411957
>Everyone has nothing as an answer.
Don't confuse the fact that the only reason you can be made to participate in a society is necessity with human nature. Most humans have ambitions and desires beyond mere entertainment, you just project your own small-minded and antisocial mindset onto everyone else.

>>411957
I don't hate guns. I hate people that own them and manufacture them, because they make long-term democracy impossible. I mean, we all know that the instant a democratic president has a mandate again and does something rural White men really don't like even if its constitutional, they will use their guns to veto democracy and support tyranny. That has always been the reason guns exist - they are the Whites' last veto.

But yes, I think homophobes and anti-abortionists, implicit or implicit, should be killed. When Trump begins shortening the life expectancies in Whiter and poorer regions, it will be a just thing and people should try to donate to charity in a way that only helps non-White Americans. It will also be good if federal welfare is curtailed, because the only reason slave states can have lower taxes is due to modern states keeping people from killing and stealing for survival. The slave states have to be cut off quickly.

It's one of the reasons I don't care about disasters and atrocities in Africa and the Middle East. They have bigoted, impoverished lives where they have as many kids as possible so they can live for a little longer and mainly treat anyone who is too different as shit. It's not very tragic when they die.

>Trump's Nat Sec Advisor General Flynn met with Austria's neo-Nazi party leader in Trump Tower

Economic anxiety.

>>411961
Most of the guns in Europe are guns for real men and women, i.e. hunting guns. And the requirements and controls in Switzerland are meant to make proper humans of gun owners before they get their hands on them.

The second amendment has unnecessarily killed more innocent Americans than all hostile nations combined. Stopping its conception is up there with preventing the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

>>411963
>identity politics oogabooga

You mean politics. Whites targeting other people based on their identity, thereby making everyone's identities politically salient. Christians targeting other people and making their identities more important. All the things you hate and fear are all your own fault. If you got upset when police torture and kill black men, rather than get upset at the people making the police feel bad, then you would be a real human like me - an enemy of identity politics.

If everyone obeyed more evolved humans and helped purge homophobia, racism and gender roles from culture and social life, individualism and meritocracy would be the norm.

>>411964
You're kind of like a left-flavored Fedoralord. It's funny.

I mean, identity politics work. Without Whites wanting to hurt non-Whites and Christians wanting to hurt gays and women, Trump wouldn't win. When you pointed out demographics to Whites, they wanted more Trump. And Trump voters believe there are a lot more Muslims than there actually is.

Therefore, identity politics. There's only going to be more of it once the deportation officers start doing knock-and-shoot visits and a huge legal battle over the Muslim registry starts. Identity politics will become about not just justice, but survival.

>>411964
Meritocracy is just the most socially acceptable form of oligarchy. And being in favor of oligarchy is always a way of saying "I should have more rights than other people."

>>411964
Could you link me to your tumblr? I'm curious as to your opinions on other subjects.

>>411961
>Australia
>10-30 guns per 100 people
did they include nail guns or something?

>>411966
>I mean, identity politics work.
Actually they don't, it's proven that they don't.

All countries (ex yugoslavia) in the past that were run on idpol failed horribly. They had every ethnicity and religion be able to vote in proportion to their population, so minorities had extra votes. And all "identities" were ensured representation in leadership.

>>411967
Being in favor of meritocracy is saying "i think i have enough merit to succeed". Even if you're poor, you can hope your kids can get educated enough to excel, which is a frequent occurrence in America.

Being against meritocracy is saying "i think im a worthless pile of shit, pay me anyway. also i dont want better people to do better than i do, keep everyone else down!"

Pretty clear which group you fall in :^)

>My definition of idpol is that minorities get extra votes

First of all, that is maximalist argumentation so you just exposed your Aspergers. Idpol doesn't have to go that far.
Second of all,the US is designed to give slave states and White people extra votes so you just showed how central idpol already is to Whitelings in the US. Other groups are just catching u, hence the hatred and increasing talk of beating uppity groups down with systematic violence and discrimination.

>>411976
>slave states
Which states still allow slavery?

>>411979
Anon means everyone in the south (sans west coast OF COURSE) is still a racist slave owner.

>>411980
Pretty much.

>>411980
It's still in their blood. Just like fascism is a part of European blood and anti-individualism is a part of Chinese blood, cruelty and subjugation is part of the blood in the confederate states.

>>411982
Keep 'em coming, you make this thread worthwhile to post in.

Bets on him being white?

>>411985
>You're forgetting that all of the freed slaves made their homes in the south.
The ones that the Republicans do everything they can to stop from voting? Naw I remember them.

>>411978
He's referring to the electoral college.

>>411987
Last I checked YOU were complaining about them having too many votes.

>>411989
Non-White votes in the confederacy are useless, just like evangelical votes and gaybasher votes are useless in Maryland and California. The electoral college exists because ex-slavers held the country hostage, and the three-fifths agreement still would if the slavery states could get away with it.

>>411990
>Non-White votes in the confederacy are useless
Well not entirely. We're really turning some corners here in Virginia.

Pretty much the whole rest of the region's a hellscape though.

So when people insist that Kill-"literally fired the rockets in Benghazi herself"-ary would have started WWIII is it because they prefer America being nuclear accomplices with Russia or what

>>411992
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/23/conservatism-turned-toxic-donald-trumps-fanbase-has-no-actual-ideology-just-a-nihilistic-hatred-of-liberals/

Honestly after thinking about it, I'm considering running as a Republican....on a platform of a guaranteed basic income, single payer healthcare, free trade, environmentalism, relaxed immigration, regulation of businesses, marriage equality, protecting womens' bodily sovereignity in regards to abortion, trans rights, and increased taxes on the rich and on private prisons. And just call them different things. And yell about how terrible liberals are through it all and how they're going to hell.

And then become President because most of the people on the right would vote for me.

>>411994
Republicans are pretty stupid, you might be able to do it.

>>411994
You mean like how Democrats are STILL supporting a pro-corporation, pro-bombing brown people, anti-drug, anti-Russia, anti-gay marriage candidate?
When just a few years ago they voted for an anti-corporation, anti-war, pro-Russia, pro-gay marriage candidate?

Value wise the only thing Hillary and Obama agreed on was healthcare, but even Trump agrees that we need some kind of universal healthcare.

I mean she supports the death penalty, since when is that a Democratic value? She doesn't even like Mexico!
//youtube.com/watch?v=_uXJ1mgkyF0

>>411997
It'd be pretty hilarious to see them do it. Republicans have cultivated a subhuman base of uneducated reprobates, so the party should suffer the consequences of that (and in many ways has, for as much of a worthless pile of garbage as he is Trump isn't who the Party wanted).

>>411998
>pro-corporation

Meaningless term. She's not anti. Neither is Sanders. Both wanted Citizens United gone and wanted more curtailing of Wall Street. Now, you precious Wolverines and Sworn Enemies of the Rotschilds or whatever will have to spend at least ten years just trying to get people excited over the prospect of undoing the massive empowerment of the rich and incorporated.

>pro-bombing brown people

So was Khadaffi. I completely and unconditionally forgive Clinton for Libya and wanting to intervene earlier in Syria (Russia intentionally made that country much worse to flood Europe with refugees and destabilize the continent, because Russia is a tumor that is now going to metastatize).
, anti-drug, anti-Russia, anti-gay marriage candidate?

>anti-gay marriage

So was Obama and he did more for LGBT Americans than anyone. All of that will be gone now, thanks to fake leftists who are about to realize that puritanism and accelerationism are equally hopeless. Sanders will be dead soon and the progs will instantly lose all energy and hope. Along with the New Deal, public national parks and all chances of undoing Citizens United, avoiding a war with Iran and the ensuing massive deficit that the tax cuts for the one percent will create ^_^.

That's the only good thing about being educated and knowing elementary things - when people don't do as you say, they suffer. It's still frustrating, but at least none of the people that spite you end up happier for it.

You're still going to spite me and refuse to admit that a Clinton victory would be much better for leftists, but said leftists are going to suffer horribly for being stupid and not doing as I told.

>>412000
>You're still going to spite me and refuse to admit that a Clinton victory would be much better for leftists, but said leftists are going to suffer horribly for being stupid and not doing as I told.
He's not a leftist, pretending that Trump was the actual liberal candidate is an internet nazi favorite.

>>412001
>He's not a leftist, pretending that Trump was the actual liberal candidate is an internet nazi favorite.

"It's like... He's for socialism. But only for honest (White) workers like me. So it's like we support him because he is a proud nationalist politician who is for socialism, but only for workers."

Calling Trump Hitler is actually really mean. Hitler wouldn't have dreamt of filling his cabinet with lazy, fat elite billionaires, education-sabotaging lobbyists, disgraced ex-military with deep connections to foreign countries and corrupt bankers.

I knwo Trump's supporters are too inbred to learn a lesson and feel cheated when Trump ruins their lives and finally destroys the White middle class and White working class, but it will still be satisfying.

>>412001
>He's not a leftist
Can you support that claim?

He's for raising income, creating jobs, he's for fighting for economic fairness, making the wealthy pay their taxes, removing barriers to opportunities, improving living standards for minorities, reforming justice system (removing the Clinton Crime Bill), fixing our broken immigration system, guaranteeing lgbt rights, investing in rural america, investing in ghettos, protecting voting rights, fixing campaign finance system, restoring democracy, appointing judges, removing corruption, investing in education reform, securing universal healthcare (especially mental health), supporting our troops, confronting threats with diplomacy...

Which of these things is not a leftist ideal?

>>412002
Did you just accidentally realtalk yourself into realizing Trump isn't Hitler?

>>411995
>Trump already beat you to it.
>
If you think Trump has any ideology whatsoever, you're almost as stupid as he is.

>>412004
>raising income
He's for reducing or eliminating the minimum wage
>creating jobs
He's for introducing a tariff that will destroy an unspeakable number of jobs
>he's for fighting for economic fairness
He's for giving more benefits to the rich than the poor or middle class
>making the wealthy pay their taxes
This is an absolutely absurd statement that is not based in any branch of reality, including the weird quantum "many worlds" ones.
>removing barriers to opportunities
By decimating the department of education?
>improving living standards for minorities
By making sure blatantly racist law enforcement protocol becomes the law of the land?
>reforming justice system (removing the Clinton Crime Bill)
The only sense in which he's in favor of reforming the justice system is in making it easier for him to sue people who say things he doesn't like--i.e. eroding the first amendment
>fixing our broken immigration system
"Building a wall" doesn't fix a broken immigration system
>guaranteeing lgbt rights
By making sure those rights aren't protected at the federal level, so that LGBT people in Mississippi have to rely on Mississippi's legislature to respect their rights?
>investing in rural america
>investing in ghettos
"Investing" how? By giving coal and manufacturing plants big government giveaways in the hopes that they'll start hiring more Americans for jobs that are more cheaply done by foreigners or robots?
>protecting voting rights
He is literally saying that more than three million voters in the national election should not have had their votes counted because he can't stand the fact that Hillary got more votes than him.
>fixing campaign finance system
Hahahahahahahahano.
>restoring democracy
See previous two points. Besides, doesn't your side constantly like to remind us "We're a Republic, not a Democracy" whenever people point out how anti-democratic the Electoral College is?
>appointing judges
This is not a liberal *or* conservative stance, it's literally his job as President.
>removing corruption
By having so many conflicts of interest as President that George H.W. Bush's legal advisors think he'll be eligible for impeachment from Day One?
>investing in education reform
When most people say "investing in education reform," they mean, y'know, giving money to schools and teachers, not "buying bulldozers to tear down publicly funded schools," but whatever.
>securing universal healthcare (especially mental health)
It's adorable that you think he even knows what that means
>supporting our troops,
By getting us into arms races and wars that will ensure our troops are maimed and killed before they're discharged? Funny way to "support" them.
>confronting threats with diplomacy
He is literally the biggest threat to diplomacy in the nation.

You seem to have no idea who you've elected. Which is no surprise--Trump says he holds every position possible and Trump Voters ignore all the ones that they don't want and say he was just saying that for the sake of politics--but the things they care about, he's definitely serious about.

The next four years are going to be absolutely awful, but the one silver lining is going to be watching people like you suffer through it while having to make up more and more absurd justifications for why "Actually, this is exactly what I wanted." The schadenfreude will be all the sweeter because the rest of us have done everything we could to protect you from what you're going to go through, and you still decided to fuck an electrical socket.

>>412006
You're about to come across a paradox - the more exhaustive and earnest your response to republican spiel is, the more dismissive, brief and facetious the response will be.

If you had included links to independent, empirical sources verifying your claims, the only republican response left would be "LOL" or "My wife left me" or "CUCK SAY NO TO RUSSOPHOBIA #MAGA".

The more good faith and reason you employ in your answer, the more Trumpkins will enjoy ending the argument with irreverent nihilism or insults.

>>412004
>Did you just accidentally realtalk yourself into realizing Trump isn't Hitler?

Yes. Hitler cared more about the common man. He hated gays, non-Christians and non-Whites slightly more than Turmp does, but he actually cared about workers, well-paid jobs and median-income households. Trump does not.

>>412007
Oh, I don't intend to convince anyone of anything. I mainly just wanted to make a point of letting them know that liberals will have absolutely nothing to feel guilty about when they enjoy Trump voters' suffering the next four years, because we wholeheartedly, and in good faith, did everything we could to save them. Which means the suffering they're about to undergo is in no way our fault, and therefore guilt-free entertainment.

>>412008
Pls be clever satire

>>412010
Trump does not care about non-wealthy workers, the middle class, better jobs with better wages or industrial jobs. Denying this is like believing the earth is 6000 years old.

>>412011
You're a fucking idiot.
Denying this is like believing the earth is 6000 years old.

We can do it too.... and you thought you were so smart.

>>412013
Trump does not care about non-wealthy workers, the middle class, better jobs with better wages or industrial jobs.

Denying this is like believing Obama increased the deficit or increased unemployment. Which most republicans do. Because they are such inferior Americans they don't even bother to stay informed about their own nation before voting.

>>412014
You're still an idiot.

Denying this is like believing Trump does not care about non-wealthy workers. Which most democrats do. Because they are such inferior Americans they don't even bother to stay informed about their own nation before voting.

Are you not seeing how dumb you're being? Step back and re-read your own posts.

>>412015
So when you tell people on Twitter they're "triggering" you for "assuming your species" you think your uneducated, overweight parents would be impressed with your subversive wit, no?

>>412016
One hopes his parents are dead, so that there's no chance they can make more of him.

>>412016
>>412018
One hopes that the two of you meet people exactly like yourselves because one can't think of a more horrible fate.